The fluctuating status of the current US foreign policy in the Middle East is causing some confusion and consternation. In particular, two policy changes have displeased some key allies and domestic hawks. The most outstanding changes causing dissension are the changing US positions in relation to Syria and Iran.
The recent alteration in the prevailing status quo was not initiated by the Administration. Syrian policy changes took place at the last minute, transpiring as a military assault was prepared. At this moment, President Putin of the Russia took up a suggestion of Secretary Kerry by announcing Syria would be willing to give up its chemical arsenal. A change of guard in Iran following recent elections opened a more conciliatory diplomatic channel. President Obama responded to this change by opening diplomatic negotiations on the subject of its nuclear program.
Congressional hawks, such as Senator McCain and Senator Graham, together with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the French President and Saudi rulers have strongly opposed US changes in its Syria and Iran policies. Having said that, it is clearly evident the Americans oppose war with Syria and choose diplomacy as preferred path with Iran. As revealed by a poll performed by the Pew Research Center near Labor Day, US citizens were overwhelmingly against a U. S. Assault against the Assad regime. Just 20 percent supported this action. On the other hand, 48 percent did not support it.
As indicated by Reuters Ipsos poll results revealed on November 26, 2013, the public is supportive of the freshly brokered nuclear agreement with Iran by a two to one margin. Regardless of whether the historic diplomatic initiative fails, the majority were against a military intervention. Forty nine per cent preferred the imposition of additional sanctions, while thirty one per cent preferred even more diplomacy. The 20 favored military force, the same amount as in the Pew Syrian policy poll.
Both polls reveal Americans are weary of military actions, even if their elected representatives in Washington D. C. Are not. The bigger issue may be why many American officials still favor force over diplomacy. Leon Hadar in an article titled, Why This Town Loves Going to War, published in the American Conservative explained his view of the discrepancy. In the article published on September 12, 2013, he said, based on what he saw in the capital, it is personal and institutional interests play a key role in favoring interventions.
While these elements may benefit, the public and the soldiers are hutting. By spring 2007, the Gulf War Veterans Data collected by The Department of Veterans Affairs revealed 73,000 veterans had perished already. Despite continued support to the Defense budget, reduction of Food Stamps is being considered. This is occurring at a time when 80 percent of Americans, as revealed by a study released in July 2013, are in an extremely precarious financial situation.
Other areas of US ME policy basically remain unchanged. In October 2013, the Government affirmed support for Egypt, the 2d largest recipient of US aid after Israel, despite a coup. Secretary Kerry affirmed a commitment to helping the government. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia support the military in Egypt.
Continued support of pro Israel policies are confirmed closer to home. David Makovsky, a supporter of Israel with a proven record was added to the group negotiating a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. Despite changes in some elements of US Government policy towards this region, other aspects remain consistent in current US foreign policy in the Middle East.
The recent alteration in the prevailing status quo was not initiated by the Administration. Syrian policy changes took place at the last minute, transpiring as a military assault was prepared. At this moment, President Putin of the Russia took up a suggestion of Secretary Kerry by announcing Syria would be willing to give up its chemical arsenal. A change of guard in Iran following recent elections opened a more conciliatory diplomatic channel. President Obama responded to this change by opening diplomatic negotiations on the subject of its nuclear program.
Congressional hawks, such as Senator McCain and Senator Graham, together with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the French President and Saudi rulers have strongly opposed US changes in its Syria and Iran policies. Having said that, it is clearly evident the Americans oppose war with Syria and choose diplomacy as preferred path with Iran. As revealed by a poll performed by the Pew Research Center near Labor Day, US citizens were overwhelmingly against a U. S. Assault against the Assad regime. Just 20 percent supported this action. On the other hand, 48 percent did not support it.
As indicated by Reuters Ipsos poll results revealed on November 26, 2013, the public is supportive of the freshly brokered nuclear agreement with Iran by a two to one margin. Regardless of whether the historic diplomatic initiative fails, the majority were against a military intervention. Forty nine per cent preferred the imposition of additional sanctions, while thirty one per cent preferred even more diplomacy. The 20 favored military force, the same amount as in the Pew Syrian policy poll.
Both polls reveal Americans are weary of military actions, even if their elected representatives in Washington D. C. Are not. The bigger issue may be why many American officials still favor force over diplomacy. Leon Hadar in an article titled, Why This Town Loves Going to War, published in the American Conservative explained his view of the discrepancy. In the article published on September 12, 2013, he said, based on what he saw in the capital, it is personal and institutional interests play a key role in favoring interventions.
While these elements may benefit, the public and the soldiers are hutting. By spring 2007, the Gulf War Veterans Data collected by The Department of Veterans Affairs revealed 73,000 veterans had perished already. Despite continued support to the Defense budget, reduction of Food Stamps is being considered. This is occurring at a time when 80 percent of Americans, as revealed by a study released in July 2013, are in an extremely precarious financial situation.
Other areas of US ME policy basically remain unchanged. In October 2013, the Government affirmed support for Egypt, the 2d largest recipient of US aid after Israel, despite a coup. Secretary Kerry affirmed a commitment to helping the government. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia support the military in Egypt.
Continued support of pro Israel policies are confirmed closer to home. David Makovsky, a supporter of Israel with a proven record was added to the group negotiating a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. Despite changes in some elements of US Government policy towards this region, other aspects remain consistent in current US foreign policy in the Middle East.
About the Author:
Read more about Changes In Current US Foreign Policy In The Middle East Are Upsetting Some Allies visiting our website.
0 comments:
Post a Comment