Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

The US national interests in this region include:

a. Bolstering American economic prosperity. Access to reasonably priced oil is of vital interest to the continued prosperity of the nation. 68% of the world’s oil reserves are found here. Because it is so easily extracted it is also the cheapest. Maintaining relations with the nations of the ME and NA will be important to the US as long as it depends on oil for its very existence.

b. Secondly, the enhancement of US security is directly related to the ME and NA. Because this region is a center for international terrorism which is aimed either directly or indirectly at the US it is imperative that the US maintain a presence here to insure protection from these sources. Additionally, the US is vitally interested in limiting the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). With both Iran and Iraq and perhaps Israel actively engaged in developing WMD it remains in the US’s interest to remain engaged here. The exploitation of WMD by any country in the region could have a detrimental effect on the oil supply from that region and could bring us into a major conflict in the region. Finally, the US has an interest in finding a peaceful solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. This conflict too has the potential to bring the US into a major regional conflict if not ended peacefully and it also could put limits on our oil importation either through a war or as a punishment from the OPEC nations for our support of Israel.

c. Finally, the US national security strategy puts forth the promotion of democracy and human rights as of interest to the nation. Various forms of dictatorships have traditionally ruled Nations in this region. History shows that democratic nations have not started wars between each other and have been found to be better able to solve differences diplomatically. As stated above the prevention of regional war in the area is of interest to the US. Therefore the promotion of democracy is one of the tools available to help in that prevention. Also the region has traditionally had a bad record of human rights violations, especially as relates to women. The US will remain actively engaged against these violations.

ANS. The principle international security issues with the ME and NA are:

1. Access to reasonably priced oil. This region supplies not only the US but also most of the industrialized world with its oil. Maintaining that supply is of vital interest to all nations depending on this supply.

2. Preventing the proliferation of WMD. Nations in the region developing WMD could either intentionally or inadvertently start a major regional conflict. This would have a detrimental effect on the economies of the world and could bring other nations into such a conflict.

3. Population Growth. The population growth of the ME and NA far outstrips that of developed nations of the world and it also outstrips the regions ability to feed and educate it. This growth is cause for the major portion of the population of the region to be under 25, unemployed and unemployable due to lack of education facilities. Without education or work these people are the ones who make up the greatest percentage of the discontented who are turning to terrorism or radical Islam for answers to their problems. This activity is now directly affecting other areas of the world.

4. Water Shortage. As the population continues to grow in the region it exacerbates the natural shortage of water in this desert region. This water shortage could cause conflicts in the region as nations search for the water necessary to maintain their people.

5. Growth of radical Islam and Terrorism in the region. As these two activities continue to become the means by which the discontented people of the region express themselves they continue to affect other regions of the world especially the west. The turn around of these phenomena is of vital interest to the international community.

ANS. Yes. As one of the nations that are developing WMD Iran presents a major threat to the region. By improving relations with Iran the US and Arab states may be able to lesson that threat thereby decreasing the tension in the region. Secondly, Iran is one of the nations that is purportedly promoting and supporting terrorism within the region. By improving relations and providing Iran with other means of improving its world situation it is possible that a reduction in terrorism could be gained. Thirdly, by bettering relations with Iran it is possible that either the US or Iran’s Arab neighbors might be able to intermediate between Iran and Turkey over the tensions that exist over Turkey’s perceived support of Israel. Finally, Iran could provide a large market to both the US and the Arabs if it could be opened for commerce on a more regular basis.

A. Obstacles to the Peace Process.

1. Rightwing Conservatives. The rightwing conservatives of Israel are determined that neither land for peace nor concessions of any kind to the Arabs will be accepted. This has some strong backing within the nation as the Arabs continue to use terrorism as their method of negotiation. As for the Arab population it too has its position that no compromise can be made with the Israelis and that only the extinction of Israel can be the ultimate solution to the problem.

