The History and Evaluation of U.S. Involvement in Middle Eastern Issues After the Cold War

Cheol-young Lee

Head of the International Affairs Research Association

Introduction

Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, the United States has been deeply involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and broader Middle Eastern issues, yet debates over the legitimacy and effectiveness of this involvement have persisted. Renowned realist scholars such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argue that U.S. engagement has negatively affected both Middle East peace and American national interests. In contrast, other scholars maintain that while opinions differ regarding the degree and manner of intervention, U.S. involvement has had overall legitimacy.

In particular, U.S. policy in the Middle East underwent fundamental changes following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, diverging significantly from Cold War-era strategies. This article aims to examine how U.S. involvement in the Middle East evolved from the Clinton administration through the Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, focusing on key events and assessing their respective approaches. To this end, the analysis will draw primarily on two major works—The Peace Puzzle (2017) and The Arc of a Covenant (2022)—as well as related scholarly articles.

1. The Clinton Administration (1993–2001)

1) Key Events

• 1990s: Israel-Syria negotiations

• 1993: Oslo Accords

• 1995–1996: Wye River negotiations

• July 2000: Camp David Summit

  
  

2) Evaluation

Israel-Syria Negotiations

• The Clinton administration failed to mediate a peace deal between Israel and Syria. It concluded that the conflict with Syria was manageable without an urgent resolution.

• Unlike the Bush administration, the Clinton administration was more optimistic about achieving progress in Israel-Syria talks and actively sought to mediate. However, the negotiations broke down over critical issues such as withdrawal from the Golan Heights, the establishment of an intelligence base on Mount Hermon, and water resources.

• The U.S. attempted to act as a fair mediator but did not fully account for the political realities and positions of both sides. It did not exert sufficient pressure to narrow the gap between Israel and Syria.

  
  

Wye River Negotiations

• The Wye River negotiations represented one of the most active periods of discussion between Israel and Syria, with the U.S. making more concerted efforts to broker practical compromises. However, political events and outbreaks of violence led to a suspension of talks.

• Core issues included conflicting views on major disputes, domestic political constraints, and the limited capacity of the U.S. as a mediator. Although U.S. diplomatic involvement had significance, the lack of strong leadership and consistent effort meant the negotiations did not advance.

• During the Cold War, competition with the Soviet Union drove U.S. involvement in the Middle East. After the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, the U.S. showcased its dominance by repelling Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. However, President Clinton’s main priority was domestic economic recovery, leading to limited engagement in Middle Eastern issues. The complexity of the situation and the domestic political pressures both sides faced were not sufficiently considered by U.S. mediation efforts.

  
  

Camp David Summit (2000)

• The Camp David talks failed due to insufficient preparation and deep mistrust between leaders on both sides. From the outset, the U.S. did not clearly understand each side’s positions, creating strategic flaws in the negotiations.

• Although the Clinton administration played a significant role, it did not adopt a firm stance when necessary. President Clinton, for example, trusted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s proposals and pressured the Palestinian side to accept them.

• The inability to resolve core issues like the status and sovereignty of Jerusalem illustrated the administration’s failure to bridge the gap. This underscored the need for strong and balanced mediation to overcome political pressures and achieve meaningful progress.

  
  

Oslo Accords (1993)

• Secret negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) culminated in the successful Oslo Accords, establishing mutual recognition and a framework for Palestinian autonomy and Israeli security.

• In 1994, Jordan became the second Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel, helping ease regional tensions. President Clinton touted this as a significant diplomatic achievement.

• However, after the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, political divisions within Israel deepened, causing the Oslo process to stall.

  
  

Post–Cold War U.S. Strategy: Defensive Liberalism

• After the Cold War, the U.S. adopted a strategy of defensive liberalism, emphasizing multilateralism and international approval before using military force. This approach aimed at the peaceful spread of democracy and free markets.

• It prioritized limited humanitarian objectives such as protecting human rights rather than outright regime change.

• With the Soviet Union gone, the U.S. enjoyed a relatively secure international environment, allowing defensive liberalism to rise as a dominant grand strategy.

  
  

2. The Bush Administration (2001–2009)

1) Key Events

• 2001: 9/11 terrorist attacks

• 2003: the Roadmap for Peace and the establishment of the Quartet (U.S., EU, Russia, UN)

• 2004: Gaza Disengagement Plan and death of Yasser Arafat

• 2005: Withdrawal of Israeli settlers from Gaza

• 2006: Hamas election victory and Hezbollah-Israel conflict

• 2007: Annapolis Conference

• 2008: Olmert’s final proposal rejected by Mahmoud Abbas

2) Evaluation

Changes in U.S. Middle East Policy Post-9/11

• Before 9/11, U.S. Middle East policy prioritized stability by cooperating with authoritarian regimes to maintain strategic interests.

• After 9/11, President George W. Bush radically shifted to prioritizing political freedom and democratic transition, believing that without democracy and liberty, extremism would continue to spread.

  
  

Unilateralism and Neoconservative Influence

• Bush rejected the multilateralism of the Clinton era and adopted a Manichean view of good versus evil.

• Unlike his traditionally realist father, Bush embraced regime change and the spread of democracy under neoconservative influence.

• His strong support for Israel bolstered his political base among evangelical Christians and aligned with the Jacksonian tradition in American foreign policy.

  
  

The Roadmap for Peace and the Quartet

• The 2003 Roadmap for Peace and the establishment of the Quartet aimed to coordinate international efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

• However, internal divisions within the Bush administration and a lack of diplomatic consistency limited its effectiveness.

• Bush viewed Yasser Arafat as an unreliable negotiating partner and excluded him while simultaneously strengthening U.S.-Israel ties, supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state in principle.

  
  

Gaza Withdrawal and Settlements

• Bush supported Ariel Sharon’s Gaza Disengagement Plan, effectively strengthening Israel’s position on settlement issues.

• However, this one-sided concession to Israel without consulting Arab stakeholders drew criticism and alienated Arab states.

• The withdrawal was more symbolic than substantive, failing to bring lasting peace. After Hamas’s election victory in 2006, violence and political instability deepened.
  

Annapolis Conference (2007)

• Although the Annapolis Conference emphasized a two-state solution, it yielded only limited progress.

• Direct negotiations between Israel and Palestine dominated the process, weakening America’s role as a mediator.

• Without resolving key issues like the status of Jerusalem and lacking strong U.S. engagement, the conference failed to achieve significant outcomes.
  

Iraq War (2003)

• The Iraq War was a turning point in Bush’s Middle East policy. The administration sought to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime, spread democracy, and eliminate sources of terrorism.

• However, the war produced unintended consequences, such as increasing Iran’s regional influence, considered a strategic threat by Israel, complicating regional dynamics and creating new security challenges.
  

Critiques of the Bush Approach

• Traditional realists criticized Bush’s close alliance with Israel as detrimental to America’s broader interests in the Middle East.

• By supporting Sharon’s security barrier, Bush garnered the support of pro-Israel groups but made peace negotiations with Palestinians more difficult.

• The emphasis on regime change and democratization ultimately failed. The Arab Spring would later expose the fragility of these efforts.

• These failures contributed to a reduction in U.S. engagement in the region and a strategic pivot toward the Indo-Pacific region in the face of rising competition with China.
  

Grand Strategy: Offensive Liberalism

• After 9/11, Bush embraced an offensive liberalism strategy, using military force—in particular, the Iraq War—to promote democracy.

• This approach rejected multilateral constraints and preferred unilateral action or ad-hoc coalitions to assert American leadership.

• Neoconservatism strongly influenced this strategy, arguing that toppling oppressive regimes would facilitate democratic expansion.
  

Impact on U.S. Foreign Policy

• Bush’s Middle East policy highlighted the interplay between material factors in the international system and domestic political considerations.

• Though ambitious in its focus on regime change and democratization, it weakened American influence and contributed to long-term instability.

• Ultimately, these policies led to a restructuring of U.S. strategic priorities, shifting emphasis away from the Middle East toward the challenges posed by the Indo-Pacific region.
  

3. The Obama Administration (2009–2017)

1) Key Events

• 2009: Demand for a freeze on Israeli settlements

• 2011: Arab Spring

• Continued war in Afghanistan

• 2015: Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)

2) Evaluation

Settlements Issue and U.S.-Israel Relations

• In June 2009, Obama demanded a freeze on Israeli settlement expansion, provoking strong backlash from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

• While Obama took a strong initial stance, the lack of follow-up measures and minimal consideration of Palestinian perspectives weakened his strategy.

• Inconsistency on the settlement issue led to a retreat from the initial position, undermining trust in the U.S. as an honest broker. Coupled with domestic issues and the regional upheaval of the Arab Spring, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process slipped down the administration’s priority list.
  

Middle East Peace Process

• The Obama administration attempted to revive the peace process but lacked a consistent strategy and failed to reconcile the demands of both sides.

• Although Obama supported a two-state solution, he did not maintain a coherent approach to achieving it amid contentious issues like settlements.

• As a result, efforts at peace stalled, early enthusiasm giving way to strategic withdrawal over time.
  

Contradictions in U.S. Policy

• Despite criticizing Israeli settlements and supporting Palestinian statehood, Obama provided the largest-ever U.S. aid package to Israel.

• This dual approach drew criticism, with opponents pointing to the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups on U.S. foreign policy.

• Obama’s foreign policy reflected tensions between Wilsonian ideals of democracy and human rights and the realist constraints of American power and influence.

