Main Edition
US
FR
December 5, 2023 - 6:00pm
Just before the First World War, the writer Saki quipped that Crete makes more history than can be consumed locally: the same can unfortunately be said for the interminable flashpoint of our own day, the Middle East. Israel’s war of Biblical retribution against the people of Gaza has fortunately not yet widened into a great regional conflagration, as initially seemed likely, yet this is in large part due to American forbearance.
Since just mid-October — according to CENTCOM, the Pentagon’s strategic command covering the greater Middle East — US forces have endured 36 rocket and drone attacks by Iran-backed militias in Iraq, and 40 in Syria. Separate analysis tracks the startling uptick in attacks since the beginning of the Gaza War, with the various Shia militias coordinating their claims of responsibility under the new umbrella of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a grouping announced on 18th October.
The American response has been, depending on one’s point of view, either precise and carefully calibrated, or piecemeal and ineffective: US forces have performed strikes against militia units in the process of launching attacks, most recently outside Kirkuk in northern Iraq, killing five militants. If the aim is deterrence, it has not been effective — attacks continue daily. Yet America’s muted response, striking back roughly once for every dozen attacks, highlights both Washington’s desire to keep the Iraqi government broadly onside and inactive in the Gaza war, and the strategic bind the continued American presence in the Middle East places the waning superpower in.
The growing bellicosity of Yemen’s Ansar Allah or Houthi movement highlights the problem. Despite their distance from the Holy Land, the Houthis have been by far the most proactive Arab supporters of Hamas, declaring war against Israel, firing (so far ineffective) ballistic missiles from their plentiful armoury at Israeli targets, and most recently targeting and seizing commercial shipping in the vital sea lanes off Yemen’s coast. On Sunday, following a number of missile and drone attacks against commercial ships, the USS Carney destroyer was itself attacked by drones originating in Yemen, shooting down three in self-defence according to the Pentagon.
Washington provides Israel with arms and diplomatic cover: in return, it gains no discernible influence on Israel’s conduct of the war, wins the Biden administration enmity both at home and abroad, and forces US personnel to endure constant attacks in deployments whose strategic rationale is thin at best. Further, its capacity to respond is limited by its desire to avoid engagement in yet another Middle Eastern war: limited strikes in Yemen are as unlikely to deter the Houthis as the muted response to attacks in Iraq and Syria have achieved so far in deterring the Islamic Resistance. Yet any broader aerial campaign, which would necessarily cause civilian casualties, would be politically disastrous for the Biden administration, particularly if viewed — as it would be — as America being sucked into a war on Israel’s behalf.
The logic of the situation, as the anti-interventionist think tank the Quincy Institute observes, leads to total military disengagement from a region of endless headaches with no obvious strategic benefit, but that is easier said than done. Every US president since Barack Obama has declared a desire to draw down deployments in the region, and every one has found himself sucked back in by regional turmoil. At a time when the declining power finds itself overextended, beginning to lose a war in Europe that initially seemed successful, and worrying over its capacity to defend Taiwan in a looming, empire-breaking Pacific contest, the Middle East is like a tar pit from which Washington just cannot extricate itself.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhat is this weasly ‘Biblical War of Retribution against the People of Gaza’ BS Aris?? Spit it out. If you think Israel does not have the right to seek out and to destroy the Hamas military Einsatzgruppen hiding away in Gaza, say so.
This young man is still full of illusions and thinks that this is a Palestinian war for freedom.
Aris, this is Hamas’s (and, yes, yes, Palestinians and Muslims) war to exterminate the Jews.
If I (God forbid) I was CIGS I would ‘nuke’ the place and have done with it.
“Turn it to glass”, at the end of the day who really cares?
Trouble is, you can’t nuke the place just next door. You’ll end up poisoning yourselves in the process.
Air bursts!
The words shill and Hamas come to mind
Summary of the article: Give up
My thoughts exactly.
A typical example today:
Venezuela approves referendum to take over neighboring oil-rich Essequibo region controlled by Guyana. It’s actually Maduro’s referendum. Should we wait for a war? Rise Up And Kill Him First. Don’t admit you did it, shit happens
No, we must wait until the war begins and hopelessly say: “We condemn it.”
The issue is the weakness of Joe Biden, who campaigned on Iran rapprochement coupled with Saudi and Israeli animosity. Combined with sickeningly abandoning Kabul, all hell has predictably broken loose.
