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.
Domestic hawks, like Senators McCain and Graham, as well as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, French President Hollande and the Saudi ruling family have strongly voiced their disagreement with US policy on Syria and Iran. However, it is clear that the American people do not favor war with Syria and prefer finding solutions through diplomacy with Iran. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center during the Labor Day weekend revealed Americans overwhelmingly opposed a U. S. Attack on the Assad regime. Only 20 percent supported an attack, while 48 percent opposed it.
According to a November 26 2013 publication of a poll conducted by Reuters, by a two to one margin the public supports the recent nuclear agreement with Iranian negotiators. Even if there is ultimate failure in this historic initiative, most were opposed to a use of force. Almost 50 percent would in this case prefer added sanctions and thirty one percent supported further diplomacy. The same percentage as in the Pew poll favored use of force.
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.
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.
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.
Domestic hawks, like Senators McCain and Graham, as well as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, French President Hollande and the Saudi ruling family have strongly voiced their disagreement with US policy on Syria and Iran. However, it is clear that the American people do not favor war with Syria and prefer finding solutions through diplomacy with Iran. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center during the Labor Day weekend revealed Americans overwhelmingly opposed a U. S. Attack on the Assad regime. Only 20 percent supported an attack, while 48 percent opposed it.
According to a November 26 2013 publication of a poll conducted by Reuters, by a two to one margin the public supports the recent nuclear agreement with Iranian negotiators. Even if there is ultimate failure in this historic initiative, most were opposed to a use of force. Almost 50 percent would in this case prefer added sanctions and thirty one percent supported further diplomacy. The same percentage as in the Pew poll favored use of force.
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.
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.
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:
You can visit the website www.tsf-online.com for more helpful information about Changes In Current US Foreign Policy In The Middle East Are Upsetting Some Allies
No comments:
Post a Comment