What have been the main driving forces of the US foreign policy in the Middle East ?

Résumé du document

Thanks to a sizeable diplomatic work, the US has gradually become the major foreign power in the Middle East. But, without any former influence in the area, what can have been the main driving forces of the US policy towards the Middle East ? This question obviously implies to know precisely what have been the different interests of the US in the region, but it also leads to think about the difficult yet necessary definition of a hierarchy within those different American interests.

Extraits

[...] That does not mean that the defense of Israel has been an unimportant driving force of the US policy, but only that it has not been the priority of the different American governments. Concerning the so-called specific values of American foreign policy, it seems that this “interest” has remained quite secondary. Many examples have proved that the US did not really take into account these considerations. Thus, during the long war Iran-Iraq, the United States judged that it was its interest that this very bloody conflict last as long as possible. [...]

[...] At last, the struggle against terrorism did not appear essential until now, but it is possible that it would incite the US to redefine its policies in the Middle East. Bibliography -Spanier, American Foreign Policy since World War II, Congressional Quarterly Press -Cocker, Reflections on American Foreign Policy since 1945, Pinter -Brown, Issues in US Foreign Policy, Library of Congress -Dougherty, American Foreign Policy, Harper & Row -Ismael & Ismael, Politics & government in the Middle East and North Africa, Florida International University Press Internet resources -www.lemonde.fr -www.monde-diplo.fr -www.merip.org -www.jewish-world.org Out of 8,5 million Jews today millions live in the United States. [...]

[...] Thus, one will be able to draw a hierarchy of the US policy's driving forces in the Middle East. Firstly, two interests appeared to combine easily: the containment of the USSR and the access to oil. Actually, in both cases the United pursued the same aim, that is to increase their influence in the area. Two strategies were possible. The simplest implied to set up friendly relationships with Arab countries. A friendly country had to supply oil to US firms and to keep away from the USSR. [...]

[...] For example, in 1953, the US worried about the sudden popularity of Mossadegh in Iran. Mossadegh was actually both more nationalist than the Shah and with socialist tendencies. Since two of its interests were threatened, the US did not hesitate to organize itself the overthrow of Mossadegh and afterwards the strengthening of the Shah's power. Thus, whatever the strategy followed, the United States could easily combine these two interests. Actually, no real hierarchy appeared between these interests, simply because they lead to the same policies, that is traditional policies of an imperialist power. [...]

[...] The combination of the previous interests and the question of Israel has been quite more difficult. There has actually been rather contradictory to try to set up friendly relationships with both Israel and Arab states, merely because they have been irreconcilable enemies. Four wars (1948- and 1973) opposed Israel to Arab States. Even though the circumstances which lead to these wars changed, the core of the problem has remained the same, that is the understandable difficulty for Arab countries to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish State. [...]