US pays a heavy price for Mideast gains

In the struggle to dominate the world during the Cold War era, the US led the anti-Communist camp against the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries. Over time, the US interest in the Middle East increased to the extent where US foreign policies became highly influenced by Western interests in this part of the world.

The US's strategic Middle East policies can be understood through three dimensions, one of which is security,

During the Cold War, the US considered it necessary to maintain a large presence in the Middle East. It had to deter the Soviet danger in the area. There were also other reasons for the US presence in the area, such as pushing out Britain and France, its war allies, from the region. For the US, getting rid of France and Britain was as important as curtailing the Soviet influence in the area.

In 1956, then US president Dwight Eisenhower was upset by the fact that Israel, France and Great Britain had secretly planned the campaign to evict Egypt from the Suez Canal zone. Israel's failure to inform the United States of its intentions, combined with ignoring American entreaties not to go to war, sparked tensions between Washington and Tel Aviv. Following the Suez Canal crisis, the US subsequently joined the Soviet Union in a campaign to force Israel to withdraw. It included a threat to discontinue all US assistance, UN sanctions and expulsion from the UN.

The US sent a clear message to the Arabs, telling them that it would not stand against their aspirations. The second message was directed at Israel. Its context said that the role of Britain and France, who both helped to establish the Jewish state, had ended. The end of the Cold War did not lessen the US aspirations in the Middle East.

Presidents George Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush witnessed the end of the Cold War, as it happened, slowly at first and then the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union. Their work methods varied, but the three continued with the US policies of maintaining their presence in the Middle East, despite opposition from some quarters.

The economic aspect is the second dimension. Despite the fact that of the 60 per cent of its oil that the US imports, only 4 per cent comes from the Middle East. However, the US considers that it is extremely important to control the routes and the areas of the region that holds much of the global energy resources, for the sake of its prosperity and future as a sole global superpower. It is not possible unless there is a vital US presence in a region that contains 727 billion barrels of oil. In other words, more than half of global oil reserves.

Oil sector

Moreover, American oil companies have a large stake and their control of the oil and energy sector has been rising ever since they entered the region in 1928.

The efforts of the US to turn the Arabian Gulf into a US military garrison have proved to be a bad choice for US taxpayers. American politics in the Middle East has actually lead to instability and has done nothing to stabilise oil prices. On the contrary, oil prices have increased, while the US and its allies have taken on the additional burden of paying for the extra expenses.

When this is added to the daily expenses incurred for stationing US troops in the region, without actual military operations, the bill will top $40 billion annually, in addition to the loss of life of US troops.

Hence, the beneficiaries of US policies are the oil producing countries and not the US.

No doubt the US has taken on the responsibility of securing Israel. But Israel will not refrain from embarrassing its sponsor. Israel has lent deaf ears to repeated pleas by several US administrations to cease building of colonies on Palestinian land. This makes us wonder about the seriousness of US pressure on Israel to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There are, however, two reasons which might lead the US to change its stance regarding its strategy in the Middle East.

The first is related to the high cost of the US strategy in the Middle East after 9/11. The second is the necessity of maintaining allies of the US in Europe.

No doubt the US strategy planners are aware of the consequences of their policies. Sadly, the US does not see a better substitute to serve Western purposes and interests.

The best policy followed in the region will be seen when the Middle East countries are left to solve their own problems without any external influence, and where international law and UN charters are implemented.

Dr Mohammad Akef Jamal is an Iraqi writer based in Dubai.