Invasion or Inaction: A Brief History of US Engagement in the Near East

Part 1: The False Western Dichotomy on Regime Change in the Middle East

Historians are starting to change their view of the last 30 years of American history. In the 1980′s, it seemed inevitable this era would be remembered by Reagan’s hard stand against communism and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Union. In the 1990′s, some suspected that the instability in Eastern Europe as a result of these events would be the story. However, there is growing instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, civil unrest over the failed June elections and brewing ethnic unrest in Iran, and spreading of militant Islamic terrorism in Somalia, Yemen, and throughout Asia. The real legacy of the late 20th and early 21st centuries may very well be how the West, led by The United States, has failed to establish a lasting peace in the Middle East. Part of this failureis the false dichotomy between invasion (and other hyper-aggressive acts, such as missile strikes) and inaction (often involving complete diplomatic and/or economic disengagement).

United states military intervention in the Middle East has been the theme for decades. Since the 1945, it’s been particularly busy. Here is a VERY brief history:

1953 – CIA overthrows a democracy and installs the Shah in Iran

1963 – CIA organizes a coup, allowing the Ba’athists to come into power, with Saddam Hussein as the head of the secret service.

1979-1980 – After the US backed Shah is removed from power, the Islamist Republic of Iran takes American personnel hostage for 444 days. 8 US servicemen die in a helicopter crash while attempting to free the hostages.

1981 – US raids site in Libya in an attempt to limit Muamar Gaddafi’s power.

1982-1984 – US sends peacekeepers into Lebanon after Israel invades and overthrows the PLO.

1984-1988 – Iran-Iraq War – Ronald Reagan declares that the United States “would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.” U.S. supplies weapons and intelligence to Iraq. The United States also places American flags on Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil tankers, making any attack on Iraq’s supply lines a direct attack on the United States.

1990-1991 – Iraq invades Kuwait. The United States fights the weapons it supplied Saddam Hussein to repel the invasion.

1991-2003 – Iraq is blockaded, a no-fly zone is established, and heavy sanctions are levied against its people.

2001 – America invades Afghanistan following the September 11th attacks, George Bush threatens the Taliban that if it does not cooperate with the apprehension of Osama bin Laden, then the U.S. will remove the government.

2003 – America invades Iraq.

What are the results? Far from positive. Wars have raged over the Israel issue since it’s formation, and they continue to wage. Militant Islam has been growing throughout that era,

Much has been made of Obama’s pledges to have a “less arrogant” foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. Even more was made when many members of Obama’s top brass in Afghanistan and Iraq have repeatedly endorsed Three Cups of Tea, a book about how collaborative efforts in the Middle East are the keys to lasting peace. The idea is simple: if we listen to the people of the Middle East and help them with what THEY want to accomplish, the results will be better than if we GIVE them what we think will improve the region.

Even before he was president, Obama’s vow to reopen diplomatic relations with Iran made waves because it flew in the face of years of American policy.It smacked of weakness to some. For too long, America’s foreign policy has deviated from Teddy Roosevelt’s “Speak softly and carry a big stick” tradition. We’ve spoken louder, and we’ve used the stick too much. On some occasions, however, we’ve refused to get directly involved, perhaps cutting diplomatic ties or levying heavy sanctions, and then losing all hope and sense of responsibility when there were no results. Worse, sometimes (like in Sudan) the United States government has failed to get involved at all.

Military interventions have proven incredibly complicated, expensive, and often has repercussions that are undesirable.

In the 21st century, Obama is attempting to find a second path, somewhere between passive resistance (full sanctions and a cessation of diplomatic dialogue) and military intervention. Iran is perhaps the first test for Obama, and he has many more options than he may realize.

In my next post, I’ll discuss Obama’s many options for getting involved in Iran, and the rest of the world, that don’t include fight or flight…

Stay tuned!