U.S. Role in the Modern Middle East Essay Example for Free

U.S. Role in the Modern Middle East Essay For a period of more than sixty years, United States has been a prime player in politics of the Middle East. Since the 1991 Gulf War, Iran in the 50s and the time of contemporary Iraq devastation, the policy of United States has always created a big impact in the domestic affairs of the Middle East. For example, one of the current pervasive features is the Anti-Americanism in the present day public opinion of the Middle East. In this region, Israel is considered one of the best allies of the United States of America. Israel has been receiving aid from America since it was created in 1948. In fact, Israel receives a staggering amount of approximately $3 billion annually (Porter, 2010). This is a fact that foreign policy experts in the Middle East are supposed to be aware of. The Middle East is a hostile region and Israel requires guarantee from America on the security front. Moreover, the United States on the other hand relies on the Israel administration in several respects. For example, during the cold war, the Washington administration needed Israel so that it can counter communism. The United States needed Israel in formulation of a market economy approach in Middle East and again as a reliable ally in strategizing the Middle East policy projects. The foreign policy experts in Israel have several things they need to learn not only on what is happening today but also from history. According to Kaplan (1993), Arabist tradition dates back to the times of Eli Smith in 1827 who took to the Lebanese mountains to learn Arabic. The impact of Arabs however on the U. S. policy began in 1940s. This is the moment United States engaged itself actively in this region. Kaplan shows that the Arabs are just like â€Å"China hands† since they also had and still have skills Department of State needed such as reliable contacts, local culture knowledge and language. Arabs in State had that domination capacity in the Middle Eastern bureau and this enabled them to absorb several others to their viewpoint. Arabs are mostly bound in a small world of their own and thus during this time they lacked enough imagination on what were the interests of the United States in their region. Arabs want a pristine Middle East and for long they have been against its modernization. As Arabs strive to show the harmony between Arab- Islamic and Western culture, they loath the Greeks and Maronites. But of all, what they hate most is the Israelis. They blame them that they spoiled the century-old idyll. For the policy makers thus, there is needed for them to understand that America’s continued support for Israel angers Arabs and once made many of them to turn to anti-Semitism. Arabs carry old grudges which make them not to see the value Israel has on United States. Kaplan in general wants to show the policy makers that the issues concerning Israel are not just about Israel and oil but there is need for the country to devote to Arabs since they are part and parcel of the American history. In as much as America may decide to concentrate on what is happening within the boundaries of Israel, it should not be forgotten that the relations that Israel has with its neighbors determine the outcome. According to Bronson (2006), oil for example has always been a significant factor in Saudi-U. S. relationship as well as in all the rest of the Saudi dealings. This can hardly be otherwise for this country since it carries almost a quarter of the available oil resources in the globe and its oil exports carries between 90% and 95% of the overall export earnings. It is however important to state that even if oil offers a good explanation of what America wants in this region, it is not possible to explain the relationship strength. Thus, decision makers in the United States have to determine the relationships needed to be sustained and in what manner they should be maintained. The policy makers may be required to know that peace is the main solution to the major problems experienced in Lebanon and this will only be achieved if Lebanese are in a position to love their siblings more as it seems as if they hate them. According to Friedman (1989), he confesses that the internal divisions in Israel have to be papered afresh so that a new political life may take route. Even if Friedman looks like he has exaggerated on this point, U. S. decision makers in foreign countries like Israel need to see that there is a possibility of Israel going the Lebanon way. All in all, U. S. foreign policy experts need to understand in their endeavors that the hostility that Arab countries have towards Israel still acts as the heart of Israel-Arab problem. The missing debate in Washington is not between those few who want Israel to be destroyed and the majority who want it to survive. Irrespective of what, Washington must support the right for Israel to exist in recognized international borders and most of all defend its interests against nay threats. References Porter, K. (2010).The US-Israeli Relationship. Retrieved from http://usforeignpolicy. about. com/od/countryprofi3/p/usisraelprofile. htm Kaplan, R. D. (1993). The Arabists: The Romance of an American Elite. Retrieved from http://www. danielpipes. org/885/the-arabists-the-romance-of-an-american-elite Bronson, R. (2006). Thicker than oil: Americas uneasy partnership with Saudi Arabia, New York: Oxford University Press US. Friedman, T. L. (1989). From Beirut to Jerusalem. Retrieved from http://www. danielpipes. org/32/from-beirut-to-jerusalem