ABSTRACT
Few subjects of US foreign policy reveal a larger chasm between theory and practice than the Middle East since 9/11. Few regions of the world have exposed more gaps between rhetoric and reality than the Middle East since the terrorist attacks. Few topics in American foreign policy invoke more domestic reactions than the Middle East. No survey of “new directions” is complete without analysis of recent and current American policies toward Iraq, Iran, and Israel. Yet paradoxes in US Middle East policy did not begin with the George W. Bush administration, nor will they end there. Still, few, if any, presidential administrations have done more to limit US options while expanding the US role in the region. Rarely has the American reach so exceeded its grasp as it has in the years 2001-8 in
the Middle East, especially as Washington has extended the geographical boundaries of the region to include Afghanistan and sometimes Pakistan, as well as North Africa. This extension, a Bush-Cheney new direction, whether actual or often just rhetorical, has further exposed the chronic gap between goals and means in US foreign policy. Restoring balance, realism and restraint must be a priority for any new administration. As a first step, US policymakers must find the right combination of diplomatic, economic, military and cultural instruments of foreign policy, especially toward Iraq, Iran and Israel, and also toward Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. What are the possibilities for post-Bush new directions, even if grounded in old
assumptions? As this chapter explains, old assumptions could well constrain new directions in 2009 and beyond, even if a more sensible view of the region eventually prevails, one that shrinks the geographical boundaries more realistically in the future and, in so doing, narrows the gap between American objectives and instruments. Connecting the dots, to use the popular phrase, is especially urgent since misguided policies could damage US foreign policy elsewhere. The links between US policies in the Middle East and more general debates and
dilemmas in American foreign policy deserve more attention than they generally receive. Worldviews and the changes in them that events shape are especially complex in this volatile region which has figured prominently in US foreign policy since the founding of the Republic. Whether as the site of missionary efforts, proxy battles with the Soviet Union, contested trade routes, or oil deposits, the Middle East has captured attention and sparked frustrations when local players have so often put their own agendas ahead of that of the Americans or have cleverly tailored their own compulsions to US fears of the moment, as the years since 9/11 have demonstrated.