  
  

Arab Spring and Regional Realignment

• Obama sought to reduce cooperation with authoritarian regimes and encourage democratic reforms, recalibrating relations with Arab states.

• Initially seeing the Arab Spring as an opportunity to promote democracy region-wide, these efforts largely backfired, weakening U.S. influence and allowing instability to persist.

• U.S.-led intervention in Libya toppled Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in hopes of fostering democracy, but Libya descended into chaos and violence, symbolizing the unintended consequences of U.S. intervention.

  
  

Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)

• One of Obama’s key achievements was the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, aimed at preventing Iran’s development of nuclear weapons in exchange for easing economic sanctions.

• Obama viewed the JCPOA as a diplomatic solution to reduce tensions and avoid regional military conflict.

• However, strong opposition from Israel and Saudi Arabia led to deteriorating relations with traditional U.S. allies, as critics argued that the deal signaled weakened U.S. commitment to its partners.

  
  

Pivot to the Indo-Pacific

• Both Obama and his successor, Donald Trump, prioritized shifting the U.S. strategic focus to the Indo-Pacific region.

• By reducing military intervention in the Middle East, the U.S. fostered perceptions that it was retreating from traditional security commitments.

• This uncertainty diminished U.S. influence in the region, prompting allies to seek alternative security arrangements and brace for a less involved America.
  

Summary of Obama’s Middle East Policy

• Obama’s policy combined idealism with realism but lacked the consistency needed to produce sustainable outcomes.

• The administration attempted to reduce U.S. involvement in the Middle East while addressing global challenges like nuclear proliferation and human rights. However, its approach often appeared contradictory, producing mixed results in the peace process and straining relationships with traditional allies.

• The Arab Spring and the Iran Nuclear Deal highlighted both the potential and the limits of American leadership under Obama, leaving a complex legacy of diminished trust among regional allies.
  

4. The Trump Administration (2017–2021)

1) Key Events

• 2020: Abraham Accords (normalization between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco)

• 2018: Relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem

• 2019: Recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights

• 2018: Withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)

• Imposition of economic sanctions on Iran

• Reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

  
  

2) Evaluation

Abraham Accords

• Rather than directly resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Trump pursued normalization between Arab states and Israel as an alternative strategy.

• The Abraham Accords led the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco to diplomatically recognize Israel, bolstering regional cooperation and Israel’s security.

• However, Palestinians were excluded, viewing these agreements as a betrayal by Arab states, further fueling opposition to U.S.-led peace initiatives.

• While the Accords marked a significant diplomatic achievement, they did not address the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving the fundamental problems unresolved.
  

Strong Support for Israel

• Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, underscoring a strongly pro-Israel stance.

• He also recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, reinforcing Israel’s security and backing the Netanyahu government.

• These moves consolidated support among evangelical Christians and pro-Israel groups in the U.S., but provoked Palestinian and broader Arab dissent, undermining trust in the U.S. as a mediator.
  

Withdrawal from JCPOA and Iran Policy

• Trump deemed the Iran Nuclear Deal flawed and insufficient to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

• He reimposed stringent economic sanctions to contain Iran’s nuclear program and its regional influence, targeting Iran’s proxies like Hezbollah.

• Although aligning with Israeli interests, this approach heightened regional tensions and pushed Iran to increase uranium enrichment and military activities.
  

Reduced Military Involvement

• Following “America First” principles, Trump reduced U.S. troop deployments and called for Iraq and Afghanistan drawdowns, urging regional allies to shoulder more security burdens.

• He argued that the U.S. should no longer act as the “policeman” of the region, expecting Israel and Gulf states to take the lead against Iranian aggression.

• While this approach reduced the U.S. military footprint, it raised doubts among traditional allies about America’s commitment to regional stability.
  

"America First" Principle

• Trump’s foreign policy combined offensive realism with nationalist “America First” priorities, favoring short-term U.S. interests and economic gains.

• He was skeptical of international institutions and agreements, viewing them as constraints on U.S. sovereignty.

• Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, TPP, and JCPOA, rejecting the liberal international order and favoring bilateralism and zero-sum negotiation strategies.
  

Strengths and Criticisms

• Strengths:

  • Achieved a historic diplomatic breakthrough with the Abraham Accords.

  • Strengthened U.S.-Israel relations and addressed key Israeli security concerns.

  • Reduced U.S. military engagement in the Middle East.

• Criticisms:

  • Excluded Palestinians from peace efforts, deepening their isolation.

  • Heightened tensions with Iran, contributing to further instability.

  • Undermined trust in the U.S. as a fair mediator, straining ties with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other traditional allies.

  • Focused on short-term gains rather than long-term regional stability and conflict resolution.
    

