United States foreign policy in the Middle East

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

U.S. Marines on guard duty in April 2003 near a burning oil well in the Rumaila oil field of Basra, Iraq, following the 2003 U.S. invasion and during the Iraq War.

United States foreign policy in the Middle East has its roots in the early 19th-century Tripolitan War that occurred shortly after the 1776 establishment of the United States as an independent sovereign state, but became much more expansive in the aftermath of World War II. With the goal of preventing the Soviet Union from gaining influence in the region during the Cold War, American foreign policy saw the deliverance of extensive support in various forms to anti-communist and anti-Soviet regimes; among the top priorities for the U.S. with regards to this goal was its support for the State of Israel against its Soviet-backed neighbouring Arab countries during the peak of the Arab–Israeli conflict. The U.S. also came to replace the United Kingdom as the main security patron for Saudi Arabia as well as the other Arab states of the Persian Gulf in the 1960s and 1970s in order to ensure, among other goals, a stable flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.[1] As of 2023, the U.S. has diplomatic relations with every country in the Middle East except for Iran, with whom relations were severed after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and Syria, with whom relations were suspended in 2012 following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War.

American influence in the Greater Middle East has reduced in recent years, most significantly since the Arab Spring,[2] yet is still substantial.[3] Currently stated priorities of the U.S. government in the Middle East include resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and limiting the spread of weapons of mass destruction[4] among regional states, particularly Iran.

History

U.S. naval officer Stephen Decatur boarding a Tripolitan gunboat during the First Barbary War, 1804

The United States' relationship with the

Muscat and Oman in 1833. (The Sultan saw the U.S. as a potential balance to Britain's overwhelming regional influence.) Commercial relations opened between the U.S. and Persia in 1857, after Britain persuaded the Persian government not to ratify a similar agreement in 1851.[5]

Britain and France took control of most of the former Ottoman Empire after defeating it in World War I. They held mandates from the League of Nations. The United States refused to take any mandates in the region and was "popular and respected throughout the Middle East".[6] Indeed, "Americans were seen as good people, untainted by the selfishness and duplicity associated with the Europeans."[7] American Christian missionaries brought modern medicine and set up educational institutions all over the Middle East as an adjunct to their religious proselytizing. Moreover, the United States had provided the Middle East with highly skilled petroleum engineers.[8] Thus, there were some connections made between the United States and the Middle East before the Second World War. Other examples of cooperation between the U.S. and the Middle East are the Red Line Agreement signed in 1928 and the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement signed in 1944. Both of these agreements were legally binding and reflected an American interest in control of Middle Eastern energy resources, mainly oil, and moreover reflected an American "security imperative to prevent the (re)emergence of a powerful regional rival".[9] The Red Line Agreement had been "part of a network of agreements made in the 1920s to restrict the supply of petroleum and ensure that the major [mostly American] companies ... could control oil prices on world markets".[10] The Red Line agreement governed the development of Middle East oil for the next two decades. The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for a British Ambassador in 1944:

Persian oil ... is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it's ours.[11]

King Ibn Saud converses with President Franklin D. Roosevelt on board the USS Quincy, in February 1945.

On August 8, 1944, the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement was signed, dividing Middle Eastern oil between the United States and Britain. Consequently, political scholar Fred H. Lawson remarks, that by mid-1944, U.S. officials had buttressed their country's position on the peninsula by concluding an Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement that protected "all valid concession contracts and lawfully acquired rights" belonging to the signatories and established a principle of "equal opportunity" in those areas where no concession had yet been assigned.[12] Furthermore, political scholar Irvine Anderson summarizes American interests in the Middle East in the late 19th century and the early 20th century noting that, "the most significant event of the period was the transition of the United States from the position of net exporter to one of net importer of petroleum."[13]

By the end of the Second World War, Washington had come to consider the Middle East region as "the most strategically important area of the world."[14] and "one of the greatest material prizes in world history," argues Noam Chomsky.[14] For that reason, it was not until around the period of World War II that America became directly involved in the Middle East region. At this time the region was going through great social, economic, and political changes and as a result, internally the Middle East was in turmoil. Politically, the Middle East was experiencing an upsurge in the popularity of nationalistic politics and an increase in the number of nationalistic political groups across the region, which was causing great trouble for the English and French colonial powers.

Historian Jack Watson explains that "Europeans could not hold these lands indefinitely in the face of

Raymond Hare described the Second World War, as "the great divide" in United States' relationship with the Middle East, because these three interests would later serve as a backdrop and reasoning for a great deal of American interventions in the Middle East and thus also come to be the cause of several future conflicts between the United States & the Middle East.[7]

As of 2024, the United States has approximately 45,000 troops in the region, including approximately 2,500 troops stationed in Iraq, 900 troops stationed in Syria, and others stationed in Bahrain, Djibouti, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. soldiers at the country's base. About 15,000 of these troops were deployed to the region as part of a temporary surge after October 7 2023, with the United States retaining about 30,000 troops until then. The troops are a fraction of the number the U.S. deployed in 2010, when it had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq, about 70,000 in Afghanistan and many more in neighboring countries. After 2015, the U.S. military presence in Iraq declined sharply; and all U.S. troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2021.[18]

Israel

US President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Israel, 18 October 2023

Israel is designated by the United States as a major non-NATO ally. Israel–United States relations are an essential factor in the United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Congress has placed significant importance on the maintenance of a close relationship with Israel. Analysts maintain that Israel is a strategic ally for the United States, and that relations with the former will strengthen the latter's influence in the Middle East.[19] Former US senator Jesse Helms argued that the military foothold offered by Israel in the region alone justified the expense of American military aid. He referred to Israel as "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East".[20][21]

Formation of Israel (1948)

In 1947, the U.S. and the Truman administration, under domestic political pressure, pushed for a solution and resolution on the Arab–Israeli conflict, and in May 1948 the new state of Israel came into existence. This process was not without its fights and loss of lives. Nevertheless, "the first state to extend diplomatic recognition to Israel was the United States; the Soviet Union and several Western nations quickly followed suit. No Arab state, however, recognized Israel."[22] The United States denounced the Arab invasion of former Mandatory Palestine that took place shortly after the Israeli Declaration of Independence.[23]

Israel-Hamas War (2023)

Following the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent Israel–Hamas war, the Biden administration requested ~$14 billion in aid from congress to provide military aid for Israel. Congress later approved a bill on February 13, 2024, the legislation included ~$19.3 billion; to support military operations ($14.1bn), air defense ($4bn), and the Iron Beam defense system ($1.2bn). The legislation also included $9.2 billion in humanitarian assistance for civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, along with those caught in warzones across the globe.[24]

As a result of the on-going support of Israel in the face of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the United States and President Joe Biden have faced scrutiny and backlash from NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders, and the Center for Constitutional Rights. It has been said by some academics, that the US is complicit in the alleged genocide of Palestinians committed by Israel. The CCR has filed a lawsuit against Biden for allegedly "failing in his duty under international and US laws to prevent Israel committing genocide in Gaza."[25]

Syrian coup d'état (1949)

Syria became an independent republic in 1946, but the March 1949 Syrian coup d'état, led by Army Chief of Staff Husni al-Za'im, ended the initial period of civilian rule. Za'im met at least six times with CIA operatives in the months prior to the coup to discuss his plan to seize power. Za'im requested American funding or personnel, but it is not known whether this assistance was provided. Once in power, Za'im made several key decisions that benefitted the United States. He approved the Trans-Arabian Pipeline (TAPLINE), an American project designed to transport Saudi Arabian oil to Mediterranean ports. Construction of TAPLINE had been delayed due to Syrian intransigence. Za'im also improved relations with two American allies in the region: Israel and Turkey. He signed an armistice with Israel, formally ending the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and he renounced Syrian claims to Hatay Province, a major source of dispute between Syria and Turkey. Za'im also cracked down on local communists. However, Za'im's regime was short-lived. He was overthrown in August, just four and a half months after seizing power.[26][27][28][29]

Mosaddeq and the Shah of Iran (1953)

Supporters of Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1952

Opposed to foreign intervention in Iran and a keen nationalist,

Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Furthermore, prior to the nationalization of Iranian oil, Mosaddeq had also cut all diplomatic ties with Britain.[30] The Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was opposed to the nationalization of Iranian oil as he feared this would result in an oil embargo, which would destroy Iran's economy and thus, the Shah was very concerned with the effect of Mosaddeq's policies on Iran. Equally worried were workers in the Iranian oil industry, when they experienced the economic effect of the sanctions on Iranian oil exports which Mosaddeq's policies had resulted in, and riots were happening across Iran.[31]

Thus, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi asked Mosaddeq to resign, as was the Shah's constitutional right, but Mosaddeq refused, which resulted in national uprisings. The Shah, fearing for his personal security, fled the country but nominated

Dwight Eisenhower shared British concern over Mossadeq. Allen Dulles, the director of the CIA, approved one million dollars on April 4, 1953, to be used "in any way that would bring about the fall of Mossadegh"[33] Consequently, after a failed attempt on August 15, "on August 19, 1953, General Fazlollah Zahedi succeeded [with the help of the United States and Britain] and Mossadegh was overthrown. The CIA covertly funneled five million dollars to General Zahedi's regime on August 21, 1953."[33]

This CIA operation, often referred to as

Operation Ajax and led by CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt Jr., ensured the return of the Shah on August 22, 1953.[31]

Suez Crisis (1956)

President Eisenhower press conference about the crisis, 9 August 1956

Although accepting large sums of military aid from the United States in 1954, by 1956 Egyptian leader

