The Heritage Foundation
Our Vision

Building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

Middle East

The Issue

The Middle East, one of the world’s most volatile and conflict-ridden regions, continues to pose some of the most dangerous threats to U.S. security. Regrettably, the Obama Administration has failed to formulate effective policies for addressing the challenges posed by the rising power of Iran, the turbulence of the “Arab Spring,” and the chronic Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Iran

Iran’s hostile regime has been one of the chief beneficiaries of the political turmoil that has convulsed the Middle East during the “Arab Spring,” which distracted the United States and other countries from the ongoing standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. The dramatic events diverted international attention from Tehran’s stubborn defiance of repeated U.N. Security Council resolutions on the nuclear issue. There is a distinct danger that Tehran will conclude that growing regional instability is tilting the balance of power in its favor and will give it greater latitude to press ahead with its nuclear weapons program. This could result in a preventive strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and, if Iran actually attains a nuclear weapon, greater instability and the possibility of a nuclear war in the volatile Middle East.

The “Arab Spring”

The so-called Arab Spring, which began in Tunisia in December 2010, turned into a long hot summer and an angry autumn in much of the Arab Middle East. While pro-Western rulers were toppled in Tunisia and Egypt, entrenched dictatorships have fought back hard in Libya and Syria. Although the initial pro-democracy impetus of the popular demonstrations was encouraging, Islamist extremists and other radical forces are positioned to exploit the ensuing political turmoil, power vacuums, and economic disruptions.

The Administration’s hesitant and inconsistent responses to the unfolding populist uprisings have made the situation worse. The Administration quickly abandoned longtime ally President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt while equivocating for five months before calling for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, despite the fact that Assad’s regime has a much worse human rights record, remains a leading state sponsor of terrorism, and is Iran’s chief ally in the region.

Rather than develop a long-term strategy to advance American interests and freedom in the Middle East, the Obama Administration has focused on the short-term symptoms of dysfunctional dictatorships. It plunged into an ill-considered war in Libya to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions aimed at easing a humanitarian crisis, but the Syrian crisis, which involved a regime that posed a much greater threat to U.S. interests, received little attention, in part because Syria received greater backing from Russia in the U.N. Security Council. The United States should go to war only to defend vital national interests, not at the whim of the U.N. Security Council.

The Obama Administration’s policy toward Syria, like its policy toward Iran, has been flawed by wishful thinking about the prospects for diplomatically persuading a hostile dictatorship to stop repressing its own people and supporting terrorism. The Administration was slow to condemn the Assad regime for its crimes against Syrians, was slow to ramp up sanctions on the regime, and dragged its feet before finally concluding that Assad had lost legitimacy as a leader. It should have been clear that the Assad regime was illegitimate from the beginning.

At the same time, the Administration launched a war in Libya, where no vital U.S. national interests were threatened, without a clear military plan or exit strategy. The Administration’s short-sighted effort to score a quick and easy military victory over Colonel Muammar Qadhafi’s regime failed to end the threat to civilians in “days not weeks,” as President Obama promised. Instead, Qadhafi fought on for seven months in a brutal civil war that killed an estimated 50,000 Libyans before he was captured and killed in late October 2011. Meanwhile, the Administration turned the military mission over to NATO and “led from behind,” confusing allies and adversaries about the U.S. commitment to a decisive victory. It also involved the U.S. in an open-ended military intervention in support of groups that were not adequately vetted and thus may not turn out to be friendly toward the United States. The public emergence of Islamist military commanders within Libya’s new regime and its declaration that Islamic law would be the basis for a new constitution have raised disturbing questions about the nature of Libya’s new rulers.

The Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

The chief barriers to peace are Palestinian terrorist attacks, not Israeli settlements. Many Israeli settlements are located in areas that eventually could be folded into Israel in exchange for equal amounts of Israeli territory transferred to Palestinian control, if and when borders are agreed upon in a final settlement. Yet when the Administration sought to revive the comatose peace process, which has been on American-supplied life support since the collapse of the 2000 Camp David summit, it made a settlement freeze the centerpiece of its strategy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government agreed to a temporary freeze of West Bank settlements but balked at halting housing construction in east Jerusalem, which is claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians. It was unwise for the Administration to push for a settlement freeze in Jerusalem that no Israeli government could agree to in the absence of rapid movement for a permanent peace settlement that would include ironclad provisions to ensure Israel’s security against terrorist attacks.

