Lindsey Graham’s Bipartisan Strategy for a Lasting U.S. Presence in the Middle East

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate faced a significant vote regarding the proposal to grant Israel an additional $20 billion in weaponry, largely funded by American taxpayers. The decision passed overwhelmingly, but Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) seized the occasion to push an agenda that extended beyond Israel. Graham advocated for a permanent U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, framing it as a “historic opportunity” to reshape both the region and the global landscape. He expressed a desire to collaborate with the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration to facilitate a normalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel, which he views as essential for countering Iranian threats and stabilizing the region.

Graham emphasized the need for a robust military alliance with Saudi Arabia, similar to the pacts the U.S. has with Japan and South Korea, which would obligate American forces to defend the kingdom in times of conflict. He posited that this alliance could alleviate the responsibilities placed upon Israel. During the debate, Graham suggested that Arab nations should play a more significant role, particularly regarding the Palestinian territories, indicating that a solution for Gaza and the West Bank would not come from the U.S. or Israel but rather from the Arab world itself. This alignment with Saudi interests signals a shift towards integrating regional players into the broader geopolitical strategy of the United States.

While discussing the potential for Saudi-Israeli normalization, Graham also expressed support for the vision of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has made limited reforms within the kingdom, such as allowing women to drive and travel without male guardianship. Graham’s argument took on a historical perspective, likening the potential transformation of the Middle East to the long-term U.S. efforts in reforming post-World War II Japan and Germany. However, he employed incendiary rhetoric, suggesting that the threat posed by Iran and its Shiite ideology necessitated a militaristic approach by the U.S., a stance that raises questions about his understanding of complex religious dynamics within Islam.

This controversial rhetoric included Graham’s claims about Iranian Shiites being inherently inclined to violence against Jews, invoking grave generalizations that could foster sectarian divides. His remarks revealed a stark contrast between contemporary Middle Eastern societies and the prevailing narratives that often demonize entire communities based on the actions or ideologies of specific factions. This dangerous simplification overlooks the diverse realities within the Muslim world and risks escalating existing animosities, especially in a geopolitical landscape that is increasingly polarized.

Graham was not alone in using the Senate debate as a platform to advocate for expanded U.S. military commitments abroad. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) objected to the Biden administration’s handling of Diego Garcia, a U.S. military base located on an uninhabited island in the Indian Ocean, suggesting that the administration was compromising American positions for international favors. His frustration stemmed from an agreement that began the process of transferring the Chagos Islands to Mauritius while allowing the U.S. to lease Diego Garcia for an extended period. The concern expressed by Kennedy reflects a broader sentiment among certain lawmakers who view any reduction of U.S. military presence as a form of capitulation or abandonment of American influence.

These developments underscore a prevailing mindset among some Washington lawmakers that prioritizes maintaining global military superiority and interventionist policies over diplomatic solutions. The overarching theme highlights the complexities of U.S. foreign relations, especially in the Middle East, where alliances are often juxtaposed against longstanding cultural and ideological conflicts. As the Senate debates pivot from immediate support for Israel to broader regional strategies, the implications for U.S. involvement in the Middle East, military alliances with autocratic governments, and the prospect of peace in long-turbulent areas demand critical reflection and reevaluation of America’s role in reshaping the global order. The danger of oversimplification and militaristic solutions emerges as a pertinent warning as policymakers navigate the intricacies of international relations in a diverse and complex world.