Follow us on social

google cta
2018-04-13t134114z_937344659_rc14ae1a0db0_rtrmadp_3_israel-palestinians-protests-scaled

Why Americans should demand better US Middle East policy

Decades of war, U.S. sanctions, and a hypocritical approach to human rights has left the region seething. Is Biden listening?

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The American people do not want to talk about the Middle East. Between spiking numbers of COVID-19, a teetering economy, and a democracy hanging in the balance, American attention is elsewhere. It makes sense, then, that the United States’ Middle East policy did not surface in presidential debates or town halls during the election and barely merits a mention in news coverage now.  

But like it or not, Joe Biden’s administration will forge cooperative relationships with regional leaders, cut diplomatic and military deals, and otherwise engage with the region. 

Behind the scenes, the policies that his administration pursues will have real consequences for security and stability of the Middle East — and by extension American security and stability.  Administrations of both parties have often been a source of destabilization and inequality in the region, whether through their roles in oil and gas extraction, their failed policies of regime change, or their support of repressive regimes

In turn, these policies have created great resentment against the United States. People across the region rightfully view the United States’ contradictory rhetoric about democracy and embrace of autocrats as hypocritical. The combination of instability and resentment has made American interests a target for anger, and it will continue to do so until our approach to the region changes dramatically.

Doubling down on these failed policies of the past will decrease the likelihood of substantial and meaningful collaboration on critical issues that we cannot solve without real buy-in from regional actors. These issues include transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, developing coping mechanisms for global warming, and preventing future pandemics and public health disasters like COVID-19.

The American people should insist on a few key components of a Middle East policy that would prioritize the people of the region ahead of their leaders and stop the United States’ destabilizing influence.

First, Americans need to support policies that help mitigate the disastrous effects of American armed invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to the ongoing political instability and factionalism triggered by the invasions, the United States’ military actions have decimated local landscapes with horrific consequences.

In Iraq, the toxicity of American war debris continues to cause spikes in birth defects and cancer. Destroyed health systems have produced untreatable new forms of disease. The United States needs to fund and implement comprehensive programs to mitigate the destruction of local environments and public health.

Second, Americans should push their leaders to end economic sanctions. Economic sanctions, like those used against Iran, are thought to put pressure on a country’s leadership by depriving their citizens of money and imports. However, they rarely work as intended, and they punish the weakest members of society. 

In Iran, the Trump administration’s sanctions have only antagonized the Iranian government and had no demonstrable positive impact on the government’s foreign policy decisions. But they do deprive ordinary people of crucial medicines and medical supplies. Americans should insist on ending this ineffective and cruel policy.

Next, Americans should demand an end to the free flow of arm sales to regimes with big pockets and little interest in human dignity. Across the region, civilians suffer and die from weapons of war made by American companies. These arm sales allow repressive regimes to stymie their political opponents, suppress popular sentiment and engage in foreign wars of domination. The consequences of American arm sales further destabilize the region and increase the likelihood of armed conflict. The United State should also institute export controls over the sale of surveillance technology to regional dictators who use it to jail critics and squash their political opponents.

Finally, Americans should demand a policy of increased collaboration on civic and societal issues, instead of military alliances. Middle Eastern societies struggle with many of same issues that Americans face, such as police brutality, racism, women’s equality, widespread protests, socio-economic inequality, environmental threats, and the precarity of democracy, to name a few.

The Middle East will likely experience some of the most pernicious effects of a warming planet first, and collaborative relationships with civil society actors in the region could yield valuable lessons about how to handle climate change here at home. Working together with Middle Eastern countries, whether through policy makers or civic groups, could enable Americans to solve common problems faster and more effectively.

Americans cannot wish the Middle East away. Nor should they. The Middle East is an integral part of the interconnected global community, and its demographic importance will only grow as its disproportionately youthful population comes of age. 

What Americans can and should do, however, is demand that their leaders pursue policies in the region that emphasize fairness, the reduction of armed conflict and the promotion of stability. These policies are good for the Middle East and even better for the United States.


Palestinian demonstrators burn a banner showing a representation of an Israeli flag Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman, U.S. President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during a protest demanding the right to return to their homeland, at the Israel-Gaza border, in the southern Gaza Strip, April 13, 2018. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
New House, Senate attempts to preempt war with Venezuela
Top photo credit:
U.S. Navy Admiral Frank "Mitch" Bradley arrives for a classified briefing for leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. strikes against Venezuelan boats suspected of smuggling drugs, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., December 4, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

New House, Senate attempts to preempt war with Venezuela

Washington Politics

New bipartisan war powers resolutions presented this week in both the House and Senate seek to put the brakes on potential military action against Venezuela after U.S. President Donald Trump said a land campaign in the country would begin “very soon."

On Tuesday, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), and Joaquín Castro (D-Texas) introduced legislation that would “direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.”

keep readingShow less
Africa construction development
Top photo credit: Construction site in Johannesburg, South Africa, 2024. (Shutterstock/ Wirestock Creators)

US capital investments for something other than beating China

Africa

Among the many elements of the draft National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) currently being debated in Congress is an amendment that would reauthorize the Development Finance Corporation (DFC). What it might look like coming out of the Republican-dominated Congress should be of interest for anyone watching the current direction of foreign policy under the Trump Administration.

In contrast with America’s other major development agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which the administration has largely dismantled, President Donald Trump has expressed support for a reauthorized DFC but wants to broaden the agency’s mandate so that it focuses less on investing in traditional development projects and more on linking investment to national security priorities.

keep readingShow less
USS Lafayette (FFG 65) Constellation-class
Top image credit: Graphic rendering of the future USS Lafayette (FFG 65), the fourth of the new Constellation-class frigates, scheduled to commission in 2029. The Constellation-class guided-missile frigate represents the Navy’s next generation small surface combatant. VIA US NAVY

The US Navy just lit another $9 billion on fire

Military Industrial Complex

The United States Navy has a storied combat record at sea, but the service hasn’t had a successful shipbuilding program in decades. John Phelan, the secretary of the Navy, announced the latest shipbuilding failure by canceling the Constellation-class program on a November 25.

The Constellation program was supposed to produce 20 frigates to serve as small surface combatant ships to support the rest of the fleet and be able to conduct independent patrols. In an effort to reduce development risks and avoid fielding delays that often accompany entirely new designs, Navy officials decided to use an already proven parent design they could modify to meet the Navy’s needs. They selected the European multi-purpose frigate design employed by the French and Italian navies.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.