How about some burden-sharing in the Middle East?

Why one rule for Europe and another for Israel?

If you can afford it, please consider supporting my writing by becoming a paid subscriber.

In order to prevent this from becoming the ‘Iran War Explained’ newsletter, I’ve started doing separate daily updates about it in addition to my main content. Here is the latest. Most of each of the updates is paywalled, so please upgrade to read them.

One of the things I find weird about Donald Trump fighting a war against Iran on behalf of Israel is that Trump was supposed to be the guy who puts “America First”.

If you try to justify the current conflict through its cost/benefit impact on the United States, then it is extremely hard to do so. Whatever you think of Trump’s foreign policy, this makes it different from many of the things that he does.

For instance, although I think his new “Shield of the Americas” agreement to lend U.S. military assets to Latin American countries so that they can kill cartel members is not going to do much to stem the drug trade, I still understand the logic behind it. Drugs kill American citizens, so let’s kill the people who make drugs. It at least makes sense.

The same might be said about another perennial Trump policy - less U.S. support for Europe’s defense. This one I’m actually on board with if it’s managed in a responsible fashion, giving Europe time to develop its own geopolitical muscle. And even if Trump pushes too far and too fast, I still at least get where he is coming from. Defending Europe costs America money, Europe is rich, so why should America pay? Again, there is a logic to it.

On the other hand, I see no such logic in Trump’s involvement in the war against Iran. For instance, I’m not really sure how to finish any of the following sentences:

1. Iran was building missiles which threaten Israel, so America must…

2. Iran may at some point in the future have a nuclear weapons program which produces a weapon capable of hitting Israel, so America must…

3. Iran oppresses its own people but also there is no real way to topple its regime without ground troops that we are not going to send, so America must…

I think that the flaw in reasoning here becomes particularly clear when you compare the situation in the Middle East to the situation in Europe.

Russia, as you may have noticed, has missiles that can reach Europe and America; a nuclear weapons program to furnish warheads for it; and also oppresses its own people something fierce. It’s also actively involved in a war on the borders of a political entity, the European Union, which is one of the United States’ premiere sources of trade, investment, and diplomatic and military support.

That entity is indeed rich, and even though it suffers from some severe problems of coordination, it should over time easily become able to contain Russia. All the United States needs to do, at most, is continue to provide a nuclear umbrella and a military backstop for at least as long as it takes the EU to develop its own capabilities. Right now that is some way in the future, but Trump is pursuing a strategy of disengagement anyway, hoping that this will push the different countries in the EU to resolve some of their coordination problems.

Now consider the Middle East. Iran poses no conceivable direct threat to the United States, and only a fairly minimal threat to Israel, which is not a particularly important source of trade, investment, or military support for the United States. Iran can certainly take action to interrupt the flow of oil, which is very important, and it can harm the Gulf States, which are moderately important American allies, primarily because of oil.

But another thing that you notice about Iran and the coalition of states opposing it is that, as in Europe, there is a vast disparity of wealth between them. Israel and the Arab states who generally oppose Iran vastly outstrip Iran in terms of military power and wealth. Sure, they suffer from coordination problems and mutual antagonisms, but there is no reason in principle why they shouldn’t be able to sort those out in pursuit of a common security goal.

So why doesn’t the United States insist on burden-sharing in the Middle East?

As in Europe, doing so might push Israel and the Arab states to solve some of their coordination problems. Because it knows it can just rely on the U.S. to provide for its security, Israel can currently afford the luxury of having an extremely right-wing government pushing for maximal security gains at the expense of developing good relations with the Gulf states.

A burden-sharing approach from Washington might instead persuade the Israeli government to make pragmatic compromises - including progress on the plight of the Palestinians - in the service of putting together a regional anti-Iran coalition. That might be uncomfortable for Israeli politicians and involve some element of risk, but that’s life - welcome to geopolitics!

Burden-sharing in the Middle East would also save the United States a lot of money. We don’t know what the eventual cost of this war is going to be, but it’s undoubtedly going to cost many multiples of the annual cost of keeping U.S. troops in Europe. It saps resources from more important priorities, particularly preventing another great power like Russia or China from becoming a serious threat to American interests.

As figures in both the Republican and Democratic parties take stock of how unbalanced U.S. policy in the Middle East remains, I think they’re going to be increasingly attracted to burden-sharing ideas like this.

The bottom line is that Israel and the Arab states are rich, militarily powerful, and their rival is easily containable. They ought to do the work themselves, not keep demanding that the entirety of Western foreign policy be subordinated to their own needs. We’ve got bigger problems to be worrying about.