American Foreign Policy in the Middle East

Hodan Abdi
History 1700
Ken Hansen
07-23-2015

Since the initial periods of the U.S. existence and from the Barbary Wars, there have been
several roots of American Foreign Policy in the Middle East1. The American policy amid the
Cold War had endeavored preventing Soviet Union influences by giving a backup to Israel and a
continuous support to anti-communist governments, particularly opposing Soviet-supported Arab
nations. In the era of 1960 and 1970, America had tried replacing the United Kingdom from its
position as a leading security patron of the Persian Gulf states, with an intention of ensuring
complete accessibility of Gulf oil to the Western nations. America has increasingly emphasized
counter-terrorism concerning its foreign policy, especially following the 9/11 attacks of 2001.
Except for Iran, the United States has developed a diplomatic relationship with every nation in
the Middle East2. The U.S. conflicts with Iran emerged due to Irans bringing of a staunchly antiAmerican regime and subsequent revolutionary power in 1979. The main priority of the
American government, such as its foreign policy in the Middle East, has been to limit the supply
of weapons of mass destruction between regional states. The American foreign policy towards
the Middle Eastern nations was fair from the limitation of weapons supply because it helped in
resolving several conflicting situations between the Arab and Israel.

Background
Despite having commercial allies since the early 19th Century, America had a limited
relation with the Middle East until the occurrence of World War I. In 1833, the democratic
relation actually began when the Sultan of Oman and Muscat agreed to establish official ties with
the American President, Andrew Jackson. The Sultans main focus was to overcome the
1

Lesch, David, and Haas Mark. The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and
Ideologies. Boulder: Westview Press, 2013, Print.
2

Crist, David. The Twilight War: The Secret History of Americas Thirty-Year Conflict with
Iran. London: Penguin Publishing Group, 2013, Print.

overwhelmed regional influence of the United Kingdom, particularly through the support of a
U.S. coalition. In 1857, America established commercial ties with Persia, following the Britains
persuasion on Persia to avoid ratifying the same contract in 1851. America increasingly became
famous and respectful across the Middle East particularly when France and the UK, together as
the European powers, started managing the colonization between every regional state following
the dissolution of Ottoman Empire in 1918. Contrary to the European people, the American
people were observed having a good nature without having any selfish attitude or deception. The
American foreign policy towards the Middle Eastern nations was fair because the U.S.
established a proper educational system and supplied modern medicines throughout the regional
states3. Till the lasting of the Second World War, America came to perceive the Middle East
states as a major strategic and essential field of the globe. The U.S. also considered the Middle
East states as a great material prize in global history. As such, it was from the time of the Second
World War where the U.S. increasingly started involving its interest in the far varying regions of
the Middle East. At that period, the Middle East was experiencing political, economic, and social
change particularly to overcome the internal turmoil. In political terms, the Middle East was
having a growth and fame through its nationalistic politics, bringing the nation towards a serious
issue due to the emerging colonial powers of France and Great Britain rulers. Another fair deal
for the Middle Eastern nations achieved from the American foreign policy was the provision of
nationally recognized and high expertise petroleum engineers that made a strong connection
among them even prior to the Second World War4. It is pertinent to note that the U.S. relationship
of its foreign policy faced a great division due to the Second World War, causing the Americans
3

Donn, Gari, and Manthri Yahya. Education in the Broader Middle East: Borrowing a
baroque arsenal. Oxford: Symposium Books, 2013, Print.
4

Markus, Ustina. Oil and Gas: The Business and Politics of Energy. London: Palgrave
Mcmillan, 2014, Print.

to face setbacks with a great deal of interventions in the regional states. The United States also
started experiencing different conflicts and subsequent effects that considerably result in creating
a distance between the U.S. and Middle East relationship with respect to its foreign policy
measures. This American foreign policy towards the Middle Eastern nations was fair in the sense
that it helped in eliminating an increasing rate of several nationalistic political groups throughout
the Middle East, enabling the law enforcement of regional states to address the political status
quo in the subsequent manner.

