The development of the relations between the United States and the countries in the Middle East is a continuous process, covering the presidential terms of many political leaders. In this respect, the activity of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George Herbert Walker Bush present interest from the perspective of drastically different approaches, suggested by them. Depending on the priorities, emphasized by these presidents, their actions and long-term policies with regard to the mentioned region had a varying degree of efficiency. Therefore, the analysis of these people’s impact on the Middle East can be performed with respect to their vision, and the positive and negative consequences of implemented solutions can be considered accordingly.
Jimmy Carter
The first president under consideration is Jimmy Carter whose policies in the Middle East were quite peculiar and significant. He is known as one of the very few moral leaders in the American political arena. He continuously appealed to the principles of morality when negotiating issues related to the Six-day War with the representatives of Egypt and Israel (Shammas, 2019). In general, the impact of Carter’s presidency on this region was conditional upon his religious optimism (Perez, 2019). According to the core idea of this optimism, the primary purpose of the negotiations could be ensured by the provision that the leaders of the involved countries can come to an agreement, founding a lasting peace is possible if concentrating on spiritual values (Shammas, 2019). Therefore, during his term, Carter promoted this idea at Camp David when discussing the challenges with Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin, drafting the Accords, and also criticizing Israel’s occupation of Palestine afterward (Shammas, 2019; Daigle, 2018). Meanwhile, the main failure of the president was his inability to save American embassy’s employees in Iran (Oren, 2007). Since his decisions had varying degrees of effectiveness, it is feasible to speak about their benefits and drawbacks.
The positive aspects of Carter’s ideas concerning the Middle East conflicts were directly linked to his legacy as a president of the United States in the development of an innovative model of negotiations. Thus, mediating peace between Egypt and Israel was a positive practice as it showed that not only military interventions can be advantageous for finding a compromise (Shammas, 2019). This outcome was particularly important in the context of the material values in question and for establishing a common spiritual ground for discussion (Daigle, 2018). The consequent events in Israel and Palestine proved that the neglect of any of the above aspects of the matter inevitably leads to the failure to come to an agreement (Daigle, 2018). Therefore, Carter seems to be the first leader to openly emphasize the significance of morality within the scope of negotiations during an armed conflict, and since then, it became a novel model of negotiation. Another benefit of Carter’s presidency regarding the Middle East issue was its effects on the mindsets of other countries’ politicians, who did not previously consider multiple opportunities (Shammas, 2019). From this perspective, Carter can be viewed as an advanced strategist whose decisions brought many benefits to the international community.
In turn, the negative consequences of Carter’s actions and long-term solutions, developed under his administration, were mainly attributed to the population of the United States. His course was somehow limited to the problems of Israel and Egypt, which resulted in the deaths of a significant number of Americans in Iran (Oren, 2007). It means that the elaborated approach was not universal and should be used with caution. This failure also determined the adverse effects of the key decisions in the Middle East on the reputation of Carter in the United States (Shammas, 2019). For Americans, his ideas implied the neglect of domestic needs when prioritizing the needs of other regions, and the sufferings of the Middle Easterners could not justify the restrictions of his focus (Oren, 2007). Hence, the claim of the possibility to avoid colonization of the West Bank for everyone’s wellbeing was not supported or well-accepted (Daigle, 2018). From this point of view, even though the presidency of Jimmy Carter allowed to establish novel practices for negotiating peace in the world arena, the short-term adversities, caused by their implementation, determined their inappropriateness.
Ronald Reagan
The next president, whose term is examined for the purposes of this paper, is Ronald Reagan, and his political course in the Middle East is drastically different from that of Jimmy Carter. Despite the fact that they both valued religious freedoms and human rights, Reagan’s approach was more oriented towards persuasion for gaining the support of Israeli authorities instead of directly negotiating peace (Perez, 2019; Andersson & Waage, 2020). During his presidency, the main events were the Lebanese civil war, the Lebanese missile crisis of 1981, and the naval war with Iranians in the Persian Gulf (Andersson & Waage, 2020; Riedel, 2020). In all these cases, the casualties were numerous, and the actions of the American government were quite aggressive. Even though combat operations generally did not last long, they did not contribute to the task of establishing peace. On the contrary, Reagan was criticized for inappropriate interventions in the military actions of the Middle Easterners (Riedel, 2020). In this situation, his presidency appears to be negative from the perspective of long-term achievements, but short-term solutions seem favorable for the United States and its position in the international arena.
The positive consequences of Reagan’s ideas and their implementation in the region in question were mainly attributed to the increased presence of the American troops in the Middle East and the possibility to cooperate. For instance, the apparent improvements in the relations with Israeli political leaders and the support of Iraq in their war with Iran are associated with Reagan’s policies (Andersson & Waage, 2020; Riedel, 2020). The mediating role of the United States under the administration of Reagan facilitated the process of increasing the military power of specific countries for promoting their own agenda (Andersson & Waage, 2020). In the first place, these outcomes were favorable for the affected Middle Easterners, who recognized the support of Americans in their growing well-being (Riedel, 2020). In addition, strengthening of the U.S. foreign affairs in the region during this period allowed relying on this practice for further expansion of interests. Consequently, the current influence on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey, and Jordan is explained by the mentioned policy (Riedel, 2020). Thus, its benefits seem obvious for analysts since they are linked to the specified above preconditions.
The negative outcomes of Reagan’s presidency are also critical for explaining the present situation in the relations between the United States and the Middle East. First, the concerns of the Arab world regarding the support of Israel by Americans during the Lebanon war were connected to the limitations it posed to their cooperation with Israeli political leaders (Andersson & Waage, 2020). In other words, the countries, which were mainly involved in different conflicts over the previous decades due to various reasons, including religious disagreements, lost the chance of negotiating the matters peacefully. Second, the image of the United States abroad was worsened by Reagan’s actions since the country was not perceived as neutral anymore (Andersson & Waage, 2020). Third, the substantial amounts of money, lost in the war of Iran and Iraq, and the numbers of casualties were added to the adversities of the US actions in the region (Andersson & Waage, 2020; Riedel, 2020). Hence, these three aspects represent the main reasons why the American political course within the scope of the Middle East was not favorable for many stakeholders.
George H. W. Bush
The third president under consideration is George Herbert Walker Bush whose term is characterized by the development of a long-term strategic course of conducting military operations in the Middle East for the first time. Previous political leaders either did not pay much attention to this endeavor, as can be seen from Jimmy Carter’s peaceful initiatives or simply introduced preparatory measures, as in the case of Ronald Reagan (Shammas, 2019; Andersson & Waage, 2020). It means that George H. W. Bush became the first president to officially suggest lasting interventions in the region. The term of his presidency was accompanied by some major events, including the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and the Gulf War (Sanchez, 2019). The latter conflict was particularly significant for Bush as it showed his ability to resolve similar challenges quickly and effectively when relying on military advisors’ opinions (Sanchez, 2019). One of the most suitable solutions was the operation Desert Storm, which helped liberate Kuwait and unite several countries against Iraqi troops (Sanchez, 2019). Thus, Bush’s activity was favorable for balancing the needs of the Middle East countries and strengthening the connection with allies.
Considering the provisions above, one might conclude the presence of particular benefits of Bush’s presidency for improving the situation in the region. Its positive consequences primarily included the growing loyalty of the affected countries to the United States, the increased control over the Iraqi authorities through extensive sanctions, and the promotion of conservative internationalism (Sanchez, 2019; Shifrinson, 2018). In this way, the demonstration of military power was viewed as the most appropriate method for regulating international relations in the Middle East. Moreover, the resulting support of American citizens for Bush was the confirmation of the unity in their perspectives and the encouragement for further actions (Sanchez, 2019). Indeed, the consequent development of the conflicts in this area followed the patterns, pre-determined by his administration and brought practically instantaneous results. Nevertheless, they were also accompanied by a number of considerable drawbacks, which should not be ignored when examining the situation from multiple perspectives. For the majority of Americans, the president’s policies initially unclear, whereas the Middle Easterners were the first to respond to the new crises, caused by the interventions of the United States and their allies.
The adversities, triggered by the described events, were connected to the emergence of new threats within the countries of the Middle East. One of them was terrorism. The exacerbation of this problem was conditional upon the improper distribution of resources. According to Riedel (2020), the funds, allocated for fighting it, were used for the war, and, consequently, the number of terrorist acts dramatically increased. In addition, the enhanced activity of radical Islamic groups in Iraq was caused by the chaos due to the imposed sanctions of the United States after the war (Sanchez, 2019). These issues were complemented by other challenges, such as Bush’s speech, leading to the deaths of Iraqi civilians during the attempts to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and other violent rebellions (Sanchez, 2019). When the threat that “nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” was not adequately addressed, millions of people suffered even when peace was declared (“Mark 13:1-8,” n.d.; Riedel, 2020). These results show that Bush did not take into account the long-term implications of his policy and thereby caused much destruction. Although the population’s support was guaranteed, the morality of his actions remains dubious.
Conclusion
The conducted analysis showed that the development of military and religious conflicts in the Middle East was largely affected by the United States and its presidents. Jimmy Carter developed a positive model of intervention by affecting the mindsets of the nations’ political leaders and thereby bringing peace. His approach was reported to be beneficial for the examination of new perspectives by other countries. However, it also resulted in the impossibility to address the needs of both Middle Easterners and Americans. In turn, Ronald Reagan’s methods were more aggressive and helped increase the presence of the United States in the region, whereas the drawbacks included issues with the Arabs. George H. W. Bush mostly relied on direct interventions and participation in wars, which resulted in numerous casualties while providing opportunities for greater control.
References
Andersson, M. S., & Waage, H. H. (2020). Stew in their own juice: Reagan, Syria and Lebanon, 1981-1984.Diplomatic History, 44(4), 664-691. Web.
Daigle, C. (2018). Beyond Camp David: Jimmy Carter, Palestinian self-determination, and human rights.Diplomatic History, 42(5), 802-830. Web.
Mark 13:1-8. (n.d.). Bible Gateway. Web.
Oren, M. B. (2007). Power, faith, and fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the present. W. W. Norton & Company Ltd.
Perez, L. M. (2019). Building the strategy of freedom: Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and international religious freedom.Southern Political Science Association Annual Conference, 1-27. Web.
Riedel, B. (2020). 30 years after our ‘endless wars’ in the Middle East began, still no end in sight. Brookings. Web.
Sanchez, F. (2019). The life and legacy of George H. W. Bush. History in the Making, 12(1), 273-290. Web.
Shammas, M. (2019). Peace above all: Jimmy Carter, moral leadership, and the Camp David Accords.Moral Leadership, and the Camp David Accords. Web.
Shifrinson, J. R. I. (2018). George H. W. Bush: Conservative realist as president.Orbis, 62(1), 56-75. Web.