Ep 190: Michael Doran on “Restraint” and the Middle East
Apr 15, 2025
auto_awesome
Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, dives into the concept of 'restraintism' in U.S. foreign policy. He discusses how this ideology influenced Trump's decisions in the Middle East, contrasting them with Obama's approach. Doran also tackles the complexities of U.S.-Iran relations, the impact of economic considerations on policy, and the tensions between Turkey and Israel. He sheds light on the challenges of negotiating peace while balancing regional dynamics, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of American interests abroad.
The concept of 'restraintism' suggests that the U.S. should avoid unnecessary conflicts in the Middle East to stabilize the region.
Restraintism has garnered support across the political spectrum, challenging traditional foreign policy views on U.S. military engagements and alliances.
A balanced military posture is deemed essential to deter threats while also navigating complex regional relationships, particularly with Israel and Turkey.
Deep dives
The Trend of Restraintism
Restraintism is a concept that has emerged in foreign policy discussions, characterized by the belief that the United States should avoid unnecessary entanglements in conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. Proponents argue that cutting ties with allies like Israel and engaging with adversaries, such as Iran and Russia, could lead to stabilization rather than further military involvement. This perspective, which includes influential figures within both political parties, posits that U.S. involvement has exacerbated conflicts, exemplified by the notion that Israel has entangled the U.S. in wars against Iran. The term 'restraintism' has been adopted by its advocates to distinguish their approach from isolationism and realism, appealing to those disillusioned with conventional U.S. military strategy in the region.
Historical Context and Consequences
The roots of the restraint movement can be traced back to public backlash against the Iraq War, where many Americans perceived the conflict as a mistake that drained resources and extended military commitments. Beginning with the Israeli attack on Syria's nuclear reactor in 2007, a shift occurred in U.S. foreign policy thinking, as some within the Bush administration advocated for improved relations with Iran rather than confrontational strategies. This history illustrates the persistent tension within U.S. foreign policy—balancing military needs with public sentiment—where restraint thinkers argue for prioritizing domestic interests over international ambitions. As a result, this mindset reflects a growing wariness toward military interventions that do not yield clear benefits.
Complications Within Political Parties
Restraintism has gained traction across the political spectrum, presenting a unique challenge within conservative and liberal circles. Key figures in the Trump administration have embraced elements of this ideology, attempting to navigate between traditional hawkish strategies and newly emergent calls for diplomatic engagement with adversaries. This dynamic has created a coalition of restraintists that includes voices typically critical of U.S. foreign policy, questioning long-standing alliances, particularly with Israel. The coexistence of these varied perspectives reveals a significant transformation in American foreign policy dialogue, where the traditional lines between hawks and doves are increasingly blurred.
The Importance of American Deterrence
Despite the rise of restraintism, many argue that maintaining a strong deterrent posture is essential for U.S. interests in the Middle East. The podcast emphasizes that a robust military presence is necessary not only to counter rogue states like Iran but also to manage complex alliances with traditional partners like Israel and Saudi Arabia. The belief is that deterrence stems from a position of strength, rather than concession, which is increasingly viewed as weakness by adversaries. Policymakers are urged to find a balance that ensures the U.S. does not retreat from the region, which could embolden hostile actors while also considering the long-term implications of military engagements.
Navigating the Complexities of the Middle East
The podcast highlights a pressing need for a nuanced understanding of the Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape, particularly in Syria, where Turkish and Israeli interests often conflict. It suggests that a successful U.S. strategy should aim to position itself as a stabilizing force, preventing potential confrontations between these allies. Emphasizing diplomatic engagement, particularly involving Turkey, could lead to new alignments and a redefinition of roles in the region. Ultimately, the synchronization of American interests with those of regional powers like Israel and Turkey is viewed as paramount for achieving stability and mitigating risks of further conflict.
Michael Doran, senior fellow and director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at Hudson Institute, joins the show to discuss “restraintism” as a factor in Trump’s choices in the Middle East.
