Applications of Realism and Idealism in foreign policy (American foreign policy as a model)

Abstract

The study aims at identifying the most prominent features of idealistic and realistic American foreign policy through highlighting three Arab issues, namely the American occupation of Iraq, the American position on the Syrian Libyan uprisings. To achieve this goal, the study used the decision-making approach, and the comparative approach in accordance with their relation to the nature of the case-study. 
 It is revealed that there is a difference in US foreign policy towards each issue separately, and that there is a difference in managing the issue itself. This is related to the difference in the personal aspects of the American president in that period, and the idealistic or realistic tendencies that governed his vision.
 The occupation of Iraq in 2003 could be seen as indicators of realism in US foreign policy. With the succession of US administrations, those realistic indicators changed to ideal ones after the US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, and the attempt to establish normal relations with Iraq and focus on developing the strategic partnership between the two countries.
 The American position on the Libyan revolution also varied between realism after the direct military intervention in to eliminate Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, and idealism through the presentation of the Obama’s administration to programs and plans related to issues of democratic transition, human rights, development of informal organizations and the provision of necessary support to them, and the establishment of Trump administration high-level diplomatic activity on Libya in mid-2020 to intensify efforts to stabilize the political situation in Libya. In addition, the positions of the US administration have fluctuated on the Syrian revolution of 2011. There are realistic features, most notably the operation that the Trump administration directed at the Syrian army’s Shayrat Airbase in April 2017, and ideal features represented by the Obama administration’s attempts not to directly interfere in the Syrian revolution and to stay away from military action, and overlooking Russia’s incursion into Syria to avoid the United States of America entering new wars, or getting directly involved in Middle Eastern conflicts.