American Foreign Policy Analysis of the Middle East From the President's Perspective Essay

Pages: 13 (4630 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 17  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: Master's  ·  Topic: History - Israel

American foreign policy as it manifests itself in the Middle East has long been a struggle. The last few decades have demonstrated America's attempts at finding allies and the challenges of controlling the area. After a tremendous amount of analysis and assessment, the best methods to be taken in this particular area are ones of strategic humanitarian action and development. As this paper will demonstrate, much of the discord of the area is directly connected to the fact that it's so impoverished and disadvantaged. Helping the Middle East and building where other governments would blow up, is the best way to develop the area. Such actions not only help develop the global economy, but they help to stabilize America' footing in the rest of the world. Thus, the key thesis which this paper presents is how America can create a stronger and warmer relationship with nations in the Middle East through generosity and strategic fiscal support.

Analysis of Author's Premise in OpEd article

Download full Download Microsoft Word File
paper NOW!
After reviewing the OpEd piece by the Wall Street Journal, it is clear to me what the author thinks the White House should engage in as the best course of action. However, first I'd like to address the problem and praise that the WSJ writer appears to have with the current course of action that the White House has taken in Tunisia. The piece is cleverly written and seems to portray a certain ambivalence about the White House's most recent actions. For instance, the OpEd piece begins by criticizing (perhaps mildly) American actions in the Middle East, saying that America has been slow to respond to the needs of the Middle East and sluggish in taking action. However, the OpEd piece does use that piece of criticism as a springboard for praising (mostly) our most recent actions with this region.

TOPIC: Essay on American Foreign Policy Analysis of the Middle East From the President's Perspective Assignment

The article evaluates how the White House most recently agreed to give $100 million dollars in the next year along with $30 million in foreign bonds to help make the transition of Tunisia towards the access of foreign markets smoother. There was some mild criticism inserted in this praise. The WSJ writer acknowledged how past gifts to foreign countries are often used to fund the work of U.S. consultants there, but that this gift was different. While it is true that past funding for countries in need has been in part used to pay the U.S. leaders and brave men and women who work there, this remark made it look like all foreign aid given in the past was just an empty gesture to simply line the pockets of diplomats and conflict resolution specialists. Such criticism is heavy handed and unwarranted.

The WSJ assesses the economic strain that America is currently undergoing, but still explains that the move we just made was a wise one. Reminding the reader about the fruit vendor who set himself on fire in protest of the unresponsive and corrupt government is a fitting move and one which aptly reflects why the White House has taken the actions it did. Aggressive and strategic action needs to occur in Tunisia immediately, or else it's just going to become another ticking time bomb in the Middle East. America has enough foes in the Middle East; it doesn't need another. Now is the time to strategically and proactively start seeking out allies. One of the most effective ways to do this is via foreign aid. However, the question remains, as the author of this article aptly points out, how this aid will be used.

At the same time, the WSJ seems to be pointing out that at the White House; we have made a smart decision with our foreign aid. Tunisia is not like just any Arab country as its post-revolutionary transition has been much smoother than in other countries. Other countries dealt with civil unrest and corruption whereas in Tunisia, the country was able to hold democratic elections. As the WSJ illuminates, this was a marked sign of progress and change and something which heavily influenced the decision of the U.S. To provide aid to this country. it's true as the WSJ article proclaims, coming to Tunisia's aid was very much a necessity in many ways as the Prime Minister had just told Hillary Clinton that the nation desired a close and strategic partnership with the U.S. As the writer of the article asserts, offering the aid was a way to demonstrate to the nation that America helps its friends. However, it's more than that. Supplying Tunisia with foreign aid in the form of bonds and cash injected straight into their government means that we will be in a position to guide and help the nation achieve and move in a concerted direction where we want them to. While Tunisia has made a tremendous amount of strides and progress in the last few years, they're still in an incredibly vulnerable place. They can continue to move forward or they can move backwards, following more in the footsteps of countries like Libya and Syria.

