US Policy towards the Middle East - 1948-1967?

Question

What was the US foreign policy towards the Middle East during the years 1948-1967?

Answer 1

It is an obvious truism that American policy toward Iraq and American policy regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict are both parts of a larger American foreign policy regarding the Middle East. In 1945, the US State Department referred to the vast oil reserves of the Middle East as “…a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history . . . probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment." No major power, let alone a superpower, would ever willingly allow the fate of such a “prize” to be left to political chance or ideological whim, let alone to the capricious interests of those who actually live on the land above that great prize. If this was the case in 1945, how much more so is it now, with the global economy being even more dependent on oil now than it was half a century ago, and with anticipation that reserves may run dangerously low within a few decades? Indeed, it can hardly escape one’s notice that the current administration is stocked with people with major interests in mid-level oil companies—companies which might well have prime access to some of the world’s largest reserves, and, subsequently, may become considerably less “mid-level”. But we ought not only look at the prurient self-interest of a few people in the administration, neither for greed nor for fanatical ideological devotion. The large contracts handed out to American corporations to “rebuild Iraq” were an inevitable consequence of any war, whether fought for legitimate reasons (whatever those might be) or not. Instead, we need to see the entire US policy in the Middle East in the context of the US desire to control “one of the greatest material prizes in world history”. (more here...http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3619
The U.S.-Israeli Alliance
Using Israel to advance perceived American interests in the Middle East and beyond is nothing new. In previous decades, Israel helped prevent victories by radical nationalist movements in Lebanon and Jordan, as well as in Palestine. They have kept Syria, with its radical nationalist regime and its role as a one-time ally of the Soviet Union, in check. Their air force is predominant throughout the region. Israel's frequent wars have provided battlefield testing for American arms. Israel has missiles with ranges of thousands of miles and has cooperated with the U.S. military-industrial complex in research and development for new jet fighters, anti-missile defense systems, and other sophisticated weapons systems. Israel also served as a conduit for U.S. arms to regimes and movements too unpopular in the United States for openly granting direct military assistance, such as apartheid South Africa, Iran's Islamic republic, Guatemala under its rightist juntas, and the Nicaraguan Contras. Israeli military advisers have assisted the Contras, the Salvadoran junta, and other movements and governments backed by the United States. The Mossad has cooperated with the CIA and other U.S. intelligence services in intelligence gathering and covert operations.

As one Israeli analyst described it during the Iran-Contra scandal, “It's like Israel has become just another federal agency, one that's convenient to use when you want something done quietly.”

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3011

there is much more, actually its an endless debate.

Answer 2

The US (under Truman) supported the UN partition plan that resulted in the establishment of Israel, although that was a close thing-- the State Dept. was vehemently opposed, saying it would disturb relations with Arab nations.

After voting for partition, the US then declared an arms embargo to the region, which in effect hurt only Israel, because the Arab nations already had their weapons.

After the Suez War of 1956, Eisenhower forced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai, and Britain and France from the Canal Zone. (Israel attacked because Nasser closed the Red Sea to Israeli shipping and because of constant cross border attacks. France and England wanted to take back the Suez Canal after Nasser nationalized it.) Eisenhower wanted to appease Egypt because Nasser initially appeared to be anti-Soviet, and Eisenhower was trying to encourage him to turn to the West. This didn't work, as Egypt signed arms agreements with the USSR (Egypt received arms from the Soviet bloc both before and after the '56 war.)

The US did not offer much in the way of support to Israel prior to 1967. Israel received almost no weapons from America until after the Six Day War. (I am being conservative, I actually think Israel received nothing.)

The 1967 war, in which the Arabs were heavily armed by the Soviets, was seen in the West as (at least in part) a victory of the West over the USSR, certainly in terms of military technology. This is the point when the US actively began to support Israel, for multiple reasons. It was now evident that Israel was going to survive, so it was worth supporting a fellow democracy and West-leaning nation over the Soviet supported Arab countries, with less risk. Also, if a pro-Western nation failed, it would look bad for Western technology. And the US was beginning to reap the benefits of Israeli intelligence; one example is the MiG-21 that Israel obtained and turned over to the US (after performing their own tests).

Answer 3

~Subjugate and plunder. Ally with one against the other, then change sides. Make a few friends on whose lands to build bases. Drive the masses into the arms of extremists and/or communists. Pretty much the same then as now, in other words.

Answer 4

It was to help the jews retain the land they had stolen from the christian and muslim palestinians and at the same time protect the supply of oil from the region while counteracting Soviet influence.

Answer 5

detente, or somthin like that
isnt that same question on Mr. V's study guide?