The Shift of Focus in the Foreign Policy of the United States After September 11, 2001‎

The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
The Shift of Focus in the Foreign Policy of the United States After September 11, 2001‎

The foreign policy of the United States during the Cold War was Europe-oriented and Europe was at the core of the foreign policy of the United States because the United States’ general strategy could be outlined in Europe. After the collapse of the bipolar system, the United States became a sole superpower that was no longer adopting the defensive approach of the Cold War era, but because it had no certain enemy, its foreign policy faced the crisis of raison-d’être. The incidents of 9/11 challenged the national security of the United States and released its foreign policy from this identity crisis.

 

Considering that the Middle East is the core of asymmetric terrorist threats, the United States focused on this region. In fact, the United States aims to stabilize its hegemony in the Middle East and to spread it all over the world. Hence, the Middle East became the focal point in the foreign policy of the United States whereas during the Cold War that focal point was Europe. This article studies the reasons for such a change in the foreign policy of the United States.

 

The Foreign Policy of the United States in the 1990s

 

The Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the destruction of the United States’ strategic “other.” The fall of the bipolar system happened very quickly, and “on November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall collapsed, then eleven months later Germany was reunited on April 1, 1991, and on December 25, 1991, the Warsaw Pact was dismantled which followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union.” Therefore, the fall of the Soviet Union removed the idea of attacking Europe and the United States. With the fundamental changes that have taken place in the distribution of power at the level of the international system, the United States has become the only superpower of the international system and has sought to create a new order. “On September 11, 1990, one month after the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq, George Bush introduced the concept of ‘New World Order.’ “Today, a new world is struggling to emerge, a world completely different from what we know, a world in which law is only ruling, a world in which nations have proportionate responsibilities in accordance with freedom and law, a world in which the rights of the weak are deeply respected,” he said.

 

The Foreign Policy of the United States After 9/11

 

One of the most important and decisive events in the history of the foreign policy of the United States is the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. Its importance is due to its effective consequences. Its three consequences include ending the identity and orientation crisis in the foreign policy of the United States and giving coherence to it; changing the defence and security policy; and unilateralism. In fact, the main reason for the United States’ attention to the Middle East is partly rooted in 9/11. Other issues that need to be addressed include the growing importance of the Middle East in the eyes of neoconservatives, and the National Security Strategy documents of September 11, (2002 and 2006) which is a kind of political-security instruction.

 

The Consequences of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

 

Elimination of the crisis of raison-d’être and orientation in American foreign policy and giving it coherence: in the 1990s, the foreign policy of the United States suffered from a crisis of raison-d’être and it was unable to redefine the macro-strategy. 

 

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the redefinition of the macro-strategy of the United States became possible and the foreign policy of the United States overcame the crisis. In fact, it made it possible for the United States government officials to come up with a new definition of national interest. In a way that American people would accept it and the elites find it justified and reasonable.

 

In 2000, Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser in the first George W. Bush administration, wrote in the Foreign Policy journal that it was difficult for the United States to define national interests in the absence of Soviet power. However, after 9/11, he said: “9/11 is one of the biggest earthquakes that makes things clear. Countering terrorism and opposing the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction by irresponsible governments now define national interests. “An earthquake such as September 11 could change the structural layers of international politics. This period should not be seen merely as a great danger, rather it should be considered a great opportunity,” he adds.

 

Unilateralism: Unilateral foreign policy is one of the consequences of 9/11. Believing that reaching a consensus that justifies carrying out preemptive and preventive attacks is impossible the United States is acting unilaterally.

 

Each government has its own reasons for doing so, and the United States is reluctant to limit its policies by the ideals of others. In this way, according to Rumsfeld, the mission defines the coalition or consensus and we do not need to reach a consensus before the mission starts. Today, the government would not hesitate to adopt a unilateral policy to achieve its goals if it does not feel satisfied with global actions and does not find multilateral methods. The models of power in the world have been shaped in such a way that the United States feels capable of pursuing unilateral policies without paying the cost of it.

 

The growing importance of the Middle East in the eyes of the neoconservatives: At that time, the beliefs and principles of neoconservatives attracted their attention to the Middle East. The principles of neoconservatism include: 1) Strong belief in American hegemony. 2) Globalizationism and institutionalization of American values. 3) Power is essential to the imposition of democracy. 4) Ignoring the international principles, institutions and agreements. 5) Intertwinement of the ideas and goals of neo-conservatives with that of Zionists. 6) Emphasizing the foreign enemy. 7) The deep connection between religion and political power.

 

Thus, neoconservatives orientated their foreign policy by defining the foreign enemy in the form of terrorist networks and the states that supported them. Also, they sought to destroy terrorism, which was considered an asymmetric and challenging threat. In this struggle, they are tied to institutionalize their values. At first, they used military force to fight terrorist groups and the states that supported them ignoring even international institutions and treaties that in their view hindered their actions and because they saw the institutionalization of their values as a mission. They spread these values ​​in order to eradicate the roots of terrorism on the one hand and to become a hegemonic power by realizing democratic peace on the other. Because their thoughts and goals were intertwined with the Zionists, they commit themselves to maintaining the security of the Zionist regime and also while believing in the relationship of religion and political power they use this factor for justifying foreign policy and mobilizing domestic resources to support foreign policy in addition to using it for solving social problems.

