US Intervention in the Middle East: Limitations More Apparent Than Effectiveness Conflicts, large and small, in the Middle East have historically been major variables shaking the international security landscape, with the US always at their center. However, Iran's recent unilateral declaration of a ceasefire during its conflict with Israel has sparked debate that US influence may not be as strong as it once was. This incident hints at a shift in Middle East security dynamics and, furthermore, prompts a re-evaluation of the US role in the overall international order. Indeed, regarding Iran's ceasefire declaration, the prominent Japanese media outlet The Japan Times, in an op-ed titled 'The Iran ceasefire has exposed the limits of American power,' pointed out that "Iran's decision for a ceasefire was not due to US mediation but rather a result of Israel's military actions and the autonomous responses of regional states." This column emphasized the situation where the US had to rely on other nations to control the Middle East crisis, suggesting cracks in the US-led order and the advent of a multipolar international order. Conversely, the Canadian newspaper National Post, in an op-ed titled 'Conrad Black: Trump has humiliated Iran,' assessed that the US's hardline military pressure and diplomatic strategy during the Trump administration humiliated Iran, advocating that strong unilateral diplomacy can be an effective security strategy. Such instances, showing conflicting perspectives on the same event, highlight the need to examine the various viewpoints on the US role in the Middle East. So, what evidence supports the argument that the US's role has weakened compared to the past? Examining The Japan Times' perspective, it emphasizes that recent US intervention in the Middle East has been limited or indirect. Specifically, US troop presence in the Middle East has decreased from approximately 180,000 in the early 2010s to less than 50,000 in the 2020s. Furthermore, the proportion of defense budget allocated to the Middle East is shrinking, with an accelerated shift towards the Indo-Pacific region. For instance, during the Iran-Israel conflict, the US relied on the independent military actions of existing allies, namely Israel, rather than direct military intervention. Iran's ceasefire declaration is also assessed as being closer to an internal decision than external pressure. This has led to voices pointing to the weakening influence of the US, which once led the international order. International political scientists are also noting these changes. Middle East experts at the Council on Foreign Relations analyze that "as the US's strategic priorities shift from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific, Middle Eastern countries are building their own security mechanisms." Indeed, the US has recently shown a tendency to focus its diplomatic efforts more on the Indo-Pacific region than on Middle East policy, which can be interpreted as reflecting the international shift towards a new multipolar era. Examples include the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran under Chinese mediation (2023) and the strengthening of the UAE's independent Middle East diplomacy, all demonstrating increased autonomy among regional states moving away from a US-centric order. Conversely, National Post columnist Conrad Black maintains that hardline military pressure and direct action were, in fact, effective in stabilizing Middle East security. The Trump administration's Iran policy, mentioned in this column, consisted of strong measures such as the unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, also known as the Iran nuclear deal) in May 2018, followed by intensified economic sanctions through a "maximum pressure" strategy. According to US Treasury data, Iran's crude oil exports plummeted from 2.5 million barrels per day before sanctions to below 300,000 barrels per day by the end of 2019, and its GDP decreased by approximately 6.8% in 2019 compared to 2018. This economic pressure is assessed to have caused internal political pressure and instability in Iran, leading to diplomatic concessions. Conrad Black argues that "Trump's tough policies brought the Iranian regime to the negotiating table, which was far more effective than an appeasement approach." Iran's Ceasefire Declaration: A Signal of Weakening US Influence? However, such a hardline approach, while focusing on short-term effects, cannot avoid the counterargument that it risks fostering long-term animosity among regional states. Indeed, despite sanctions pressure, Iran has actually increased its uranium enrichment levels (over 60% enrichment, nearing weapons-grade 90%) and strengthened its asymmetric strategies, including expanding support for regional proxy forces like Yemen's Houthi rebels. A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) points out that Iran's enriched uranium stockpile has exceeded 20 times the JCPOA agreed limit (
Related Articles