The Arabs' View of Postwar American Foreign Policy

Foreign policy is an integral part of international relations. This study examines the United States (US) foreign policy towards Jordan from 1990 to 2017 since the period witnessed important regional and international political events that significantly impacted the US foreign policy. These events have the greatest impact on the development of relations between the two countries in terms of political and security aspects. The study looks at four political events and their impacts on Jordanian-American relations from the political and security aspects. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to examine the US foreign policy towards Jordan from the political and security aspects. This study adopted the qualitative approach. The primary data were collected from interviews while the secondary data were obtained from books, journals, theses, newspapers, seminar papers, articles and other documents. In this study, 16 respondents from political, economic and security experts in Jordan and the US were selected for semi-structured interviews. The study employed Thematic Analysis in analysing the data obtained. This study adopted the neo-realism theory as a theoretical framework. This study found that the US foreign policy recognizes Jordan as a close ally and considers its stability very important. The US foreign policy was seen slightly negative towards Jordan during the Iraqi War on Kuwait in 1990. However, the Wadi Araba peace treaty between Jordan and Israel in 1994 had promoted positive US foreign policy towards Jordan. This policy was slightly weakened in 2017 due to the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Certain political events play an important role in the US foreign policy regarding security aid towards Jordan. The study found that the US foreign policy provides security support to Jordan to protect Israel, spread American ideology and fight against its enemy. This research also found that Jordan has a suitable location to defend Israel because the country is surrounded by important Arab countries. The US links its aids to Jordan due to political events. Accordingly, the study recommends the necessity for the Jordanian state to increase its influential economic alliances at the international level. In addition, Jordanian policy must be redrawn in line with international realities to pressure the US to make Jordan play an active role in the region and international arena. Jordan should better use its geographical location to achieve international cooperation and enhance Arab security as a barrier against Israel.

The official history of US foreign policy, published by the State Department as the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), has profoundly changed how historians of foreign relations can conduct research and prepare students to do the same. This primary source amalgam, compiled by professional historians, operates under a statutory requirement to ‘include all records needed’ for comprehensive documentation of all ‘major’ and ‘significant’ US diplomatic activity and foreign policy decisions. FRUS is an easily accessible, digestible resource – a veritable simulacrum of US foreign policy – that profoundly alters research methodology. This article utilises FRUS to conduct a comparative analysis of seemingly similar US-backed military coup d’états in Brazil in 1964 and Indonesia in 1965. Both nations were the largest, most powerful countries in their respective regions and critical to US foreign policy – Brazil by proximity, Indonesia by geopolitical strategy. Both nations also became targets of covert operations, which resulted in military coups that installed governments closely aligned with US foreign policy. Nevertheless, each coup was conducted under differing circumstances that required varying levels of direct US intervention. Regime change in Indonesia, as FRUS so clearly highlights, required a considerably more substantial amount of time, money, and effort than that of Brazil. This case study highlights the stark contrast between the relative ease of system maintenance in a region already subordinated to US hegemony and the painstaking process of drawing a new area of the globe into the American sphere of influence.

Few figures in the past quarter-century have played a more significant role in American foreign policy than Colin Powell. He wielded power at the highest levels of the most important foreign policy bureaucracies: the Pentagon, the White House, the joint chiefs, and the state department. As national security advisor in the Ronald Reagan administration, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and secretary of state during George W. Bush's first term, he played a prominent role in four administrations, Republican and Democrat, spanning more than twenty years. Powell has been engaged in the most important debates over foreign and defense policy during the past two decades, such as the uses of American power in the wake of the Vietnam war, the winding down of the Cold War and the quest for new paths for American foreign policy, and the interventions in Panama (1989) and the Persian Gulf (1990–1991). During the Clinton era, he was involved in the controversies over interventions in Bosnia and Somalia. As America's top diplomat from 2001 to 2004, he helped shape the aims and goals of U.S. diplomacy after September 11, 2001, and in the run-up to the Iraq War. In this exploration of Powell's career and character, Christopher D. O'Sullivan reveals several broad themes crucial to American foreign policy and yields insights into the evolution of American foreign and defense policy in the post-Vietnam, post-Cold War eras. In addition, O'Sullivan explores the conflicts and debates between different foreign policy ideologies such as neo-conservatism and realism. O'Sullivan's book not only explains Powell's diplomatic style, it provides crucial insights into the American foreign policy tradition in the modern era.

