An American Researcher: “The American Policy Since the Attacks on September 11 is Negative

In his lecture delivered at the headquarters of the SCSS, on Oct. 20, 2008, Clifton Martin, the researcher and specialist of Middle East affairs, stated that the profile of American policy in the region of the Middle East has shifted from a positive to a very negative profile since the attacks on September 11, 2001.

 

He also stated that the person in charge of American policy is the
president himself and he (the president) relies on the information
provided by his advisors and other institutions. The researcher reviewed
the historical development of the relations between America and the
Middle East, and he stated that such relations had been very limited in
view of the insufficiency of mutual interests although the relations
started very early since the reign of President Thomas Jefferson when the
Kingdom of Morocco gained its independence in 1785. But, the real
beginning of relations with the Middle East started in the early nineteenth century when America sent
educational and health commissioners to the region. America continued taking
care of developing her relations with the area and invested in the oil
sector, especially in Saudi Arabia; America noticed that her
relations with Saudi Arabia would make a balance between America and the
then English powers existing in the Gulf. The researcher pointed out that
the percentage of the oil imported to America did not exceed 1% before
the second world war, but the percentage drastically increased after
the war. This made oil a determining factor in the planning of the
American policy in the Middle East, which was reflected by the American
policy in the period of 1946—2001 during which five republican
administrations and five democratic ones took over the power. All those
administrations paid particular attention to confronting Soviet powers during the Cold War, protecting access to oil, supporting Israel, and maintaining good relations with those Arab states dubbed as “moderate.”

Since the September attacks until now, said the researcher, a new belief
has crystallized through the Bush Doctrine: the idea
suggesting that when danger increases reaction increases. Also, this belief is
based on the theory that states that the greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction, thus providing justification for unilateral and preemptive action.

Regarding the potential policy after the forthcoming elections, the
lecturer saw a similarity between the ideas of the two presidential
candidates; both of them pledges support to the security of Israel and plans to reduce reliance on
the oil of the Region; also both want to end the war in Iraq although each
one has his own means to stop the war. Obama’s different visions are those
related to reforming the diplomatic aspects and supporting the dialogue
with opponents.