United States Of The Middle East During World War II

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

Since his presidency did not begin with Israel becoming a state, his focus was greatly adjusted and at first there was a noticeable decline in aid and care for Israel’s wellbeing. Israel was also rather vulnerable during this time, due to the fact that there more Jewish refugees entering Israel from surrounding Arab states. President Eisenhower convincingly proved that America had the ability to influence Israel in a good way, although his presidency ended with the Middle East still in a state of war. During Eisenhower’s administration, there were two successful incidents of U.S. management of Israel and in both circumstances, Eisenhower avoided the political compulsions of America’s attachment to Israel and instead forced the Israelis to act upon principle. Unfortunately, his presidency was the last to give Israel undivided focus, for the ones to follow were absorbed in other affairs and did not provide the same constructive support.

Edmund Burke once said “Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” Unfortunately, it seems that many people who have impacted the world have had a bad history teacher, as history continues to repeat itself to this day. One of the most prime examples of this is seen in the Middle East; where the Palestinian people are fighting against the Israelis over territory in which they both believe belongs to them. It has been a dispute which has resulted in loss of homes, loss of life and loss of money. However, this is nothing new. Eugene O’Neill’s statement, “There is no present and no future, only the past happening over and over again, now” applies strongly to the situation of the past 70 years in the

and U.N. This causes these entities to impose sanctions and restrictions on these countries which in turn creates a more hostile environment to the global community (Bruno, 2011). While the U.S. combines efforts with Israel to gain intelligence on the support and aid of terrorist sponsoring states such as Iran and Syria, it gives the U.S. leverage in its other efforts against these states; such as Iran attempting to enrich Uranium causing further NATO sanctions. Additionally it could provide the U.S. insight on what other terrorist organizations Iran is sponsoring internationally, which would provide benefit to U.S. intelligence collections at home and abroad. Looking forward Israel will remain one of the U.S. largest assets in the region and due to its large military presence and the partnership of trade and intelligence in the region will greatly benefit the U.S. intelligence efforts in the Middle

History has provided us a lesson about great power involvement in the Middle East. It is that, when superpowers drift away, peace, progress, moderation and stability do not necessarily follow in their position. While the result pattern of Great power intervention is familiar, we never fail to be shocked by the

While the U.S. maintained a relatively confusing agenda regarding foreign policies during the Cold War era, its attitudes are clearer in the present as globalization has strengthened connections between all international actors and made it more difficult for some to focus on maintaining hostile outlooks. The U.S. has had a long history with Syria and Israel, as the superpower has struggled to keep the two countries from abusing each-other and has, at times, provided the latter with significant financial and military support. However, U.S. involvement in Israel-Syrian relations has declined significantly in the recent decades, only to emerge in the last few years as a consequence of the fact that the Middle East currently experiences a serious political crisis.

In the past few decades till now, the United States foreign policies were an important factor to deal with many issues around the globe. Starting from the Security Council ending with the country policy, the United States has made many decisions that took negative effect on the country’s security and its relations with other countries. The reason behind these negative effect is the United States foreign policies especially toward the Middle East. These policies are greatly affected by the Israeli lobby in the United States. As John J. Mearsheimer, a professor of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard University 's John F. Kennedy School of Government, mentioned in a documentary published by London Review of Books under the name of “The Israeli Lobby”. They say, “the thrust of US

There is a tendency to characterize all Arab nations as being unilaterally on the same page when it came to the Israeli issue. In Rachel Bronson’s work Thicker than Oil demonstrates that nations like Saudi Arabia were capable of a great deal of leniency when it came to the issue.

The Effect of Outside Powers on the Arab-Israeli Conflict The tension in the Middle East is a constant problem; originating from both historical and religious claims to the area. It is strengthened, as both parties have convinced themselves that they are right, and are victims of the other side. Furthermore, it has been fuelled by the involvement of the Western powers, as well as the stubbornness of the Middle Eastern powers, not wanting to go the peace talks with the political incentive to resolve the problems at hand. As the Middle East is valuable for oil, and trading access (such as the Suez Canal), outside powers only seem to have their own interests at heart; since they are so dependant on

Proceeding from a simplistic perception of regional stability, Washington utilized the surrogate strategy to control the outcomes of regional interactions in the Middle East and chose Israel to play the role of regional surrogate. But Israel, in many cases, instead of maintaining regional stability on behalf of the US, served its own interests which were not always consistent with US interest in regional stability. The Israeli violations, however, were either condoned or even approved by the US administrations. These reactions comprised what this chapter addressed as a pro-Israel model of intervention.

The six-day war can go down in history as one of the worst wars between Israel and one or more Arab countries. The six-day war heavily impacted Israel and the participating Arab countries in many ways. Israeli and Arab relations have never been good, even before Israel was declared an independent state in 1948. The six-day war should not be considered a new war based on its impact, rather it should be considered as a continuation of a constant war between Israel and its surrounding Arab neighbors. A factor that has always played a major part in instigating a conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors is the refusal and rejection of the Arab leadership to indentify Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. The war began with all surrounding Arab countries lining up along each border ready to try and wipe Israel out using air attacks, as well as ground attacks. The Six Day War concluded with an evident victory in favor of the Israelis, which to some is surprising due to the overwhelming force of the three militaries, which were ganging up on one small country. The casualty numbers ended up in favor of the Israeli’s who only lost somewhere near 700 people with 2,500 injured, while, Egypt lost 15,000 people and had 5,600 taken as prisoners, Jordan lost close to 6,000 people and Syria suffered somewhere close to 1,000 casualties (Knesset). The Arab attackers lost close to 1 billion dollars worth of aircrafts, tanks and heavy machinery in total between all three countries

From as early as 1953 with the assistance in the coup to overthrow then Iranian leadership to the killing of Bin Laden, we see that America has had a hand in the Middle East and as fig.1 demonstrates and if to be believed, the problems that now find need for policies, competencies and leadership had the helping hand of the United Staten in creating the dis function in the region; as Malcolm X would so eloquently state “the chickens are finally coming home to roost.”

During the period following World War 2.The new Zionist movement of Jews immigrating to the Middle East to establish a homeland for all Jews in what was now Israel after being displaced for many years. This led to conflict between the Arabs and the Jews about who had rights to this homeland, with both the Arab Muslims and the Jewish Israelis having biblical claims to the cities in the Middle East. This conflict was further fuelled by both the USA and the USSR as they were trying to spread their sphere of influence by supplying aid in the form of weapons, ammunition and support to gain access to valuable resources and water ways. However their involvement was not a direct factor leading to the conflict between Israel and the Arab states but rather prolonging it by supplying tools of war.

During the time of 1948 and 1956 there were two major events that happened with regards to the Middle East crisis. The 1st major event that happened was the War of Liberation. The 2nd was the Suez crises. The War of Liberation was fought between the Arab states surrounding Palestine and newly formed Israel. While some countries like the US had officially recognised the State of Israel, which had caused the Arabs to become anti west, Jordan, Syria and Egypt immediately

the conflict in the middle east between 1948-1973 was not purely fuelled by the interest and concerns of the superpowers but rather of a series of conflictual incidents, aswell as the main wars that took place from the years from 1948-1967 such as the: 1948 War, The Six Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973. But although the conflict was not fuelled by the superpowers, the influence of the superpowers and the reach of the superpowers into the Middle East was evident in the years both prior and following 1978. But even despite the influence and interests of the superpowers between and including 1948-1967 being undeniably evident, the extent of this influence cannot be said to have “fuelled the conflict”.