Updates

Back to News

Event Summary: Dr. Steven A. Cook, “The Long Goodbye: The United States and the Middle East in an Age of Change”

As part of the Transatlantic Global Agenda Series, American Friends of Bucerius and The American Council on Germany invited Dr. Steven A. Cook to speak on changes in the Middle East and the United States’ strategic decision to decrease involvement in the region.

Dr. Cook opened by saying that the title of his talk, “The Long Goodbye,” might seem strange to some since the US still seems to be increasingly involved in the Middle East, and there is significant turmoil in the region at the moment. President Obama’s speech at the UN General Assembly not long ago focused primarily on Middle Eastern nations, reinforcing the perception that US involvement in the Middle East are stronger than ever. For many years the United States has been the dominant power in the Middle Eastern region, but, contrary to common perception, we are gradually returning to a policy of lesser involvement.

The United States’ interest in the Middle East since the Cold War has stemmed from three strategic goals: to ensure the free flow of energy in and out of the region, to keep Israel secure, and to ensure that no other country in the region becomes dominant. Now, however, things are looking different.

There are three new forces driving a shift in Middle Eastern policy. The first is that the United States is focusing on becoming energy independent. Since oil has been a driving force in the country’s involvement in the Middle Eastern region, the current changes in energy politics suggest there is a way out of the Middle East for the US. Both fracking and renewable energy are increasing in popularity, pointing toward a bipartisan shift in the American public towards embracing the importance of the idea of self-sufficiency.

Another driving factor toward energy independence is that the US is still the main security presence in the Persian Gulf area, despite the fact that many other countries use Middle Eastern oil. The US is unwilling to continue putting itself on the line to secure the Gulf alone. India imports 63% of its oil from the Persian Gulf area, but it is not prepared to join in securing the region. Other countries besides the US need to take on some of those security responsibilities if importing Middle Eastern oil is going to remain a viable option for the US.

Another impetus for US withdrawal is that Arab nations are not interested in US involvement, and it would be a negative move to force more involvement on them. The Arab Spring meant a transition for several Middle Eastern countries, but not necessarily a transition to democracy, as so many in the West had hoped. The US believed that since many of the protest movements in the Middle East region were fighting for things such as independence and freedom of speech that those protestors wanted the same things that Americans wanted. However, from a Middle Eastern perspective, the West and the US play a very small role in their efforts and Arabs do not want to be seen as part of the West.

The Middle East is a region in transition and a place where many countries are struggling to find their identity. They want outside influence to be minimal. Dr. Cook said that when he was in Tahrir Square during the recent Egyptian protests he heard little mention of the US. The US does not have as much leverage as we might think – which, Dr. Cook hastened to add, is not a bad thing. We do not want to be seen as a driving force for the change taking place in Middle Eastern countries, because that might put that change in a negative light. When people are fighting to define themselves and write their own history, they care very little about what the US secretary of state might say.

The US minimizing its participation in the Middle East is a popular move with the American public, as well. The American people do not want to be involved in the region, especially after several drawn-out wars. Take the conflict in Syria: President Obama had been limiting US involvement in that civil war, and when it came to a question of whether or not to send troops, he sent the issue to Congress for a vote. Dr. Cook argues that this was a strategic move on the president’s part because he knew that this would delay the decision-making process. During that time 90% of calls and letters sent to members of Congress were against entering the war in Syria.

These combined factors indicate that the US should, and will, lessen its involvement in the Middle East.   The United States will not withdraw its presence completely, but it will realign strategically and move toward the multi-lateralization of security in the Middle East.

 

Speaker Biography

 

Steven A. Cook is Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He is an expert on Arab and Turkish politics, as well as US-Middle East policy. Dr. Cook is the author of The Struggle for Egypt: From Nasser to Tahrir Square (Oxford University Press, Fall 2011), which won the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s gold medal for best book on the Middle East in 2012, and Ruling But Not Governing: The Military and Political Development in Egypt, Algeria, and Turkey (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007). Dr. Cook has published widely in a variety of foreign policy journals, opinion magazines, and newspapers. He currently writes the blog, “From the Potomac to the Euphrates.” Prior to joining CFR, Dr. Cook was a Research Fellow at the Brookings Institution (2001-2002) and a Soref Research Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (1995-96). Dr. Cook holds a BA in international studies from Vassar College, an MA in international relations from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and both an MA and PhD in political science from the University of Pennsylvania. He speaks Arabic and Turkish.