The End of the American Middle East: Iran and the Last Gasp of a Failed Order

[Excerpt from essay by Marc Lynch, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University and the author of *America’s Middle East: The Ruination of a Region*.]

The United States’ primary goal for three and a half decades has been to lock its disparate allies into an order built around protecting Israel while containing, at first, Iran and Iraq, and more recently Iran and its nonstate allies. Far from being a deviation from that strategy, President Donald Trump’s war took it to its logical end, seeking to remove the Iranian threat by force in one fell swoop. As American leaders did before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Israel has done in its wars against Hezbollah and Hamas, the architects of this war vastly exaggerated what military power could achieve, underestimated the capacity of adversaries to adapt, took for granted that allies would fall in line, and callously disregarded the lives of ordinary people. Washington’s misadventure was not an aberration so much as the ultimate expression of the inherent vice of its Middle East strategy.

This is a shame to read as a former long time subscriber. Poor analysis that misrepresents and misunderstands history. The idea that this was a natural conclusion of decades of policy isn’t bad because I disagree with it. It’s bad because it’s laughably unfounded. The primary maxim of American foreign policy distilled to its core is the goods must flow. No shipping lane may be closed and we will have the most powerful blue water navy in history to guarantee it. Taking needlessly aggressive action to undo a deal we made during this 35 year period isn’t the logical conclusion of the 35 period but rather a rebuke of the entirety of all American foreign policy traditions. Whether it is imperial strategy of the United States to ensure the openness of its trade routes from Commodore Perry in the past to the negotiations to ensure that the Straits of Malacca and Hormuz would remain open in more recent times or the isolationist tendencies vis a vis Europe of the United States pre-Civil War, the United States would not engage in missions intentionally that would seem likely to harm freedom of American trade. Ending a winning deal, arbitrary targeted killings of military leaders and heads of state, and causing the Strait of Hormuz to close by taking actions that would guarantee it runs so counter to American foreign policy strategy today that it causes me straight up shock and disbelief that this pablum was published. Agreed that there was a callous disregard for ordinary people and the United States foreign policy machine often does have that callous disregard for the lives of brown people, but pretending like this in any way, shape, or form logically followed from the American policy strains credulity to the point of laughter being the only realistic response left to reading this piece

I don’t understand why Iran isn’t pressuring the middle eastern countries, specifically Saudi Arabia to get US to agree to their terms. Since US is low on supply of countermeasures, Iran could just bomb energy infrastructure in Saudi and UAE until they agree to forfeit the petrodollar agreement. With how US is drowning in debt, this would undoubtedly force them to seriously consider Iran’s terms and maybe even concede on a couple of key points. The war could be wrapped up in the matter of a month. What’s the point in agreeing to ceasefires when they’re quite literally glorified recesses for all parties to restock and regroup, before going at it again? Colossal waste of life and time