Kicking the Hornet's Nest: US Foreign Policy in the Middle East from Truman to Trump

by Daniel E. Zoughbie

An investigation of how the choices of twelve US presidents, from Truman to Trump, have fueled turbulence and turmoil in the Middle East. And the one president who chose a better way.

Kicking the Hornet’s Nest is an exploration of how twelve US presidents have shaped the Middle East, often unleashing instability and conflict along the way. It is also the story of one US president who successfully charted a better course. From Truman to Trump, Daniel Zoughbie unpacks the decisions that have set the stage for today’s unrest. But this book is more than just a history lesson; it’s an analysis of presidential decision-making and its far-reaching consequences.

Today, the Middle East stands as a volatile landscape, more tumultuous than at any time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Zoughbie paints a vivid picture of how nearly every major nation-state in the Middle East and North Africa has grappled with existential crises in the recent years, paving the way for terrorist groups to threaten national sovereignty and for local conflicts to destabilize world order.

Drawing on a vast array of primary sources and interviews with world leaders, the narrative explores pressing issues like nuclear proliferation, genocide, and nationalist conflicts fueled by sectarian fervor that have triggered global refugee waves. Kicking the Hornet’s Nest is a study of US presidential decision-making and foreign policy. Zoughbie reveals the essential information necessary for anyone seeking to understand eight decades of US foreign policy and its profound impact on billions of lives worldwide.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, American History, Middle East, War, Audiobook

432 pages, Hardcover

First published October 7, 2025

Reviews

[Kadin]

Points deducted for some easily checkable mistakes (like the fact that Truman and Eisenhower were from Missouri and Texas, respectively, not Kansas). But in general I thought it was a pretty good surface look at the topic at hand. Zoughbie doesn't pull punches and he doesn't seem to be biased towards one party in his analysis. Full marks for being accessible: this book is written by a PhD but you don't need one in political science to understand it.

[Brody Woodard]

Fantastic book! It’s amazing to see from President Truman to President Trump’s first term the varying President’s and how the dealt with the Middle East from when Israel was officially recognized as its own state in 1948

[Gabriella]

I hereby charge defendant D.E. Zoughbie with the following:
I. Writing a book on the Middle East with funding from the Charles Koch Foundation
II. Suggesting that in order to make a two-state solution viable for both sides, it’s a great idea for Gaza to capitalize on its access to the “stunning Mediterranean coast… via the construction of Dubai-esque artificial islands”
III. Invoking Yertle the Turtle in an ADULT book for ADULTS to explain why oppression is bad
IV. Writing the sentence “The First Iraq War can therefore be viewed as the unfortunate prelude to the disastrous Second Iraq War.”
Also, Daniel, please listen to me: YOU NEED TO FIRE YOUR EDITOR!!!!

[Mike]

There was some excellent history in this book. My only complaint really is the Monday morning quarterbacking that books like this generally engage in. “Such and such president got us in a long war… such and such president was unwilling to go to war, rather he wanted to make a deal.” The author literally sees both leaders as deeply flawed. But he ends with a good argument that dialogue slows down the deep feelings and rifts between nations. I agree with this. But none of us have the answers that would satisfy everyone over the complex issues swirling around in the Middle East, especially the deep feelings over the holy land. I don’t think it will ever be solved to everyone’s satisfaction. A great middling of ideas must take place to make this land a place where all can raise their families and worship their creator.

[Calvyn]

(at 9, Prologue)
[Of a poor man, a grocer, an Islamic Jihad supporter whose child had been killed by the IDF, and "clearly identified ...in the same way one might identify as Democratic or Republican in the United States"]

As I observed all this in the summer of 2005, I considered the possibility that the United States and its allies could learn something from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Iran: chiefly, that they should engage in development in a more serious way regionally. If Iran and its proxies could deliver foreign aid in such a way that would incentivize people to die, surely the Untied States could help give desperate people a reason to live. We needed a way to engage supporters of extremist organizations, especially those individuals who were less ideological and more concerned with satisfying basic needs. What would it take for this poor man, who had lost a child, to have a more positive view of the United States? It would not be easy; ...Improving health care and providing economic opportunity seemed like vital ingredients to any lasting political solution.

