US Policy toward the Middle East - Coursework Example

US policy toward the Middle East Middle East region is geostrategic, economic and security importance both for the United States and for the world informs the United States policy towards countries in Middle East. The special relationship between the United States and Israel has also been of significance in formulation of policies towards the region. The religion has been identified as geographically important due to access it grants to many destinations of the world, therefore, having the potential to act as transit point for exporting to spread of weapons of mass destruction, trafficking of narcotics, spread of religious conflicts and terrorism. United States policy is also influenced by existence of oil in the region, which is essential for driving United States’ industries. The special relationship between Israel and United States has also been identified as influencing United States policy towards the Middle East particularly due to the establishment of Israel lobby groups that agitate for the interests of the Jewish state. Introduction The United States has enjoyed both peaceful and violent relationship with Middle East countries as the American attempt to use their position as world superpower to influence the social, political and economic destiny of the region. Past and present relationship between the United States and Middle East countries is a result of the United States policy towards the region has a potential to influence political and economic outcome in a global scale. The presence of large oil reserves and production capacity makes the region an important economic value for both the United States and the world in general. However, a number of United States action and reaction towards the region has led to increased levels of disagreements instead of consolidating support and closer ties with the United States. The rise of political Islam and support of Israel is one of the recognized reasons why the United States has failed to ensure long-lasting peace in the region. This essay discusses the most significant characteristics of United States policy toward the Middle East in order to understand the impact of these policies on past and present ties between the Middle East region and United States and world in general. Background to United States relationship with Middle East Increased interaction between the United States and countries in the Middle East was occasioned by the collapse of British and Ottoman control in the region. The Ottoman Empire disintegrated after the Second World War, therefore could not maintain their interests in the region with the United States moving to limit the imperialist influence of Britain and France. The presence of the United States in the region was also of strategic importance particularly as the British’s powers were rapidly declaiming while the Soviet Union sought to expand ideological and military influence in the region (Dodge, 2012). Consecutive United States presidents have always been responsible for the United States foreign policy targeting the Middle East although Congress, made up of Senate and House of Representatives have a constitutionally mandated power to influence policy towards the Middle East. Influential companies, individuals, lobby groups and countries have therefore had their concerns about Middle East heard by having access to members of Congress (Dodge, 2012; Terry, 2005). The importance of the Middle East to the Americans has been characterized by the United States interest in the region is economic, geostrategic, influence on domestic issues and wider security concerns (Dodge, 2012). Geostrategic and Economic importance The middle is strategically located due to proximity to the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean Sea and the United States post second world war rival, the Soviet Union (Dodge, 2012). The United States has therefore sought to have greater influence in the region to an extent that it was ready to express a different opinion from that of European allies such as France and Britain. One of the historical incidences that have underlined the United States perception of the region is the 1956 Suez invasion. When the French and British used their military to gain control of the canal, the United States together with Israel were the two most instrumental countries working for the expulsion of the countries from Egyptian territories (Chomsky, 1999). Control of this region provides an important power balance to the United States, which perceives the Middle East and sections of North Africa as being important in extending its ideological position in Asia and Africa. According to Daalder, Gnesotto and Gordon (2006), the United States and European countries have always agreed on the importance of Middle East in global political, economic and security. However, there has always been a divergence of opinion when attempts for a transatlantic approach to handling the region have been raised. In acceptance of the importance of Middle East, the United States and European countries under the Group of eight (G-8) introduced a Broader Middle East and North Africa initiative in June 2004 seen as providing an important framework for transforming the economic and political fortunes of the region. Although countries in these region experience unique challenges, there are similarities in the challenges as issues relate to proliferation of weapons, stagnation of the economy, drastic population growth, lack of democracy and growing terrorism problem. The G-8 members have always voiced their agreement that these issues must be addressed before further deterioration of the situation. However, transatlantic differences mean the United States and European countries have failed to put their concern into practical actions on the ground. Failure to deal with the problem affecting Middle East means a number of potentially tragic events are left to develop over the years. Among the strategic importance of the region is its ability to grant access to spread of weapons of mass destruction, trafficking of narcotics, spread of religious conflicts and terrorism. Being a transit point, achievement of United States and European objectives in other global regions could suffer from proliferation of these negative social and economic elements. However, efforts to bring long-lasting solutions to the middle east problems have been hampered by factors such as European countries’ concern that the united states has always taken a partisan approach by for example in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This perception of the United States has resulted in failure of many of the initiatives to improve social, economic, and political situation in Middle East. The Middle East’s economic importance is underlined by the region’s production of 32 % global oil supply with control of a further 58% oil reserve, which makes the region an important economic hub. Therefore, the United States has always sought to have a closer link to the region as it strategizes on accessing the oil supply for American industries (Dodge, 2012). The United States interest in the Middle East oil resources was evident at the onset of the cold war with the announcement of the Truman Doctrine that resulted in military support to forces fighting soviet funded insurgency. During the announcement of the Truman doctrine and military incursion against the rebels in Greece, the president noted that if the country was to fall into the hands of the rebels, there were chances of such uprising spreading across Middle East. In their part, the CIA noted possible loss of petroleum resources in the event of a win by the rebels. Special relationship between the United States and Israel One of the countries that have clearly influenced how the united states deal with the rest of the Middle East countries is Israel (Shannon, 2003). Since the creation of the state of Israel, the united states has always sought to forge close ties with the Jewish state that has had a considerable number of conflict with the rest of Arab dominated countries. According to Chomsky (2004), Israel has developed a dependency on powerful countries particularly the United States to the extent that Israel has been regarded as a tool of western imperialism. The author sees this relationship between the United States and Israel as motivated by the United States constant need for an international enemy. Having an international enemy provides a basis for American government to garner domestic support for the development of a militarized and centralized capitalism, which fuel American power throughout the world. Therefore, the established close ties between the United States and Israel are informed by the need to maintain the strategic and ideological importance of the Jewish state, which is located at the heart of the Middle East (Schoenbaum, 1993). However, domestic politics with the United States has also favoured closer ties with Israel due to existence of lobby groups that always promote the interests of the Israeli both within the government and in creation of strong public opinion (Dodge, 2012; Terry, 2005). However, Gerges (1999) perceives the closer ties between the united states and Israel as being as a result of Israel blowing the security risk from Islamic fundamentalist out of proportion. Even during the cold war era, Israeli authorities sought to convince the united states that the threat of Iran should be considered at a similar level as that posed by the soviet union. This attitude towards militant Islamic groups were adopted by the united states evident from the 1994 President Clinton’s speech in Jordan where he expressed his support to efforts aimed at resisting “the dark forces of terror and extremism” a message clearly targeted towards groups opposing Israeli-Arab peace process (Gerges 1999, p 54). The outcome of these lobbies has been wide united support particularly in economic and military assistance, which cannot be compared to any other United States’ partner. Chomsky (1999) addresses this economic and military support in terms of special relationship existing between the United States Israel. According to Chomsky (1999), by 1978, Israel was receiving up to 48 percent of global United States military aid in addition to 35 percent of the total economic aid from United States to partner states. Continued financial assistance to Israel that started after 1976 has led to over 140 billion dollars being transferred by the year 2004. While Israel has received the largest share of united states foreign aid, the country has also been accorded flexible conditions on access and usage where for instance, Israel receives all the allocated amount (standing at $3 billion annually) at the beginning of every financial year. Additionally, Israel is not constrained on how to spent the amount, which means some of the funds ultimately finance a number of Israeli interests in the middle east that are opposed by the united states, including West Bank settlements (Mearsheimer, 2006). Chomsky (1999) compares the conditions provided in the economic aid received by Israel to that of Egypt to identify the level of inconsistencies in United States policy towards the Arab world and the Jewish state. While the United States had increased aid to Egypt considerable in the aftermath of the Camp David crisis, the recipients in Egypt have always companied about the conditions provided in the economic assistance. The United States established an office with about 125 employees to ensure the funds have been used in the predetermined areas, an outcome that has led to criticism of the program based on the perception that it reflected the United States priorities rather than Egyptian. Further, programs such as export of wheat to Egypt were also criticized as the United States was strict on the provision that only American ships and consultants be used while Egypt had similar capacity at a lower cost. These disparities in the treatment of