HOME >>  HOME >> اخبار ویژه
Publish Date : 25 May 2016 - 09:52  ,  
News ID: 366
TEHRAN (Basirat)- Then some important questions here are: Will Washington return to have a direct military presence in the region? Will it leave the region slowly? And what approach will the US presidential candidates take toward the region if elected?
Then some important questions here are: Will Washington return to have a direct military presence in the region? Will it leave the region slowly? And what approach will the US presidential candidates take toward the region if elected?
By Mohammad Reza Farhadi

The US has sought to have a more active presence in the region using military hard power since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and also the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan from December 1979 to February 1989.

 So the US took the first steps for a direct military presence in the region in the early 1990s after assembling a broad international coalition to confront former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait. In the 1990s, the US started to expand its military bases as well as throw support behind its allies in the region.
 With the Bush’s Republican administration coming to power, the US foreign policy entered into an offensive phase which enjoyed the deep influence of a doctrine outlined by Leo Strauss.
 The new foreign policy was hawkish and developed a direct assault against leading opponents at international level. As part of Washington's so-called war on terror, Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

 Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton believes that the US invasion of these two countries boosted Iran’s might in the region. With Barack Obama coming to the Oval office with slogan of "change”, Washington to some extent stayed away from having a direct military presence in the region, and today it is pushing ahead with its regional policies by proxy.
Then some important questions here are: Will Washington return to have a direct military presence in the region? Will it leave the region slowly? And what approach will the US presidential candidates take toward the region if elected?
One cannot merely respond to the above-mentioned questions with certainly, but A country’s foreign policy stems from environmental factors and policy makers and that only a single person or an organization cannot determine a country’s foreign policy. But given presumptive US Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton’s recent stances, one can predict the US political future to a degree.

Donald Trump

Trump will not tend to engage in having a new direct presence in the region due to the following reasons:
1: Although Trump is a Republican who has adopted anti-Muslim approach, but he recently referred to a new approach in his potential policy toward Syria if elected. He said, "I will fight against Daesh instead of Bashar al-Assad if won the election”. This shows that US will not have a direct military presence in the region if Trump wins. This means non-interference in the region.
 
2: Trump is a rich person active in economy. Maybe this feature of him has increased his approval rating among people compared to his other rivals. Today, the US has been widely hit by foreign debts and unemployment. For this reason, the American people have turned to Trump.
 
3: Donald Trump and his team are taking a great deal of heed to this issue that they should not made the same mistake that Bush did. Because entering into a direct war means imposing huge expenses to people and as a result people will turn their back to him. Something similar to what Bush came down with versus Democrat Al Gore in the run-off election. He then managed to become the US president by the Supreme Court’s ruling.
But taking into account Trump’s offensive approach toward foreign issues and his tendency to use belligerent people in his cabinet may make him find his way to the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton is a Democrat and the former US Secretary of State. She also does not pursue a policy to have a direct military presence in the region due to the following reasons.
1: Basically, the Democratic party pays more attention to interaction rather than confrontation. This is evident in Obama’s foreign policy and it was the same in Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
2: Clinton believes in soft and semi-hard war rather than all-out hard war. This approach was adopted against Iran some years ago, but failed to yield result.
3: Clinton’s main approach will entail regional coalitions with Washington being the leader. This can be easily seen in the US so-called fight against Daesh and also the Saudi war on Yemen. Washington could battle the terrorist group single-handedly, but forming a regional coalition both was more economical and served its interests in the region.
Comments
Name:
Email:
* Comment:
* captcha:
Enter the The letters that you see in the picture exactly in the opposite field