1. Home
2. World
3. America's Middle East Dilemma and Opportunity

Whatever you think about events since October 2023, a fundamental shift in the balance of power has occurred in the Middle East.

The dilemma for Washington and its regional partners is what to do now to bring lasting security for all those who in the past were compelled to live in the shadow of threats and violence by Iran and its Arab proxies. That next phase could be even harder.

Tradeoffs will have to be weighed and made, priorities assessed, public opinion mobilized, and governments and their constituencies persuaded. Statesmen will also have to look at past experiences and retain what lessons and initiatives are of value while moving past conventional assumptions that never delivered results.

There is one point Washington should not forget. Even after all the devastation to its nuclear program and dismantlement of its regional alliance, Tehran remains the number one challenge to American security and national interests, and those of our allies, in the Middle East. For America to make the much-discussed pivot of national security investment from the Middle East to East Asia, it will have to develop a strategy that makes permanent Iran's reversal of fortunes. The Trump Administration seems to have wisely abandoned the rush to negotiate some nuclear deal. Iran is the party now that needs a deal to buy oxygen and time, not the West.

The Europeans seek renewed nuclear negotiations with Iran, but do so without much leverage. Their motivations are well-meaning and responsible, but theirs is responsibility without power—the fate of eunuchs throughout the ages. Washington has ample power and a president prepared to use it—but a national mindset that is reluctant to yet again take on a mantle of responsibility. It is understandable. Decades of ever-expanding commitments without any real prioritization often led America into folly, ultimately both alienating the American people and falling short of achieving utopian objectives.

America should not "over-learn" the lessons of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Massive troop deployments, nation building, freedom agendas, toppling hated dictators without realistic plans for the Day After—those are all rightly on the reject pile. Doing little or nothing is just as flawed. Only engaging in short-term ceasefire deals detached from a regional conceptualization and enduring game plan will allow Iran eventually to land back on top. A great power led by statesmen should look -- and shape—the horizon beyond 60-day ceasefires.

What can that mean in practical terms? When it comes to Iran, it means bringing to bear all forms of pressure—sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and a credible threat to use force. Those tactics should be in place for as long as it takes for Tehran to see it has no avenue for relief but to end its ambitions to develop a nuclear weapons program as well as to rebuild its regional malign network. When that reality sinks in, Iranian leaders will come to the West. A hard-nosed approach requires patience, which does not come easily to Western democracies. With the next American presidential election more than three years away, persistence has a chance.

Syria is emerging as the cockpit that could determine the future direction of the region. Working with Ahmad al-Sharaa is a risk—is he really going to change his habits, abandon his takfiri base, and allay the fears of Syria's many minorities? The jury is not only still out on that judgment, but early tests—including his approach to the Druze problem—are not positive. Yet, for those states that seek a permanent end to Iranian influence in the Levant, there is really little choice but to try to help Sharaa succeed, in part by demanding he prove a capable and balanced ruler of Syria. The approach of major players like America, Israel, and Saudi Arabia should be tailored to that goal.

Regarding Gaza, there is a dawning awareness that working with Hamas is a losing proposition. The same can be said of President Abbas; a recent opinion poll showed that 81% of Palestinians want him to resign. He and his obsolete political entourage are no answer to Gaza's future. There is no alternative to the long, hard path of building a future Palestinian state, not from the top down, but from the grassroots up. A serious and phased plan will be essential. It should introduce security, governance, and reconstruction on a block-by-block basis, working with local Palestinians more interested in rebuilding their community than having a nice chair at the UN between Palau and Panama. New, responsible leaders might emerge in that process.

In Lebanon, new leadership, with American help, has an unprecedented opportunity to regain that nation's sovereignty. It cannot flinch from the hard but necessary task of having Hezbollah disarm, rather than letting it lie low and try to renegotiate the ceasefire.

Dilemmas abound, but so do opportunities.