Issue 34, January 2021
United States: A Review of the US Middle East Policy from Harry Truman to Bill Clinton
Kardo RACHED Salam ABDULRAHMAN
Abstract: Since the Second World War, the Middle East has been mentioned in connection with policy in the Middle East from Truman to Clinton on the premise that the US foreign policy has contributedthe national tointerest creating of America a breeding manifested ground for by dissatisfactionUS presidents. Thistoward paper the looksUS In atthis the context, US foreign the paper focuses on the doctrines in use from the time of President Truman to Clinton. Thus, every American president has a doctrine, and this doctrine tells what political line the president fol- lows regarding domestic and foreign policies. Keywords: Middle-East, Israel, US national interest, Soviet Union, Natural resources, ideologies.
Introduction
Kardo RACHED Sakarya University, Turkey startedIn the showing wake of interest the Second in the Middle World East. War E-mail: [email protected] With(WWII), Harry the Truman’s United States uncompromised of America (US)sup- Salam ABDULRAHMAN port for the newly created state in Palestine, University of Human Development, Iraq Israel, the Middle-East became an essential E-mail: [email protected] part of the US global policy. The US isolation policy that advocated non-involvement in
Issue 34, January 2021, pp. 45-65 entanglement in international politics dur- Conflict Studies Quarterly ingthe theEuropean 1930s, andgave Asian space conflicts to Britain, and France, non- DOI: 10.24193/csq.34.3 and Germany to act actively and indepen- Published First Online: 05 January /2021 dently in the Middle East. However, the dev-
45 Conflict Studies Quarterly astating economic consequences of the WWI and its impact on the US economy pushed
WWII, a radical change occurred in the USpolicy towards the Middle- East to preserve itsthe vital policymakers security interests in this country there. Three to rethink essential their pillars isolationist have played policy. aIn crucial the aftermath role in the of US Middle East post-war policy: 1. Preventing the Soviet threat and its impact on the region, 2. Keeping Israel secure, 3.
TheMaintaining Concept of Civilisationstability in the and area American to ensure Foreign oil flow Policy to the US and the West. The 20th century can also be called the American century. In the second half of the 20thcentury, the US became dominant in world politics and the global economy. US dominance was based on a combination of economic, political, and military power and on an ideology that the US stands for values that the world should take to heart. To recall ex-president“There is George a value W. system Bush youafter cannot the 11/9/2001 compromise assault, with, who and itsaid: is the values we salute. Moreover, if these values are good enough for our people, they should also be good enough for others, not to impose it because they are God-created values. They are values of freedom and human rights and maternal love for
th The Americantheir children power (Andersen, in the second 2003, half pp. of the46-47)”. 20 century was used to promote American communism. It has indeed been the US self-perception that they must subjugate the values worldwide, first in a showdown with Nazism and Japanese militarism, then with Bush said in the presidential campaign in 2000, “Our nation is chosen by God and com- non-civilized areas and give them part of American values (Rose, 2000). As George W. missionedDuring the by Cold history War, to American be a model politicians to the world” managed (Nielsen, to convince 2003). many traditionally of life. We may also remember that America helped to motivate European counties after WWIIisolationist to establish (Nye, 2014) a military Americans alliance that to communism defend their was common a threat interests. to the American In 1948, waythis alliance was first called the Western Union and later became known as NATO (Yost, defence2014). International program and responsibility foreign policy. and There participation was a radical in NATO change were in American observed security reverse andorder Middle the US East wanted policy to when make Ronald the world Reagan safe, came but to also power because because it was Reagan’s part of view US self-was that the war against communism must be won at any cost. Therefore, the war against communism had priority over all other things.
46 Issue 34, January 2021
Since the Second World War, the US government has faced many problems in the Middle
East, among which was the continuing conflict between the Zionist state in Palestine stilland activethe Arab in thestates. region, This the conflict Arab countrieswas the reason were ledwhy by the conservatives. Arab world becameHowever, divided in the between conservative and radical states. In 1945, when the European influence was following decades, the power was taken over by radical forces in Syria (l949), Egypt (1952), and Iraq (1958). In the middle of the 1960s, Palestinians in exile founded the group known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which aimed to work forFollowing the formation this, the of US a Palestinian government state developed (Spiegel, three 1985). primary objectives in the Middle East. First, it defended the right of Israel to exist. Behind this attitude were mainly domestic political pressure, humanitarian and theological terms, and the need for a reliable strategic ally in the region. Second, it supported peace in the region on the as- sumption that war and unrest would allow the Soviet Union to gain political or military influence. Finally, the US continually sought to reduce the spread of revolutionary Arab withnationalism the power for thebalance sake thatof Western existed strategic between and Israel, economic the conservative interests, includingArab states, access and theto oil radical and preventing Arab states, Moscow the US policiesfrom gaining often soughtpolitical to influence strengthen (Rubin, both Israel2002). and Faced the conservative Arabs.
Truman and Eisenhower’s Middle East policy
recognitionThe first US Presidentof the new to state. recognise The president Israel as aparticipated state was Harry as a facilitator Truman. On when May Israel 14, 1948, was after an eleven-minute meeting with the Zionist leaders, he officially announced his Zionist claim that 100,000 Jewish refugees should be allowed to immigrate to Palestine, atfounded the same during time his thousands first presidential of Palestinians term. Inwere August forced 1945, to leave he publicly their homeland. supported After the the presidential election in 1948, Truman pledged the US support for Israel and granted worsening of the US relationship with the Arab governments and those who opposed a loan of $90 million (Bar-Siman-Tov, 1998). His support for Israel was the cause of the the extensive immigration to the Jewish state in Palestine. For the first time, terrorists- tractedcarried aout great a bomb sentiment attack of on anti-Americanism. the American theatre Thus, in the Cairo, US was in which seen as five a Neo-Colonial people were power,killed. Truman’s replacing support the old forEuropean Israel also colonialists. challenged the Arab nationalist ideology and at After Truman, Eisenhower came to power at a time when the centre of gravity in the of Egypt with a pan-Arabism ideology depicted the Western countries and the US as US-Soviet rivalry moved to the Middle East thanks to the Nasser who was the president 47 Conflict Studies Quarterly needed to convince the Arabs that the US policy was impartial and neutral, while at the mainsame reasontime, he for was the trying Arab nation’shard to placatebackwardness the Arab (Robby, states 2020).so much Then, that Eisenhower they would refrain from providing facilities to the Soviet Union. It was clear that unrest would lead to afriendly weakening governments of Western in influence the Middle in the East, region especially and possibly those threatenedincrease Soviet by the influence Soviet Union’s(Spiegel, expansionist 1985). In March foreign 1957, policy. Eisenhower The doctrine pledged was intendedfinancial aidto: and troop support 1. Prevent Moscow from gaining a foothold in the Middle East, 2. Placate growing nationalism and control modernisation, and 3.
