Should We Stay or Should We Go? The United States and the Middle East

F. Gregory Gause

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2019.1662114

2019-09-03

Survival

Abstract:By any reasonable baseline comparison, the United States is not leaving the Middle East. But its continuing presence should and probably will have more modest goals.

political science,international relations

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

US Middle East policy

Stephen Zunes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315180113-4

2019-02-11

Abstract:US Middle East policy is facing unprecedented challenges in the face of the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq and the resulting counter-insurgency war, the ongoing threat from Islamist extremists, the continued Israeli and Moroccan occupations, a reassertion of Russian involvement in the region, the conflict between Qatar and its Gulf neighbors, growing Iranian influence, and ongoing wars in Syria, Yemen, Libya and Iraq. Furthermore, the Middle East is becoming an increasingly pluralistic region in which the influence of non-state actors is growing while the ability of governments – particularly those outside the greater Middle East – to control events is decreasing. Adding to this is having a mercurial and inexperienced American president with virtually no knowledge of the region and who has appointed ideologically driven individuals with little background in Middle Eastern affairs to key policy positions and has frequently made statements at odds with his own Department of State. Despite such unique challenges facing the United States in the Middle East at the end of the second decade of the new century, however, there has been a remarkable consistency regarding US policy in the Middle East for many decades.
USA in the Middle East: the beginning of a great disengagement

Dmitry Kochegurov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18254/s207054760027305-2

2023-01-01

Russia and America in the 21st Century

Abstract:The article is devoted to the strategic disengagement between the United States and its Middle Eastern partners and includes several blocks. 1) The article discusses the historical stages of US involvement in the Middle East processes. 2) The new US foreign policy strategy in the Middle East under the administrations of D. Trump and J. Biden, which preserved the continuity to the pragmatic and realistic line of D. Trump, is analyzed. 3) The level of relations between USA and regional leaders is reflected. 4) A special intra-regional transformation in the Middle East has been revealed, that is pushing The White House to reconsider its position based on US hegemony. The authors come to the overall conclusion about the development of two dependent tendencies: the susceptibility of the Middle East from US foreign policy priorities with withdrawal from the region and implementation of sovereign foreign policy by regional leaders based on national interests, that reduces their dependence on USA.
China in the Middle East: Confrontation with the United States

Ammar Brebdane

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0641.2022.4.39082

2022-04-01

Международные отношения

Abstract:The importance of the Middle East for China has recently increased, since it not only contains the energy sources necessary for China's growth, but also represents an arena of rivalry with great powers, primarily with the United States. The author considers China's presence in the Middle East as a strategically justified necessity in the context of confrontation with the United States of America. In light of Washington's "encirclement strategy" in East Asia, Beijing's behavior in the Middle East is largely influenced by it. It is emphasized that China is not ready and does not seek to play the role of a guarantor of security or replace the United States in the Middle East in this area in the foreseeable future, however, security issues at both national and regional levels are becoming increasingly relevant. China's strategic priorities and the main directions of its political presence aimed at balancing threats and opportunities in such a turbulent region have been identified. The study concludes that the future of China's presence in the Middle East is determined by China's global strategy, where internal and external factors have a significant impact on Beijing's position and role at the regional and international levels in such a rapidly and unexpectedly changing world.
The United States and the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Jerome Slater

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190459086.003.0002

2020-11-19

Abstract:With rare exceptions, since 1948 and the onset of the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, the United States has provided near unconditional support of Israel. The downside of that support is that it has enabled Israel to spurn repeated opportunities for peace settlements of those conflicts, for even when US governments have disagreed with hard-line Israeli policies, they have only rarely been willing to press for changes. A number of factors that explain these US policies are examined: the belief that support of Israel is morally required; shared religious and political values; public opinion; strong congressional and presidential support of Israel; the strategic and national interests of the United States, particularly concerning Middle East oil and the containment of the Soviet Union during the Cold War and the “war on terrorism” afterward; and the power of the Israel lobby. Particular attention is paid to the dispute over how much power the lobby has over US Mideast policies.
Hegemony Of The United States And Wars In The Middle East

