Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Bye-Bye, Middle East?

PARIS – For some time now, a certain strategic vision has been gaining traction: the United States is becoming energy-independent, paving the way for its political retreat from the Middle East and justifying its strategic “pivot” toward Asia. This view seems intuitively correct, but is it?

Energy-hungry America has long depended on the global market to meet domestic demand. In 2005, the US imported 60% of the energy that it consumed. Since then, however, the share of imports has decreased, and it should continue to do so. The US is expected to become energy self-sufficient in 2020, and to become an oil exporter by 2030.

This scenario would grant the US three enormous advantages. It would enhance US economic competitiveness, especially relative to Europe, given the lower costs involved in the extraction of shale gas. It would also reduce America’s exposure to growing unrest in the Arab world. Finally, it would increase the relative vulnerability of America’s main strategic rival, China, which is becoming increasingly dependent on Middle East energy supplies.

These facts obviously need to be taken seriously, but their implications for US foreign policy in the Middle East should not be too hastily drawn. Above all, though energy dependence is a key element of US policy in the region, it is far from being the only factor. Israel’s security and the desire to contain Iran are equally important.

Moreover, the Middle East’s role in the global geopolitics of energy will grow in the coming decades, making it difficult to see how a superpower like the US could simply walk away from the region. Within the next 15 years, OPEC countries will account for 50% of global oil production, compared to only 42% today. Furthermore, the country on which this increase will most likely hinge is Iraq.

Could the US ignore a country that in roughly ten years will become the world’s second-largest oil exporter, generating more than $200 billion annually in revenue, while increasingly being dominated by an authoritarian Shia regime that is close to Iran? Would it withdraw in the face of the consequent strategic threat to its three allies – Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel – in the region?

Such a possibility seems even more far-fetched as long as the Iranian nuclear crisis remains unresolved and the Syrian crisis continues to widen the region’s Shia-Sunni divide (reflected in increased tension between Turkey and Iran). Even as US President Barack Obama was visiting Asia in November – a trip meant to underscore America’s “pivot” – he was forced to devote considerable time and attention to mediating a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

Indeed, if oil were truly America’s only or paramount interest in the Middle East, its special relationship with Israel would be mystifying, given the harm that it implies for US interests among Arab oil exporters. Even when its energy dependence on the Middle East was at its peak, the US rarely altered its policy of support for Israel.

It is also important to bear in mind that in 1973, the US suffered less from the OPEC oil embargo than Europe did, even though America, which had resupplied Israel in its war with Egypt and Syria in October of that year, was the primary target. In the end, America’s position in the region strengthened after Egypt became a US ally and made peace with Israel.

China’s growing interest in the Middle East also decreases the likelihood of an American withdrawal. The US will remain concerned about ensuring the security of energy supplies for its Asian allies, which, like China, are increasingly dependent on the region’s oil exporters.

Nevertheless, while an American withdrawal from the Middle East seems highly unlikely, US exposure to the region will indeed decline; as that happens, America’s role there will probably become more subdued – and perhaps more cynical. Its involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will likely be limited to maintaining the status quo rather than seeking a comprehensive settlement.

This stance – suggested by America’s opposition to granting Palestine observer-state status at the United Nations – would amount to an admission by the US that it has given up on the creation of two states in the Middle East. That would certainly satisfy Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the Palestinian fringe seeking to weaken the Palestinian Authority. But it would fully vindicate those who believe that Obama is more a man of good will than a visionary.

  • Contact us to secure rights


  • Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (6)

    Please login or register to post a comment

    1. CommentedPaulo Sérgio

      The chief rival of the US, and the USA's current complimenting economic force in the world today will both increasingly purchase oil from the Middle East, as will they both source it from places such as Russia and some African nations. The US could not possibly pivot holistically towards Asia without a comprehensive engagement of the nations of the Middle East.

      I think the entire "US pivot towards Asia" talk is somewhat misleading in that the US will still need to engage traditional partners all over the world in what is shaping up to be the focal point of the world for this century. US engagement of Africa, for example, should also grow in support of its Asian travels.

    2. CommentedLeo Arouet

      Una retirada de Estados Unidos en Oriente Medio va ser algo más sutil que algo drástico. Es poco creíble que abandone a sus aliados en esta región.

    3. CommentedJake Lopata

      Pretty sure he is mentioning how the U.S. will be able to satisfy their energy needs by importing energy from North American Counties (mainly Canada and Mexico) and production in the U.S.

    4. CommentedZsolt Hermann

      The question in the title, and most of the discourse in the article only makes sense in the framework of a fragmented, polarized world, where individuals and nations could seemingly choose to connect, disconnect, choose Friends, name enemies, making connections based on their subjective self interest.
      Just as the article implies how American foreign policy is shaped based on their actual self interest, choosing whether to support or not, engage or disengage, move here or there, etc., has become obsolete and futile.
      This whole paradigm has fallen apart as the world has become global, interconnected and interdependent.
      Energy is just a small part of this inter-dependency. Even if shale gas turns out to be the miracle Americans hope it is (and this is still a big question), they cannot become self sufficient as today nobody can.
      Both physically and virtually humanity has become a single system. The whole basis of the American Dream, lifestyle necessitates them being involved and present everywhere, they would collapse if they had to close themselves into the American market, or having connections only with "friends" alone. There is simply no country, or small group of countries that can stand alone today.
      The Middle East or any other region to the US is like faraway relatives, family members, even if they try to close the door, the relatives will decide to come for a visit, and they might come with unpleasant surprises.
      Unless people all over the world learn how to live, and mutually cooperate in this global world, everybody will start receiving very unpleasant surprises from unexpected visitors. Nobody can turn away or close doors anymore.

    5. CommentedCarol Maczinsky

      It does not appear to my that the American value system and the authoritatian nations Turkey and Saudi Arabia in particular are compatible.