BEYOND IRAQ: A NEW U.S.

STRATEGY FOR THE

MIDDLE EAST

POLITICAL SCIENCE

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

Parth Yaduvendu Dr. Maheshwar Singh
47LLB17

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, DELHI

2018

1
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declared that the work which I have done in this project report entitled “Rewriting
History” submitted at National Law University, Delhi is a result of my work did under the
supervision of Dr Maheshwar Singh I have properly recognized every one of the sources from
which the thoughts and concentrates have been taken. To the best of my comprehension, the
project is free from any plagiarism issue.

Parth Yaduvendu, 47LLB17

National Law University, Delhi

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to first thank Dr. Maheshwar Singh as well as our vice-chancellor, prof. (Dr)
Ranbir Singh who gave me golden opportunity to do this wonderful project. Also, I would like
to thank Dr Maheshwar Singh for all the valuable inputs he has given me during the project
consultations. Doing this project I came to know about various new things. I would like to
thank my classmates for giving me feedback with respect to my project. I would also like to
thank my parents and sister for motivating me to do this project. I would also like to thank my
seniors and especially to Kartik Astha for guiding me with tips on how to research for this
topic.

Parth Yaduvendu
47BALLB17

3
 CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION

The research paper is all about the challenges which is going to faced by new US President
Barak Obama in Middle East. There are several threats which will harm many countries and
ruins the relationship between them. Middle East is dominated by Muslim communities and it
is quite rich in strategic resources like uranium, oil and etcetera which will make any country
to build weapons like nuclear missile, bombers, which ultimately help those countries to
become powerful in international politics. This national interest of countries to gain power and
resources made them to intervene in Middle East, for example the country like Russia, China
and U.S.A. But there are also many great problems which Middle East is facing such as, golden
drug triangle, human trafficking, preventive military strikes, terrorism and internal regional
conflicts. So if the U.S really wants to establish peaceful relation with them, it needs to resolve
these problem so that it will gain their regional support. U.S President Barak Obama needs to
change his policies in Middle East, U.S needs not only to think about it’s national interest but
also needs to give support to Middle East countries in resolving their internal problems so that
they should get internal support of forces to take any action in those areas. As far back as the
uprisings in the Arab world started in 2011, the United States has looked far more noteworthy
difficulties than ISIS or the general danger postured by rough Islamist fanaticism. It has been
looked with the way that awfully numerous government in the area have fizzled their people
groups in key parts of administration and economic advance. The United States has seen
changes that demonstrate very obviously that few states confront basic pressures on a partisan,
ethnic, and inborn level. Lastly, the United States has seen the battle for the eventual fate of
Islam progressively turn into a battle that partitions Sunni and Shi'ite, and isolates religion from
the powers expected to give common advance. U.S needs no limit its military movement in
Middle East specially in Iraq, limit their battle role, and try to shift the responsibility to Iraqi
army. But this shift needs to be done carefully so that it will not cause harm to U.S. If this will
happen then it will allow U.S to focus on Iran, who is ready to produce their nuclear weapons.
The atomic arms understanding is by all accounts a win, however Iran is still as genuine a risk
as is vicious Islamist fanaticism. There is still expectation that Iran may advance some more
moderate type of government, however little the Supreme Leader has said or done has
influenced this to appear to be likely sooner rather than later. Practically speaking, the heritage
of the Iranian transformation, the Iran-Iraq War, and Iran's blend of fears and scan for local

4
impact are as yet driving Iran to fortify noteworthy progressing dangers to alternate states in
the area. The another problem in the Middle East is Golden Triangle of Drugs in which many
Arab countries are involved, expansion of black marketing in these countries help to evolve
various organization which are involved in terrorism, they easily buy arms and ammunition
through dark water to disturb the peace of various countries and ruin the relations between
them.
A U.S. methodology must address these dangers in ways that are sufficiently open to make
genuine duties and to persuade. The United States faces genuine inquiries regarding its
readiness to remain a noteworthy power in the region; developing issues in managing outside
forces; and key European partners like Britain and France, who keep on underfund their powers
and power projection abilities. U.S should also try to promote peace agreement between Israel
and its Arab countries, particularly Syria. Also U.S needs to establish its diplomatic
relationship with powerful countries of the world like Russia, China and other European
countries because without their backing support U.S will not able to achieve its objective with
time.