 

The Macro Strategy of the United States: In order to understand the importance and position of the Middle East region in the foreign policy of the United States, we need to focus on the aspects of the macro strategy of this country at this time. In fact, the key to understanding the root causes of the focus of the foreign policy of the United States on the Middle East lies in this study. Because its macro strategy has been redefined in this geographical area.

 

1) National interests

2) Energy management

3) Fighting the spread of weapons of mass destruction

4) Spreading democracy and the values ​​of liberalism

5) Maintaining the security of the Zionist regime

 

Threats to American national interest: the threats that today challenge the United States’ national interests are asymmetric threats caused by the Islamic Awakening. In other words, what threatens the United States’ national interests around the world is not rooted in the actions of a government, but it is the civil society which as a global phenomenon has a global impact. Non-governmental groups that target American interests are considered as “fundamentalists of the Middle East.” For many, fundamentalism at a general level is a revolt against the West. Fundamentalists have various reasons for targeting the United States. However, this difference is not the case, but the fact that they have all targeted the United States, and that the United States sees them as a source of danger and calls them “terrorists.”

 

The government of the United States, which until September 11, 2001, was primarily concerned with countering the threats posed by national governments and hence adjusted its policies accordingly, began to change its approach and respond to the new threat in a different way.

 

This conflict is a contradiction between the symbols of modernity and Westernism, which the United States as the most powerful Western country symbolizes. The groups that see the traditional and religious values ​​rooted in their country’s history and culture being destroyed because of American policies. This is because “there is a view among fundamentalists that the West, following the technological integration of the world in which the West has succeeded, now the United States as a superpower in terms of military capabilities, wants to use that integration to create unity regarding values throughout the world. The goal means that values ​​of a non-Western nature must be destroyed, and if they are lucky, they will be marginalized.” The United States has entered a war in which, for the first time in the country’s history, the enemy is not a superpower within the international system, and the power relationship between the two is completely asymmetric.” The Bush doctrine introduced three elements as threats. The global terrorist organizations, the weak governments that shelter and help members of terrorist organizations, and rebellious governments.

 

He describes the rebellious governments as follows: they treat their people brutally and waste their national resources for the personal benefit of the rulers, they do not pay attention to international law, they threaten their neighbours and violate international treaties, they are eager to acquire weapons of mass destruction and other advanced military technologies and they would either use them as a threat or by carrying out an act of aggression with those weapons they may make their regimes aggressive, they support terrorism around the world, they reject human values, and they despise the United States and all that it represents.”

 

Conclusion

 

The foreign policy of the United States during the Cold War was focused on Europe. Because the macro strategy of this country could be defined in the European region. In other words, the national interests of the United States were more likely to be fulfilled in the Western European region. The threats posed by Eastern Europe stemmed from the presence of the Soviet Union and the Red Army in that region, and eventually, the methods of countering this threat, such as the Marshall Plan and NATO, were often implemented in the geographical area of ​​Western Europe.

 

In fact, the Cold War began in Europe, focused on Europe, and ended there. Even the United States sought to maintain stability in the Middle East in order to ensure the security of its European allies and ultimately its own security thereby preventing Soviet influence in this important region. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the elimination of threats posed by it along with changing of the structure of the international system as well as the occurrence of 9/11, 2001 the Middle East region which during the Cold War had a subsidiary position, became the main focus of attention of the United States.

 

Because the macro strategy of the United States at that period could be defined in the geographical area of ​​the Middle East. In other words, it sees its national interests in the region. Also, this region is the birthplace of the asymmetric threats that challenge the United States, and the strategies to counter these threats in the foreign policy of the United States are related to the Middle East. Using the hard power, by carrying out preemptive and preventive attacks, the United States’ first targeted the two countries of Afghanistan and Iraq and then it tried to establish seemingly democratic governments (creating states) in these countries to spread the values ​​of liberalism in other countries (creating nations) so that to achieve a democratic peace by eliminating the roots of “terrorism.” If the United States can achieve its goals in the region, it may become a hegemonic power in the international system through managing energy resources. In this period, Europe plays a subsidiary role in the foreign policy of the United States and the priority of the foreign policy of the United States in dealing with asymmetric threats coming from the Middle East, and that is why it uses European countries, (mainly through NATO) so that to benefit from the Europeans and prevent the creation of another rival. In this regard, contrary to the Cold War period, it has not supported the integration of European countries so that to reduce the costs of the fight against “terrorism” on the one hand, and on the other hand, become a hegemonic power by increasing the number of NATO members. Of course, given the new wave of Islamic and popular awakening in the region, this goal is facing more and more challenges, and the American success in achieving its goals seems more unlikely.

Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution

Comments

leave your comments