For many Americans, at the heart of the turbulent 1960s stood an ancient yet thoroughly modern phenomenon: religious faith. The Johnson era represented a crisis when American religion was stimulated by both conservative regeneration and pluralistic renewal. Religion radicalized, on both the Left and the Right, in reformation and counterreformation. As the foundations of domestic politics changed, the dynamics of US foreign policy changed with them. Moreover, religious change in this era was common throughout much of the rest of the world, as other faiths responded to many of the same pressures, often stemming from interaction with US foreign and economic policies, in similar ways. In the process, religion helped establish America’s role in an increasingly globalized world that was already transcending the Cold War.

U.S.-Middle East Foreign Relations Needs a Vital Reset

Preface Introduction 1. Framing the Discussion of Globalization, Diversity and US International Affairs Ernest J. Wilson III Part 1: Growing Demographic Diversity in US Society 2. Global Work Force 2000: The new world labor market William B. Johnston 3. Travels into America's Future Robert D. Kaplan 4. The New Face of America: Blended races making a true melting pot Maria Puente and Martin Kasindorf Part 2: Political and Economic Diversity in the Global System 5. Don't Neglect the Impoverished South Robin Broad and John Cavanagh 6. The Dangers of Decadence: What the rest can teach the West Kishore Mahbubani Part 3: The Changing Face of America's International Affairs 7. Grass-Roots Policyrnaking: Say goodbye to the 'wise men' Michael Clough 8. Diversity in US Foreign Policy Making: The dilemma endures Allan E. Goodman 9. The FSO of Tomorrow Madeline K. Albright 10. A House Divided: Racism at the State Department Bruce Shapiro 11. Demographic Diversity and American Foreign Policy: Some empirical findings and the parameters of the debate Ernest J. Wilson III Part 4: The Politics of Multiculturalism in International Affairs 12. The Erosion of American National Interest Samuel Huntington 13. Multicultural Foreign Policy Yossi Shain 14. All Politics are Global: Interest groups and the making of foreign policy Eric M. Uslaner 15. Getting Uncle Sam's Ear: Will ethnic lobbies cramp America's foreign policy style? James M. Lindsay Part 5: Hispanic-Americans and US Foreign Policy 16. The Keenest Recruits to the Dream. The Economist Family Ties and Ethnic Lobbies: Latino relations with Latin America Rodolfo de la Garza, Miguel Baraona, Manuel Orozco, Harry P. Panchon and Adrian D. Pantoja 17. International Interests and Foreign Policy Priorities of Mexican-Americans Patricia Hamm 18. Dateline Washington: Cuban American clout Carla Anne Robbins 19. Here to Stay: The domestic and international priorities of Latino leaders The Tomas Rivera Policy Institute Part 6: Asian-Americans and US Foreign Policy 20. Bridges Across Continents: South Asians in the United States Arati Rao 21. Slanted Racial Prejudice is Part of What Fuelled the Clinton Campaign Scandal Robert Wright Part 7: Jewish-Americans and US Foreign Policy 21. The Genesis of the Special Relationship Between the United States and Israel, 1948-1973 Bat-Ami Zucker Part 8: Arab-Americans, Middle-Eastern Americans and US Foreign Policy 22. Local Politics is Global, as Hill Turns to Armenia Steven Mufson 23. American Foreign Policy in the Middle East and its Impact on the Identity of Arab Muslims in the United States Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad 24. How to Define a Muslim American Agenda Mohammed