CHAPTER-2
ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE AUTHOR

Richad N. Haass and Martin Indyk had given various arguments in their article “Beyond Iraq”.
The main focus of the authors in the international political system is on policy administration
of United States of America, how will the new U.S. President Barak Obama will face the series
of complex and challenges arising in the Middle East?1 The situation in Middle East becoming
worsen day by day and it is a need of world that a strong nation with strong military backing
stand against those who are disturbing the tranquillity and spreading violence in Middle East.
Therefore those nation in Middle East who do not want to engage in war and want to maintain
their stability in the international politics, looked towards U.S. to help them and get them rid
from those who are becoming a reason of worry. The another augment offered by the authors
was regarding the U.S. policy in Middle East, how U.S. will manage its affairs in Middle East
countries so that they will give their territory and military backing to the U.S. so that it will use

1Richard
N. Haass; Martin Indyk, Beyond Iraq - A New U.S. Strategy for the Middle East, 88 Foreign Aff.
41 (2009)

5
their borders to defend the nation state from military strikes of Iran and Palestine.2 To improve
the situation in Middle East, U.S. will need to become a bridge which will help to reconcile
among other nations in the Middle East, so that the strong influence of Hamas and Hezbollah
and Iran weaken in the Syria which will ultimately act as a catalyst to stop the long war
happening in Syria. According to authors U.S will have to change their strategy to maintain
peace in the Middle East, they have to reduce its troops and shift the responsibility of protection
of territories to the local governments and provide military backing to them. Theses are very
hard objectives to achieve so U.S. will also try to make strong diplomatic relations with Russia
and China so that they will provide military backing to U.S. to achieve its objective. Authors
are arguing that, to achieve its goal in Middle East quickly, President Obama will have to gain
the influence of the people and this can be achieved by providing weapons to the army of the
states in Middle East and also provide them proper training to tackle with the terrorist, so that
they will prevent themselves from small attacks. Moreover, it is also necessary for other nations
in Middle East to negotiate with U.S. so that they will pursue their self interest and national
power, by national power author means hard power which will help them to protect their
citizens and territories from invaders.

CHAPTER-3
POLICIES OF U.S. FOR IRAN AND MIDDLE EAST

The position of U.S in Middle East was quite dominant after the collapse of the USSR in 1991.
But due to the failure of U.S in resolving the conflict between Arab-Israeli and failure in
democratizing Arab has diminished the influence of it in Middle East, this also reduce its
regional influence, also U.S was failed to deliver many of its promises and also made condition
worsen in some places. Still there are many countries in Middle East which look U.S as their
protector from war and military strikes. Obama administration should try to renew its
diplomatic policies to support these regional nations, such a renewed in policy was seen during
recent year when U.S diplomats made multiple efforts to rebuild its friendly relation between
Iran and North Korea and promote Israeli-Palestinian peace. Immediate action is needed by

2
Ibid

6
Obama administration for counterterrorism and strengthen local states to fight against
terrorism, and preventing the groups like al Qaeda to remerged in Arabian countries.
After the incident of 9/11 in New York, the message was sent to the whole world that Muslim
world are the enemy of the U.S and U.S will try to take revenge from them, so it was necessary
for the President Obama to send the message to the Muslims that U.S are not at war with Islam
but with those groups and organizations who are violent radical acting against tenets of Islam.
U.S administration also needs promote democracy and repress those authoritarian governments
that are extremist and repressive to the population of their country. This will not be done by
introducing democratic elections only, because with weapons in arms no political parties will
contest fair election, so there is a need to liberalize those countries, promoting democratic
values, strengthen the rule of law, independence of judiciary, by doing this U.S will gain the
support of regional population and military backing of Arabian countries which will help to tie
good relationship among many countries. In this world the economy of developed countries
depends upon the price of oil, oil is the key strategic resource in the world which made
countries like Iran and other oil producing countries powerful, U.S needs to reduce its oil
consumption and adopt other alternative which will use in place of oil. By doing this Iran will
not able to fund foreign adventures and will focus to boost its internal economy, the point is
clear that by reducing price of oil and its consumption will help alter the strategic condition of
Middle East. 3 The another issue which Obama administration going to face is the internal
Islamic war between Shia and Sunni community, if U.S will successful in promoting friendly
relationship between them then it will help in weaken the power of al Qaeda in Iraq and give a
chance to Iraq’s Sunni and Bagdad’s Shiite led government to work together, it also help to
reduce terrorist activities and maintain peace among Arab states.
Due to the Bush’s decision to occupy Iraq in 2003 witnessed third human disaster in which
more that 50,000 were dead. If Obama also take this type of decisions then it will lead to
humanitarian crisis, therefore U.S should reduce its military activities in Middle East and try
to shift responsibility to the leaders of Middle East countries. Executed step by step, a
drawdown of U.S. troops ought not bring up issues about Washington's unwavering quality
given all that the United States has done in the course of recent years to reinforce Iraq's security
and standardize life for its residents.4

