Theories of International Relations and US Foreign Policy in the Middle East

Theories of international relations (IR) typically focus on understanding recurrent events in world affairs, seeking to uncover patterns of behavior and identify cause-and-effect relationships. However, these theories often overlook the study of change, as it is considered unpredictable. This article aims to explain when and why a change occurs in US foreign policy towards the Middle East. By examining the unique cultural and regional dynamics of the Middle East, the article argues that US presidents, with limited knowledge of the region, rely on problem-solving models to guide their foreign policy decisions. The article explores how these models are consolidated and what factors can prompt a shift from one model to another.

From Crisis to Change

This article utilizes social constructivism and major crises to explain continuity and change in US foreign policy. Social constructivism posits that reality is shaped by ideas, and a consensus around a set of ideas influences policymakers’ decision-making processes. These ideas form problem-solving models that guide foreign policy. The article argues that a major crisis in the Middle East exposes the flaws in the existing problem-solving model, leading to a change in US policy towards the region. The crisis challenges the legitimacy and effectiveness of the old model, giving rise to a new set of ideas that addresses the root causes of the crisis and offers new guidelines for post-crisis policy-making.

The article suggests that external shocks, such as the 1973-74 Energy Crisis, the Iranian Revolution, and the events of September 11, can trigger a change in US foreign policy. These crises reveal the shortcomings of the existing model and necessitate the development of new ideas to address the crisis’s underlying causes. The article also discusses the different levels and drivers of change, including leader-driven, bureaucracy advocacy, domestic restructuring, and external shocks. It argues that US foreign policy in the Middle East has been primarily shaped by external shocks, which have led to program changes and adjustments in policy goals.

The article highlights the importance of stabilizing the Middle East due to its significance in global energy markets. It raises questions about the inclusion of Jordan and Egypt in this stabilization strategy and the US’s response if the regime in any of these countries is threatened by an Islamist movement. The analysis also explores the impact of major crises, such as the Yom-Kippur War, the Iranian Revolution, and the 9/11 attacks, on US policy and the subsequent changes in problem-solving models.

The 1973-74 Energy Crisis: Stabilizing the Middle East through a peace process

The Yom-Kippur War and the resulting energy crisis exposed the flawed assumption that the Middle East was relatively stable and that Israeli-Arab conflicts could be managed through deterrence. The crisis highlighted the need for a new approach focused on a peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The article argues that the energy crisis reshaped US foreign policy by emphasizing the importance of stable Middle Eastern economies and the resolution of regional conflicts through diplomatic means. The crisis demonstrated that stability in the region could not be maintained through military might alone.

The Iranian Revolution: The rise of neo-orientalism and neoliberal reforms

The Iranian Revolution transformed US perceptions of the Middle East and challenged the assumption that Arab/Islamic states would passively adhere to secular authoritarian leaders. The revolution gave rise to the idea of neo-Orientalism, which contends that Muslims are motivated to establish Islamist regimes reflecting their religious beliefs. The article suggests that the US shifted its focus towards promoting neoliberal economic reforms in Muslim-majority countries as a means to address social and economic disparities and dissuade support for Islamist movements.

The article also considers the impact of the Iranian Revolution on US participation in the regional balance of power. Prior to the revolution, the US relied on regional allies to maintain internal security while it focused on external threats. However, the revolution shattered this paradigm and prompted the US to reconsider its approach, leading to a consolidation of new ideas aimed at ensuring both internal and regional stability.

September 11, 2001: Democratization strategy and its spillover effect

The events of September 11, 2001, challenged the notion that Muslims categorically rejected Western values and modernization. The Bush Jr. administration embraced a counter-Orientalist mindset that linked democratization in the Middle East to countering global terrorism. The administration pursued military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq with the objective of removing authoritarian regimes and promoting democratization. However, these efforts ultimately failed, leading to a reevaluation of US policy.

The article argues that the US’s failure in Iraq and Afghanistan has pushed the Biden Administration towards a return to neo-Orientalist ideas. However, it highlights the need for the US to avoid alienating the masses and instead support pro-American authoritarian regimes while encouraging controlled semi-democratization processes. Semi-democratization, which involves free parliamentary elections and a limited liberalization process, could provide a balance between popular representation and the stability needed to prevent the rise of fundamentalist Islamist regimes.

Neo-Orientalism

Neo-Orientalism establishes a distinction from traditional Orientalism by emphasizing the agency and aspirations of Muslim societies in the Middle East. It argues that these societies seek to establish Islamist regimes to resist Western influence. The article explores the concept of neo-Orientalism and its implications for US foreign policy.

Semi-democratization

The article proposes semi-democratization as an alternative approach to promoting political stability and gradual reforms in the Middle East. It suggests that the US should support controlled liberalization and limited democratization processes in coordination with existing regimes. Semi-democratization would allow for greater political freedom and accountability while preserving the authority of monarchs or presidents. The article also discusses the potential challenges and pitfalls of semi-democratization, including the need for proportional elections and strong constitutional safeguards.

Conclusion

The article concludes that major crises in the Middle East have prompted changes in US foreign policy. It highlights the importance of understanding continuity and change in problem-solving models and the role of crises in shaping new sets of ideas. The article also emphasizes the need for a nuanced approach to promoting stability and reforms in the Middle East, taking into account the limitations of US interventions and the complexities of the region. Semi-democratization offers a potential path forward, striking a balance between stability and limited political openness.