Gabriel T Abumbe,Nsan Kingsley,Okimisor Ofem Lawrence

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/gjss.v23i2.3

2024-08-21

Global Journal of Social Sciences

Abstract:The Middle East is a region of paramount importance in US foreign policy. Consequently, this study endeavors to scrutinize the foreign policy strategies implemented by the US in its dealings with the Middle East and assess whether these strategies contribute to preserving its hegemonic status in the global order. Employing a qualitative methodology, the study heavily relies on secondary data. A comprehensive literature survey forms the basis of information collection, with subsequent analysis conducted within a theoretical framework. The Hegemonic Stability Theory, Realism, Offensive Realism, and Offense-Defense Theory serve as the primary theoretical lenses for data analysis. Notably, the study places a spotlight on US foreign policy towards key Middle Eastern players such as Iran, Iraq, and the Israel-Palestine conflict. The findings of the study indicate that US foreign policy strategies vis-à-vis the Middle East effectively serve the purpose of safeguarding its hegemonic position in the global order. However, it is essential to acknowledge that these strategies, while achieving their intended goals, have a detrimental impact on the perception of the US as a benevolent hegemon. The study illuminates the intricate dynamics between power projection and global image management in the realm of international relations, particularly concerning the Middle East.
A New American Middle East Strategy?

Robert E. Hunter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396330802601842

2008-12-01

Survival

Abstract:With wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the greater Middle East must top President Barack Obama's foreign policy agenda. He will also face critical challenges with Iran and Israeli–Palestinian peacemaking. To deal successfully with any one he must deal effectively with all. Further, he must decide soon how much permanent US military presence to retain in and near the Persian Gulf and assess how much the American people will support open-ended US engagements in the Greater Middle East. Obama will clearly press for more European support, especially in Afghanistan. He should also foster a new regional security structure, in time involving all Middle East states. It should include confidence-building measures, Standing Military and Political Commissions, incidents at sea and freedom of navigation agreements, ‘open skies’, and OSCE-like cooperation. NATO and the EU can play supporting roles in training and counseling; and outsiders such as the United States should be prepared to intervene military if need be to keep the peace.

political science,international relations
Coexistence with the United States:New Challenges Facing China's Middle East Policy

Niu Xinchun

2023-01-01

Abstract:Since the end of the Cold War,China and the United States have expanded their presence in the Middle East along parallel tracks,with China maintaining a basic attitude characterized by noncooperation,nonsupport,and nonconfrontation toward the United States.Recent years,however,have witnessed an increasingly apparent strategic confrontation between the two at the global level.Their conflicts have remained limited to the middle layer,due to the relatively adequate amount of strategic space that exists there,but have been growing increasingly tense structurally and bilaterally.The deteriorating environments at both the top and the bottom layers have exerted pressures that squeeze the core in the middle.As a result,the status quo relationship between the two countries is unsustainable,and their coexistence in the Middle East will enter a new phase.In the short term,the two countries may undergo a period of transition,based on their strategic choices,in the Middle East.Given the current context in which the Indo-Pacific region and Europe have become involved in the global rivalry between China and the United States,the direction where the Middle East may be heading could shed light on the future of Latin America and Africa as well.
The Soviet Union and the United States in the Middle East

John C. Campbell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000271627240100114

1972-05-01

The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

Abstract:No unchanging aim or strategy ordained by geography or ideology provides a full explanation of the course of Soviet policy in the Middle East. The Soviet presence has grown, notably in the past fifteen years, through oppor tunistic diplomacy, the deployment of military and especially naval power, and the expansion of influence in certain states through arms deliveries, economic aid, and political support. In general, the Soviet leaders have been successful in making their country a Middle East power, at the expense of positions previously held by Western powers. In the Northern Tier it has gained by normalizing its relations with Turkey and Iran. In the Arab-Israel zone it has established preponderant influence in a number of Arab states, taking advantage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and of inter-Arab disputes. While Soviet-American rivalry in the region could lead to armed conflict, the greater likelihood is prolonged political competi tion. From that standpoint the Soviets may encounter many obstacles, especially the force of local nationalism. For those obstacles to be effective, however, the United States will have to maintain its own military presence and political interest in the region. The attainment of detente will depend both on negotiation and on balanced power.