Arab countries compared to Israel are a reflection of the United States practices at an ideological level, which have been practice by consistently siding with Israel in majority of the crises arising between Israel and Arab countries. This unilateral support towards Israel has been argued based on the argument Washington supports Israeli argument that a “powerful Israel a strategic asset for the united states serving as a barrier against indigenous radical nationalist threats to American interests” (Chomsky 1999, p.20). While the special relationship between the United States and Israel has greatly impact the Americans policy in the Middle East, opportunities for peace between Israel and Palestinians have influenced the stand taken by the United States (Shannon, 2003; Petras, 2011). During the early years of civil war that saw displacement of nearly one million Palestinians, there was a general perception in Washington and Israel that it was possible to establish a commonwealth state where both the Jews and Arabs can coexist peacefully. However, continued terror attacks by groups such the Arab Liberation Army diminished any hope of fast-tracking peaceful resettlement of the Palestinians. While United States was aware of the risk posed to Middle East by the displaced Palestinians who could be used by the Soviet Union to cause chaos in the region, finding a peaceful agreement between the parties was increasingly becoming difficult. By 1949, the Israelis had already repelled attacks conducted jointly by Egypt, Syria and Jordan, which increased confidence about military action being the best sources of protection against further threat. The Arab countries on the other hand were still shocked by the defeat suffered leading to Israel extending occupation into territories that had been allocated to the Palestinians. The United States attempt to adopt economic solutions through the United Nations mandated Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) did not appease the Palestinians although Israel supported the move. Leaders from Arab countries also opposed the program, which was supposed to improve the conditions of Palestinians living in West bank as opposed to repatriating them into Jewish controlled territories. Such differences on how to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict meant the United States as the superpower failed to provide a long-lasting solution that could have prevented the escalation of matters through the years (Little, 2008). Security concerns The core influence of United States policy towards the Middle East is the impact on security specifically to the United States and the world in general particularly in relation to the rise of terrorism and regional stability. After the end of the Second World War, the United States concern in the Middle East formed part of the nation’s policy on West Asian Crisis covering radicalism, instability and violence (Dodge, 2012). The 9/11 terrorism attack in the United States further increased the nation’s attention on the region (Dodge, 2012). The United States has had to develop policies to deal with both state and non-state actors in the region to ensure improved security for the American citizens and the world population in general. There has been a resurgence of terrorism activities that orchestrated both in the region and other countries outside the Middle East with the united states being a victim in the 9/11 attack. Gerges (1999) traces the United States concern with Islam to the Iranian revolution that ended the rule of one of the United States’ most trusted ally, Shah. Iran being the most populous country in the Middle East had provided important tools for policing the gulf region with the help of Saudi Arabia (Parsi 2007). Ascend to power of Khomeini led to transformation of the relationship between the united states and Iran as the new regime sought to isolate united states’ allies such as Saudi Arabia by using the Islamic religion. The new leader referred to practices of American allies in the Middle East as propagating “American Islam”, leading to politicalisation of Islam (Gerges 1999, p.44). However, the United States did not immediately begin to understand the full implication of this development until the takeover of Grand Mosque at Mecca by rebellious Islamism towards the end of 199 in addition to the assassination of the Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat in 1981. Therefore, Iran has increasingly been attributed for the rise of political Islam particularly in the years following the Islamic Revolution in Teheran (Howard, 2004; Suratt, 2005). While initial terrorism activities targeted United States interests and citizens outside the country, this changed in 1993 with the bombing of World Trade centre in 1993. The United States foreign policy even at this state was therefore informed by the realization that there was a development of a new king of anti-Semitism than was now based on Islam. The result of this development was a shift n the form of relationship between the United States and Islam as the then president, Clinton, began efforts to reverse attempts to introduce positive, accommodations policy towards groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and militant Islamism in Algeria and Sudan. Additionally, the bombing federal building in Oklahoma City provided motivation for confrontationists, who were growing in number since the World Trade Centre bombing to call for a United States policy to counter forcefully influence of Islam in the world. Consequently, the united states have sought limit or when possible eliminate the influence of groups such as Al Qaeda responsible for such acts. In dealing with terrorism elements operating in some Middle East countries the United States has interacted in many cases with governments as either allies or supporters of terrorist groups. The United States interest in the Middle East has therefore been based on the need to end influence of extremist groups that have used