Consequences Of The United States ' Foreign Policy On The Middle East

The role of the Middle East has been very crucial to the United States, especially after WWII. The U.S. had three strategic goals in the Middle East and consistently followed them throughout various events that unfolded in the region. First, with the emergence of the cold war between the Soviet Union and the U.S., policymakers began to recognize the importance of the Middle East as a strategic area in containing Soviet influence. This also coincides with the U.S. becoming increasingly wary of Arab nationalism and the threat it posed to U.S. influence. Secondly, the emergence of the new Israeli state in 1948 further deepened U.S. policy and involvement in the region while also creating friction between the U.S. and Arab states which were

“The United States recognizes the provisional Government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel.” These are the words of President Harry Truman from a speech he gave shortly after Israel became a recognized nation in 1948. Consequently, the political leaders of the United States have brought America on a rough journey to the current state of foreign policy and relationship with Israel. Since 1948, the United States’ active position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has seen very little change or progress towards achieving settlement between these two nationalistic states. In the last 65 years, the majority of U.S. presidents repeated mistakes made by their predecessors in office, and this in turn has had little

For the United States, the Gulf region remains one of the most geo-strategically important locations in the world for diplomatic, intelligence cooperation, and business opportunities such as hydrocarbons and arms. This strategic cooperation has provided the region some stability, particularly with the rise of Iran and the Shi’a crescent and the chaotic outcome of the war in Iraq. The council members have also relied on the United State to fend off some of the domestic challenges to the existing regimes that are both internally and regionally rooted.

In the post -World War II era, the competition of global supremacy between the superpowers of the time, United States and the Soviet Union resulted in the Cold War. Many countries in the world were pulled into this rivalry including many of the states of the Middle East. Allies against the Soviet Union received substantial quantities of United States aid and were encouraged to purchase weapons of Western means. Those who were in opposition to the United States’ power received economic and military assistance from the Soviet Union. The United States were inclined to view the rivalry between them and the Soviet Union as a vie for global supremacy. The challenge of attaining democracy in the Middle East has been insufficient leadership specifically in those who shared a common border and were in proximity to the Soviet Union. The United States, in their determination to impede the threat of expansion of the borders of the Soviet Union as well as contain the spread of communion, provided economic and military assistance to keep Iran, Iraq and Turkey politically stable. Although this was the goal of the United States, they actually impeded the democracy and political stability of these countries through its persistent influence in government affairs, determining its future’s livelihood.

Interstate bargaining and cooperation characterize international relations. Only cooperation allows states to mutually gain, but collaboration costs encourage states to betray others to maximize utility. International institutions mitigate these costs, transform zero sum interactions into positive sum interactions, and aid interstate cooperation. International economic institutions facilitate interstate cooperation by establishing rules for trade, reducing costs of international transactions, and providing dispute settlement mechanisms; however, a lack of independent enforcement capacity weakens these institutions.

Conflict over energy resources—and the wealth and power they create—has become an increasingly prominent feature for geopolitics particularly in the Middle East . The discovery of oil in the late nineteenth century added a dimension to the region as major outside states powers employed military force to protect their newly acquired interests in the Middle East. The U.S.’s efforts to secure the flow of oil have led to ever increasing involvement in the Middle East region’s political affairs and ongoing power struggles. By the end of the twentieth century, safeguarding the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf had become one of the most important functions of the U.S. military establishment. The close relationship between the United States and the Saudi royal family was formed in the final months of World War II, when U.S. leaders sought to ensure preferential access to Saudi petroleum. The U.S. link with Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region has demonstrated to be greatly beneficial to both parties, yet it has also led to ever deepening U.S. involvement in regional politics.

involvement and is an extremely negative effect of military involvement in the Middle East. The

The study of International Relations surrounds itself in theories such as Realism and Liberalism, with actors and power structures defining the discipline. Actors are key to the study; however, in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries there has been a key dominant hegemon which rules over the international community. Hegemony as defined by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, refers to the supremacy of one group over another, often supported by legitimate norms and ideas, and in modern society describes the dominance of a certain set of actions that allows for supremacy in certain areas and a unipolar world. The United States of America emerged from World War II as the overriding economic, political,

