The 2025 National Security Strategy articulates fundamental shift in American Middle East policy, moving from decades of intensive political and military involvement toward limited engagement focused on energy security and preventing adversarial regional domination. This strategic reorientation raises critical questions about whether assumptions underlying the new approach match regional realities.
Post-9/11 Era Concludes
The Strategy explicitly departs from post-Cold War frameworks, rejecting Biden administration’s “democracy versus autocracy” paradigm and abandoning goals of “permanent American domination” in favor of maintaining “global and regional balances of power.” This conceptual shift carries particular significance for the Middle East, where American military presence and political engagement have shaped regional dynamics since September 11, 2001.
The document’s Middle East section emphasizes preventing “adversarial power from dominating oil and gas supplies and chokepoints” while avoiding “forever wars” that consumed American resources at substantial cost. This formulation suggests fundamental pivot from comprehensive regional engagement toward narrowly defined interests centered on energy flows and maritime security.
The Strategy asserts that the Middle East is “no longer the constant irritant and potential source of imminent catastrophe that it once was,” implying that American priorities can safely shift elsewhere. This assessment rests on several assumptions: American energy independence reduces dependence on Gulf supplies, Iranian nuclear capacity has been substantially degraded, and regional conflicts are moving toward resolution enabling stability without intensive American involvement.
From Military Intervention to Burden-Shifting
Rejecting prolonged military commitments has been consistent Trump administration theme, but the 2025 Strategy formally incorporates this principle into national security doctrine. Large-scale ground deployments, nation-building projects, and direct regional security leadership represent past approaches no longer deemed viable or necessary.
Counterterrorism will be pursued through limited operations rather than occupation. Significantly, the Strategy implicitly accepts partnerships with actors previously designated as terrorists. Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, formerly Abu Mohammed al-Jolani who led Jabhat al-Nusra, now receives American engagement—illustrating pragmatic approach prioritizing current utility over historical classification.
Democracy promotion and human rights advocacy—formerly central to American Middle East rhetoric—have been subordinated to business opportunities and transactional partnerships. The Strategy accepts regional governments “as they are,” pursuing alliances based on economic interests rather than governance standards or value alignment. This represents substantial departure from previous strategies that, at least rhetorically, emphasized political reform and democratic development.
Questionable Assumptions About Regional Stability
The Strategy’s Middle East approach depends on several assumptions that warrant scrutiny. While American energy independence is factually accurate—US became net energy exporter in recent years—this does not eliminate vulnerability to global price fluctuations. The OPEC+ framework, coordinated by Russia and Saudi Arabia, remains primary driver of international oil prices affecting American economy regardless of domestic production levels.
Furthermore, American disengagement creates vacuum potentially filled by competitors. China has expanded Middle East economic engagement substantially, while Russia maintains military presence in Syria and diplomatic influence across the region. Assuming stability will persist without American involvement ignores how power vacuums attract alternative patrons pursuing their own interests.
The Strategy’s assessment of Iranian nuclear capacity as “obliterated” appears optimistic. While Israeli strikes damaged Iranian facilities, International Atomic Energy Agency reporting indicates Iran retains enrichment capabilities and technical knowledge. Israeli intelligence assessments may differ substantially from American public optimism. Notably, the Strategy contains no indication of diplomatic tracks for managing Iranian nuclear development, suggesting reliance on military deterrence alone.
Conflict Resolution: Hope Versus Reality
The Strategy’s assumption that regional conflicts are moving toward resolution encounters substantial countervailing evidence. In Gaza, Hamas has not disarmed despite ceasefire agreements, and subsequent implementation phases remain uncertain. Core issues including Palestinian statehood and political rights lack clear resolution frameworks, undermining prospects for durable stability.
The unsettled Palestinian question directly affects Abraham Accords expansion, particularly Saudi participation which remains contingent on Palestinian political progress. Without addressing these foundational issues, normalization frameworks face persistent obstacles.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah similarly resists disarmament requirements, with even American officials expressing skepticism about enforcement feasibility. Public discourse has gradually shifted from “disarmament” language toward “containment,” suggesting acceptance that eliminating these organizations’ military capabilities may prove unachievable.
