Follow us on social

51967340096_03bf473f30_o

Why is the US determined to build a security alliance against Iran?

The pieces are aligning ahead of Biden's trip to the Middle East next week — almost too neatly. But will it create or shatter stability?

Middle East

Next week President Biden is headed to Saudi Arabia  — which he once promised to treat like a “pariah” — reportedly intent on discussing broad security guarantees with the Kingdom, including an air defense umbrella. Unfortunately, the administration’s proposal will deepen U.S. entanglement in the Middle East and further strain Iran nuclear negotiations. 

While these security measures and the Abraham Accords — a joint agreement normalizing Arab-Israeli relations — are advertised as stabilizing the region, the reality is that the effects will be the exact opposite if Iran, which is now alarmingly days away from having accumulated enough fissile material to produce an nuclear bomb, continues to be excluded from discussions about Middle East security. If Biden's goal is stability, then his administration must bring all the major regional stakeholders to the table. In addition, Washington should actively encourage ongoing diplomatic talks between Riyadh and Tehran that received a boost just this week. 

If Biden maintains his current approach, it will only serve to further isolate Iran and destabilize the entire region for several reasons. 

First, in the face of a united U.S.-Arab-Israeli front, Iran will most likely seek to increase its leverage by expanding its nuclear program, investing more in proxy networks, and taking other destabilizing steps to assert its regional influence. 

Such a strategy is not new. We’ve seen how isolating Iran can backfire. In an attempt to bring Iran to its knees, the Trump administration abandoned the Iran nuclear deal (formally known as the JCPOA, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), imposed “maximum pressure” economic sanctions, assassinated Iranian Quds Force Commander Soleimani, and designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The aftermath of these decisions led to a 400 percent increase in the number of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq by Iranian proxies. 

Second, the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA also backfired as Iran can now “produce enough nuclear material for a bomb in less than 10 days — a window so short that Tehran’s actions may not be detected by international inspectors,” according to Kelsey Davenport, Director for Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association. This should be unacceptable to the international community, and the only real solution is to fully restore the deal and increase this so-called “breakout time” to nearly one year, as it was before Trump pulled out of the JCPOA. 

Not only could covert confrontations between Iran and Israel expand to all-out war, but a definitive end to the JCPOA could trigger a nuclear arms race that may include U.S. regional partners like Saudi Arabia, whose Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman has vowed that “if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we would follow suit as soon as possible.” 

Third, the launch of a new U.S.-Arab-Israeli defense axis will likely derail Saudi-Iran negotiations. Saudi Arabia and Iran broke diplomatic ties in 2016 following Saudi Arabia’s execution of prominent Shia Muslim cleric Nimr al-Nimr and the subsequent attack by Iranian protesters on the Kingdom’s embassy in Tehran. The two rivals have recently engaged in five rounds of direct diplomatic talks hosted by Iraq to resolve regional disputes. Rather than promoting detente between Riyadh and Tehran, whose rivalry drives so much of the tension in the Middle East, a U.S.-Israeli air defense umbrella over their de facto Arab allies will escalate regional tensions and diminish prospects for stability. If Washington intends to create stability, it should step back and allow Saudi Arabia and Iran to heal old wounds.

But Congress is not helping.

The recently introduced bipartisan Deterring Enemy Forces and Enabling National Defenses Act expands on the Middle East air defense proposal. This bill requires the Pentagon to integrate air and defense missile capability for joint security cooperation between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and neighboring Arab states. The bill also reinforces the dated and flawed security architecture for the Middle East — one that aims to pit Arab countries against Iran, perpetuating the cycle of regional conflict. The bill would require American taxpayers to spend even more on Saudi Arabia’s national defense at a time when the Saudis have done next to nothing to substantially increase oil production and thus lower the prices American taxpayers are paying at the pump. 

Congress aside, the Biden administration seeking stability in the Middle East is admirable. However, pursuing dated policies that more closely ally the United States with a handful of authoritarian actors is shortsighted and will aggravate tensions with Iran.

Instead, the White House should be looking to avoid an unnecessary quagmire by pursuing diplomacy with Tehran and encouraging bilateral negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Only then will a process of regional stabilization take root. 


Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken participates in the Negev Summit with Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, Bahraini Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita, and UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan on March 28, 2022 in Sde Boker, Israel. [State Department Photo by Freddie Everett / Public Domain]
Middle East
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

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.