|
Trending Topics
|
The U.S. Doesn't Need a New Middle East Policy
(Foreign Affairs) Amb. James F. Jeffrey - Although President Trump's real policy views were often difficult to divine, by keeping American aims limited, responding to imminent regional threats but otherwise working primarily through partners on the ground, his administration avoided the pitfalls encountered by his predecessors while still advancing American interests. This new paradigm should - and likely will - continue to define U.S. policy. It offers the best option for containing challenges in the Middle East and prioritizing geopolitical challenges elsewhere. For the Middle East, this meant avoiding entanglement in local issues, containing Iran and Russia, and smashing serious terrorist threats. The administration's "maximum pressure" campaign was designed to compel Iran to negotiate a broader deal that encompassed its nuclear activities, missile program, and regional behavior. Sanctions limited the financial assistance it could provide to its allies in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. The verdict is still out on whether the policy worked. Over the last four years, the U.S. scored two major successes in the Middle East - the Abraham Accords and the destruction of ISIS' territorial caliphate in Iraq and Syria. It also grasped Iran's enduring and multifaceted threat to regional stability and mobilized a coalition to counter Tehran's malign behavior. At present, many regional allies want continued U.S. pressure on Iran's economy and regional adventurism more than an immediate return to the nuclear deal. The writer, Chair of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center, served as a Foreign Service Officer in seven U.S. administrations, most recently as Special Representative for Syria Engagement and Special Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.