American Foreign Policy in the Middle East and Its Impact on the Identity of Arab Muslims in the United States

2004 ◽  
pp. 252-267
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States

The Suez Crisis and the Containment Policy

1957 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-445
Author(s):  
M. A. Fitzsimons
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Middle East ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Suez Crisis ◽  
Intractable Problems ◽  
Containment Policy

Since 1947 the major foreign policy of the United States government has been containment. This policy of creating situations of strength which would prevent the extension of Communist power and influence in the world was first proclaimed in the Truman Doctrine (March 12, 1947). The policy had been anticipated in 1946 when the battleship Missouri visited Turkey and some forty Mediterranean ports. In the course of this display the Missouri was joined by two aircraft carriers, seven cruisers, and eighteen destroyers. The early sensitivity to Soviet threats to the Middle East and its approaches, revealed in the Doctrine and that naval demonstration, was not consistently maintained at this time or later. Perhaps, indeed, American foreign policy only operates with fullest energy, when directly confronted with a serious Soviet threat. At any rate, it may be argued that for the period 1946–1955, when the Soviet Union was neither conspicuously active nor influential in the Middle East, United States policy contributed little to the solution or easing of the area's all but intractable problems. So to describe the problems is to propose a good excuse, but they were the problems, and, unfortunately, they did not wither from neglect or incantations.

Conclusion

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Owen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
Western History ◽  
The U.S

This book has examined ideological contests in Western history and what they tell us about Islamism's prolonged struggle with secularism. In conclusion, it offers a few suggestions on what the United States ought to do and not to do in the Middle East and what this means for American foreign policy. It argues that the United States simply cannot decide the contest between Islamism and secularism and so should resort to what political scientist Jonathan Monten calls “exemplarism.” The U.S. government should also remember that, although it cannot resolve the Muslims' ideological contest by force, it can influence how Muslims themselves resolve it. This concluding chapter also considers two things that the United States can do to nudge constitutional democracy: to engage in public diplomacy and to remain the attractive society that it always has been—to be true to itself.

American foreign policy and peace in the Middle East

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-296
Author(s):  
Abdel-Fattah Mady
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
United Nations ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Double Standards ◽  
Palestinian Territories ◽  
Unfair Terms

The purpose of this study is to answer the following question: ‘Does US foreign policy undermine peace efforts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?’ Careful observations of US foreign policy during the Oslo Process reveal that the United States has indeed undermined peace efforts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The American position substantially departed from United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, which the Palestinians were promised would serve as the basis for negotiations. Although the American–Israeli alliance underwent periodic adjustments, American foreign policy has, over the last decade, helped to create a framework in the Middle East wherein only Israeli needs have legitimacy. During the Oslo Process, the United States and Israel have tried to impose Israel's plans on the Palestinians, ignoring United Nations resolutions and the international community. The evidence reveals that US foreign policy was based on double standards and unfair terms. Further, the seeming link between the aid provided by the United States to Israel and the latter's aggressive policies toward the Palestinians makes it appear as though Washington is ‘rewarding’ such policies, that is, as if Washington is enabling Israel to deny Palestinians’ legitimate rights, violate United Nations resolutions and principles of international law, keep its military occupation forces, and expand Jewish settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Arab Intellectuals and the Bush Administration's Campaign for Democracy: The Case of the Greater Middle East Initiative

2007 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 390-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sami E. Baroudi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negative Image ◽  
Democratic Change ◽  
History Of ◽  
Formative Experiences

This article considers how Arab intellectuals represent the United States and American foreign policy in their editorial contributions to Arabic newspapers. As a case study, it examines Arab intellectuals' reactions to the George W. Bush Administration's campaign to effect democratic change in the Middle East, as articulated in the Administration's 2004 Greater Middle East Initiative (hereafter GMEI or Initiative). I argue that the predominantly hostile reactions to the GMEI stemmed mainly from a closed and negative image of the United States permeating Arab intellectual circles. This negative image is the product of the history of American policy towards the region and, equally important, of the beliefs, values, and formative experiences of Arab intellectuals. The article concludes by addressing ways to ameliorate this image.