Summary of Trump’s Middle East Policy

• Trump’s approach prioritized Israel’s security and excluded Palestinian interests, employing a transactional strategy.

• His administration secured historic normalization agreements but failed to resolve underlying regional conflicts.

• The emphasis on reducing U.S. involvement reflected a broader repositioning of America’s role in the region, producing mixed outcomes for stability and U.S. influence.
  

5. The Biden Administration (2021–2025)

1) Key Events

• Renewed engagement with international organizations: rejoining UNESCO and restoring funding to UNRWA

• 2021: U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan

• Attempts to return to the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)

• Support for the Abraham Accords: Expanding the Negev Forum and pushing for Israel-Saudi Arabia normalization

• October 7, 2023: Major Hamas attack on Israel and U.S. response

2) Evaluation

Approach to Middle East Policy

• Biden prioritized liberal principles such as democracy and multilateralism, seeking to restore a rules-based international order.

• However, in matters like containing China, managing Middle Eastern instability, and pursuing regional security, he showed continuity with some aspects of the Trump administration’s approach.
  

Afghanistan Withdrawal

• Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan epitomized skepticism toward military engagements.

• The decision reflected a realist logic that considered the declining material importance of certain regions and the high costs of prolonged involvement.

• However, the chaotic execution damaged U.S. credibility.
  

Iran Policy

• Biden aimed to reverse Trump’s maximum pressure campaign and diplomatically re-enter the JCPOA, but negotiations failed due to Iran’s hardened stance and enhanced nuclear capabilities.

• This failure demonstrated the limits of diplomacy without sufficient leverage, particularly in a polarized geopolitical environment.
  

Involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

• Biden resumed funding to UNRWA and re-engaged with multilateral institutions to address Palestinian issues.

• During the 2021 Gaza conflict (Operation Guardian of the Walls), he initially supported Israel but later pressured for a ceasefire, showing a more balanced approach.

• While committed to a two-state solution, the administration made no significant progress amid heightened regional tensions.
  

Abraham Accords and Regional Stability

• Biden built on the Abraham Accords, viewing them as a foundation for regional cooperation.

• By championing the Negev Forum, the U.S. facilitated multilateral cooperation between Israel and Arab states.

• The administration also showed keen interest in Israel-Saudi Arabia normalization, recognizing the potential to counter Iran’s influence and reshape regional dynamics.
  

Response to the October 7, 2023 Attack

• In response to Hamas’s large-scale attack on Israel, Biden delivered a resolute message: “We stand with Israel.”

• He deployed two U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups to the region, expedited arms transfers to Israel, and visited Israel to meet with leaders and hostage families.

• These actions underscored America’s commitment to Israeli security while sending a deterrent signal to Iran and Hezbollah.
  

Realist Turn

• Although Biden criticized Saudi Arabia as a “pariah state” during his campaign and emphasized human rights, the war in Ukraine and subsequent energy crisis led to pragmatic reconciliation with Riyadh.

• Material needs overshadowed moral considerations, reflecting a realist approach.
  

Balancing Liberalism and Realism

• Biden’s foreign policy oscillated between defensive liberalism and offensive realism:

  • Defensive liberalism: Renewed cooperation with international organizations and support for global norms.

  • Offensive realism: Strategic recalibrations to contain China and stabilize the Middle East.

• His evolving stance reflected adaptability to changing geopolitical conditions but sometimes appeared inconsistent.
  

Summary of Biden’s Middle East Policy

• Strengths:

  • Reasserted U.S. leadership in multilateralism and upheld liberal international principles.

  • Strengthened regional cooperation by building on the Abraham Accords and emphasizing diplomacy in dealing with Iran and Palestinian issues.

  • Bolstered U.S.-Israel relations through decisive support during crises.

• Weaknesses:

  • Limited progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and failure to restore the JCPOA.

  • Withdrawal from Afghanistan eroded global trust in U.S. commitment.

  • Pragmatic reconciliation with Saudi Arabia diluted earlier human rights commitments.

The Biden administration attempted to balance the restoration of U.S. liberal leadership with realist constraints, reflecting a complex Middle East policy that sought to harmonize ideals and strategic necessities in a multipolar world.

References Kurtzer, D.C., Lasensky, S.B., Quandt, W.B., Spiegel, S.L., Telhami, S. (2017). The Peace Puzzle: America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011. Cornell University Press. Mead, W.R. (2022). The Arc of a Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People. Vintage Press. Miller, B. (2010). “Explaining Changes in U.S. Grand Strategy: 9/11, the Rise of Offensive Liberalism, and the War in Iraq.” Security Studies, 19(1), 26–65. Renshon, S. A & Suedfeld, P. (2024). The Trump and Harris Doctrines: Preservationism versus Progressivism in the 2024 Presidential Election. Springer Press.