(at 35, Introduction)
This book asks: Why, for eight decades, has the United States' policy in the Middle East failed to promote its own interests? The free flow of oil and shipping, the safety of American troops, and the security of American citizens at home and abroad define america's national security interests. U.S. national security is best served by what has been called the "3D" security triad: Defense, Diplomacy, and Development. The argument to be developed in this book is that the United States has developed an overreliance on the first "D," and, as a result, that its diplomatic and development capabilities have gradually atrophied. To ,ak ematters worse, the latter two "Ds" are routinely presented as evidence of capitulation, weakness, and appeasement

...After this introduction, providing the historical context crucial for understanding the challenges faced by the U.S. foreign policymakers, the argument is developed in twelve chapters, each of which, except fo one, deals with a single presidency. Nixon's administration, which resulted in an untimely resignation and a handoff to Ford, is an exception in two ways. I have combined nixon and Ford into one chapter, and I have also highlighted Ford's singularly successful Middle East policy.

(at 36, Introduction)
...Former Secretary of State Madelein Albright suggested that "foreign policy is just trying to get some country to do what you want. That's all it is." In my opinion, this is no more useful a definition than if one were to say that domestic policy is trying to get citizens to do what the governement wnats them to do. I define foreign policy as the locus of right conduct for a nation. In other words, the statesperson must answer the moral question "What is the right thing to do?" Figuring this out comes first, before getting other countries to follow. And figuring out when the use of force is appropriate is perhaps the most vexing decision a president has to make.

(at 37-38)
As George Kennan, one of the greatest diplomats of all time, summarized, "This whole tendency to see ourselves as the center of political enlightenment and as teachers to a great part of the rest of the world strikes me as unthought-through, vain-glorious, and undesirable." This book applies these lessons to the Middle East: morla crusades are not only ineffective in their mission, but they also often achieve the exact opposite of what was intended, poisoning relations for decades if not centuries to come. There is a reason why people in the Middle East remember Western crusading that happened over a thousand years ago, and nor will they soon forget it.

Worse still is the fact that moral crusades expose the United States to accusations of hypocrisy...

(at 41)
... There is a reason why the Marshall Plan is considered to be one of the finest achievements, both of international development and diplomacy, in all of human history.

"Anyone who has ever studied the history of American diplomacy, especially military diplomacy, knows that you might start in a war with certain things on your mind as a purpose of what you are doing, but in the end, you found yourself fighting for entirely different things that you had never thought of before. . . . In other words, war has a momentum of its own and it carries you away from all thoughtful intentions when you get into it. Today, if we went into Iraq, like the president would like us to do, you know where you will begin. You never know where you are going to end."
George Kennan, commenting on the Second Iraq War

To maintain its preeminence on the world stage, the United States needs once again to start listening to Kennans, to its historians and diplomats who have a deep knowledge of the past. The United States needs to abandon its prideful attempts to manage history through cynical militarism as well as its crusading moralism. It is no coincidence that the world's ancient prophets and poets warned of the dangers of pride. It leads inexorably to the downfall of kings and empires. Put another way, the United States needs to ensure its own house is in order before it reorders the domain of others. It needs to talk to its enemies. It needs to win friends and access to their markets by being generous with its innovations. It needs to use hard power sparingly and let other nations solve their own problems.

(at 179, Nixon and Ford)
...war creates more danger, resentment, and chaos. "Esacalate to de-escalate" was not demonstrated ... to be a superior strategy to "de-escalate to de-escalate."...

(at 313, Epilogue)
But also, there is a very, very basic consideration involved here, and that is that whenever you have a possibility of going in two ways, either for peace or for war, for peaceful methods or for military methods, in the present age there is a strong prejudice for the peaceful ones. War seldom ever leads to good results.
--George Kennan, former U. S. ambassador to the USSR

[Lili]

I've read about half of it so far and found it incredibly insightful. This book brilliantly illustrates the patterns of US involvement in the region over the past few decades and their consequences. While some sections are quite detailed in their historical and political intricacies, I appreciate how it connects the policies of different governments. This book has made me rethink many of my previous preconceived notions about US foreign policy. It's certainly a large book and requires careful digestion, but if you're interested in history and geopolitics, it's definitely worth reading.

[Michael Capracotta]

Well written book. While I didn't agree with all the author's conclusions, I feel much better informed about the history of US involvement in the Middle East since World War II. At times I felt the author attributes too much blame to US involvement and not enough to leaders in the region itself. Nevertheless the book makes a strong case for greater emphasis on diplomacy and development to reduce conflict in the Middle East.

[Jaylani Adam]

Too bad, the author didn't mention Joe Biden and his foreign policy in the Middle East.

[John Landes]

I think this author did a good job overall of just reporting the goings on, and leaving the opinions mostly on the sideline. Interesting read. 5⭐️

[Lobna]

The authors covers decades pretty quickly and objectively. Of course more could have been analyzed but given how much was to be covered, I find that the book was quite informative