In the opening lines of the newly released National Defense Strategy, the Trump administration defines an “America First” foreign policy as one in which the U.S. government puts the concrete interests of Americans first. The NDS calls for America’s allies and partners to “take primary responsibility for their own defense,” thereby reducing the burden borne by American taxpayers and servicemembers. In this, Trump is fulfilling his promise to reduce U.S. military commitments, especially in the Middle East, responding to Americans’ frustration with two costly and futile wars in the region. Yet, with the Board of Peace, Trump is taking on a massive and unnecessary burden, and appears poised to repeat the mistakes of his predecessors.
A leaked State Department resolution on the Board of Peace illustrates that Trump intends to rule over Gaza. A U.S.-backed governing authority would assume full legislative, executive, and judicial control over the territory. Trump is chairman for life, with other key members of his administration serving on the Executive Board; so far, 26 other countries have agreed to join. Yet the resolution “makes clear the United States is in charge of Gaza, with all other countries and entities playing a support role,” according to the former U.S. consul in Jerusalem, Michael Ratney.
Many have criticized the Board of Peace for undermining the UN or for robbing the Palestinians of agency over their own fate. It is unsurprising that Trump exhibits minimal respect for the UN or for the fundamental rights of Palestinians. But by Trump’s own rubric, the Board of Peace is a mistake: The U.S. shouldering the full responsibility for establishing security and rebuilding Gaza is a direct contradiction of his stated doctrine.
As the NDS articulates, the U.S. should prioritize actual threats to the security and well-being of Americans. Although peace between Israel and Palestine matters to American interests, Gaza poses no such direct threat. While stability in Gaza represents a core security interest for U.S. partners like Israel and Egypt, as the NDS says, “a threat to a person halfway around the world is [not] the same as to an American.” The NDS asserts that Israel is a “model ally,” which has demonstrated its capacity to defend itself; it also states that America’s Arab partners are “increasingly willing and able to do more” to secure their own region. But instead of incentivizing the region to take primary responsibility for Gaza, Trump’s Gaza plan does the opposite.
Moreover, the Board of Peace undermines another institution that the U.S. could and should use for burden-shifting: the United Nations. While there are many valid criticisms of the UN, America’s need for this institution will grow as the world moves away from unipolarity. A UN that returns to its original mandate of peace and security could prove pivotal in further shifting the burden of global security away from the American taxpayer. Building new ad hoc organizations centered on the U.S., however, deepens American overextension while providing the illusion of control.
There is a better path in the Middle East. Trump should encourage Middle Eastern countries to develop their own autonomous security architecture, a structure where the U.S. could remain a partner but no longer the lynchpin.
During his first term, the Trump administration pushed for the establishment of the Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA). Yet, at that time, several U.S. partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council feared that MESA would institutionalize antagonism toward Iran that would only heighten tensions and make war more likely. In the recent context of increased Israeli attacks on regional powers, including Qatar, America’s partners are feeling that Israel, rather than Iran, presents the greater threat to the region’s security.
In contrast, a fully inclusive regional security architecture, as proposed by the Quincy Institute’s Better Order Project, would serve American interests far better while ensuring peace and security in the region. This arrangement would be fully inclusive, meaning it would include all Arab states as well as Turkey and Iran—and ultimately Israel as well. Israel would be included following the establishment of a state of Palestine, or the granting of equal rights for Palestinians in all of Israel–Palestine. The inclusion of Israel—which would mean that a country like Iran also would have to accept Israel’s involvement or lose its own role in the architecture—would offer Israel the strongest security guarantee yet from the region. In return, Israel would have to end its occupation of Palestinian territory. This is essential for U.S. interests, not only because Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine would finally heal a festering wound that has driven conflict in the region for decades, but also because that wound is a key reason why the United States repeatedly gets dragged back into the region.
For the security architecture to develop into a functioning institution, the U.S. would need to allow the region to take the lead in its development while anchoring it in the UN Security Council rather than in American guarantees.
The U.S. spent decades investing in the abilities of Israel and our Arab partners to defend themselves. As the NDS states, “our allies and partners must shoulder their fair share of the burden of our collective defense. This is the right thing for them to do, especially after decades of the United States subsidizing their defense.” At present, the U.S. continues to subsidize Israel’s security by providing $3.8 billion a year in assistance, which increased to $17.9 billion in the first year after the October 7 attacks. With the most powerful military in the region, and with the only nuclear weapons in the Middle East, Israel is more than capable of defending itself. How much more is the U.S. about to spend on stabilizing Gaza? Experts project the cost of reconstruction at $70 billion. If the U.S. steps forward as the primary actor responsible for Gaza, how much of that burden will fall on the American taxpayer?
Many of the principles put forward in Trump’s National Defense Strategy are much-needed corrections to America’s past strategic follies. But articulating better paths has never been the challenge—following through on those pathways has. Thus far, Trump’s actions in the Middle East do not match his stated ambitions or the strategic discipline his National Defense Strategy demands.
Read the full article here