U.S. and Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944

The U.S. and Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 legally tied and determined
the U.S. interests in controlling the oil energy resources of the Middle East. It also portrayed the
U.S. security essentials to restrict the reemergence of other powerfully leading regional rivals.
The U.S. and UKs negotiations to control the Middle Easts oil actually resulted in the signing
of the 1944 contract, known as the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement. The signing of 1944s
Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement divided the United Kingdom and the United States
concerning the access to the Middle Eastern oil. As a result, Fred H. Lawson, a political scholar,
referred this agreement as the Americans act of buttressing their nations status quo on the
peninsula. Lawson added that every valid concession contract and legally purchased rights now
belong to the signatory, such as the signing parties of the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement,
thereby leaving the Middle East with no concession in hand and finally losing the standard of
equal opportunity in the oil sector. Concerning the early 20th Century and the late 19th Century
calling the U.S. interests in the Middle East, Irvine Anderson, a political scholar, defined that a
major important occasion of the era was the transitioning of the U.S. from their status of net

exporters to the net importers of petroleum. The American foreign policy of U.S. and AngloAmerican Petroleum Agreement of 1944 towards the Middle Eastern nations was equal because
the signing of 1944s Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement among the United States and the
Middle East further strengthened the trade cooperation5.

U.S. and Red Line Agreement of 1928

The U.S. foreign policy also included the signing of Red Line Agreement and subsequent
building the networks of contracts in the era of 1920. This American foreign policy towards the
Middle Eastern nations was one-sided in the favor of America because it involved restricting the
provision of petroleum while fulfilling the Americas interest to enabling its U.S. based firms to
control oil prices in the global marketplaces. The Red Line Agreement involved governing the
growth of Middle East oil for the following 20 years.

U.S. in Formation of Israel

America started pushing to resolve the disagreements among Israel and the Arab states in
1947, known as Arab-Israel Conflict6. It was basically the domestic political pressure that forced
the Truman administration to collaborate with Israeli Jews on this issue, resulting in the
establishment of Israel as the new state in May 1948. However, both Israel and Arab nations had
to lose lives amid fighting for a long period. Afterward, the numerous Western countries and the
Soviet Union started diplomatic conduct with Israel. Yet, Israel remained unrecognized from any

Anderson, Irvine. Aramco, the United States, and Saudi Arabia: A Study of the Dynamics
of Foreign Oil Policy, 1933-1950. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2014, Print.
6

Rynhold, Jonathan. The Arab-Israeli Conflict in American Political Culture. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2015, Print.

of the Arab states. This American foreign policy towards Israel was fair because the U.S.
collaborated as the first nation to extend the diplomatic recognition to the Israeli government.

U.S. to Syria: 1949

In 1946, Syria emerged as an independent republican nation. But, the initial era of
civilian rule started due to Husni-al-Zaim, Army Chief of Staff, thereby disregarding the Syrian
coup dtat of March 1949. The U.S. involvement, such as initiation of American foreign policy
with Syria, rooted when Zaim showed personal interest in meeting CIA operatives up to a
minimum of six times, particularly to detail the overall planning of seizing power once and for
all.
This American foreign policy towards Syria was fair because Zaim initially sought funds
and personnel from the U.S. government, thereby making an open diplomatic relationship. In
return, Zaim also initiated numerous supportive decisions, benefiting the U.S. to achieve some
of its unmet goals. For example, Zaim sanctioned the long planned yet unfulfilled U.S. project
implemented for transporting Saudi-Arabian oil towards the Mediterranean ports, known as the
Trans-Arabian Pipeline (TAPLINE). It was actually the Syrian intransigence that continued
delaying Americas projected plan of TAPLINE construction. The U.S. also enhanced its
diplomatic allies involving Turkey and Israel, specifically as a result of Americas continuous
support to Zaim, continuing those benefits for the U.S., Turkey, Israel, and Syria for a long
period.

U.S. to Israel: The Black September and Six Day War

Throughout the era of 1970, America continued provided financial resources and mass
weapons to the Israeli government. There had already occurred the Six Day War surrounding
Syria, Jordan, and Egypt facing the nation of Israel in June 1967. The consequence of the U.S.
provided mass weapons prior to and during the Six Day War resulted in the Israeli government
capturing the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, and West Bank. This American foreign policy was
fair for Jordan because the U.S. provided financial resources and mass weapons, resulting in the
Jordanian army attacking guerrilla camps of the Palestine Liberation Organization on September
17, 1970. The U.S. continued supporting the Jordanian army through its air force, dropping
napalm to the ground and giving victory to the Jordanian troops. The U.S. further readied its
army in Turkey to strengthen the assaults while deploying its six destroyers and aircraft carrier
Independence along the sides of Lebanese coasts. The U.S. intervention during the era prior to
Irans revolution has completely proved to have a strong pursuit of economic development.

