Abstract

Promoting democracy in the Middle East has been cited by the U.S. as a key foreign policy objective post-Cold War. As a result the U.S. has intervened in numerous countries and conflicts, particularly since 9/11 and the subsequent declaration of the War on Terror. However, this has not been without controversy and its actions often aid imperialism rather than the country it claims its intervention is benefitting. This paper challenges the claim that the U.S. is indeed promoting democracy, arguing that it is instead pursuing national objectives to increase hegemony. By analyzing U.S. involvement in the Middle East from the Soviet-Afghan War, through the Invasion of Iraq and Arab Spring, up to present day, this paper contends that the U.S. has continuously created instability in the region, in terms of both state and human security. By constructing various actors as threats to themselves, the West or the world, the U.S. has been able to justify its aggressive pursuit of foreign policy objectives in the Middle East. Utilizing the theories of realism, liberalism, and constructivism, this research discusses how the U.S. has attempted to achieve hegemony in the region, and indeed globally, before contrasting this with humanitarian efforts it has been a part of. The paper also analyses the impact external actors have had on U.S. action, discussing the crucial but often constrained role of the United Nations, as well as the contentious proliferation of private military and security companies in the post-Cold War era.

Highlights

  • This paper examines modern U.S involvement in the Middle East, to determine whether it has attempted to pursue hegemony or promote democracy in the region.The humanitarian impact of the Syrian civil war has affected countries across Europe

  • Trump initially intervened to protect Syrian citizens after the use of chemical weapons by Assad, but, given the strategic importance of Syria in the Middle East, this intervention was not done for purely humanitarian reasons (Yacubian, 2018) Progress in Syria is apparent, with ISIS dwindling in terms of support and territory, yet the recent decision by Trump to remove U.S troops, isolating the Kurds and other local forces that depended on U.S military assistance, demonstrates how little value is given to human beings in war zones

  • The War on Terror was the catalyst for U.S intervention in Iraq, but it had been fixated on Saddam since the first Gulf War (Hinnebusch, 2007). It believed that a campaign against him would remove the biggest threat to the political order it had become accustomed to in the region, while having the benefit of demonstrating its military power – something it had been continuously attempting in the post-Cold War era

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This paper examines modern U.S involvement in the Middle East, to determine whether it has attempted to pursue hegemony or promote democracy in the region. In the article “U.S Foreign Policy and the Arab Spring: Balancing Values and Interests,” Atlas (2012) discusses how Islamist forces in the Middle East rose in part because of Western intervention in the region This can be seen with the Soviet-Afghan War because the proxy war fought between the U.S and Soviet Union, which disregarded reconstruction of the country once it was over, provided justification for a defensive jihad that ended up gaining support from Muslims worldwide. Trump initially intervened to protect Syrian citizens after the use of chemical weapons by Assad, but, given the strategic importance of Syria in the Middle East, this intervention was not done for purely humanitarian reasons (Yacubian, 2018) Progress in Syria is apparent, with ISIS dwindling in terms of support and territory, yet the recent decision by Trump to remove U.S troops, isolating the Kurds and other local forces that depended on U.S military assistance, demonstrates how little value is given to human beings in war zones. That Prince (Erik Prince, Founder of security company Blackwater) is using the excuse of protecting the Kurds to promote the use of PMSCs is somewhat similar to the U.S acting in Iraq and Afghanistan under the guise of liberating the countries

Pursuing hegemony
Constructivist contrast
The Syrian civil war
Hegemony in decline
The liberal perspective
The role of the UN
The role of PMSCs
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call