The US and the Middle East

1. The US and the Middle East December 22, 2011

2. Exercise • Identify three areas of overlap or difference among the articles

3. Baumgartner: A Clash of Civilizations? Generalizations regarding Evangelicals: • Morel likely than others to support Israel • More likely to have supported Iraq War after overall support declined • More likely to approve of Bush’s foreign policy approach and War on Terrorism

4. Reasons for positions • Interpretations of Christian doctrine regarding the End of the World and the place of Israel/Middle East in those events. • Literalist interpretations of the Bible • Influence of well known religious leaders

5. Details of Findings • The effect of identification as Evangelical (Protestant, White, emphasis on literalism) is strong even after controlling for other factors, including party identification. • The large of effect of identification vs. non-identification as Evangelical on responses to particular questions.

6. Details • Highest support was for Bh’s handling of war on Terror (.71 probability of approval with other factors controlled) • Biggest difference between Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals was on approval of Bush’s foreign policy (.21 gap). • Lowest level of support was for proposition that the US should support Israel more than it now does (.21) despite significant voicing of sympathy for Israel (.67).

7. Chomsky: After the Cold War Example of a leftist analysis of US foreign policy in general and in the Middle East in particular • US acts hegemonically • US interested in protecting economic interests • Seeks to dominate control of ME oil • Quick to use military and paramilitary means to effect policy goals

8. Chomsky: general propositions • Uses Israel to help keep order in the region • Uninterested in the Palestinians because sources of disorder and have no oil • Supported Israeli peace with Egypt so Israel would have a free hand to deal wit the Palestinians.

9. Little: Making of a Special Relationship Why is there a “special relationship” between the US and Israel by the late 1960s, given that the US had intervened against Israel in the Suez Crisis in 1957 (and Israel had been first recognized by the Soviets, in large part because of the socialist character of its founding Zionist philosophy, and given that Israel does not have oil, unlike its Arab enemies, some of whom were also allies, or at least friendly with, the US)?

10. Little: Possible Reasons as found in the literature • It began with Johnson, who was importantly influenced by domestic politics and the Israeli lobby • It began with LBJ, who was impressed by Israel’s military capabilities and thus its potential as a partner in keeping order and in keeping alive Western influence in the region.

11. Little: Argument In looking at now declassified documents, the better explanation appears to be that the relationship: • Began with Eisenhower and JFK • Motivated by concerns with Middle East stability rather than domestic considerations • They were also importantly influenced by • Specter of growing Soviet influence • Israel acquiring nuclear weapons • However, Soviet influence grew and Israel developed nuclear weapons anyway even though the US developed a very close relationship with Israel.

12. Little: Argument • The relationship grew by fits and start beginning in the aftermath of the Suez Crisis. • The relationship was not motivated by arguments that Israel is a democracy or that it is essentially Western. • Rather, successive presidents reacted to particular events which, nonetheless, shared certain broad dynamics.

13. Little: Dynamics of the Developing Relationship • Israel seeks weapons and US security assurances as hedges against the hostility of Arab neighbors and Palestinian challenge. • Arab neighbors sympathetic to Palestinians. • When feeling strong, Arab regimes will actively support Palestinian action against Israel or threaten Israel. • When Arab states feel threatened by Israel, they turn to the Soviets.

14. Little: Dynamics • The US wants • Stability in the region • The Soviets out of the region • Secure access to oil and security for the property and interests of US countries • The US does not want Israel to develop nuclear weapons because this would spur an arms race in the region, create greater possibilities for war and bring in the Soviets • The US attempts to balance providing weapons and security assurances to Israel to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons with the need to appear evenhanded in the region, not alienate Arab regimes or spur them to increase hostilities, keep oil supplies secure and to keep the Soviets out.

15. Little: Dynamics • Israel uses this dilemma to squeeze support and arms from the US while seemingly reserving the right to build nuclear weapons. • US presidents resist providing security assurances and weapons, attempt to provide lower grade weapons, send Israel to Europe for more sophisticated weapons, and do not give in to request for weapons even when such a move would help them electorally. • Only after these dynamics were established did Israeli lobbyists appear successful and pro-Israel people begin to appear in the (LBJ) executive branch.

16. Little: Implications • The US did not seek this relationship, but backed into it. • The relationship began with goals other than preserving Israel or using Israel to help actively realize US policy in the region. • The relationship was not based on a positive overlap of interests or in shared values. • Rather, the relationship developed to prevent Israeli actions from damaging US policy goals in the region. Did not see Israel as a force for order, but a potential force for disorder that must be restrained and appeased. • Israel in the 1950s and 1960s benefitted from and manipulated the relationship much more successfully than did the US. • Without the looming presence of the Soviets, the US would not have developed the relationship and not because Israel helps keep the Soviets out, but because Israeli actions have the potential to bring the Soviets in unless restrained and pacified.