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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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