One of the topics at the 9th Beijing Xiangshan Forum is the security issues in the Middle East. Recently, the White House's reluctance to be involved in the Syria conflict has received many criticisms. And U.S. President Donald Trump's insistence to pull troops out of the region is seen as ceding it to other players who want to expand their influences. However, it might be said that the U.S. doesn't have a choice but to withdraw from the region.

Niu Xinchun, Director of China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, suggests that the reluctance to get engaged and the insistence on pulling out might be the result of three factors. First, the U.S. hasn't secured a major success in the Middle East since the First Gulf War in 1991. The overthrow of Saddam Hussain and the reconstruction of the country resulted in a weak central government that lacked the ability to govern effectively. The troops sent into Afghanistan have been there for more than a decade and still unable to achieve the security goals it was tasked with. And intervening Syria has time and time again dragged the U.S. to the brink of another war.

Then, the evolution in the energy sector has contributed to U.S.'s reticence. Niu argues that the Middle East's economic and political system is built upon profits from oil. The U.S. turning from an oil-importer to one of the largest oil exporters in the world, changes the situation. Keeping the oil price below 60 dollars per barrel threatens the stability of regimes in the Middle East. Niu believes that a long-term oil price of 60 dollars or lower does not provide sufficient profit to sustain the economic and political regimes in the Middle East, creating a widespread instability that surpasses even the current situation. Allowing U.S. personnel to stand in the middle of this situation does not benefit the U.S.

And finally, Niu suggests that the U.S. getting out of the Middle East might actually be beneficial to the region's stability. Pointing back to the Arab Spring, Niu says that these revolutions to produce sustainable and stable governing systems in the Middle East were unsuccessful. They have just added to a series of failures. In the past century, countries in the Middle East have tried almost all forms of government that existed in the history of humanity. The failure of the Arab Spring means that the liberalistic government system does not work either.

By withdrawing from the Middle East, Niu thinks that the U.S. might actually give the region a chance to form its own security regime. One of the most core reasons for the region is that it has never established a peaceful systematic arrangement between countries. Without U.S.' intervention, the void might just give the region a chance to form a balance of power and to provide security by countries in the region for themselves. This would have a more lasting positive impact on the Middle East.

U.S. withdrawing from the region, based on Niu's suggestions, might be an inevitable course of action that isn't limited to a single administration. However, given the furious bipartisan reaction from Congress to condemn the White House's inaction, there are still strong forces in the U.S. to continue its decades of policy in the Middle East. At the current stage, it seems as if the U.S. itself hasn't decided on a unified course of action.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)