Ortagus on the Middle East: “Look where we are today”

At the Middle East Forum in Washington, the US special envoy for the Middle East, Morgan Ortagus, delivered an uncompromising speech on the Trump administration’s foreign policy in the region. In front of an audience of specialists and decision-makers, she bluntly defended the doctrine of firmness adopted by Washington, drawing up an assessment that she considers positive in the face of two decades of what she calls a “culture of fear”, the fear of provoking, of acting, of opposing.

Returning to the state of the Middle East two and a half years ago, the envoy paints a dark but precise picture. The Hamas attack on Israel and the hostage-taking, the conflagration of the southern Lebanese front fueled by Hezbollah, the repeated Houthi strikes against commercial shipping in the Red Sea, and the sprawling extension of Iranian influence on several regional theaters: as many crises as the former State Department spokesperson attributes, in part, to this “culture of fear”.

 

“National security is not a question of popularity. The United States is today leading a direct confrontation with state sponsors of terrorism. »
– Morgan Ortagus · Middle East Forum, Washington –

 

The doctrine of firmness: concrete resultsÂ
Faced with this liability, Ortagus defends the philosophy of the Trump administration: assume confrontation, reestablish deterrence and make those who challenge the regional order pay a real cost. The results, she argues, are there. The operational capabilities of several armed factions have been seriously degraded; Iranian projection power has contracted; the security of Washington’s allies in the region has been, according to her, substantially consolidated.
Economic pressure on Tehran is at the heart of this strategy. The reinforced sanctions and the hardening of international pressure have, according to the envoy, produced measurable effects: collapse in the value of the Iranian currency, galloping inflation, and — direct consequence — increasing difficulty for the regime to finance its agents in the region. The so-called “resistance axis” thus finds itself financially asphyxiated at the source.

 

Points clés du discours 
•â The policy of avoidance of past decades has fueled, not stemmed, regional crises.
•â The American doctrine of firmness has weakened several armed factions and reduced Iranian influence.
•â Sanctions have caused a monetary collapse and severe inflation in Iran, limiting its support to its proxies.
•â The United States and its allies occupy a stronger strategic position today than in 2023-2024.
•â National security requires political courage, not popularity.

A budget assumed, a vision claimed
What distinguishes Ortagus’s speech is his refusal of euphemism. She doesn’t sell a policy; she defends its philosophical coherence. Deterrence, she reminds us, is not a natural state: it is built, maintained and, if it disappears, takes years to rebuild. The Middle East, according to her, has experienced this at its expense.
In conclusion, the envoy challenges her audience with a formula that sounds like a challenge: “Look where we are today.” Implied: compare the state of the region before and after the reaffirmation of American power. The verdict, in his eyes, speaks for itself.

Ortagus’ speech poses with rare clarity the central question of the moment: can we stabilize the Middle East without agreeing to pay the political and strategic price? His response leaves no room for ambiguity.