Within the realm of the United States foreign policy, a crucial subject of debate arises; What motivates the United States to adopt certain foreign policies? What are the overarching constraints or criteria that govern its actions? Can these policies sustain changes in administrations or shifts in prevailing circumstances?
Furthermore, central to the discourse surrounding the US foreign policy is the query regarding whether policy decisions are predominantly influenced by the compatibility of foreign states with the principles of liberal democracy or market-driven economic values or rather by American "interests." Is the "values" based approach more prominent in Democratic administrations rather than Republican ones? Moreover, one cannot overlook the role played by domestic factors in shaping these policies, further adding complexity to the analysis.
American politics are characterized by being rapid-paced, transparent, and distinctively focused on local issues. This is exemplified by the two-year partial or complete congressional election cycle, during which partial or complete turnover occurs. In this context, the media plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception, especially regarding foreign policy, which is of marginal interest to constituencies. Notably, the visual impact of television coverage has considerable influence over the political landscape. For instance, the coverage of American soldiers killed in Vietnam in the late 1960s and the economic difficulties immediately after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 both led to the incumbent political party losing the presidency.
Administrations formulate and execute foreign policy. The House of Representatives and the Senate control budgets and influence the most consequential national security issues, respectively. Nevertheless, both legislative bodies consistently consider their domestic constituencies.
In the realm of US foreign policy, notable shifts and variations can be observed across different presidential administrations. Ronald Reagan, a Republican, had raised these issues in his adversarial rhetoric towards the Soviet Union. Republican and Democratic presidents thereafter focused more so on economic reform. However, during his first term, George W. Bush, a Republican, embraced the notion of regime change and democratic reform in dealing with Middle Eastern states. Barack Obama, a Democrat, institutionally supported the promotion of liberal democracies but generally maintained a reactive stance to domestic events in his rhetoric. Donald Trump, an outlier from both parties, did not significantly sway the balance either way. As for Joe Biden, he began his 2020 election campaign with an emphasis on reform, but the pull of national security interests quickly prevailed.
Neither party has an exclusive patent on the promotion of a “values” based American foreign policy. Both have been inconsistent in the application of “these values” when they did not serve America's interests or if the alleged violator was an ally.
Assessing US Foreign Policy in MENA
To assess whether “values“ or “national interests" have or will determine future American policies, a brief review of relations with its closest friends in the Middle East is useful.
1. Morocco:
Morocco, situated along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean near the Straits of Gibraltar, has historical ties with the US dating back to the American Revolutionary War. During this time, Moroccan Sultan Mohamed III granted US ships access to ports under the same conditions of accorded nations with treaty-based relations. Throughout the years, American interests in Morocco have been driven by various factors.
For decades, American interests in Morocco have been driven by the need to ensure friendly relations with a strategically located country, especially during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Intelligence sharing between the two nations has been a cornerstone of their relationship, bolstering their mutual security interests. Morocco's strong opposition to extremism and Al Qaeda has further strengthened its ties with the United States, as both nations share a common goal in combating terrorism.
Additionally, Morocco's possession of significant phosphate reserves has contributed to American interests in the region. These reserves hold economic and geopolitical significance, further cementing the importance of maintaining favorable relations with Morocco.
In the realm of foreign policy, national interests have consistently remained the primary determining factor for the United States in its engagement with Morocco. Even before the Trump administration, differences existed on how to deal with the Polisario in Western Sahara, but overarching national interests have guided American policy decisions.
2. Egypt:
Egypt, strategically located at the eastern corner of North Africa with its Sinai Peninsula extending into West Asia, has been of geostrategic interest to the US. During the Cold War era, Egypt held an active platform for Arab regionalism and nonalignment. Furthermore, Egypt was a conclusive determinant for peace, security, or stability, particularly with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict since the 1973 war. Collaborative efforts between the two nations have extended to various areas, including the liberation of Kuwait, the war against terrorism, where respective defense and security agencies work closely together. Additionally, the strategic value of the Suez Canal passage has further deepened the bilateral relationship.
