The 1980s was characterized by bad economic times, emergence of full scale international terrorism coupled with the feeling within the United States government that their services were required to bring sanity to rogue nations, particularly those of the Middle East. It was a common belief that most of these countries supported and financed terrorism and some of them even played host to some of the most wanted criminals. It is an open secret that most terrorists target United States citizens and their interests, it was therefore the responsibility of the U.S government to protect their interests. And since most of the countries look up to them for ideological, financial, technological and military help, it had to change its foreign policy to address these matters (Becker et al., 1984, pp.23-27). This paper gives highlights of how the Foreign policy of the United States has since shifted from the year 1980 up to date due to the events emanating from the Middle East.
We will write a custom Essay on The Impact of Events in the Middle East on American Foreign Policy 1980s specifically for you
807 certified writers online
The Middle East Situation and the US Foreign Policies
The 1980s policies shifted from domestic issue to international focus; with emerging international security concerns, America put it upon them to have international agendas in all their operations concerning their friends and foes. And from then onwards up to the present day, the U.S government has been seen to be representing the interest of many countries, especially their allies that would have otherwise been voiceless in the international arena. The government has increased it defense spending gradually since then as they need to have troops in almost every troubled nation world over. There were such incidences as the Iranian hostages and beaten economy that have given the government no resting place (Boll, 1988, p.11).
The situation is like revisiting the Cold War era, where States ganged against each other in the fight of supremacy. The United States provided military advice to those countries that they believed were modest, while to those like Cuba and Nicaragua that they believed were “evil leftist guerrillas” America went against them. America has been reported to be offering CIA training to their allies as well as winning more countries to be used as military bases in case of an emergency period. These moves have resulted to America being viewed more like an Asian enemy. The Asian continent is Islam dominated and the acrimony between the East and the West has steadily built up, escalated by the US continued support of the Israelites in boarder disputes. The Iraqi war, the Korean controversy, the Afghan war and many others military actions against Muslim nations have painted a bad picture on the US. But they maintain that the moves that they have made so far are justifiable and warranted. What they are doing is just saving the world from the evil militants who are spreading terror and denying the world peace (Chase, 1992, pp.44-45).
The government of United States has to ensure safety of their citizens and on top of that protect their interest. That has been the major driving force that has pushed them into changing their foreign policy to counter the emerging insecurity situations, especially those being brought about by the countries in the Middle East which are drumming support to international terrorist and wrecking havoc to defenseless nations. The policies have been drawn in such a way that it incorporates all the countries in the world are incorporated and are working with a united front. The changes that the government made to be more vigilant on cross boarder migrations and military trainings are therefore believed have positive impacts in the long run in restoring peace and stability to the world.
- Becker, W. and Samuel, W. (1984). Economic and World Power. New York. pp.23-27.
- Boll, M. (1988). National Security Planning: Roosevelt through Regan. Lexington. p.11.
- Chase, J. (1992). The Consequences of Peace: The New Internationalism and American Foreign Policy. New York. pp.44-45.