U.S. Foreign Policy In The Term Paper

Length: 10 pages Sources: 4 Subject: Military Type: Term Paper Paper: #40345638 Related Topics: Foreign Countries, Middle Eastern, Middle East, Imperialism
Excerpt from Term Paper :

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


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.…

Sources Used in Documents:

Works Cited
Buckley Jr., William. "Looking Ahead-Oil." National Review (2005). 17 Apr.

"Imperialism Definition." Dictionary.Com. 17 Apr. 2007
Lewis, Bernard. "Did You Say 'American Imperialism'? : Power, Weakness, and

Cite this Document:

"U S Foreign Policy In The" (2007, April 17) Retrieved December 5, 2021, from

"U S Foreign Policy In The" 17 April 2007. Web.5 December. 2021. <

"U S Foreign Policy In The", 17 April 2007, Accessed.5 December. 2021,

Related Documents
U.S. Foreign Policy and the
Words: 956 Length: 3 Pages Topic: American History Paper #: 42976300

8 billion. The Occupation authorities also helped the Japanese government overcome postwar economic chaos, especially rampant inflation, by balancing the government budget, raising taxes and imposing price and wage freezes, and resuming limited foreign trade" (Kesselman et al., 203). The U.S. aid not only helped to rebuild the country, but also ensured that Japan was stable enough so that renegade seedlings of Communism or comparable institutions didn't suddenly flourish. The

U.S. Foreign Policy and the
Words: 852 Length: 3 Pages Topic: Terrorism Paper #: 62850745

However, the suggested equivalence of the (rightful) criticism of those relationships and support for Israel are fundamentally flawed and invalid. Specifically, the phrase "at the expense of the Palestinians" (p796) ignores the reality of how the Palestinian became "refugees" in the first place, the degree to which Israel tried to negotiate a fair settlement during the Clinton administration, and the degree to which corrupt Palestinian leaders undermined those efforts

U.S. Foreign Policy and the
Words: 3110 Length: 9 Pages Topic: History - Israel Paper #: 52890666

They however fail to see the strategic linkage in the U.S. foreign policy. Israel is the most trusted ally of United States in the region. It has the same strategic interest as the United States and has a firm foundation of democratic support. The Arab governments on the other hand are unpopular, non-democratic and are in power due to the western interest in maintaining the status quo. Overthrow of the

U.S. Foreign Policy and the
Words: 1006 Length: 3 Pages Topic: Government Paper #: 17724077

S. backed elitist regime refuses to follow the established rules (Jenson, 2004). Chavez won his Presidency by majority vote of the people. U.S. meddling in Venezuelan affairs represent a source of outrage for many of the citizens. Venezuela represents the most obvious example where the U.S. has backed elitist regimes that support its own interests, while ignoring the democratic process that is the right of the people. Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia with

U.S. Foreign Policy in the
Words: 1580 Length: 4 Pages Topic: Drama - World Paper #: 23926162

The South Vietnamese authorities had been fighting the Vietcong communist guerilla forces from the North which were later replaced by the more powerful North Vietnam army. The U.S. had entered the war with the intention of stopping the North Vietnamese communist regime from overtaking South Vietnam. During the 1959-1975 period millions of Vietnamese and tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers had been killed as a result of the war. The

U.S. Foreign Policy -- Middle
Words: 1158 Length: 3 Pages Topic: History - Israel Paper #: 86202465

S.; b) assess correctly the readiness of America's partners to back up the sanctions; and c) engender the support of minor trading partners ("black knights") to increase their willingness to trade with Iran as the big players leave in obedience to the U.S. led sanctions (Kozhanov, 145). The Russian writer uses some of the space in his article to review the history of U.S. sanctions against Iran, and mentions a brief