Russia didn’t invade anyone under Trump, unlike the President after and before him. Israel was actively making peace, not war, with its neighbors.
Then came weak American leadership and VOILA! The largest war in Europe in decades! The largest war in the Middle East in decades! Venezuela now eyeing its neighbor next, if Yemen doesn’t blow up first…
And why now? Because they need to act before Trump is back and they know it!
But let’s get one thing clear: The USA is going to be fine. We have all the energy and food and people we need. Economy still growing, unemployment falling. It’s amazing how insulated we are from our idiotic leadership honestly.
The Empires peripheries though? Yeah, y’all are scrwed.
Wow. Your articles since Oct 7th have been increasingly weak-kneed, but this just smacks of craven defeatism.
Rather than whine about how the Israel/Hamas conflict might affect US foreign policy, why not actually analyse the degree to which US foreign policy caused the latest Israel/Hamas conflict.
It is impossible to find effective solutions when ideology blinds you to one of the more obvious causes of a problem.
It was significant that Biden, in his statements towards Israel and condemnation of Hamas, never once mentioned Iran. Why? Was it from a sense of guilt?
If you wanted to be uncharitable, you could easily make the case that Biden had both armed and financed the terrorists that attacked Israel.
Iran has recieved $39.5 billion since Biden took office – thanks to relaxed sanctions. That buys a whole lotta terror. Possibly the risk of losing such largesse is what has kept Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies out of the war, but analysts have suggested the weapons Hamas terrorists were toting are from the $7billion cache of materiel left practicallt gift-wrapped for the Taliban after the panicked withdrawal from Kabul. Another unintended but woefully predictable consequence of Biden’s foreign policy.
It seems clear the timing of the attack was to sabotage chances of Sunni states like Saudi Arabia normalising relations with Israel. Biden’s actions (and inactions) are undermining the best chances for Middle East peace we’d seen in a generation. Another notable foreign policy failure.
Biden’s public utterances on his trip to Israel were cringe-inducing. Describing the murderous thugs of Hamas as “the other team”. Then talking about the rocket fired from Gaza that landed on their own hospital, suggesting that Hamas “gotta learn to shoot straight”. Who, in their right mind, could say such a thing days after Hamas had murdered 1400 Israelis?
In an increasingly dangerous world, we need strong leaders who project strength, resolve and good judgement. Biden’s obvious weakness emboldens all the enemies of the West. Military power, now we are beyond the era of empire building, is mainly about deterrence. Nothing about Biden’s presidency would deter anyone. Weakness merely invites attack
A plausible answer is that most of the residents in our home for the mentally frail have a better intellect than Biden
As an American, I disagree with this premise. America does have an option. In fact it has the option that most of its citizens and the world wants. It can get out of the way and stop telling other countries how to manage and prosecute territorial disputes.
As I understand it, foreign citizens are sick of America acting as global police. So give the people what they want.
That’s an overly simplistic understanding. I’m sure the Ukrainians and Taiwan appreciate America’s interference. I was recently in Iraq and everyone I talked to has horrible memories of Sadam’s regime and are glad he was taken out.
When the Potemkin Village of San Francisco was cleaned up for Xi’s visit two weeks ago, our stoic leader reiterated that The US has a One China policy on Taiwan. I don’t read that as an assurance of Taiwan’s defense.
People have a short memory. The Ukranian conflict didn’t happen in a vacuum. The US has been plenty involved for decades. Prior to the Russian War, it like Iraq fell under the Neocon project of Nation Building and “spreading democracy” to foreign lands. This contrasts with Reagan or Thatcher’s Neoliberalism which were more interested in just opening up foreign markets instead of trying to engineer the inner workings of the foreign nations’ government.
I agree Sadam was a bad guy but the Wilsonian idea of Nation Building and turning autocratic states into bastions of Democracy hasn’t seemed to improve global stability.
Foreign interference has definitely prolonged this conflict. Israel is never allowed to win a war and the multiple Palestinians are never allowed to be permanently resettled. It just goes on an on, perpetuated by the UN with the connivance of many states and compounded by the extremism and venality of the Palestinian leadership.
Correct. The article is yet more gibberish from this author. Of course, the US has the option to withdraw troops from the Middle East if it chooses. It’s really not clear what they are doing in Syria in the first place – very few British and American people probably even imagine there are US troops in Syria. And what good are they actually doing there, if any ?
