Question:

Myths, Illusions, & Peace: Finding a New Direction for American in the Middle East by Dennis Ross & David Makovsky, New York: Penguin Press, 2010.

Your paper should be 5 to 8 pages long (approximately 2000 words) and should focus on the following points:

According to the authors, what are the basic myths and illusions underlining traditional American foreign policy in the Middle East? How did these myths and illusions develop and how have they affected American foreign policy in the region since 1945?

Analyze the positions of the Neo Conservatives and the Realists concerning US foreign policy in the Middle East. Discuss the main ideas and goals of each, providing specific examples throughout. Which position so you think is more tenable and why?

Do you see a tension between realism and idealism in formulating American foreign policy in the Middle East? Explain your position clearly, thoughtfully, and fully?

In the past the United States has supported some horrific regimes. Why? Provide and discuss just one example fully, noting the impact of this support for US foreign policy in the region.
According to the authors, can these Middle Eastern nations with a severe �deficit in democracy� actually become democratic? For instance, are these any aspects of Islam and The Koran that are consistent with and fostering of democracy?
Finally, discuss the issue of what happens when a regime is democratically elected but is anti-United States.
Discuss the methodology the authors used to formulate their ideas and offer their conclusions. What types of sources did they use? How valid? Omissions? Etc.

Select one of the following issues in the Middle East today and focus on it.

For example, you may choose:

The great pro democratic revolutions of the Spring of 2011 in either Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, or Bahrain

Relate the event you choose to the main ideas of the Ross & Makovsky thesis. Does this situation tie into their main ideas about the Middle East and US policy there?

Be sure to submit your project in one MS Word document in APA or Turabian/Chicago format.

Sources:

Myths, Illusions and Peace Finding a new direction in the Middle East 
Ross, Makovsky Penguin, 2010

Hasan Jamal (16 Sep 2011) Bahrain News � The Protests (2011). Retrieved from http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/bahrain/index.html

Al Jazeera (21 Feb 2011) Bahrain Protest Continues. Retrieved from http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011220211947585788.html

Mike Brunker (17 Feb 2011) Egypt, Bahrain protests differ in key ways. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41651773/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/egypt-bahrain-protests-differ-key-ways/

Reem Khalifa (14 Mar 2011) Bahrain protests throw Island Kingdom into Chaos. Retrieved from http://mg.co.za/article/2011-03-14-bahrain-protests-throw-island-kingdom-into-chaos

Martin Chulov (18 Feb 2011) Bahrain Protest: �The Regime must fall, and we will make sure it does�. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/18/bahrain-protests-regime-fall

Answer:

Title: Myths, Illusions and Peace: An Analysis

Ross and Makovsky (2010) make use of their insider knowledge on American foreign policy to demolish the numerous illusions and misconceptions that exist regarding the Middle East and its relations with the US. In their book Myths, Illusions and Peace: An Analysis, these authors point out that the mother of all the myths relate to the resilient notion that once the conflict between Israel and Palestine is resolved, the ramshackle monarchies and dictatorships that reign in this region with start transforming themselves into very liberal democracies and that the terrorists will do away with their bombs.

Ross and Makovsky (2010) say that these myths have been developing since regional conflicts started occurring in the Middle East, with the Iran-Iraq war being an excellent example. The authors point out that the Iran-Iraq war, for instance, had no connection with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict whatsoever. Such myths seem to have been in existence since the time the US started promoting democracy in various parts of the Middle East. For Ross and Makovsky (2010), the previous policies of the US have been either neoconservative or realist. Such policies ostensibly led to the proposition of new ones under the theme of ‘engagement without illusions’. In the opinion of Ross and Makovsky (2010), this approach can be highly advantageous if, for example, the intention is to counter the neoconservative myth that the best interests of the US are best served through disengagement from the peace negotiations on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The myths on Middle East have affected the American foreign policy in many ways since 1945. First, the use of the labels ‘neoconservative’ and ‘realist’ with regard to the Middle East peace process has ended up being perceived as overly simplistic. Normally, this manifests itself in the existence of numerous sweeping declarations and many statements that seem to reassert the obvious. The impression created is that the real challenge is the one posed by Hamas, and that this challenge should never be wished away. In contemporary times, this myth has led many people in the Middle East to hold the firm belief that fashioning the ideal approach to the strained Iran-US relations is not a simple matter. These pronouncements have been made so often that they are no longer considered news.

The myths and misconceptions also appear to have greatly influenced Iran’s decision to acquire nuclear weapons. With the realist myth in mind, Iranian leaders have ended up adopting the position to the effect that a regime overthrow by allies of the US is a real possibility, and that the best way of dissipating this threat is acquiring nuclear weapons as a way of trying to command some power and hence respect during diplomatic negotiations.

The goals of neoconservatives differ from those of realists with regard to the ideal solutions in the Middle East as far as the US foreign policy is concerned. In March 2003, for instance, neoconservatives would hear of nothing to do with any form of negotiation with regard to Saddam’s regime in Iraq; all they wanted was a regime change. The refusal for any negotiation by neoconservatives was evident in the way they turned down Iran’s offer of a ‘grand bargain’. In this offer, Iran promised to completely halt its ongoing projects relating to weapons of mass destruction. This proposal was inspired by the bid by Iranian leaders to try and safeguard their pillars of influence in Iraq, which would be threatened if the neighboring regime was toppled by the US and her allies. The US neoconservatives did not even pause to give this proposal a second thought. They went ahead and toppled Saddam’s regime within 21 days. For neoconservatives, there was no need for any form of negotiation. All they wanted was a regime change. They held the belief that any engagement with Iranian leaders would only serve to embolden the Iraq regime.