Aswan High Dam in mid-1956 was a further blow to the chances of maintaining friendly ties. Eisenhower's stand against the British, French and Israeli attack on Egypt in October 1956 created a momentary sense of gratitude on the part of Nasser, but the subsequent development of the Eisenhower Doctrine, so clearly aimed at 'containing' Nasserism, undermined what little goodwill existed toward the United States in Cairo."[35] "The Suez Crisis of 1956 marked the demise of British power and its gradual replacement by the USA as the dominant power in the Middle East."[36] The Eisenhower Doctrine became a manifestation of this process. "The general objective of the Eisenhower Doctrine, like that of the Truman Doctrine formulated ten years earlier, was the containment of Soviet expansion."[37] Furthermore, when the Doctrine was finalized on March 9, 1957, it "essentially gave the president the latitude to intervene militarily in the Middle East ... without having to resort to Congress."[38] indeed as, Middle East scholar Irene L. Gerdzier explains "that with the Eisenhower Doctrine the United States emerged "as the uncontested Western power ... in the Middle East."[39]

Eisenhower Doctrine

Nasser and Eisenhower in New York, 1960

In response to the power vacuum in the Middle East following the Suez Crisis, the Eisenhower administration developed a new policy designed to stabilize the region against Soviet threats or internal turmoil. Given the collapse of British prestige and the rise of Soviet interest in the region, the president informed Congress on January 5, 1957, that it was essential for the U.S. to accept new responsibilities for the security of the Middle East. Under the policy, known as the Eisenhower Doctrine, any Middle Eastern country could request American economic assistance or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression. Though Eisenhower found it difficult to convince leading Arab states or Israel to endorse the doctrine, he applied the new doctrine by dispensing economic aid to shore up the Kingdom of Jordan, encouraging Syria's neighbors to consider military operations against it, and sending U.S. troops into Lebanon to prevent a radical revolution from sweeping over that country.[40] The troops sent to Lebanon never saw any fighting, but the deployment marked the only time during Eisenhower's presidency when U.S. troops were sent abroad into a potential combat situation.[41]

Though U.S. aid helped Lebanon and Jordan avoid revolution, the Eisenhower doctrine enhanced Nasser's prestige as the preeminent

Abd al-Karim Qasim as the leader of Iraq.[43]

Jordan

Meanwhile, in Jordan nationalistic anti-government rioting broke out and the United States decided to send a battalion of marines to nearby Lebanon prepared to intervene in Jordan later that year. Douglas Little argues that Washington's decision to use the military resulted from a determination to support a beleaguered, conservative pro-Western regime in Lebanon, repel Nasser's pan-Arabism, and limit Soviet influence in the oil-rich region. However Little concludes that the unnecessary American action brought negative long-term consequences, notably the undermining of Lebanon's fragile, multi-ethnic political coalition and the alienation of Arab nationalism throughout the region.[44] To keep the pro-American King Hussein of Jordan in power, the CIA sent millions of dollars a year of subsidies. In the mid-1950s the U.S. supported allies in Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia and sent fleets to be near Syria.[45] However, 1958 was to become a difficult year in U.S. foreign policy; in 1958 Syria and Egypt were merged into the "United Arab Republic", anti-American and anti-government revolts started occurring in Lebanon, causing the Lebanese president Chamoun to ask America for help, and the very pro-American King Feisal the 2nd of Iraq was overthrown by a group of nationalistic military officers.[46] It was quite "commonly believed that [Nasser] ... stirred up the unrest in Lebanon and, perhaps, had helped to plan the Iraqi revolution."[47]

Six-Day War (1967) and Black September (1970)

In June 1967 Israel fought with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in the

PLO
guerrilla camps, while Jordan's U.S.-supplied air force dropped napalm from above. The U.S. deployed the aircraft carrier Independence and six destroyers off the coast of Lebanon and readied troops in Turkey to support the assault.

The American interventions in the years before the Iranian revolution have all proven to be based in part on economic considerations, but more so have been influenced and led by the international Cold War context.[48]

Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988)

On 22 September 1980,

Ayatollah Khomeini ruled Iran, starting bombing 10 military airfields.[49]

Support for Iraq

Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddam Hussein on 19–20 December 1983

Ted Koppel's ABC News broadcast of July 1992 points out the US cooperation with Iraq, by sending money, armaments, dual-use technology and if necessary, the provision of emergency action plans against Iran.[50] According to revealed CIA files, the United States supported Hussein's Iraq even to the point of a US awareness of Iraqi use of chemical armaments. This violated the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which Iraq did not approve. Moreover, the US Defense Intelligence Agency provided Iraq with satellite positions of Iranian troops to help keep track of the enemies.[51] American position in the war played "a secretly but unambiguously" pro-Iraq support.[52]

A few scholars have argued the US gave a "green light" to Hussein's attack on Iran.[53] Yet, considering now available US and Iraqi papers, the "green light" hypothesis is "more a myth than reality". US did not provide an initial encouragement to let the war begin as well as Hussein's attack was independent of the US.[54]

Support for Iran