US Middle East Defense Policy’s Diplomacy-Deterrence Complex

In both Cold War and post-Cold War international relations, the Middle East has played an important role in US defense policy. The United States’ military strategy in the region has generally focused on safeguarding its allies and defeating its enemies.

US post-Cold War military policy changed dramatically after the 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration’s declaration of a global “war on terror” adds a new dimension to U.S. strategy. The Bush administration also interfered in the Middle East, declaring war on Iraq in 2003, based on the theory of “pre-emptive military attack.”

It was this thinking that led to the United States’ later military involvement in Libya and Syria. When it comes to “charm diplomacy,” the United States has skillfully used its soft power in the region. For decades, it supported the interests of the United States, including oil, geopolitical advancements, and economic advantages.. Washington’s diplomatic success has been built on the use of deterrence.

In the Middle East, the United States has effectively pursued a two-track strategy: diplomacy and deterrence. As part of the first track, the US has focused on bilateral ties, diplomacy and negotiations, multilateralism, regional institutions, and soft power tactics. With regard to Iran and other regional foes, the United States has taken action. To undermine Tehran’s ongoing revolutionary purpose, which they pursue through IRGC–Quds Force action and its relationship with Hezbollah in Lebanon, it works. IRGC-Quds Force-backed Houthi rebels are being defeated and Yemen is being stabilized thanks to US support for Saudi Arabia.

The foundation of US defense policy in the Middle East has been diplomacy as a means of engaging with regional allies and foes. America’s Middle East diplomacy resulted in historic Camp David Accords in 1979, the 1993 Oslo Accords, the Iran Nuclear Deal 2015, the Doha Peace Process on Afghanistan, the normalization deals of four Arab countries (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan) with Israel, and bilateral negotiations with the key US allies.

In contrast, the Trump administration’s four years in power were marked by a preference for deterrence in the face of threats to US national interests in the Middle East. Deterrence has always been a justification for such a strategy, with the US claiming that regional crises like Iran, China, and Russia give its opponents the opportunity to expand their influence.

The military strategy of deterrence relies on a variety of projections of coercive force to achieve its goals. An antagonistic power can be prevented from launching an attack by using threats and force. The Bush administration issued the Bush Doctrine during the War on Terror, which maintained the validity of an American preemptive strike and highlighted the premise that “If you are not with us, you are against us.” The US defense policy stresses deterrence, despite widespread criticism, in order to achieve strategic goals in the region.

US diplomacy and deterrence in the Middle East have helped the US achieve its defense policy goals, such as the US role in Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Different governments, on the other hand, frequently give preference to one strategy over another. Deterrence was favored by the Bush and Trump administrations, but diplomacy was favored by the Clinton and Obama administrations. If diplomacy is used effectively in dealing with regional and worldwide concerns, such as the deployment of WMDs, it has the potential to improve security and stability. ICBMs and international rules are the most significant contributions diplomacy can make to improving security and reducing dangers.

There is a huge problem with deterrence since it typically leads to countermeasures that create new security issues. US Middle East defense policy relies on both deterrence and diplomacy, notwithstanding their shortcomings.

As a result of diplomatic efforts, the United States should be able to reduce its military presence while ensuring that its interests in an area will be important for many years to come. Particularly relevant now is the Biden administration’s Interim National Security Strategic Guidance (INSG), which states that in order to keep the US safe, it must face not only traditional security threats from “great powers and regional adversaries,” but also threats “like climate change, infectious disease, cyberattacks, and disinformation that respect no national bor.”
Although the US has historically depended on diplomacy and deterrence in its Middle Eastern military policy, Washington prefers to look at its involvement in the region purely through the lens of its geopolitical struggle with Russia and China. Deterrence may therefore determine US engagement in the region. A big concern is the rise of China and Russia in global politics, as well as in specific weak countries. There will be more diplomacy-deterrence complexity in the Middle East as the US focuses on “containment of China” and “building back a better framework.”