Caitlin Talmadge et al. | Brookings Institution
Questions for the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific
U.S. strikes on Iran will hold important implications for the balance of power in the Middle East and the future of deterrence in the Indo-Pacific.
Within the Middle East, regardless of the specific effects of the attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites, the United States and Israel have clearly damaged the program. Situated in the context of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s fall, plus Israel’s larger campaign to degrade Iranian conventional military capabilities and crush its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, the setback to Iran’s nuclear ambitions further elevates Israel as the most powerful military actor in the region, at least for the foreseeable future. What Israel will now do with that dominance is the key question.
This moment of regional reordering could provide an opening for Israel to come to some sort of deal on Gaza, which would be a good thing. But the effect on the relationship with Saudi Arabia, the other major regional power, may be more complicated if Iran no longer seems to be a powerful common enemy and the Saudis start to fear Israeli regional hegemony. And of course, all this would change again if, in the medium to longer term, the strike causes Iran to double down on seeking the bomb.
In the wider world, the U.S. strikes were surely watched closely by U.S. competitors, especially China, though it is probably too soon to know what lessons they will draw. On the one hand, the United States has demonstrated a willingness and capability to boldly intervene on behalf of an ally. This should chasten those in Beijing who may have previously doubted that Trump would take risks in defense of Taiwan. On the other hand, the United States has committed itself to another military project in the Middle East, diverting strategic attention, putting wear and tear on vital platforms, and depleting scarce stockpiles of missile defense interceptors. Especially if the crisis does not wind down as neatly as Trump would like, the strike could thus create the perception, and possibly the reality, that the United States is preoccupied with the Middle East and less than ready to respond to a crisis in the Indo-Pacific. That would weaken rather than strengthen deterrence.