The Chilcot Report and America’s Middle East strategy

Immediately preceding the terror attacks in Nice, France and the ill-fated coup attempt in Turkey, a long anticipated report was published in the United Kingdom that could have a resounding impact on America’s Middle East strategy. The report, published on July 6 by Sir John Chilcot, was the culmination of seven years of investigation into the actions of the United Kingdom to join the United States in the invasion of Iraq. While this inquiry proposed little in terms of alternatives to decisions made in Iraq or the Middle East as a whole, the report delivered a damning assessment of former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his decision to join the United States in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Why this report could prove to be influential for the United States moving forward has much to do with timing and context.

Currently, the United Kingdom is engaged in debate as to what the future of their nation will be. After the Brexit referendum and subsequent withdrawal from the European Union, the publication of The Chilcot Report has had enormous resonance with the British people. So much so that in the wake of Prime Minister David Cameron resignation, Theresa May, a Tory leader that has been forced to quickly articulate her vision for British influence in the world.

{mosads}Theresa May has just begun her tenure as Prime Minister, and in her first week at 10 Downing Street, the dynamics of the Middle East have shifted dramatically. The United States is already engaged in protracted military operations to combat ISIS in both Iraq and Syria, and the instability created in Turkey has only served to complicate the mission at hand. The use of military installations in the UK and material support are instrumental in continuing to put pressure of ISIS.

The Chilcot Report further complicates issues by limiting the United States’ ability to build a European alliance (spearheaded by a traditional ally) to lend military or monetary support for defeating ISIS. Despite the recent attacks in France, the impact of The Chilcot Report has fostered skepticism amongst the British people about following the United States into another Middle Eastern intervention. Even the agreement of a common enemy in ISIS may not be enough to persuade British leaders from risking a “Blair-like” policy moment. Understandably, the resulting military partnerships between the United States and the UK will undoubtedly require more scrutiny and public debate before any military action of substance would be approved.

The battle against ISIS, and the issue of the Assad regime in Syria, bear a striking resemblance to the uncertainty of the post-Iraq War debacle. Memories of the bloodletting that occurred in the immediate aftermath of the invasion have served as a warning to UK officials to exercise greater discernment in how they utilize their military influence in the future.

It is nearly impossible to view the legacy and leadership of Tony Blair in the UK and not assume the publication of The Chilcot Report would diminish public support for further intervention in the Middle East alongside the United States. Any intervention in the Middle East by the United States will undoubtedly be far more likely to be unilateral in nature. The unintended consequences of Iraq sparsely could have foreseen the potential pitfalls to the American Middle East strategy and the potential damage to the US-UK “special relationship.”

Thomas J. Waters is a former US Marine with a masters degree in government. His area of specialty is the Middle East and American foreign policy. Molly R. Waters holds a PhD in communications and rhetoric from Regent University. She is currently a lecturer at Christopher Newport University.