The Changing Political Environment and US Foreign Policy in the Middle East During the Trump Administration -Based on the US-China Strategic Competition-

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-244
Author(s):  
Jinhee Lim
2021 ◽  
pp. 45-65
Author(s):  
Kardo RACHED ◽  
Salam ABDULRAHMAN

Since the Second World War, the Middle East has been mentioned in connection with the national interest of America manifested by US presidents. This paper looks at the US foreign policy in the Middle East from Truman to Clinton on the premise that the US foreign policy has contributed to creating a breeding ground for dissatisfaction toward the US In this context, 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 follows regarding domestic and foreign policies. Keywords: Middle-East, Israel, US national interest, Soviet Union, Natural resources, ideologies.


Twejer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 459-502
Author(s):  
NNawzad Abduallah Shukri ◽  

This study attempts to explain the US policy towards Syrian Kurds and highlight the key reasons behind establishing of military relations between Kurds and US. Further, it endeavors to explore the fact that why the US policy towards Syria Kurds is unstable and why Trump administration allowed Turkey to attack Kurdish autonomous region in Syria. In reality, the emergence of relations between Kurds and US backed to 2014, especially when ISIS controlled vast majority of Syria and Iraq territory and posed serious threat to the US security interests in Iraq and region. In this regards, the US saw the Kurdish forces as a trusted partner to confront ISIS in Syria. In particular, the Syrian armed groups did not want to fight ISIS and even some of them had relations with ISIS. However, despite the US military support to the Kurds, but politically US has a contradiction and unstable policy toward Kurds in Syria and it does not have any intention or agenda to support autonomous region or federal system for Kurds. This has been the key reasons behind Trump attempts to withdrawal its troops from Syria without taking into consideration the future of the Kurds there and allowed Turkey to attack Kurds. In fact, Turkey pressures, US willingness to withdrawal its troops form Middle East and defeating ISIS might push US to completely withdrawal all forces and abandon the Kurds in Syria.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 509-520

The article analyzes the phenomenon of the foreign policy presidency of D. Trump. Based on the approach of neorealism theory to the analysis of foreign policy, it is pointed to the significance of four variables in implementing foreign policy: the peculiarities of the perception by the heads of foreign policy, the strategic culture of the United States, the relations between the state and the society, and the role of domestic state institutions. The author concludes that the Trump administration eliminated a number of obstacles to unilateral foreign policy, putting America first. Trump and his administration were able to coined and launch a significant number of political initiatives that were contrary to the established priorities of the US foreign policy, but not all of the declared intentions had been implemented. However, this does not mean that the administration of Joe Baden will radically revise the main foreign policy ideas of the previous administration.


Author(s):  
Lisa Wedeen

This chapter examines how political science's complicities with the US empire would jibe with the two aspects of political science that are currently defining the discipline—the convergence, or perhaps more historically accurate, the continuing coalescence in new forms, of science and liberalism. It fleshes out those links while considering how scholarly convictions, combined with the realities of US foreign policy, have structured the terms in which the Middle East is studied today. The first section explores the discipline's seemingly contradictory commitments to value-neutrality and liberal values. The second section foregrounds the constitutive relationship between science, liberalism, and empire in the making of modern Middle Eastern politics as an area of academic inquiry.


Author(s):  
Ahmed Zuhair Khan ◽  
Tanveer Hussain ◽  
Ashraf Iqbal

This research has been designed to investigate US foreign policy towards Pakistan.It has been summarized while analyzing the US foreign policy towards Pakistan vis-à-vis US-Pak relations before and after Trump being elected as President, the US' shift in policy towards Pakistan might not be as drastic for the Pakistani as public statements of the Trump administration propose, because the prospect of treating Pakistan as an enemy is such a frightening one that most American policymakers would rather avoid it than confront it with real seriousness. In current circumstances, it is likely that the US will treat Pakistan as what is colloquially called a "frenemy". However, reductions in military assistance and downgrading of Pakistan's status as a major non-NATO ally are still a possibility.


2013 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 462-478
Author(s):  
Miroljub Jevtic

One of the most important phenomena in US politics is Christian Zionism. The term Christian Zionism is related to unity of a large part of Protestant beliefs and the Zionists movement. The religious motives of US Protestants have coincided with the Jewish intention to go back to Palestine. In this way, Protestant religious motives could only be achieved by using political pressure on the US government. The goal of this pressure is to turn the foreign policy of Washington into a struggle for reconstruction and maintenance of the state of Israel. That is why many people wrongly believe that the US policy in Middle East is a product of the Jewish lobby. However, the US foreign policy in Middle East is a product of religious beliefs of Christian Zionists and the Jewish lobby is just using this fact for its own purposes.


2007 ◽  
Vol 37 (149) ◽  
pp. 603-621
Author(s):  
Robert Brenner

If we look at the Iraq war in terms of the economic and geopolitical interests that drove US imperialism throughout the postwar epoch, the current adventure of the Bush administration in the middle east remains inexplicable. Instead, we have to understand the current US-foreign policy in the context of domestic class struggles and the emergence of the far right in the US.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melaty Anggraini

AbstrakPengayaan nuklir Iran menimbulkan sikap ancaman bagi Negara lainnya termasuk Amerika Serikat sebagai Negara super power, berakhirnya kerjasama antara AS dan Iran dalam pengembangan nuklir Iran dikarenakan revolusi Islam dan berganti periode kepemimpinan menimbulkan sikap defensive bagi Amerika Serikat apalagi dengan munculnya serangan terorisme 11 september, semakin meyakinkan AS untuk mengubah arah kebijakan politik luar negerinya berfokus ke wilayah Asia Timur. Menggunakan metode dan konsep hegemonic strategic dan power defense, penulis mencoba menganalisa kebijakan luar negeri Amerika Serikat di Timur Tengah khususnya pada kasus nuklir Iran, untuk menganalisa strategi kebijakan AS dalam menghadapi nuklir Iran Kata Kunci: Nuklir Iran, Amerika Serikat, Konsep Power Defense. ABSTRACT Iran Nuclear enrichment poses a threat to other countries including the United States as a Super Power Country, the end of cooperation Iran-US  Nuclear caused Islam revolution and position change of leadership period led to a defensive act from The United States, specifically emergency issue of 9/11 September. That’s made the US for changing Foreign Policy more focus in the Middle East. Using the hegemonic strategic method and concept power defense, the writer try to analyze US foreign Policy in the Middle East. Especially in Iran Nuclear, for evaluate what is strategic foreign policy US  for facing Iran Nuclear.Keywords: Iran Nuclear, US, Power Defense Concept.


2006 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
DARYL GLASER

US foreign policy is hypocritical in various ways, as this article demonstrates in the course of an extensive empirical review. The question is whether such hypocrisy provides grounds for opposing US interventions abroad, in particular those which might yield locally desirable outcomes at an acceptable human cost. This article examines the question from the standpoint of a non-pacifist liberal universalism and concludes (on consequentialist grounds) that the hypocritical character of US foreign policy cannot constitute sufficient grounds for rejecting all US interventions. Nevertheless, the hypocrisy of the US remains noteworthy and deserving of criticism even in such cases because of the wider damage hypocritical behaviour can do. Moreover, US foreign policy hypocrisy sometimes sets in motion reactions that confound the benign purposes of particular interventions and so undermine the case for them. Such an effect is at work in the case of recent US intervention in the Middle East.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document