TL;DR
America's deep entanglement in the Middle East is both a strategic burden and a poison in its domestic politics, and falling oil dependence plus fading Islamism now make withdrawal feasible.
In a Harvard-Harris poll, three figures had lower favourability than almost any American politician: RFK Jr., Marco Rubio, and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. The author puts the first two down to their politics; the third is a different story.
The common thread is the Middle East
Several figures — NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani, Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, Netanyahu — share one thing, the author argues: they get pulled into Middle East fights. Mamdani won New York largely by attacking Israel; El-Sayed is under fire not for his policies but for what he said about Palestine.
Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel donors alike are recruiting candidates and pouring money into US races over the Palestine question. The author's view: Americans should not pick candidates by their stance on Israel.
The old oil card no longer plays
The oldest reason for US involvement in the Middle East was keeping oil cheap. But America now exports oil, so higher prices help its energy sector. And the 2000s economy was only a third to half as sensitive to oil prices as the 1970s economy.
The Iran war shut the Strait of Hormuz and prices still did not reach their early-2010s highs. A 50% oil spike, the author reckons, means about 1.25 points more inflation and 1.5 points less GDP growth — painful, not fatal.
With Islamism fading and Middle East oil mattering less, the author says, disengaging is far easier than a decade ago. The only question left is whether US politicians are willing to take the Middle East out of American domestic politics.
Curated from high-quality sources, with concise summaries and key takeaways.
