U.S. Foreign Policy Democratic Party\'s

U.S. foreign policy

Democratic Party's view on U.S. Foreign Policy

US Democratic Party's position on the Middle East

In his Middle Eastern policy, the leader of the Democratic Party, President Barak Obama, balances a desire to improve regional stability with a determination to secure U.S. political and economic interests. Obama is the president who was able to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and win a victory over the masterminds of the attacks of September 11, 2001. While he initially opposed the war in Iraq as a senator, unlike his current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama has continued military engagement in that country, by virtue of necessity, given the impossibility of pulling out too soon and further destabilizing the region. He continued and intensified the war in Afghanistan, although there are strong signs that he is considering pulling out of that conflict, given the noted corruption of the Afghanistan government supported by the U.S. Obama, and the Democratic Party he represents, can be thus said to have a pragmatic approach to Middle Eastern policy. It is fundamentally grounded in realism, but it also has a strong undercurrent of idealism in its aspirations to foster democracy.

The Democratic Party has been a historically strong supporter of the Jewish state of Israel. Given the wide base of support amongst American Jews for Democrats nationwide, the party has found it politically advantageous to support Israel. Israel is one of the few democratic nations within the region whose government mirrors that of the U.S. However, the continued war between the Israelis and Palestinians has stymied U.S. attempts to broker peace in the region, not just between the immediately affected parties, but between other Arab governments and the U.S. itself. U.S. support for Israel remains a 'sticking point' in improving rapprochement between the U.S. And other Middle Eastern nations, given that so many Arab governments stubbornly refuse to acknowledge Israel's existence.

President Obama and the leadership of the Democratic Party have begun put increased pressure on Israel to extend an olive branch to the Palestinians. "The President had said that a two-state solution, which [Right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu alleges to support, should be based on the pre-1967 borders" (Klein 2011). Obama has encouraging on Netanyahu to negotiate with Palestinians more aggressively, but sustained violence within the territories makes it difficult for Netanyahu to do so. Obama's terms for Israeli-Palestinian land-swapping agreements are not ground-breaking: they are similar to Bill Clinton's attempts to negotiate peace in 2000. But the mood in Israel and the territories are far more militant than it was ten years ago. The rhetoric of Islamic extremists has grown more threatening, while the determination of Jewish settlers to remain in the territories has likewise stiffened. "Israel's greatest fear: when push comes to shove, the Palestinians have never really acknowledged Israel's right to exist. The one exception to that rule -- Yasser Arafat's signing of the Oslo accords -- seems hollow" (Klein 2011) The U.S. is sustained in its support of a two-state solution, although Obama is always careful to stress America's support for Israel and its unique relationship with the country.

Early on during his presidential term, Obama tried to set a new tone for U.S.-Middle Eastern relations. His predecessor, George W. Bush, was famous for making pronouncements such as calling Iran and Iraq part of an 'Axis of Evil' that dominated the world. Obama, in contrast, extended an early rhetorical olive branch to the youth of the Middle East. In a 2009 speech to students at Cairo University, Obama acknowledged Western Civilization's debt to Islam, and asked for a new beginning between the U.S. And the Middle East. "I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition" (Obama 2009).

However, when Obama gave that speech, he could not have anticipated how events would unfold in Iran, Egypt, and other nations in which the young people he had addressed as part of the Islamic world would begin to demand their rights. Obama and the mainstream representatives of the Democratic Party were criticized by many on both the right and the left for an insufficiently aggressive response to the demands for democratic enfranchisement. "For decades, the United States has prioritized a now clearly illusory stability over American ideals" (Hamid 2010). The U.S. had exerted relatively little pressure upon the de facto dictator of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, to ensure a stable regime in the nation with a reasonably pro-American leader. However, the Obama Administration's response can be read less as an endorsement of decades of previous administrations' complacency regarding right-wing dictators as it was a fear of seeming to endorse the actions of the democratic demonstrators. Indications of U.S. support could have been read as direct control over the movement, and worked against the establishment of a more participatory government.

Obama's position during the Iran demonstrations was similarly criticized by both the right and the left for its moderation -- once again, the President was cautious about openly expressing U.S. support for protestors against the government, who were alleging election fraud. "The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States…That's what they do. That's what we're already seeing. We shouldn't be playing into that," he said, drawing anger from his Republican opponents in Congress (Kelly 2009).