The release of the new U.S. National Security Strategy, alongside this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), has revived a familiar question in Washington and across the Middle East: Is the United States downgrading the region as a strategic priority?
A U.S. State Department official, speaking to Alhurra on condition of anonymity, rejected that interpretation.
“This is not a withdrawal from the Middle East,” the official said. “It is a step back from automatically leading the region militarily. Political, diplomatic and economic engagement remains, and in some areas, it is deeper than before.”
That distinction is central because it lies at the intersection of two key U.S. policy documents: the National Security Strategy, which sets the administration’s strategic direction, and the NDAA, which translates parts of that vision into funding levels, conditions and executive authorities.
In exclusive interviews, one U.S. diplomat and two retired U.S. generals said the National Security Strategy defines priorities and limits, while the NDAA turns that vision into operational tools through oversight, political conditions and resource allocation.
Col. Frank Sobchak, a faculty member at the U.S. Naval college and former legislative liaison between U.S. Special Operations Command and Congress, underscored the distinction. He spoke to Alhurra in a personal capacity, noting that his views do not represent the Naval college, the U.S. Navy, the Defense Department or any other U.S. government entity.
Sobchak said the executive branch leads the formulation of strategy, while Congress provides oversight, funding and constraints. When the same party controls both branches, he said, the result is typically alignment rather than conflict.
“The language points to a reprioritization, not abandonment,” Sobchak said.
The strategy itself states explicitly that “the days when the Middle East dominated U.S. foreign policy — whether in long-term planning or daily execution — are over, and thankfully so.”
According to Sobchak, that line is often misconstrued as a signal of withdrawal. In practice, he said, it reflects a narrowing of the scope of U.S. objectives, not a retreat from them.
He said the strategy clearly defines what remains important: freedom of maritime navigation, countering terrorist threats to the U.S. homeland, and Israel’s security. Those priorities have not disappeared, he said, but they are no longer tied to open-ended military commitments.
That more limited focus is reflected clearly in the NDAA.
Military drawdown, political engagement
Col. Peter Mansoor, a former brigade commander in Iraq who now works as a military strategist, told Alhurra that the legislation reinforces — rather than contradicts — the National Security Strategy.
“The NDAA does not sideline the Middle East,” he said. “It reallocates attention while preserving core commitments.”
Mansoor pointed to unprecedented support for Israeli missile defense systems, expanded cooperation on air and missile defense, and new conditions imposed on partners such as Iraq.
“This is not about shrinking U.S. interests,” he said. “It’s about using leverage instead of permanent deployment.”
The State Department official framed the shift in similar terms.
“Drawing down troops does not mean disengagement,” the official said. “This administration is relying more on economic tools, diplomacy, conditional security assistance and regional burden-sharing.”
In Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, the official said, the U.S. role is increasingly focused on investment frameworks, incentives for political reform and pressure on armed groups operating outside state control, rather than a broad military footprint.
As Sobchak put it: “The United States is stepping back from trying to manage the region. But it is not stepping away from shaping outcomes that affect its security.”
Joe Kawly
Joe Kawly is Washington Bureau Chief for MBN and a global affairs journalist with more than twenty years covering U.S. foreign policy and Middle East politics.
A CNN Journalism Fellow and Georgetown University graduate, he reports from Washington at the intersection of power and diplomacy, explaining how decisions made in the U.S. capital shape events across the Arab world.