The WSJ while praising this move of the U.S. did say that we've injected $100 million dollars into the government's coffers. On the one hand, I'm pleased that the WSJ acknowledges the amount and the directedness of the funding that we've provided Tunisia with, the article didn't go into any details about how the money will be spent in the country. This means that either the WSJ doesn't know how the money will be spent, or doesn't feel that it's necessary to acknowledge -- or, in its omission, is implying that there is no plan as to how the money will be spent. This couldn't be further from the truth. The U.S. has made such an injection of cash into this nation and has supported that injection with additional fiscal support in the form of bonds because there is a highly detailed and highly proactive plan to support the development of Tunisia. We have not made this expenditure only to see Tunisia slip into unrest, or renegade action or to see the country stay in poverty. This expenditure has been made to see the country flourish with the help of the U.S. And to demonstrate our loyalty to nations who are willing to cooperate with us.

One of the my favorite parts of this article is the WSJ's apt assessment of the current economic state of Tunisia in that it makes the most lucid evaluation of this nation -- essentially summarizing why the U.S. is forming such a strong alliance and partnership with this country. Tourism, foreign investments and overall visitation to Tunisia has dropped and thus pushing economic growth down and with it, joblessness up. Given this current state, investors remain dubious of investing in the country, even though the growth of the economy has started to revive. The money that we've pledged to Tunisia will indeed cover the urgent needs of the country, as the WSJ article points out. However, the writer doesn't dwell on how crucial it is that those urgent needs of the country are covered. If the urgent needs of the country such as money for schools, roads, supermarkets, and for other forms of the country's infrastructure, are not addressed, then Tunisia can far too easily plummet into instability. When a country's people start to live dangerously below the poverty level that means that the nation becomes ripe for victimization or for terrorist groups to start to thrive.

One of the most obvious examples of such a trend occurred with Germany post World War I. Not only was the Treaty of Versailles not enforced, but Germany was a country that was living in extreme economic decline. Thus, this was an environment where people were struggling, living conditions were difficult and it was hence ripe for an extremist and subversive ruler like Hitler to come to power. Hitler was able to offer "answers" (such as in scapegoating the Jews) and ultimately this caused one of the worst genocides of U.S. history. Thus, one needs to consider the dangerous circumstances that could descend upon Tunisia if the country is left to wallow in economic decline, with the needs of their people not being met -- while the country is located in a Middle Eastern hotbed of sorts for terrorism, subversions and while being surrounded by a range of politically unstable countries. This is a clear and obvious recipe for the country to lapse into civil war, terrorism and other forms of national wretchedness. The injection of money that the U.S. has made is truly just a humble amount in the larger scheme of things: it would ultimately cost more to have to invade the country with U.S. military presence later, after the country had lapsed into corruption and depravity without U.S. aid.

Another thing that the WSJ article did was it highlighted how they feel I and my administration have somewhat dropped the ball on forward momentum with the Middle East. The article references how I made a speech… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Download full paper (13 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

American Foreign Policy That Both Realists and Idealists Should Fall in Love Term Paper

Geopolitical Analysis of China From the President's Perspective Essay

What Factors Affects the US President Foreign Policy Decision-Making Process About Iran Research Paper

Attack on U.S. Marine Compound in Beirut Airport in 1983 Internationalism Term Paper

George W. Bush Administration Policy on Syria Essay

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "American Foreign Policy Analysis of the Middle East From the President's Perspective" Essay in a Bibliography:

APA Style

American Foreign Policy Analysis of the Middle East From the President's Perspective.  (2013, July 5).  Retrieved September 18, 2021, from

MLA Format

"American Foreign Policy Analysis of the Middle East From the President's Perspective."  5 July 2013.  Web.  18 September 2021. <>.

Chicago Style

"American Foreign Policy Analysis of the Middle East From the President's Perspective."  July 5, 2013.  Accessed September 18, 2021.