Throughout the semester, we have discussed or alluded to the many ways that the United States is involved in the Middle East–by giving financial support to goverments, by purchasing oil and selling weapons, by threatening to bomb Syria, trying to make peace between groups in conflict, enforcing sanctions against countries that we do not like, and even by getting involved militarily, with invasions and so on. In the coming week, we will be talking about American efforts to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Instead of thinking about one particular issue, I want you to consider three different approaches to the general “policy stance” of the United States:
1) “Idealistic” – The United States has an important role to play in making the Middle East a better place. We should actively and vigorously involve ourselves in fixing the region’s problems, whether that means negotiating peace settlements, providing lots of money for humanitarian support, or even intervening militarily to punish “bad guys” or protect people. When the U.S. decides how to act in places like Israel, Egypt, or Syria, it should try to figure out who the “good guys” are and support them, even if it means supporting people who do not like the United States or creates problems for our country.
2) “Realpolitik” – The Middle East is simply too important–because of oil markets, or because of our alliances with countries like Israel, or because of the region’s connection to terrorism–for the United States not to strategically involve itself , but the U.S. should limit itself to making the best tactical decision at any given moment. We should keep a strong military presence in the region to protect and control the oil supply. We might support an oppressive dictator, if he will help us fight terrorists, or depose a democratic government, if that government doesn’t like us, or even attack powers that threaten us, like Iran. We should only view Middle Eastern regimes in terms of what they can do for us; every Middle Eastern government should know that the same people we send money to today might be the people that we attack tomorrow, if they cross the United States.
3) “Isolationist” – Advocates of this position argue that the United States should radically reduce, or even end, its invovlement in the Middle East. We should remove our soldiers from the region and refuse to intervene in disputes; if they want to fight each other, we will not get involved, even if we do not like the outcome of the conflict. We should also stop wasting money on financial aid to Middle Eastern countries. If the price of oil goes up, Americans should just deal with it by replacing their SUVs with Priuses. If a dictator massacres his own people, that is sad, but it is not our problem. If Iran wants to rule the Middle East, that’s a problem for the Saudis and the Israelis, not the United States.
In general, which of these three positions–Idealist, Realpolitik, or Isolationist–do you find most compelling? Write a 400-600 word essay (approx. 2-3 double-spaced pages) describing which of these three general policy stances you think is most appropriate for the United States in the Middle East, based on our reading and class discussion from this semester. Explain your preference and defend it versus the other two stances using material from this class.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]