3Hendrickson, David C., and Robert W. Tucker. “A Test of Power: U.S. Policy and Iran.” The National
Interest, no. 85, 2006, pp. 49–56.
4 K.S.D. Murthy, “U.S. Iran Slug It Out over Iraq”, Economic and Political Weekly April 28, 2007

7
Beside Iraq, Obama administration also needs to focus its attention towards Iran, if they don’t
then it will trigger a serious war between both the countries. After succeeded in eliminating
Saddam Hussein from Iraq, the Iran government started focusing into the regional primacy and
started interpreting and making the law which are against the religion and women, Sunni
leaders are very repressive towards women, they are misogynist. Earlier rules related to
marriage was altered by Sunni leaders and now every man has right to polygamy, many
feminists are in the view that the proper interpretation of Islamic law are not following. So U.S
now also have to focus towards internal crisis in Iran and help women to get their rights.
The strong efforts of Iran to get nuclear capability and international community seems
powerless to stop it is dangerous for other countries in Middle East and U.S, the intention of
Iran is to engage in war as it was said by Iran and its allies Hezbollah that the only way to
liberate Palestine is violent radicalism. To maintain the survival in the International Politics
other countries were trying to made their friendly relation with U.S so that they should get U.S
military backing to defend themselves from Iran’s wrath. Indeed, even Syria, Iran's partner, has
propelled peace transactions with Israel halfway to enhance its relations with Washington and
somewhat to abstain from being stuck on the Shiite side of the developing Sunni-Shiite
separate. On the off chance that the Obama organization could demonstrate that there are
genuine adjustments for balance, compromise, transaction, and political and financial change,
it would recover considerable U.S. impact all through the area. The Iranian atomic arrangement
is the centerpiece of any US key principle; the course of usage will decisively affect provincial
security, as far as atomic expansion, as well as in re-characterizing Tehran's part in the locale.
In what capacity will the arrangement affect on Iran's aims and abilities? Another US key
teaching must induce and discourage Iran from using its newly discovered impact in ways that
impede US interests, while fortifying relations and participation with customary Sunni
partners, strikingly Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Gulf States, and Jordan. Those two objectives
work experiencing some miscommunication, so it will take deft discretion to effectively seek
after such conflicting targets. Accomplishing the two goals should be possible, as long as senior
US policymakers keep up solid, open channels of discourse to clarify our expectations and
activities with all gatherings in the area. If Iran will successful in crossing its nuclear threshold,
then it will force its neighbors and U.S to change their military strategy. If Iran started to
produce its own nuclear weapons, then it will also provide the nuclear material to the terrorist
organizations who give them military backing. There is a need to cap Iran’s nuclear power, if
U.S will successful in getting the support from Russia then it will easily stop Iran and also it

8
made easier for U.S to bring China on board. 5 The China will only think about to make
commercial interest from Iran rather than increase economic pressure on it. The test for the
Obama organization will be to influence Chinese pioneers to comprehend that an emergency
with Iran will have unfriendly outcomes for China's economy and, therefore, the nation's
political solidness.6