political science,social sciences, interdisciplinary
The Recent Lebanon-Israeli War and America’s Idea of “a New Middle East”

Wang Suolao

2006-01-01

Abstract:After the Lebanon-Israeli war broke out on July 12 of 2006, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice openly raised the idea of “a new Middle East”, which has attracted a great deal of international attention. This writer believes that Rice’s idea of “a new Middle East” has three broad considerations. Firstly, to address the unfavorable subsequences brought about by implementing “the Greater Middle East Initiative” as well as contain and weed out anti-American forces of various kinds in the Middle East. However, the idea of “a new Middle East” itself will not replace the “Plan for Democratic Reform in the Greater Middle East” of the Bush Administration. Secondly, the idea of “a new Middle East” focuses to a great extent on “the Shiite Crescent”, expecting the Shiite Moslems to remain scattered and disintegrated, rather than united and coordinated. Thirdly, the idea of “a new Middle East” is apparently directed at “the Iranian Nuclear Threat”, as Iran is the strongest power confronting the US in the Middle East. If such an enemy is armed with nuclear technology and nuclear weapons, America’s strategic interest in the Middle East will be vitally threatened.
Behavioral Pattern in the United States in the Face of Upheavals of Arab Countries

Seyed Moayed Sabeti,Hamed Moghaghenia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v6i4.1137

2017-09-30

Journal of History Culture and Art Research

Abstract:Conditions and upheavals, by their characteristics, including people opposition with governments and alteration in regional order, have challenged the US strategic interests in the Middle East region and forced the authorities of Washington to manage and strategize upheavals. The type of US encounter with the trend of upheavals, approach of the ruling regime, the future of people movement and available alternative, interests, and security of Israel and contradiction between strategic interests and democratic principles were amongst the most important issues facing the United States. The present article is seeking to find the answer to this question that what sort of relationship does exist between United States policies in the Middle East from one hand and recent upheavals in Arab countries on the other hand? The assumption of the article is that in the past two decades the one sided role of the US in forming the upheavals of Middle East has changed into a bilateral relationship and the behavior of this country in the process of recent upheavals, affected by the presence of the people of Arab countries in internal politics of their own country in numerous cases has changed into a reaction behavior. Finally, it should be said that contrasts between society and government in Arabic Middle East, is considered as one of the prominent challenges of the US in decision-making process and management of region unrests. On the other hand, the lack of a specified instruction and strategy by Americans is another problem of the US in this region.
The problem of Middle East settlement in the policy of the leading member states of the European Union in the context of the Iraq and Lebanon crises (2003-2008)

Albert K. Dudaiti,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/474/20

2022-01-01

Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta

Abstract:The article analyzes the Middle East policy of the leading EU member states in the period of the Iraqi and Lebanese crises. The author notes that the war in Iraq caused disagreements between France and Germany and the United States, but in general it did not affect the high level of relations between these countries. The Iraqi crisis contributed to increased tensions in the Middle East. In order to resume Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, a Quartet of international mediators (the United States, the UN, the EU, and Russia) was created, which introduced a “road map” for settlement. But soon there emerged differences in the Quartet on its separate points. They increased because of the actions of Israel on the implementation of the “unilateral disengagement” plan. During the war in Lebanon, the EU member states called for the introduction of UN peacekeepers into the country. The US authorities did not agree with this and proposed to introduce a NATO peacekeeping contingent in Lebanon. In turn, France did not support the American plan, considering it unproductive. The Lebanese crisis revealed differences between France and the United States, preserved since the beginning of the war in Iraq. Within the framework of the EU Middle East strategy, the principles of European policy were developed, among which priority was given to assistance in the establishment of a Palestinian state and assistance to Palestinians in the transition period. The EU launched a plan for the reconstruction and development of the Palestinian state, the Future for Palestine, which would provide financial assistance to the Palestinian government, upbringing and educational measures for Palestinian youth, psychological assistance to victims of the Second Palestinian Intifada, etc. After the victory in the presidential election, the new US administration appealed to the conflicting parties to resume negotiations. New moments in the US approach to the Middle East settlement were met with approval in the European Union. Aware at the same time that the initiative right to the Middle East settlement still belongs to the United States, the leading EU member states had difficulty in putting forward their settlement plan, so they were limited to supporting the American program. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in New York and Washington, the influence of political Islam in the Arab world increased markedly, to which the US authorities did not react properly. On the contrary, they sought to thoroughly reconstruct the “Greater Middle East” on the basis of Western democracy. The complex and contradictory nature of the processes developing in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the threat of the US military force against Iran, testified to this. In this difficult situation, issues related to the promotion of the Middle East peace process became even more urgent. The article concludes that the Quartet of international mediators should have made efforts to reach a comprehensive agreement as soon as possible, opening the way to peace in the Middle East.
China and the Middle East: A Global Strategy Where the Middle East has a Significant but Limited Place

Tim Niblock

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/25765949.2020.1847855

2020-10-01

Asian Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies

Abstract:<span>China's growing importance in the global order, and the increasing assertiveness with which it pursues its global objectives, raise questions as to how the Middle East fits within China's global strategy. There has been much speculation, in particular, as to whether China is seeking to replace the United States as a key guarantor of security for some Middle Eastern states and regimes. This no doubt is partly dependent on whether the United States will draw back its commitment to the region, and whether Middle Eastern states will seek an alternative guarantor. But it also depends critically on whether China has any interest in playing, and capacity to play, such a role. An understanding of the dynamics of China's global strategy, and of how the Middle East relates to the parameters around which the strategy is conceived, needs to be the starting point in such an assessment. The aim of this article is to provide a realistic appraisal of the strategy, and then to draw conclusions relative to the present and future role of China in the Middle Eastern region. The analysis concludes that the relationship with Middle Eastern countries is indeed significant to China, but is nonetheless secondary to the interests which are most critical for the Chinese state.</span>
The Middle East Conflict: The Palestinian Dimension. (Global Insights)

James O. C. Jonah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-00804003

2002-07-28

Abstract:A significant flaw in the search for peace in the Middle East over the years has been the calculated avoidance of the centrality of the Palestinian dimension of the conflict. Only now are efforts being made to tackle the problem. But the recognition of the intractable nature of the Palestinian-Israeli relationship still offers the temptation to pursue other avenues of resolving the conflict. This kind of diplomatic approach to the conflict is both dangerous and futile. There can be no durable peace and stability in the Middle East until a just solution to the Palestinian plight is found. Those involved in Middle East diplomacy should be constantly reminded that, from the Balfour Declaration in November 1917 and the British Mandate under the League of Nations in July 1922 to the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, the basis of the conflict between Jews and Arabs has been over sovereign territorial control of Palestine, and nothing else. The formulation of the Balfour Declaration was widely condemned by all Arabs and was perceived by one writer as "the double undertaking of irreconcilable commitments to the Jews and Arabs." (1) A writer who has given much thought to the issue of self-determination and nationalism had this to say of the problem: "The conception of creating a Jewish national home in Palestine could not possibly be squared with the principle of self-determination, or, for that matter, of democracy, on the basis of any of the generally accepted criteria." (2) Under the British Mandate, the conflict was mainly between the Palestinian Arabs and the Jewish Agency, which represented Palestinian Jews. In accordance with Article 4 of the mandate, the Jewish Agency, whose president was Chaim Weizman, was set up to cooperate with the British in implementing the promise of a Jewish national homeland. Despite the many Arab revolts and the guerrilla warfare conducted by the Jewish underground against the British, negotiations continued involving the Jewish Agency and the Arab High Committee, under the leadership of Mufti Haj Amin el Husseini. The Palestinian Arabs, strongly supported by all the Arab states, rejected the partition plan recommended by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in Resolution 181 of November 1947. The British government, which held the mandate under the League of Nations, increasingly took an ambivalent attitude toward the partition plan and in the end was one of the member states that abstained in the resolution. As David Ben-Gurion was broadcasting the declaration of independence under the terms of the UN partition resolution on May 1948, war broke out, with Egyptian bombs landing on Tel Aviv. (3) And, with the defeat of the Arab states, the Palestinian Arabs lost control of their own destiny. It should be recalled that during the League period and during World War II, Palestinian Arabs, with strong support from other Arab states, had actually been more successful in shaping the prospects for their future independence. For example, they had managed to pressure the British and other allied governments to reformulate the promise of a Jewish national homeland under the Balfour Declaration. The Churchill White Paper of 1921 appeared to reject the concept of a Jewish state in Palestine and also called for the restriction of Jewish immigration into Palestine. (4) However, between the end of the war in 1948, the subsequent signing of the armistice agreements in 1949, and the outbreak of the Six Day War in June 1967, the Middle East crisis was widely perceived as a conflict between Israel and the Arab states. The Palestinian Arabs, in contrast, were treated as a problem of refugees, for which UN Resolution 194 of December 1948 had made provisions for the right of return or compensation. What brought about this dramatic change of fortune for the Palestinian Arabs when they were marginalized in Middle East diplomacy? …

