Fight terrorism, not proxy wars in the Mideast
Unrest has ratcheted up again in the Mideast, and it’s not clear the White House has a firm grip on events.
Although the Trump administration has shifted away from the Obama policy of favoring Iran over Saudi Arabia, recent moves to politically purge the royal family and pressure the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah show that the Saudis are prepared to act dramatically in the absence of firm American leadership.
The consequences could spell more trouble for the region.
The extended controversy about our Mideast policy has split Americans into several camps.
The first wants a full-court press against Iran — aiding the Saudis in their mess of a war in Yemen, guiding the Kurds toward greater independence, and doing whatever possible to undermine the Assad regime in Syria.
The second camp has a dimmer view of these measures. It rallies around the nuclear deal with Iran as a guarantor of regional stability, and tends to view expanded Iranian influence as an inevitability to cope with as the regime in Tehran moderates over time.
A third camp believes both these approaches are likely to end in frustration, and seeks ways for the U.S. to back out of the treacherous, dangerous rivalry between Sunni and Shia, where no side has clean hands and concrete American successes prove stubbornly elusive.
Each of these camps has its reasons, but all have their risks.
Divisions in the Trump White House, with some diplomats and career officers leaning toward the second camp, have made it too difficult for the president to advance a single strategy.
Because of these divisions, and the extraordinary fluidity of the situation abroad, it’s important for the U.S. to begin with its clearest-cut and most easily identifiable objectives.
In the aftermath of the abrupt resignation of Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Hariri while on a trip to Saudi Arabia earlier this month, tensions have flared dramatically between Saudi Arabia and Iran, who Hariri blamed for destabilizing the region.
Ever since, the Saudis have seemingly agitated for further conflict with Iran and the Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.
With many questions left unanswered about the peculiar, televised resignation from the Saudi capital, it is imperative that the United States not rush into involving itself in a conflict which could easily spiral out of control.
Rather than encouraging greater hostilities between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the aim of any American involvement should be greater stability in the region, not greater Saudi or Iranian hegemony.
Towards that end, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was right to warn against the destabilizing of Lebanon.
“The United States cautions against any party, within or outside Lebanon, using Lebanon as a venue for proxy conflicts or in any manner contributing to instability in that country,” he said in a statement.
In contrast, President Trump has signaled support for the Saudis, tweeting on Nov. 6 that he has “great confidence” in Saudi leadership despite warnings from State Department officials that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman “is behaving recklessly without sufficient consideration to the likely consequences of his behavior.”
Given the number of ways picking sides can go wrong, the United States should concern itself with American national security interests first and foremost, not proxy conflicts between rival powers in the Middle East.
Even today’s divided administration should see benefit in committing our technological and intelligence resources to preventing the next destabilizing fundamentalist force in the post-ISIS power vacuum before it becomes capable of striking out at traditional allies in the region, in Europe, or even here at home.
That is a far better strategy than exhausting American blood and treasure on regional one-upmanship.