Primacy In The Middle East: A Case Study

One of the most controversial topics in the media and the world for decades has been the question of The United States ' involvement in foreign affairs. Should they be more aggressive? Or should the US being holding back in its foreign conflict involvement and focus on its own problems? If so, where should the US be the most aggressive, and where should it take the largest step back? For two large regions of the world, the Middle Eastern Sunni, including the Oil rich Gulf States, and Eastern Asia, holding some of the greatest economic powers of the world, China and Japan, the US needs to make extremely stratigraphy policies in order to create a more desirable relationship between not only it and the countries of those regions, but also of

Venezuela 's proven oil reserves are among the top ten in the world. Oil generates about 80 percent of the country’s total export revenue, contributes about half of the central government’s income, and is responsible for about one-third of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). Increases in world oil prices in recent years have allowed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to expand social program spending, bolster commercial ties with other countries, and boost his own international profile. Though Chavez has threatened to stop exporting Venezuelan oil and refined petroleum products to the United States, its biggest oil-trading partner, experts say a significant short-term shift in oil relations between Venezuela and

Firstly, the future world globalization provides a challenge in U.S. foreign policy in striking a balance between its domestic need and foreign policy. This conflict is visible in its aspiration to be energy independent while at the same time working with other countries to mitigate the effect of climate change. The U.S. has been dependent on the middle for its source of oil; about 17 percent of U.S. oil imports come from

Several oil-countries have been facing economic and political turbulence as a result of the crash in oil prices, and there is disagreement among OPEC as how to handle the situation. (Krauss) While this is happening, America’s oil production continues to rise, as it inches closer to becoming an energy superpower in production and consumption; and countries that depend on their oil exports face recession.

In the chapter “Foreign Policy” in the book, “The Politics of Power” by Ira Katznelson, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper, describes in detail of the events leading to America’s great level of dominance. Throughout the chapter, a few key points were made. The main three points that were observed in this chapter consisted of America’s influence and global expansion, the transition into the globalization era, and environmental problems. From the beginning of the exploration era, to the globalization ear, foreign policy never escaped existence. The use of foreign policy continued into the beginning of World War II, after the war, and through present day. Between each date in history, foreign policy increasingly has played a major role in the turning tides within each event. The importance of foreign policy instructed the world into what it is today and has continued to do so. The relationship pertaining to the United States and its foreign policies have aimlessly been altered through good and bad times. At its birth, America’s international involvement began. Through time, its foreign policy has gained great interest and provided immense dominant reputation. Within the ordinance of America’s global dominance, speculation estimates that no nation truly is dominant as other problems counter true dominance. These problems consist of global warming, human rights, and ecological crisis. These problems will challenge nations in the future to answer the question: “What nation is truly

In order to understand why the U.S. should remain a consumer of Middle Eastern oil it is first necessary to agree that overlap exists between the four elements of national power: Diplomatic, Informational, Military and Economic. For starters, there is an important difference between “energy security” and “energy independence.” Energy security is a condition in which the net supply of energy resources is reliably delivered at a fair market price in order to meet a country’s domestic energy demands. As the end of the Second World War drew near President Roosevelt struck a bargain with King Abdul Aziz that the U.S. would support the house of al Saud in exchange for reliable access to the Kingdom’s oil resources. The roots of the Central Intelligence Agency’s 1953 coup d’état of Mohammad Mossadegh are firmly entwined in

In addition to the US peak oil situation, the US Oil Drilling and Gas Extraction Industry faces heavy foreign market competition. In 2011, the US ranked 3rd in oil production, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia (Energy, 2012). Saudi Arabia’s OPEC governor expects Saudi output to rise steadily beyond 2030 with a 1.5 million barrel per day spare production capacity then (Energy, 2012). Russia holds the world’s largest

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

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.

America is a country that stands out from all the other countries. We have a strong system of government that listens to the people and is ran by the people. This does not however mean that we are without geopolitical challenges. We face many challenges such as immigration, human rights abuses, and terrorism. Each of these are issues that we, the people must face. However, two of the largest challenges our nation faces today is our dependency on foreign oil and our relations with Russia that could potentially lead to another Cold War. Americans, we like things and things require energy. The main source of energy for our country comes from oil. Some of our oil supply comes from foreign countries since our country

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.

In Mr. Siemiesz’s chapter he explained about the National Security Consequences of U.S Oil Dependence and how it could be fixed and changed for the best interest of the country; Mr. Siemiesz outlined specific points or steps the country could take to make those changes he outlined in the chapter. “Those major energy suppliers from Russia to Iraq to Venezuela have been increasingly able and willing to use their resources to pressure their strategic and political objectives. That these country’s are consuming less oil less then all of the other countries especially the United States. The Fact is that the U.S. makes up to

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

Throughout the twenty-first century, the global balance of political, economic, and military power underwent several paradigm shifts. Each of these transitions defined the security policy of the United States and changed the course of America’s grand strategy for advancing its interests and defending its territory. At the beginning of the century, the United States tried to avoid being drawn into two major European military conflicts yet found itself emerging victorious and relatively composed and powerful. World War II effectively ended a multipolar world with several great powers and replaced it with a bipolar international environment with only two superpowers. For more than five decades, the United States faced only one true rival, the Soviet Union, which not only mirrored the United States in military power but also opposed it ideologically, creating a high risk of major power war. Throughout the Cold War, United States security policy had but two key