The Economist magazine stated in an editorial that the United States appears to be stuck in the Middle East, with no easy way out. However, the current war may signal something completely different: a moment of American withdrawal from the region, meaning that Washington is finally abandoning its dominance there.
It said that “for the first time since the great powers carved up the Ottoman Empire a century ago, the dominant order in the Middle East will not be imposed from afar,” asking whether this could herald a wave of settling scores and violence or instead mark the beginning of a new era. Since the First World War, the cradle of the world’s three great monotheistic religions has suffered from accumulated devastation and upheaval.
It added: “Arabs who fought alongside the victors in the war felt betrayed when Britain took control of Iraq, Jordan and Palestine, while France seized Lebanon and Syria. Nationalist leaders, including Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, later fell under the weight of destructive economic policies inspired by the Soviet era. The horrific human-rights abuses committed by dictators such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Hafez al-Assad in Syria were matched only by the violent fanaticism of jihadists whom their brutal rule helped fuel. After three wars, countless covert operations and endless rounds of diplomacy, America’s attempts to impose its plans have reached their end.”
The magazine explained that, like Britain, France and Russia, the United States will remain involved and will occasionally use military force to pursue its interests, including “counterterrorism,” but it will abandon its role as an engineer of the conflict.
The magazine said that the signs of America’s impending retreat are unmistakable, even as President Donald Trump used the annual UN gathering to threaten Iran with “annihilation” for what it described as the umpteenth time. It pointed to two developments. Earlier this month, the United States refused to join its ally Saudi Arabia in striking the Houthis in Yemen, who threaten shipping in the Red Sea. Instead, Washington held secret talks aimed at preventing attacks on American vessels.
“This may seem like a minor detail, but when a great power makes deals with a rebel militia, everyone understands that it is seeking to reduce its commitments. Another indication is the expectation that America will reduce its presence in the Middle East. In peacetime, it has between 30,000 and 40,000 troops distributed across 19 bases, eight of them permanent. Yet the war has exposed their vulnerability to drones and cheap missiles. As a result, the United States has been forced to rely on aircraft carriers and its base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Some experts believe that Washington should concentrate its forces in a small number of locations, such as Israel and Jordan.”
“This is consistent with a broader redeployment. NBC reported this month that between 25,000 and 40,000 American troops could also be withdrawn from Europe.”
“While the Trump administration focuses on the Americas, security officials are seeking to prepare the United States for intensifying competition with China. As this week’s Trump-Xi summit demonstrated, that relationship oscillates between cautious coexistence and outright hostility. The wars in the Middle East, which are now draining America’s arsenals and diverting its forces away from Asia, no longer serve either objective.”
What Is the Point?
The magazine answers that until 2020, America was an importer of oil, whereas today it is a major exporter. Meanwhile, China has become the largest customer of Gulf oil producers, and the Suez Canal carries Chinese goods to European markets. This makes China the biggest external beneficiary of American policies. But China is unlikely to attempt to dominate the Middle East, especially after witnessing the trillions of dollars and thousands of lives that America spent in pursuit of that privilege.
“Instead, three countries in the region possess sufficient influence to fill the vacuum, and none of them is Arab. Iran is the most dangerous. If the regime in Tehran collapses, it would not be in a position to rebuild its influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. If it survives, as is likely, it will seek to exploit the Strait of Hormuz and put pressure on the Gulf states that it attacked during the war. It will also attempt to rebuild its militias abroad. It may resume work on a nuclear weapon, which would certainly remain a red line for the United States. Throughout all of this, it may receive Russian support.”
“The second regional power is Turkey, which is quietly working to strengthen its ties with Arab states. It has become the main supporter of the new government in Syria. With Iraq, it is working to improve trade routes and water supplies and to confront Kurdish separatists. Last month, it signed a security agreement with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Although Turkey supports the Muslim Brotherhood, it is more pragmatic than ideological and seeks to expand its business in the defense industry and construction sectors.”
“The third is ‘Israel’, the dominant military and intelligence power. Following the attacks of October 7, 2023, Israel views itself as a modern-day Sparta, seeking to destroy any capability that could threaten it. Under the Abraham Accords, it has established close relations with the United Arab Emirates, even as the prospects for reaching an agreement with the Palestinians have diminished. These three countries are unlikely to live in peace with one another. Israel and Turkey are sharply at odds over Syria. Israel and Iran have unresolved scores over the war, while Iran and Turkey remain historic rivals.”
“The losers, meanwhile, are the Arab states. Countries such as Iraq and Syria are still struggling to emerge from the ashes of civil war. Egypt, once the natural leader of the Arab world, is devoting its efforts to combating corruption and suppressing opposition at home. Although the Gulf monarchies have adopted prosperity agendas that seek to neutralize ideology through economic growth, their business model depends on American security. The rivalry among Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, three extremely wealthy states, has contributed to instability, and perhaps America’s final gift to them is helping them cooperate.”
“Arabs have long yearned for an opportunity to restore the glory they lost when they were, centuries ago, a beacon of knowledge and learning. The reduction of American influence aims to give them that opportunity. Yet every departing hegemonic power has left behind a legacy of frustrations and unintended consequences. Deep grievances and unresolved scores remain, and the Middle East will struggle to prove the skeptics wrong.”
Source: The Economist