IR-Theory and Transformation in the Greater Middle East: the Role of the United States

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 57-86
Author(s):  
Henk Houweling ◽  
Mehdi Parvizi Amineh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
International Relations ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Liberal Theory ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Policy Choices

AbstractThis article analyzes why post-Cold War American foreign policy regarding the Greater Middle East (GME) changed course and why the United States having a virtual military monopoly fails to achieve its war aim in Iraq. To that end, the authors consult realist and liberal theory in international relations. Realists have a security-driven policy agenda. They fail to create a micro-level foundation in political man for the posited collective interest at the level of the state. Realists therefore produce indeterminate results. Liberal theory in international relations does have a micro-foundation in explanations of foreign policy choices in the form of the economic man. Liberal scholars therefore inquire into domestic sources of foreign policy decisions. However, the liberal national interest is not just a summation of private actor interests. These dominant approaches therefore fail to explain US foreign policy choices and policy outcomes in the region under study.The three quotations below create the problematic of this study:Today we are presented with a unique strategic opportunity. For more than 50 years we were constrained by a bipolar rivalry with a superpower adversary. Today and tomorrow, we have an opportunity to pursue a strategy of engagement and to design a military force to help the strategy succeed. I fully agree with the defense strategy of helping to shape the environment to promote US interests abroad.John Shalikashvili, Clinton's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1997)[Y]ou live now in the Mohammedan nation which, if the traveler's accounts are to be believed, is intelligent and even refined. What is this irredeemable decadence dragging it down through the centuries? Is it possible that we have risen while they remain static? I do not think so. I rather think that the dual movement has occurred in opposite directions […] European races are often the greatest rogues, but at least they are rogues to whom God gave the will and the power and whom he seems to have destined for some time to be at the head of mankind […] the European is to other races of mankind what man himself is to the lower animals: he makes them subservient to his use, and when he cannot subdue he destroys them.Alexis de Tocqueville (1962: 75-76)Why is it that we did not complete our cultural journey, and how is it that we have ended up today in the very worst of times? What is it that made our predecessor pore over their desks, writing down and recording the marvels of mathematics and sciences and searching out the skies with the stars and constellations in order to discover their secrets, and driven by the love of knowledge, to study medicine and to devise medicaments even from the stomachs of bees […] Andalus became a lost place, then Palestine became Andalus.Mahmud Darwish (2004)

Turkey’s foreign policy priorities in the Middle East and Afghanistan

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (10-3) ◽  
pp. 228-237
Author(s):  
Marina Shpakovskaya ◽  
Oleg Barnashov ◽  
Arian Mohammad Hassan Shershah ◽  
Asadullah Noori ◽  
Mosa Ziauddin Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Turkish Foreign Policy ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
New Approaches ◽  
East Region ◽  
History Of ◽  
Middle East Region

The article discusses the features and main approaches of Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East. Particular attention is paid to the history of the development of Turkish-American relations. The causes of the contradictions between Turkey and the United States on the security issues of the Middle East region are analyzed. At the same time, the commonality of the approaches of both countries in countering radical terrorism in the territories adjacent to Turkey is noted. The article also discusses the priority areas of Turkish foreign policy, new approaches and technologies in the first decade of the XXI century.

Anglo-american policy in Greece (1946-50)

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Spero Simeon Zachary Paravantes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Years ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Dramatic Shift ◽  
Current Financial Crisis ◽  
Post War