CHAPTER-4
NEW STRATEGY: ROADS FOR SOLVING CONFLICTS IN
SYRIA AND PALESTINE

As President Obama entered in the white house, the major issue before him was to manage the
military activities and economic unstability inherited by past administration. The US was
feeling the squeeze from both debilitating abroad military engagements and the most
exceedingly terrible monetary emergency since the Great Depression. Definitely, the
organization's principle endeavors focused on maintaining a strategic distance from monetary
fall and advancing change at home.7 Therefore, to make change in Iran behaviour U.S needs to
establish its direct relationship with Iranian government because other alternatives are less
hopeful. There are no ensures that attempting to draw in the Iranian government more usefully
would yield preferable outcomes over current arrangement has. Yet, an earnest endeavor that
fizzled would at any rate fortify the case for then falling back on more hardline choices, in the
eyes of both the American open and the worldwide group. The decisions of U.S will make
situation worsen if it only think about its wide range of national interest, so the Obama
government should in this way attempt to figure out how to address Iran's real state interests
while resolutely contradicting its progressive motivations. U.S policy should aim to establish
relationship between Iran and U.S government and focuses on bringing Iran into a new regional
order and induce it to make more are more good relation with its neighboring states through
peaceful manner. Before making U.S such an effort it also need a support of Arab, Turkey and
Israel. The other countries like Jordan and Egypt fear that their security and their interest will

5
Imran Barlas, “Circumstances of the Iran Nuclear Deal”, Economic & Political Weekly August 1, 2015
vol l no 31
6
Supra (1)
7
Ibid

9
sacrificed on the alter of Iran-U.S relationship. To reduce these fear U.S need to treat these
countries as its partner in Iran initiative, offering them security, nuclear backing and consulting
them regularly on Iran issues. On the other hand Israel is also interested in peace making with
Iran because it would prevent Iran from crossing its nuclear threshold, Israel know the
drawbacks of preventive military strike on Iran especially when it acts on its own, so Israel
took the path of diplomatic efforts that would prevent Iran from crossing its nuclear threshold.
Moreover, Israel also wanted to make peace with Syria so that it would get advantage to acquire
its grip over Iran. The reason is clear that Israel do not wanted another nuclear power in its
neighbor, mainly those neighbor which threatens its existence, Israel is very small country with
very few population, a single strike by Iran on them would have destructive results. Therefore
U.S needs to convince Israel to not to strike on Iran and provide sufficient nuclear guarantee
to Israel and other U.S allies in Middle East and also provide them missiles and forces to protect
them from Iran. This peace making process with Iran will establish when U.S should cease so
support its demand that Iran should stop its nuclear program before formal negotiation, if Iran
do it during the negotiation then its sanction should be removed by United Nation. The second
step U.S will have to take is that to not stop Iran from making its nuclear weapon but impose
some limits on them because Iran also has right to enrich. Nonetheless, this privilege must be
earned by Iran, not surrendered by the United States. Something else, Iran will stash it and keep
on insisting on building up a modern improvement capacity, which would convey it unsuitably
near a bomb-production ability. Before engaging in this process of peace making U.S should
also ready for military response because it is possible for Tehran that it might see Obama as a
new young President and try to double cross him. On the off chance that the Iranian government
demonstrates unwilling to arrange straightforwardly with the United States and suspend its
uranium-advancement program all the while, Obama will be looked with a troublesome
decision in his first term. Before settling on a choice on whether to invade Iran, the U.S.
government should utilize private channels to advise Iran's leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of
the perils he will court for his nation and his administration on the off chance that he proceeds
down the atomic way in rebellion of the global group. Moreover, the United States should issue
an announcement making totally evident that any utilization or exchange of atomic weapons
or atomic materials by Iran will have crushing outcomes.

