ending indispensability

will that matter?

Events in the Middle East reveal the limitations of nation-state autonomy, underscoring the end of the supposed unipolarity that some Americans believed would allow them to orchestrate decision-making. It also appears to be a free fall for diplomacy to resolve conflicts, as it is being relegated to trade talks and presidential envoy-specific activities rather than sustained meetings to understand, even if we despise, our adversaries.

Put otherwise, we are finding that the long-held indispensability might have had some benefits, though we are currently no longer seeking to pursue its status.

The civilian population in Gaza, two and a half years into Israel’s response following the savage and unanticipated Hamas attacks on Israelis, confronts starvation, pure and simple.

American government interlocutors, according to lead negotiator Steve Witkoff, are withdrawing, in parallel with Israelis, from negotiations with Hamas to craft a ceasefire in the on-going conflict in Gaza. Witkoff, according to news reports, sees little indication that Hamas intends to subscribe to the terms of a truce.

At the same time, indications are that Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his ultra-right religious allies similarly reject the bases of ceasefire talks as well, even if they go through the motion. As Netanyahu’s Heritage Minister proclaimed yesterday, “there is no nation that feeds its enemies”. Amichay Eliyahu, an extreme conservative allied with the Israeli leader, lauded Jerusalem “rushing toward Gaza being wiped out”. Regardless of spokespeople attempting to walk a fine line between his coalition partners and international reprobation for starving a population, Eliyahu’s views conform to the narrative that much of the world condemns today.

France’s Emmanuel Macron announced unequivocally yesterday that his country will recognize a Palestinian state, a significant endorsement from the first Western power. Macron has a large Arab constituency because of France’s former colonies in the Maghreb and the Middle East, but it does not have an overwhelmingly large Palestinian population. His step reflects growing shock in Western Europe at the depth of despair for hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians unable to find food, water, health care, medicines, or shelter because of the on-going warfare.

Similarly, the mullahs in the Islamic Republic of Iran are beginning to restart their engagement with the world five weeks after the U.S.-led attacks on their nuclear research program. Discussions are taking place with German, French, and British negotiators, rather than American or Israeli ones. Still, Tehran’s willingness to engage with anyone after the massive, if not entirely successful, action to eradicate its nuclear program evidences a returning confidence that the regime can outlast its opponents, both foreign and domestic. It’s hard to imagine that these diplomatic efforts will produce much. Still, it’s even more challenging to envision any improvements with talks facilitating greater familiarity over the long haul (of course, I am aware that is not a popular view in many quarters).

Other developments, beyond the Israel-Hamas struggle, continue unfolding in this region, including sectarian violence in Syria more than six months after the hated Bashar al-Assad fled to Russia. The overthrow of that brutal authoritarian dynasty unleashed adherents of various religious and ethnic divisions that had been tenuously under check for decades of Assad rule.

In summary, the Middle East is living up to its historic reputation as a hub of conflict.

That does not mean the United States, France, or China can resolve the problems within Syria, Gaza, or anywhere else. But this all transpires as Americans selectively choose their favorite causes in this region. For some, the promise of democratic societies long plagued by dictatorship has been a long-standing aspiration. Saddam Hussein’s ouster more than two decades ago did not end the problem, leaving Americans leery of overpromises and underperformance in complicated societies.

Have we truly considered what happens when we are no longer indispensable?

Nuclear weapons still loom over the region as Iran’s program worries not only Israelis but U.S. allies on the Arabian Peninsula. It’s seductive to assume the nuclear “genie” remains in the bottle but can we be sure that our partners in Riyadh, Cairo, or the Gulf States truly feel they can afford to entrust their security to a decentralized power structure in this region rather than the traditional role the United States has played as the powerbroker over the past nine decades?

Can we be confident that Syria’s sectarian differences won’t spread elsewhere? That country does not yet appear as completely broken as Libya did seven months after Muammar Qaddafi’s ouster and murder in 2011. Yet, the rebound effect of decades of harsh repression can unleash forces of unpredictability at home and across borders.

Perhaps the most significant challenge on 25 July 2025 resides in Gaza, where seemingly intractable conflict grinds on, ever-increasing global condemnation of the very state created as a haven not only for Jews but also for compassion for the dispossessed. Hamas’s actions initiating this round of fighting, the 7 October 2023 attacks on hundreds of Israeli civilians and Defense Force personnel, perpetuated the struggle now in its fourth or fifth generation after the international community recognized the creation of Israel in 1948. Hamas fails to dislodge the Jewish state, with this particular violence hardening some Israelis to distrust anything the Palestinians say.

The public evidence, however, of mass starvation, dislocation, and hopelessness for the Palestinian civilians has created a nightmare for Israel and a long-term challenge for the United States as its primary ally. Joe Biden received massive criticism from the Democratic Party’s most liberal wing because he could not or would not rein in Netanyahu and his allies, and still faces condemnation a year later under a different U.S. administration.

