The End of Ambition: America's Past, Present, and Future in the Middle East

by Steven A. Cook

A clear-headed vision for the United States' role in the Middle East that highlights the changing nature of US national interests and the challenges of grand strategizing at a time of profound change in the international order.

Following a long series of catastrophic misadventures in the Middle East over the last two decades, the American foreign policy community has tried to understand what went wrong. After weighing the evidence, they have mostly advised a retreat from the region. The basic view is that when the United States tries to advance change in the Middle East, it only makes matters worse.

In The End of Ambition, Steven A. Cook argues that while these analysts are rightly concerned that engagement drains US resources and distorts its domestic politics, the broader impulse to disengage tends to neglect important lessons from the past. Moreover, advocates of pulling back overlook the potential risks of withdrawal. Covering the relationship between the US and the Middle East since the end of WWII, Cook makes the bold claim that despite setbacks and moral costs, the United States has been overwhelmingly successful in protecting its core national interests in the Middle East. Conversely, overly ambitious policies to remake the region and leverage US power not only ended in failure, but rendered the region unstable in new and largely misunderstood ways.

While making the case that retrenchment is not the answer to America's problems in the Middle East, The End of Ambition highlights how America's interests in the region have begun to change and critically examines alternative approaches to US-Middle East policy. Cook highlights the challenges that policymakers and analysts confront developing a new strategy for the United States in the Middle East against the backdrop of both political uncertainty in the United States and a changing global order.

Genres: Politics, Middle East, International Relations, History

205 pages, Kindle Edition

Published May 6, 2024

About the author

Steven A. Cook is the Eni Enrico Mattei senior fellow for Middle East and Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He is also the author of The Struggle for Egypt: From Nasser to Tahrir Square (Oxford University Press, 2011) and Ruling But Not Governing: The Military and Political Development in Egypt, Algeria, and Turkey (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007). Cook contributes regularly to foreign policy journals such as Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, and The New Republic. He also runs a blog about Middle Eastern politics and history.

Cook travels to the Middle East, usually Turkey and Egypt, several times a year and has lived in Cairo, Damascus, Jerusalem, Ankara, and Ramallah. He knows three languages: English, Arabic, and Turkish. His research is primarily steeped in civil-military relations in the Middle East and he appears frequently on television and radio interviews to provide expert commentary on unfolding current events in the Middle East.

(Source: Wikipedia)

Reviews

[Chad Manske · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stephen A. Cook's "The End of Ambition: America's Past, Present, and Future in the Middle East" is a captivating and thought-provoking exploration of America's role in the tumultuous region. Cook, a renowned expert on Middle Eastern politics and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, delves deep into the complex history and dynamics that have shaped US policy towards the Middle East. From the early days of colonialism to the present day, Cook skillfully traces the evolution of America's ambitions in the region, highlighting the highs and lows of US involvement. He provides a comprehensive analysis of key events such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Iraq War, and the Arab Spring, offering insightful perspectives on the successes and failures of US foreign policy. A compelling aspect of Cook's book is his examination of the shifting power dynamics in the Middle East and the implications for American interests. He argues that the era of unchallenged American dominance in the region is coming to an end, as rising powers such as China and Russia exert their influence and regional actors assert their own agendas. Cook's writing is engaging, making complex political concepts easy to understand for readers of all backgrounds. His vivid storytelling and vivid anecdotes bring the history of the Middle East to life, making "The End of Ambition" a page-turner from start to finish. Ultimately, Cook's book serves as a wake-up call for policymakers and citizens alike, urging a reevaluation of America's role in the Middle East. With its timely analysis and compelling narrative, "The End of Ambition" is a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the past, present, and future of US-Middle East relations.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cook is a great foreign policy writer, but I was a little underwhelmed by this book. It's an argument for prudential conservatism in USFP in the MIddle East, which, sure, who doesn't agree with that at this point. There are many good insights in this book, and the tenor is generally fair and a I learned a However, I have two critiques of the book, one historical and the other more policy-based.

My historical critique is that Cook draws way too clean a line between USFP in the Middle East during and after the Cold War. He argues that during the Cold War, the US focused on keeping the Soviets out, maintaining balance, protecting Israel, and maintaining the free flow of oil from the region. In these goals, Cook rightly argues that the US was successful, even though there were many costs and externalities to these policies. He then argues that starting with Clinton, the US shifted to trying to transform the region via 1. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. 2. Dually containing Iraq and Iran. 3. Trying to transform the region's politics via regime change/democratization in Iraq and elsewhere. These were unrealistic moves, argues Cook, which plunged the US into interminable conflicts as well as destabilizing the region.

But this is too neat a history. Cook acts like US efforts to solve the ISraeli-Palestinian conflict started with Clinton, but they are literally as long as the existence of the state of Israel. Was Clinton supposed to let this conflict, which makes achieving almost anything in the region impossible, fester indefinitely? Was the US supposed to put zero pressure on its autocratic allies to change? Clinton's middle east policy was nowhere near as ambitious or unrealistic as Bush's, but Cook flattens the differences to have a neater story.

What's odd about this book, at a policy level, is that Cook is against basically all efforts to improve things in the Middle East. He's right that trying to change the region by force is dumb, but that's low-hanging fruit. He also excoriates the JCPOA for being unrealistic, given the Iranian regime's extremism and the opposition to the deal of US partners in the region. But again, what was the alternative? Were we supposed to let things descend into open war, which is exactly what we have now after having abandoned the JCPOA?

