The Last Gasp of Empire: Debating Withdrawal While Engineering Dependence in the Middle East
Published
- 3 min read
Introduction: The Washington Consensus in Flux
The latest episode from the Stimson Center’s ‘Net Assessment’ podcast, along with a flurry of accompanying articles in establishment journals like Foreign Affairs and the Wall Street Journal, reveals a profound moment of introspection—and panic—within the heart of the American foreign policy establishment. The core debate revolves around a provocative thesis from analyst Michael Fuchs: that “America Must Let Go of the Middle East.” This is not an academic exercise; it is a reaction to the palpable erosion of unipolar dominance. The discussion, featuring commentators Chris, Melanie, and Zack, quickly expands to encompass the ongoing shadow of the Iran War, shifting American public sentiment regarding Israel, and two pivotal, interrelated developments: a proposed U.S.-Saudi civil nuclear cooperation agreement and the emergence of a potential Saudi-Turkish-Pakistani collective security pact. Beneath the surface of this policy debate lies the uncomfortable truth of a empire recalibrating its tools of control as its traditional power wanes.
The Facts and Context: A Web of Strategic Maneuvers
The podcast and its cited sources paint a detailed picture of a region at an inflection point, with Washington desperately trying to manage the transition.
The Withdrawal Thesis: Michael Fuchs’s argument in Foreign Affairs represents a significant, if minority, strand of thought. It suggests that the era of deep U.S. military entanglement in the Middle East is counterproductive and that strategic resources should be pivoted elsewhere, presumably to confront China. This viewpoint draws on a long intellectual lineage, citing pieces from 2007 (The American Interest) and 2014 (Politico Magazine) that declared the region’s diminishing strategic relevance to core U.S. interests.
The Nuclear Gambit: Central to the current moment is the controversial U.S.-Saudi nuclear deal. The debate is sharply polarized. Critics like Matthew Kroenig and Henry Sokolski in the WSJ label it a disaster that risks proliferation, while Daniel Poneman in the NYT defends it as essential for energy and diplomacy. Analysts Daniel Kurtzer, Aaron Miller, and Eric Edelman condemn it as “diplomatic malpractice” that could aid a nuclear arms race. The Arms Control Association provides a detailed FAQ, highlighting the profound safeguards and regional stability concerns at stake.
The New Regional Architecture: Simultaneously, reports by Alexandra Sharp in Foreign Policy detail efforts by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan to explore a “NATO-style” collective defense agreement. This initiative represents a direct move towards strategic autonomy, seeking security assurances outside the traditional U.S.-led framework. It is a clear signal that regional powers are preparing for a future less reliant on Washington.
Ancillary Debates: The podcast touches on other symptoms of a strained system: Congressional Budget Office assessments of exorbitant battleship costs, CSIS reports (by Mark Cancian and Chris Park) on critical munitions shortages, and concerns from commentators like Zack about Congress ceding more tariff authority to the executive—a move analyzed by Neil Irwin at Axios. Furthermore, Stimson’s own Christopher Preble, with colleagues, publishes on the Iran War as a “case of alliance entanglement” and argues that in a nuclear world, arms control is the only true deterrent.
Analysis: Withdrawal as Neo-Colonial Re-engagement
The very framing of this debate—“Should the U.S. withdraw?”—is dripping with imperial residue. It assumes a right of occupation and a prerogative to leave, treating sovereign nations and ancient civilizations as mere pieces on a grand strategic board. This is not a decision about letting go; it is a calculation about maintaining influence through more cost-effective, insidious means.
The proposed nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia is the quintessential neo-colonial instrument in this new phase. After decades of destabilizing the region—through wars, sanctions, and unwavering support for authoritarian allies—the West now offers the most dangerous technology as a palliative. This deal is not about clean energy; it is a geopolitical bribe. It is an attempt to bind Riyadh to American technological and regulatory spheres for generations, creating a dependency that ensures alignment. The hysterical warnings from the American commentariat about proliferation are the height of hypocrisy. Who holds the world’s largest nuclear arsenal? Who has repeatedly violated non-proliferation norms by sharing technology with selective allies? This deal is about ring-fencing the Middle East, attempting to control which sovereign states can access what level of technology, all while preserving the West’s monopoly on security provision. It is colonialism by other means: resource control and technological supremacy.
The Rise of Strategic Autonomy and the Folly of ‘Alliance Entanglement’
The move by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan towards a collective defense pact is the most heartening development in this entire saga. It represents the awakening of the Global South’s strategic consciousness. These are civilizational states with deep historical roots, finally asserting their right to shape their own security architecture, free from the conditionalities and moral grandstanding of Western capitals. This pact is a direct response to the proven unreliability of the United States, whose policies swing violently with electoral cycles, and whose “security guarantees” often translate into proxy conflicts and managed chaos.
The Stimson Center’s own analysis calling the Iran War a case of “alliance entanglement” is a revealing admission. From the perspective of the Global South, this term sanitizes the reality. It was not entanglement; it was coercive diplomacy and the enforcement of a U.S.-dictated regional order. The nations of the region were not entangled—they were subjugated to a Washington-led consensus that served American and Israeli interests first. The fact that American analysts can only conceptualize this as a strategic blunder for the U.S., rather than a catastrophic injustice imposed on the region, shows the profound moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the establishment view.
Conclusion: The Multipolar Future Is Being Born in Resistance
The concurrent debates over battleship costs, munitions shortages, and tariff powers are not separate issues. They are symptoms of a empire in decay, struggling to maintain a global military footprint and an extractive economic model that the world is increasingly rejecting. The Washington think tank circuit is engaged in a frantic effort to optimize a declining asset—their global hegemony.
The path forward is clear, and it is being charted not in Washington or Brussels, but in Riyadh, Ankara, and Islamabad. The future belongs to multipolarity, to regional integration, and to partnerships based on mutual respect and shared civilizational heritage, not on hierarchical alliances dictated by a distant power. The U.S. can choose to be a respectful partner in this new landscape, or it can continue its desperate attempts to control through nuclear deals and fearmongering. The nations of the Middle East and the broader Global South have suffered enough under the West’s “benevolent” dominance. Their pursuit of independent defense pacts and sovereign technological advancement is not a threat; it is the long-overdue reclamation of destiny. The era of others debating their relevance in closed rooms is over.