Islamic religion to fuel anti-American attitude in Middle East population (Baxter and Akbarzadeh 2008). Baxter and Akbarzadeh (2008) focus on course-effect relationship between the methods used by the United States to protect its interest in the Arab world and the sentiments held by the governments and populations in the Middle East. The authors oppose the notion that anti-Americanism can be explained purely grounds of envy, hatred and cultural differences particularly when the united states as used its powers as the world superpower to exercise its political and military will a unliterary manner. These extremist groups have used religion over the years to propagate misconception of Islamic religion in order to influence fanatical intolerance of the non-Muslim population and maintain their “ultraconservative view of human social existence” (Andersen, Seibert and Wagner, 2004). On security front, the issue of nuclear weapons in Middle East has also been of a major concern for the United States. One of the Middle East countries that the United States has had to observe closely is Iran, which has improved its nuclear capability over the years (Roshandel and Cook, 2009). The country has been accused of stockpiling nuclear materials for developing nuclear weapon with the United States seeking to limit this ability due to concern over implication to regional, United States and global security (Takeyh, 2007). The United States has mostly dealt with the Iranians through the United Nations by intensifying sanctions against the country. However, there are increased reservations about the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions in forcing Iran to drop its ambition to develop nuclear weapons (Edelman and Krepinevich and Montgomery, 2011). Israel is already recognized as a nuclear state but entry of Iran into this category is will potentially create “an unstable bipolar nuclear competition in the Middle East”, which might have detrimental implication for the security of the region (Edelman and Krepinevich and Montgomery, 2011, para 4). Even with the tough stance taken by the United States against political Islam especially as relation to religious fundamentalism, Gerges (1999) notes the United States’ attitude towards Middle East can be summarized as leaning towards accommodations perception. The United States has always been willing to deal with Middle East countries and groups as long as such engagements are conducted on peaceful terms. In this case, the United States has over the years made attempted to reach out to moderate Islamists without raising concerns over the growing role of Islam in political processes when such connections are established on peaceful grounds. For Litwak (2000), the post-cold war American foreign policy has majorly targeted countries considered as rogue states. However, the author also point out that the united states has used this approach selectively to target specific countries while others that fit the criteria are left to continue perpetrating inhumane acts. Categorization of rogue states by the United States is based on three important criteria: states using terrorism as a tool to propagate their interests both internal and externally, accumulation of weapons of mass destruction and supporting acts that destabilize neighbouring states. The author uses the Syrian case as an example with the country fitting into these three criteria but the United States has always advocated diplomacy instead of forcibly ending the regimes support to divisive elements in the Middle East. Syria has remained in the State Department list of terrorist states due to support of Islamic groups using violence to stifle attempts to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Syria also occupied Lebanon, which it claims to be a section of its territory while also posing threat to deferent allies of the United States such as Saudi Arabia. Additionally, Syria has been known to possess chemical weapons together with the necessary ballistic missile to launch the weapons. This case study of Syria indicates the problem of United States application of political selectivity and systematic inconsistencies that have failed to bring long-lasting solution to problems in the Middle East (Litwak, 2000). Continued hostility between the United States and Islamic groups existing in Middle East has been blamed on the United States’ policy towards the region. Held and Koenig-Archibugi (2004) notes the United States has failed to build on past victories and learn from the mistakes made in the course of engaging with the different groups in the Middle East. Reactionary tactics have been blamed for the recurrence of terrorism activities as the United States and other global countries have failed to provide long-lasting solutions to problems affecting humanity. According to Held and Koenig-Archibugi (2004), drastic actions have always followed terrorism acts such as the September 11, 2001 attack in the United States. However, social problems affecting citizens located in places such as Iraq, Palatine, Chechnya and Kosovo have never attracted global appeal. Reaction to acts of violence while neglecting mass suffering is seen as granting a lifeline perpetual terrorism activities while letting millions suffer in silence. Additionally, the United States seems to be revolving in a cycle while attempting to deal with the political situation in the Middle East. For instance, the Iranian revolution led to the introduction of Islamic Republic led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a sworn United States enemy due to his regimes financing of attack on United States interests. In the Arab world, Khomeini’s biggest enemies where Saddam Hussein of Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, two regimes that fell in the hands of United States led invasion some years later. This provides evidence that the United States has failed to consolidate its position in the Middle East to ensure establishment of long-lasting relationships