The Impact of Islamic State on U.S.Middle Eastern Strategy

On September 10, 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama announced a new strategy for fighting the extremist group, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham （ISIL）.1 It is generally considered that this marks a major turn in US＇ Middle Eastern strategy, and observers have commented that the U.S. may have got itself once again ＂mired in the Middle East＂. How can we accurately assess U.S. Middle Eastern strategy？ And how should we read Obama＇s ＂anti-terror New Deal＂？ This paper tries to answer these questions as well as analyze the U.S.＇ overall American Middle Eastern strategy.     

ABSTRACTS

Saudi Arabia： the Strategic Pivot of American Middle East Policy Feng Jihua The U.S. pursued different strategies toward the Middle East in and after the Old War. During the Old War, the major strategic goals of the U.S. included ensuring stable oil supply from the Middle East and security of Israel, and containing the Soviet expansion in the region. In the post Cold War era, in addition to ensuring stable oil supply and security of Israel, its Middle East strategy also includes actively promotion of Western style democracy in the region. As the ideologies of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are totally different and they have contrasting stances over the Palestinian-lsraeli issue, there have been some collisions between the two countries since they established diplomatic relations. Nonetheless, their relationship has been built upon the basis of practical interest, which has transcended their differences in political systems, ideology and foreign policies, and their strategic cooperation continues. In the near future, Saudi Arabia will maintain the important position as a strategic pivot for American Middle East policy.     

Middle East Transformation from the Perspective of U.S. Middle East Policy

The Middle East, one of the most turbulent regions in the world, has embarked on another round of chaos since America waged the Iraq war in 2003, new players vying to fill the power vacuum, entrenched hatred multiplying with new wounds. Ecstasy turned into agony as Americans watched the war unfold. U.S. think tank researchers and politicians, reflecting on the war and U.S. Middle East policy, urged the Bush administration to adjust the policy and break the strategic impasse. Under grave pressure from home and abroad, the White House finally began to respond. Against this backdrop, the year 2007 witnessed the most intensive and extensive shift of U.S. Middle East policy in recent years and a drastic return of realism in America＇s foreign policy. These policy changes rippled in the Middle East, precipitating policy changes of other powers and transformation of the geopolitical landscape. The Middle East, as we can see, is heading toward a new age of pain and growth.     

Evolution of the Middle East Situation and Policy Adjustment by the Bush Administration

Since U.S. president Bush adopted the new Iraq plan on January 10,2007 for sending more troops to Iraq,the situation in Iraq has remained in a state of chaos. The Iraq issue continues to stand as a focal point of the Middle East crisis,     

How Effective Are U.S. Sanctions on Iran？

Iran＇s nuclear development has become a serious threat to the U.S.-led nuclear nonproliferation movement. It also threatens Israel and other U.S.allies in the Middle East. It is one of the U.S.＇ biggest problems in the area. The U.S. ratcheted up sanctions on Iran after 2003 as the nuclear issue grew more urgent. Iran has responded with its own policies.     

New Turbulence in the Middle East

Americans often say that September 11 has transformed the world, but in fact, it has primarily changed the U. S. itself. The Middle East, as well, due to a shift in U.S. policies and strategies,has gone through significant changes. This in turn has exerted substantial influence on future development of the international situation.What kind of change has taken place in the Middle East? We might find some answers from historical and realistic perspectives.     

Abstracts

1.The Korean Nuclear Issue Tests Obama＇s Asia Diplomacy,.by Shi Yongming, Senior Researcher, China Institute of International Studies and Guest Researcher of CPDS. Obama＇s Asia policy has just shown an outline of its ＂smart diplomacy＂, i.e., on the premise of sticking to the basic strategy, it attaches great importance to strengthening relationship with the newly-emerging powers and seeks to extend the U.S. influence on Asia by means of dialogue and cooperation. However, the Korean nuclear issue, which is very likely to reach a complicated and even dangerous impasse, is now testing Asia policy of the U.S. new administration. The issue is not only a strategic bottleneck that is a reflection of U.S.-DPRK relationship, but also is constrained by Japan and ROK, whose interests are closely related to the changes of the situation, as well as by some political elements in the U.S.     

Abstract

01 A Study of East Asian Geo-politics： Obama＇ s Visit to Japan and the Trilateral Relations of China, the U.S. and Japan, by Dr. Lin Xiaoguang, Professor from the Institute for International Strategic Studies, Party School of the CPC Central Committee, and Guest Research Fellow from the Center for Japanese Studies of Tsinghua University. Obama visited Japan to push forward the U.S. rebalancing strategy in the Asia-Pacific region. Obama supported Japan to amend its constitution and lift the ban on the right of collective self-defense,     

What Strategic Outlook Holds for America in Iraq?

Agreat controversy is stirring up the world opinion over the future direction of developments in Iraq, a matter affecting overall U.S. foreign policy and even the international power configuration as well. An accurate assessment, however, requires analyzing the relevance of the issue to U.S. vital interests, the results of its current policy over there and its ability to cope with further potential challenges. The author rules out U. S. giving up its cause in Iraq or the likelihood of any drastic modifications in its present policy. He also concedes its ability to achieve partial successful reconstruction in the war-torn country, albeit in a scaled-down version, far short of its original much-vaunted expectations. In sum, Washington will naturally make constant policy adjustments to meet challenges for realization of its dynamic phased goals and maintain its continued military presence there in a certain form so as to ensure its strategic interests in Iraq,the Greater Middle East and even the entire "arc of instability."     

