Is US Intervention Destructive to the Middle East Peace Process? A look at Alternative Solutions
Recently, the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Iraq has sparked large-scale anti-US protests in Iran, culminating in the Iranian launch of ballistic missiles at American forces in Iraq. Whilst the tensions seem to have cooled since the most recent developments, this event is not unique in the Middle East’s recent history.
For the past decades the US has been at the centre of power politics in the turbulent region. During this period, despite a strong American military presence, the region has been highly unstable, and there is significant local resentment of the US’s actions. After the most recent confrontation between the US and Iran, the Iraqi parliament demanded that the US withdraw all of its troops from the country, which the US rejected.
This raises questions about whether the current US policy in the Middle East is really contributing to peace and stability in the region.
Since the modern borders of Iraq and Syria were drawn up by Britain and France in 1920, the Levant has been plagued by foreign intervention in its affairs. In 1953, an American-backed coup ushered the Iranian royal family into power, making Iran a regional ally of the US. Two decades later, as Iran’s economic situation deteriorated in the 1970s, the royal family was ousted and a heavily anti-US Islamic regime took its place. To this day, tensions between Iran and the US have been a major source of instability in the Middle East.
Also, in 2003 the US invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein’s regime with the purpose of stopping the country’s alleged nuclear weapons programme. Many experts agree that ISIS evolved from the Al-Qaeda in Iraq as a response to the US invasion of 2003 and the continuing violence perpetuated by US forces in the country.
The US’s deterrence policy through pre-emptive attacks against its enemies is seemingly contributing to instability, as every US military operation results in an uproar of anti-US sentiment. After the killing of Qasem Soleimani, president Trump expressed hope that this action showed the US army’s capabilities and would make enemies reconsider violent action against US assets. This logic showcases a fundamental misunderstanding of what has created anti-US sentiment in the region. American antagonism is seen as the main cause of resentment of the US in the Middle East in the first place, so the deterrence policy is counterproductive, as it only brings rise to more resentment and resultant violence.
Domestically, the US government uses the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East to justify its continued tactical presence in the region. Despite the relatively low frequency of Islamic terrorist attacks in the US, polls have shown that almost 50% of the country’s population is worried about becoming a victim of a terrorist attack. Creating a rhetoric of the Middle East being culturally opposed to the US therefore helps create legitimacy for American military interventions.
Research has also shown that popular support in the US for military intervention has increased every time there has been a terrorist attack or other uprising led by Middle Eastern forces. For that reason, it is actually in the US’s interests to ensure that the region remains unstable so that it can maintain its military presence there. If the region were to stabilize, taxpayer support for continued US presence would decrease, compromising its strategic dominance in the Middle East.
For this reason, there is currently little incentive for the US to try to promote genuine stability in the region, which is reflected by the effects of its Middle East policy.
Still, negotiations between the Obama administration and Iran in 2015 seemed for a time to be leading to a genuine peace between the two countries, which could have formed the foundation for working towards changing the politics of the region through dialogue, rather than war. However, in 2018, under the Trump administration the US withdrew from its nuclear deal with Iran and reinstated sanctions against the country. Many experts argued that the breakdown of negotiations ended what could have been one of the milestones in achieving peaceful relations in the Middle East.
Clearly, the current American policy in the Middle East is not contributing to long-term stability in the region. This makes it important to look at how this stability can be attained, and what role the US plays in this process.
A suggested alternative to the current course of action has been to withdraw US troops from the Middle East. Since the Obama presidency, there have been talks of reducing the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. This presence has been costly to American taxpayers, and with a rising body count, questions have been raised about the long-term prospects of the current US policy.
In fact, in October 2019, president Trump ordered a withdrawal of US troops from Northern Syria, but on the same day, Turkish troops crossed the Syrian border to attack Kurdish positions in the region. Due to the newly created chaos, less than a month after US troops left the country, president Trump ordered the troops back in again to restore stability and secure their strategic interests.
This situation shows the complex power structures at play in the Middle East. Hence, unilaterally withdrawing US forces from the region would not be a productive alternative to the current policy because the US has not been the only major power militarily intervening in the region. For example, Bashar Al-Assad’s success in the Syrian civil war is largely attributed to heavy Russian support of its crucial tactical ally compared to limited American involvement in the conflict.
Throughout time, the politics of the Middle East, and the Levant in particular, has been shaped by foreign countries pursuing their strategic interests in the region. If the US were to withdraw its troops, this power vacuum would likely be filled by Russia, Turkey, or Iran, which would not resolve the fundamental issues prohibiting the peace process in the Middle East.
As it was explained above, American interests and those of other foreign actors fundamentally clash with the interests of the region’s population. Seemingly, the only way to allow the Levant to reach genuine stability is through a withdrawal of all foreign countries’ troops. This prevents the region being used as a scene of international power politics, as Vietnam and Korea were in the past. Still, even without considering the antagonism of foreign actors, there are underlying tensions that would likely organically result in conflict in the Middle East. However, if the major countries were to intervene only with conflict mediation and by facilitating negotiations, as with Obama’s Iran deal, this could contribute towards a stable resolution to the geopolitical conflict in the Middle East.
Although it is difficult to see what could motivate all foreign actors to withdraw from the Middle East, one thing is certain: So long as major powers continue using the region as a proxy battleground for their power struggles, a long-term resolution to the issues plaguing the region will be unlikely to arise. In the meantime, the destructive cycle will continue as ongoing violence fuels resentment and frustration against the foreign military presence.
Note: All sources used for this article can be found separately in the article entitled “compiled bibliographies for all my published articles” on my profile.
