American Foreign Policy Towards the Middle East, 1945-present
What overarching interests has America repeatedly had in the Middle East?
Though the escalation of American involvement in the Middle East in the public eye occurred in 2003 during the Iraq War, many of America's immediate interests and conflicts in the Middle East today are not new. They have, in fact, been in development since the end of World War II. Since that time, the overall goals in the region have remained the same, but more importantly, so have the relationships as a result. Indeed, America's relationship patterns with Turkey, Iran, Russia, and Israel are all rooted in the last 70 years of history due to oil interests, containment of geopolitical rivals, and the ideology of spreading democracy.
One of the primary functions of the tangled relationships in the Middle East is a country's ideological commitment, either to democracy or, in the case of the Cold War, anti-communism. This affected the geopolitical development between the United States and other regional or global powers, particularly Turkey, Russia, Iran, and Israel. In the case of Turkey, the U.S. supported them early on due to their relative secularism/liberal democracy closer to the time of World War II, leading them to join NATO in 1951. It is this same idea of Turkey as a Westernized, developed nation that has led it to bid for admittance into the European Union. In recent years, however, this dynamic has changed. Under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey has seen a reversal in democracy, and in turn a reversal of support from Western nations. Their relations with the U.S. today are tense, especially regarding America's alliance with the Kurds, and their EU bid has stalled since it was originally lodged in 2004.
Russo-American relations have also remained hostile in both the Soviet era and under the Russian Federation. The United States looked to the Middle East as a means of containing Soviet policy, especially in Iran and Afghanistan. With Russian support of Iran continuing today as a result of the Syrian Civil War, the United States has backed the opposite horse in Saudi Arabia. In essence, the Iran-Saudi Arabia geopolitical conflict is in truth the wider United States-Russia conflict.
The same courtesy has been extended to Iran as well. The modern troubles with Iran began partially as an ideological trouble--the fact that Mossadegh was a socialist meant that he could in the near future become an ally of the Soviets. As such, the United States needed to oust him in order to contain Soviet influence from spreading in the region. Since the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis, the U.S. has been suspicious of the Iranian government. Though some overtures were made under Obama through the Iran Nuclear Deal, this is now coming under threat from President Trump. Compounded with the aformentioned support of Saudi Arabia (as well as Israel), and relations with Iran are likely to remain tense in the near future.
Finally, one of the core reasons the United States supports Israel is because it is one of the most functioning democracies in a region full of failed states. The fact that Israel worked as a successful democracy built from the ground up allowed the U.S. to try the same in Iraq in 2003. Though their support of Israel has been patchy, for example not supporting them in the Six Day War, their interests align very closely. The U.S. has been an intermediary in many agreements between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors, such as during the Camp David or Oslo Accords.
Aside from the ideological implications of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, nuclear weapons are also a major focal point of containment policy. It was also in Turkey that the U.S. harbored nuclear weapons, leading the Soviet Union to retaliate by putting missiles in Cuba, and causing the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today, the same struggle can been seen with the Iran deal. The U.S. fears that with the nuclear deal, the Iranian government may decide to use nuclear energy to build a WMD. Iran itself believes that Israel has secret nuclear weapons, which is seen as a motive for why they might nuclearize, whether or not the rumor may be true. And during the Iraq War, one of the premises that was used by the Bush administration to invade was that Saddam Hussein was stashing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Since the World War II era, America has also tried to tap into the vast oil market in the Middle East, which has effected its entire postwar history in the region, as well as its foreign relations. One of the underlying reasons why Mossadegh of Iran was overthrown in 1953 was due to his intention to nationalize the country's oil industry. This same issue led to extended conflict with Iraq, starting under Brigadier General Abd al-Karim Qasim. Like Mossadegh, Qasim wished to reduce Anglo-American control of oil companies in Iraq, and was also overthrown. Later, they also intervened against the Iraqi government during the 1990-91 Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein marched his armies to Kuwait in order to gain access to their oil.
Between the democracy conundrum, the need for renewable energy, and geopolitical concerns, not much has changed in the Middle East in the last 75 years.
One of the primary functions of the tangled relationships in the Middle East is a country's ideological commitment, either to democracy or, in the case of the Cold War, anti-communism. This affected the geopolitical development between the United States and other regional or global powers, particularly Turkey, Russia, Iran, and Israel. In the case of Turkey, the U.S. supported them early on due to their relative secularism/liberal democracy closer to the time of World War II, leading them to join NATO in 1951. It is this same idea of Turkey as a Westernized, developed nation that has led it to bid for admittance into the European Union. In recent years, however, this dynamic has changed. Under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey has seen a reversal in democracy, and in turn a reversal of support from Western nations. Their relations with the U.S. today are tense, especially regarding America's alliance with the Kurds, and their EU bid has stalled since it was originally lodged in 2004.
Russo-American relations have also remained hostile in both the Soviet era and under the Russian Federation. The United States looked to the Middle East as a means of containing Soviet policy, especially in Iran and Afghanistan. With Russian support of Iran continuing today as a result of the Syrian Civil War, the United States has backed the opposite horse in Saudi Arabia. In essence, the Iran-Saudi Arabia geopolitical conflict is in truth the wider United States-Russia conflict.
The same courtesy has been extended to Iran as well. The modern troubles with Iran began partially as an ideological trouble--the fact that Mossadegh was a socialist meant that he could in the near future become an ally of the Soviets. As such, the United States needed to oust him in order to contain Soviet influence from spreading in the region. Since the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis, the U.S. has been suspicious of the Iranian government. Though some overtures were made under Obama through the Iran Nuclear Deal, this is now coming under threat from President Trump. Compounded with the aformentioned support of Saudi Arabia (as well as Israel), and relations with Iran are likely to remain tense in the near future.
Finally, one of the core reasons the United States supports Israel is because it is one of the most functioning democracies in a region full of failed states. The fact that Israel worked as a successful democracy built from the ground up allowed the U.S. to try the same in Iraq in 2003. Though their support of Israel has been patchy, for example not supporting them in the Six Day War, their interests align very closely. The U.S. has been an intermediary in many agreements between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors, such as during the Camp David or Oslo Accords.
Aside from the ideological implications of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, nuclear weapons are also a major focal point of containment policy. It was also in Turkey that the U.S. harbored nuclear weapons, leading the Soviet Union to retaliate by putting missiles in Cuba, and causing the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today, the same struggle can been seen with the Iran deal. The U.S. fears that with the nuclear deal, the Iranian government may decide to use nuclear energy to build a WMD. Iran itself believes that Israel has secret nuclear weapons, which is seen as a motive for why they might nuclearize, whether or not the rumor may be true. And during the Iraq War, one of the premises that was used by the Bush administration to invade was that Saddam Hussein was stashing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Since the World War II era, America has also tried to tap into the vast oil market in the Middle East, which has effected its entire postwar history in the region, as well as its foreign relations. One of the underlying reasons why Mossadegh of Iran was overthrown in 1953 was due to his intention to nationalize the country's oil industry. This same issue led to extended conflict with Iraq, starting under Brigadier General Abd al-Karim Qasim. Like Mossadegh, Qasim wished to reduce Anglo-American control of oil companies in Iraq, and was also overthrown. Later, they also intervened against the Iraqi government during the 1990-91 Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein marched his armies to Kuwait in order to gain access to their oil.
Between the democracy conundrum, the need for renewable energy, and geopolitical concerns, not much has changed in the Middle East in the last 75 years.
Comments
Post a Comment