兰德-美国在中东的战略利益及其对军队的启示（地缘政治）（英文）-2017.12-16页

U.S. Strategic Interests in the Middle East and Implications for the Army

Core Content

The U.S. Army's strategic posture in the Middle East is shaped by a complex interplay of regional threats, evolving alliances, and the limitations of U.S. influence. Despite a long-standing presence and the historical role as the region's primary security guarantor, the U.S. faces a shifting landscape where local actors are increasingly assertive and their interests often diverge from Washington's. The Army's role in this environment is to support U.S. strategic goals through a combination of counterterrorism, alliance management, and limited military interventions.

Main Views and Key Points

• U.S. Strategic Fatigue:
  The U.S. has historically sought to limit involvement in the Middle East due to the high costs of past interventions like Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). These operations have strained the Army's force generation model and shifted focus away from core competencies such as combined arms operations and land-based deterrence.

• Continued Relevance of Counterterrorism:
  Even after the decline of ISIL's physical caliphate, the U.S. must prepare for ongoing counterterrorism efforts. ISIL remains a residual threat, and its defeat may lead to the rise of other extremist groups. The Army is expected to play a multifaceted role, including small deployments, training, and support for coalition forces.

• Iran as a Key Threat:
  Iran poses a significant threat to U.S. interests through asymmetric capabilities (fast boats, mining, and missile systems) and ideological influence. Its actions in the Gulf, especially near the Strait of Hormuz and in Iraq, threaten U.S. military installations and personnel. Iran's support for proxy groups and its promotion of Shi'ism also exacerbate sectarian tensions in the region.

• Shift in Regional Power Dynamics:
  The U.S. is no longer the sole dominant power in the Middle East. Countries like Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are increasingly defining their own security and economic interests, often in conflict with U.S. goals. This has led to a fragmented regional order and challenges in maintaining alignment with U.S. policy.

• Alliance Management Challenges:
  U.S. alliances in the region are strained due to perceived abandonment and shifting national priorities. Partners such as Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have taken actions that contradict U.S. interests, leading to a need for a more nuanced and realistic approach to alliance management. The U.S. must balance support with the need to ensure its strategic objectives are not undermined.

• Limits of U.S. Influence:
  While the U.S. can protect its core interests, it is unlikely to be able to reshape the region's political or social structures. Military interventions have shown limited success in achieving long-term stability and are often followed by renewed conflict. The U.S. must avoid overambitious goals and focus on achievable outcomes.

• Military Intervention Options:
  The U.S. has a range of military tools available for dealing with irregular threats like ISIL, including large-scale counterinsurgency operations and limited "light footprint" interventions. These can include direct actions (ground combat, air strikes) and indirect actions (training, intelligence sharing). However, even modest successes come at significant cost, and the Army must be prepared for long-term involvement in the region.

• Stability and Recurrence of Conflict:
  Post-conflict stability is fragile, and the U.S. must be prepared to provide sustained support to prevent conflict recurrence. While large-scale interventions may prevent immediate collapse, they rarely lead to lasting peace. Small-scale interventions, though more sustainable, are also less effective in achieving decisive outcomes.

Key Implications for the Army

• The Army must adapt its force structure to address the evolving nature of threats in the Middle East, including both conventional and asymmetric challenges.
• It should focus on training, advising, and supporting partner nations to enhance their capacity for self-defense and regional stability.
• The Army must be ready to engage in limited military interventions, including counterterrorism operations and support for stabilization efforts, while avoiding overextension.
• Maintaining strong security ties with key partners like Jordan, Tunisia, and the UAE is essential, but the U.S. must also be prepared to manage the risks of alliance tensions and potential escalation with adversarial states.
• The Army's role should be more strategic and less operational, emphasizing deterrence, readiness, and the ability to respond to emerging threats without full-scale commitment.

Conclusion

The Army's role in the Middle East is increasingly defined by the need to balance strategic interests with the realities of regional dynamics. As the U.S. reduces its direct military involvement in large-scale operations, the Army must prepare for a future where its presence is more dispersed, its missions are more focused on counterterrorism and alliance support, and its ability to influence the region's political landscape is constrained. This requires a shift in planning and operations to align with a more realistic and sustainable approach to military engagement in the region.