2. Settlements. Over the years Israel has built settlements in the captured areas of both the West Bank and Gaza. The abandonment of these settlements will be a hard pill for the nation to accept. These settlements remain a thorn in the side of the Arabs who consider them to be an invasion of their land. Ultimate solution of this issue will be necessary to attain peace.

3. View of Security. All of Israel’s negotiations will ultimately be couched in terms of its security as a nation. Any negotiated settlements will have to be acceptable to the people in terms of their security for the future. With most of the Arab nations at least mouthing the words that they will never accept Israel as a nation within the region negotiations will have to result in a change to this attitude.

4. Jerusalem. Israel moved its capitol to Jerusalem and although most western nations who support Israel continue to maintain their Embassies in Tel Aviv it will be hard for the politician to move back. The Arabs will never accept Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol. The city is the home of all three monotheistic religions of the world and considered sacred by both the Arabs and the Israelis.

5. Israeli Occupations of Arab land. Israel continues to occupy lands it captured in its past wars with the Arabs. They consider this as necessary for their security. The Arabs look at it as an intolerable invasion of their land and the practices of the occupying army as human rights violations of their people.

6. Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The Israelis believe that the PNA have been ineffective in controlling, or even supportive of, the terrorism its people are perpetrating upon Israel and until it is effective will not negotiate with them with any confidence that the PNA is being forthright. The PNA is the political voice of the Palestinians and as such remains the only party with which Israel can deal. This lack of trust results in negotiations that cannot be relied upon to bring about peace.

B. Incentives for establishing peace.

1. Stabilization of Borders. With peace both the Israelis and the Palestinians could depend upon stabilized borders behind which they could begin to establish a better peace arrangement for the area. The Palestinians would finally have a country of their own and the Israelis could finally live in peace within their borders.

2. Stabilization of Economies. Until a peace accord is enacted both sides will be forced to live under destabilized economies which in the case of the Palestinians means a continuation of a lack of everything needed for its people to subsist in a reasonable fashion. For the Israelis peace would allow it to better promote its products to the world and establish better trade relationships with its neighbors.

3. Peace. The resolution of the problems in between the Israelis and the Palestinians might finally bring about a peace for the entire region for the first time since 1948. Peace in the region would be a benefit to the entire world.

ANS.

A. Benefits.

1. Keeping a strategic relationship with Israel allows the US to maintain a strategic partner and some foothold in the region. Additionally, it gives the US a hand in keeping Israel from overreacting to Arab terrorism. By maintaining its relationship and strong economic ties to Israel the US will have more influence over Israel than it would otherwise. Finally, this relationship promotes democracy and human rights from on the continent by Israel showing by example how democracy can work in the region.

2. Secondly, although it may not have an effect on international relations it does on domestic relations, there is a very strong Israeli lobby within the US and by maintaining the support of this lobby administrations have been able to provide support for several peace initiatives for the region.

B. Costs.

1. This strategic relationship has promoted the idea within the Arab world that the US is against them. This causes a mistrust of US intentions by the Arabs and also results in anti-US activity and terrorism directed against the US by the Arabs.

2. Secondly, by maintaining its support of Israel the US leaves itself vulnerable to inclusion in a major regional conflict, if one erupts between Israel and its neighbors.

3. Finally, this relationship also puts our supplies of oil in jeopardy either because of a war or as a result of a backlash against the US by the Arab oil producing nations in support of the Palestinians.

ANS. The creation of a Palestinian state acceptable to both the Arabs and the Israelis would be beneficial to the region for several reasons. First, both the Israelis and the Palestinians could depend upon stabilized borders behind which they could begin to establish a better peace arrangement for the area. The Palestinians would finally have a country of their own and the Israelis could finally live in peace within their borders. Second, both sides could stabilize their economies around peaceful issues rather than around the preparations for war or conflict. For the Palestinians it would mean being able to start providing its people with the goods and commodities they require to subsist in a reasonable fashion. For the Israelis, it would be better able promote its products to the world and establish better trade relationships with its neighbors. Finally, the establishment of a Palestinian state might bring about a peace for the entire region for the first time since 1948. Peace in the region would be a benefit to the entire world.

