Notable fluctuations in current US foreign policy in the Middle East have upset old allies and senior Washington foreign policymakers. Two areas of alteration have in particular frustrated certain allies and domestic policymakers with a hawkish mindset. These are the potentially transformative US positions in connection to Syrian and Iranian policies.
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 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.
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.
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 facets of Middle Eastern policy have not seen significant alteration. Secretary Kerry was affirmative, in Oct 2013 in confirming federal government support for Egypt, despite the deposing of an elected government. Egypt remains after Israel the 2d largest recipient of US foreign assistance. The Israeli Government and the Saudis are equally supportive of unceasing US support of 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 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.
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.
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 facets of Middle Eastern policy have not seen significant alteration. Secretary Kerry was affirmative, in Oct 2013 in confirming federal government support for Egypt, despite the deposing of an elected government. Egypt remains after Israel the 2d largest recipient of US foreign assistance. The Israeli Government and the Saudis are equally supportive of unceasing US support of 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 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق