Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • Israel-Hamas
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
    • North Korea
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / Middle East / Getting out of the Gulf
Middle East, Iran, Iraq

December 12, 2016

Getting out of the Gulf

By Rosemary Kelanic

In January 1980, U.S. President Jimmy Carter used his State of the Union address to announce that in order to protect “the free movement of Middle East oil,” the United States would repel “an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf.” Carter and his successors made good on that pledge, ramping up U.S. military capabilities in the region and even fighting the Gulf War to prevent Saddam Hussein’s Iraq from dominating the region’s oil supplies. Although Washington has had a number of interests in the Persian Gulf over the years, including preventing nuclear proliferation, fighting terrorism, and spreading democracy, the main rationale for its involvement has always been to keep the oil flowing.

For decades, this commitment has stirred remarkably little controversy. Even those who criticize U.S. alliances in Europe and Asia as too costly usually concede that Washington must defend the Persian Gulf, given that it accounts for roughly a third of global oil production. But the world has changed dramatically since the United States adopted this posture in the region. During the Cold War, the biggest threat to U.S. interests there was the Soviet Union. U.S. policymakers worried that if Moscow cut off the flow of oil, the gas-guzzling U.S. military might not be able to win a major war in Europe. But since the demise of the Soviet Union, the nature of U.S. interests in the reliable flow of oil has shifted. Where once both national security and prosperity were at stake, now only prosperity is.

That has stark implications for U.S. policy. For one thing, the lack of a national security imperative raises the threshold for military involvement in the Persian Gulf, since most Americans would find it less palatable to put U.S. soldiers in harm’s way to defend economic interests. For another thing, since it is hard to put a value on security, it becomes easier to assess the tradeoffs of a U.S. military commitment to the Persian Gulf when only economic risks are at play. So one must ask: Is Persian Gulf oil still worth defending with American military might?

Read at Foreign Affairs

Author

Rosemary
Kelanic

Director, Middle East Program

Defense Priorities

More on Middle East

op-edMiddle East, Iran, Israel‑Hamas, Yemen

Trump needs to stop involving himself in Middle East drama

By Christopher McCallion

May 29, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, Iran, Israel, Israel‑Hamas, Middle East

Donald Trump’s New Middle East Doctrine

By Alexander Langlois

May 26, 2025

op-edSyria, Middle East

Now is the time for the US to get its troops out of Syria

By Adam Gallagher

May 22, 2025

op-edIran, Middle East, Nuclear weapons

Are US-Iran Nuclear Talks at a Dead-End?

By Daniel DePetris

May 21, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, Israel, Israel‑Hamas, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine‑Russia

Donald Trump is getting a reality check on his peace plans for Gaza and Ukraine

By Daniel DePetris

May 20, 2025

In the mediaMiddle East, NATO

NATO Has an Authoritarian Dilemma as Turkey Turns Inward and the West Turns a Blind Eye

Featuring Jennifer Kavanagh

May 18, 2025

Events on Middle East

See All Events
virtualChina, Alliances, Balance of power, Diplomacy, Grand strategy, Great power competition, Middle East

Virtual: U.S.-China competition and the value of Middle East influence

June 10, 2025
virtualMiddle East, Basing and force posture, Diplomacy, Houthis, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Israel‑Hamas, Military analysis, Syria

Past Virtual Event: Trump in the Middle East: Impacts, implications, and alternatives

May 16, 2025
virtualSyria, Balance of power, Basing and force posture, Counterterrorism, Middle East, Military analysis

Past Virtual Event: Syria after Assad: Prospects for U.S. withdrawal

February 21, 2025

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved