Trump-Clinton Doctrine

The Intractable Middle East

troops-reuters
The United States is weary of sending troops to far away lands. But a new president may have no choice but to reengage in the Middle East. Source: Reuters
  • Why it matters

    Why it matters

    Critics argue the Obama administration has abdicated responsibility in Syria to other major players like Russia and Iran. Others worry a stepped-up role by the next president could do more harm than good.

  • Facts

    Facts

    • Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has at times sounded more hawkish on the Middle East than President Barack Obama, for example pushing for a no-fly zone over Syria.
    • Donald Trump has vowed to “bomb the sh**” out of Islamic State if elected but has offered little in terms of concrete policy.
    • Iraqi forces were hoping to capture Mosul, one of the last strongholds of Islamic State in Iraq, in a major offensive over the coming days.
  • Audio

    Audio

  • Pdf

In just two months, a new U.S. president will be thrown into a mess that has dogged the Obama administration for much of its time in office – how and where should the United States exert influence in an increasingly volatile Middle East?

There’s a growing recognition in foreign-policy circles that something has to change – that the Obama administration’s policy of keeping the civil war in Syria at arms’ length, for example, has not been effective. Critics argue a U.S. policy of disengagement from the region has left a hole for countries like Russia and Iran to exploit – and even play an active military role – in the past few years.

It’s not just something said by Mr. Obama’s Republican critics. There’s an acceptance of that even among officials supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton for president. Taking a more “hawkish” stance is one way the former secretary of state has occasionally distanced herself from Mr. Obama in this election.

Want to keep reading?

Subscribe now or log in to read our coverage of Europe’s leading economy.