The Persian Gulf and
the Role of Outside Powers: The United States
Origins
The
presence of vast energy resources and location at the center of the Middle East
account for the Gulf’s geo-strategic importance and its attraction to major
powers. U.S. involvement and military presence dates back to the early part of
the last century, and includes a host of political, economic, and geo-strategic
objectives. Prior to the Gulf War, U.S. military presence was largely over the
horizon, accommodating the sensitivities of local culture.
Since
its independence, the United States has had interests in and relations with the
Middle East. Morocco was the first country to establish relations with the new
nation, and in 1866 American missionaries established the Syrian Protestant
College in Lebanon that later became the famed American University of Beirut.
During the early part of the 20th century, business entrepreneurs were
responsible for the major oil discoveries in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, it was
Alfred Thayer Mahan, the noted American naval officer and strategist, who
coined the term “Middle East” as that area between Arabia and India “with its
center—from the point of view of the naval strategist—in the Persian Gulf.”
US
relations with that center began on September 21, 1833, when it signed a treaty
of amity and commerce with Oman. Since then, U.S. involvement in the Gulf
region has widened and deepened, given the increasing relevance of Gulf
petroleum to the world economy, and the geostrategic importance of the region
during the Cold War.
In
1971, Britain ended its military presence east of Suez, but the United States
did not immediately replace it as the region’s dominant security provider. For
the purpose of this analysis, the decade of the 1970s has a distinct practical
function. It represents a period of transition from British to US hegemony in
the Gulf.
Current Strategy
In
today’s United States, this is illustrated by the especially vibrant debate
surrounding the future of US grand strategy. Although there are shades of
difference among proponents of alternative grand strategies, two perspectives
have consistently dominated the current debate: offshore balancing versus deep
engagement. At the core of this debate there is a profound disagreement on the
benefits deriving from continued US security commitments abroad.
Supporters of
offshore balancing and of deep engagement differ on the extent to which the
United States should be directly responsible for guaranteeing international
security.
This debate also includes the discussion of significant political and
economic aspects of grand strategy, however, both camps recognize the special
importance of the future nature of US military strategy.
Despite
their many differences, people in both camps have consistently identified the
Persian Gulf as one of the three regions, along with Europe and East Asia,
vital to US national security. This domestic consensus on the strategic
importance of Gulf stability has also been reflected in the policy documents of
successive US administrations.
By
the end of 2011, all major US military units left Iraq. US President Barack
Obama had promised the complete withdrawal of US troops from the country during
the 2008 US presidential campaign. The military withdrawal from Iraq was part
of the Obama administration’s larger policy of ”pivoting” toward Asia.
The
meaning of the pivot toward Asia has been often equated to US disengagement
from the broader Middle East and the Persian Gulf in particular. This is an
inaccurate reading of the Obama administration’s strategy, especially with
regard to the administration’s post-2011 security commitments to the Gulf.
The
real outcome of the pivot, in fact, was to give increased priority to Asia in
addition to, and not instead of, priorities in the Gulf. The United States
had no intention to disengage militarily from the Persian Gulf.
Debating US Military Strategy in the
Persian Gulf
U.S. Military Presence in the Gulf
Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
27th November 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment