Robert Montgomery
ENGL 1120
Amelia Lewis
4/25/13
The United States and the Middle East For the past few decades, United States foreign policy has revolved around the situation in the Middle East. This is due mostly to the fact that tensions between the United States and the Islamic countries of the Middle East are always high. Also with the United States’ most valuable resource, oil, found in highest supply in the Middle East, America has a vested economic interest into the political stability of the region. However, after a costly war in Iraq that tarnished our image not only in the Middle East but around the world and a situation in Israel that hasn’t shown any lasting progress for decades, it’s time for the United States to take another look at its political strategy for achieving lasting peace in the region. With the events of early 2011 in the Middle East, otherwise known as Arab Spring, the region has become highly unstable and vulnerable to the influences of terrorism. This is a critical time for the United States to reestablish healthy diplomatic relations in the region in order to decrease the spread terrorism and harsh anti-American sentiment as well as bring about a lasting peace. In order for America to improve its foreign affairs in the Middle East it needs to finish strong in Iraq and Afghanistan, reach a peace agreement in Israel, push for more diplomacy with Iran, and support the rebels in Syria fighting injustice. By involving the rest of the world in the current situation in the Middle East the United States can build better diplomatic relations and bring about peace more rapidly, while also decreasing the already massive strain the region has on its economy. The second war in Iraq never should have happened. Though this is a bold statement that possibly discredits the sacrifice of thousands of American soldiers, it is a concept that should be considered when moving forward with diplomatic relations towards other countries nearby. Brash actions by the United States in the Middle East have the possibility of causing wars that are too costly to the American government financially and too damaging to its image in the area. Saddam Hussein was a terrible man who murdered or ordered the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqis, but he kept the different religious and cultural factions of Iraq from civil war, albeit through the use of fear. Since his removal from power clashes between Sunni and Shiites, the two major religious factions in Iraq, have caused the deaths of thousands more than Hussein killed. When this is considered with the billions in damage to the infrastructure of Iraq and the economy of the United States it’s easy to see why a case should have been made for negotiating with Hussein. Contrary to the belief of many Americans harsh economic and political sanctions enforced by the U.N. can severely cripple countries by denying them imports and a demand for their exports. The Bush administration’s main reason that they argued justified war with Iraq was that they believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Although it is known that Saddam attempted to make these weapons in the early 90’s, sanctions by the U.N. had completely crippled Iraq to the point that Saddam was forced to abandon these efforts and allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq. However, despite assurances by the U.N. that Iraq didn’t have any nuclear or biological weapons, the Bush administration convinced Congress to go to war with Iraq in order to overthrow Hussein. The United States’ decision to go to war with Iraq without the approval of the U.N. severely damaged its image, not only in the Middle East, but all over the world. The war with Iraq showed the rest of the world that the U.S. is prepared to do whatever it deems necessary to secure its own interests with or without international approval. This imperialistic style of foreign policy hurts foreign relations for the U.S. because it prevents mutual trust from developing between countries, especially in the Middle East.
However, regardless of whether the second war with Iraq was necessary or not it occurred and ten years later the United States is still having trouble trying to restore normalcy to the Iraqi people. For the past four years, since the economic recession and Barack Obama’s inauguration into office, the United States strategy in Iraq has shifted from prioritizing progress in the region to making pulling out troops the highest concern. Although this war in Iraq has cost the United States thousands of lives and billions of dollars, it is crucial that an American presence be left in Iraq for at least a couple more years. Cutting out of Iraq completely now will only serve to add to the image of the United States as an imperialistic power whose interests are contradictory to those of the Islamic people of the Middle East. Instead, the United States needs to realize that capturing Saddam as well as fighting to decrease insurgency in the country is only the first part of the process to make a new Iraq. If the United States ever hopes to have lasting allies in the Middle East it must be prepared to handle the burdens associated with rebuilding Iraq. The United States has a responsibility to the Iraqi people that cannot be ignored. Iraq should be viewed as a business investment by the U.S.; one that adds on to the already high cost of the war but will produce a stable ally in an unstable region. However, if the United States chooses to keep a military presence in Iraq to help keep the peace and facilitate a peaceful regime change it should be in cooperation with the United Nations. As Chuck Hagel, the recently appointed Secretary of Defense, commented on the subject in an article he wrote, “The U.S. should place its operations in a post-Saddam Iraq under a United Nations umbrella as soon as possible. A conspicuous American occupation force in Iraq or in any Arab or Muslim country would only fuel anti-Americanism, nationalism, and resentment. By working through the UN, the U.S. will neutralize the accusations that a war in Iraq is anti-Muslim or driven by oil or American Imperialism” (79). Hagel makes a strong argument here for American cooperation with the UN. Although the United States went into this war with low approval from the rest of the world it is time for the rest of the world to be a part of how Iraq turns out.
The current war with Afghanistan, unlike the one in Iraq, illustrates an instance when the use of American military force was unavoidable in insuring American security. The Taliban regime that controlled Afghanistan prior to the U.S. invasion didn’t represent a threat to the U.S. until 9/11. But after the vicious acts of terrorism that occurred in the U.S. on 9/11 and the subsequent discovery that the culprit, Osama bin Laden the leader of a terrorist group known as al-Qaeda, was living in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban, the United States was forced to deploy troops to the region in order to make sure that the terrorists responsible could not organize another attack like that and were brought to justice for the nearly three-thousand American deaths. The war in Afghanistan also differed from the war in Iraq in that the Taliban forces were much less equipped and organized than the Iraqi forces and therefore much easier to defeat. In fact, within a few years of U.S. troops being deployed, Taliban influence in Afghanistan shrunk down to roughly a quarter of the size of the country. With the Taliban gone the U.S. was able to start rebuilding the country and creating a new democratic government in Afghanistan that could serve as a strong ally in the Middle East.
However just as U.S. forces were about to finish forcing the Taliban out of Afghanistan the war in Iraq began and the United States’ attention was diverted to a much more costly and unnecessary war. This allowed for a resurgence of the Taliban in the region that has forced American Troops to stay in the region even now. But with the economic crisis in the U.S. in 2008 and the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces in 2011, the current administration in the U.S. under Barack Obama has made a move to hand over complete control of Afghan security to the new Afghan government. However, with a Taliban presence still growing not only in Afghanistan but neighboring Pakistan as well this strategy leaves open the possibility for future, costly conflicts in the region. As David Abshire and Ryan Browne mention in their article on a sustainable post-bin Laden strategy, “A hastened withdrawal could recreate the anarchy that followed the 1989 Soviet withdrawal and subsequent U.S. disengagement from Afghanistan. That anarchy enabled the rise of the Taliban, which severely destabilized Afghanistan’s neighbors and served as a critical enabler for a wide variety of terrorist groups which carried out attacks against the United States, Europe, India, Pakistan, and Central Asia” (60). If the United States decides to pull all of its troops out of Afghanistan they risk allowing all of the American work and sacrifice that has already gone into stabilizing the country to be wasted. Also if the Taliban regains control of Afghanistan the U.S. opens itself up to the risk of future terrorist attacks from the region. However, as the article mentions the United States is not the only country that suffers from the work of terrorists. The United States must convince the rest of the world to invest troops and aid in Afghanistan in order to weaken the threat of global terrorism. International cooperation in the situation in Afghanistan would also serve the purpose of lowering the economic costs to the United States of permanently stabilizing the country. The situation in Israel is a good example of United States foreign policy that is counter-productive to diplomacy in the Middle East. For decades the U.S. has been unable to make any lasting progress towards a peaceful settlement between the Israeli and Palestinian people, and for decades the U.S.’s unwavering support of Israel has cost it the possibility of any other reliable allies in the region. As Rachelle Marshall points out in her article on the cost of American support of Israel, “Most of the world is aware that the weapons Israel uses to subdue the Palestinians are produced in the U.S., including the tear gas Israeli soldiers fire at villagers holding peaceful protests against the separation wall. The giant tanks and F-16s that carried out Israel's devastating assault on Gaza in 2009 were made in America, as were the Apache helicopters that constantly roar overhead” (8). The United States has always taken a firm stance on Israel’s side and that is widely known throughout the Middle East. In fact the general basis for anti-American sentiment in the region other than basic cultural and religious differences, can be traced back to U.S. support of Israel. Though this support fuels the U.S. economy by stimulating the military industry it alienates the United States from the Muslim world. The Arab neighbors of Israel see the offenses of Israel as offenses from the United States as well. Because of this the U.S. is seen as being a part of Israel’s poor treatment of the Palestinians and their confiscation of Palestinian land. Although the Israeli people have a right to their country the Palestinian’s need for their own land and government cannot be ignored. But the longer a peace settlement is delayed the worse the situation becomes, as Hagel argues when he stated, “We must work with Russia , the European Union, and the United Nations as well as Israel, the Palestinians, and our Arab allies to put the peace effort back on track. Every day that passes without active American mediation contributes to the radicalization of Palestinian and Arab politics” (80). Hagel makes another valid argument here for a method to speed up the peace process. Involving other major world powers as well as neighboring Arab nations in the peace process will not only ensure that both sides are represented and treated fairly, but it also has the possibility of speeding up the process by moving it to the center of world focus. However, in order for the peace process to move forward the United States must pressure the Jewish people to accept the idea of peace in the Middle East. The Jewish people have a long and painful history of being mistreated by anyone not Jewish. This adversity has transformed the Jewish people into fighters prepared to meet any threat but slow to turn to peace. Ariel Roth of Johns Hopkins University argues that the best way for the United States to bring Israel to the negotiating table is with a policy of reassurance. “The goal of a reassurance policy is to convey to Israelis that they are not universally hated and that they do not face their security challenges fully alone” (Roth 386). This is an interesting point made by Roth. If Israel can be convinced that the rest of the world has a vested interest in how the situation turns out and that other Arab nations are ready for peace, than there is a much greater possibility that a mutually beneficial arrangement can be worked out between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians would go a long way in stabilizing the Middle East as well as improving American foreign affairs in the region. There is no country in the Middle East that is more hostile towards the United States than the Republic of Iran. Relations between the two countries have been tense ever since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that overthrew the Shah at the time, who was a close ally of the United States. During the revolution 52 American diplomats were captured at the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held hostage for 444 days by the new government created out of the revolution. This point marked the lowest point in Iranian/American relations and changed Iran from an important American ally in the region to one of its biggest enemies. Since then the extent of relations between the two countries have consisted of the United States accusing Iran of supplying terrorists with weapons and explosives and Iran accusing the U.S. of trying to control Iran. However both of these accusations have been proven true in recent years. It recently was discovered that Iran helps supply radical Islamic groups like Hamas and Hezbollah with weapons used to fight Israeli and American soldiers. Similarly an article by Dalia Kaye and Eric Lorber about United States policy in Iran mentions multiple attempts by U.S. agencies in recent years to undermine the current regime in Iran. They write, “In 1994, for example, some members of Congress directed $18 million to the CIA to undermine the Iranian government. In 2006, Congress allocated $75 million for regime change in Iran to support nongovernmental groups opposed to the regime” (Kaye & Lorber, 53). Why would the United States be so desperate for regime change in Iranian particular? For one Iran is extremely rich in natural resources the U.S. needs. In an article on Iranian/American relations author Gawdat Bahgat mentions, “Iran possesses a variety of natural resources, most notably hydrocarbon deposits, the world's second largest oil reserve (after Saudi Arabia) and the second largest deposit of natural gas (behind Russia)” (95). Americans rely heavily on these two resources and controlling them would be vastly beneficial to the U.S. economy. The United States would also be interested in regime change in Iran due to recent announcements by the Iranian government that they plan to move forward with their nuclear program. A nuclear armed Iran would pose a serious threat to U.S. security not only from Iran but any terrorist group who might get their hands on an Iranian nuke. Although these circumstances would suggest war is possible, the United States must work towards better diplomatic relations with Iran or risk another economy crippling war like the one in Iraq. One way to improve relations with Iran would be to reach a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Such an agreement would ease tensions across the Middle East, and if it were fair to the Palestinians would greatly improve the image of the U.S. in the region. Another way to improve diplomatic relations between the two countries would be a suspension of the U.S. embargo of Iran. A healthy trade relationship between Iran and America would greatly benefit both countries and would help to further stabilize diplomacy between the two countries. Although it would require humility from both sides, a diplomatic relationship between the United States and Iran is not only possible but essential for sustained peace in the Middle East. Although Iran currently represents the most significant threat to United States security from the Middle East, no country has supported terrorist organizations as openly or frequently as Syria has under the rule of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. As Michael Totten recounts in his article on al-Assad,
“The Arab Socialist Baath Party regime, beginning with its founder Hafez al-Assad and continuing through the rule of his son Bashar, is the deadliest state sponsor of terrorism in the Arab Middle East. It assisted the bloodthirsty insurgency in Iraq that killed American soldiers by the thousands and murdered Iraqi civilians by the tens of thousands. It made Syria into the logistics hub for Hezbollah, the best-equipped and most lethal non-state armed force in the world. It has waged a terrorist war against Israel and the peace process for decades, not only from Lebanon, but also from the West Bank and Gaza” (Totten 15).
Syria’s support of terrorism in the Middle East is a constant thorn in the side of the United States that helps to destabilize the region. With Syria’s help terrorists like Hezbollah are able to coordinate attacks against the U.S. and its allies both in the Middle East and abroad. However, ever since the Arab Spring of 2011 Syria has found itself in a serious state of revolution that threatens to oust the Assad regime. And According to Radwan Ziadeh, the spokesperson of the Syrian National Council, the rebels are gaining ground. He says, “More than 40 percent of the territory of Syria, now even more because of the Aleppo suburbs, is in the hands of the Free Syrian Army…” (Ziadeh 2). With the rebels advancing in Syria it is time for the United States to begin openly supporting the rebels cause in Syria. Syria is in a crucial transition phase of its history and it is important that during this period the U.S. steps in supports progress in the country. American involvement in Syria right now is important for two reasons. First, during this revolutionary period Syria will be highly unstable and because of that Syria will be more susceptible to the influences of terrorism. If the United States steps in it can insure that the radical Islam that leads to terrorism cannot foster in Syria. Secondly if the U.S. steps in now to aid the rebels it has a much higher chance of creating a healthy relationship with the new Syrian government. Having Syria as an ally in the region would have many positive benefits for the U.S. in terms moving forward with better diplomacy in the Middle East. For example Syria is currently Iran’s number one ally in the region, so with Syria as an ally to the U.S. the U.S. would have an easier time smoothing tensions with Iran. The rebels in Syria have shown the rest of the world that they are unhappy with the Assad regime and that they are powerful enough to do something about it. Now it is time for America to step in on the side of the rebels in order to insure an outcome in Syria that is favorable to its own political agenda in the region. Since the economic recession of 2008 that severely damaged the United States economy American focus has shifted away foreign affairs and towards internal problems. However, as Americans learned on 9/11, the current situation in Middle East cannot be ignored without possible repercussions for the United States. The U.S. must be prepared to work with hostile Islamic groups and regimes in the region without using force to achieve its goals. As Chuck Hagel insists in his article, “What distinguishes America is not its power, for the world has known great power. It is the U.S.’s purpose and commitment to making a better life for all people. That is the America the world needs to see” (81). Hagel makes a good argument here. For America to truly be a great world power peace must be its default diplomatic strategy especially in regard to the volatile Middle East. In order to attain positive diplomatic relations with most of the region the U.S. needs to focus on the most pressing matters threatening peace currently. The United States must finish dealing with the chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan, accelerate the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, restart diplomatic relations with Iran, and become more involved in the revolution in Syria in order to secure a basis for lasting peace between the countries of the Middle East and the United States and its allies.

Works Cited * Abshire, David M., and Ryan Browne. "The Missing Endgame for Afghanistan: A Sustainable Post-Bin Laden Strategy." Washington Quarterly 34.4 (2011): 59-72. Academic Search Premier. Web. 18 Apr. 2013. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=16ee95c4-6ac0-402a-a128-c680cd488133%40sessionmgr10&vid=2&hid=8>. * Bahgat, Gawdat. "United States-Iranian Relations: The Terrorism Challenge." Academic Search Premier. EBSCO, 2008. Web. 2 Apr. 2013. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/ehost/detail?sid=d25c94c5-4af8-45a3-808d-d7e23b429c3b%40sessionmgr14&vid=1&hid=6&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=36911709>. * Hagel, Chuck. "Defining America's Role on the Global Stage." 2009. Business AU ENGL 1120 Readings. Mason, OH: Cenage Learning, 2003. 75-81. Print. * Kaye, Dalia D., and Eric Lorber. "Containing Iran: What Does It Mean." Middle East Policy19.1 (2012): 51-63. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Apr. 2013. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2a8817c9-384e-4e3b-b454-4bd6883a9993%40sessionmgr104&vid=31&hid=2>. * Marshall, Rachelle. "The High Cost of U.S. Subservience to Israel." Academic Search Premier. EBSCO, Jan.-Feb. 2012. Web. 2 Apr. 2013. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/ehost/detail?sid=8576d026-5348-4964-8681-ad6fa9035d9e%40sessionmgr14&vid=1&hid=3&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=70202064>. * Roth, Ariel. "Reassurance: A Strategic Basis of U.S. Support for Israel." International Studies Perspectives 10.4 (2009): 378-93. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Apr. 2013. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1c9dfb32-0ba8-4eae-852c-3cc618553d70%40sessionmgr198&vid=4&hid=106>. * Totten, Michael J. "Assad Delenda Est." World Affairs 175.2 (2012): 15-21. Web. 18 Apr. 2013. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=482cfea9-c50c-40a7-bf93-fb0f2fff8375%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=105>. * Ziadeh, Radwan. "Crisis in Syria: What Are the U.S. Options?" Middle East Policy 19.3 (2012): 1-24. Academic Search Premier. Web. 18 Apr. 2013. <http://ehis.ebscohost.com.spot.lib.auburn.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=427b229c-917f-4891-a22d-83aa9a2a3f96%40sessionmgr14&vid=2&hid=6>.