THE SELF-DEFEATING passivity of President Obama’s policies in the Middle East may have reached its apotheosis earlier this month at a National Security Council meeting that he chaired. On the table were options for responding to the bloody and criminal assault on the Syrian city of Aleppo, including grounding the Syrian air force with missile or air strikes, or supplying more advanced weapons to CIA-backed rebels. In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to approve nor reject the measures; instead, he decided not to decide. History will record that as 250,000 people and their homes and hospitals were subjected to systematic bombing with white phosphorus and bunker-busters, and hundreds of children were reported killed, this U.S. president was unable even to affirmatively choose not to respond.

The political exhaustion evident in that episode extends to U.S. policy throughout the Middle East. Although U.S. air and special forces are backing an Iraq-led offensive to recapture the Iraqi city of Mosul from the Islamic State, the administration has declined to arbitrate the crucial question of how the city — and Iraq — will be secured and governed after the battle is over. It is doing next to nothing to end the civil wars in Libya and Yemen, and its only strategy for Syria is the discredited figment that Russia and Iran will support a political transition that strips the Bashar al-Assad regime of power.

Mr. Obama long ago gave up more than the most token opposition to gross human rights abuses by U.S.-supported governments in Egypt and Bahrain, which, perceiving the free pass, have stepped up repression of secular liberals, human rights activists and even U.S. citizens. And while he is said to be considering a speech or U.N. resolution laying out terms for a Palestinian state, the absence of any preparatory diplomacy would likely cause such action to be regarded in the region as legacy-seeking grandstanding rather than as a contribution to peace.

The consequence of this policy collapse is that the next U.S. president will be confronted by a pressing need to revitalize and reshape U.S. engagement in the Middle East. Though many Americans share Mr. Obama’s evident desire to write off the region, it remains vital to U.S. interests — as a source of energy, as well as of terrorism, destabilizing flows of refugees, potential nuclear proliferation and crimes against humanity.

As The Post’s Greg Jaffe recently reported, there is broad bipartisan consensus in the U.S. foreign policy community on the need for a more assertive policy. A new report by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank closely associated with Hillary Clinton, usefully lays out some parameters. It suggests using airpower in Syria to protect civilians and U.S. partners; promoting devolution of power to regions in Iraq, along with a continuing U.S. military presence; steps to “counter Iran’s negative influence and ensure nuclear deal compliance”; practical measures to ease tensions between Israelis and Palestinians; and renewed “U.S.engagement on pluralism, values, and universal human rights,” including making them a priority in the president’s meetings with heads of state.

The next administration, the report argues, needs to avoid becoming “stuck in a cycle of reaction without a set of clear long-term strategic priorities.” Instead, it should seek “renewed American leadership in the region” by “working with partners to outline an affirmative agenda for the next decade.” In short, what’s needed is a president who recognizes the need for American leadership in the Middle East.