Who is willing to do this?

The US Policy Towards the Nuclear Program of Iran

During the last few decades, Iran has been striving to develop its nuclear weapons and that was a source of concern to the US. The two countries went through many negotiations in order to make sure that the deal will cut off all of Iran’s potential pathways to a bomb. Finally, Iran agreed upon a short-term freeze of portions of its nuclear weapons. According to the White House website, “This deal removes the key elements needed to create a bomb and prolongs Iran’s breakout time from 2-3 months to 1 year or more if Iran broke its commitments”. (The White House, The Iran Deal, 2105)

So, when taking into account the case of Iran and its plan of having nuclear weapons, it becomes clear within the negotiations between Washington and Tehran that the US tried its best to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. The reason behind it is that when Iran develops and acquires nuclear weapons, that means that the US will lose its hegemony in the region, thus, the loss of military and economic control. In fact, the US and some partners from other parts of the world could limit Iran's nuclear ambitions through the mechanism of creating strict conditions. As Nephew states, “The deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, is an impressive collection of restrictions, restraints, and monitoring provisions applied to the Iranian nuclear program. Under the deal, Iran's path to a nuclear weapon using declared facilities is effectively closed for at least 10 years and in some respects longer. Tehran could attempt to produce nuclear weapons material via the declared nuclear program, but to do so would be to risk almost immediate detection and response. This is a result of a combination of measures that constrain Iran's capabilities and ensure their monitoring.” (Nephew, 2015, p.1) Consequently, that agreement indicates that the US does not want any ambitious power in the Middle East since that would threat its interests and national security. The American officials have always been stressing through their declarations that Middle East without nuclear weapons is part of American national security. This American trend is not new, but it is part of an old policy that the United States adopted in the Middle East. In a memorandum was established in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz, who was the deputy US defense secretary, Wolfowitz mentioned the necessity of the United State " to deter any potential force is looking for a regional or global role" (Tyler, 1992)

In 2002, the former US president George Bush once announced unreservedly that there will be an implementation of a bold US strategy which was later become to be known as “Bush Doctrine” that would enhance the national security of the United States. First, one of the agendas of that strategy was to restrict and prevent countries in which they were described by Bush’s administration as “Axis of Evil” from developing a nuclear weapon such as Iran and Iraq. Second, Bush’s doctrine meant to develop all of the possibilities that would provide protection to the United States through the making of agreements and treaties. For instance, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention treaty, and the Convention on arms reduction were all means to maintain the US security and international dominance. (Hoder & Suchy, 2011, p.74-75)

In Addition, the US used the strategy of imposing economic sanctions through the UN Security Council on any rebel state that did not respond with its required policies. Since Iran is from the Middle East, it would be the best example to fit in this situation. Iran faced a lot of economic obstacles due to the economic sanctions by the US. However, after the recent assigned agreement between Iran and the US with regard to the acquisition of nuclear weapons, Iran’s economic sanctions have been decreased due to the “responsive action” by Iran that pleased the US. Therefore, through this example of Iran’s nuclear program, it becomes clear the US is preventing any hegemonic power in the Middle East. Militarily, the US strives to control the region so that it ensures its access to the economic recourses.

The War in Iraq as an Evidence of the Economic greed of the US

The strong relationship between the US and the Middle East region started when the oil was discovered. Since that time, the US as a thirsty country for oil made close relations with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to make sure that they act according to the US economic interest. Since the region of the Middle East has the largest oil reservoir in the world, the US foreign policy in that region became to be mainly focused on economic returns. Thus, any obstacle that would stand in front of the United States’ desire to take advantage of the oil industry will be overcome by any means. There are two historical events which can prove that assumption including the war on Iraq and the war on terrorism.

Before considering the war in Iraq in 2003 which gave the US some economic gains, it is important to bring some backgrounds of what led to the war. Back in 1991, when Iraq occupied Kuwait, the US and some allies launched their war against Iraq. The reason behind it is that Kuwait was and still a close ally to the US. Kuwait is actually rich of oil and it has a petroleum-based economy. Consequently, it was for the US economic interest to protect Kuwait in order to benefit from their oil and to deter Saddam’s regime at the same time by the strategy of applying economic sanctions. From that standing point, the US became to realise that Saddam Husain’s regime would be an obstacle that will prevent the US of applying its dominant foreign policy in the Middle East. After the experience in Kuwait, the US did not only want to have access to oil, but also to expand the oil sources within the region of the Middle East. Certainly, one of the most important oil sources in the Middle East is in Iraq which has the world’s fifth-largest proven reserves of oil. (Bouduo, 2012, p.10)

However, Iraq’s oil source was not available for the US due to the rebel regime of Saddam Husain. In 2000, Saddam took the decision to use the euro as a single currency for the purchase of Iraqi oil instead of the American dollar. He also nationalized the oil industry and blocked the way for international companies to invest. In an article for Kramer that was written in June 2008, Kramer says “Four western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam rose to Power.” (Kramer, 2008)

As a result, in 2003, the Bush administration declared war on Iraq with false justifications. First, the Bush Administration claimed that Iraq developed nuclear weapons which then it was discovered that there were not any nuclear weapons. Moreover, Iraq was accused by the US of supporting terrorist groups and enabling Al-Qaida to establish military training sites in Iraq. But in fact, that was not the case after the investigations when Bagdad fell. Alan Greenspan, who was the former chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, said in an interview “…every one knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.” (Woodward, 2007) Therefore, the war in Iraq gives a clear evidence that the foreign policy of the US in the Middle East is meant to control and dominate the region since the region provides economic gains for the US. Unsurprisingly, when the US won the war in Iraq, the first mission was to guard the oil reserves and make sure that no one has access to it.

