Applying ‘America First’ in the Middle East

By | 2017-06-02T18:30:05+00:00 January 26, 2017|
Print Friendly

President Trump’s “America First” principle is an opportunity for the United States to adopt a more productive approach to engagement with nations in the Middle East. Here are three ways the Trump Administration could get better results, without creating unnecessary new problems, thus allowing the president to stay focused on his vital domestic agenda.

2003 to 2016: What Went Wrong?

To understand what President Trump should not do, it is first necessary to clarify the mistakes of his two predecessors.

That the Iraq War was an enormous strategic disaster is obvious. But if candidate Barack Obama claimed to have learned the right lessons, as president, ironically, he became even more of a regime-change proponent than George W. Bush.

The slippery slope began with Egypt in 2011. After a series of mostly peaceful protests, President Obama inexplicably abandoned President Hosni Mubarak, an ally of 30 years, telling him he “had to go.”

Having set such a precedent, Obama likely felt compelled to do even more in Libya and Syria. He signed off on overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi, despite strong internal opposition within his cabinet, and half-heartedly tried to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Even though Washington did not cause these conflicts, picking sides in local civil wars prolonged them—contributing to more instability, suffering, and terrorism than likely would have occurred otherwise.

Finally, the bad effect of regime change policies was made worse by the Obama Administration’s commitment to reaching a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons. In practice, the arrangement has only empowered Iran at the expense of U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, further destabilizing the region. Trump was not wrong in his assessment that if “our leaders had done nothing and gone to the beach” from 2003 to 2016, the United States would be better off in the Middle East.

Confusing Symptoms for Causes

The bipartisan establishment foreign policy view of the Obama and Bush years considered problems in the Middle East to be top-down. Dictators such as Saddam Hussein were seen as the “cause” of the problem, due to their suppression of democratic activity and authoritarianism.

A more accurate diagnosis is “down-up.” The interrelated problems of the growing appeal of the anti-establishment jihadist narrative, the migration crisis, and the weakness of democratic politics, is a mere reflection of vast socio-economic, religious, cultural and tribal divergences and rivalries within Arab countries. Only through authoritarian leadership is any kind of orderly rule possible.

How President Trump Can Get Better Results

An “America First” policy in the Middle East (or elsewhere, for that matter) does not mean isolationism. It means smarter and more realistic engagement that ensures U.S. interests, contributes to regional stability, and doesn’t make anything worse than it already is through counter-productive interventionism. Here are three ways to do that:

1) Keep top allies “healthily confident” as key to a successful nuclear deal and a return to regional stability.

That U.S. relations with top allies Saudi Arabia and Israel have never been worse than during the second Obama Administration must be viewed as a reflection of their sense of abandonment because of the Iran nuclear deal. Proponents of the deal can criticize Israel and Saudi Arabia all they want, but if these nations feel like they are “on their own,” they are going to do their own thing—which may or may not comport with U.S. interests.

For Saudi Arabia in particular, destabilizing activities—such as stoking the flames of civil war in Syria and their aggressive military campaign in Yemen—are driven by a rational need to project strength given their profound sense of insecurity versus Iranian aggression. This was made possible by the U.S. decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime which acted as a Sunni check against that Iranian aggression during Bush plus the nuclear deal during Obama.

One area where Trump could foster renewed Saudi confidence is by supporting their ambitious reform program, Saudi 2030, a serious attempt to fundamentally restructure the economy, create new jobs and diversify away from oil. Success would mean a Saudi government with greater prestige that it can bring to bear in its challenge from Jihadist groups, and would form the foundation for a revamped mutually beneficial U.S.-Saudi relationship.

2) Focus on economic empowerment as a new strategic “third way.”

The sources of terrorism, migration, and political instability in the Middle East ultimately can be traced to socio-economic weakness. In most Arab countries, the economic pie in a ruthlessly competitive global economy is large enough to provide social and economic status to only a small segment of the population.

The basic divide is this: roughly 20 percent of the population is content with the “establishment.” About 80 percent to varying degrees are not. It is the people from this latter group who are susceptible to the anti-establishment jihadist narrative; who seek to flee to Europe as economic migrants; and who gain nothing from the outcome of democratic elections. These elections typically do nothing to change the economic situation, thus ensuring political instability and zero-sum politics.

Addressing that economic equation is a more productive approach than the hyper-interventionism of the Bush and Obama administrations and the instinct toward total disengagement of many Trump voters. Senior Trump advisor Tom Barrack, Jr. has proposed a 21st century Middle East Marshall Plan. This should be strongly embraced. Even a few billion dollars—a drop in the bucket compared to the overall defense budget—could make a huge difference.