The article analyses the importance of the ideological factor in the shaping of US foreign policy in the late 20th and early decades of the 21st centuries. The role of ideology in US foreign policy is outlined in historical retrospect. It is pointed out that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USA faced the problem of finding a new ideological doctrine that would replace the anti-Communist doctrine of the Cold War era. The key aim was to substantiate the country’s claims to geopolitical dominance and the creation of a unipolar world, which took shape as early as in the 1990s. During that period, the ideological basis of US foreign policy were the concept of democratic enlargement by A. Lake and, for the post-Soviet states, the concept of geopolitical pluralism by Z. Brzeziński. In the early 21st century, democratic enlargement was supplemented by the concepts of humanitarian intervention and regime change, whose purpose was to ideologically substantiate the policy of largescale military interventions that were launched in the late 1990s – early 2000s. The author analyses the attempts of the US leadership to deviate from the so-called reset policy by Barack Obama, as well as the announced abandonment of the policy of interventions in the course of Donald Trump’s first presidential term. In addition, the role of ideology in the country’s foreign policy during Joe Biden’s presidency is studied. The author comes to the conclusion that the current US foreign policy is extremely ideologized. The steps taken by the US leadership in the sphere of foreign policy are rather based on ideological stereotypes than on the analysis of the actual state of affairs on the global stage. According to the author, the dominant ideology makes the stabilization of the system of international relations impossible. In conclusion, the author attempts to determine prospects for US foreign policy taking into account a major recent event, i.e. D. Trump’s victory in the US presidential election.

This chapter examines how US foreign policy on environmental issues has evolved over a period of nearly five decades, from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. It first considers the United States’ environmental multilateralism as well as environmental initiatives under Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Donald Trump before discussing key trends and puzzles in US foreign environmental policy. It shows the United States as an environmental leader during the Cold War, but an environmental laggard in the post–Cold War period, with the Obama administration’s re-engagement in climate diplomacy as a significant exception. The chapter also explains how the larger trend of waning environmental leadership from the United States has occurred at the same time as international environmental problems, especially climate change, have increasingly moved from the periphery towards the centre of world politics.

This article investigates the US foreign and security policy with regard to the responsibility to protect (R2P). Based on the analysis of expert interviews and official documents, it traces the US position on R2P across critical junctures between the principle's 2005 adoption at the UN World Summit and its latest invocations in the Syrian crises of 2013. It discusses the recent atrocity prevention agenda of the US Government as ambitious and as a still evolving operationalisation of R2P. The article reveals several patterns in US attitude and practices towards R2P across recent administrations: the avoidance of new obligations in international law despite a general supportive attitude towards R2P; a deeply-rooted pragmatism that leads to the development of practical tools that follow-up on the principles it commits to, even if R2P language had to be avoided in domestic politics; and a constant balancing act between domestic- and international-level politics.

This book provides a descriptive and analytical narrative of the evolution of US foreign policy towards Iraq at the supra-national (global), national (Arab Iraq) and sub-national (Iraqi Kurdistan) levels. The book is unique in that it presents a sophisticated insight into the two major components of US Iraq policy. To achieve this, it addresses US foreign policy towards both Arab Iraq and an entirely original analysis on US policy towards the Iraqi Kurds as components of a larger US Iraq policy, dictated by the supreme US Grand Strategy. The book also examines whether US foreign policy towards Iraq has been one of continuity or change – a dimension that has not been illustrated in any other publication. The book deals intelligently and at great length with the events surrounding US Iraq policy in three distinct phases, going back to, 1979 with regard to Arab Iraq, and 1961 in respect to the Kurdish liberation movement, covering all subsequent US administrations including the Obama presidency. It provides a thorough examination of US interests in Iraq and reasons for the 2003 invasion and its aftermath. It also engages with the intellectual roots of US foreign policy, presenting an intricate reaction of views, objectives and agendas. This work will be of interest to students and scholars of Middle East studies, US Foreign Policy and Security studies.

