Dynamic Force Employment is the Future of America’s Middle East Presence

The US aircraft carrier "USS Dwight Eisenhower" crosses the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Gulf on November 26, 2023. INFORMATION TECHNICIAN SECOND CLASS RUSKIN NAVAL / AP
The US aircraft carrier "USS Dwight Eisenhower" crosses the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Gulf on November 26, 2023. INFORMATION TECHNICIAN SECOND CLASS RUSKIN NAVAL / AP
TT

Dynamic Force Employment is the Future of America’s Middle East Presence

The US aircraft carrier "USS Dwight Eisenhower" crosses the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Gulf on November 26, 2023. INFORMATION TECHNICIAN SECOND CLASS RUSKIN NAVAL / AP
The US aircraft carrier "USS Dwight Eisenhower" crosses the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Gulf on November 26, 2023. INFORMATION TECHNICIAN SECOND CLASS RUSKIN NAVAL / AP

Few things grab the attention of Arab leaders who are friendly to Washington more than America’s military presence in the region. Even the slightest drawdown greatly worries and often drives them to assume the worst about US intentions.

A calm assessment of America’s changing geopolitical priorities, followed by an understanding of how the United States has sought to adjust its military posture in the region, should ease the worries of Arab partners, or at least some of them.

While it is true that the United States has reached fatigue in the Middle East given its costly interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the more powerful driver behind reducing military investments in the region is the US strategic prioritization of the Indo-Pacific and European theaters.

Checking China and countering Russia requires more resources than previously allocated to each respective theater, and given that US resources are limited, they must be brought in from other places. By any objective account, the United States had an oversized presence in the Middle East, which made the region a natural candidate for a reduced US military footprint.

The view of US abandonment of the Middle East has needlessly dominated policy and emotions in the region. It remains baseless. So long as the region contains strategic natural resources including high percentages of oil and gas, and so long as the export of those resources is crucial for the wellbeing of the international economy, the United States will care about the region and devote resources to maintain stability in that vital part of the world. The question now is how the United States can preserve its interests, strengthen its partnerships, and commit to its stabilizing mission in the region with fewer resources at its disposal.

There’s no doubt that Washington has struggled with this question at the policy level – the conflict between Israel and Hamas is just the latest example of the limitations of US Middle East policy. But what’s encouraging is that the US Department of Defense has stepped up and proposed some creative ideas regarding the future of America’s military presence in the region. Enter dynamic force employment.

The concept of dynamic force employment was officially introduced in the 2018 National Defense Strategy. Implemented in the Middle East more than anywhere else lately, it seeks to reduce routine deployments to provide flexibility and make peacetime force movements more agile without compromising on combat readiness. Current commander of US Air Forces Central Command, Lt. Gen. Greg Guillot, argued that “dynamic force employment deployments demonstrate the ability to move combat capability into theater just in time for when it is required, not just in case it might be needed.”

Dynamic force employment also better protects US forces from Iran’s threat of missiles and unmanned aerial systems. In his posture statement on March 15, 2022, former CENTCOM Commander Gen. Frank McKenzie correctly noted that “distributing forces more broadly outside of the most significant Iranian threat ranges not only enhances survivability but also demonstrates an increased capability to rapidly mass combat effects...”

And that’s precisely what CENTCOM has demonstrated in its approach to the region over the past few weeks and months. We’ve seen the United States deploy additional military assets including aircraft carriers, warships, and fighter aircraft to respond to the rising threat of Iran’s threat network. These resources had to come from other regions including Europe and even from military bases in the United States.

Dynamic force employment shouldn’t suggest that the United States has switched to a strategy of offshore balancing or that it is about to gradually give up its forward-deployed military presence in the Middle East. An effective posture that contributes to the missions of deterrence, reassurance, and security cooperation must have an element of forward deployment.

To deter Iran, the United States must have assets in theater to affect the decision-making calculus of the leadership in Tehran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. To be sure, US deterrence against Iran has been contested. But it would be even less effective without immediate and powerful American means of punishment in theater that could prevent Iran from quickly establishing facts on the ground in a crisis.

To reassure partners, the United States needs visible and permanent military power in the region. Regional partners feel a lot more reassured by the constant basing of American troops and equipment on their soil because it reflects a certain level of US commitment to their security. Also, to effectively conduct security cooperation, the United States needs troops and trained personnel in the region to advise and assist their counterparts. The entire enterprise of security cooperation is about building trust and personal relationships, and you simply cannot do that remotely.

How much forward presence is necessary to effectively pursue all three of these missions is always hard to know. One also has to recognize that when it comes to posture, there is an inherent tension between deterrence, reassurance, and security cooperation.

While security cooperation doesn’t need a large US footprint – it needs the right kind of personnel in the right places more than anything else – partners will always prefer a robust and sizable presence. With respect to deterrence, it is virtually impossible to know how much US firepower is enough to be effective because the concept itself is incredibly hard to measure and evaluate (it also depends on several other variables including credibility and consistency) and because Iran consistently operates below the threshold of war.

Dynamic force employment is supposed to smartly balance between all three missions by keeping a forward-deployed presence while putting a bigger premium on maintaining access, investing in adaptability, and building resilience. This is particularly challenging because regional partners could decide to reduce US access if they see that Washington is further drawing down its physical presence.

Access becomes even more important to the United States as tensions with Iran grow and the likelihood of war increases. The first few moments of a potential confrontation or even military crisis between the United States and Iran require a high degree of US operational flexibility, which can only be enabled by access.

In the end, any US discussion of posture, be it in the Middle East or elsewhere, should be informed first and foremost by strategy. Strategy drives posture, not the other way around. There is no point in debating numbers of American troops and capabilities in the Middle East if Washington doesn't have a clear idea of what objectives it wants those troops and capabilities to achieve.

