U.S. policy overview and contemporary applications

U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East is based Primarily on Securing the Flow of Affordable Oil

A change of policy is needed regarding United States foreign policy in the Middle East. The current policy is one towards securing oil and that must change. Oil is not worth American lives and currently American lives are falling victim to the need for oil. Today, America is deeply involved politically and militarily in the Middle East. While there are arguments that terrorism ties in the United States to the Middle East, it is the need for oil that directly involves the United States. And more often than not, weapons of mass destruction are an excuse for conflict in the Middle East and thus excuses for the United States to go to war to secure oil. There is a great deal of evidence than the United States trumps up notions of the threat of weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war. The change in United States foreign policy must be to look for other alternatives to securing energy, either through alternative energy sources, collaboration with friendly regimes, and greater energy efficiency. As of now the United States foreign policy towards the Middle East is highly contradictory and hypocritical. Securing oil cannot be the sole motivator in American foreign policy and a change is needed in which the United States has to be upfront about its relationship towards rogue regimes in the Middle East. This involves being honest with itself and understanding the role that weapons of mass destruction play in reality within United States foreign policy. A major argument for the United States going to war was that Iraq not only had the capabilities to build weapons of mass destruction, but that the program was well under way and that Iraq had connection to terrorist organizations that were capable of utilizing those weapons on American soil. This was a lie and this has been proven to be a lie. No weapons of mass destruction were found and there were no ties between the Iraqi Regime and Al Qaeda. But before we discuss the current war lets go back a few years and take a look at America's decisions or perhaps a lack of decisions to show that the current conflict in Iraq was not because of security risks inherent to the area, but because of American imperialist tendencies. It should be noted that foreign policy intended to further America's acquisition of oil is imperialist as imperialism is defined as: "the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies" (Dictionary.com). And that is exactly what the United States is doing- extending its rule over the Middle East to acquire oil under the guise of preventing the development and threat of weapons of mass destruction. Let us take this issue back to the 1990s when the United States fought its previous war with Iraq. While this war was justified because of Iraqi aggression against Kuwait, the actions of the United States show the lack of threat that Saddam had towards the United States. For example the United States did not dispose of the regime but instead did not risk further casualties (Lewis 2001). Furthermore, the United States in the years after the Gulf War did not support Kurdish resistance towards Saddam's oppressive regime thus "making the position of the Iraqi democratic opposition increasingly difficult and the government of the United States increasingly reluctant to become involved" (Lewis 2001). This means that if the United States today is in Iraq because of the spreading of democracy, that this reason is obviously a lie. According to this ideal, the United States intended to protect regime stability, and not democratic ideology or its own security, because they wanted to send the following message: "Don't touch Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or in any other way interfere with the supply of oil" (Lewis 2001). Not only does the United States not care about what government supports as long as it retains its supply of oil, but it is willing to alter its notions of what it does support in order to ensure it has oil. Then there is the issue of weapons of mass destruction. "The Bush administration and the US media harped on the likelihood that Iraq's military would use weapons of mass destruction," reflecting the notion that the issue of weapons of mass destruction was considered a reason for going to war with Iraq in the 21st century (not the 20th) (Martin 2003). Yet in no uncertain terms, "these claims have proven to be lies" (Martin 2003). Thus the administration has lied to the American people as no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. It could be argued indefinitely how wrong the administration was and how a mistake was made to involve the United States in such a mess, but none is necessary. The fact that there have been no major discoveries of weapons of mass destruction and no ties to terrorist organizations between the previous Iraqi regime and the current shows the extent of the lies involving weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, it is perhaps evidence that United States actions towards Iraq at the time suggests to nations in the middle east that conventional warfare is impossible for them to fight against a superpower like the United States. The argument is that Iraq, and more recently Iran, "cannot equal the army of a modern state, and, therefore, that a head-on military confrontation with such a state or states would inevitably end in defeat" (Lewis 2001). Thus they need to develop weapons of mass destruction to counter the United States and its imperial policies, and means that the United States causes these nations to develop weapons of mass destruction and not vice versa. Also, weapons of mass destruction are a sign of prestige in today's world, as for example the nations that were the victors in World War II and those on the Security Council have weapons of mass destruction. North Korea once acquiring weapons of mass destruction has been given greater respect from the international community. This means that the United States has shown that weapons of mass destruction are a necessity to evade American imperialism and therefore the United States has encouraged the development of weapons of mass destruction because its quest for oil and taking power of other sovereign nations has forced others to seek alternative means to prevent American invasion. Our imperialist policy is therefore encouraging other states to seek rogue methods to counter our invasive policies. This means that America' foreign policy towards the Middle East is wrong and that a change is necessary. The United States treats Iraq and other countries in the Middle East with disrespect and thus receives it in return. This is because the Iraqi war is part of a larger policy towards the Middle East, one not only of disrespect, but one that intends to enforce American imperialism. "The administration sees the invasion as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East," it is argued and this is the truth (Marshall 2003). Weapons of mass destruction are not the issue. The administration that went to war with Iraq admitted this. In 2003, the "Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq, the United States would 'deal with' Iran, Syria, and North Korea," which shows that the United States has intentions reaching farther than the weapons of mass destruction lie that was given to the American public (Marshall 2003). This means that lies are not only being told, but something that is not right is governing America foreign policy. What is governing American foreign policy is oil, and America's foreign policy should not and cannot be dictated by a natural resource. Oil is used everywhere in America, sure, but it should not influence our policy towards an entire region. Granted that oil problems can cause an "economic crisis" and thus risk your administration and those that rely on the administration, other alternatives need to be sought (Buckley Jr. 2005). Promoting stability, or encouraging instability for a natural resource and using weapons of mass destruction is a mistake that has and will continue to be compounded by more mistakes. It is obvious that Iraq is a center of oil as it has been referred to as the "112 billion-barrel Iraqi bonanza," and given the inherent excuses to go to war with it, Iraq is the obvious first stepping stone of American foreign policy in which weapons of mass destruction are used as an excuse (Vesely 2002). This is because without a doubt, the Middle East is a region that is incredibly influential in regards to oil prices. It controls so much of the oil flow. So therefore much of American foreign policy towards the region is related to oil. This cannot be told any other way; the facts all point to the use of oil in regards to American foreign policy of the region. Weapons of mass destruction are just an excuse. But is known that "President George W Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were both oil company executives before entering politics, as was half the present US administration," which means that not only do you have friends in the oil business but that they dictate your policy (Vesely 2002). Having such deceptive and underhanded policies and engaging an entire nation in a war that not only kills Amerians, but also people of other countries and encourages anti-American sentiment among even our allies is a horrible foreign policy when all we receive in return is natural resources and riches for a few Americans. Alternatives must be sought. No longer can weapons of mass destruction be an excuse to involve the United States in such costly polices. And yet even more so now weapons of mass destruction are being hinted at as an excuse to go to war and topple the regime in Iran. While in reality a war with Iran would be to control the region and promote American interests, and thus interests for American oil and your friends, it would be a pathetic excuse to intervene further in the region. Not only has the United States forced Iran to develop weapons of mass destruction, but now after Iran has set on a path to develop them, the United States has an invested interest that will surely only lead to further violence, imperialism, and a foreign policy dictated by oil. The United States' policy towards the Middle East to punish any regime and destroy its stability if it does not have a pro-American oil policy encourages regimes to seek ways to counter the United States, and it has been demonstrated that conventional warfare cannot counter the United States, but only through weapons of mass destruction and also terrorist links can the American people feel truly scared about their security. A change is need and this change that is needed is thus one to change American interests. Alternatives need to be sought that will not cause America to be so reliant on oil. Not only is America depended on natural fuel, but these Middle Eastern "render states" can only "survive on income provided by fossil fuel" (Schake 2005). This is a policy that is not only bad for the United States, but those states which it imposes its will. Because of this situation the status quo is encouraged, and that status quo is the support of corrupt regimes, the unnecessary risk of American lives, and a foreign policy that dictates an imperialistic policy towards an entire region of one religion and thus encourages the building of weapons of mass destruction to counter the United States' imperialistic notions. This policy and disrespect in using entire nations as vehicles for American energy needs also encourages terrorism and thus the current administration is one which encourages the forces which could cause the greatest harm to the United States in both the short and long run The change has to first entail a change in American policy. One such change is to "encourage alternative energy sources while adopting a voucher- based gas-distribution program" (Buckley Jr. 2005). Such is just one way to avoid American reliance only Middle Eastern oil, but oil in general. This policy would allow for the United States to move away from the imperialistic notions towards the Middle East and you would stop having to lie to the public about the reasons for involvement in the Middle East, or a lack of involvement. There is no excuse that the Saudi Arabian government gets a free pass while other countries not only face threats, but are on the receiving end of threats being acted out. This needs to stop, and the way to stop it is to stop the reliance on not only Middle Eastern oil, but all oil. By encouraging Americans to cut down on oil consumption not only will the price of oil be reduced, but so will our need to buy oil and have a foreign policy based on the need to acquire oil. In fact, it is known that 20 years ago the United States and the Saudis agreed to "set prices so as to protect the U.S. oil industry" (Buckley Jr. 2005). While it is obvious why you are encouraging such an agreement, this needs to change as it will only lead to more problems for the United States, and more problems certainly need to be avoided. Furthermore, the United States needs to rewards countries in the Middle East that do the right thing. As it stands now, the United States only cares about countries actions towards the United States in regards to their oil prices and distribution. Saudi Arabia gets a free pass no matter what political oppression or support for terrorist, including Osama Bin Laden, it offers. On the flip side, countries that do not overtly support American oil ideals and do not receive the free pass assume an aggressive policy towards the United States. Such is the policy of Iraq and Iran who may or may not have tried to acquire