Foreign policy experts criticize U.S. involvement in the Middle East at Ford panel

Foreign policy experts criticize U.S. involvement in the Middle East at Ford panel Javed Ali, Associate Professor of Practice of Public Policy, moderates a conversation with guest speakers Aaron David Miller, senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East Program at Defense Priorities, at the Ford School of Public Policy event,“Middle East in Focus: U.S. Strategy in a Changing Region,” at Betty Ford Auditorium in Weill Hall Wednesday afternoon. Mireille Banza/DAILY. Buy this photo. University of Michigan students and community members gathered in the Ford School of Public Policy Wednesday afternoon to engage in a conversation about the United States’ involvement in the Middle East. Foreign policy experts Aaron David Miller, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East Program at Defense Priorities, discussed prospects for diplomacy in the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran.  The panel — moderated by Javed Ali, public policy associate professor of practice — was sponsored by the Public Policy School’s Conversations Across Differences event series and the Weiser Diplomacy Center. Miller earned his Ph.D. in Middle East and American Diplomatic History from the University in 1977, before serving in the U.S. Department of State from 1978 to 2003. During the panel, he said the last three years have reinforced many lessons from his career — most notably, his belief that U.S. involvement and violence with Iran is a mistake.  “The Middle East is littered, literally, with the remains of great powers — some not so great — who believe they could impose their will on smaller ones,” Miller said. “This was a war of choice, which overestimated America’s military capacity and underestimated the very forces that have plagued American policy in the region for decades.”  Miller argued the U.S.’s stakes in war fundamentally differ from the countries directly affected by the conflict. While U.S. policymakers may see intervention as a strategic choice, Miller said countries in the region — Iran, Israel and other Arab nations — view the war as a threat to their sovereignty. “(The war is) an existential conflict, and that separates immediately the policy choices that we have from the policy choices that Arabs, Israelis, Iranians face,” Miller said. “For them, it’s not a matter of discretion; it’s a matter of existence. And nothing that we can do is going to fundamentally alter that.” Kelanic offered a similarly critical assessment of recent U.S. foreign policy, noting that the last eight months have been extremely difficult for U.S. leverage in the region, and Iran’s ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz has resulted in prolonged tensions in the area.  “All the other objectives that  the Trump administration had — whether it was reducing the missile threat or the nuclear program — all of that’s just gone by the wayside because Iran has demonstrated this ability to harass shipping in the Strait,” Kelanic said. “It’s a contested maritime battle that could go on for a long time.” Both Miller and Kelanic expressed skepticism about a possible diplomatic breakthrough with Iran through diplomacy. Kelanic said Iran does not trust President Donald Trump to honor an agreement. Miller, however, described the current conflict as a reflection of the relationship the U.S. and Iran have had since the Iranian Revolution. The panelists had different viewpoints on whether the U.S. should remain involved in the Middle East. Kelanic argued that the Middle East matters less to U.S. security than it once did, particularly in comparison to the recent rise in global Chinese influence. “We’d be crazy not to hedge against China because they’re emerging as this massive superpower,” Kelanic said. “That’s where U.S. security problems exist in the future, not in the Middle East. And so I think it’s high time that the U.S. really rethink its approach to the region, to the Middle East, and it’s really time for the United States to to leave” Miller argued that U.S. policymakers must first determine what U.S. interests in the region actually are. He said the U.S. continues — after decades — to maintain a presence in the Middle East without a clear objective.  “That’s the question I think: ‘Why?’ And answering that question, you have to answer the question: ‘What are American interests? Why do we even care about this region?’” Miller said. “If you answer that question — why we should care — then you could maybe begin to construct a policy around those interests.” Public Policy student Benjamin Frey attended the event to better understand how the U.S. is perceived internationally. Frey said while he feels there are positive elements to the U.S. as a global superpower, he is still skeptical of the idea.  “The only people in the United States who think the United States is the best country on Earth are the ones who’ve never left it,” Frey said. “There are certainly laudable and positive things about the United States, and yet, the idea that we are star-spangled awesome in every aspect is silly.”  Daily News Contributor Lana Almaskati can be reached at lalmaska@umich.edu. Related articles