Brian M Downing
The elderly but tireless Vermont senator is in the lead for the Democratic nomination. A better picture will emerge next week after 15 more states will have voted. Foreign policy has barely crept into the campaign, even though it’s been underway for a year now. How would a President Sanders make his mark on foreign policy in the Middle East?
Force reductions
Sanders might significantly reduce troops levels in Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. He opposed the 2003 Iraq War and has been critical of most military ventures over the years.
President Trump has long talked of doing so but he has only moved troops away from the Syria-Turkey border and redeployed them to the south. Troop levels have remained the same in Iraq, despite their vulnerability to fire from Iran and its militia allies inside Iraq. The president has boosted troop levels in Saudi Arabia, ostensibly to stand up to Iran but probably more to make up for Riyadh’s military deficiencies.
Sanders might well pull almost all troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, perhaps leaving only training missions and counter-terrorism teams.
Sanders is after all a child of the 60s and staunch critic of the military-industrial complex. He laments military spending for taking away from social spending. (So did President Eisenhower.)
However, realist thinkers, who believe military actions should only be done when vital security interests are at stake, have made the same argument. The region’s oil is no longer needed, its rulers are increasingly ruthless in their efforts to retain power, and its youth population is ominously high. US troops are based in an increasingly dangerous region that shares none of our values. Sanders has called the House of Saud “ruthless thugs”.
Opposition
A sharp pullout will nonetheless face considerable opposition. Congress is enamored by power prestige and global reach and would put up quite a squawk. Summoning the numbers to block a presidential order would be difficult though as Congress has ceded so much power to the president in military matters.
The Pentagon does not like to give up bases. However, there’s a growing sense that budget constraints are coming and that security priorities lie with Russia and China. Perhaps strategists can see that given the region’s problems with population pressures, archaic powerholders, and Islamist militancy, pulling back would saddle Moscow and Beijing with the region’s coming turmoil – “geopolitical judo” as it’s called here.
Bases in Qatar and Oman might be retained. They bracket the Strait of Hormuz and their rulers have adroitly avoided the sectarian conflict plaguing the region.
Israel
Pulling out of Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia would not endanger Israel. American support would not change a bit. Israel’s two traditional enemies are no longer threats – Egypt by treaty and commerce, Syria by civil war and lingering popular animosity. Other Arab states are aligned with Israel against Iran.
AIPAC is wary of Sanders and will oppose him, both in the election and in his presidency if he wins in November. Opposing Sanders may prove nettlesome for AIPAC. It’s increasingly seen not as an independent advocate of all Israelis, but as closely aligned with Netanyahu and his Likud. Attacking Sanders will further this re-evaluation. Sanders might usefully encourage it.
© 2020 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who’s written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs. Thanks as ever to Susan Ganosellis.