A quick thread on this piece. James Jeffrey has obviously been on a months-long effort to polish his legacy from the Trump years. Can only speak for myself, but I've come away from every interview, and now this article, thinking he's done the opposite. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2021-01-15/biden-doesnt-need-new-middle-east-policy

First, the whole thing is a post hoc rationalization of Trump's approach to the Middle East. He didn't have a strategy. What he had, at best, were impulses that guided his policy: be tough on Iran; embrace Israel; don't criticize American partners in the region.

But none of this amounted to a strategy in the sense of setting achievable goals, identifying realistic actions that would accomplish those goals, and anticipating the behavior of adversaries. It was a chaotic, impulsive mess.

Second, the piece is notable for what it doesn't mention. Libya and Yemen, for example, don't appear at all. Granted, those issues aren't Jeffrey's bailiwick. But he does talk about the so-called Abraham Accords, which aren't his patch either.

You can make an argument (which I'd be sympathetic to!) that neither of those conflicts are terribly important vis-a-vis America's core national interests. But America is complicit in both of those conflicts. That they don't even merit a mention is telling.

Third, this is a jaw-droppingly poor analogy. Iran's situation in Syria is not comparable to the USSR's in Afghanistan—not in the number of troops deployed, not in the human or financial cost, not in the strategic importance of the deployment.

As an aside, since American troops are still deployed in Afghanistan fighting a futile 20-year war that is, in some ways, a consequence of earlier American policy in Afghanistan, perhaps policymakers should do a bit more soul-searching about how well said policy "worked."

Next, Jeffrey identifies these three ends as the goals of American policy in Syria. He then recounts a series of actions which were wholly insufficient to accomplish objectives 1 and 3. Indeed, by his own admission, America accomplished neither of them.

That's understandable: America lacks the leverage and capabilities to achieve those goals. But Jeffrey makes no effort to reckon with that reality. Instead he urges the Biden administration to continue the same insufficient policy in the unsupported hope that it might work.

Then there's this remarkably nonchalant assessment of Trump's Iran policy. "Time will tell whether maximum pressure gives us a unicorn or an intransigent and perhaps nuclear-armed Iran" does not seem like a very encouraging verdict?

Last thing: If you attribute the Abraham Accords primarily to Trump's embrace of the Gulf states, not to broader dynamics in the region and the Gulf's growing *unease* with its American partner, you're not offering serious analysis, you're doing spin for the administration.