with particular states or groups. Further, it indicates the short-sightedness of United States foreign policy in the region as its efforts has only lead to temporary allies in many cases except relationships forged with countries such as Israel (Held and Koenig-Archibugi, 2004). Development of non-state groups in the Middle East is seen as a direct consequence of the United States failure to understand the cultural implication of its presence in the region. While dealing with different regimes, the United States has not sought to ensure galvanizing of popular support for the policies introduced in these countries. The Shah of Iran, who noted this failure, advised Nixon that the heavy presence of United States military in Middle East region could potentially lead to increased hostility towards the United States and Arab regimes government supporting them. Therefore, it was proposed that the United States should give mandate on peace enforcement to regional powers with capability to enforce stability (Parsi 2000). Consequently, many of the Middle East governments have been alienated from the people leading to a feeling of humiliation and perception of disrespect, which fuel the rise of non-state terrorist groups. American relationship with Israel and Arab allies is also eroding the power and legitimacy of states in the region as many feel the state has failed to respond to popular demand in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan invasions in addition to Israel militarism. Rogue groups operating the Middle East countries have used these perceptions to gain support for their destructive methods while disrupting attempts to initiate dialogue on important political and security issues (Held and Koenig-Archibugi, 2004). Conclusion From the foregoing discussion, the United States policy in the Middle East has cantered on the importance of the region in terms of geostrategic location, economic potential and special relationship with Israel and the need to maintain global peace. The Middle East is one of the world regions that have had greater impact on world economic, social, and political systems. These potential informed early decision by the United States to move and seek greater ties in the region particularly during the cold war when Soviet Union was also seeking to extend their ideological values across the world. Attempts by the United States to create closer ties with the region has been made difficult by the rise of political Islam that has given rise extremist groups using Islam to gain popular support for their violent means to addressing Middle East problems. The special relationship between the United States and Israel is noted as one area that has made long-lasting solution to problems in the Middle East unattainable in the past years. These factors have made it difficult for the United States to identify permanent friends or enemies in the region leading to a cycle of catastrophic interventions that is followed by retaliation of terrorism groups with no limit to the level of violence and destruction that they are willing to inflict on perceived enemies. . References Andersen, R. R., Seibert R. F. & Wagner, J. G., 2004. Politics and Change in the Middle East: sources of conflict and accommodation, 7th ed. Upper Saddle: Pearson Prentice. Baxter, K. & Akbarzadeh, S., 2008. US foreign policy in the Middle East: The roots of Anti-Americanism. London: Routledge. Chomsky, N., 1999. The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians. London: Pluto Press. Chomsky, N., 2004. Middle East Illusions. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Daalder, H.I., Gnesotto, N. & Gordon, P. eds, 2006. Crescent of crisis: US-European strategy for the greater Middle East. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Dodge, T., 2012. US foreign policy in the Middle East. In: Cox, M., & Stokes, D. eds. US foreign policy. Oxford University Press, pp. 197-219. Edelman, E. S., Krepinevich, A. F. & Montgomery, E.B., 2011. The Dangers of a Nuclear Iran: The Limits of Containment. Foreign Affairs, [online] January/February Issue. Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67162/eric-s-edelman-andrew-f-krepinevich-jr-and-evan-braden-montgomer/the-dangers-of-a-nuclear-iran [accessed 10 December 2014]. Gerges, F. A., 1999. America and Political Islam: Clash of cultures or clash of interests? cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Held, D. &Koenig-Archibugi, M. eds., 2004. American power in the 21st century. Cambridge: Polity Press. Howard, R., 2004. Iran in Crisis?: The future of the revolutionary regime and the US response. London: Zed Books. Little, D., 2008. American Orientalism: United States and the Middle East since 1945. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press: Litwak, R., 2000. Rogue states and US foreign policy: containment after the Cold War. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Mearsheimer, J. & Walt, S., 2006. The Israel Lobby. London Review of Books, [online] 23 March. Available at: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby [accessed 10 December 2014] Petras, J. F., 2011. The power of Israel in the United States. Gardena, CA: SCB Distributors. Roshandel, J., & Cook, A. H., 2009. The United States and Iran: policy challenges and opportunities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Schoenbaum, D., 1993. The United States and the State of Israel (Vol. 570). New York: Oxford University Press. Shannon, V. P., 2003. Balancing act: US foreign policy and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate. Suratt, R., 2005. The Middle East. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Takeyh, R., 2007. Time for détente with Iran. Foreign Affairs, 17-32. Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62444/ray-takeyh/time-for-d%C3%83%C2%A9tente-with-iran [10 December 2014]. Terry, J. J., 2005. United States foreign policy in the Middle East: The Role of Lobbies and Special Interest Groups. London: Pluto Press. Read More