The idea that America no longer needs to dedicate significant energy toward the Middle East is a dangerous fallacy. In the Saturday Essay of this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, former Obama administration official Martin Indyk tried to give that claim credence, arguing, “The Middle East isn’t worth it anymore.”

Unfortunately, he isn’t the only person making that argument. We heard it from President Barack Obama, we heard it from Democratic presidential candidates in last week’s debate, and we hear it in President Donald Trump’s pledges to end the United States’ “endless wars.”

Indyk writes that US involvement in the Middle East isn’t “worth it” because: (1) the fracking revolution means the US is no longer dependent on the region for oil, and (2) Israel’s survival is “no longer in question.” Even if one plays down the economic facts of the global oil market and ignores the Middle East’s key role, and ignores the fact that Israel’s survival remains in question (evident in Iran’s regular threats to “destroy” the state), Indyk glosses over several realities that make US involvement vital.  

Let’s start with ISIS and other non-state terrorist groups. In 2011, Obama fell victim to the myth that the Middle East was no longer worth our time. With al Qaeda in shambles, he withdrew US ground forces from Iraq, ignoring the fragile peace and the uncertain fighting ability of Iraqi forces. Roughly three years later, ISIS reigned over almost 12 million people, controlled a territory the size of Great Britain, and had the capability to attack Americans and US allies. All this a product of the notion that the Middle East was no longer “worth it.”

Today looks remarkably similar to that pivotal Obama moment. ISIS’s territorial caliphate is gone and al Qaeda is quiet. So we’re back to the “not worth it” arguments.

But a US abandonment of the region would be catastrophic for American allies, credibility, and power. Trump faced an astonishing bipartisan rebuke after withdrawing US forces from northeastern Syria, effectively green-lighting a Turkish invasion against our Kurdish allies. The betrayal of the Kurds is not a model to emulate.

Here’s another question to ask before staging an Obama replay: What’s to stop a US adversary from filling the void left by an American withdrawal? If you think the presence of the US — a country with morals, checks and balances against foreign intervention, and a democratically elected leader accountable to the population — has been damaging to the Middle East, you must also realize that a Russian or Chinese presence would be far worse.

This month’s confrontation with Iran is yet more evidence that a US retreat would be disastrous. While the Trump administration imposed crippling sanctions against Tehran, it largely looked the other way in the face of growing Iranian aggression. The result? Iran escalated to the point that its leaders felt comfortable killing a US citizen. Only once the US stopped ignoring Tehran and struck back with the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, did we see an Iranian de-escalation. And with mourners at Soleimani’s funeral chanting, “Death to America” and the regime announcing it would no longer comply with the 2015 nuclear deal’s uranium enrichment restrictions, now seems like an inopportune time to decide that American interests in the region are no longer “worth it.”

Looking back on US involvement in the Middle East over the past several decades, has American policy been flawed? Yes. Have US presidents been “incapable of mustering a consensus or pursuing a consistent policy” in the region? Also yes. But to argue that “few vital interests of the US continue to be at stake” is a misconception that Americans must not accept.

Alexa Santry is a research associate in AEI’s Foreign and Defense Policy department.

This article first appeared at the American Enterprise Institute.

Image: Reuters.