Sociology,Economics,Political Science
The USA strategy and tactics in the Middle East region from the end of the World War II to the "Arab spring"

Anna Igorevna Filimonova,Sergey Dmitrievich Ivanov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33920/nik-02-2011-08

2020-11-01

Uchenyy Sovet (Academic Council)

Abstract:Currently, as the most powerful state in the world, the United States has a key influence on the processes taking place in the Middle East. In this regard, the analysis of the strategic paradigm of the American policy in the Middle East and the tactics of its implementation from the beginning of its formation is important both for understanding the specifics of the processes taking place in the region and for assessing their impact on the world political process. The material of the article is of scientific and methodological significance in the field of International Relations
United States Foreign Policy in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict and Its Implication on the Two States Solution

Mukhtar Imam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/25765949.2018.1534409

2018-07-03

Asian Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies

Abstract:Prior American administrations were more balanced in their relations with Israel and the Arab world. During the Cold War Israel was an important strategic asset in the containment of Communist influence in the middle eastern region, Washington structured its arms sales to Israel, controlled Israeli military preeminence during the wars with its Arab neighbors, and sought to arbitrate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to balance US relations with moderate Arab regimes. Today, the opposite seems to be true. It is considering the above forlorn situation that this essay attempts to analytically x-ray the Palestinian – Israeli conflict and US foreign policy. The major objective of the study was among others to establish that the current US foreign policy of the Trump administration will only further escalate the conflict by exacerbating tensions; it establishes the onion model as a framework upon which the study was built theoretically. The study resulted from the increasing trend of violence and killings in the region and how the people living in the region have been further devastated all because US foreign policy summersault. It also makes useful insights and recommendations on how to broker peace in the region.
The United States Strategy and Tactics in the Middle East Region from the End of the Second World War to the Arab Spring. Scientific and methodological materials in the field of International Relations

Anna Filimonova,Sergey Ivanov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33920/nik-02-2009-09

2020-08-28

Uchenyy Sovet (Academic Council)

Abstract:Being the most powerful state in the world, the United States has a key influence on the processes taking place in the Middle East. In this regard, the analysis of the strategic paradigm of American policy in the Middle East and the tactics of its implementation from the beginning of its formation is important both for understanding the specifics of the processes taking place in the region and for assessing their impact on the world political process. The material of the article is of scientific and methodological significance in the field of International Relations.
American Foreign Policy Towards Israel “National Interest or Burden”

ABDALLAH A. I. MOUSA -

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i03.22043

2024-06-14

International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research

Abstract:This study explores the evolution and logical basis behind US foreign policy towards Israel, examining it through a theoretical framework grounded in realist international relations theory. It investigates whether this relationship serves US national interests or constitutes a strategic burden in a region of significant importance to US interests. The study traces the trajectory of US foreign policy towards Israel from its establishment to the present, highlighting key shifts in this policy. Initially, the United States was not enthusiastic about Israel's founding. However, relations deepened after the 1967 war, which made Israel a strategic ally during the Cold War by defeating Soviet-aligned Arab nationalism. Israel subsequently received substantial support, including economic and military aid, which became a consistent feature across successive US administrations. The study focuses on the exceptional position Israel holds in US foreign policy and questions the reason for this significant support, despite Israel's realist perspective being preoccupied with its crises with Arab neighbors. From this perspective, the US does not receive commensurate returns on its support; on the contrary, Israel may sometimes conflict with US national interests and pose a strategic risk in the region.The research concludes by balancing different perspectives, exploring the complex dynamics of US foreign policy, and raising questions about its motivations.
Common Interests and Difference of China and U.S. in the Middle East