The question, however, of how Americans manifest their belief in this country’s uniqueness will remain tied to the Gaza horrors. Palestinians are indeed powerless except as a symbol of hopelessness. Eighty years ago, Americans aided civilians, including those we had fought for four years—to get their populations back on their feet to preclude further conflict or the spread of Communist ideology for fear those peoples across Europe and Asia would choose another form over government over the philosophy and governance we believed vital for the world to prevent further war.

Today, we are indicating that our superpower status was only a blip on the screen, rather than a reflection of who we are as a society, one that is compassionate about the pain of others while mindful that sustained relationships may help us in the future. Millions of Americans are tired of supporting others overseas because it’s too expensive, or those populations don’t subscribe to the same values we hold dear. Perhaps we never understood that we would not win every single foreign policy conversation, but Americans certainly won many more than did authoritarians.

Americans have a curious view of the current—again, Communist—threat. On the one hand, millions of Americans view the CCP as an unreasonable, unbending regime on the march. At the same time, we surrender our worldwide relationships because we find them insufficient due to trade conditions, contributions to alliances, or other reasons. Do we believe that China, a power we see as aspiring to replace us, will likewise pull back or ignore these other potential allies and partners when its Beijing’s behavior that so worries many Americans? That logic strikes me as flawed, as if we can be sure that conflict would never threaten our prosperity or future peace.

It will be interesting to see whether China, France, or the European Union steps into the void we are leaving in the Middle East, Africa, or perhaps other regions. Now we worry because China has long since moved into Latin America, as we have withdrawn over the past twenty years. The majority of Americans seem to want us to surrender obligations and privileges indispensability engenders, so they will see that we are achieving their preferred outcome.

What I don’t think these people grasp is that by ending (I started to say suspending, but it appears more than temporary) our leadership, the world will not automatically default to a set of conditions beneficial to our national interests. The tragedy plaguing Gaza is, oddly, the least of the dangers since Palestinians are so powerless. New coalitions, pursuing different objectives on trade, environment,

We are operating on the premise that nothing can genuinely threaten us. That seems folly, even if the problems do not crop up within the next year or so. Actions create consequences, many of which take generations to become apparent. Closing the door on the rest of the world does not guarantee they will adhere to our values or our concerns. As I have noted repeatedly over the years, the United Nations headquarters is in New York, not so we would pay the bill but to assure we have the most prominent voice in its actions, even if they are not 100% in sync with our preferences. We tend to view things as purely binary, but they rarely are.

U.S. trends to support pulling back have been underway for a long time, but the world continues to move forward at a rapid pace. It will only get more interesting, with the possibility of increased tension, more weapons, greater disparities, and a renewed search for leadership elsewhere, as we will not be the state everyone calls on—or listens to in conjunction with their needs, either.

Indispensability was never free but it had its value. We no longer seem to see it that way. This week’s roundup on the Middle East harbors the future, I suspect, whether we like it or not.

I welcome your rebuttals (of which there likely are many), thoughts, questions, or comments. I appreciate any of you bringing new ideas to the table as my intention remains to expand our civil, measured conversation on the world we live in.

Thank you to the supporters who offer financial resources to advance this work. You inspire me while making new ideas and reading within my reach. $55 a year or $8 monthly make a tremendous difference.

It was another warning at dawn that heat is heading to the Chesapeake region.

Keep cool wherever you are. Be well and be safe. FIN

William Cristou and Angela Guiffrida, “‘Hungry aid staff fainting’ as starvation spreads in Gaza and truce hopes fade”, TheGuardian.com, 24 July 2025, retrieved at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/24/hamas-sends-ceasefire-proposal-to-israel-as-starvation-spreads-in-gaza

Steve Erlanger, “Iran Started New Talks Over Its Nuclear Program. Here’s What to Know”, NewYorkTimes.com, 25 July 2025, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/25/world/middleeast/iran-europe-nuclear-talks.html

Patrick Kingsley and Johnatan Reiss, “As Starvation Rises, Israeli Minister Says Israel is ‘Driving Out’ Gazans”, NewYorkTimes.com, 24 July 2025, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/world/middleeast/israel-minister-gaza-driving-out.html

Emmanuel Macron, “France to Officially Recognize Palestinian State “, WSJ.com, 25 July 2025, retrieved athttps://www.wsj.com/video/france-to-officially-recognize-palestinian-state/0EF18EFB-1377-4AA6-A0BE-A3292C1941BB?mod=middle-east_videos_pos1

Suha Ma’ayeh and Sudarsan Raghaven, “Inside Syria’s Sectarian Cauldron: Kidnapping Triggers Cascade of Violence, WSJ.com, 22 July 2025, retrieved athttps://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/syria-israel-sectarian-violence-b87913de?mod=middle-east_more_article_pos1