Abstract

Political realists disagree on what America should “do” and “be” in the Middle East. All are skeptical toward extravagant geopolitical projects to transform the region. Yet they differ over whether hegemony in the Gulf and its wider environs are worth the substantial investment of blood and treasure. Hegemonic “primacy realism” finds the commitment effective and affordable, and that Washington should stay to stabilize the region to ensure a favorable concentration of power. There is an alternative “shield of the republic” realism, however, which views the pursuit of armed supremacy in the Middle East as harming political order at home, reducing security more than generating it, and costing too much for too little gain. It involves interests that are either manageable from a remove or largely generated by being there in the first place. In this article, we lay out the latter position, arguing that the unruly Gulf is increasingly peripheral to US national interests. The region is losing its salience grand strategically, entanglement and continuous war damage republican liberties, and the calculus of whether continued hegemony is “worth it” has shifted decisively toward the downside. The time for abandonment has come.

摘要

政治现实主义者对美国在中东应该“做什么”和“应该怎样做”持不同意见。所有人都对奢侈的地缘政治计划以改变该地区持怀疑态度。但是，在海湾霸权及其周围地区霸权是否值得投入大量的血液和财宝方面，他们存在分歧。霸权的“首要现实主义”认为这项承诺是有效和负担得起的，华盛顿应该继续稳定该地区，以确保有利的权力集中。但是，还有另一种“共和国的盾牌”现实主义，该现实主义认为，在中东追求武装至上的做法损害了本国的政治秩序，减少了安全性，而不是产生安全性，并且为代价太少而付出了太多代价。它涉及的利益要么是可以从搬迁中管理的，要么首先是在那里产生的利益。在本文中，我们提出了后者的立场，认为不守规矩的海湾地区越来越处于美国国家利益的边缘。该地区在战略上失去了显着的地位，纠缠和持续的战争损害了共和党的自由，而持续霸权是否“值得”的演算已果断地转向了不利方面。放弃的时候到了。