Two events recently illustrated the contrasting ways the US is perceived in the Middle East. One suggests we are moving away from the time when the Americans were all-powerful in the region, while the other reflects an enduring belief in US paramountcy. Neither is absolutely correct, nor incorrect, but their interaction suggests that American dominance in the region is entering a new phase.
For much of the time since the end of the Cold War, there has been little question that America is the foremost power in the Middle East. It has the capacity to behave as a regional stabiliser (a role it has played less and less), enjoying security ties with most countries and capable of bridging the Arab-Israeli divide.
Critics of this situation, such as the American political scientist Marc Lynch, have argued that US primacy has not benefited the region. The US (with Israel in his telling) has had considerable sway, meaning “they are accustomed to acting with impunity, standing outside the rules and demanding that their self-interest take priority over anything else”, to quote Mr Lynch.
The negotiations to end the conflict with Iran have highlighted that a number of countries in the broader region are taking a more nuanced approach to Washington. Five of them – Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt and Pakistan – have tried to mediate an end to the war. All have good relations with the US, but also appear to be looking beyond the US-dominated regional security order.
This is not surprising. Iran’s repeated attacks against neighbouring Gulf states during the conflict have led many of these states to think hard about the value of the US security umbrella they had once relied upon. While this does not mean they intend to abandon ties with the US, it does suggest they are preparing for alternative paths.
The war with Iran has been highly unpopular in the US. Polling has shown that many Americans are increasingly souring on the conflict, as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the ensuing inflation from higher oil prices are hitting them in their pocketbooks. Many Americans have long seen the Middle East as a place of perpetual and highly costly wars, and for a time President Donald Trump seemed to agree.
A logical assumption based on this is that the Trump administration, or future administrations, will disengage from the region, obliging regional states to think of how to fill the vacuum. This situation may push them to try formulating a new regional security architecture, and the coalition of five states may represent the anchor of one such an effort, even if there may be others.
On the other side are countries in the region that continue to take a more traditional view that the US remains the dominant power, and therefore that it is vitally important to remain tied to the American agenda. One such country is Lebanon, which most recently has underlined this conviction by agreeing to engage in direct negotiations with Israel, thereby fulfilling, or trying to fulfil, Washington’s desire to see more Arab countries join the Abraham Accords.
-
Smoke rises after an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Tyre. AFP -
A woman makes her way through the rubble of a residential building hit in an Israeli attack, near Burj Al Shamali, on the outskirts of Tyre. AFP -
The aftermath of bombing by Israeli jets in the city of Nabatieh. AFP -
Civil defence members search for victims in the rubble in Burj Al Shamali. AFP -
Strikes near Beaufort Castle, seen from Marjayoun. Reuters -
Lebanese soldiers in Burj Al Shamali. AFP
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun would willingly accept an invitation to Washington, as long as it does not involve a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which would cause him problems at home. Yet Lebanese officials do not seem sensitive enough to the reality that a Washington visit could help advance US interests that are actually detrimental to Lebanon.
Beirut’s America Derangement Syndrome is understandable to a certain extent. Only the US can contain Israel, which is systematically destroying southern Lebanon and displacing hundreds of thousands of the country’s Shiite citizens. In that sense, Mr Aoun’s and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s decision to propose negotiations with Israel to the Trump administration was an understandable effort to halt the Israeli steamroller.
Yet the Lebanese would do well to take a page out of the book of regional states and adopt a more realistic view of just how durable the US’s staying power in the region is, and how extensive its attention span for Lebanon. Even as Beirut works with the Trump administration to limit Israeli destructiveness, it should also engage with those states in the region who are beginning to think of a post-US environment.
There are increasing signs that the US approach to Hezbollah and its weapons is to compel Beirut to disarm the group by force. The Lebanese should enrol Arab states and Turkey in efforts to discourage American pressure in this direction, as a resort to arms would fail and be disastrous for Lebanon. This could well find an echo, as these regional states are highly anxious about the possibility of domestic conflict in Lebanon as a result of the Trump administration’s actions.
Lebanon and these regional states would be much better off trying to collaborate to put together some kind of regional package deal that addresses Hezbollah’s weapons, in parallel with integrating Iran into a post-US security framework. The aim would be to bolster regional stability, contain the emergence of any hegemonic power and put in place peaceful mechanisms to resolve regional crises.
The process will doubtless take time, but now is the moment to begin. US power and tenacity in the Middle East are provoking domestic and regional interrogations. Many Americans believe the main rival Washington should focus on is China. It’s time for states in the region to settle their own problems, which is why their officials should begin slowly reorienting themselves away from exclusive dependency on the US.