10
SOLUTION FOR SYRIA:
Syria is one of the most important player in international politics which can play a key role is
establishing peace in Middle East. Syria is main channel of Iran’s influence in Palestinian and
Lebanon region, if Israel will able to establish friendly relations with Syria then the strong
influence of Iran in Middle East will surely reduced. 8 Drawing Syria far from Iran would
likewise deny Tehran and its Hamas and Hezbollah intermediaries of a basic partner. Such a
vital realignment would debilitate Iran's impact in the area, lessen outside help for both Hamas
and Hezbollah, and enhance the prospects for soundness in Lebanon. Whenever in past Arab-
Israel negotiation has seen progress, Iran with the help of its ally try to subvert reconciliation.
But this time Iran have alternate option to go with U.S as President Obama is offering an
alternate path which helps Iran to gain national interest without engaging in war with other
countries. Previously, the Israelis looked to exchange the Golan Heights for peace however
questioned the profundity of Syria's sense of duty regarding normalizing relations. Today the
stakes are extraordinary: confronting a genuine risk from Iran, the Israelis are more intrigued
by Syria's vital realignment. On the off chance that Assad demonstrates willing to make that
move, it would bargain a genuine hit to Iran's obstruction on Israel's northern and southern
outskirts, giving a key profit to supplant the debased peace profit that the Israelis used to seek
after. Turkey which shared its border with Iraq, Iran and Syria and keep maintaining its
relationship with Israel can also play a crucial role in this negotiation. The turkey government
led by IJDP has great influence in Arab world. Obama should accordingly offer to join forces
with Turkey in advancing Israeli-Syrian peace and managing viably with the test from Iran.9
A U.S.- expedited peace amongst Israel and Syria would expel Damascus as a foe and, all the
while, likely reason the separation of the Iranian-Syrian union.10 Yet, that can happen just if
the Obama organization is engaged with the transactions, since Syria won't surrender its key
association with Iran unless it realizes that normalized relations with the United States are in
the offing. A readiness to hand another page over U.S.- Syrian relations would give Obama
more noteworthy capacity to convince Syria to regard Lebanon's freedom and police its outskirt
with Iraq all the more adequately. A U.S.- supported Israeli-Syrian arrangement would likewise
help change the progression of the other major peacemaking exertion Obama ought to attempt.

8
SUKUMAR MURALIDHARAN, “Syria and Lebanon The Next Battleground”, Economic and Political
Weekly March 19, 2005
9
Supra (1)
10 Supra (3)

11
ISRAEL AND PALESTINE’S CONFLICT:
The difficulties facing by Palestinians is one of the sensitive issue across the Middle East. The
situation is getting more and more worsen due the Iranian leaders, they are rhetorically saying
that ‘the only way to liberate Palestine is war’. Some still contend that it is a slip-up to center
around this issue because couple of pioneers in the locale truly think about it and a last status
assertion won't resolve the district's additionally squeezing issues. However, this contention
disregards the suppositions of a greater part of Israelis who have come to see the occupation as
a hazardous weight and of a large number of Arabs and Muslims who see the Palestinian issue
as their very own humiliation.11 Besides, inability to determine this issue enables Arab pioneers
to divert public scrutiny from their own failings. If Obama take this advantage and try to resume
the negotiation process and resolve the conflict occurring in Palestine, U.S will gain regional
support which is very important for them to rule in Middle East. So the first step that U.S
should take is to work as a mediator and try to resolve the conflicts between the parties. To
empower advance, it might likewise be important for Obama to draw in some detail his
perspectives of the standards basic a final settlement. Second, U.S should encourage Palestine
to fight against the terrorism and encourage Israel to freeze their settlement activities. Palestine
has deployed its forces in West Bank to secure its territory, but their forces has lack of funds
and experience to deal with violence and terrorist. So U.S tshould help them to give its military
support to them and also trained them to face difficult situations and to act against terrorist
groups. U.S also needs to stop the settlement activity of Israel for a certain period till some
solution has been come out. Third, Obama should help enhance conditions in the West Bank
by giving expanded guide and sponsorship endeavors to facilitate the stream of goods and
people. Salam Fayyad, prime minister of the PA, and Tony Blair, the Quartet's unique agent,
have started to kick-begin neighborhood monetary undertakings and evacuate some key
checkpoints. It is vital that they get collaboration from Israel and financing from the Arab
states. Obama should bring all the Arab states to actively participate and promote this peace
process and normalize their relationship with Israel, in return Israel should also pledge to
withdraws to pre June border and give their consent to create a Palestinian state. 12 If the
settlement process will stop then it will encourage more Arabian states to participate in this

11 Editorial, “Palestine, Israel and the United States”, Economic & Political Weekly, june 13, 2009 vol xliv
no 24.
12 Supra (1)

