By Hao Gao
Four months since Hamas launched a brutal terror attack against Israel, the situation in the Middle East remains highly volatile. Regional adversaries – namely Iran and its proxies in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon – seek to utilize this opportunity to reshape the region in a manner favorable to their strategic interests. A new strategy based in offshore balancing will solve this security spiral in the Middle East because it will reduce American vulnerabilities and strengthen America’s capabilities to respond effectively to emerging threats.
The Houthi Rebels in Yemen, supported by Iran and aligned with Hamas, intensified attacks against any merchant ships destined for Israel, endangering commercial shipping in the Red Sea. In response, the United States, along with its allies, deployed naval assets to protect shipping lanes in Operation Prosperity Guardian and conducted airstrikes against Houthi positions.
Iran itself also participated in the attacks against the United States, launching barrages of missiles and rockets at the U.S. military installations. In the most recent attack, three U.S. soldiers were killed and more than 30 injured. In response to these attacks, the Pentagon vowed to retaliate by striking Iranian targets in Syria and Iraq.
The death of U.S. military personnel deserves a proportional retaliatory response to demonstrate our resolve in the face of an unjustified attack. However, the United States should be clear-eyed at the potential risks of escalation. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton, in his most recent interview, called for a “disproportionate” retaliation to “send a message,” implying strikes against Iranian targets of significance deep inside its territory. Bolton’s remark exemplifies a widespread sentiment among specific factions of policy establishments that favors escalations and confrontation with regional adversaries. In implementing retaliatory responses, some believe that these strikes will be enough to deter Iran from committing further revisionist aggressions.
Despite the brutal nature of Hamas’s terror attack on Israel and the potential role of Iran in it, the United States must not allow emotion to interfere with crafting a sustainable Middle East policy that serves the interests of the United States. In 2013, Dr. Stephen Walt defined core U.S. interests as to “make sure no one else” dominates this energy-rich region, and his definition still resonates with today’s precarious reality. The United States should understand that regional powers want to prevent the emergence of a regional hegemon as much as we do, and they can do a better job at containment with our assistance.
On the other hand, America needs to realize that an increased military presence places more U.S. military assets and personnel at unnecessary risk. Rather than deploying more military personnel in the Middle East, the United States should revert to “offshore balancing,” an old but effective strategy that combines the regional balance of power with a rapid reaction force ready to intervene at critical moments.
Offshore balancing against Iran requires the United States to support aspiring regional powers through various security partnerships to counter the influence of Iran through diplomatic and security assistance. On the military strategy side, the United States should withdraw most of the approximately 40,000 troops from the Middle East. Remaining troops mainly provide security assistance, such as training and advising strategies, to regional security partners.
Some U.S. forces would continue to train and equip for fighting in the Middle East. These troops will return to the Middle East when crises threaten critical U.S. interests. With these conditions set, U.S. diplomats should negotiate with security partners on basing and status of forces agreements to enable a smooth return when needed, and the Pentagon will be responsible for preparing options to move mission-specific forces into the region quickly.
An “offshore balancing” strategy is not mere fiction on paper. Instead, it was used to be the foundation of the Carter Doctrine and the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force. The doctrine, which called for “the kind of determination and strength that will enable our friends to help us assert ourselves,” became the guiding principle for Operation Desert Storm, led to the defeat of Saddam Hussein, and prevented Iraq from attempting to dominate the region.
This approach offers several advantages. Firstly, it reduces the likelihood of U.S. troops being targeted in Iran-backed militia attacks, as their presence would be temporary and focused on specific, high-threat scenarios. Secondly, it allows for a more flexible and dynamic response to the Middle East’s rapidly changing political and military landscape. In the event of a significant threat, this rapid reaction force could quickly intervene and deliver a destructive response to our adversary and then withdraw, thereby not only saving American allies but also minimizing the exposure of U.S. troops under rocket attacks.
Furthermore, reducing the permanent military presence in the Middle East could also improve the U.S. image in the region. A 2009 Gallup poll shows that citizens of several Middle Eastern countries consider the U.S. decision to pull out of Iraq more favorable. This position is substantiated by the Iraqi government to this day. A disproportionate airstrike that has the potential for escalation certainly will not do any favor in improving the U.S. image in the Middle East. It addresses one of the common grievances local populations cite—the presence of foreign troops on their soil. By shifting to a rapid reaction model, the U.S. can demonstrate its commitment to respecting national sovereignties, potentially improving relationships with regional governments and populations.
While the challenges in the Middle East are complex, a shift in the U.S. military strategy could represent a more sustainable and effective approach to ensuring regional stability and safeguarding American interests. By moving away from permanent troop deployments and towards a rapid reaction force, the United States can maintain its regional strategic capabilities while potentially reducing the catalysts for conflict and anti-American sentiment. Reverting to the offshore balancing strategy can lead to a more stable and peaceful Middle East that ensures the interest of the United States and our allies.
Hao Gao is an undergraduate student at George Washington University, majoring in international affairs. He is particularly interested in U.S. Grand Strategy. He is the co-founder of the GW chapter of the John Quincy Adams Society and a former intern at the Cato Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy team.
Leave a Reply