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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment