Podcast Summary: Lawfare Archive – "The End of U.S. Ambition in the Middle East" with Steven Cook

Podcast: The Lawfare Podcast
Episode: Lawfare Archive: The End of U.S. Ambition in the Middle East with Steven Cook
Date: August 17, 2025 (original discussion July 31, 2024)
Host: Scott R. Anderson (Senior Editor at Lawfare)
Guest: Steven Cook (Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies, Council on Foreign Relations)

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into the past, present, and potential future of U.S. policy in the Middle East through the lens of Steven Cook’s new book, The End of America's Past, Present and Future in the Middle East. The conversation explores how U.S. ambitions have shifted from pragmatic, interest-based strategies to transformative attempts at remaking societies, and why Cook believes a more clear-eyed, limited approach is now necessary. The discussion is set against the backdrop of ongoing regional turmoil—especially the war in Gaza, U.S.-Israeli relations, and the growing influence of China and other global powers.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Origins & Motivation of Cook’s Book

• Cook was inspired by the disconnect between U.S. policymakers' perceptions and realities on the ground (05:05).
• Personal accounts from the 2011 Egyptian uprising shaped Cook’s skepticism about the idea that the U.S. could or should transform the region.
• Pandemic constraints (COVID-19) encouraged Cook to synthesize decades of debate into an accessible work (150 pages), focusing less on detailed history and more on analysis (08:55).
• Notable Quote:

  “I thought that this also was wrong. So it was an itch that I really needed to scratch over a long period of time, having marinated myself in the arguments and debates here in Washington, as well as what was going on in the Middle East.” – Steven Cook (05:41)

2. Historical Context: From Oil to Hegemony (09:54)

• The Middle East was once peripheral but gained prominence post-World War II due to energy security concerns.
• The U.S. focus on oil—its “Prime Directive”—remained central, influencing everything from the Cold War to recent events.
• Military presence expanded only after the British exit "East of Suez" (1971); U.S. influence solidified post-Cold War.
• Notable Quote:

  “There’s nothing that we do in the Middle East that isn’t connected to the free flow of energy resources, whether it’s for our own economic health or the health of our allies and friends around the world.” – Steven Cook (15:28)

3. Cold War vs. Post-Cold War Policy (16:30)

• During the Cold War: Policies were effective because objectives (oil, Israel’s security, primacy) were clear and narrowly defined.
• After the Cold War: U.S. ambition shifted toward transforming societies (democracy promotion, peace process, region-wide stability), leading to costly failures (Iraq, Arab Spring, etc.).
• Cook contends the U.S. is better at preventing threats (“don’t let bad things happen”) than at engineering positive change.
• Notable Quote:

  “Our return on the investment in all of those things is zero—less than zero. We paid a tremendous price. People in the region paid a tremendous price.” – Steven Cook (20:38)

4. Interests vs. Values: Can They Align? (22:10)

• Discussion of the enduring U.S. struggle to reconcile practical interests (stability, alliances, energy) with rhetorical values (human rights, democracy).
• Cook: U.S. must accept that, in the Middle East, interests and values often diverge; transformative efforts (democracy promotion, human rights pressure) have been largely ineffective or counterproductive.
• Promoting democracy can antagonize partners and encourage hedging with China or Russia.
• Notable Quote:

  “First of all, no one wants to be transformed by an external power, I think it’s pretty clear… a more democratic Egypt or a more democratic Saudi Arabia is probably not advantageous for American interests.” – Steven Cook (25:54)

5. The Role and Limits of Human Rights and Domestic Pressure (34:17)

• The Khashoggi killing and Yemen war marked rare instances when U.S. domestic outrage and bipartisan Congressional pressure meaningfully affected foreign alliances.
• Biden’s early attempts at a principled approach (human rights, “no blank check” for allies) quickly gave way to strategic necessities—Saudi oil, Egyptian mediation.
• Concessions to human rights advocacy risk losing partners or pushing them toward rival powers.
• Notable Quote:

  “The more we bang the drums on human rights, the more it encourages the Saudis to actually hedge with the Chinese, which is precisely what we don’t want to happen.” – Steven Cook (38:59)

6. Critique of Restraint and the “End of Ambition” (41:50)

• Cook is sympathetic to the “restraint” camp (e.g., Quincy Institute, Defense Priorities)—their calls for resource realignment and strategic discipline.

• He rebuts full retrenchment or withdrawal, insisting the Middle East retains vital interests for the U.S.