On the other hand the establishment of a Palestinian state could advance the Arabs claims to other Israeli held lands and give them a belief that the Israelis are weak and would not fight. This belief could result in the Arabs putting further pressure on Israel and could cause a regional conflict.

ANS. All future progress in the ME is ultimately tied to the peace process. The Arab nations are united behind the Palestinians and cannot back out support without and acceptable peace being in place. Secondly, while the dispute continues Islamic radicals and terrorists have fuel to feed their extremism. If a peace can be established, which both Israel and the mainline Arabs/Islamic nations can live with, the terrorist will loose backing. The success of the peace process will enable greater industrial investment in the entire region thereby increasing the GNP and living standards of all countries in the region.

Within the ME and NA the overwhelming majority of the people practice Islam. Within Islam there are various elements that interpret the Koran in a strict fashion which promotes a necessity for a strict Muslim state in which the only law is the law of the Koran. Others elements, although they base their law on the Koran, in fact have both religious and secular laws governing the people. These differences within the region and, indeed within nations, causes political conflict to arise as to how nations should be governed. The results of this dichotomy have been the growth of Political Islam within the region. This movement permeates all political activity within the region in one fashion or another.

ANS. Although the ultimate authority remains with the religious leader of the nation, Iran has recently started a movement towards greater democracy. The people elected a president and a legislature that were not backed by the religious leaders. This government has been allowed to move forward on some of its plans for bringing the nation more towards better relations with the west and towards more freedoms for its people.

ANS. In 1991 the people of Algeria elected an Islamic government. The military however throughout the results of that election and would not allow those elected to take office. This resulted in the formation of two groups. The Front Islamique du Salut (Islamic Salvation Front, FIS) was basically a political group bent on gaining control of the country through the democratic process. They turned to violence as a means of protecting itself from the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) and to gain support of the people who wanted jihad. The GIA believed that an Islamic state could only be created through the jihad. The resulting conflict with the government by both groups led to death and destruction to both the groups as well as to the nation. The two groups then turned upon each other to try and gain the support of the people. The result was mass murders throughout the nation. The FIS finally gave up on the violence and joined the government in its resistance to the GIA, which continues to fight its jihad.

ANS. Political Islam puts a severe strain on the leaders of the Persian Gulf nations to move to more Islamic law (sharia) based governments. In response the leaders have taken one of two tracks. They have either chosen to defy the movements’ leaders and maintain control over the government as in the past. Or they have chosen to move closer to using sharia as the bases for governing. In Egypt President Mubarak has taken severe steps to clamp down on any radical Islamic movements interrupting the government. He has arrested leaders of the opposition just before elections and banned their parties from representation within the government. In Saudi Arabia Prince Abdullah has sided with the militants and sharply criticized US policy towards the region in an effort to placate the dissention.

Demographic: The majority of people in the region are Islamic. Because of this they believe that a strict adherence to the sharia is fundamental to a correctly governed society. This also often brings them into conflict with western ideal, mores, and beliefs. This conflict has been heightened of late due to the influence of radical Islam which is trying to take the people even farther from what they believe is wrong about western society.

Environmental: The most influential environmental factor challenging the region is the lack of water. As population continues to grow beyond the area’s capacity to provide water to it critical decisions will have to be faced as to its allocation. Serious international incidents may occur, as the problem becomes more acute.

Economic: The region’s dependence on oil as its primary source of income has resulted in economies that are unable to effectively deal with the economic downturns in the prices of the oil on the world market. As the price of oil goes down the governments’ ability to provide basic employment, health care and other basic needs of the people are reduced. The fact that the population of the region is increasing beyond its capacity to provide for it is also an important economic factor. Most of the population is younger than 25, uneducated and unemployed. This combination results in severe economic drag on all of the economies.

Democratization: As the radical Islamic movements increase in power, which as a result of the economic conditions in the region they are bound to, the concept of democratization will have a very hard path to follow. Democratic government seems to many to be in violation of the sharia. The zealots who believe that only the sharia is correct law will fight against the imposition of democratic government.

