Desert Shield of the Republic? A Realist Case for Abandoning the Middle East

Abstract

Political realists disagree on what America should “do” and “be” in the Middle East. All are skeptical towards extravagant geopolitical projects to transform the region. Yet they differ over whether hegemony in the Gulf and its wider environs is worth the substantial investment of blood and treasure. Hegemonic “primacy realism” finds the commitment effective and affordable, and that Washington should stay to stabilize the region to ensure a favorable concentration of power. There is an alternative “shield of the republic” realism, however, which views the Middle East as an unruly place that entangles and corrupts, involving interests that are either manageable from a remove or only generated by being there in the first place. In this article, we lay out the latter position, arguing that the Gulf is increasingly peripheral to U.S. national interests while imposing high costs. The region is losing its salience grand strategically, entanglement has damaged republican liberties, and the calculus of whether continued hegemony is “worth it” has shifted decisively towards the downside. The time for abandonment has come.