The basic assumptions of U.S. policy toward the Gulf demand rethinking. The Pentagon pays up to $60 billion a year to protect the import of $30 billion worth of oil that would flow anyway. Playing the role of regional hegemon ties America to troubled regimes and leaves it out on a limb, while allies sit back. Washington must hedge against inevitable political change in the region by spreading the burden and the say, reversing arms proliferation, and encouraging the Gulf states to come up with some security of their own.
Graham E. Fuller is a senior political analyst at Rand and a former Vice Chair of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA. Ian O. Lesser, a former member of the Policy Planning Staff at the State Department, is also a senior political analyst at Rand.
A POLICY FOR LIVING WITH CHANGE
Policy toward the Persian Gulf, one of the more successful facets of U.S. foreign policy over the last decade, is headed for rougher times in the next. "Dual containment," the strategic heart of U.S. policies toward Iran and Iraq, is unraveling. Alliance support in Western Europe is slipping, internal differences in the Gulf Cooperation Council are growing, the potential for instability in Saudi Arabia has become dramatically evident, and a faltering Middle East peace process puts new pressure on Gulf regimes. America's Gulf policy contains time-honored myths, holdovers from the Cold War, and many formulations that have become cloudy or rigid with use. Those basic principles require reexamination. Moreover, the continuing risk of terrorism against the large U.S. military presence in the region highlights the looming challenges to regional strategy.
MAINTAINING ACCESS TO OIL AT MODERATE PRICES
Gulf policy is founded on the principle that access to the region's oil is critical to Western -- indeed, global -- prosperity. The Gulf's many small oil-producing states are largely incapable of defending themselves against larger players in the region. Since the collapse of the Soviet empire, however, serious military threats to oil access in the Gulf have diminished drastically. Even the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 with its assaults on oil platforms, pipelines, terminals, and tankers did not seriously affect the oil market or Western economies. No military power today has the capability to deny the West access to oil, although perceptions of Western vulnerability remain widespread. No anti-American dictator in the Middle East -- not Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeini, or Muammar al-Qaddafi -- has attempted to hinder oil sales to the West. What actual task, then, does "maintaining" the flow of oil entail?
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Every president since Richard Nixon has recognized that ensuring stability in the Persian Gulf is a vital U.S. interest. In its first term, the Clinton administration attempted to deal with the twin dangers of Iran and Iraq through a strategy of "dual containment" that kept both countries boxed in with economic sanctions and military monitoring. Dual containment, however, is more a slogan than a strategy, and far too blunt an instrument to serve American interests in the Middle East. The United States must employ a more nuanced approach, keeping the straitjacket on Saddam while seeking improved relations with Iran.
After the Cold War, the demands on American leadership are no less stern than they were in Dean Acheson's day. Present again at the creation, U.S. diplomacy must pass a series of tests -- of vision, pragmatism, spine, and principle -- to build a foundation for a new world. This will mean encouraging democracy, stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, working to shore up the international financial system, engaging Beijing, and standing up to Baghdad and Belgrade. But America needs resources to lead, and Congress has foreign policy living hand-to-mouth. America cannot afford to abdicate its world role.
The Clinton administration supports crippling economic sanctions that punish the Iraqi people but seems ready to live with the demise of international inspections to monitor Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. Washington has it exactly backward. It should offer Baghdad a blunt trade: lightened sanctions in return for renewed, intrusive arms inspections. The sweeping sanctions regime does nothing to advance U.S. interests, undermine Saddam, or contain Iraq. Leaving Saddam's arsenal unwatched is folly. Better to have arms inspections without sanctions than sanctions without arms inspections.