The Administration’s primary focus on the settlements guaranteed friction with Israel’s center-right government and hardened the Palestinian negotiating position, because Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas could not be seen as less opposed to settlements than is the United States. Despite the fact that Palestinians had negotiated for many years without gaining such a settlement freeze, Abbas has made it a condition for resuming talks. As long as this emphasis on halting construction in Jerusalem continues, there is likely to be little progress on negotiations because the Palestinians will sit back and let Washington extract concessions from Israel without feeling any need to reciprocate with concessions of their own. To make matters worse, Abbas chose to push for the United Nations to endorse unilateral Palestinian statehood rather than relying on negotiations with Israel, which is the only genuine path to peace.


Recommendations

  1. Work to create more pro-Western democracies and fewer dictatorships in the Middle East. In the wake of the “Arab Spring,” the United States has an opportunity to encourage and support the emergence of democratic governments that respect the rights of their own people, oppose terrorism, and reject the siren call of Islamist extremism. Washington should encourage incremental political and economic reforms by its friends, but it also must realize that the chief barriers to freedom in the Middle East remain hostile regimes in Iran and Syria and the many terrorist organizations that they support. The Obama Administration should step up its so far halfhearted support for peaceful opposition movements in Iran and Syria. Egypt will be a key factor in the future evolution of the Middle East. The U.S. should leverage any aid that it continues to give Egypt to ensure that whatever regime emerges in Cairo adheres to the terms of its peace treaty with Israel and respects the freedom and human rights of its own citizens, particularly those of women and Egypt’s Christian minority, which comprises about 10 percent of Egypt’s population.
  2. Put the U.S.–Israeli alliance first. The political instability that has swept the Arab Middle East in recent months has underscored the fact that Israel is America’s only reliable ally in the region. The Administration should rethink its Middle East priorities to enhance strategic cooperation and improve bilateral relations with the Middle East’s only genuine democracy.

  3. Adopt an agenda to bring freedom to Iran. The U.S. has wasted much time and effort, both in trying to engage Tehran on the nuclear issue and on secret talks to broker a regional solution in Afghanistan. Iran’s diplomatic strategy uses this engagement to buy time to advance its own regional agenda, press ahead with its nuclear program, and undermine the prospect of new sanctions. The Iranian regime is dangerous when left unchecked. Pushing back is the only way to counter the regime’s quest for regional dominance and weaken its hold on the Iranian people. The Administration should start by aggressively implementing existing sanctions, particularly against foreign oil companies involved in Iran’s oil and gas industry, which it held back from imposing to avoid friction with our allies and China. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has identified over 20 foreign companies involved in Iranian energy projects that should be penalized. A bipartisan congressional coalition has drafted the Iran Threat Reduction Act, which would require a more robust enforcement of energy sanctions against Iran and add new sanctions against foreign companies that buy oil or natural gas from entities controlled by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Washington should also press its allies to escalate their sanctions against Tehran and join international condemnation of Iran’s human rights abuses. In the long run, a free Iran is the best hope for peace and security in the volatile Middle East. Washington must make it clear that the United States stands with the Iranian people, not with the repressive regime of the ayatollahs.

    To deter Tehran from continuing its nuclear weapons efforts and exporting terrorism, the United States must maintain a credible military option. But the Obama Administration has downplayed the possible use of military force, as part of its failed engagement policy. Even after Iranian Revolutionary Guards were caught red-handed in a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in a Washington, D.C., restaurant, the Administration reacted complacently, promising to consult its allies and impose unspecified sanctions. This flaccid response to a terrorist plot that would have been an act of war will do little to deter Iranian aggression. The United States cannot go back to the failed pre-9/11 policy of treating international terrorism as a simple crime. It must hold Iran’s rogue regime accountable for its hostile policies and consider taking military action against suitable, feasible and acceptable Iranian targets. Continuing to ignore Iran’s state support for terrorism will only embolden Tehran to risk further terrorist acts and maintain its efforts to obtain a nuclear bomb, one of the world’s most terrifying weapons.

