american foreign policy in the middle east? is it for power? examples?

Question

so u think that it is realism bc its out for power and self interest? i need to write a paper and i am having a hard time with this topic?

Answer 1

This question has been around forever.

I'm not going to say its not about oil (because everyone seems to want believe its ALL about oil) but rather focus on the policy on that region itself.

Middle Eastern relations in that region is important not just to the United States, but in fact to the rest of the world.

Think about this: 75% of all maritime trade has to pass through the region. 80% of the world's maritime passage takes it through the Middle East as well. If that region is unstable, it hurts not just the United States, but everyone else.

United States has a significant amount of interest invested in that region (political and commerical trades). Majority of the countries in that region are trading partners (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Bahrain etc). There are also a lot of economic programmes that are undertaken with these countries, some through government (and its appointed) agencies, others through private American enterprises, and others through NGO (non-governmental agencies).

These activities ranges from economic cooperations, education programmes, technological researches, humanitarian work to cultural exchanges. If that region is political unstable, all those work are effectively halted (or in extreme cases, terminated permanently).

Having said that, American foreign policy in the Middle East is not entirely about promoting democracy (its just not going to work).

Rather, its about tolerance, restrain, and more importantly cooperation and stability. Remember, a population that is well-fed, properly housed, and are employed have little to no reason to start a conflict or war.

We can't control Middle East, mainly:
- they have an entirely different culture from us;
- their values are vastly different ;
- it's just impossible.

Some of our lifestyle and values conflict with them. Mainly, its because we didn't learn to respect them enough (think Playboy). What we can do is promote understanding. What is an everyday occurance or normal to us can be extremely offending to them because they were never exposed to it before. You can't change a thousand year old tradtion and mindset within a century. Just as we can't understand why women there must be all covered up, they also won't understand why our women are allowed to go skinny dipping either.

The key word is empathy. If we can empathise with both side, then perhaps, all these endless conflict can be reduced. And that's what our policy in that region is about, understanding, tolerance and cooperation.

Answer 2

of course it's for power! what else would it be for? the power they are seeking has to do with leverage. the USA is scared of the growing power of Russia, India, and ESPECIALLY China. As these countries economically expand, they will want more gasoline, and the USA wants to make sure they're the ones the Chinese have to ask politely. PLUS it's a geographically important location, too; cradle of civilization, y'know. if the USA can control overland trade routes between east and west, then we can take $$ out of everybody's pockets; Africa, Asia, Europe, Southeast Asia and Oceania.
the foolishness of the whole invasion and military domination thing is that it's not a very effective way to take, hold, and control that land. historically the USA has not done well in the region when they have simply tried to own everything, either. especially when the Shah of Iran had his little revolution and nationalized everything, booting America out in the process.
but the problem that the USA had when they owned all those oil wells is the same problem that exists now. those greedy buttheads aren't willing to cut the people of the middle east in on the wealth. they kept Iranians poor, hungry, impoverished, and ignorant when they owned everything, and they are keeping the Iraqis poor, hungry, impoverished, and ignorant under military occupation.
when they learn to share with the people who live there then maybe things will start to get better, but until then, greed and tyranny carry the day.

Answer 3

In all seriousness, based on our actions of the last thirty years, I question whether we even have one. All we ever seem to do is react to what other people do, and when we do the reactions tend to be hasty, and in many ways ill considered. There does not seem to be any guiding principle or established achievable goal. Fighting terrorism? Terrorism is the use of terror as a weapon, how do you make war on the use of weapons? Not on the people using them, but on the act of using them itself? Spreading Democracy? Our culture is based on Western European ideals that took centuries to develop and mature, it is still evolving and adapting to changes in the world. To expect an Islamic people to change into a Western European people just because that's what we think they should do is to ignore the lessons of history. These are a proud and ancient people, their culture helped shape the world, they aren't a bunch of ignorant savages who we have to civilize and educate, they were doing just fine until the West invaded and occupied their land to get control of their oil fields. Iran was the staunches ally the U.S. had in the region untill we stood idly by and watched Khomeni overthrow the Shah and declare a Theocracy in the 70s. We then put Saddam in power in the 80s to counter the threat we had just let come into existence. Now we are over there trying to fix that mistake. People wave flags and talk about being in this for "The Long Haul", sounds great but what are we hauling and for how long? The United States is not and should not attempt to be the Worlds Policeman, that is why the Roosevelt Corolary to the Monroe Doctrine was abandoned. A coherent Middle Eastern policy will come only after a realistic evaluation of what is going on over there and the establishment of clearly defined objectives. We can't get there if we don't know what or where "there" is.

Answer 4

It is for real estate and oil.

By occupying the middle east the U.S. can attack any other middle eastern country without permission to go through another country.

It's why we occupy islands in the South Pacific, have bases all over the world in other countries.

Of course with oil men and women running the govt. They want their dirty little hands on the 2nd richest oil country in the world. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to see.

http://360.yahoo.com/imagine_if_u_tried

Answer 5

finally! all of us is establishing their eyes to work out the reality and the info displayed here communicate for themselves. After that super answer from gypsy_cat 345, i don't have plenty to declare different than that persons like Vanessa could seem on the bigger photograph and make her own tests, somewhat than believing in what the media choose people to have faith. additionally, i do no longer think of people could balme the Islamic faith for the movements of ignorant so-referred to as Muslims who declare they're appearing on its behalf. secondly, i do no longer think of Israel is basically a small u . s . that desires to be left on my own. If this replaced into the case it does not have waged an entire-blown conflict on lebanon, killing 1000's of folk with the intention to regain 2 of their squaddies who have been captured by using Hezbollah. shouldn't they think of roughly freeing the 1000's and 1000's of lebanese prisoners at the instant in Israel! Thirdly, Muslims don't have something against Jews. the difficulty is with the Zionists and Israelis. BTW, i'm no longer Lebanese. i'm basically pointing out what i beleive is the reality

Answer 6

yes for power, think about it, every country that we have ever gone to war with we have never left, we have forces in Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, now Afghanistan and Iraq and they are never leaving, its military position