Recent alterations in current US foreign policy in the Middle East has angered some allies and senior Washington policymakers. Two areas of change have disappointed some traditional allies and domestic foreign policy hawks. The transforming US positions in relation to Syria and Iran have been the focus of this ire.
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.
Domestic hawks, like Senators McCain and Graham, as well as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, French President Hollande and the Saudi ruling family have strongly voiced their disagreement with US policy on Syria and Iran. However, it is clear that the American people do not favor war with Syria and prefer finding solutions through diplomacy with Iran. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center during the Labor Day weekend revealed Americans overwhelmingly opposed a U. S. Attack on the Assad regime. Only 20 percent supported an attack, while 48 percent opposed it.
As revealed by a Reuters Ipsos poll results published on November 26, 2013, Americans support a newly brokered nuclear deal with Iran by a 2-to-1 margin, at 44 vs 22 percent. Even if the historic diplomatic effort fails 49 percent would support more sanctions, while 31 percent would support further diplomacy. Only 20 percent, as in case of Syrian poll as well, would prefer military force to be used against the Iranian nation.
These two polls exposed how weary Americans have become of military interventions, even when their elected representatives are strongly supportive of such actions. The contradiction raises another issue, which was raised in a write up by Leon Hadar published by the American Conservative. In his article Why This City Loves Going to War he provided his opinion on this subject. He explained, based on what he saw in Washington, that individual and institutional politics played an important part in foreign policy.
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 aspects of ME policies have not changed much. Secretary Kerry, in October 2013, confirmed government for Egypt in spite of a coup. Egypt still receives the most US aid after Israel. Israel and Saudi Arabia are both in agreement over continued support to 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.
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.