Global strategic assessment 2009: America’s security role in changing world

Global Strategic Assessment
The first time America took security responsibility in the Persian Gulf was in the 1970s. Americans did not want to be involved directly in the wars of the region for example the four Israeli- Arab wars. United States Used surrogates like the Iran’s Shah and the Saudi Arabia King in case the instability of the region threatened the interests of the United States of the America in the Persian Gulf. Later, United States of America was forced to take an active role and a more visible role in the Persian Gulf region. This was because of the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq in the year 1990 and the September 11, 2001 terrorists’ attack of the Pentagon and the WTO (World Trade Centre). In the years of 1990’s, the United States interest in the middle east was maintaining of a supply of oil which was secure and reasonably priced, to support Israel, and reduce the spreading of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and to contain Iraq and Iran (Nathan et al, 2009).
In Iraq, a government the United States of America Tried to establish is faced with a lot of opposition from its citizens. They are struggling to get independence from the Americans and from the Baghdad’s central authority. This government has to formulate policies to enable it to have both economic and political control in an environment where the government is considered weak. Iran is in the middle of confusion in politics and economic stress, facing sanctions from the international community because of its nuclear policy. The president of Iran got his seat in a disputed election. The America’s strategic interests intersect with those of Iran in Iraq. During the war in Iraq, there was some sort of agreement between the United States and the Iran, in that it should be a quick war then followed by a withdrawal
of the American troops. But the difference was in the long term issues which were the whether to form a democratic state or a state based on Islam. This shows that the interests of Iran and America are common in Iraq.
Iran wanted Iraq to be an Islamic state which is stable and united and to become a political, economic and an ally to face the common enemies, which are the United States and Israel. Iran believes is the best placed to be the leader both economically and politically in the Middle East. It wanted to be consulted in all issues. It believes that without Iran, Iraq can never have peace and economic freedom.
Since the years of early 1960s, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman and Qatar preferred the use of states outside the Middle East in defending them, in definition of their security roles and in the provision of their needs. This led them to following the Great Britain, their colonial power to be their protector against nations which would storm them periodically. The only exception was the Saudi Arabia which was enjoying the protection of the United States. In 1971, the Great Britain withdrew its protection and these states turned to America. The role of United States in these nations is the provision of security guarantees to them in exchange of oil access, arm sales to them and investing here. About the conflict of Israel and the Arabs, the United States has played a major role in the trying to end this conflict. Israel corporate with the United States and actually allowed the training and equipping of the Palestine security by the United States. The United States has become very dominant in the security issues of these countries such that at some point, Syria demanded that the United States engages in a very active role. In fact, the motivation of Assad was in mending its relations with the United States. The resolution of the disagreement between the Israelites and the Arabs is extremely vital for the national security of the United States.
The United States administrations usually start with the focusing on the issues of economy and the stabilization of the Gulf Region. No United States Administration has ever ignored the importance of the Israel Palestine process of peace. The American administrations have focused on the delaying of the discussions on the main issues which include the return of Palestine their borders and settlements. This is meant to ease tensions and buy time but the interim and partial agreements have not been able to build enough confidence on the two sides but have actually caused more distrust between them. Again they have focussed on not isolating Syria since that will not encourage behaviour change.
The interest of Washington is the maintenance of inter government relations which are stable. The United States has decided to downplay the importance of a good political governing for the nations to corporate with them. Therefore, the United States of America is likely to be linked with unpopular nations. This has led to the complication of the Americans security interests in the following ways. First, the Government to government relationships of security are achieved but they could become unpopular and also be an embarrassment to the regional governments. Secondly the United States may become the unwitting player in the regions domestic politics. Thirdly, the United States may get involved in the governance missions since the separator between the governance and the security interests in the previous decade has disappeared currently.
The United States has used the separation of Syria from Iran as part of the strategy to bring peace to the middle east and hence to the world. It has as well focused on the endorsement of corporation and isolation between Iran, Iraq and their neighbours in the gulf (Westel & Fairlie, 2008). Lastly, they have focused on the pursuing of collective defence options and also effective deterrence at the same time. In all these peace and security interventions the United States of America has made in the Middle East and the rest of the world, it is in the best interest of the world and also of America as a whole. Americans will lose in their interests if there is insecurity in the world for example due to terrorism. It will also hinder the achievements of their various objectives. Therefore, while they American government have their own interests at hand in the solving of conflicts, it helps in the solving of the world’s problems (Robert A. Heineman, 2009).

•    Nathan. J, Murhaf. J., Daniel. C. K. and Omer, T. (2009) The greater Middle East; Strategic Change from:
•    Westel, W. W. & FairlieJ. A., (2008). The American political science review, Volume 14.
•    Chicago: American Political Science Association.
•    Robert A. Heineman. (2009). Political science: an introduction College to political science.
•    America: McGraw-Hill Professional.

Still stressed from student homework?
Get quality assistance from academic writers!

WELCOME TO OUR NEW SITE. We Have Redesigned Our Website With You In Mind. Enjoy The New Experience With 15% OFF