Mosaddeq and the Shah

In 1951, the new Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq, emerged as a keen
nationalist opposing the U.S. foreign policy and subsequent interventions in Iran. After getting
elected, Mosaddeq decided nationalizing the oil sector of Iran, whereby the Anglo-Iranian Oil
Company had led the British companies to achieve the hugely profitable outcomes in the past.
Moreover, before nationalizing the oil industry of Iran, Mosaddeq started cutting every
diplomatic coalition with the United Kingdom. However, there came a strong opposition to
nationalizing the oil industry of Iran, particularly from Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, known as the
Shah of Iran, fearing that it could become a restriction to oil supply, thereby destroying the
economies of scale of the Iranian government. The Shah was quite focused on the impacts of

Mosaddeq implemented policymaking to the path of the Iranian nation. There also emerged
tensions from the workforce of Iranian oil industry that further became an increasing tension and
a quest for the economic impact pertaining to the sanctioning of Iranian-based oil exports
occurred from the policymaking of Mosaddeq. All these happenings continued emerging with
different riots throughout the state of Iran.

U.S. to Pakistan and Afghanistan

Pakistan and Afghanistan, despite located in the Asian region, have been perceived parts
of the Greater Middle East. After the Afghanistans Soviet invasion, the Carter Administration
started making a coalition with Pakistan and Afghanistan, making it a beginning of the U.S.
interventions in both nations. Americas relationships with Pakistan and Afghanistan had long
been debated on the terrorists led warfare, forcing all three nations to make a strong coalition in
fighting against them. The continuously occurring issues in the Northwestern Pakistan and
Afghanistan have been coordinated through the instrumental policymaking of the United States.
For example, the currently held political situations of Pakistan and Afghanistan are observed
bracketing through a unique set of operations, exclusively known as the recent Americas termed
mission Afpak. This American foreign policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan was equal
because it helped in eliminating the terrorists groups that were vulnerable to the U.S., Pakistan,
and Afghanistan.

Conclusion
The United States has a diversified foreign policy in the Middle East with its different
nations and even beyond its regions, including Israel, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Afghanistan,

Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf States. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has benefited
almost every one of its regional states with their subsequent needs, such as financial resources,
mass weapons, personnel need, diplomatic relationship, government ties, warfare support, and
fighting the terrorism. America has also proved beneficial for different Middle East nations with
respect to developing a recognized educational network and facilitating the health care with the
provision of modern medicines. However, a newly perceived direction for American foreign
policy in the Middle East would rely on the proper balancing of reformulated objectives, proper
sources, and long existing range of hurdles that remain confronted beyond the powers. The more
diversified view of the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has also started to focus in
downgrading Shia-Sunni tensions, which increasingly emerged following the Iraq war, through
the planned Syrian-led civil war seems spilling towards the unclear boundaries, thereby showing
a warning sign of humanitarian disasters to occur in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey from the
indispensable self-benefiting policy of the United States.

Bibliography
Anderson, Irvine. Aramco, the United States, and Saudi Arabia: A Study of the Dynamics of
Foreign Oil Policy, 1933-1950. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2014, Print.
Crist, David. The Twilight War: The Secret History of Americas Thirty-Year Conflict with Iran.
London: Penguin Publishing Group, 2013, Print.
Donn, Gari, and Manthri Yahya. Education in the Broader Middle East: Borrowing a baroque
arsenal. Oxford: Symposium Books, 2013, Print.
Lesch, David, and Haas Mark. The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and
Ideologies. Boulder: Westview Press, 2013, Print.
Markus, Ustina. Oil and Gas: The Business and Politics of Energy. London: Palgrave
Mcmillan, 2014, Print.
Rynhold, Jonathan. The Arab-Israeli Conflict in American Political Culture. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2015, Print.