3) Be ruthless on counterterrorism but shift focus to addressing the underlying causes.

The United States is great at killing terrorists. Virtually every member of al-Qaida operating on September 10, 2001 has been killed or imprisoned. Yet in 2017 vastly more jihadists are ready, willing, and able to fight. In 2000 and 2001 there was one terrorist attack in the United States. Last year alone several hundred people were arrested in the United States for joining jihadist groups. For every one that has been taken out, there are literally dozens of new jihadists in the field in 2017.

The threat has shifted from one of organized terrorist groups to a decentralized anti-establishment jihadist insurgency. Understanding this is critical to addressing the underlying causes of why so many people are joining—and addressing the underlying causes would represent a major departure from a counterterrorism policy that has been focused primarily on killing terrorists.

President Trump’s reform agenda is too important to the future of the United States to jeopardize over more unnecessary and counterproductive American involvement in the Middle East. Trump’s non-interventionist instincts are correct. If the United States follows these three principles, the United States should have more productive relations with the Middle East.

About the Author:

Nathan Field is an Arabic speaker who spent six years in the Middle East in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, spent two years in Saudi Arabia as part of the management team for a $1 billion engineering project, and five years building and then selling a translation company called Industry Arabic. Follow him on Twitter at @nathanrfield1 and read additional commentary on Middle East security issues at www.nathan-field.com.
  • Bill Millan

    The
    “underlying causes” of our ME problem is the culture is run by the
    Koran. That is why shunning is our only hope having a policy that will
    work and fighting won’t. THEY have to change their culture. I see no
    possibility of that in this Century. Cutting them off from Western Civ
    is our best short term way to handle them. Going over there and killing
    them just exacerbates the problem. We have to shame them.

  • Lurker

    It’s time that his supporters speak out and let Trump know we don’t support the establishment of “safe zones” in Syria which might require using 30,000 ground troops. Basically, if neocons support something, we must do the opposite!

  • MrLynn

    While the Obama regime’s policies were an unmitigated disaster, George W. Bush really had no choice but to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The 1990 war to rescue Kuwait had never ended; Saddam was constantly violating the terms of the truce that had left him in power: violating sanctions, shooting missiles at American planes, violating multiple UN resolutions, etc., etc. The only other option would have been to pull out altogether and let Saddam have his head. Maybe then he’d have resumed his war against Iran, but also against Israel and the other Sunni states, and he certainly would have resumed his nuclear program.

    Remember, Ghadafi in Libya had an active nuclear-bomb program, working with the Pakistanis, but he gave it up after the fall of Saddam. Remember, too, that conservative media reported widely that Saddam did in fact have an arsenal of chemical weapons (not just the leftovers from the 1990 war), and shipped them over to Syria before the US attack. Saddam would have been delighted to sting the Americans by slipping chemical, biological, radiological, and eventually nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda and others.

    Where the Bush administration fell down was in the post-Saddam occupation, which ended up putting the majority pro-Iranian Shi’ites in power, who then drove the Sunnis who had allied with General Patraeus during the Surge out of the Iraqi military. In retrospect, one has to wonder if Joe Biden might have stumbled into the truth when he suggested that we should divide up Iraq into its natural ethnic constituencies: Shi’ite, Sunni Arab, and Kurdish. Iraq was, after all, an artificial construction by the Europeans after the defeat of the Ottomans.

    Personally, I’d like to see one of our main policy objectives the creation of a unified Kurdistan, which would of course piss off the Turks, the Iraqis, and the Iranians—maybe an entertaining result.

    In any case, given the mess Obama and the Iraqi occupation have made, the question is: what’s the way forward? I can’t see supporting the Saudis in economic redevelopment, unless they agree to stop funding worldwide madrassas and the Muslim Brotherhood movement (a fifth column here in the USA). I suspect President Trump is right about allying with the Russians to stop Isis, let Assad stay in power, and squeeze Iran out, if possible. Assad the Israelis can deal with; a radical Islamist regime in Syria would be far more trouble.

    Militarily, we should work to cement a Sunni-Israeli alliance against Iran. And we should work on creating an incentive for Palestinian Arabs to be repatriated in Jordan, giving Israel all of the West Bank and Jerusalem. But this is a topic for another day. . .

    /Mr Lynn

    • Lurker

      You’re on the wrong site! Google National Review please…