ANS. All future water conflict resolutions are based on the premise that a peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem can be achieved. The Harvard Middle East Water Project has proposed a unique concept that is based on the approach on page 312. This monetizing of the water disputes could lead to several possible solutions taken independently or together.

1. Purchase of water from Lebanon and the construction of pipelines from the Litani and Awali Rivers that could supply water directly or indirectly to Jordan, the PNA, and Israel.

2. The construction of a dam or dams on the Yarmuk which could supply electrical power to Syria and Jordan and water to Syria, Jordan and the PNA.

3. The construction of a pipeline from the Jordanian portion of the Yarmuk River to divert excess winter flow into Lake Tiberias where it could be stored, by agreement with Israel, for later use by Jordan.

4. Purchase of water from Turkey, which could be supplied to Syria, Jordan, Israel, and the PNA through a regional overland or undersea pipeline system, or alternatively, by sea transport.

ANS. Traditionally, the Arab nations have been able to provide many of the services their people needed for existence free (e.g. water, electricity and health care). Additionally, the primary employers of people in the region have been the governments. With the lowering of prices of oil in the 1990s the governments have not had the income of the past and have been unable to sustain the level of support that the people had become accustomed to. This has caused a tremendous unemployment problem which in turn has help lead to a rise in dissatisfaction of the people and a rise in radical Islam and terrorism.

ANS. The most drastic consequence of future water shortages is the possibility of region war over the water that exists. Other than all out war the consequences of not finding adequate solutions to the area’s water shortage will be continued instability to the region due to small conflicts between those counties that have access to the water sources and those that do not. On the other hand, solutions to the water issues could result in other advancements in relations between the nations of the region.

The first challenge to the region to modernizing political activity is radical Islam. Its practices and beliefs are so antithetical to democracy that any movement towards democracy by any of the area’s nations would be met with strong resistance or even violent opposition.

Secondly, the fact that most of the leadership of the region’s countries are old and have been in power for a very long time sets obstacles in the way of democratization. First the old leaders are not likely to give up their power through any democratic process. Second, they, for the most part, have not made any provision for the succession of a new government to follow them after their deaths. This will result in contests for power, which do not bode well for democracy.

Finally, The populations of the region are young, uneducated, and unemployed. This situation historically is more likely to lead to a strong dictatorial government for answers than to the slow process of democracy.

ANS. Within a Global context several dilemmas appear to be evident. While Iran has changed since its revolutionary days, is more pragmatic and less inclined to pursue ideological interests over its national interests, there are still struggles within Iran over how to define those interests and to promote them. Iran has internal conflicts between the solidly inward looking religion right and the newly vocal moderates as to how its interests are to be defined and once defined how they will be promoted.

Secondly, politically Iran promotes itself as against globalization and the world economy. However, 90% of its revenue comes from the selling of oil on the world market. In order to secure its foreign policy it must address the dilemma of being an active part of the world market while at the same time trying to opt out of it.

Finally, Iran is preoccupied, as many fundamentalist Islamics are, with what it considers cultural threats. This belief that western ideas will captivate and humiliate Muslims stands in its way of achieving foreign policy objectives.

On a regional basis Iran has two issues that potentially affect Iran’s security directly. First is the question Iraq. The border issue is not settled and Iraqi vengeance directed against Kuwait could cause problems, as could the retention of WMD by Iraq. Secondly, the developing link between Turkey and Israel which offsets Iran’s ties with Syria. This could lead to problems between Iran and Turkey that could otherwise be manageable.

If Iran, like most nations, wants not only security of its borders but also influence in the region if not in the world it has several problems. First it has no natural constituency, no Iranian world of commonwealth. Additionally, facing in all directions it has no traditional or dependable allies. At the same time Iran considers itself a revolutionary state and believes that it is morally right and that others should accept its opinions. What this means is that it wants to be free to practice its own religion and culture, free from threats from others. However, it does not want to reciprocate in this area. This will lead it to continue to be an outsider in world politics.