Tech • AI • Robotics • Game

ENFR

Did America ever have a plan for the Middle East? | The Economist

3/10
EconomyThe EconomistSeptember 26, 2026 at 02:00 PM9:35
Audio player

TL;DR

The United States has remained deeply involved in the Middle East because of oil, Israel’s security, long-standing security bargains with Gulf monarchies, and the absence of a coherent strategy that has left Washington reacting to crises rather than reshaping the region.

KEY POINTS

Why Washington stayed

For decades, US policy in the Middle East was anchored by energy security and the protection of Israel. The old logic was reinforced by the Carter Doctrine, which treated the free flow of Gulf oil as a core US interest. Even after the US became a major energy producer, Washington retained an interest in safeguarding global energy supplies and shipping routes.

Security outsourced to the US

American involvement was not imposed on the region alone. Gulf states encouraged it by outsourcing their security to Washington in exchange for protection and stable oil exports. Once that arrangement took hold, it became difficult to reverse, even as the strategic rationale evolved.

A policy shaped by history and inertia

Part of the US role reflects the legacy of European imperial retreat. After Britain and France lost the capacity to dominate the region following Suez, the US effectively inherited many of the responsibilities and entanglements. That historical handoff helped lock Washington into a system it did not fully design but continued to manage.

No clear post-2011 strategy

Since the Arab Spring in 2011, US policy has largely been reactive. Events in the region repeatedly prompted intervention, but without a stable overarching objective. The last attempt at a grand strategy was George W. Bush’s push to spread democracy, an approach widely seen as unsuccessful.

Withdrawal does not mean disengagement

The US has reduced its military footprint in places such as Syria, Iraq and parts of the Gulf, signaling a broader drawdown. But that does not amount to full retreat. Sanctions, arms support, deterrence and diplomatic pressure still allow Washington to shape outcomes across the region without relying solely on large troop deployments.

Iran remains the central test

The biggest question for regional security is the future direction of Iran. Power inside the Iranian state appears unsettled, with uncertainty surrounding succession and internal factional struggles. That instability complicates any effort to strike a durable agreement with Washington, because it is unclear who can authorize and own such a deal.

The Gulf’s difficult calculation

For Gulf states, both a strong and a weak Iran carry risks. A strong Iran capable of threatening the Strait of Hormuz would pressure Arab monarchies to seek accommodations with Tehran to protect trade and economic stability. Yet a severely weakened or collapsing Iran could also be dangerous, creating the prospect of state failure, armed groups and refugee flows on the Gulf’s doorstep.

Iran’s regional networks still matter

Even after setbacks, Iran’s allied armed groups remain central to the regional balance. Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iraqi militias have all been weakened to varying degrees, but they still represent tools through which Tehran can project influence. If Iran regains strength while the US continues to step back, it is likely to try to rebuild those networks.

No vacuum is likely to last

The region has repeatedly shown that power vacuums do not remain empty for long. When outside powers assume they have removed a leadership center or neutralized a militia, new actors or reconfigured versions of old ones often re-emerge quickly. That pattern suggests that reduced US military involvement may not produce stability, but rather a sharper contest among regional powers and non-state forces.

CONCLUSION

US involvement in the Middle East has endured because strategic interests, regional demand for American protection and entrenched conflicts have outlasted any single doctrine. As Washington reduces direct military commitments, the central question is not whether the region will be left empty, but which forces will fill the space.

Ask a question

More from Economy