The War on Terror, which the US waged following the September 11 attacks, remains a crucial yardstick with which the effectiveness of the country’s foreign policy will be measured for a few years to come. Incidentally, this was, which is often closely associated with neoconservatives, was largely seen as ill-conceived and misguided. It is not to be doubted that the war on terror, particularly with regard to the military actions against Afghanistan and Iraq were misguided. The same thing may be said today regarding the way these neoconservatives read the public opinion in all the Middle East countries where popular revolutions are taking place, notably Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Bahrain (Brunker, 2011).

Often, neoconservatives have tended to argue that those Middle East states that are hostile to the US can never turn around and start making peace with Israel, and there is a high likelihood that they will continue being hostile to the US. Moreover, neoconservatives tend to blame the states that break relations with Israel for the negative turn of events. The goal, it seems, is always to defend Israel with immense motivation from the far-reaching theological and ideological goals of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians across America. The neoconservative notions are also inspired by militant and conservative factions residing both within and outside Israel.

For realists, the thinking is that each world region, including the Middle East, should have something to contribute in enabling the US to maintain its position of power. This position had already established by 1948, a time when the US held about 50% of the world’s total wealth yet it had only 6% of its population. In the Middle East, the US has all along been maintaining strategic alliances with some Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Bahrain is a small island kingdom in the desert region of Persian Gulf (Khalifa, 2011). The oil-producing nation has for a long time been a strategic base for the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet (Al Jazeera, 2011). It is not surprising, therefore, that when the popular uprising of February 2011 started, the Obama administration did not press for an immediate change in government (Chulov, 2011). All it did was to offer tempered criticisms of government crackdowns, and to continue cajoling, prodding, and exhorting the member’s of the country’s royal family to stop the crackdown on protestors.

            The position of realism seems to be more tenable for the circumstances of the US since the end of the World War. Indeed, the US foreign policy makers have been endeavoring ensure that even as they talk about vague objectives such as raising the living standards, democratization and human rights, there are always underlying interests at stake. Indeed, as the issues of Bahrain protests, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, a time comes when the US has to deal with straight power concepts. At such a time, realism becomes more tenable than neoconservative ideologies. As Ross and Makovsky (2010) point out, the myths regarding the US foreign policy in the Middle East have been exacerbated by the covert tension that keeps pulling the proponents of idealism and realism apart.

In the past, the US has supported some horrific regimes. This is because the superpower has some vested interests that are best safeguarded from a realist perspective. Just as Ross and Makovsky (2010) point out, the commentators who perpetuate the myth that ties the woes of the Middle East with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As an example, it is clear that the recent wave of popular uprisings across the Middle East, affecting even Bahrain, had nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine struggle (Jamal, 2011).

According to Ross and Makovsky (2010), it is possible for the Middle Eastern nations that have a severe deficit in democracy to end up becoming democratic. The authors insist that the notion of democracy should not be tied to aspects of Islam and the Koran. Ross and Makovsky (2010) argue that contrary to popular myths and misconceptions, there are many aspects of Islam and the Koran that are consistent with democracy and the fostering of democratic ideals.

Regarding a situation whereby a regime is democratically elected but turns out to be anti-US, Ross and Makovsky (2010) point out that US interests are seen to take precedence in line with realist ideals. With this turn of events, many myths become even more manifest. This, according to the authors, explains the myth that the Iranian religious leadership is immune from any form of economic and diplomatic pressures. The authors also use this issue as a methodological concept for explaining the prevalent myth that regime change is always a prerequisite for democracy and peace in the Middle East. The authors mainly rely on publications on current affairs, journal-article commentaries, and to a large extent, their long-running experiences on the US policy in the Middle East. However, a key omission is the contribution of other influential US foreign policy experts in the Middle East.

 

References

Al Jazeera (2011) Bahrain Protest Continues, 21 Feb 2011, Retrieved from http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011220211947585788.html  on October 21, 2011.

Brunker, M. (2011) Egypt, Bahrain protests differ in key ways, 17 Feb 2011, Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41651773/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/egypt-bahrain-protests-differ-key-ways/  on October 21, 2011.

Chulov, M. (2011) Bahrain Protest: The Regime must fall, and we will make sure it does, 18 Feb 2011, Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/18/bahrain-protests-regime-fall  on October 21, 2011.

Jamal, H. (2011) Bahrain News: The Protests, 16 Sep 2011, Retrieved from http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/bahrain/index.html  on October 21, 2011.

Khalifa, R. (2011) Bahrain protests throw Island Kingdom into Chaos, 14 Mar 2011, Retrieved from http://mg.co.za/article/2011-03-14-bahrain-protests-throw-island-kingdom-into-chaos  on October 21, 2011.

Ross, D. & Makovsky, D. (2010) Myths, Illusions, & Peace: Finding a New Direction for American in the Middle East, New York: Penguin Press.