Follow us on social


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
Mold, raw sewage, brown tap water found in US barracks
Mold in barracks found during visits from Government Accountability Office investigators. (Image via GAO)

Mold, raw sewage, brown tap water found in US barracks


Government investigators found mold, gas leaks, brown tap water, and broken sewage pipes in U.S. military barracks despite record-high Pentagon spending, according to a major report released by the Government Accountability Office on Tuesday.

“We found that living conditions in some military barracks may pose potentially serious risks to the physical and mental health of service members, as well as their safety,” the GAO reported, noting that the conditions also impact troop readiness.

keep readingShow less
Jordan can't afford to pay for Israel's problems
Unspalsh/Creative Commons

President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden meet with King Abdullah II, Queen Rania, and the Crown Prince Al Hussein Bin Abdullah II of Jordan on Monday, July 19, 2021, in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)

Jordan can't afford to pay for Israel's problems

Middle East

Israeli hardliners often argue that, instead of an independent state, Palestinians should accept Jordan as their homeland. (After all, Jordan used to rule over the West Bank, and many Jordanians have Palestinian roots.) The most moderate version of this plan involves putting parts of the West Bank that Israel doesn’t want back under Jordanian rule. The most extreme version involves physically expelling Palestinians to Jordan.

Despite the lack of Jordanian or Palestinian consent, the idea of Jordan as a Palestinian homeland continues to float around in Israeli nationalist circles. And it’s gaining traction in unexpected corners of Washington, too. Last month, the liberal-leaning publication Just Security published a “creative, outside-the-box proposal” along those lines by Jonathan Panikoff, director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the centrist Atlantic Council.

keep readingShow less
Antony Blinken and the diplomacy deficit
Credit: Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock

Antony Blinken and the diplomacy deficit

Washington Politics

If Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s Wednesday address in Washington is any indication, any hopes that the thousands of freshly dug graves across Ukraine and Russia might be giving rise to introspection or regret that diplomatic overtures could have staved off the war, are bound to be dashed.

In a speech titled, “The Power and Purpose of American Diplomacy in a New Era,” Blinken set forth a vision of U.S. foreign policy that is both exhaustingly familiar and deeply concerning because it indicates, at the very least, that our chief diplomat has very little understanding of what traditional diplomacy actually means. The sense one takes away from the speech is that Blinken believes it to be analogous to edict, fiat, and ukase.

keep readingShow less

Ukraine War Crisis