America`s Middle East Policies


America’sMiddle East PoliciesNameof StudentInstitution.


The international politics and relations are currently beingdominated by the issue of the Middle East and the US relationship. Itis, therefore, important to look at the factors that have resulted inthe fragile relationship between the world superpower and the MiddleEast. For decades, the Middle East has been dealing with powerstruggles.This includes matters of the Israeli-Palestinian borderconflict the Arab-Israeli war (1948-1949), the Vietnam War(1970s) andthe dessert storm operation (1990s). Some states in this region arepushing for constitutional monarchies or liberal democracies. Thisessay will examine the underlying animosity between these nations. Itwill also look at the pros and con of the American policies towardsthe Middle East and the ways it has succeeded.HypothesisTheUSA has successfully managed the Middle East through its effectivepolicies.Analysis

There has been an ongoing debate regarding the question of what theUS’s foreign policies are towards the Middle East. Two main defensestrategy objectives were resulting from the Pentagon’s DefensePlanning Guidance between the year 1994 and 1999 (Reveron et al.,2014). This period was prior to President Bush Jr. Administration andhas since then become more relevant. The first primary objective wasto deter another world war or an extreme enmity like the onewitnessed between the former Soviet Union andAmerica.

A new region strategy has therefore been put in place to prevent ahostile power from dominating the Middle East. If such a powercontrols this area with a consolidation control potential, then itcan utilize the available resources resulting in the generation of aworld power. The second aim is to focus on regional conflict andinstability and come up with the best solutions. By so doing,limitation of the global violence and the promotion of the respectfor the international law is fostered. The US government has tried toretain pre-eminently the responsibility of protecting itself and itsallies in a bid to avoid shaking up the international relations.

When dealing with allies, special precautions need to be taken intoaccount. This regards to those (e.g., Saudi Arabia) that easilybecome nervous and acts rashly that should be alienated but in a wisemanner (Teitelbaum, 2010). Obama’s administration has worked toshun their public criticism concerning the Iraq talks and has teamedup with them grudgingly. However, this was made difficult because ofthis ally (Saudi Arabia), and it was hard to put pressure later on tothe Sisi regime in Egypt. About this, it is in Yemen that most damagehas been done. In 2011, the United States outsourced their Yemenpolicy to Saudi Arabia but it did not work well.

The Iran`s nuclear deal has involved America administration policy.An agreement was reached by the US led by a group of world powerswith Iran. They agreed to curb the country’s nuclear deal programbecause of the dangers associated with it. Under the deal, Iran wasbe relieved the sanction imposed on it under some conditions. It hadto limit its ability to create nuclear weapons, slashing its workingcentrifuges to 5000. Moreover, it was to make a reduction of its 15years stockpile of low-enriched uranium. The Obama administrationalso agreed that the international inspectors would access itsnuclear facilities.Under the deal, Iran also agreed to export ordestroy the core of its Arak plutonium plant and the enrichment toits Natanz facility.

His administration emphasized that the negations were not concerningIran’s activities in the region but the nuclear program. Hisstatements were meant to act as a reassurance although its effect wasopposite. In the real sense, it is not the nuclear deal that onlymattered to the United States, but everything else concerning Iran`saffairs in the region[ CITATION Kal10 l 1033 ]. The administrationhandled this issue as well as other related ones within this region(chewing the gum and walking). The interrelated nature of theconflict in the region was therefore underscored. The Arab springalso emphasized the fact that politics is rarely local. In all thecrisis witnessed, external factors that had regional ambitions hadplayed a significant and decisive role particularly in Syria,Lebanon, and Egypt.

Geopolitical expert known as Ian Bremmer who is the president of theEurasia Group argued that the administration move had itsdisadvantages. He said that it was not good for the American allies.This was particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia. He also argued thatthere could be proxy wars, particularly when Iran cheats[ CITATION Hok14 l 1033 ].My take is that the deal is necessary for it will limit the country’snuclear capabilities. Moreover, it will mark the dramatic breakcharacterized by a great animosity between Iran and the Westernpowers. I consider the deal as the most significant foreign policythat the Obama administration has achieved.