<p>Undoubtedly, no country as America is the host and influenced of pressure groups, and because of the existence of the interests and valuation system in America, this issue has made decision making in foreign policy of this country difficult. Among pressure groups in America, Zionist lobbies seem to have the most influence in America's foreign policy. Based on this, it can be approximately said that America and Israel have had special ties after the World War II and AIPAC Group has always guaranteed the continuation of this relationship. A set of factors play role in forming foreign policy of each country internally, nationally and internationally that the outcome of these factors’ action and reactions will is presented as the outcome and "foreign policy". The United Sates of America’s foreign policy is also the same process, based on this according to the international relationships ideas which of the important levels in analyzing foreign policy of the United States of America is internal level whose one of its components is investigating the role of pressure groups in forming the foreign policy of this country, practically the activity of any groups isn’t as prominent and highlighted as Zionist lobby in this subject.</p>Therefore the author of this research is sought to investigate the effect of different shapes of Zionist lobby and the position and performance of this regime in America’s foreign policy towards Iran, hence the arrow of lobbying activities in the area of Iran is also evaluated; consequently in the process of the research, stating that influential element in the system of decision making in The United States of America about the role of stakeholder groups with a focus on Zionist lobby and the unwavering support of the United States from this lobby is undeniable.

Does “soft power” matter in international relations? Specifically, when the United States seeks cooperation from countries around the world, do the views of their publics about US foreign policy affect the actual foreign policy behavior of these countries? The authors examine this question using multinational surveys covering fifty-eight countries, combined with information about their foreign policy decisions in 2003, a critical year for the US. They draw their basic conceptual framework from Joseph Nye, who uses various indicators of opinion about the US to assess US soft power. But the authors argue that his theory lacks the specificity needed for falsifiable testing. They refine it by focusing on foreign public opinion about US foreign policy, an underemphasized element of Nye's approach. Their regression analysis shows that foreign public opinion has a significant and large effect on troop commitments to the war in Iraq, even after controlling for various hard power factors. It also has significant, albeit small, effects on policies toward the International Criminal Court and on voting decisions in the UN General Assembly. These results support the authors' refined theoretical argument about soft power: public opinion about US foreign policy in foreign countries does affect their policies toward the US, but this effect is conditional on the salience of an issue for mass publics.

