The Eisenhower Doctrine

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

faced from the Soviets in the mid to late 1940’s as that logically drives the foreign policy process. This is best captured in American Orientalism by Douglas Little and the chapter on U.S. policy towards Egypt (1949-1956) by Peter Hahn in The Middle East and the United States. The U.S. was faced with the possibility of an expansionist and dangerous Soviet Russia that stood to challenge the West in the Middle East, a serious threat to the access to Persian Gulf oil, which among other things, would hurt the European and Japanese recovery efforts. This claim against the Soviets seemed reasonable enough through the eyes of U.S. policymakers since the Soviets were already in Iran and continually positioning for control of the Dardanelles from Turkey. Furthermore, any strategic thought experiment could easily conclude that the Soviets would gain a huge advantage in an actual war if they could gain control over the Persian Gulf area; therefor they would most likely try to attempt it militarily, diplomatically, or both. After adding in additional crisis going on such as the Greek civil war earlier and the Korean War later, it is clear to see the line of thought leading to Truman’s doctrine of U.S. national security relying on the containment of the Soviet Union in the Middle East.

With the closing of the Second World War at hand, Harry S. Truman represented the United States in Potsdam Germany to decide the fate of a post war world. The key individuals in the conference consisted of the allied leaders, Soviet Premier Stalin, Prime Minister Churchill, and Truman. Dubbed the “big Three” in the second conference of the post war, they were charged with the daunting task of dealing with Japan and their continued effort in the ending war. The Potsdam Declaration was devised. It simply stated that Japan must immediately agree to an unconditional surrender or face total destruction. Japan would ignore this declaration (Scoenberger, 1969).

1947: Truman Doctrine: The Truman Doctrine was one of the policies under President Truman’s “Containment Policy.” In the Doctrine, he requested $400 million to bolster forces in eastern Europe to defend against Communism. Congress agrees and passes the doctrine. Dean Acheson, who was the Secretary of State at the time, argued that the fall of a Communist country will have a “domino” effect on the neighboring countries, and they need to be properly prepared for such a situation. As result of this policy, the US became the “global

There are people who suggest that President Eisenhower was “cautious in . . . international affairs.” Assess the validity of this statement in regard to policies toward Korea, Vietnam, the Suez Crisis, Iran, Israel, and the Soviet Union.

than  accepting a  diplomatic change. This  can be deduced as  an attempt to build on Soviet power whilst also

The foreign policy of the United States can be defined as a labyrinth- a set of complex intricacies which either lack comprehension or are characterized by meticulous thought. Established during a period of ideological warfare and domestic hysteria, it is evident the Truman Doctrine was conceived with a disregard for the future stability of American international affairs. Engulfed within a period marked by massive power struggles and distorted accusations, the Truman Doctrine may appear minimal in regard to alterations of the United States international attitude. However, the Doctrine acted as a catalyst for the shift in America’s foreign policy objectives and vision. It is clear the Truman Doctrine produced detrimental consequences in regard to the international policy of the United States, stability of foreign countries, and continuing repercussions in the modern day.

Meanwhile, the British and the French were colonial powers which prior to the start of the Second World War, had empires which were large and expansive. They had colonies in the Carribean, in Africa, as well as in Asia. Whilst both countries came out of the war as victors, they had suffered embarrassing early defeats to Japan and Germany respectively, which was a knock to colonial prestige (Nairn, 2003, p.3). The post-war scenario was one in which colonies like Indochina and India rose up to demand independence and the right for self-determination from their previous rulers. It was clear to many in this time period that the traditional system of empire was finished, and with it the power of previous colonial rulers (Hyam, 2006, p.239). Britain and France, not surprisingly, were unwilling to let this happen. When Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal, they saw this as a threat to their already diminishing empire, as not only would it lead ‘inevitably to the loss one by one of all our interests and assets in the Middle East’ (Hyam, 2006, p.227), it would also lead to an increase in distance between their

Truman’s foreign policy experts sought American-Arab friendship as a barrier against Soviet influence in the Middle East and as a means to secure access to Arabian oil.

Both “Eisenhower’s 3 Imperatives for World Peace” and “Eisenhower on the Second Berlin Crisis” have similarities. While addressing

Moreover, Brzezinski stated that “Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia—and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained”(Brzezinski, 1997). Aside from destabilizing the USSR to seek the hegemony, the carter admission also provided financial and military aid to the Mujahedin in order to secure a global dominant in Eurasia as a means of achieving what they considered to be an essential long-term objective of the United States. What the elite policymakers did is merely use military force to defend its national interests and seek the balance of power in the Persian Gulf region instead of pursing the human rights and equality as they justified themselves in the liberalism

Eisenhower also made full use of the newly created CIA to help overthrow unfriendly governments in developing countries. He resolved the Suez crisis peacefully before it led to war and committed American funds to fighting Ho Chi Minh’s pro-Communist forces in Vietnam after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.

Background: In the midst of the Cold War and the Arab-Israeli conflict, conflict arose over Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. This was of particular concern due to Nasser’s increased connection with the Soviet Union, through the Czech Arms agreement and the Aswan Dam. Following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal, Great Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt. In facing this crisis, the U.S. had to consider Cold War politics with the Soviet Union, relations with Arab and Israeli nations, and relations with the invading powers

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.

The foreign policy of the United States during the Cold War fully supported the growth of democratic nations. The USSR, however, wanted countries to become communist like them. These opposing views led to tension between the two nations. As a result, in 1947, President Truman issued the Truman Doctrine which stated that the United States would supply aid to any country as long as they pledged to be democratic. The Marshall plan was enacted in 1948 and it was similar to the Truman Doctrine except it provided financial aid to these countries. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the United States used its foreign policy to help countries resist communist influence.