Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
America’s withdrawal from regions capable of maintaining their own security has been a long time coming.
American president Donald Trump challenged the post-Cold War international system by insisting that U.S. allies in Europe and the Middle East take care of their own strategic interests instead of relying on Washington for their security.
President Trump’s message is clear: The United States would not be in the business of resolving historical conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Levant. America’s core geostrategic interests lie in East Asia, where the United States confronts its main global threat, China.
President Trump announced that he had agreed with Vladimir Putin to hold talks that would bring an end to the war in Ukraine. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told the European colleagues that Washington agreed with some of Russia’s core demands. He characterized Ukraine’s wish to restore its territorial integrity as an “illusory” goal and that there would be no NATO membership for Ukraine.
Those comments shocked Ukraine and America’s European allies, who worried that Washington was preparing to placate Moscow as Russian and American officials were ready to negotiate Ukraine’s future in Saudi Arabia without their participation in the talks.
President Trump delivered similar shock waves in the Middle East a week earlier when he proposed during Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington a plan to transfer Gaza’s two million Palestinians to Jordan and Egypt.
The notion of settling millions of Palestinians in Jordan and Egypt is seen as an existential threat by these countries and has been rejected by the Saudis and the other Arab governments.
The message that President Trump has sent to Arab allies was quite similar to the one he delivered to his NATO partners: “The time has come for you to maintain stability and keep the peace in your geographical neighborhoods.”
That means that Germany, France, Britain, and the other NATO members need to increase their contributions to NATO and their defense spending in general. This would allow the Americans to shift their attention and resources from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The Arab countries, at the same time, need to come up with a plan to help end the war in Gaza, reconstruct the area, and deploy peace-keeping troops to maintain order. If not, the United States may give the green light to Israel to continue its campaign to destroy Hamas and possibly expel the Palestinians.
In a way, neither America’s NATO allies nor Arab partners should be surprised by President Trump’s recent decisions, which, in many ways, reflect changes in American geostrategy. Wishing for more help from Europe and disengaging from the Middle East were ideas that gained ground long before the former real estate tycoon began advancing his “America First” agenda. It’s the national interest, stupid!
The so-called “Pivot to Asia” from the Middle East started under the administration of President Barack Obama in response to the economic and military rise of China and the need to protect U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific region.
Indeed, the failures of the Iraq and the Afghanistan wars, the “regime change” and “democracy promotion” endeavors, and the numerous Israeli-Palestinian “peace processes” have created public and elite pressure to begin a process of gradual disengagement from the region. There is no support in Washington now for new U.S. military interventions in the Middle East.
At the same time, the notion that the Europeans were not spending enough on defense has been the conventional wisdom in Washington for years.
Indeed, in July 2011, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates rebuked some of America’s closest allies, saying the United States could not continue serving as the heavyweight partner in the military order that has underpinned the U.S. relationship with Europe since the end of World War II.
Gates condemned European defense cuts and said the United States is tired of engaging in combat missions for those who “don’t want to share the risks and the costs.”
“The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources to be serious and capable partners in their own defense,” said Gates way back in 2011.
In fact, the Europeans have been facing the likelihood of having to meet their own defense obligations since the end of the Cold War. Now that there is talk about the possibility of major cuts to U.S. presence in Europe, the alarm is sounding in London, Paris, Brussels, and Berlin. Officials wonder, “Would the United States come to their assistance in case of an existential threat from Russia?”
Indeed, some front-line states, like Poland and the Baltic states, have been increasing their defense spending and preparing for a possible war with Russia. However, Western European governments have focused mostly on incremental changes.
In the Middle East, Washington hopes that its pressure will force the Arab states to “do something” about Gaza. U.S. officials expect that a strategic alliance between Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf Arab states would effectively contain Iran’s threat, thereby eliminating the need for future military interventions in the region.
Some Arab states have responded to President Trump’s pressure by advancing plans for post-Hamas Gaza and making commitments to provide economic aid and military assistance to a self-ruling body in Gaza. If they don’t like President Trump’s plan for Gaza, perhaps the time has come for them to put their money (which is quite ample!) where their mouth is.