  4. Finish the job in Iraq. Although Iraq’s security situation has greatly improved, political progress has been slow. Iraqi leaders cobbled together a fragile coalition government after the 2010 elections, but it remains to be seen whether that government can address Iraq’s complex problems effectively. Washington should stand patiently by the Iraqi government to support its army and police, help it provide better services to Iraq’s people, mediate disputes between Kurds and Arabs, and prevent it from falling under Iran’s hostile influence. Regrettably, the Obama Administration failed to extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq past the December 31, 2011, deadline set by the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement. This failure greatly increases the risks that Iraq will be destabilized by Iranian meddling, terrorist attacks and festering sectarian tensions. The complete withdrawal of U.S. troops will severely cut U.S. support for Iraq’s security forces and undermine their ability to fight common enemies such as al-Qaeda in Iraq and pro-Iranian Shiite militias. Congress should exercise its oversight role and hold hearings on the security and foreign policy implications of the failed negotiations to extend U.S. troop presence in Iraq.
  5. Help Libya and Syria to make the difficult transition to stable democracies. Washington should continue to work with Libya’s new leaders to build a stable and effective democratic government. The U.S. also should provide technical help in repairing Libya’s damaged oil infrastructure to expedite the flow of its oil exports. Washington also should offer to train Libya’s military and intelligence personnel and cooperate with them to locate, secure and destroy Qadhafi’s stockpile of mustard gas, remove supplies of yellowcake uranium, and recover anti-aircraft missiles and other weapons to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists. On Syria, the U.S. should work with its European, Turkish, and Arab allies to increase international support and humanitarian aid for Syria’s opposition coalition and impose stronger economic and diplomatic sanctions against the regime, including freezing the assets of government officials that commit human rights abuses. Ultimately, the goal should be to force President Assad to step down and accept free and fair elections for a new government. The Syrian regime has spilled too much blood to reform itself, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton naively suggested early in the crisis.
  6. Push for incremental steps in Israeli–Palestinian peace negotiations, not rush to failure on a comprehensive settlement. Washington should continue its efforts to revive the stalled Israeli–Palestinian peace talks but should refocus its diplomacy by abandoning the Administration’s counterproductive push for an immediate freeze on settlements, which only encouraged the Palestinian Authority to hold back from negotiations. Instead of an all-out push for a comprehensive settlement, which is impossible as long as Hamas controls Gaza, Washington should press for incremental progress on security arrangements, confidence-building measures, and bolstering the welfare of Palestinians on the West Bank. This would help to shore up support for the Palestinian Authority at the expense of Hamas, which has transformed Gaza into a base for terrorism.

Facts & Figures

  • Iran’s Islamist regime is the word’s leading sponsor of terrorism. It has close ties to the Lebanon-based Hezbollah, which it organized and continues to finance, arm, and train. Tehran also supports a wide variety of Palestinian terrorist groups, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
  • Iranian leaders continue to deny the Holocaust and threaten to destroy Israel while proceeding to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.
  • Iran has the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East and has the capability to strike U.S. bases in the region, as well as Israel, Egypt, Turkey, and a growing number of other U.S. allies, using a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM).
  • Experts predict that Iran is likely to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that can reach the United States by 2015. Iran could develop a nuclear weapon before then. It already has enough enriched uranium to build four nuclear weapons if it is further enriched.
  • Iraq is an important ally, both against terrorism and in containing Iran. More Iraqis than Americans have been murdered by al-Qaeda, and the Iraqi government needs continued American assistance to finally defeat the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
  • While Israel remains committed to a negotiated resolution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Palestinians have not negotiated in good faith. Hamas, which controls Gaza, rejects not only negotiations, but also Israel’s very right to exist. The Palestinian Authority, which broke off negotiations with Israel, is now seeking statehood unilaterally and hopes to gain U.N. support for this goal.
  • Popular revolts have led to the downfall of leaders in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya while greatly destabilizing Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen. Morocco and Jordan appear to have escaped political turmoil due to the leadership of kings who embraced reform and enjoy popular legitimacy. Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia have been relatively unscathed by popular protests related to the “Arab Spring” but still face daunting political challenges.

Selected Additional Resources

Heritage Experts on Middle East


  • James Phillips

    Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs


  • James Jay Carafano, PhD

    Deputy Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies

Download Issues 2012 Request a Hard Copy