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.
Changes in these prevailing positions on Syria and Iran were not initiated by the US Government. The adjustment in relation to Syrian policy occurred just as an armed assault was in its last stages. At this juncture, the Russian President accepted a recommendation of Secretary Kerry on behalf of his ally, by saying it was willing to have its chemical arsenal destroyed. A new more conciliatory government encouraged the opening of diplomatic channels to diplomatically resolve the nuclear issue.
The Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Hollande, Saudi Government and Congressional hawks have all publicly voiced their displeasure with recent policy adjustments in relation to the Syrian and Iranian regimes. However, the US public supports these changes as recent polls have evidently revealed. As exposed by a Pew poll around Labor Day, a clear majority of Americans were disinclined to support a U. S. Assault. Only a small minority, 20 percent, was behind this action, while more than twice as many were opposed to it.
As revealed by a Reuters Ipsos poll results published on November 26, 2013, Americans support a newly brokered nuclear deal with Iran by a 2-to-1 margin, at 44 vs 22 percent. Even if the historic diplomatic effort fails 49 percent would support more sanctions, while 31 percent would support further diplomacy. Only 20 percent, as in case of Syrian poll as well, would prefer military force to be used against the Iranian nation.
The poll results have demonstrated how tired the American public is of uses force, despite official opinion to the contrary. The differences in opinion raises an additional issue, which was discussed in an article of Leon Hadar, Why This City Loves Going to War. The September 12, 2013 piece published in the American Conservative expressed his opinion based on personal experience in Washington. In this article he offered the perspective that institutional politics and personal motives were an essential element of foreign policy positions.
In the meantime, the public, including the troops who fight in these wars, has suffered. By May 2007, according to The Department of Veterans Affairs, Gulf War Veterans Data, veterans have suffered 73,000 fatalities. Simultaneously, whilst the military spending budget is protected by Congress, Food Stamps are facing reductions. This is taking place at same time when, as revealed by a study made available in July 2013, exposed 4 of 5 Individuals encounter poverty, have to rely on welfare and face unemployment.
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.
Continuous support of Israeli interests has been confirmed nearer home. The appointment of David Makovsky, an avid supporter of Israel, to the group negotiating for a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians is a clear demonstration of this reality. Despite some changes in elements of US regional policy towards the Middle East, other features remain constant in current US foreign policy in the Middle East.
Changes in these prevailing positions on Syria and Iran were not initiated by the US Government. The adjustment in relation to Syrian policy occurred just as an armed assault was in its last stages. At this juncture, the Russian President accepted a recommendation of Secretary Kerry on behalf of his ally, by saying it was willing to have its chemical arsenal destroyed. A new more conciliatory government encouraged the opening of diplomatic channels to diplomatically resolve the nuclear issue.
The Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Hollande, Saudi Government and Congressional hawks have all publicly voiced their displeasure with recent policy adjustments in relation to the Syrian and Iranian regimes. However, the US public supports these changes as recent polls have evidently revealed. As exposed by a Pew poll around Labor Day, a clear majority of Americans were disinclined to support a U. S. Assault. Only a small minority, 20 percent, was behind this action, while more than twice as many were opposed to it.
As revealed by a Reuters Ipsos poll results published on November 26, 2013, Americans support a newly brokered nuclear deal with Iran by a 2-to-1 margin, at 44 vs 22 percent. Even if the historic diplomatic effort fails 49 percent would support more sanctions, while 31 percent would support further diplomacy. Only 20 percent, as in case of Syrian poll as well, would prefer military force to be used against the Iranian nation.
The poll results have demonstrated how tired the American public is of uses force, despite official opinion to the contrary. The differences in opinion raises an additional issue, which was discussed in an article of Leon Hadar, Why This City Loves Going to War. The September 12, 2013 piece published in the American Conservative expressed his opinion based on personal experience in Washington. In this article he offered the perspective that institutional politics and personal motives were an essential element of foreign policy positions.
In the meantime, the public, including the troops who fight in these wars, has suffered. By May 2007, according to The Department of Veterans Affairs, Gulf War Veterans Data, veterans have suffered 73,000 fatalities. Simultaneously, whilst the military spending budget is protected by Congress, Food Stamps are facing reductions. This is taking place at same time when, as revealed by a study made available in July 2013, exposed 4 of 5 Individuals encounter poverty, have to rely on welfare and face unemployment.
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.
Continuous support of Israeli interests has been confirmed nearer home. The appointment of David Makovsky, an avid supporter of Israel, to the group negotiating for a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians is a clear demonstration of this reality. Despite some changes in elements of US regional policy towards the Middle East, other features remain constant 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment