The Transatlantic Allies And The Changing Middle East

Since the mid-1990s, US and European attitudes, strategies and policies towards the Middle East have diverged. In the Middle East peace process, Europeans have grown frustrated with the lack of progress and with Washington’s near-monopoly on diplomatic action, and have begun to demand a greater role. On Iraq, the US insists on strong military and economic containment of Saddam Hussein, while some Europeans have started to press for a more rapid reintegration of Iraq into the international community and are reluctant to use or threaten force. The issue of how to deal with Iran has been most divisive of all, with the US and Europe deeply divided over whether they should contain, or engage, Tehran. Transatlantic tensions over the Middle East are damaging for three main reasons. They reduce the effectiveness of allied policies; undermine NATO’s cohesion when its future is no longer guaranteed by a common threat; and threaten to spill over into the economic domain. This paper examines the reasons for these potentially damaging differences, assesses the prospects for improving transatlantic cooperation in the region and suggests approaches that may help to bring this about. Its main policy conclusions are: On the Arab–Israeli conflict, as long as the peace process is moving forward, or has reasonable prospects of doing so, the US is probably right that Europe’s formal involvement in direct peace talks would not be helpful, particularly if such a role aimed to promote policies different from those of the US. If the peace process stalls completely, however, it will be difficult for Washington to justify opposing a more active European role. On Iraq, the US-led policy of containment is correct, and economic sanctions should remain in place until Baghdad complies fully with UN Security Council disarmament resolutions. However, in exchange for Europe’s agreement to contribute to Iraq’s military containment, the US, like Europe, should abide by the letter and spirit of these resolutions, even if this means agreeing to lift restrictions on oil exports if Iraq complies in full. Failing to do so could undermine global support for the integrity of the UN system, ultimately leaving the US, and perhaps the UK, isolated in maintaining a policy that might not be sustainable in the long term. On Iran, a transatlantic compromise would need to include an agreement by the US not to impose sanctions against European companies doing business with Iran, as long as Europe offered unstinting support in combating terrorism and helping to contain the development of weapons of mass destruction. The US should also seek agreement with the European Union on which Iranian actions would justify sanctions or other punitive measures. The paper concludes by examining institutional changes that might help to promote transatlantic cooperation on the Middle East.

Many Transatlantic security concerns in the coming decades will originate not in Europe, but in the Greater Middle East, which encompasses the area from the Maghreb to the Caspian basin. This volume juxtaposes essays from U.S. and European scholars on selected areas and issues: the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Persian Gulf, Turkey and the Caspian Basin, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and military force projection. Each author considers American and European strategies toward a particular issue and makes suggestions for future policy collaboration between the countries on both sides of the Atlantic.

This book examines the evolution of European-American relations with the Middle East since 1945. Placing the current transatlantic debates on the Middle East into a broader context, this work analyses how, why, and to what extent European and US roles, interests, threat perceptions, and policy attitudes in the region have changed, relating to both the region as a whole and the two main issues analysed: Gulf Security and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The contributors then go on to discuss the implications of these developments for Western policymaking. The volume makes four key contributions. First, it examines the subject matter from a truly transatlantic perspective, with all chapters adopting a bi- or multilateral approach, taking into account the views from both the US and individual European countries or the EC/EU collectively. Second, the book takes a long-term view, covering a series of crises and developments over the past six decades. Third, it has a systematic structure, with the predominantly chronological order of the chapters being geared towards depicting trends and evolutions with regard to the key themes of the book. Finally, the book builds bridges between historians and political scientists/analysts, as well as between experts of transatlantic relations and Middle East scholars. This book will be of great interest to students of transatlantic relations, the Middle East, US foreign policy, European politics, international history and IR in general. Daniel Möckli is a Senior Researcher at the Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zurich. He is also the editor of CSS Analyses in Security Policy. Victor Mauer is Deputy Director and Head of Research of the Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zurich, and Lecturer in the Department of Social Sciences and Humanities at ETH Zurich.

Since the end of the Cold War, and especially following the US decision to invade Iraq, the once strong partnership between the US, Canada, and the European allies has faced the serious possibility of significant change, or even dissolution. At the very least, fundamental differences have emerged in the ways that many of the partners, perceive the issues that are most important to them—from perceptions of the threat of terrorism and attitudes to the use of force, to expectation about the future nature of the NATO Alliance—and in the ways in which those perceptions have become translated into policy decisions. In this book, experts from both sides of the Atlantic seek to explain why there has been so much divergence in the approach the various countries have taken. And it seeks to raise questions about what those divergent paths might mean for the future of transatlantic relations.

The study asks a major question: Why do European and American policies converge and diverge towards Middle East issues despite their agreement on common goals? In answering this question the study examines the actual behavior of transatlantic allies towards Iraq, Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In its second part, the study draws on the Arab elite perception of transatlantic policies towards Middle East. The study presumes two main arguments; the first is that transatlantic divergences with respect to the Middle East are in details (tools), but not in the essence of policies. The second is that transatlantic allies' convergences regarding the Middle East make their policies more coherent. Based on a multidimensional methodology, the study attempts to illustrate the reasons behind the transatlantic divergences and convergences over the Middle East issues, particularly with respect to the Iraq war, the Iranian nuclear crisis, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In a sense, the study uses the combination of neo-realism, neo-liberalism, and constructivism to explain the ups and downs in the transatlantic policies towards the Middle East through three case studies; the Iraq war, the Iranian nuclear quandary, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The first part of the study puts forward that transatlantic policies in Middle East diverge and converge for different reasons in each case study that range from neo-realist to neo-liberal to constructivist explanations. In doing so, the study examines transatlantic theoretical frameworks, strategies, priorities, and policies towards three case studies (Iraq war, Iranian nuclear crisis, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict). Anchored in a questionnaire, the second part dwells on the Arab elite perspective towards transatlantic policies in the Middle East, through personal interviews with a random sample of Arab pundits in both Egypt and Jordan. In this part, the study puts forward that the Arab interview partners ma

"The Middle East presents a wide array of challenges that raise fundamental questions about how the transatlantic community should calibrate its approach to promote stability in a volatile region. These include: the rise of the Islamic State (ISIL), which was fueled in part by the brutal Syrian civil war and the limitations of the state authority in Iraq; the migration and humanitarian crises resulting from the wars in Syria, and to a lesser extent, Libya; the aftershocks of the 2011 Arab uprisings that have brought on an authoritarian restoration to Egypt, a fragile democracy in Tunisia, and a civil war in Libya; balancing the enforcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran while contesting Iran's continued support for terrorist groups in the region and the Houthi rebels in Yemen; and the continued stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Traditional and reliable allies are either under increased domestic and security pressures (Saudi Arabia), have changed their postures as a result of regime change (Egypt), or are more dependent on Western assistance than ever (Jordan). Given this daunting environment, the key question for the Trump administration regarding transatlantic security cooperation in the Middle East is how to utilize limited resources to maximize stability in a region that is undergoing a generational trauma. On both sides of the Atlantic, there are voices that call for a variety of differing approaches to this region. Some would like to see deeper engagement in the Middle East, especially some form of intervention in Syria; others want to step back from intense political engagements to focus on containing terrorist threats. Still others, especially nationalist voices in the United States and increasingly in Europe, advocate for withdrawing from the region altogether ... Engaging with an internally focused Europe on the Middle East will be an uphill battle, but one the Trump administration must undertake to keep the transatlantic relationship relevant on Middle East policy"--Publisher's web site.