US Interest in the Middle East (Research Paper Sample)

US Interest in the Middle East
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
US Interest in the Middle East
What factors explain the United States’ involvement with Iran’s nuclear program? Abrams (2012) states that it is been known for quite some time that Iran possess the potential to create nuclear weapons of mass destruction. However, the Iranians claim to be developing their nuclear resources as an alternative energy resource as a result of its beneficial reduced costs. Abrams (2012) proceeds to claim that the United States and a few other nations agree that Iran should abandon their nuclear development plans because they can ultimately lead to weapons of mass destruction, which pose a threat to certain middle eastern countries, and breach the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This essay will explain that through the spectacles of realism, the United States is implicated with Iran's nuclear program because of their relationship with Israel, as well as their interests in securing their political and economic interests in the Middle East.
Although the US has stated that its involvement with Iran’s nuclear program is to curb the production of weapons of mass destruction the immediate cause of its actions are motivated by the need to safe guard its own interests. With the rapid spread of the Arab spring in the recent past, the US is cautious about allowing Iran to partake its ambitious nuclear program. Their major concerns are the strained relations that have been established with the Arab nations. Arab nations are bitter with the US involvement in the affairs in the Middle East. This ranges from its massive operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which left most Arab nations with more questions than answers on the real motive of the US (Venter, 2003). This has seen the emergence of extremist groups in the Middle East which are keen to revenge at the slightest chance available. The US feels that Iran may supply the nuclear weapons to these extremist groups with devastating effects. To back this up the US has admitted to having used drones to spy on Iran. In addition, Venter (2003) makes claims on the involvement of US CIA with the assassination of Iran’s nuclear experts.
The US has been having some economic agenda on Iran for a considerable period. Looking at the Gulf war of 1990-91, US cleared doubts of its intentions in the Middle East. With enormous oil deposits the US is determined to control the world’s second precious commodity. When Iraq invaded Iran, US could not seat back and watch Iraq gain control over half of the world’s oil fields (Venter, 2003). This was why they responded very fast to the crisis in support of Iran. US has also made all efforts to ensure that it has enough grip and control over the oil produced in the Middle East. In June 2004, Iran announced its intentions to create an Iranian oil Bourse. This would bring completion between the Iranian oil Bourse with the New York Mercantile exchange (NYMEX) and London International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) (Pirseyedi, 2012). It is worth noting that both IPE and NYMEX are US-owned corporations. The impacts of these are also worth noting because Iran allowed its E.U and C.U customers to pay for oil using Euros. This would bring in a fourth crude oil marker, not forgetting that E.U imports more crude oil from OPEC than the U.S and imports more to the Middle East. This new developments argued by Margulies (2008) would weaken the dollar as the oil customers could now choose to purchase using the Euro or the Dollar. It is for this reason that the US wished to control Iran at whatever cost. Secondly, the United States is afraid that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons there is a probability that it might hold the world at ransom, bearing in mind the disastrous effect of nuclear weapons (Margulies, 2008).
An analysis of realism shows that it assumes neorealist and its primacy by focusing on how nuclear weapons can protect a state by deterrence. Further analysis of realism indicates that some nations exploit nuclear energy with an offensive objective. Nuclear weapons encompasses both deterrent and defensive component which safeguards a country against foreign aggression. True to say, countries that possess nuclear weapons are normally faced with less external aggression. The offensive part of it comes in when that country propagates external aggression designs against other nations. Iran sits in the middle of oil producing nations and it could use its nuclear power to dictate and control the oil a market. In addition, Iran has been faced with numerous encroachment threats from its neighbors for instance during Saddam Hussein’s regime. (Cordesman, 2009). However, the immediate threat it ought to deal with is the US, which from 2001 deployed its troops to Iran’s periphery. With nuclear weapons Iran would not hesitate to use them at the slightest provocation. This made the US feel crippled and helpless and it meant that they had to take urgent steps to stop Iran from enriching their uranium fields.
Other than this, the mounting tension between Iran and Israel was something to worry about, more so if Israel made good its threats of attacking Iran. Iran could retaliate by using nuclear war heads with devastating effects on a global scale, which explains why the United States felt obliged to participate in stopping Iran from pursuing its ambitious plan.
The recent past has also seen the US-Israel diplomatic relations being strained. Open aggression of Iran on Israel and the Zionist has made Israel declare war on Iran should it continue with its nuclear program. Israel’s efforts to try and lure US into the tarsal have yielded less fruits. President Obama has tactically declared the attack on Iran; however, the Obama administration has been on the fore front to mount pressure on Iran to quit from its nuclear program (Pirseyedi, 2012). This is seen as an appeasing move that the US is making so as to maintain the diplomatic ties with Israel. The US is not ready to give up its good ties with Israel simply because of a country it ought to have control over. NATO placed missile interceptors on Turkish soils and Iran accused turkey of siding with the enemy. Iran saw this as a move to shield Israel against retaliatory attacks should it decide to attack Iran. According to Pirseyedi (2012), the move was well calculated by the US but the reason they gave for their move is that they were protecting other nations from being attacked by the Assard regime. This proves beyond reasonable doubt that the US intervention on Iran’s affairs was to maintain the diplomatic ties with Israel, but rather to create a supercharged atmosphere in the international relations between the three countries (Pirseyedi, 2012).
Being a super power the US intervention into the Iranian nuclear program is a way of asserting its authority and presence. The United States contributes the largest number of troops to the NATO forces and this again creates a sense of superiority. To further its political ambitions and to mai...