Of course, in practice the US hardly ever withdraws from countries where it’s had troops stationed. Still in Iraq, years after announcing they were “withdrawing”.
Why can’t they just prioritise the really important stuff – to be clear in many cases they are doing something useful – and focus on that ? No good complaining you’re overstretched if you can’t prioritise.
c900 troops and contractors in Syria with mission aim to ensure ISIS cannot regain traction in that region. The strategic point being not in anyone’s interest that they do given it’s a murderous death cult extolling martyrdom. Whether this ‘holds’ as a justifiable argument can be debated but 900 troops pretty low level deployment.
Generally though US has avoided ‘boots on the ground’ escalations for over a decade now. It can support Ukraine and Israel much more with munitions. With Taiwan it’s much the same, although the worry there is China now has a bigger Naval threat and overall US fleet has reduced – even if it’s capability per ship still greater. The bigger strategic issue is arguably the procurement decisions US makes in near future to equip itself and others, rather than any specific ‘boots on ground’ deployments.
But why does the US need to do that job ? Can’t the Syrians (Assad and the Russians) do that themselves now ? Or the Turks ?
Tell that to the Germans who have relied on NATO ( ie USA) for decades to protect them -and have minimal military expenditure accordingly.
It is extremely misleading to describe the Quincy Institute as an “anti-interventionist think tank”. Anyone in academia and/or the NGO world knows who funds it, who they employ, and the type of research they promote.
Don’t hint…tell..
Most think tanks hire ‘scholars’ who produce research that conforms with their ideology. They are paying those ‘academics’, after all. Readers know to expect a different type of scholarship from Rand or Hoover or Brookings, etc. Quincy’s initial funding was a very large donation from Soros (matched by Koch). Trita Parsi (a co-founder) writes very critically and somewhat obsessively about Israel. His Twitter account is a wild ride too. This is directly relevant to the specific topic of the article, so why would Aris cover it up with a blanket claim about anti-interventionism. Quincy hires a lot of people who share Parsi’s opinions about Israel (like Walt and Mearsheimer). There was even litigation in the US (I can’t remember the outcome) involving allegations that Parsi was an unregistered agent of the Iranian government. Again I would need to check the exact details, but a Quincy contributor was suspended from an EU job because he was secretly working for a foreign government (Qatar, I think). It’s useful for readers to know these things when reading publications written by Quincy. There is a joke that the Q really stands for Qatar.
Great article.
“With no obvious solution, no desire to escalate and limited political capacity to respond,”
At this point, this line could have been written about Ukraine.
The Aden Colony was there for a reason.
Post-WW2 American administrations were perhaps too keen to undermine France and Britain.
Crazy that avowed capitalists handed a shipping route as valuable as Suez over to an aggressive socialist, while the Red Sea coast and Horn of Africa were abandoned to pirates and feuding Islamists.
I’m not much of an Empire nostalgist – I think Britain would be a wealthier, happier place today if the old ruling class had ruled fewer lands – but I do sometimes think about the lost opportunities in Africa.
If British presence had somehow endured, from the Cape to Cairo, Africa would be incredibly prosperous today.
“Every US president since Barack Obama…”
For goodness sake… all two of them? I think we all understand by now that AR has a tendency to use florid language to try and press home his (often valid) points, but i can’t help feeling that his articles would be so much better if he could cool his language. I wouldn’t normally recommend anyone following the example of Joe Biden, but in this instance, AR would do well to follow Biden’s measured response to the Arab/Israeli conflict.
It is quite straightforward. All Biden has to do is tell the Israelis they get no more military aid until the bombing of Gaza stops and Israel withdraws from Gaza.
Then the Palestinians must have access to the coast of Gaza and be allowed to develop the oil and gas reserves there. Then part of Israel should be given to Gaza so that the people of Gaza have somewhere to live while Gaza is rebuilt.
The people in the west bank settlements must be relocated, back to Israel or back to Europe. Certainly the attacks on Palestinians in the west bank must stop.
The US should pay for the reconstruction of Gaza, they paid for it’s demolition. If the US needs to find the money, they should negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine. That would save them billions and their would be money left over for Ukraine’s reconstruction.
They could also allow the Palestinian authority to sue AIPAC to pay for reconstruction.
If Biden does not do this he will loose the next election, as people are becoming disillusioned with him because of his refusal to call for a ceasefire. He may have left it too late and should stand down and let someone younger run on the Democrat ticket.
It’s not complicated. It’s an easy problem to solve!