Events in the Middle East that have taken place over the past decade have had people wondering what exactly the United States intends to do in the region. The amount of United States’ involvement in Middle Eastern affairs seem to have had a direct correlation with the amount of violence and political upset in the area. With factors like nuclear weapons, ISIS, and increasingly war-torn countries like Syria and Libya, no one is quite sure on how to deal with all of this at once, not even our political leaders. Although it is recognized that small attempts at improvement have been made, matters haven’t exactly been mended and many have been led to criticize the United States’ so-called “plan of action” or rather a lack thereof. Stephen M. Walt wrote an interesting article concerning this issue and this is my analysis/response.

The article I am analyzing can be found at this link: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/29/the-u-s-should...

Walt brings our attention to the fact that the United States is lacking a strategic plan for handling affairs in the Middle East. The U.S. no longer has any clear action plan to organize the chaos that is unfolding. The “aggressive United States leadership” and militaristic approaches that have been in use recently are not working. The author points out in his article that the U.S. military is not designed for or good at creating local political institutions, and the more military force we attempt to use, the more violence becomes a prominent part of Middle Eastern politics.

The author criticizes the United States for using the “playbook” from the 1940s. The United States basically forced themselves onto the Middle Eastern region and took the role of “Leader” and “Regional Policeman”. By keeping U.S. ground and air forces in the region, it fueled a lot of the anger and disdain that later led to Osama Bin Laden attacking the World Trade Center on September 11^th.

Many anti-military ideals are expressed in this article and Walt shames the United States’ for unwarranted involvement in the Middle East. He seems to think that the entire situation in the Middle East would be better off if the United States were not so adamant about being the world’s mediator. He continues by giving examples of how the conditions in the region have only declined after the 9/11 attacks. Since the U.S. had an even heavier presence there after 2001, Walt made this statement: “Syria is in ruins; al Qaeda remains an active force; the Islamic State is sowing violence around the world; Libya and Yemen are war-torn failed states and the peace process is in tatters.” If one were to attempt to summarize his overall point, it would be that the US needs to pull out of Middle Eastern Affairs, establish trust between the US and their Middle Eastern allies again, and re-establish trading agreements for oil and energy supplies. One reason his stand on the issue is so clear is due to the following statement: “…George W. Bush and Dick Cheney…embarked on their delusional effort at “regional transformation.” The results were disastrous, and Barack Obama was elected on promises to end the Iraq War, rebuild America’s relations with the Muslim world, achieve a two-state solution, and put U.S. relations with Iran on a new footing. …his Middle East policy has been no more successful than that of his inept predecessor.” It seems that no one has kept their promises on Middle Eastern affairs, Republican or Democrat, and Walt would like the see a major change in the U.S.’s approach to foreign policy and I'm sure many people would agree with him.

The United States, Iran and the rest of the Middle Eastern Countries are all affected by the choices being made regarding this matter. The Middle East is under intense pressure from rising tensions between the Sunni and Shia groups, an ethnic conflict and to add to the chaos, the governments of these states are not very influential.

Alliances and deals are trying to be made between the United States and Iran. An example being the Iran Nuclear Deal. President Obama made this deal in hopes that it would mend the alliance between the US and middle east forming a better relationship with them for the future.

The entire world is affected by the United States’ international relation decisions in the Middle East. The turmoil in the region has led to the formation of the Terrorist group ISIS, who have been responsible for attacks worldwide. Religious fundamentalism is also a global problem because the Middle East religious ideals are so different from many other places in the world, and many of those places happen to be super powers: The United States, France, and Russia.

Individual leaders of the countries involved are also affected. The author comments on previous and current leaders and how they handled matters of international relations. He puts down the efforts of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, gives credit to President Obama for the Iran Nuclear deal, only to end it with saying that Obama was no more successful in the Middle Eastern affairs than Bush. Leaders don’t only have to deal with public opinion but also have to bear the responsibility of decision making, which is probably contributing to the standstill in foreign policy development.

International relations in the Middle East is easily one of the biggest concerns of leaders and citizens worldwide. Opposite to the author’s viewpoints, I believe liberalism is not going to solve any of the problems in the Middle East. The United States trying to appear “weaker” and more on an even level with the Middle Eastern states is not going to solve any problems. If anything, it will probably fuel the fire that is already burning. While the United States appears as an eminent threat to the smaller states, the United States’ obvious power is what keeps Middle Eastern Radicals from taking action on their threats. Military presence is important in the war-torn areas and the places where it is known that organizations like ISIS reside. Sometimes the only way you can beat down insanity and stubbornness is by inflicting fear on them, so they know if they make one threatening move in anyone’s general direction, it should not be tolerated.

Sovereign states that see the problems in the Middle East as a threat to the safety of their citizens should form alliances with other sovereign states that want to help in the Middle East as well. If other states showed concern in the Middle East and the United States was not the only prominent presence in the region, I believe it would further deter the terrorist activity in the Middle East and other regions. Trade should be kept open between the Middle East and other areas of the World as long as both parties are willing to cooperate with one another. But it should be easy to cut ties with that region of the world at any given time if they no longer want to play by the rules. Hiding nuclear weapons, providing a safe haven for terrorists etc, then all trade will stop and Money will no longer be flowing into their economy.

Intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations should be able to come to an agreement on how to treat the Middle Eastern states if they were to become too aggressive. Of course, the rest of the world needs to choose its battles wisely. The only times a state should become involved in another country’s affairs are as follows: That state’s presence is requested by the state in distress or the situation in the foreign territory has the potential to compromise national security or economic affluence of one’s own state. Otherwise, the time, money or manpower should not be wasted.