12
negotiation process. Obama administration should also have to take some steps against danger
and difficulties created by Hamas, that capture Gaza by violence and military. Also it supports
violence and terrorism practice against Israel. If U.S will not succeed in managing these
conflicts, then entire peace process will fail. The United States should empower such
improvements yet abandon it to Egypt, Israel, and the PA to deal with their associations with
Hamas. On the off chance that the truce amongst Israel and Hamas keeps on holding and a
Hamas-PA reconciliation rises, the U.S should manage the joint Palestinian administration and
approve low-level contact between U.S. authorities and Hamas in Gaza. On the off chance that
the truce separates hopelessly and the Israeli armed force reenters Gaza, the United States
should then work with others to make and embed an Arab-drove global power to reestablish
PA control and realize Israel's withdrawal. Clearly, it would be exceptionally alluring to evade
such a situation. One approach to do this is guarantee the sort of advance in the arrangements
that would make a dynamic in which Hamas feels compelled by Gazans not to miss the peace
prepare that is starting to move in the West Bank.

CHAPTER -5
CONCLUSION IN THE LIGHT OF SCHOOL OF THOUGHTS

After doing research on the international politics in Middle East, researcher comes to the
conclusion that the international politics which is going in Middle East is realist in nature. The
environment which was created in the Middle East is a type of Unipolar in which Americans
are acting as a strongest power in the arena and the other are placing below the U.S as a
hierarchy system, but according to realist international system is anarchical in nature because
every state is free to act according to its own, so we saw the situation created in the Middle
East is hybrid of anarchy and hierarchy. The other nations who have less hard power, reconciled
with U.S to pursue national interest and national power, for example- Libya, Egypt and many
others. Due the development in technology in global politics, there are almost every nation
which have nuclear weapons, which make difficult for adversary sates to engage in direct war,
if they do that, then it will trigger a nuclear war which have very harmful effect to humanity,
that’s why no one want to engage in direct war. We can take the example in Middle East, U.S.A
was trying to restrain Iran to reach its nuclear threshold, but former will not attacking latter

13
directly because it will trigger a nuclear war, therefore both were engaged in sub conventional
war, this theory is known as defensive realism. But according to some international relation
scholars, conflict cannot be absolutely ruled out from international relations no matter what
technology prevails or exists at that time. Thus the practice is to keep preparing upon its
capacity for a state of war, this theory is known as offensive realism. For example- in the
Middle East Iran is building its nuclear weapon which is a threat for many regional countries
in Middle East and Americans are also looking for a chance for military strike, thus we can say
that the war can never be stop in international system.
Area, monstrous oil reserves, capable transnational powers, for example, religion and ethnicity,
and the steadiness of worldwide dangers, for example, psychological warfare and atomic
multiplication, have made the Middle East a point of convergence of shakiness in the advanced
world and in addition a wellspring of worry for a worldwide power, for example, the United
States. The region to some degree welcomes mediation from awesome forces with worldwide
desire. As late history appears, this energy of fascination can turn into an overwhelming desire
to intercede for strategy producers that imagine status and administration in limit terms of
military power. Starting here of view, it isn't amazing to watch how the Middle East has turned
out to be so significant as a proving ground for contending originations of America's part on
the planet during a time of unchallenged US military supremacy. The tremendous human and
monetary expenses of US military mediations in Iraq and Afghanistan, joined with the
economic crisis of 2008, nonetheless, essentially subdued America's craving for military
enterprises. Such a basic circumstance has made the journey for another American great system
considerably all the more convincing, and Obama's new and eccentric remote strategy
viewpoint has had a noteworthy effect. As the record of arrangement in the Middle East –
particularly the Iran bargain – appears, Obama's approach can without a doubt bring positive,
even great changing outcomes at a generally little cost. Advance toward a less mobilized, more
comprehensive, and more reasonable request in the area may for sure flag the progress to a
more sober minded and less aggressive – and maybe more viable – origination of America's
worldwide authority. The opposite side of Obama's realism, be that as it may, is a sure trouble
to recognize a genuinely long haul vision, something that leaves us somewhat dubious about
his inheritance and the eventual fate of his "Long Game." From Libya to Afghanistan, the
numerous and interrelated emergencies that sadly keep on tormenting the Middle East will give
a considerable number of chances to test the course of US worldwide methodology and the
nature of America's worldwide administration.

14