weapons of mass destruction, but at the very least pretended to create a security dilemma to the United States. Thus the United States foreign policy towards the Middle East is creating two security problems. No matter what choice a country in the Middle East takes, it will create a problem for the United States. It will either support American policy and thus have freedom to do what it wants in direct conflict with American security interests as America will try to support the status quo in favor of countries that have favorable polices towards American oil interests. Or countries will openly defy and feel disrespected by America's imperialist intentions and fight back by creating more security issues for the United States. This means threats of weapons of mass destruction and other rogue states seeking to create weapons of mass destruction as their only means to prevent the imperialistic invasion of the United States. Besides correcting the need for oil from a demand side perspective, that is reducing America's desire for oil, other direct policies towards the Middle East can help to reduce American risks and support American agendas. For example, America can support political openness and democracy and not back down in ambiguity like they have done in the past. When a minority group faces oppression, like the Kurds did, the United States cannot back down from their support but must try to help. Furthermore, the United States needs to withdraw support from countries that support interests detrimental to the United States. Yes, it can be argued that Saudi Arabia's policy towards the United States is not detrimental because it has a pro-American oil policy, but in other areas such as political repression and support of terrorist Saudi Arabia is not pro-America. The United States is openly supporting a dictatorship, and a corrupt Arab regime. That is not to say it is wrong to support an Arab regime, but it is wrong to support an Arab regime that defies American interests. In fact, the reason why Saudi Arabia does not need to pursue weapons of mass destruction for security is because the United States offers it regime security because of its pro-America oil policy. If it was not offered such security, it would probably have to fall in line with Iraq and Iran in defying the United States. That is not to say that the invasion of Iraq was justified because of Iraqi defiance, but rather that the United State's oil policy is one that encourages defiance if it is not guaranteed security. So therefore the United State's policy towards oil defines how Middle Eastern countries behave towards the United States and therefore the foreign interaction and policy is defined by American oil interests. Considering the administration's connections to the oil industry and lack of support for alternative sources of energy which are not only beneficial to the environment but to national security, it is ridiculous that the United States has the current policies that it has towards the Middle East. This brings it back to the notion of American imperialism; it is obvious that the United States is engaging in a policy of imperialism. Eventually, "the advance of science technology, which first made oil necessary, will make it obsolete, and replace it with cleaner, cheaper, and more accessible sources of energy," and this should be the policy of the administration (Lewis 2001). Because if it was not for oil in the problematic Middle East, the United States' foreign policy towards the region would be one of the same "callous indifference-as it now views the civil wars in Somalia and Sierra Leone" (Lewis 2001). For example if diamonds were oil, the United States would surely have an incredible interest in the political problems and Civil War currently taking place. This means that there can be no more lies and that foreign policy towards the Middle East is not only one based upon oil, but one that encourages the production of weapons of mass destruction and encourages the administration to use that as a lie to further imperialism. The change must be made to treat the Middle East with respect, or at least indifference. There should be no biased American foreign policy towards the region and there should be no policy based on the interests of your friends or your former co-workers. This means that not only should oil not be the sole motivator of United States foreign policy, as it has already been demonstrated the problems that this causes, but that the United States should adopt a humanitarian notion towards the Middle East. Even if the United States is unwilling, and it is understandable if it is not, willing to offer help to corrupt Arab governments which offer nothing in return, it should not have this pro oil foreign policy that encourages violence and the development of weapons that will harm the United States. Currently the United States has a policy that encourages corruption and policies which are not beneficial the United States. It is very clear that change is necessary. American foreign policy towards the Middle East is dictated by oil and weapons of mass destruction are used as an excuse to impose American will on those that disobey American oil interests. But a continuation of such a policy will only result in the making of the threat of weapons of mass destruction a reality. Countries which cannot counter the immediate and direct threat that America imposes on its regimes if they do not offer a pro-American oil policy have no choice but to develop weapons of mass destruction. This can be seen in Iran, as the United States is openly challenging the current regime in Iran leaving it with no choice but to seek alternative means to counter the United States. The first step to stopping this dilemma is to stop our reliance on oil. There is a completely different American attitude towards the Middle East than other regions with problems, as the Middle East is a struggling area like many areas in the world. But because of the oil, the United States intervenes selectively, only encouraging the problems and encouraging opposition towards the United States. We are treating an entire region with no respect and adding more fuel to the fire. We are giving regimes a reason to oppose us and giving terrorists reason to fight a war against us. This is because the current American policy is one of imperialism in a modern age. This imperialism entails the securing of oil from those who are reliant on oil for their survival. Perhaps if we find alternative means to our energy problems, treat the Middle East with respect, and encourage the Middle East to sort out its problems without corruption and not to rely solely on oil for economic survival, there can be a resolution that will benefit all parties involved. Well, that is all national parties- that does not include the few individuals that are becoming wealthy from others misfortunes.