Over the years, the trajectory of US-Egypt relations has witnessed several peaks and troughs. Notably, there were instances during the George W. Bush administration when a "values-based" approach was publicly emphasized, with calls for political reforms in Egypt, and encouraged a level of conditionality on financial support provided. Yet, with national interests in mind, he did not contain the scope of relations which had expanded and diversified exponentially over generations. The rhetoric of "reform and democracy issues” revived again during Obama’s presidency after Hosni Mubarak was removed in 2011, peaking in 2013 before subsiding gradually after 2014.
Biden's election campaign rhetoric on the promotion of a values-based approach quickly subsided with the first crisis between Israel and Gaza, where Egypt mediated to de-escalate the heightened tension. Since then, relations with the current administration have stabilized, with gradual improvement in public exchanges.
Yet, the strongest pillars of the US-Egypt relations lie specifically, as mentioned before, within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, given its geographical proximity. Egypt is also significant to American national security interests along the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, as well as in East Africa.
American interests are the decisive determinant governing its relations with Egypt. Conflicting values can sometimes be a politically constraining or complicating factor, even a bifurcated excuse for policies. However, such conflicts are typically temporary and are ultimately trumped by national security considerations.
3. Israel:
Israel is frequently projected as America’s strongest Middle Eastern ally, attributed to the notion of “shared values” as well as its “national security” significance to the US.
Significant technological cooperation exists between the two nations, with a considerable flow of advanced weaponry, especially from the US to Israel. Intelligence information sharing is prevalent with regard to the Levantine region and Iran. However, Israel has not actively participated in American military operations in the Arab world due to political sensitivities. Consequently, despite being a hard asset for national security operational benefit, it is in the Arab world considered relatively insignificant.
The US and Israel often reiterate that they are both liberal democracies with market economies. However, measures suggested by the Israeli Prime Minister to limit judicial independence are considered by critics to be clear evidence that Israel no longer upholds the principles of liberal democracy. It is also crucial to acknowledge that Israel has occupied Palestinian territories and continued expansion of illegal settlements in a blatant violation of international law.
America’s support for Israel can be largely attributed to the latter’s success in navigating America’s domestic political system rather than being solely based on shared values or national security benefits to the US. However, it is noteworthy that the Israeli Prime Minister was not abruptly invited to Washington after forming a new government should not be overlooked.
4. Jordan:
Jordan holds a significant position as the primary ally of the US in the Levantine. Cooperation between both nations is founded on pursuing de-escalation in the region and encompasses significant security cooperation. Furthermore, there is recognition of Jordan’s special responsibilities towards the Holy sites in Jerusalem, as well as its role in hosting Palestinian, Syrian, and Iraqi refugees.
American interests in Jordan appear primarily to ensure a peaceful and secure Israeli Jordanian frontier, given that the Hashemite Kingdom is considered a moderating force in the region.
5. The Gulf:
United States relations with Gulf Cooperation Council States were primarily characterized as a “Security for Energy” equation, as expressed in the 1980 Carter Doctrine. American interests and commitments vary from one country to another, depending on their energy capacity and synergies with neighboring sources. The 1990 liberation of Kuwait was a clear manifestation of this doctrine, which extended beyond the energy capacity of the countries. Other factors also come into play, with GCC countries individually deciding the extent of American military facilities and cooperation, allowing the level of concrete military cooperation with the United States, as well as each country's readiness and ability to influence the region.
With the emergence of shale technology, America’s dependence on Gulf energy decreased, although it remains a factor in global energy pricing. The end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union further diminished the importance of the Middle East in the American mindset.
However, the Ukraine crisis and China's increasing dependence on Gulf oil have reignited interest in the region. China's hosting of the Saudi-Iranian agreement has shed further light on changing regional relations, which will affect American policies towards the region.
In essence, American interests and policies in the Arab Gulf Area have always been based on practical realpolitik and hard asset national security interests. Visits by Arab Gulf leaders to Washington have become less frequent, but President Biden has recently met with Arab leaders in the Gulf. Even in the presence of complex and unique tragic circumstances that have strained relations between the United States and several major Gulf friends, time and concrete interests, particularly energy, have quickly driven the parties to reset their relations.
American foreign policy and other major powers like Russia and China are primarily driven by tangible national security considerations, which will always be the decisive factor. “Values “ that America alone upholds are of secondary importance but may occasionally factor in, particularly during critical election cycles, by the Administration, Congress, or the media.