ZHANG Jiadong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-5161.2007.02.007

2007-01-01

Abstract:The U.S. is a hegemony state in the world while China is a regional power with increasing influences in the world. In the Middle East, China and America share far-ranging common interests on many issues, including energy security, anti-proliferation, anti-terrorism, and maintaining regional stability. But because of differences in national strength, international status, and cultural traditions, there are structural divergence and contradiction between China and America. With the rise of China, it is likely for China and the U.S. to have more opportunities for cooperation, and competition as well n the Middle East.
Middle East Studies Under Occupation: The Case of Washington, D.C.

Corey Sherman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/rms.2021.32

2021-06-01

Review of Middle East Studies

Abstract:Abstract A key component of Middle East Studies methodology is to identify and deconstruct the relationship between knowledge about the region and the power structures that give knowledge meaning. Typically, that methodology is applied to Middle East Studies at the post-secondary level. This paper applies that methodology to public schools in Washington, D.C. Through structural analysis, I will tease out the “epistemological commitments” (Abu El Haj 2001) of what the government of Washington, D.C. calls “social studies learning standards” -- short sentences which “detail the knowledge students are expected to acquire at a particular grade level.” Based on my experience teaching the Middle East in a Washington, D.C. public high school, I also raise questions about the relationship between the content standards and teachers’ work conditions, and whether such conditions support or inhibit the development of a praxis (Freire 2016) which could deconstruct US colonialism inside American public schools. One goal of this paper is to bring Middle East Studies into conversation with American Studies, broadly defined, and in particular ethnographic studies of DC that consider the colonial relationship between the US Government and Washingtonians. I conclude by calling for a deeper engagement with the American public school system by Middle East Studies scholars at both a theoretical and practical level
Military Diplomacy

Zoltan Barany

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190866204.003.0006

2021-09-23

Abstract:The armies of Arabia depend on foreign countries in many respects—as a source of protection, contract soldiers, and armaments—therefore, it is important take a closer look at their external relations. Chapter 5 begins with an analysis of the GCC, asking why it has failed to foster close military cooperation and examining the special relationships and deepening conflicts within the group. Since the Gulf’s militaries’ relations with all world regions could not possibly be tackled, the focus here is on Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East. The discussion of Gulf relations with the United States and the United Kingdom centers on the military bases they have used and maintained in Arabia. Israel has always occupied a unique place in the foreign affairs of Gulf countries; therefore, the last section of the chapter is taken up with the examination of the changing relationship between Jerusalem and the GCC.

Should We Stay or Should We Go? The United States and the Middle East

US Middle East policy

USA in the Middle East: the beginning of a great disengagement

China in the Middle East: Confrontation with the United States

The United States and the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Hegemony Of The United States And Wars In The Middle East

A New American Middle East Strategy?

Coexistence with the United States:New Challenges Facing China's Middle East Policy

The Soviet Union and the United States in the Middle East

The Recent Lebanon-Israeli War and America’s Idea of “a New Middle East”

Behavioral Pattern in the United States in the Face of Upheavals of Arab Countries

The problem of Middle East settlement in the policy of the leading member states of the European Union in the context of the Iraq and Lebanon crises (2003-2008)

China and the Middle East: A Global Strategy Where the Middle East has a Significant but Limited Place

The Middle East Conflict: The Palestinian Dimension. (Global Insights)

The USA strategy and tactics in the Middle East region from the end of the World War II to the "Arab spring"

United States Foreign Policy in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict and Its Implication on the Two States Solution

The United States Strategy and Tactics in the Middle East Region from the End of the Second World War to the Arab Spring. Scientific and methodological materials in the field of International Relations

American Foreign Policy Towards Israel “National Interest or Burden”

Common Interests and Difference of China and U.S. in the Middle East

Middle East Studies Under Occupation: The Case of Washington, D.C.

Military Diplomacy