ONE OF THE most important rules of geopolitics is self-interest. When a nation does something – anything – it’s because it is pursuing its self-interest (or perceived self-interest); that is to say they have something gain, or they are trying to avoid loss.
Enter the United States and its persistent presence in the Middle East. About a week ago, the US nearly started a regional war over a downed US drone and a couple of foreign tankers. Thankfully, Trump went against his advisers and backed down from an airstrike that would have killed 150 Iranians.
The United States and the Trump Administration dodged a bullet, but the whole event prompted many people to revisit an old question: Why is the United States in the Middle East?
There are a few theories.
One theory is that the United States has the petro-dollar, and unless it protects the oil supplies in the Middle East, the petro-dollar will collapse, which in turn will cause the US economy to collapse overnight. I’m no expert on oil production and logistics, but the problem with the petro dollar argument is that the US is now a net exporter of oil, so it doesn’t really need the Middle East for energy security.
Even if the Middle East were to descend into war, and the price of oil spikes up, oil producers in the US could still secure the US’ energy requirements through domestic production and Latin America. Furthermore, there are also plenty of other sources of oil in West Africa, North Africa, Russia and the North Sea Region of Europe, which basically means that global oil production will not fall apart even if the Middle East descends into chaos.
The second theory, Israel and Saudi Arabia, is a little more controversial but also a little more plausible. The rationale is that the United States is in the Middle East is because it is defending Israel and the Saudis. This rationale has less to do with the United States’ geopolitical interests than Evangelical Christian groups, the Industrial Military Complex and powerful Israeli lobbyists in the United States.
These groups are presently powerful, but their influence is brittle and their policies very unpopular. They can and will continue to control US foreign policy in the Middle East, but their efforts are at odds with the rest of the United States, whether on the left or the right.
The third reason is Russia. America is in the Middle East because it wants to contain Iran, which is an ally of Russia, the only country in the world that could feasibly take on the US in an armed conflict.
The counter-argument to this point is to say that the US can and should befriend Russia. It’s feasible, and prior to the Mueller probe, Trump wanted to improve US Russia relations. If US Russia relations become improve, the Americans would not even need to be in the Middle East. The Russians will take care of the Iranians and the Middle East in general.
As you can see, American presence in the Middle East is frustratingly complex, but with the rise of Trump and Democratic challengers like Tulsi Gabbard, the American people are becoming impatient with traditional US-Middle Eastern politics, and as far as they’re concerned, there are no good reasons why the US should remain in the Middle East./PN