While trying to understand and explain the origins and dynamics of Anglo-American foreign policy in the pre and early years of the Cold War, the role thatperception played in the design and implementation of foreign policy became acentral focus. From this point came the realization of a general lack of emphasisand research into the ways in which the British government managed to convincethe United States government to assume support for worldwide British strategicobjectives. How this support was achieved is the central theme of this dissertation.This work attempts to provide a new analysis of the role that the British played in the dramatic shift in American foreign policy from 1946 to 1950. Toachieve this shift (which also included support of British strategic interests in theEastern Mediterranean) this dissertation argues that the British used Greece, first asa way to draw the United States further into European affairs, and then as a way toanchor the United States in Europe, achieving a guarantee of security of theEastern Mediterranean and of Western Europe.To support these hypotheses, this work uses mainly the British andAmerican documents relating to Greece from 1946 to 1950 in an attempt to clearlyexplain how these nations made and implemented policy towards Greece duringthis crucial period in history. In so doing it also tries to explain how Americanforeign policy in general changed from its pre-war focus on non-intervention, to the American foreign policy to which the world has become accustomed since 1950. To answer these questions, I, like the occupying (and later intervening)powers did, must use Greece as an example. In this, I hope that I may be forgivensince unlike them, I intend not to make of it one. My objectives for doing so lie notin justifying policy, but rather in explaining it. This study would appear to havespecial relevance now, not only for the current financial crisis which has placedGreece once again in world headlines, but also for the legacy of the Second WorldWar and the post-war strife the country experienced which is still playing out todaywith examples like the Distomo massacre, German war reparations and on-goingsocial, academic and political strife over the legacy of the Greek Civil War.

Protectionist Empire: Trade, Tariffs, and United States Foreign Policy, 1890–1914

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin O. Fordham
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
International Economic Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Foreign Policy ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Political Cooperation ◽  
Trading Partners ◽  
The One

Between 1890 and 1914, the United States acquired overseas colonies, built a battleship fleet, and intervened increasingly often in Latin America and East Asia. This activism is often seen as the precursor to the country's role as a superpower after 1945 but actually served very different goals. In contrast to its pursuit of a relatively liberal international economic order after 1945, the United States remained committed to trade protection before 1914. Protectionism had several important consequences for American foreign policy on both economic and security issues. It led to a focus on less developed areas of the world that would not export manufactured goods to the United States instead of on wealthier European markets. It limited the tactics available for promoting American exports, forcing policymakers to seek exclusive bilateral agreements or unilateral concessions from trading partners instead of multilateral arrangements. It inhibited political cooperation with other major powers and implied an aggressive posture toward these states. The differences between this foreign policy and the one the United States adopted after 1945 underscore the critical importance not just of the search for overseas markets but also of efforts to protect the domestic market.

scholarly journals Resurrecting Empire

2005 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 112-115
Author(s):  
Samer Abboud
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Indigenous Resistance ◽  
Cultural Legacy ◽  
Colonial Experience ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Political Economic

Written at a critical historical juncture of Arab-western relations, Khalidi’stext provides a refreshing and informed account of western intervention inthe Middle East. It stresses the catastrophic human and political consequencesof western colonial adventures in the region and the neglect of thishistorical experience by current American foreign policy decision makers.Although written primarily for a non-academic, American audience, it is auseful and important text on contemporary Middle East history.Accessible and highly readable, it provides insights into a series ofmajor issues currently relevant to the study of the Middle East: democracy, oil, Palestine, and Iraq. The first chapter provides an account of westerncolonialism’s social, political, economic, and cultural legacy wrought on theMiddle East. Beginning with a brief introduction to the American march towar with Iraq, the author establishes an approach employed throughout thetext: juxtaposing the historical western colonial experience with theAmerican invasion and occupation of Iraq. Locating western involvement inthe Middle East within the context of the Ottoman Empire’s decline, Khalidihighlights the differential systems of colonial rule imposed on the region.Throughout, he emphasizes the indigenous resistance to colonialism, thusarguing against Orientalist discourses of indigenous acquiescence and subservienceto the supposed benevolence of colonialist rule. Two importantpoints emerge: first, that the political structures imposed by the colonialregimes have persisted, and second, that the region’s political cultureremains deeply rooted in the anti-colonial experience. This experience –entirely conditioned through European involvement in the region – meantthat for many, the United States never experienced the same political andcultural hostility as Europe. Throughout the cold war, however, the UnitedStates’ image as a disinterested outside power began to give way to an imageof the United States as a significant power broker in the region with manyinterests, and, most importantly, few objectives compatible with the politicaldesires of the region’s peoples ...

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document