For decades, the United States and fellow western nations have been heavily involved with and invested in the Middle East. Geographically, the Middle East region contains a large percentage of the industrialized world’s most prized resource, oil. Throughout this time, the United States has participated in Gulf War I, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Southern Watch, Operation Northern Watch, and numerous other contingencies and operations. Most recently, the region fell further into turmoil with the civil unrest and uprising in Syria, the formation of ISIS, and the injection of influence from competing world superpowers. Within this latest conflict, the United States government faces significant challenges to vital national interests due to the high geopolitical stakes in the region.

Millions of lives have been lost, including innocent civilians, opposing forces, and U.S. troops and its allies. Trillions of dollars have been spent on the involvement in the Middle East for decades by the United States government, which orchestrated these results. The burden financially, has been measured in trillions of dollars, on multiple expenses, all relating to the involvement in the Middle East. Not only have these events impacted the U.S. financially, but many people have had to pay the ultimate price, with millions of people dying as a direct result. From the Afghanistan and Iraq wars alone, 220,000 innocent civilians have been recorded as casualties (Funk). Even with all of the sacrifices that have been made, there has been no

Steven Hook and John Spanier's 2012 book titled “American foreign policy since WWII" serves as one of the most important texts that can be used in understanding the underlying complexities on American foreign policies. Like the first readings that are analyzed in class (American Diplomacy by George Kennan and Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis), this text also brings history into a more understandable context. Aside from being informative and concise in its historical approach, Hook and Spanier also critiques the several flaws and perspectives that occurred in the American foreign policy

To begin, the benefit of having alliances is an essential way to ensure that all parties protect similar interests such as security and borders, but when these interests compete wit hone another, they turn a strong alliance into a fragile relationship of uncertainty and mistrust. This happened several times before and during the war as country’s interests changed, such as Italy switching from the allied powers to the axis for the promise of land from Germany. When these national interests take prominence over the maintenance of alliances, it leads to a constant state of uncertainty and mistrust between countries.

A transformed Middle East has shaken traditional relationships with former allies. Indeed, there was a time when Washington coordinated effectively with leaders like the monarchs Hussein, Hassan and Abdullah; or Sadat, Mubarak, even Arafat, who could deliver their constituencies and act on the Arab stage. No longer. The rise of Iran, largely as a result of the Arab world’s melt­down and the U.S.­Iran nuclear agreement, has strained relations further. And if America lacks partners on whom it can rely, how in essence can it manage problems effectively, let alone lead to resolve them? A transformed Middle East has shaken traditional relationships with former allies. Indeed, there was a time when Washington coordinated effectively with leaders like the monarchs Hussein, Hassan and Abdullah; or Sadat, Mubarak, even Arafat, who could deliver their constituencies and act on the Arab stage. No longer. The rise of Iran, largely as a result of the Arab world’s melt­down and the U.S.­Iran nuclear agreement, has strained relations further.

The United States has a complicated history with the Middle East, and this has often been reflected in foreign policy decisions. The significance of the region has always remained strong, even as the main goals and methods of accomplishing those goals have twisted and evolved over time. In recent decades, dealing with increasing opposition to US interests by those in the Middle East has become a more prominent concern. This was drawn into the forefront of citizens' minds in 2001. While the 9/11 attacks did not serve as a major turning point in the US’s foreign policy towards the Middle East, they did act to accelerate a decision path that the United States was already on.

Established as a Cold War-era counterweight to Soviet power, NATO is characterized by its “commitment to democratic values and practices that, along with its unique, integrated military structure, sustains it even at times when its members’ short-term strategic calculations diverge.” (Hunter) In theory, then, the bonds between the United States and Europe should be close and enduring. Indeed, the interests of the two entities have largely converged throughout NATO’s half century history despite occasional differences.