THE United States currently has approximately 46,000 troops stationed in 11 countries in the Middle East, along with all the necessary equipment and support. These forces are critical for deterring America’s adversaries in Europe and East Asia and reassuring its closest allies. President Joe Biden, and potentially Donald Trump if re-elected, face a crucial decision on whether to maintain this significant American presence or reduce it.
Given the current circumstances, now would not be the right time for a drastic change in US presence in the Middle East. The country is currently embroiled in partisan tensions ahead of the upcoming election, while Israel is engaged in conflict in Gaza and facing accusations of genocide. Iran-backed militias across the region have targeted not only Israel but also US troops.
Recently, a drone strike carried out by one of these groups in Jordan resulted in the deaths of three Americans at a US base. If the US were to withdraw at this moment, it could provide Tehran with a propaganda victory and potentially lead to a situation similar to the chaos following Biden’s hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.
Looking ahead to the medium term, the conclusion of Israel’s campaign against Hamas, potential restraint from Iran and its proxies after Biden’s retaliation, and the resolution of the US election could impact the decision regarding the American presence in the Middle East.
The debate around the US presence in the Middle East is part of a larger discussion on America’s global role. Should the US continue as a hegemon, using its leadership to maintain global order, or should it focus on domestic issues and disengage from global affairs, leading to a more anarchical world?
While many support the former approach, known as internationalism, some argue that the US has already lost its global primacy and needs to focus on internal challenges. Deciding on priorities and clear goals for intervention abroad is crucial in navigating this complex landscape.
Opinions vary on the importance of the US presence in the Middle East. Some argue that the region’s history of failed attempts at US withdrawal highlights its geopolitical significance and the burden that comes with being a hegemon.
However, others suggest that the US has fulfilled its mission in the region, particularly in combating the Islamic State, and should consider withdrawing its military personnel from Iraq, Syria, and other parts of the Middle East. The shifting global energy landscape and the ability of regional powers to address security challenges are factors to consider.
Concerns about the strategic downsides of maintaining a large US presence in the Middle East include the risk of escalating tensions, fostering anti-American sentiment, and potentially drawing the country into a major conflict. Additionally, the deployment of US forces could lead to complacency among regional partners in addressing security threats.
While the US faces pressure to reevaluate its military commitments around the world, the unique challenges posed by Russia’s aggression in Europe and China’s assertiveness in Asia underscore the importance of maintaining a strong presence in those regions. The US must balance its global responsibilities with domestic priorities and strategic interests.
In conclusion, the debate over the US presence in the Middle East revolves around weighing opportunity costs and strategic priorities. As the US navigates its role as a global leader, decisions on military deployments and engagements will shape its relationships with allies and adversaries in different regions. Finding the right balance between global commitments and domestic needs is crucial for ensuring stability and security in an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape.
Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security, and geopolitics.