Cook's argument for status quo management is fine, but it has two shortcomings: 1. The status quo in the Middle East is not good and hasn't been good for a long time, and the US cannot achieve even a limited set of objectives in the region without at least trying to address or at least amelioriate structural problems (like the Saudi-Iranian Cold War or the Iran-Israel hot wars). 2. The unsustainability of the status quo in the region is why the US tried ambitious diplomatic, economic, and military efforts to change the region. Cook doesn't really address these issues or the constraints under which policymakers operate, which leaves the reader with a rather simplistic analysis.

In short, there's a good amount of wisdom in this book, but it didn't feel like Cook was really engaging much with potential critics, and the history ends up being too tidy for my tastes.

[Mark Ehlers · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent and concise summary of America's role in the Middle East and how the exercise of U.S. influence in the region has shifted from a focus on protecting U.S. interests (preventing the disruption of oil exports from the region, protecting Israel's security interests, and containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War) to a more ambitious agenda of promoting American values (democracy, human rights, freedom, political reform, etc.). Cook's thesis is that when American presidents and the foreign policy establishment have understood the limits of American power in the Middle East and exercised that power to achieve a set of limited goals, they have generally succeeded (admittedly at a moral cost of having to align with some unsavory foreign leaders and compromising American values). Conversely, when the United States has sought to transform the region to be more like us (e.g., the disastrous Iraq war) or embarked on grand and ambitious initiatives such as attempting to aggressively broker Israeli-Palestinian peace or democratizing the Arab world, we have mostly failed. Cook suggests that these grand initiatives, while worthy and desirable, are not going to happen unless and until the involved people and countries choose to do so. Although I am not certain I agree with all of Cook's points, he is extremely knowledgeable about the region's complexities and realities, how conflicting interests must be balanced, the challenges posed to U.S. interests from the rising influence of Russia and China in the Middle East, and how the U.S. can best navigate the changing global order. He does not shy away from the moral imperative of human rights and the pursuit of peace between Israel and Palestine, but simply presents the realities confronting American policymakers and offers important suggestions for how the U.S. can more effectively protect its interests while remaining engaged in a way that positively and more effectively influences peace and reform in the region.

[Ruxandra · Rating 5 out of 5]

The assumptions challenged by this book:

(1) The US successfully secured its interests in the Middle East throughout the Cold War. Those interests prevented the disruption of oil exports from the region, helped to forestall threats to Israeli security, and, during the Cold War, prevented the Soviet Union from trying to dominate the region. It was worth paying the price and the moral costs.

(2) Attempts to positively transform the politics and society in the Middle East led to policy failures. When the US sought to prevent “bad things” from happening to its interests, it succeeded. However, when Washington sought to leverage its power to make “good things” happen in the service of its interests, it often failed. It means that the US can do little to improve human right records, pursue political reform, and embark on more-inclusive economic policies of their partners across the world. For democracies, you need democrats.

(3) Withdrawal or pivoting away from the region would be too radical, self-defeating for the US; the Middle East remains important for the US. The challenge for policymakers is to develop a set of achievable goals in a part of the world that will remain critical in global politics and thus to the US. The Middle East is truly the middle, connecting core US global interests in the stability of Europe, the extraction and transport of energy resources, with opportunities in Asia. It is also a region comprising countries that are most vulnerable to the climate crisis, where extremism persists, and the danger of nuclear proliferation remains.

(4) The Middle East will also play a role in the development of a new global order precisely because the great powers continue to be interested in the region. Actors in this region have agency too – governments in the Middle East are determined to shape their own neighbourhood rather than watch the Americans, Russians, Europeans, and Chinese do it for them. Washington must partner with countries that will play critical roles in international security, the global economy, and world culture.

[Osama · Rating 3 out of 5]

يقدم الكتاب فكرة مفادها بأنه بعد سلسلة من الإخفاقات الكارثية للسياسة الخارجية الأمريكية في الشرق الأوسط على مدار العقدين الماضيين (العراق وافغانستان)، ساد توجه عام يدعو إلى التراجع والانسحاب. يرى أصحاب هذا التوجه أن أي محاولة أمريكية لإحداث تغيير في المنطقة تنتهي عادة بنتائج عكسية تجعل الأمور أكثر سوءا مما كانت عليه. ويرى المؤلف بأن الدعوات للانسحاب الكامل (خلال حكم بايدن) تتجاهل دروس التاريخ ومخاطر الفراغ الذي قد يتركه هذا التراجع. ويرى بأن الولايات المتحدة، رغم التكاليف الأخلاقية والنكسات، نجحت لحد كبير في حماية مصالحها القومية الأساسية في المنطقة منذ نهاية الحرب العالمية الثانية. ​يوضح الكتاب أن المشكلة لم تكن في التدخل بحد ذاته، بل في السياسات المبالغ في حجمها و التي هدفت إلى إعادة تشكيل المنطقة بالقوة. هذه المحاولات لفرض التغيير لم تفشل فحسب، بل أدت إلى زعزعة استقرار المنطقة بطرق جديدة وغير مفهومة، مما خلق حالة من الفوضى السياسية.

[Christopher Payne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good history of American Middle East policy over the past 20 years, but light on the future outlook and policy recommendations.

[xiaobao · Rating 3 out of 5]

Please don't cover US aggressiveness with "democracy promotion." There's no such thing all the time. Be an adult.