Private question, intelligent answers only. ...?

Question

Is the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East partly aimed in improving Israel’s strategic situation?

Answer 1

I believe it has much more to do with oil in the Arab nations than Israel.

Answer 2

Many decisions are made with a strategic position in mind. But at the back of it all it seems that many decisions are voter led and this often slightly alters what is perceived to be the right thing to have been done. You have to realise that Bush does not always hold the key to solving problems worldwide just because America is such a world power. Then you may be able to look at the situations as they arise with more clarity. Also, the American people, I believe, do not always hear the truth about what is going on outside of their country - whether this is in the voters' interest or the government's interest I really do not know. The Bush administration is NOT in a position to transform anything going by past records and dealings with what is truly a very difficult situation. I do not blame them for this - it is and always has been a very serious issue. The American Government has to start helping these countries in a diplomatic way and try to stand back just a little from seeing the situation from a personal standpoint.

Answer 3

I'm sure it probably became a consideration after the start on the "War on Terror", but in the initial stages and the invasion of Afghanistan, I think the administration was focused on cutting into the source of terrorism - Iran. Hypothetically, anything that is done to tear down terrorism and make stable, moderate governments in the Middle East would improve Israel's strategic situation. Right now, that seems a long way off though.

Answer 4

It wasn't part of the primary goals, I think, because the US began establishing its presence in the Middle East after 9/11, in response to terrorism that directly affected its citizens. The threat of nuclear weapons followed and now our troops are spread out in the region. All this was before the escalation of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict.

As I understand it, Bush wants to impose democracy because he considers it an ideal, and that freedom is contingent the implementation of such a system.
Israel has the only functional democracy in the Middle East, so it is possible that the spread of democracy will change the region's dynamic somewhat, but it won't erase decades of resentment and hatred.

However, Iran is a major player behind Syria, which is behind Lebanon, so if things escalate, US control of Iran is beneficial to Israel. The existence of Israel, as a democracy, is in the best interests of pro-democracy leaders like Bush. Also, there is mixed sentiment in the US towards Israel, so it is possible he's just not elucidating his intentions.

I still think, though, that the administration's actions in the Middle East are not directly intended to aid Israel.

Answer 5

I find it unlikely that the Bush administration cares much about imprtoving anybody's situation. On the other hand, Israel is the only ally that the US have in the area and the Us are definitely trying to extend their influence in the region. Therefore, it is not Israel's situation that the Bush administration is trying to improve but, that of the US.

Answer 6

I think you have it reversed. I believe in order for Bush to accomplish his ambition to transform the Middle East, he has to improve (or at least not diminish) Israel's strategic situation. They are one of the few countries in the area that we can trust.

Answer 7

It is a secondary benefit.

The first objective was to remove dictatorial leaders from power, such as Saddam. With the first objective, leaders that were dependent upon the best interests and good will of those that put them into power would not be jeopardizing that good will by oppressive practices and aggressive acts beyond their borders.

The second objective was to derail terroristic threats against America and American interests. A good, democratic government, again with the home population's well-being at heart, would not tolerate destructive and disruptive groups from working unchecked within the various democratically-controlled states. The voice of opposition to such would need to be heeded and that would mean such anti-social groups would have to be reined-in.

The Bush administration idealism was called and raised by Middle Eastern religious idealism. Notions of our genteel society were confronting notions of a society where deadly violence for their ideals can accompany vitriolic rhetoric that should, but ironically doesn't, kick our political-correctness crowd in the rear-end. I see it as the American equivalent of the French phrase for "let them eat cake" as a certain member of royalty was reputed to say sometime before she lost her head.

Answer 8

I don't know anymore.To tell you the truth it seems to me as though this all has turned into a mines bigger than yours game.Don't get me wrong,I support our troops!They are doing their job and I wish them all a speedy,healthy return.♥

Answer 9

It definitely appears to be, perhaps not originally, but now it has worked it's way in.

Answer 10

looks like you went against your opening statement. Sorry you said intelligent answers not intelligent questions! My bad...