Syria’s post-Assad transition presents additional complexities the Strategy appears to minimize. Asserting that Syria may “reassume its rightful place” in regional order ignores ongoing tensions between multiple actors: Turkish and Israeli interests directly conflict regarding northern Syria control, Kurdish political status remains unresolved, and multiple armed factions retain autonomous authority across Syrian territory.
Yemen represents another incomplete resolution. Houthi operations in Red Sea shipping lanes decreased not through military defeat but via ceasefire arrangements that leave the group’s capabilities intact. Assuming this represents permanent stability ignores potential for renewed activity if conditions change.
Israel’s Diminished Strategic Profile
Israel receives minimal attention in the Strategy beyond vague assertion that it “must remain secure.” This contrasts sharply with previous American security documents emphasizing “ironclad commitment” to Israeli security and frequently invoking shared democratic values. The absence of traditional solidarity rhetoric suggests potential divergence between Israeli security priorities and American strategic calculations.
This reduced emphasis may reflect assessment that Israel possesses sufficient independent capabilities to manage regional threats without intensive American support. However, it could also indicate American willingness to accept outcomes that prioritize other interests—particularly economic relationships with Gulf states—over traditional Israeli security concerns.
Economic Opportunities and Reconstruction
The Strategy emphasizes business opportunities in Gulf states and reconstruction potential in conflict-affected areas including Gaza and Syria. Gulf sovereign wealth funds possess substantial capital seeking investment opportunities, while reconstruction projects could generate significant contracts for American firms.
However, economic opportunity realization depends entirely on sustained regional stability—precisely the condition the Strategy assumes but evidence questions. If conflicts reignite, Hamas rearms, Hezbollah maintains military autonomy, or Iranian nuclear development continues, the business environment deteriorates rapidly. Economic strategies built on optimistic stability assumptions face substantial downside risks.
Regional Burden-Sharing Challenges
The Strategy’s implicit model involves regional actors assuming greater responsibility for their own security with American support limited to preventing major power domination and ensuring energy flow security. This burden-sharing approach faces several obstacles.
Gulf states, despite substantial military expenditures and equipment purchases, lack operational experience and strategic coordination for independent regional security provision. Their military capabilities remain dependent on American technical support, intelligence sharing, and operational planning assistance.
Israel pursues independent security policies but requires ongoing American diplomatic support and military resupply capabilities. Israeli operations often create regional tensions that other states cannot manage without American mediation.
Turkey and Iran—both seeking expanded regional influence—have interests frequently conflicting with American preferences and allied concerns. Turkish operations in Syria and Iranian proxy networks operate according to their own strategic logics rather than American burden-sharing frameworks.
Strategic Disconnect and Implementation Risks
The Strategy articulates vision for reduced American political and financial costs while maintaining core interests in energy security and preventing adversarial domination. These goals appear reasonable in principle but depend on regional stability assumptions that current evidence does not fully support.
The document’s optimism about conflict resolution, Iranian capability degradation, and general regional stabilization contrasts with persistent violence, unresolved political disputes, and active rearmament by multiple actors. This disconnect between strategic assumptions and ground realities raises familiar concern: American policymakers consistently underestimating Middle Eastern complexity and overestimating stability prospects.
If the Strategy’s assumptions prove incorrect—if conflicts escalate, Iran develops nuclear weapons, or major powers fill American withdrawal vacuum—Washington may face difficult choices between accepting unfavorable outcomes or reversing strategic disengagement at higher costs than maintaining original engagement levels.
The Middle East has repeatedly defied predictions of imminent stability, with conflicts proving more intractable and actors more resilient than external powers anticipated. Whether current moment represents genuine inflection point enabling American disengagement or another premature declaration of mission accomplished remains uncertain. The Strategy’s success depends less on American intentions than on regional dynamics that Washington influences but does not control.
Original analysis inspired by Middle East Eye analysis. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