The fight against ISIS is another policy that the administration hasenacted. The militia has terrorized a large portion of Iraq and Syriawith an aim of establishing an Islamic state. This state will begoverned by strict Sharia laws that will be enacted. The governmentis determined to fight the rebels and restore peace in the region.Obama administration wanted to be least involved in Syria since itsuprising. It was unwilling to rethink its strategy in Syria due thereinforcement gotten from the Iran negations. Moreover, it did notsee the essence of provoking an international war when it was makingdeals concerning the Iran’s nuclear program.

Some scholars have it that the Obama administration had a hand insupporting the ISIS. They argued that the initial plan was toundermine the ruling elite, but the plan backfired. Proposals made bySyria have to go through the office of undersecretary for politicalaffairs. Coincidently, Wendy Sherman, the undersecretary, is anegotiator over the Iran`s nuclear deal. This makes the critics ofthe administration stronger. Most recently, Russia has intervened inthe war against the ISIS by launching airstrikes in Syria. The firstattacks hit an American-backed militia group against Al Asaad. Such aUS move proves that the Obama administration is not happy with theAssad Regime. My views are that we need to fight the ISIS against allodds. For the plan to be effective, the administration should give arobust support in the authorization process to avoid limiting theoptions. Despite the existing rift between Russia and the US, thereis hope that they will fight ISIS that is perceived as a commonenemy.

Recently, Saudi Arabia moved to Yemen to fight the Shiite rebels.President Obama hosted King Salman in the white house to discuss thesituation in Yemen. They aimed at restoring the govern in Yemen thatwould be functioning and inclusive.the administration supported theSaudi intervention to fight the militia group that ousted thecountry’s US recognized president into exile. President Obama wasalso concerned with the mass violations of the human rights. The needto introduce an administration that would provide life-saving supportin Yemen was paramount.

Some scholars argue that the Saudi-Israeli tandem is trying to makeefforts to pull the US into Yemen’s civil war. They believe thatthe Houthi rebels are Iranian proxies. I hold the view that directingand aiding the Houthis are two different things. The Obamaadministration has to maintain the firm stand and fight the rebelsuntil normalcy is restored.

Conclusively, the Americans learned a lot from the 9/11 tragedy.Initially, it had adopted the isolationist policy, having no faith incollective security. Later on, it took a collectivist approachdeeming an attack by one country on its allies as an attack to all.The situation in the Middle East can not be ignored because of thepossible repercussions for the united states as well as its allies.There is a need to create a good relation with the Islamic regimesand groups in the region. The fact that it is the world super powermakes it be always in a position to maintain peace in the worldthrough the diplomatic relations. It should end the chaos inAfghanistan and Iraq, accelerate the peace process in Israel andPalestine and become more involved in the Syrian revolution.

The administration needs to prove to its enemies like Syria that itwill not blink first in handling various crises in the region. Thisis despite it facing criticisms from allies like Israel that did nottake the signing of the nuclear deal lightly. It is, therefore,performing a good job as a hegemon in ensuring that peace prevails inthe anarchic world arena that is guided by no moral framework.


Hokayem, E. (2014). Iran, the Gulf States and the Syrian Civil War. Adelphi Papers.

Izadi, F., &amp Saghaye-Biria, H. (2007). A discourse analysis of elite American newspaper editorias: The case of Iran`s nuclear program. Journal of communication Inquiry, 2, 140-165.

Kalathil, S., &amp Boas, T. C. (2010). Open networks, closed regimes: The impact of the Internet on Authoritarian rule. Carnegie Endowment.

Peterse, T. (2015). Anglo-American Policy towards the Persian Gulf, 1978-1985: Power Influence and Restraint. Sussex Academic Press.

Reveron , D., Gvosdev, N. K., &amp Owens, M. T. (2014). Us Foreign Policy and Defence and Strategy: The Evolution of an Incidental Superpower. Georgetown University Press.