Recent alterations in current US foreign policy in the Middle East has angered some allies and senior Washington policymakers. Two areas of change have disappointed some traditional allies and domestic foreign policy hawks. The transforming US positions in relation to Syria and Iran have been the focus of this ire.
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.
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.
These two polls exposed how weary Americans have become of military interventions, even when their elected representatives are strongly supportive of such actions. The contradiction raises another issue, which was raised in a write up by Leon Hadar published by the American Conservative. In his article Why This City Loves Going to War he provided his opinion on this subject. He explained, based on what he saw in Washington, that individual and institutional politics played an important part in foreign policy.
Meanwhile, the ordinary people from the soldiers who fight in the wars and the general public do not fare well. As of May 2007, The Department of Veterans Affairs, Gulf War Veterans Information System Gulf War reported 73,000 deaths of veterans. At the same time, while the defense budget expansion is supported by Congress, Food Stamps are being attacked. This is when a survey published in July 2013, revealed 4 out of 5 Americans face near poverty, reliance on welfare and joblessness in their lives.
Other aspects of ME policies have not changed much. Secretary Kerry, in October 2013, confirmed government for Egypt in spite of a coup. Egypt still receives the most US aid after Israel. Israel and Saudi Arabia are both in agreement over continued support to 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.
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.
These two polls exposed how weary Americans have become of military interventions, even when their elected representatives are strongly supportive of such actions. The contradiction raises another issue, which was raised in a write up by Leon Hadar published by the American Conservative. In his article Why This City Loves Going to War he provided his opinion on this subject. He explained, based on what he saw in Washington, that individual and institutional politics played an important part in foreign policy.
Meanwhile, the ordinary people from the soldiers who fight in the wars and the general public do not fare well. As of May 2007, The Department of Veterans Affairs, Gulf War Veterans Information System Gulf War reported 73,000 deaths of veterans. At the same time, while the defense budget expansion is supported by Congress, Food Stamps are being attacked. This is when a survey published in July 2013, revealed 4 out of 5 Americans face near poverty, reliance on welfare and joblessness in their lives.
Other aspects of ME policies have not changed much. Secretary Kerry, in October 2013, confirmed government for Egypt in spite of a coup. Egypt still receives the most US aid after Israel. Israel and Saudi Arabia are both in agreement over continued support to 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:
When you need information about current US foreign policy in the Middle East, pay a visit to the web pages online at www.tsf-online.com today. You can see details at http://www.tsf-online.com now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Don't use active link, spamming, phising or making chaos