The war on terrorism is another factor that plays a significant role in shaping American foreign policy in the Middle East. After 9/11, the US becomes to consider terrorism as the main crucial challenge facing the new generation quite like the struggle against communism and fascism in the old days. This means that the United States is no longer facing a strategic adversary or a specific country, but a new enemy that spreads all over the world with hidden dangerous terrorist cells. Obviously, this gives the US the justification to intervene in the affairs of other countries whenever the US feels that there is a terrorist group. Unfortunately, under the pretext of the war on terrorism, the United States can intervene in some countries and achieve some economic goals. As it was mentioned earlier in this essay that one of the reasons the US waged war on Iraq was the purse of Al-Qaida. However, Al-Qaida did not exist in Iraq during the time of Saddam, but after.

The US Position Towards the Egyptian Revolution

Looking at the US foreign policy in the Middle East from a political perspective, it is important to mention the Egyptian Revolution that occurred in January 2011. The Egyptian peaceful revolution broke out in order to get red of Mubarak’s regime which was described as a dictatorship controlling the country’s affairs for almost 35 years. However, despite the fact that this regime was rejected by the majority of people, the US actually used to support it before the revolution occurred. In describing the close relationship between the US and Egypt during Mubarak’s regime Brownlee says, “During the Gulf War against Iraq, Hosni Mubarak allowed US troops to cross the Suez Canal and his regime gained enormous benefits for enabling Operation Desert Shield. Bush H.W. asked Capitol Hill to forgive all of Egypt’s military debt to the United States and with Congressional approval, he wrote off $ 6.7 billion Cairo owed Washington. (Brownlee, 2012, p.57-58) Brownlee also states else where in his book that “Republican and Democratic administrations were clear about what they waited from the Egyptian regime: “reliable security cooperation and the defense of key US interests in the region, granted by Mubarak and his lieutenants’’ (Brownlee, 2012, page 68). However, what does it mean for the US to support a dictatorship, while at the same time calling for democracy? From my point of view, it means that the US regardless of the political systems in that region, the US will always seek to control it politically using whatever regime cooperates with it to reach its goals.

Looking at Egypt after the revolution, there was a big concern in the US position with regard to the arrangements for the post-Mubarak. There were several reasons why the Egyptian revolution was a concern for the US. First, the US feared the transmission of the idea of revolution from Egypt to other countries of US allies in the region, which practiced repression and oppression against their own people. In other words, it was not for the US interest to have more revolutions in the Middle Eastern countries since the US has tie bilateral relations with most of them. Second, the US was afraid from who is going to rule Egypt after the revolution. Before and after the revolution, there were a lot of warnings about some particular groups that had political motivations to rule the government in Egypt, especially the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’. Muslim Brotherhood was always described as a political party which stands against the West and seeks to establish a radical Islamic regime. Third, when the Muslim Brotherhood was elected by people to lead the country, there was a fear by the US government that the will of people to affect their politics will be stronger than the US will. (Brownlee, 2012, p.65) Thus, Washington found itself in a real predicament in terms of the choice between aligning to this illegal regime on the one hand, or aligning to the will of people that may not recognize the American hegemony in the future. Consequently, after all, it is clear that the US takes only into account how to reach its interests regardless of the circumstances. For years, one characteristic of American foreign policy was to support political regimes that can be beneficial even if those regimes conflict with its main principles.

Conclusion

To sum up, Through the strategy of conducting war on terrorism, the strategy of preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons and the strategy of supporting non-hostile political regimes, the US is seeking to have control over the Middle East economically, politically and militarily. In terms of how to control it military, this essay used Iran’s nuclear program as an example to illustrate how the US prevents any potential power that is seeking to control the region. In terms of how to control it economically, the US as one of the big oil consumers wants to make that no country in that region prevents it from making use of it. The example of the War in Iraq was used to demonstrate how the US got red of Saddam’s regime that prevented it from benefitting from the oil industry. Finally, in terms of how to control the Middle East politically, the Egyptian Revolution was used to show the American contradiction in supporting the political regimes in the Middle East. Politically, the US tries to support and use those undesired regimes in order to reach it objectives.

References

Bouduo, A. N. (2012). Invasion of Iraq: Introspective Analysis of US Long Term Foreign Policy in the Middle East. Journal of Political Science , 1-15. Brownlee, Jason. (2012). Democracy Prevention: The Politics of the U.S.-Egyptian Alliance. London: Cambridge University Press . Gokcan, F. & Guney, A. (2010). The 'Greater Middle East' as a 'Modern' Geopolitical Imagination in American Foreign Policy. 'Greater Middle East' in American Foreign Policy , 22- 36. Kramer, A. E. (2008, June 17). Middle East. Retrieved November 24, 2015, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r= 1& Lang, Anthony F. (1999). Responsibility in the International System: Reading US Foreign Policy in the Middle East. (1999). Sage Journals , 5 (1), 67-107. Mady, Abdel-Fattah. (2010). American Foreign Policy and Peace in the Middle East. Contemporary Arab Affairs , 3 (3), 271-296. Steven R. David (2006) American Foreign Policy towards the Middle East: A

Necessary Change? Israel Affairs, 12:4, 614-641