But even when that moment of clarity in US Middle East strategy comes, Washington should always remember that the regional partners get a vote. Without their access and permission, the United States can do very little in the Middle East.



Trump’s Erratic Foreign Policy to Meet ‘A World on Fire’

 Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US presidential election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)
Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US presidential election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)
TT

Trump’s Erratic Foreign Policy to Meet ‘A World on Fire’

 Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US presidential election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)
Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US presidential election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)

While campaigning to regain the US presidency, Donald Trump said that he would be able to end Russia's war in Ukraine in 24 hours, warned that Israel would be "eradicated" if he lost the election and vowed sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports.

Now that Trump has claimed victory, many at home and abroad are asking an urgent question: will he make good on his long list of foreign policy threats, promises and pronouncements?

The Republican has offered few foreign policy specifics, but supporters say the force of his personality and his “peace through strength” approach will help bend foreign leaders to his will and calm what Republicans describe as a "world on fire".

They blame the global crises on weakness shown by President Joe Biden, though his fellow Democrats reject that accusation.

America’s friends and foes alike remain wary as they await Trump’s return to office in January, wondering whether his second term will be filled with the kind of turbulence and unpredictability that characterized his first four years.

Trump’s 2017-2021 presidency was often defined on the world stage by his "America First" protectionist trade policy and isolationist rhetoric, including threats to withdraw from NATO.

At the same time, he sought to parlay his self-styled image as a deal-making businessman by holding summits with North Korea, which ultimately failed to halt its nuclear weapons program, and brokering normalization talks between Israel and some Arab countries, which achieved a measure of success.

"Donald Trump remains erratic and inconsistent when it comes to foreign policy," analysts for the European Council on Foreign Relations wrote in a blog post during the US campaign.

"Europeans are still licking their wounds from Trump’s first term: they have not forgotten the former president’s tariffs, his deep antagonism towards the European Union and Germany," they said.

Trump and his loyalists dismiss such criticism, insisting that other countries have long taken advantage of the US and that he would put a stop to it.

ENDING THE UKRAINE WAR

How Trump responds to Russia’s war in Ukraine could set the tone for his agenda and signal how he will deal with NATO and key US allies, after Biden worked to rebuild key relationships that frayed under his predecessor.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy congratulated Trump on social network X, describing Trump's peace-through-strength approach as a "principle that can practically bring just peace in Ukraine closer".

Trump insisted last year that Russian President Vladimir Putin never would have invaded Ukraine in 2022 if he had been in the White House, adding that “even now I could solve that in 24 hours”. But he has not said how he would do so.

He has been critical of Biden's support for Ukraine and said that under his presidency the US would fundamentally rethink NATO's purpose. He told Reuters last year that Ukraine may have to cede territory to reach a peace agreement, something the Ukrainians reject and Biden has never suggested.

NATO, which backs Ukraine, is also under threat.

Trump, who has railed for years against NATO members that failed to meet agreed military spending targets, warned during the campaign that he would not only refuse to defend nations "delinquent" on funding but would encourage Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to them.

"NATO would face the most serious existential threat since its founding," said Brett Bruen, a former foreign policy adviser in the Obama administration.

A FREER HAND FOR ISRAEL?

Trump will also confront a volatile Middle East that threatens to descend into a broader regional conflict. Israel is fighting wars in Gaza and Lebanon while facing off against arch-foe Iran, even as Yemen’s Houthis fire on commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

He has expressed support for Israel’s fight to destroy Hamas in the Palestinian enclave but has said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Trump ally widely believed to have favored his return to power, must finish the job quickly.

Trump is expected to continue arming Israel, whose existence he said would have been endangered if Harris had been elected - a claim dismissed by the Biden administration given its staunch support for Israel.

His policy toward Israel likely will have no strings attached for humanitarian concerns, in contrast to pressure that Biden applied in a limited way. Trump may give Netanyahu a freer hand with Iran.

But Trump could face a new crisis if Iran, which has stepped up nuclear activities since he abandoned a nuclear deal with Tehran in 2018, rushes to develop a nuclear weapon.

When Trump was last in the White House, he presided over the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. But those diplomatic deals did nothing to advance Palestinian statehood in the West Bank and Gaza.

MIXED MESSAGES ON CHINA

Trump made a tough stance toward China central to his campaign, suggesting he would ramp up tariffs on Chinese goods as part of a broader effort that could also hit products from the EU. Many economists say such moves would lead to higher prices for US consumers and sow global financial instability.

He has threatened to go further than his first term when he implemented a sometimes chaotic approach to China that plunged the world's two biggest economies into a trade war.

But just as before, Trump has presented a mixed message, describing Chinese President Xi Jinping as “brilliant" for ruling with an “iron fist”.

Trump has also insisted that Taiwan should pay the US for defense. But he has said China would never dare to invade democratically governed Taiwan, which Beijing claims as its territory, if he were president.

Another unknown is how Trump will craft his national security team, though many critics believe he will avoid bringing in mainstream Republicans who sometimes acted as "guardrails" in his first term.

Many former top aides, including ex-national security adviser John Bolton and his first chief of staff John Kelly, broke with him before the election, calling him unfit for office.

Trump has been quiet about whom he might appoint but sources with knowledge of the matter say Robert O'Brien, his final national security adviser, is likely to play a significant role.

Trump is expected to install loyalists in key positions in the Pentagon, State Department and CIA whose primary allegiance would be to him, current and former aides and diplomats told Reuters.

The result, they say, would enable Trump to make sweeping changes to policy as well as to federal institutions that implement - and sometimes constrain - presidential actions abroad.