For many decades, relations between the United States and the Middle East have been a significant preoccupation for US leaders. These relations have security and economic implications for the United States, as demonstrated by various foreign policy experts. A look at the presidencies across time periods is undertaken by Mossalanejad (1) to underscore the continuity aspects of United States foreign policy towards the Middle East. Taking the actions and strategies of three presidents from Bush to Obama and Trump, Mossalanejad (3) finds that the United States used a country or several countries as its centers of control in the Middle East. Iran was one such country that served the strategic policy objectives in the region throughout the three presidents. While at it, Bush, Obama, and Trump chose to apply sanctions to achieve their desired objectives of peace and strategic control in the region (Mossalanejad 10).
Further, their foreign policy for the region was based on social forces, founded on direct interactions between US officers and leaders and their counterparts in the Middle East countries. This strategy is to endear the United States to Middle Eastern populations by breaking cultural barriers. This policy was sometimes dubbed military cooperation and often involved military training for the local armies. As Mossalanejad (11) explains, it was not only for Iran but across other cooperating countries like Egypt and Jordan. Mossalanejad (14) believes that cooperation in foreign policies in the Middle East provided checks on the geopolitical power and influence of unstable countries like Iran. Thus, foreign policy by the United States was intended to counterbalance the power dynamics in the region. Two buzzwords emerged in this era of cooperation foreign policies; integration and prosperity (Mossalanejad 18). The above-described policies have been central to the formation of regional coalitions. From this, the United States has emerged as a key player in the socio-economic development of the Middle East and, thus, a central player not just in war situations but also in economic cooperation.
Niv-Solomon (437) states that traditionally, the focus of the US-Middle East policy was protecting Israel and, by extension, resolving the conflicts with Israel’s neighbors in the region. To this end, the United States maintained a leading role as a mediator of conflicts involving Israel and its neighbors in the region. This is elucidated in Niv-Solomon (439) to include the mediation role played in resolving the Israeli-Egypt conflict. The view of Niv-Solomon (440) is that the United States has established itself as a critical player in international conflicts. Thus, the country serves a foreign policy mandate and role in the Middle East of being the policing country that ensures everyone plays according to the rules.
The policing role is ably explained by Niv-Solomon (442) by citing several attempts spearheaded by the United States in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This is traced to several presidencies. For example, President Clinton was central in bringing the warring forces of Arafat and Netanyahu to the table in what was billed as the closest step to achieving long-lasting peace. Taking over, Bush, despite maintaining the high value of Israel in the region, sought to find other strategic partners while slowing down the incessant focus of the US foreign policy in the Israel-Palestinian conflict (Niv-Solomon 446). As Niv-Solomon (446) explains, countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Iran gained increased significance in the Bush administration, not because of the waning support for Israel but the change in US foreign policy to refocus away from the never-ending Israeli situation (Niv-Solomon 446). To indicate the drastic change in policy in the Middle East, the Bush administration sought the recognition of Palestine as a state, a situation that was unheard of before in the US-Middle East policy (Niv-Solomon 446). It is critical to note the continued significance of Israel to US foreign policy in the Middle East. Starting out, the protection of Israel against any adversary is always on the mind of all US presidents.
The focus of MacQueen and Kumuda (157) is the Bush administration’s foreign policy on the Middle East. The focus is also on Iraq, which was used as a center for US policy implementations during the Bush administration. The view of Bush, and by extension, the US policy for the Middle East, was one for the resolution of conflict and maintenance of peace, which at the time was a hard target for the Middle East (MacQueen and Kumuda 159). Thus, the US took on, among other policy approaches, the use of occupation (MacQueen and Kumuda 159). The Iraq situation was perhaps the earliest form of US entry and stay in the Middle East countries and the beginning of such a foreign policy approach in the region.
It is also clear that the US policy in the Middle East is based on the idea of reducing militarization and creating stability. As MacQueen and Kumuda (160) put it, this was pursued earnestly in Iraq by eliminating terrorist groups. The other policy objective in the region was to reduce radicalization and associated violence. This was pursued through a policy of using US ground forces (MacQueen and Kumuda 160). Further, the concept of cooperation has emerged from such relationships similar to the Iraq situation. It indicates a situation where the United States joins forces to form support groups for Iraq to help rebuild the country. The support group ideals have been conceptualized into value-based foreign policy for the region, where the United States considers human conditions, rights, and moral actions as the ultimate guide to behaviors toward countries in the Middle East.
Krieg (97) describes a recent shift in US foreign policy in the Middle East towards collaboration built on mutual participation. This was started during the ISIS situation in Iraq, where the US air force presented strategic support to Iraq militants and forces fighting ISIS. Although a non-conventional engagement for the US policy, it indicated a desire by the United States to maintain limited losses and costs when it comes to issues that are too local in the Middle East (Krieg 99). The United States had learned that a foreign policy using local reinforcements works better in reaching local solutions in the Middle East conflicts. This result is evident in the shadow wars that characterized President Obama. Faced with war fatigue at home, Obama adopted a hit-and-run policy, where air strikes and sporadic mission attacks achieved higher ends at minimal costs (Krieg 102). As preparation, the intelligence networks and war surrogates were earnestly recruited to support the US missions.
Today, the United States maintains the status of a patron in several Middle East countries in their democratic ideals, war cessations, and development, yet it has spies working around the clock to ensure they are on top of any escalating threats to the United States from the region. When threats emerge, they are met with direct and swift action (Krieg 104). As such, in the public eye, the United States is a peace ambassador, working on the ideals of cooperation and coordination. However, behind the scenes, it adopts a ruthless policy of intelligence for security purposes in the Middle East and possible targets beyond.
Works Cited
Krieg, Andreas. “Externalizing the Burden of War: The Obama Doctrine and US Foreign
Policy in the Middle East.” International Affairs, vol. 92, no. 1, Jan. 2016, pp. 97–113. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12506.
MacQueen, Benjamin, and Kumuda Simpson. “Iraq and the Limitations of American Foreign
Policy in the Middle East.” Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 61, no. 2, June 2007, pp. 156–67. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1080/10357710701358329.
Mossalanejad, Abbas. “US Comparative policy towards Iran and the Middle East Security”.
Geopolitics, vol. 14, no.4, Aug. 2019. pp. 1-20
Niv-Solomon, Anat. “Chasing the Holy Grail of Mediation: US Efforts to Mediate the Israeli-
Palestinian Peace Process Since 1993.” International Negotiation, vol. 24, no. 3, Sept. 2019, pp. 437–63. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-24031187.
write