Why the US could not shake off the Middle East

Lessons from a pivot to Asia that never comes.

- Janan Ganesh

US President Donald Trump with other leaders as they gather for a group photo at the Gaza Peace Summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, on Oct 13. While much is made of Mr Trump's personal quest for a Nobel Peace Prize, nations have egos too. Perhaps the US chooses to move mountains in the Middle East because it is one of the few places where it still can, says the writer. Almost all the countries there need something from the US PHOTO: EPA

(EPA)

It is 80 years old now but still one of the more arresting images of the photographic age. On board the USS Quincy, an ailing Franklin Roosevelt meets King Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia (or Ibn Saud, as the Anglo-American world knew him). And so begins, or at least deepens, the US role in the Middle East. Consider it FDR’s parting gift.

“You shouldn't have,” some would say, including men as dissimilar as Mr Barack Obama and Mr Donald Trump.

Both of those presidents were first elected as sceptics of American involvement in the region. The botched occupation of Iraq was just one reason to turn elsewhere. At home, green tech and a shale bonanza were lessening the need for Gulf oil. Besides, there was China to worry about.

Well, here is a progress report on that deprioritisation of the Middle East. In June, the US attacked Iranian nuclear facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer. Mr Trump has just agreed on the first phase of a delicate Israeli-Palestinian peace, which entails an International Stabilisation Force in Gaza. At the bare minimum, the US will have to act as a convener and arm-twister of the regional actors, for an indefinite period. There are still some 40,000 US service members in the region.