• The prudent path is not grand transformation or abandonment but “prudential conservatism”—persistent engagement calibrated to core interests.

• Notable Quote:

  “Let’s realign our resources, but let’s not withdraw, let’s not retrench. These things don’t work. There’s reason to be in the Middle East. But let’s resource our presence… to what is actually important to us and what our goals are.” – Steven Cook (42:20)

7. Defining U.S. Interests Going Forward (45:28)

• Six core interests (outlined by Cook):
  1. Free flow of energy resources
  2. Israel’s security (gradually moving toward normalized relations, less direct aid)
  3. Counterterrorism
  4. Non-proliferation (stabilize nuclear programs if prevention fails)
  5. Regional climate adaptation (reduce migration, instability)
  6. Strategic competition with China and Russia
• The approach emphasizes limited, technically grounded support—modest military footprint, technical assistance for adaptation, and normalized (rather than special) alliances.

8. Stability vs. Instability; The Gaza Question (53:17)

• The Middle East’s underlying instability is persistent, but “revolutionary moments” often revert to grinding status quos or even worse repression (see: Egypt, Tunisia).
• On Gaza: The U.S. should devote resources to preventing Israeli resettlement—the single greatest risk to regional integration and U.S. interests—even if a two-state solution appears unreachable.
• Notable Quote:

  “We need to devote our resources not to the idea of reviving the Palestinian Authority, which is deeply compromised...but to prevent the Israelis from resettling the Gaza Strip. Because everything that we want to do in the region...would be blown up by that.” – Steven Cook (55:44)

9. Big Picture Takeaway (61:59)

• Cook’s essential argument: The U.S. lost its sense of proportion and purpose by conflating interests with an unrealistic transformative ambition.
• Success requires clarity about priorities and resource discipline—not turning away from the region, but not getting lost in “Washington, D.C.-based fever dreams about transformation.”
• Notable Quote:

  “If we understand what's important to us...we actually could be more constructive than when we go off in the world and say, hey, we need to make the world look more like us because that'll be safer for us.” – Steven Cook (62:23)

Notable Quotes & Moments with Timestamps

• “I really needed to scratch [this itch] over a long period of time, having marinated myself in the arguments and debates…” – Cook (05:41)
• “The Middle East… was largely a backwater in American foreign policy… But after World War II, there was a strategic interest in it.” – Cook (09:54)
• “[Operation Desert Storm] wasn’t a war for oil… but they weren’t entirely wrong. Oil was a factor in that.” – Cook (15:23)
• “By dint of what policymakers wanted to do… the United States was pretty successful. The oil flowed, we helped Israel’s security, and the United States remained the dominant power…” – Cook (16:30)
• “Our return on the investment in all of those [transformative] things is zero—less than zero. We paid a tremendous price. People in the region paid a tremendous price.” – Cook (20:38)
• “We have to stop talking about our values being consistent with our interest—at least in the Middle East. That’s not to say that I don’t want to hear a president… talk about democracy and freedom…” – Cook (25:54)
• “We should end the 10 year memorandums of understanding… and replace those with security pacts and treaties… it would be better for both countries to normalize relations.” – Cook (46:30)
• “A more limited goal like preventing Israelis from resettling the Gaza Strip would be something… good we can do.” – Cook (58:54)
• “To turn our backs on this region is actually to be asking for trouble. In our lifetimes and our children’s, our grandchildren’s lifetimes, [it will] remain very, very important.” – Cook (62:23)

Key Timestamps for Segment Reference

• Origins of the book and approach: 05:04 – 09:04
• History and the “Prime Directive” (oil): 09:54 – 15:43
• Cold War vs. Post-Cold War strategy: 16:30 – 22:10
• Reconciling interests and values: 22:10 – 28:07
• Domestic pressure, Khashoggi, Yemen: 34:17 – 40:08
• Critique of the “restraint crowd” and policy recalibration: 41:50 – 44:59
• Six core interests and future posture: 45:28 – 52:32
• Stability, Gaza, and “prudential conservatism”: 53:17 – 61:59
• Final takeaway and thesis: 61:59 – 63:28

Tone & Style

The conversation is serious, candid, and analytical but accessible—reflecting both Cook’s determination to reach non-expert audiences and the Lawfare Podcast’s commitment to depth and rigor. Both host and guest avoid partisanship, focusing on history, strategy, and the realities of international relationships.

This summary provides a comprehensive guide to the episode, capturing major arguments, memorable moments, the language and reasoning of the speakers, and key points for further analysis and discussion.