Perhaps the most significant trend in international relations theory in the last two decades has been the emergence of approaches emphasizing social, cultural, and ideational factors into the foreground ofthe field. What various authors have termed the sociological, cultural, or constructivist turn in IR theory was a direct result ofthe discipline's need to address the causes and consequences ofthe end ofthe Cold War and collapse ofthe Soviet Union, events that had been largely unforeseen by IR theorists operating within the structural-materialist paradigm of neorealism that had dominated the in earlier decades.' The emergence of constructivism as a body of theory offered an alternative to this previous orientation, one that promised to account for the significance of cultural and sociocognitive factors as they affected state foreign policies and the nature of the international system.While these were regarded as radically new perspectives on international politics in the post-Cold War era, however, this article will contend that these constructivist authors owe much to Robert E. Osgood, whose arguments about the history of US foreign policy decades earlier suggested many of the same conclusions.REALISM AND THE HI STORY OF US FOREIGN POLICY: ROBERT OSGOOD'S CRITIQUEMore than 50 years after its publication, Osgood's 1953 work Ideals and Selfinterest in America's Foreign Relations continues to be a seminal analysis of the evolution of US foreign policy in the first half of the 20th century. It was an attempt to chronicle what had clearly been a major evolution in American foreign relations since the late 1800s, to illustrate the sources of America's conduct in that period, and to prescribe a course for future policy based on the application of power in the pursuit of both moral and pragmatic ends.2Osgood suggested a pattern by which change had occurred in the first half of the 20th century in US foreign policy. He argued that paradigmatic understandings of the nation's proper role in the world come to hold sway for long periods, based on their ability to describe a coherent and believable view of the world more adequately than competing conceptions. As a result, American foreign policy had been marked by long periods of consensus, punctuated by periods of redefinition, which occur when established beliefs no longer seem effective in explaining and dealing with the international environment. Osgood argued that the 1920s and 1930s, for instance, were characterized by varying degrees of general reluctance on the part of Americans to play an active part in international security affairs. This was a result of the fact that a consensus was reached, among American leaders and the nation as a whole, that non-interventionism was the most appropriate role for the United States in the world, based on traditional ideals and revisionist arguments that the nation had been duped into fighting an old world power-political conflict in World War I. Osgood claimed that while US interests remained consistent throughout this process, they were properly perceived or ignored to greater or lesser degrees by the dominant consensus of each era.Osgood described American foreign policy in the early 20th century as dominated by the excessive idealism ofthe American people and most US leaders alike. Woodrow Wilson was his archetypal example. While Wilson's moralism allowed the nation to bring to bear its inchoate power in the First World War, it also created unrealizable expectations in the minds of Americans, and the inevitable result was disillusionment and ultimately a withdrawal to neo-isolationism in the war's aftermath. Osgood claimed that it was only through the discipline of adversity forced on the United States by World War II that a more mature understanding ofthe need for longterm, patient, and moderate involvement in an international system dominated by the exercise of national power took root firmly in the American psyche. …

Introduction: Rethinking American Foreign Policy Part I: American Foreign Policy: Crisis and Change Chapter 1: American Foreign Policy: Politics and Paralysis Chapter 2: New Challenges in U.S. Foreign Policy Chapter 3: The Main Institutions of Foreign Policymaking Chapter 4: The New Powerhouses: Think Tanks and Foreign Policy Chapter 5: The Washington Social Circuit and Foreign Policy Part II: Hot Global Issues Chapter 6: Ethnocentrism and Foreign Policy: Can We Understand the Third World? Chapter 7: The Democracy Agenda in U.S. Foreign Policy Chapter 8: Human Rights Policy Chapter 9: Friendly Tyrants and American Interests Chapter 10: Globalization and Its Critics Part III: Regional Responses Chapter 11: Asia and the Effort to Grow Civil Society Chapter 12: Democracy and Development in Sub-Saharan Africa Chapter 13: Benign Neglect: American Foreign Policy in Latin America in the Post-Cold War Era Chapter 14: The Middle East and Islamic Society Conclusion Suggested Readings

Undoubtedly, no countries have been, by now, the host and under the influence of pressure groups as far America would, the issue make difficult to make a decision in foreign policy affairs, because of the benefits and the valuation system in America. It seems that among the pressure groups in America, the Israel lobby in America has the most influence on the foreign policy-making; accordingly it can be said almost there has been a special relationship between America and Israel after World War II and AIPAC always guarantees this relationship to continue. In shaping the foreign policy of any country, a collection of internally, nationally and internationally different-level factors would contribute that the outcome of the interaction between these factors has been provided as an output and called by "foreign policy". United States of America's foreign policy has been the outcome of such a process, accordingly, on the basis of theories of international relations that the internal level would be the most essential level of the analysis of the foreign policy of the United States of America, which one of its components is to examine the role of pressure groups in shaping this country’s foreign policy, actually in this regard, there is no the most prominent and significant lobby group except Israel lobby in America. So, author intends to investigate the influence of various forms of Israel lobby and this regime position and performance within America’s foreign policy against Iran and thereby, the lobby’s directed activates in the arena of Iran were investigated; followed by the research process, stated that the penetrating element in the decision-making system of the United states of America is undeniably in terms of the Israeli-centered influential lobby groups’ contribution and the unsparing support of the United states for this lobby.