The United States Foreign Policy

World War II prompted U.S. leaders to pay greater attention to the oil resources of the Persian Gulf region, because in order to maintain its status as one of the global elites in oil in the case of a domestic shortage, the United States needed to secure an available foreign oil source during the war.

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.

The American government is known to promote democratic values throughout the world. Though the ideals America was fighting for during the Cold War, the government still managed to participate in the overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh threatened to nationalize Iran’s oil in 1951 and later gained the support of the Iranian government. The British companies had many investments in Iranian oil. It is with the approval of nationalization that the economies of both British and Iran were ultimately harmed. The British government requested the help of the US so that they could perform a coup to overthrow Mossadegh. With suspicions of Mossadegh supporting communism, and being supported by the Tudeh Party, the United States government was willing to sacrifice their democratic ideologies and credibility in the region for the insurance of an anti-communist leader. This would prove to cause problems that still resonate in today’s political and military negotiations in this region.

These benefits would further lead to improvements of their country’s economy, dominance, natural resources, and transportation of goods and materials like oil. However, in the end, the creation of alliances was unsuccessful for Britain, Israel, and France considering the aftermath of the Suez Crisis. The dispute did not resulted in the favor of the three nations, and was not what they had expected because France, Israel, and Britain were forced to cease fire by the United States and the United Nations. On the other hand, Egypt remained in full control over the canal, and the conflict was the mark of the continuing gradual development of independence from the Western World in Arab nations (Pearce 219). As for Britain and France’s status in the world, the invasion had been a bad move for them, and was the signal and indication of their constant decline in being the global powers of the

In 1987 President Reagan ordered the protection of the Persian Gulf by US warship in an attempt to keep the flow of oil through the area unharmed (Klare 2005 p.4). These actions were deemed necessary because a disruption in oil production and exportation from the Persian Gulf would greatly affect the US. Not only would it have harmed our economy, but it also would have instilled a need to find other means of accessing oil. Again in August of 1990 president George H. W. Bush deployed forces to Saudi Arabia for similar reasons, stating,

During the1890s, the United States showed little interest in foreign affairs. The U.S. relied on previous foreign policies which resulted in inconsistent international trade in the years leading up to the twentieth century. However, following the rise of the industrial revolution in the United States American business began to recognize the vast potential of the international market place. The U.S. sought out to expand its territory globally to increase trade and protect its assets more effectively. The United States, at this point in the late 1890s, also began to listen to Alfred Thayer Mahan, an admiral and naval strategist. Mahan had previously called for a strengthening of the U.S. navy and an expansion of U.S. markets globally. Mahan also had great influence over his friend and current assistant secretary of the navy Teddy Roosevelt. In 1898 the U.S. was able to exploit a huge mistake made by the Spanish empire in Havana Harbor. The American ship U.S.S. Maine mysteriously exploded on February 15, 1898, killing 266 American sailors. The American public was outraged and they called for war to overthrow the “Spanish Murders” in Cuba. At this time, Spain was an imperial power with land possessions in the Caribbean as well as the pacific. They controlled Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean and the Philippines and Guam in the pacific. American politicians, including Secretary of State John Hay and President William McKinley, now began discussing the idea on going to war

America believed that it was isolated from the rest of the world, and its foreign policy reflected these ideas and beliefs. The United States was on its way to becoming a world power and advancing its own interest in the world, especially in the North and South America. Isolationism caused the United States to avoid being involved in other countries politics and for the U.S. to remain neutral in foreign policy

However in 1956 the allies of the United States decided to invade Egypt without consulting the United States. Causing “a furious Eisenhower [to force] them to abandon the invasion.” (Give Me Liberty, p.953) This fiasco led to the United States passing Britain and becoming the most influential Western power in the Middle East. This allowed American companies to dominate the oil fields in the Middle East. In order to maintain this friendship with the Middle East, Eisenhower extended the principle and created the Eisenhower Doctrine. The Doctrine promised the United States would defend Middle Eastern governments that are ever threatened by communists or Arab Nationalism. This created a lasting friendship with the Middle East in order to remain dominant in the oil fields there, and boosting the American

From Independence through WWI, the US tried to refuse to become generally and permanently involved in the affairs of the rest of the world. It started in the early years of this nation when George Washington declared that “our true policy” was “to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”. After, in 1801, Thomas Jefferson warned the nation against “entangling alliances”. So it was basically in the genetics in this country to isolate itself. Yet this policy did not demand a complete separation from the rest of the world. The US developed ties abroad by exchanging Ambassadors, signing treaties with many nations, et cetera.

The United States has engaged in numerous international interventions in the Middle East. The two major events that have shaped the politics of U.S. foreign policy, Israel, and the Arab states are the Suez Crisis of 1956 and the Six Day War of 1967. President Eisenhower and President Johnson each took different approaches while confronting these crises. The personalities, motives and predispositions of the Presidents and their circle of closest advisors explain how they shaped their policies and how they responded to the events. The decisions these Presidents made have had a long-lasting effect on the region. Over the course of this paper, I will compare Eisenhower’s policies in the 1956 Suez Crisis and Johnson’s policies in the 1967 Six

Hoder, Lukas, and Petr Suchy. "Bush Doctrine in the Middle East." Obrana a Strategie (Defence & Strategy) OaS (D&S) 11.1 (2011): 69-85.Stanford:Political Science Journal. Stanford Journal for Independent Research, 08 Apr. 2009. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.

Accordingly oil played a significant role in the United States rise to power in the Middle East. Before the War ended President Roosevelt met with the King of Saudi Arabia where it was established the relationship between the two countries would be about oil. America’s power in the region was primarily directed through oil companies such as Aramco.

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

The United States has been involved in the affairs of the Middle East for decades and they’ve had various reasons for being there, whether it was to wage war or to prevent outside influence that would undermine their own influence in the region, it always seemed to revolve around one thing: oil. As we all know, oil is a very profitable resource and it’s a huge part of many nations’ economies and because this is the case many wars are fought over this black liquid. The U.S. is no different in that they did just about anything to maintain their access to Middle East oil. As a result, United States actions in the Middle East today has been formed through the decades long desire for their oil.

The Suez War or Crisis of 1956 was a geopolitical conflict between Egypt with Israel, Great Britain, and France. Just War theory will be used to assess the “just” qualities of the British’s involvement in the war. Great Britain’s role in the war does not fit within any of the categories of being a just war in either “jus ad bellum” or in “jus in bello.” A “just war” can be justified if it brings peace to a region however; in this case, the Suez War was fought to retain the British’s colonial powers among other reasons.