The Maintainproblem accesswith Eisenhower’s to oil and otherwise doctrine stabilise was that the it gave region the (Yaqub, US the right2006). to interfere in the entire region with no regard for the Arab National sovereignty. His doctrine did not improve US relations with the Arab world because the doctrine was utterly contrary to Arab interests. There was widespread support in the Arab world for the Egyptian leader Nasser, Israel’s primary opponent. He led a media campaign against the conservative states of the Arab world, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. There was a popular rebellion against King Hussein, and the rebels were about to overthrow his regime. However, Eisenhower sent $10 million as emergency aid and moved the US Navy to the Mediterranean to prepare for a possible military intervention in Jordan. Jordan was essential for the United States because King Hussein had a moderate policy
Johntowards F. Kennedy Israel, and and he Arabwas against nationalism nationalism (Spiller, 1981). The American relations with the radical Arab states were beginning to improve during the presidential term of John F. Kennedy, who had a subjective understanding of Arab by sending diplomats to Cairo. The Arabs initially rejected his plan for the Middle East nationalism. He was the first president who was seeking a rapprochement with Nasser
Israelibecause plan. he proposed As the mid-term to finance elections the settlement of 1962 approached, of Palestinian Kennedy refugees eased in Iraq the and US Syria.pres- The proposal, which was justified by Israel’s overpopulation problems, looked like an
Richardsure on Israel, Nixon and and the the refugee Cold War crisis remained unresolved (Spiegel, 1985). When Nixon came to power, the USA was not as secure compared to a few years earlier because of the US Vietnam policy. The US withdrawal from Vietnamin the early 1970s
1960s.resulted Western in the US Europe becoming had weakerachieved in stabilitythe fight againstand prosperity China and and the was Soviet economically Union. US influence over its closest allies in Western Europe and Asia was also lower during the 48 Issue 34, January 2021 and politically less dependent on the US. The Japanese economy was also revived, and . It was also clear that the US and Western Europe were, from the beginning of 1960, dependent onJapanese oil from exports the Middle began East. to rival The manyNixon US administration products (Roslyng-Jensen, saw the Middle 2003) East’s problems through the prism of superpower issues. Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, used the Middle Eastern states as pawns in their global chess game with the Soviet Union. Nixon and Kissinger dealt with Israel as a vital element in US strategy, and they approved the irregular borders as they oversaw the Six Days War and provided Israel with military equipment (Ashton, of the struggle against the Eastern Bloc. 2007). Israeli concessions to the Arabs appeared (to Kissinger) as a US abandonment Jimmy Carter and the Camp David Agreement his energy and time to achieve peace in the Middle East. President Sadat of Egypt wasThere posed is no to doubt sign twothat agreements,Jimmy Carter one was of thewhich first declared American peace president between who Egypt used and all Israel and laid out a timetable for Israeli withdrawal from Sinai. The second gave es- population. Arab criticism was that Egypt gave up the most and it gave Israel peace insential return guidelines for a territory for the that transfer legally of was power its own,in the without West Bank achieving and Gaza anything for the for local the with Egypt and secured US promises of the supply of arms and oil, without having to Arab countries. The agreement was a significant success for Israel, which had peace lost one of its most important allies in the Middle East: Iran. A regime change in Iran make real concessions in the West (Spiegel, 1985). When Carter was in power, the US
Sovietwas a significantUnion began loss the to invasion the United of Afghanistan, States, and thethe CarterCarter administration wassaw anafraid ex- of an even more significant Communist penetration in the region. However, when the rebels. Therefore, the US government chose to support the Islamic movement, which wascellent started opportunity in order to to weaken combat the communism Communist in armies Afghanistan. in this warThe throughUS-Afghan the strategy Afghan the US and a central location for the United States, which could manage the Afghan led to new cooperation between the US and Pakistan. Pakistan was thus a new ally for
Ronaldconflict thereReagan (Galster, and the 2001). fight against Communism Ronald Reagan was elected US president in November 1980 at a time when the relations between the superpowers were getting worse. The Soviet Union carried out in 1978-80 a series of political and military progressions in Africa and Asia, and the US responded through political moves and arms supplies. Soviet aggression in Afghanistan and an
49 Conflict Studies Quarterly
Islamic fundamentalist revolution in Iran resulted in the Ronald Reagan administration giving up peace to concentrate on defending the Middle East against Soviet and Iranian he wanted, to protect American interests by building a strategic consensus between influence (Spiegel, 1985). Reagan looked great in regional conflicts, and this is what
Israel,Israel andand theJordan. Arab states from Egypt to Pakistan (Cobban, 1989). To build strategic consensus, he assisted friendly governments in Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, It was Reagan’s view that the Soviet Union would have access to oil in the Arabian partisanPeninsula movement and he would in Afghanistan. do anything to destabilize the situation in Afghanistan to help mujahedeen against communism. Pakistan got a new supplier for helping the anti-Soviet
Lars Andresen, a Danish professor, notes in his book that Reagan carried out real politics- sations(realpolitik) in Saudi as the Arabia, USwas which about sent to find young alliance Muslims partners to holy in warSouth in AsiaAfghanistan, and the Middle where East in the struggle against communism (Andersen, 2003). There were different organi- cial help from the King family in the Gulf countries. The United States also supported the young people were strictly trained to fight against communism and received finan youngmujahedeen Muslims with returned different to weaponry, their home and countries, the CIA alsothey played felt that a verythey significanthad defeated role the in Sovietthe war Union, with their who agentswas one (Andersen, of the superpowers 2003). According of the world. to Zachary Therefore, Lockman, they when felt that the they were now able to overthrow their corrupt regime and maintain an Islamic state. their government. Gradually, it became clear to the young Muslims that the United States hadHowever, supported this dream their corrupt was never home fulfilled, regime, and and, many therefore, of them many met of stiffthem resistance chose to direct from their hatred and frustration towards the US and joined Al-Qaida under the leadership Reagan’sof Osama Binrelationship Laden (Lockman, with Iran 2004). after the Shah’s Fall Iran had a good relationship with both the US and Israel before the Shah’s fall in - dueDecember to the country’s1978, and neighbour, a keen Iran Iraq, for keepingwhich was their under relationship a nationalist with government, the US was con and Iraqsidered was to more be in open the US to intereststhe Soviet (Simbar, Union. 2006,Conservative pp. 76-78). regimes This wereinterest given in Iranan even was
Iran would export the revolution to the entire region. Iraq went to war against Iran to more significant role in US policy after clerics ruled Iran. There was also a high risk that an opportunity for Reagan to shift US support from Iran to Iraq because Iraq was in stop the Iranian influence in Iraq and a Shia revolution in the region. Thus, there was combat against the Iranian regime. Iraq came into this significant role after the clerics 50 Issue 34, January 2021 overthrew the Shah’s regime. This shift in US Middle East policy was crucial for Reagan because he could preserve peace and stability in the region and ensure the flow of oil into Thethe West. answer Many is that people Saddam’s ask today regime why at the this United time wasStates more and important the West did for notthe respondUS than when President Saddam Hussein of Iraq attacked the Kurds with chemical weapons. anything else, and as a result, the US was forced to support a dictatorial regime like TheSaddam’s US Middle (Andersen, East policy2003). during the Cold War The US foreign policy can be analysed from two different school perspectives: realism and idealism. In realism, power has the priority overvalues and ideology, and power is
- tweenthe key the to USstability and the and Soviet security, Union but and in theiridealism, respective there alliesis an emphasisin what has on subsequently the need for beenachieving called peace the bipolar and security world (Andersen,order. These 2003). two superpowers The Cold War were divided representing the world each be of their different ideologies. I have chosen to start from the Truman doctrine because of his doctrine, in my opinion, is the foundation of American foreign policy during the Cold War. The Truman Doctrine role would do about this enemy. It stated: provides the framework for the Cold War regarding who the enemy is and what the US “One of the primary objectives of the foreign policy of the United States is the
unlesscreation we of are conditions willing toin helpwhich free we peoples and other to nationsmaintain will their be ablefree institutionsto work out a way of life free from coercion. We shall not realize our objectives, however,
totalitarianand their national regimes integrity imposed against upon aggressive free peoples, movements by direct that or indirect seek to aggresimpose- sion,upon undermine them totalitarian the foundations regimes. Thisof international is no more thanpeace, a andfrank hence recognition the security that
of the United States” (Anders, Fredrik, Oyyind, &Torbjorn, 2008, p. 335). that threaten their interest in the world and their safety as a nation. The US considers communismIt can be inferred a threat from that the will Truman challenge Doctrine US power that the in theUS’ internationalinterest is to system.fight causes The differences. Communism hinders the spread of American capitalism as an ideology, and background of the US perception of communism as a threat, arises from ideological a promise of US military aid to countries that are threatened by communism, as was the US has an economic incentive to fight communism. This threat will be realized by After the Second World War, the Middle East became strategically and economically importantthe case in for Greece the United and Turkey, States. which In 1931, received the California financial millionaireassistance (Branner,and globetrotter 2002).
51 Conflict Studies Quarterly and with the oil companies with a conclusion of a 60-year contract to extract oil in theCharles Gulf. R. The Crane agreement visited Saudi was signedArabia, inwhich 1933, led and to negotiationsin 1939, the withtransporting the new kingdomof Saudi
Up to 1947, US interests in the area were so little that the US did not even have an ambassadoroil to the US inbegan Riyadh. through the Saudi Arabian company Aramco (Andersen, 2003). policy towards the Soviet Union, the area grew not only economically but also became politicallyHowever, with and thestrategically development important of the firstfor American Cold War foreignand the policy.American At this Containment time, the seven major oil companies, called the Seven Sisters, had secured full control of Arab oil. In 1950, the Seven Sisters became responsible for 99% of oil production in the Middle
World War was followed by a period of rapid economic development in industrialised countriesEast and 50% increased of the private worldwide car production production in (Gettleman Europe and & particularlySchaar, 2003). in theThe US Second It re- sulted in the need for oil doubled in the period 1950-1965, and oil was expected to be an efficient and clean energy resource, which was preferred over coal. However, the great powers’ influence started to diminish. For example, the United hadKingdom the resources (UK) faced needed many toeconomic retain control problems of the after Middle the Second East. Therefore, World War, the and UK it was notdifficult able forto maintain the UK to its keep power its positionover Palestine; as a colonizer hence it in handed the Middle it over East. to theIt no UN. longer This fall into the hands of the Soviet Union. The United States wanted the Middle East to be resulted in the US taking over the western influence in the area fearing that it would not expand. part of the global anti-Soviet defence, aimed at blocking communism so that it would US involvement in the Middle East had as its purpose that the Soviet Union would not gain control over the vast oil reserves. It happened at the same time that oil had a vital importance for US industrial production and economic and technological development. US interests in the Arab region’s oil resources have resulted in their direct involvement
Kissinger, said that the US would not rule out the use of force. They threatened to in- tervenein the region. militarily During in the the Arab first countriesoil crisis, ifthe they then limited American the Western Secretary world of State, by limiting Henry oilThe availability fact that US (Bowcott, oil consumption 2004). was the largest in the world and the most massive oil involvement in the area. In this context, free access to oil is a vital interest to the United States,deposits mainly are present to prevent in the the Middle Soviet East Union makes from oil gaining one of the more primary power determinants around the world. of US
52 Issue 34, January 2021
US military presence
Gulf.Another The critical US and aspect Saudi Arabiaof the USreached Middle an East agreement policy is in that 1945, the observing US has a keenmilitary interest pro- tectionin maintaining for Saudi stability Arabia inin thereturn region for sothe that United oil flows States unimpeded having priority through access the toArabian its oil
developedsources (Rubin, the US 1979). military With presence direct military into a necessity support forto the both Saudi the USArabian and Saudi royal Arabia. family, Symbiosisthe US cemented can be itsseen influence in the Saudi in the royal country. family The who agreement needed the created US support a symbiosis and pres that- ence to stay in power, and the US has agreed to military protection to maintain their necessary oil supply. The main reason that the United States did not want to remove the Saudi royal family from power was fear of unrest and instability in the oil-rich area. this agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia. For example, part of the agreement includedAt the same that time, religious we must leaders also rememberwould not interferethat Wahabism in national also had politics, a significant and their role only in request from the Royal Family was that the Constitution should have an Islamic basis. However, this picture has changed after the Iraq-Kuwait war and especially after the Saudi royal family offered military bases to the American armies. Another primary reason for excessive anti-American sentiments in the Arab World is
fromthe US 1948 handling to 1988, of the Israel conflict received between an Israeloverall and US Palestine. contribution Since that the amounted creation of to Israel $65 in 1948, Israel has received crucial financial support from the US, and in the period Israel got an economic aid amounting to $487.50 per capita, while other countries in thebillion. region Although received a significant far less, such proportion as Egypt of aidwhich was received in the form $23.28 of military per capita aid, in(Zunes, 1983, supported Israel in the following vital areas: 2002). Besides providing Israel with direct economic and military aid, the US has also –– Israel has free access to the most advanced military technology and Intelligence. –– Israeli producers are allowed to compete with US producers, mainly in NATO and in the third world. –– Investment in an Israeli equipment –– –– Direct the majority of US embassies around the world to help the Israelis to promote Include Israel in Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) research program. –– Israel is still the country in the world which receives the most exceptional support fromIsrael’s the political US, in theand form economic of American influence military and economic support (Andersen,
2003, p. 113).
53 Conflict Studies Quarterly
The underlying interests of US support for Israel No other state and no Arab country have ever had such an intimate, distinctive relation- ship to the internal political process in the US as Israel. This is partly due to the American inJewish the US community, Congress whoand successiveis willing to administrations. make an extraordinary Approximately effort to two-thirds help the state of the of world’sIsrael and Jews disseminate live in Israel a pro-Israeli and the United opinion States. across There the isAmerican a deep connection society as reflectedbetween community in the US who is the real impetus for the unique relationship between the Israel’s 3.4 million Jews and the 6.6 million US Jews (Nauntofte, 1987). It is the Jewish
US and Israel. At the same time, a significant majority in Congress, which has always been willing to provide Israel with generous financial support and weapons, has always been supported by pro-Israeli lobbying organizations. - The Jewish lobby in the US is an influential factor in American foreign policy in con economicnection with resources, Israel. An can organization lead a reasonably like the simple American-Israel but very effective Public strategicAffairs Committee plan. The (AIPAC) is today the most powerful lobby in Washington, which, due to its enormous she is elected, to try to promote AIPAC’s issues through powerful presence. Lars Erslev strategy is to finance the election campaign of a candidate for Congress and then, if he/- paign funds from AIPAC, it can be extremely harmful to the candidate to put themselves Andersen has written in his book, “For an American politician who has received cam outA concrete with AIPAC” example (Andersen, of the Jewish 2003, lobby p. 140). power appears during Clinton’s administration. The Clinton administration included several eminent people who were under strong influenceFurthermore, from the AIPAC. Jewish community in the US in 1992 contributed to 60% of Clinton campaign funds, and 80% of American Jews voted for Clinton in that presidential elec- tion. That gave Clinton an insufficient ability to push Israel into the peace processes that he worked hard on. In April 1998, AIPAC wrote a letter to Clinton, where they appealed to him, saying that he was not pushing the Israelis in peace talks in London. The letter wasThe USsigned has historicallyby 81 of the condemned 100 senators the (Andersen, Jewish settlements 2003). in the occupied Palestinian territories, but it has never imposed direct sanctions on Israel. Moreover, when Israeli settlements spread beyond the region to integrate some of the areas in Israel, it was - tlements. It is because of this that the reluctance to support the United States is rapidly the American taxpayer who paid to finance that process of illegal restructuring of set Israel can be seen as a result of the security interests in the Arab region during the Cold War.increasing The following in all Arab four countries points indicate (Chomsky, what 2003). objectives Another US reasonforeign for policy US support was prone for
54 Issue 34, January 2021 to foster: 1. Enhance US national security and its international role and prestige 2.
3. Facilitate US access to world markets and essential natural resources (including theenergy) communist economic and political systems 4. MaintainMatch the Israel’s Soviet military andsuperiority political over influence Arab countriesaround the world and undermine These points were put forward in 1988 when the Soviet Union was still strong enough to threaten the national interests of the United States. Paragraph three shows US se- curity interests about the promotion of American values in Israel. This point was very relevant during the Cold War when the United States saw communism as its most sig- thatnificant threatened threat. Intheir particular, culture and Ronald tradition, Reagan including led the war.security Therefore, policy, a as secure Lars Israel,Andersen and thus,describes ironically, it, as ana conservative entire secure civilization region, would approach have projected aimed at Americancombating values, civilizations which this idea but also an expression of the Israeli lobby in the US Section, to illustrate how thewas US needed acted asas ahegemony. bulwark against communism. Paragraph 4 is a natural extension of Nevertheless, there is a religious dimension to this issue, too. There are biblical and historical reasons for the goodwill that Israel enjoys. There is a feeling of guilt because of the fate of the Jews in the Holocaust. For the Christian Zionists in the US (the Republican right-wing), it is also about helping the Jews rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem because Theit would New open World the way for the Second Coming of the Messiah (Andersen, 2003). The US Middle East policy after the Cold War and the Soviet Union’s capitulation in 1989 changed the world system from Bipolarity to Uni-polarity. Thus the United States returned to being the sole superpower in the world. This led to the US role in the Middle East to get a new meaning. This was built on the fact that all other countries in the world - ing with another superpower. US interests could now be managed without regard to system now had to take into account the United States, without the possibility of ally theAfter threat the Cold that theWar Soviet was over, Union opportunities had previously disappeared posed against in the them Middle (Herrmann, Eastern 1994). Arab
As a matter of fact, these countries had to engage in dialogue with the United States. As thecountries United to States seek theceased support to be of the a superpowersole superpower in the in fight 1991, against there US-supported was a peace process Israel. between Israel and a few Middle Eastern Arab countries. The new world system led those Arab countries to realize that they cannot make peace on their own because, 55 Conflict Studies Quarterly negotiation. with the United States as the sole superpower, they had to seek other ways, such as George H. W. Bush, Sr., launched the term New World Order on 1 October 1990 in his speech to the UN General Assembly. In that speech, he primarily described the ar- rangements which the UN had made against Iraq because of Iraq’s occupation of the neighbouring state of Kuwait. However, the main speech was a vision of creating a new world with the help of the UN. The goal was to increase democracy and prosperity and to reduce militarization, which would have been achieved through international and regionalGeorge H.W. organisations Bush Senior (Branner, described 2002). the objectives of Congress, on 11 September 1990 as follows:
justice“Out of and these more troubled secure times, in the ourquest fifth for objectivepeace. An – era a new in which world the order nations – can of theemerge world, a new East, era and – West,freer fromNorth the and threat South, of can terror, prosper stronger and livein the in harmony”pursuit of
The quote(Ougaard, is from 1992, an articlep. 141). in the Washington Post which appeared immediately after Iraq invaded Kuwait and expressed a vision in which East and West, North and South, were united in peace and harmony. The United States saw itself as the natural leader in this context “... the United States remains the only state with genuinely global strength,
Thereach, Powell and influence Doctrine in every dimension (Ougaard, 1992, p. 142)”. Colin Powell was the US Chief of Staff during the military intervention in Iraq before Operation Desert Storm, and he formulated his doctrine to the US defence and govern- ment. Powell’s doctrine implied that the US should limit its military interventions into militarythose conflicts, force, which which would he saw ensure as easily minimal overcome casualties quickly within and the richly Americans victorious. military This establishment.perspective included An involvement that the military would have interventions required broad must popularbe done supportby using and sufficient a clear focus. This doctrine could be viewed in light of Americans’ traumatic experiences from the Vietnam War (Olsen, 1991). - warThe Powelland later doctrine in Kosovo has inbeen 1999. the In benchmark 1991, during for thehow Gulf the War, US has it was led awar very since successful its for strategy,mulation. since The doctrinethe war was short.implemented In Kosovo, for theit was first used time in in this 1991 respect during when the Kuwaitthe US conducted air bombardment. By managing to limit the duration of the war, the US forces were successful in avoiding the loss of lives and thus confirmed the premise. To that 56 Issue 34, January 2021 effect, America could allow itself to formulate a document such as the Powell Doctrine that can be considered a result of a long standing emphasis on the military. the election of George H.W. Bush Senior led the US to emphasise the selectivity of their militaryA few years commitment. after the Cold This Warpolicy ended, of selectivity despite significantdemonstrated multilateral that the opportunities,United States, through its foreign policy line, gave more weight to its military than to international cooperation. In August 1990, Iraq invaded the neighboring state of Kuwait due to economic reasons. Iraq announced that Kuwait had exceeded its oil production quota agreements, which were managed via OPEC. Excess production had resulted in a decrease in the oil price, which badly affected Iraq since the country’s only export source was oil. The low in- come had a substantial impact on Iraq because the country’s reconstruction after the 8-year war against Iran from 1980-1988 was costly. Iraq also believed that Kuwait the Middle East was vital for the United States to maintain or strengthen its capability, whichdrilled was Iraqi strong oil in technologicallyRumaillah oil field and (Al-Sabah,ineffective 1990).in weapons A stable manufacturing. flow of cheap According oil from to Neorealists’ theory, the military force is the primary magic factor in international politics, and this is based on state capability, which ensures the oil resources to the industry. Therefore, the US’ military capability is built on their weapons competitive- ness compared to other states. - thisThe UScontext, has, like and many one canother see Western the Gulf countries, War as an their expression own production of oil interest of oil, affecting but produc the UStion On is 8costly August, compared President to Bush,oil imports Sr. declared from thethat Middle America East would (Jerichow, send troops 1993). to It Saudi is in Arabia and the Persian Gulf under the code name “Desert Shield”. It was stressed by the President that “our troops’ mission is purely defensive... They will not begin hostili- ties, but they will defend themselves, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and other friends in the crisis: “Our jobs, our lifestyles, our freedom, and freedom of Western-minded countriesin the Persian everywhere Gulf” (Olsen, will suffer 1991, if p. control 60). The of thepresident world’s tried enormous to outline oil reserves US interests falls into the hands of this man, Saddam Hussein” (Olsen, 1991, p. 61). This crisis could have moved the balance of power in the world because if Iraq took over Kuwait, they would have had a very significant percentage of the world oil resources questionand thus couldof whether have pushed it was Kuwait’s out the West. 2 million It would inhabitants have weakened or the oil the resources US power that in the USregion was and interested also their in liberating.control of oil resources. Therefore, it is not difficult to answer the
57 Conflict Studies Quarterly
On 8 November 1990, George Bush, Sr. said that the US would send 200,000 more soldiers to Saudi Arabia. From August to November, the US strategy was to build an international coalition against Iraq. The transition from a defensive to an offensive strategy is primarily found in that Washington slowly became aware of the extent of the enormous war machine that Iraq possessed. The CIA and other Western intelligence theservices Warsaw have, Pact for years, had a secure knowledge of the vast store of Iraqi arms, including weapons of mass destruction (Olsen, 1991). After the collapse of Eastern Europe and could upset the existing in 1989, balance the US militaryin the world. establishment, The perception like other was Western formulated countries’ by the USdefence, Army realizedChief of Staff,that theGeneral so-called Carl E.“ascending” Vuono, who regional wrote in powers April 1990: in the Third World “The proliferation of advanced military capabilities has given an increasing number of developing countries in the developing world the ability to wage sustained, mechanised land warfare. The United States cannot ignore the ex- panding military power of these countries, and the army must retain the ability to defeat potential threats wherever they occur. It could mean confronting with
Baseda well-equippedon the quote mentioned army in the above, Third andWorld’’ on similar (Klare, studies1992, p. from 134). other US military personnel, we can hardly doubt that a critical objective for the US transition to the of- fensive strategy was to curb a potential high power in the Third World. During the crisis, it came to be clear, however, that the United States, Israel, and Western countries feared the large Iraqi army. Therefore, the destruction of Iraq’s aggressive capacity was crucial. The US could remove Saddam Hussein, but they did not, because they did not want - stability. Instead, the Americans were trying to destroy Iraq’s production of chemical andhim biologicalto be replaced weapons by another and their leader attempts who might at developing have taken nuclear the region weapons, to further probably in
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. because they feared an Iraqi attack on strategically important countries such as Israel, US policy in the Middle East after the Gulf War After the Gulf War, it was apparent that the US had to focus on peace around Israel.
Saddam Hussein hoped to get the Arab world’s support. Israel was warned that it Iraq had tried to drag Israel into the conflict by attacking Israel. In this way, President could not repay Iraq’s attacks with Scud missiles, as it was believed that it would gain AfterIraq the the support Gulf War of and the the Arab liberation countries of Kuwait,(Andersen, Americans 2003). viewedIt was clear the Middle to the EasternUS that stateshe Israel-Palestine as having a statusconflict change, should which be resolved is why to Clinton ensure chosestability to spendin the Middlemuch of East. his mandate in the White House getting the Israel-Palestine conflict resolved. In short, this 58 Issue 34, January 2021 meant that the US began to watch stronger regional powers that might revolt against American leadership. Israel was strengthened in the short term in the region after the Cold War. Syria lost the Soviet support for its army, and the PLO and Jordan suffered from economic and political damage because they supported Iraq in the Gulf War. Regional powers in Clinton’s time threatened the stability of the Middle East. Therefore, his policy emphasised stability.
threatsThe Carter to regional doctrine stability. stated that In Iran,any attack the danger against existed the stability due to ofthe the Islamic region revolution would be inregarded 1979 and as anthe attack fundamentalist on US interests. wave itThe might US consideredhave brought. Iran Iran’s and policyIraq, especially in the West as was perceived as expansionist and political elements were seen as directly hostile to the United States.
Iran in 1988. The United States, for fear of Iran, initiated a closer relationship with Iraq beginningIraq had approximately in the mid-eighties. one million The US combat-trainedused Iraq to counter soldiers balance after Iran the and ceasefire ensure with bal- ance and stability in the Middle East. The same tactic had been used earlier when the United States had supported the regime in Iran until the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The idea was that the UScould steer developments in the Middle East through a surrogate state. The problem was that both Iran and Iraq had ambitions to become a regional superpower, threatening US hegemony in the Middle East. After the Gulf War, both Iran administration formulated thus the “dual containment” doctrine, which ensured that theand two Iraq countries became the must most not significant become regional threats superpowers. to stability and The oil dual interests. containment The Clinton was a response of the United States realising that it was impossible to verify their policy.
Instead, the US would seek to dissuade them from being reinforced. The strategy was Thealso animpact attempt of US to minimiseMiddle East Iran’s policies influence on theon theconflicts Arab-Israeli in the peace area process.
inBefore an integrated we highlight climate the roleto decide of US onMiddle an issue, East whether politics init isthe a domesticconflicts inor the a foreign MENA, one. we need to identify the mechanism for how the political decision-makers work together In the United States, there is the interplay between interest groups, state bureaucracies, state legislators, the president, and Congress. Since there are so many attitudes and possible problems that can be solved, it is impossible to hear them all. That is why the mentioned groups, the Iron Triangles, often occur. Some topics may get much attention due to public interest in the topic. A policy is legitimized through public statements or actions of government officials, including the President, Congress, state legislators, government officials, and the courts. This takes place in the form of executive orders, 59 Conflict Studies Quarterly budgets, laws and appropriations, rules and regulations and administrative decisions of the courts (Holsti, 2006).
An Iron Triangle consists of three links (Hayden, 2002). The first link is the senior- management positions of the government. The second link is the Congress. The third regulators.link consists That of the is a interest community groups where that each have member an interest is interdependent. in the problem. TheThe interestpartici groupspants are have organized some resources in mutually that reinforcing the politicians relations are interestedbetween regulated in. They interestscan be in andthe form of donations to the politician and his or her campaign. Politicians provide access to the political arena, i.e. to Congress, and the Congress provides interest groups with a satisfactory solution. Together, they create an Iron Triangle, which in turn creates solutions to the problems that receive attention. In this model, AIPAC is perceived as may well use for election campaigns, in return for some favorable choices and deci- an interest organization. AIPAC also holds a large portion of the money that politicians Congress through the interested politician. sions in the policy process (Mearsheimer & Waltz, 2008). That way, they get access to US policy impact on the Palestinian problem Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab- Israeli Conflict since 1967 andWilliam implementation Quandt explains in regular in his book times. However, the main point of the study is those how politics and bureaucratic habits influence policymaking when they try to connect actions with the intent behind them. Leadership capabilities andfew momentslimitations when are most politicians evident. try to understand the confusing flow of events, and also war, US Middle East policy has changed from an emphasis on the substance of peace toQuandt an emphasis begins byon notingthe process that leadingsince the to dividingpeace. In line some represented cases, the Unitedby the StatesJune 1967 pro- vided the destination and the mechanism, and that was the peace process at its best.
Nevertheless, “at worst, it has been little more than a slogan used to mask the making of time” (Quandt, 2005, p. 2). supportedThe primary the American concept of position exchanging during land the for period peace, ofand making the position a deal thatbetween East Jerusalem Arab and Israel remained remarkably consistent. In general, successive US administrations have and that settlements are at least an obstacle to peace. In this regard, the partnership withis an occupiedJordan is territory, better than and an whatever independent its final Palestinian status will state,be, it mustand that not beIsrael’s divided military again, superiority must be preserved. The writer believes that the United States adheres to these positions firmly and is unlikely to change them significantly (Quandt, 2005). 60 Issue 34, January 2021
The US-Egyptian relations The Egyptian-American relations have gone through turbulence between the years - politics1964-1967. played According a massive to roleWilliam in the B. Six-Days Quandt, warthe USbetween considered Israel thenand Egypt,Egyptian and presi after thedent Israeli Nasser defeated as a threat the toArab stabilization armies, Israel in the became region. an Consequently, essential and the vital US ally Middle of the East US. Also, the support shown by the US Senate for the government of Israel and its projects was one of the “encouraging” ingredients for launching the 1967 war. The US Middle East policy played an enormous role, and in the post-Nasser era and the US willingness to adopt/embrace Egypt resulted in the normalization relation between Egypt and the TheWest. US It ledpolicy to the impact Camp on David the AccordsIraq-Iran between War Israel and Egypt in 1978 (Quandt, 2005). In the 1980s, the strategy of the United States in the Arab Gulf has changed with the emergence of the “Carter Doctrine”, which was announced by the US President (Jimmy warCarter) of navigation, to form the so deployment it rushed to or form rapid the intervention rapid intervention forces in forces the region. in an attempt Thus, the to United States viewed the Iran-Iraq war as a risk to the security of oil supplies and the thediscourage Iraqi-Iranian the Soviet war with Union this not understanding to think of anythat militarythe war wasintervention serving it inand the its region allies, on(Hersh, condition 1992). that Moreover, it did not despite extend the to US other administration’s regions. declaration of its neutrality in The position on the war: The United States of America sought to declare its neutrality warring parties with diplomatic relations, and the US position was due to the fact that at the outbreak of the Iraq-Iran war in 1980, although it was not linked to any of the However, the American position did not remain at a consistent step during the years ofthe the war war. did Instead, not affect it changedthe allies more of the than United once States as a resultin the ofregion the developments (Donovan, 2010). and not want Iran to achieve a victory. The reason for this is that the Iranian regime did not representresults of thea threat military against battles the vitalbetween American the two component sides, and in that oil suppliesthe US policymakers and the security did of Israel. As for Iraq, the United States sought to support its regime and considered it is less threatening its interests, but it certainly did not want to make it a friend or an ally (Riedel, 2013). The1. position of the US in the war crisis can be classified into four stages (Murray, 2014). 2. The stage of establishment of diplomatic relations with Iraq 3. The stageinitial of stage Intelligence of the war, and exemplified military support by the for relative the Iraqi American government neutrality against Iran 4.
The stage of US military attacks against military facilities 61 Conflict Studies Quarterly
The United States saw the Iraqi military superiority during the first two years of the war and the absence of diplomatic relations between it and Iraq as sufficient reasons to take a position of neutrality. Consequently, it did not have a strong justification for tosupporting the years Iraq 1983-1985, openly and which effectively, was the and period that which is what witnessed distinguished a tremendous the first stageIranian of militarythe war, whichsuperiority, extended ended from up 1980 by the until restoration 1983. As forof allthe the second lands phase, that Iraqit was controlled confined during the first years of the first phase. It resulted in pushing Iraq to retreat to the raisedinternational the level borderline, of diplomatic which representation was what prompted within theIraq United to the Stateslevel ofto antake embassy, part in providedthe conflict intelligence very actively assistance without andany placedhesitation. it at It the fits disposal with those of Iraq. developments, It also encour as it- aged its regional allies, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the State of Kuwait, andto assist. the beginning As for the of third the straightforward phase, it came afterUS military Iran’s occupationoperations ofagainst the Iraqi Iran (Al-Faw) in 1988. Furthermore,peninsula in 1986, with thewhich heavy was presence marked byof helicoptersthe US military and interventiontheir secret reconnaissance in favor of Iraq missions in the Gulf region, and Special Forces that includes surveillance ships, made aAs clash for the with fourth the Iranian stage, itforces started unavoidable from the fall (Woods, of the Murray,year 1986 & Mounir, until the 2009). spring of the year 1988, and at that stage, the United States found that its position in support of Iraq during the previous stages did not contribute to making a significant change in Iran, so Conclusionthe American naval forces attacked Iran. administrations from Truman to Bush, Sr., in the interest of Israel. The end of WWII led toIn theconclusion, emergence this of study a new has world tracked order the that Middle obliged East the policy United of the States successive to involve American itself in the Middle East. This involvement occurred as a combination of a desire to guarantee regional stability in the Middle East. These factors used to maintain a balance of power againstaccess to the oil Soviet flow, protectUnion until Israel, the contain fall of thethe Berlininfluence Wall of in the 1989 Soviet and Union, subsequently and secure the fall of the Soviet Union. After the Cold War ended and the world transitioned to uni-polarity, Israel was still a driving interest behind American foreign policy. US’ unconditional support for Israel in the wars that Israel waged against its Arab neighbours has contributed negatively toindirectly the American had a negative image in influence the Arab onworld the Middleand the East Middle countries. East. The Moreover, reason thefor continUS role- foreign policy. It is also in light of this that we must understand the US desire to see ued US interest in Israel goes back to the Jewish lobby being highly influential in US 62 Issue 34, January 2021
wasthe other Iraq’s Middle invasion Eastern of Kuwait. countries This invasionaccept Israel has allowed as a state, Americans which was to reflectedestablish intheir its militaryefforts to bases spark on a continuousMuslim soil peace in Saudi process. Arabia. Another The US turning presence point in inSaudi the MiddleArabia Eastwas and Arab defeatist regimes. Young Arab radicalists would see their leaders as servants used to radicalize a large group of young Muslims against both American hegemony on the population in the Arab World, and it is this combination that the researchers of America. A combination of historical and current conflicts have had a broad impact to be a biased policy that we are experiencing in the Middle East today. think is the reason for the mass dissatisfaction with the US policy of today, considered References 1. American culture: An anthology Anders, B., Fredrik, B., Oyyind, T. G., & Torbjorn, S. (2008). 2. Den Amerikanske orden - USA og det moderne Mellemøsten [The US policy -. Newunited York: states Routledge. and the modern Middle East]. København: Aschehoug. Andersen, L. E. (2003). 3. The Cold War in the Middle East. Abingdon: Routledge. 4. - Ashton, N. J. (2007). ship”. Diplomatic History, 22 Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (1998). The United States and Israel since 1948: A “special relation 5. (2), 231-262. The Guardian Bowcott, O. (2004). UK feared Americans would invade Gulf during 1973 oil crisis. . Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/jan/01/ 6. Det Nye Europa: International politik i forandring (The New Europe: uk.past3. Copenhagen: Columbus. Branner, H. (2002). 7. Power and terror: Post-9/11 talks and interviews StoriesInternational Press. politics in transition). Chomsky, N. (2003). . New York: Seven 8. The Journal of Conflict Studies, 9 Cobban, H. (1989). The US-Israeli Relationship in the Reagan Era. 9. The Iran-Iraq War: Antecedents and Conflict Escalation. Routledge. (2), 5-32. Donovan, J. (2010). New York: 10. Afghanistan: Lessons from the last war. Washington: Washington University’s National Security Archive. Galster, S. (2001). 11. The Middle East and Islamic world reader. New
12. Gettleman, M. E., & Schaar, S. (2003). York: Grove Press. Journal of Economic Issues, vol. XXXVI, no. 2. 13. Hayden, G, F. (2002). Policymaking Network of the Iron-Triangle Subgovernment for Licensing Hazardous Waste Facilities. contradictions. Middle East Journal, 48 Herrmann, R. K. (1994). Russian policy in the Middle East: Strategic change and tactical 14. The New York (3), 455-474. Times gave-aid-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html.Hersh, S. (1992). US Secretly Gave Aid to Iraq Early in Its War Against Iran. . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-
63 Conflict Studies Quarterly
15. Making American Foreign policy. 16. Mellemøsten i 90’erne [The Middle East in 90th]. Copenhagen: Borgen.Holsti, O. (2006). New York: Routledge. Jerichow, A. (1993). 17. The Socialist Register, 28, 131-142. Klare, M. T. (1992). US military policy in the post-Cold War era. 18. Contending visions of the Middle East: The history and politics of Orientalisem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lockman, Z. (2004). 19. Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Adult. Mearsheimer, J., & Walt, S. (2008). New York: FSG 20. The Iran-Iraq War: A Military And Strategic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murray, W. (2014). 21. The Washington Institute Nasir al-Sabah, S. S. (1990). Kuwait’s approach to the Gulf crisis. . Retrieved from https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/ 22. USA og Mellemøsten [USA and the Middle East]. Copenhagen: kuwaits-approach-to-the-gulf-crisis. . Nauntofte, J. (1987). 23. With God on our side Jurist og Økonomiforbundets Forlag 24. Project Syndicate. Nielsen, F. (2003). . Omaha: University of Nebraska. tes-the-increasingly-widespread-view-that-the-us-is-turning-inward?barrier=accesNye, J. (2014, February 10). The myth of isolationist of America. spaylog.Retrieved from https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/joseph-s--nye-refu 25. Golfkrisenog den nyeverdensorden [The Gulf crisis and the new world order]. Copenhagen: Security and Disarmament Policy Committee. Olsen, G. R. (1991). 26. Politica, 24 27. Brookings. Re- trievedOugaard, from M. (1992). USA’s hegemoni og den ny verdensorden. (2), 132. Riedel, B. (2013, May 22). Lessons from America’s First War with Iran.
28. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/lessons-from-americas-first-war- with-iran/. Essay. International Security, 25 Rose, G. (2001). Review: Democracy Promotion and American Foreign Policy: A Review 29. Journal of Integrative (3), 186-203. International Relations, 5 Robby, F, H. (2020). Arab Nationalism: Past, Present, Future. 30. Fra kold krig til ny verdensorden [From the cold war to the new world order]. Copenhagen:(1), 1-32. Gyldendal. Roslyng-Jensen, P. (2003). 31. Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict since 1967. ofQuandt, California W. (2005). Press. Washington and Berkeley: Brookings Institution Press and the University 32. Journal of Contemporary History Rubin, B. (1979). Anglo-American Relations in Saudi Arabia, 1941-45. 33. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved , 14(2), 253-267. ts-of-arab-anti-americanism.html.Rubin, B. (2002). The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism. from http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20021101faessay9993/barry-rubin/the-real-roo
64 Issue 34, January 2021
34. . Journal of International and Area Studies. 13 Simbar, R. (2006). Iran and the US: Engagement or Confrontation 35. Other Arab-Israeli Conflict: Making America’s Middle East policy (1), 73-87. from Truman to Reagan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Spiegel, S. L. (1985). 36. “Not war but like war”: The American intervention in Lebanon. Fort Leavenworth: Combat Studies Institute. Spiller, R. J. (1981). 37. Saddam’s War: An Iraqi Military Perspective of the Iran-Iraq War. Washington: National Defense University. Woods, K. Murray, W., & Mounir, K. (2009). 38. Containing Arab nationalism: The Eisenhower doctrine and the Middle East. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press. Yaqub, S. (2006). 39. AlJazeerah.
htm.Zunes, S. (2002). US Aid to Israel: Interpreting the “strategic relationship”. Retrieved from http://www.aljazeerah.info/Documents/U.S.%20Aid%20to%20Israel.
65