Reset, Negotiate, Institutionalize

Since the start of the Arab revolutions five years ago, the Middle East has experienced unprecedented instability. In such an impossibly fluid situation, the initial response of President Barack Obama and his administration was, understandably, to pursue crisis management – narrowly defining U.S. interests on a case-by-case basis and tackling each challenge individually instead of pursuing a holistic regional strategy.² The president also viewed every decision he made in the Middle East through the lens of the U.S. intervention in Iraq and was determined not to embroil the United States in new quagmires.³

Obama’s approach has avoided major and costly blunders similar to the invasion of Iraq. It has achieved a historic breakthrough with Iran, which not only addresses the nuclear challenge but could open the door for greater diplomatic engagement even if it does not fundamentally reshape Iranian domestic politics or foreign policy.⁴

But the Obama administration’s policy also has shortcomings. Slow responses, especially in Iraq and Syria, have created openings that have been exploited by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other extremists. And Obama’s cautious approach has left many U.S. partners in the region confused and unsure about America’s commitment at a time when they are feeling vulnerable and insecure – causing some, most notably Saudi Arabia, to move aggressively on their own.

After five years of chaos, the trend lines in the region are clearer, and the next president will have to move beyond crisis management to address the three primary drivers of instability in the Middle East:

1. The collapse of state authority and resulting governance and security vacuums, which set conditions for regional chaos.⁵
2. Intensified Iranian-Saudi competition, which has increased sectarianism and transformed what were initially local conflicts into regional proxy fights.⁶
3. The perception of American withdrawal, which has led to greater aggressiveness on all sides, emboldening competitors of the United States while causing American partners to lash out due to insecurity.

Addressing these trends requires a years-long concerted strategy to stabilize the Middle East. Such a strategy must start with an initial one- to three-year phase of resetting both perceptions and realities on the ground by:

1. Addressing security vacuums from the bottom up in cooperation with regional partners.
2. Countering Iran’s support for its surrogates and proxies in cooperation with regional partners.
3. Leaving the door open for engagement with Iran.

Phase two should concentrate on negotiating agreements with the key local, regional, and global actors to mitigate and eventually end the civil wars plaguing the Middle East. Though the next administration can immediately take foundational steps, any real progress should not be expected until the second half of the first term, once the situation on the ground is reset.

Phase three should leverage the negotiating process described in phase two to institutionalize a broader multilateral security architecture for the Middle East that creates a conflict resolution mechanism and increases stability, similar to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).⁷ This will be a years-long process that the next president can start in her or his second term, but it will require a sustained and stable American commitment.

Overall, this strategy must be pursued with great patience and humility. No strategy will transform the Middle East overnight, and many factors outside of American control will certainly intervene to complicate matters. Moreover, this approach is limited to the security arena and will not answer the very difficult and challenging questions about long-term governance, which are critical but beyond the scope of this paper. Still, taken together, this strategy has the potential to stabilize the Middle East and appropriately size the U.S. commitment to the region, avoiding both the expensive quagmires and overcommitment of George W. Bush and the disengagement of Barack Obama.