Inscrivez-vous ou connectez-vous pour rejoindre votre communauté professionnelle.
US strategy toward the Middle East Based on a very important axis, which is to protect his political and economic interests, so the US are playing a political role is very important with regard to political changes and events taking place in some countries in the area, such as the situation in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, where the terrorist organizations represents the greatest danger to the security of the Middle East and Europe as well. and threatens American interests in this area. In order that the US intervene politically and militarily, to ensure the protection of its interests, and any way it benefits from the current political situation in the Middle East .
i think the usa is not have role of USA administration grand strategy for the MIDDLE EAST
Achieve security and international peace and attempt to reconcile the conflicting parties
It seems to me United States policy toward Middle East is to dominate and control this part of the the world to maximize the benefits of oil countries wheather in North Africa or in Gulf area for its own interests.
In order to formulate a grand strategy, one should have clarity about national interests and policy objectives, and plans for achieving them. We can think about national interests as either strategic or ideological — strategic national interests in security, prosperity and stability, and ideological national interests in the promotion of popular government and human rights. Are they complementary or contradictory? Can we find a set of policy objectives that are complementary and implement a set of strategies, maybe a grand strategy, that is coherent and potentially successful?
Since World War II, our traditional objectives have been to prevent adversaries from dominating the region, to maintain access to the region's oil and waterways, and to defend and support Israel and other friendly states. We have done this through a grand strategy of containment: through multilateral agreements, strategic partnerships, arms sales, foreign aid, Arab-Israeli diplomacy, rapid-deployment forces and, eventually, intervention to liberate Kuwait. And it was quite successful. Containment was also the grand strategy of the post-Soviet era until9/. We were dominant. Our specific objectives were to contain Iran and Iraq, and to promote nuclear nonproliferation and Arab-Israeli peace. Some of the strategies we employed were the forward basing of land, sea and air forces, defense cooperation, economic sanctions and diplomacy. We had some success, but transnational terrorism was brewing, and it exploded on9/.
The Bush administration tried to develop a new grand strategy at that point, which we could call liberal hegemony, with the objectives of maintaining American primacy and promoting democracy, along with the more specific objectives of containing rogue states and transnational terror. One of the things they employed as a strategy that was relatively new was unilateral preemptive or preventive military intervention — accompanied by regime change, nation building and counterinsurgency, with a lot of coercive diplomacy. I think it would be fair to say that the Obama administration inherited a lot of problems from the Bush administration and its eight years of liberal hegemony.
The question panelists will be talking about today is whether the Obama administration has been attempting to have a pragmatic, non ideological foreign policy, where specific strategies are tailored to specific problems, or whether they've been trying to develop a grand strategy that might be called selective engagement. But any strategy is evaluated in terms of how successful it is in achieving its objectives and attaining national interests. As we go into a second term, we should ask how successful they have been in attaining their objectives.
One, of course, is the objective of a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which they explained was important to our national security, to stability in the region, to fighting transnational terror, even to containing the challenge that Iran poses to the region. How secure is Israel? How satisfied are our strategic partners? How well are we doing in the struggle with transnational terror, in stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and in restoring American power, influence, prestige, prosperity and security?
