Problem and Background
Many people had high hopes for significant improvements to the United States foreign policy when Barack Obama took office as president in 2009. Obama’s administration faced enormous financial and military burdens, as well as a great deal of anti-American sentiment due to George W. Bush Jr.'s aggressive strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Following these developments, it appeared that the US was committed to cutting costs and dispelling anti-US sentiment globally, particularly overseas. Obama discussed resolving Iran’s nuclear challenges, bringing an end to the Iraqi conflict, advancing peace between Israel and Palestine, and adopting a fresh approach to diplomacy with the Islamic world when running for office. Despite his concurrent pursuit of his “pivoting to Asia” concept, the Middle East did not appear to have lost direction in this country’s foreign and security-military policy. While in the White House, Obama announced initiatives like minimal footprint, pivoting to Asia, and distant leadership in an attempt to reverse the approaches of his predecessors. A modification that has essentially always been the topic of debate over its nature, requirements, and implementation.
It took a long time for the United States to comprehend the nature of the still-unstable changes in the Arab world, where countries like Egypt are frequently close to the country. In addition to changing the military and security setup of the United States, the rise of unconventional powers within formerly friendly countries also presented new threats. Washington consistently stressed that Iran should remain the primary focus of the Middle East’s challenges, although dealing with specific positions and steps in response to developments in the Arab world. Simultaneously, he forged unique partnerships with emerging players, inviting them to participate in the area.
Following Obama, Donald Trump likewise believed that Iran was the primary cause of the Middle East’s problems. He referred to the nuclear agreement with Iran as a “very bad agreement” and ultimately tightened sanctions against the country by applying the greatest amount of pressure. Donald Trump was also conscious of the costs associated with his nation’s military involvement in the region. Throughout his speech, he emphasized the need for all of the nations in the region to fulfill their security and military obligations, particularly in the Persian Gulf and in anticipation of the US pulling out of the Middle East sooner rather than later. Along with the Palestinian issue, he also brought up schemes like the “Deal of the Century” and the relocation of the US embassy to Tel Aviv. In the end, he withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal.
Research Objective
The objective of this study is to comprehend the Middle Eastern geopolitical processes that transpired from 2009 to 2018 and assess their influence on the military-security policies and plans of the United States as a global and regional actor. All levels of analysis should be used to assess these developments, which have given the world’s political knowledge a new dimension of menace and chaos. Using a new term of management and involvement in international relations for all participants in this region is a severe and essentially inevitable task today since turning to traditional ways of crisis resolution in the current world imposes astronomical costs.
Research Method
This research endeavors to comprehend the contemporary tactics and reactions of the United States of America in the Middle East. The White House, the Pentagon, and US military and security agencies provide records and studies that the author of this piece uses to determine this superpower’s security strategy. As one of the major and influential actors in the area, the Islamic Republic of Iran is both impacted by and has a broad influence on regional developments. Iran may make more informed decisions about its regional alliances and increase its influence in the region by recognizing US behavior and comprehending the formula of US policies in its Middle East partnerships. This underscores the importance of this study.
Report of Research Findings
After careful analysis, this report concludes that the benefits of this partnership outweigh the money the US spent on its prior military presence strategies. By boosting the possibility of aid from friends, the strategic partnership has allowed the United States to improve both deterrence against its forces in the region and its capacity to defend itself against assault. However, realism also explains why countries and non-governmental organizations in the Middle East find strategic partnerships with the United States appealing. An ally is more open to entering into a strategic alliance the weaker it is.
Over more than seven decades, the United States has had many plans for security cooperation in the Middle East. These have included training local forces and direct engagement in the fight, with the most significant being the supply of weapons and ammunition to the region. Compared to Asia and Europe, the US has far more slack in its partnership with the Middle East. To combat ISIS, the United States can form a significant coalition with Arab nations and collaborate with Tehran and Damascus concurrently with a Sunni alliance. The extreme unrest in this region has made forming long-term alliances exceedingly challenging.
According to US military and security records, China’s circumstances have altered so much over the years that the notion of the US having the most expensive army in the world engaged in a full-scale conflict and maybe losing is still entertained. It seems as though this army’s methods are out of step with the demands of the contemporary world.
Conclusion
The United States has adopted two primary and interrelated strategies to counter these contemporary threats: expanding its network of allies and partners and strengthening its military’s capacity to operate throughout the world. With the ultimate goal of preserving the balance of power in strategically important regions of the world and defending the vital interests of the United States, partners, and allies bolster America’s military and political capabilities and support its operations. Additionally, the United States provides these partners with deterrence against aggressors. Being able to confront adversarial allies and partners and strengthen this alliance while also preventing them from depending on the US to achieve their military objectives would be ideal for the US defense system because it would be less costly and risky to establish deterrence in this scenario. Furthermore, it will strengthen this nation’s capacity to deal with its adversaries in the future