An Overall Review of the International Situation In the 2nd Quarter of 2005

I. The U.S. paid more attention to the rising ofChina, deliberately strengthened the position ofJapan in its global strategy, and increased itspenetration in the Middle East and in theCommonwealth of Independent States (CIS).The U.S. regarded it as a most serious challenge todeal with the risingofChina and was makingread-justment ofitspolicies toward China, with a possibletendency of getting tough with it. The U.S. exag-gerated "the rising of China " and spread its theo-ry of "China's …     

Business as Usual

In the years since 9/11, there is no doubt that the emphasis of U.S. global strategy has been on counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq. During this period of time, the U.S. investment in strategic, political and military resources in the Middle East, Iraq, and the war on terror, which are the top priorities on the list of Bush＇s foreign policy, has been far greater than in any other fields. However, there are some in the U.S. who believe that China＇s rise has been much ignored by the U.S., due to the global war on terror （GWOT）, and that America should, in fact, be focusing more on China, not the Middle East. However, as we see it, China has by no means been ignored by the U.S., neither has China＇s rise been the result of U.S. ignorance.     

尚鸿文英译文

In the nationally televised address at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N. Y. on December 1, 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama announced his decision to make readjustment plan to the new AFPAK strategy. It was done under the difficult circumstances surrounding the selection of choices after a time-consuming weighing up its pros and cons at a time when the U.S is bogged down in the Afghan War and a wide difference of opinions is in existence on the surge inside the U.S. This has come as a revelation about the U.S deep-going considerations and policy directions on the Afghan issue.     

Nation''s Fate and Its Founding Principles

The height of the U.S. strength is at the period from President Clinton's coming to power in 1992 till the end of the large-scale battles in the Iraq war on May 1, 2003. How America's national fortune will develop depends on how America will resolve the Iraq issue, implement its program of reforming Middle East, and maintain instead of damaging its national fundamental principles at home.     

Obama's Middle East Policy

Obama's Middle East policy comes to its epilogue with the end of his 8-year White House tenancy.An aspirational speech in Cairo in 2009 and the shrinkage of US military in the Middle East in 2017 are the bookends to a shelf of events and decisions that are already being parsed and judged by historians and foreign relations experts.Bringing democracy to the Middle East is no longer a major US goal.When measured against the Pivot to Asia-Pacific and a potential pro-Russia foreign policy under Republican President Donald Trump,the Middle East is now seated as a second violin in American foreign policy.     

Nation‘s Fate and Its Founding Principles

The height of the U. S. strength is at the period from President Clinton's coming to power in 1992 till the end of the large-scale battles in the Iraq war on May 1, 2003. How America's national fortune will develop depends on how America will resolve the Iraq issue, implement its program of reforming Middle East, and maintain instead of damag- ing its national fundamental principles at home. 1992 2003 was the most prosperous period of the U. S. strength, which even exceeded that of the ear…     

U.S.-China Relations: A View from Europe

China is playing a crucial role in the Obama administration＇s attempt to build a ＂multi-partner world＂ based on cooperation and shared responsibilities. In light of the profound geo-economic transformations of 2008-2009, the United States has little choice but to strive for partnership, especially with the country that is Washington＇s major creditor. Obama＇s foreign policy approach, however, goes beyond a mere pragmatic adaptation to the new realities and constitutes a unique window of opportunity for the establishment of an unprecedented level of U.S.-China cooperation. From a European perspective, the positive evolution in U.S.-China cooperation has been welcomed as a key contribution to the resolution of the global problems confronting the planet. The European Union has nevertheless reacted with apprehension to the suggestions by American commentators for the creation of a U.S.-China ＂G-2＂. That issue was discussed at the EU-China Summit underlines the seriousness of the proposal and serves, in itself, as a significant indicator of the great transformation of intemational relations characterizing the years 2008-2009.     

The Influence of Jewish Americans on U. S. Middle East Policy

Ever since the establishment of Israeli statehood in 1948, the United States has been its staunch supporter. This is because of their common beliefs in values, political system and ideology, and America's interests in the Middle East. However one important factor cannot be ignored., the influence of Jewish Americans' political forces on U. S. Middle East policy. Since few articles deal with such a topic systematically in China, this essay tries to make a preliminary study on it.     

Happy New Year to Our Readers and Greetings to China International Studies

Editors' Note: The New Year approaches as we greet the first anniversary of China International Studies. Availing ourselves of this opportunity, we sincerely wish our readers a happy and prosperous New Year! China International Studies began its publication last December. Since its inception, various think-tanks and institutions of higher learning both at home and abroad as well as Chinese embassies in foreign countries and foreign embassies in Beijing have offered it great support. Many readers wrote to us giving their encouragement on this new-born publication. We are carrying some of the messages in this issue to express our deep appreciation. Articles in this issue are mainly on the Middle East situation, the Iran nuclear issue, China-EU relations, China-India relations and China's peaceful diplomacy. We are also publishing a paper by a foreign scholar for the first time.     

Analysis of the Current Situation in North Africa ＆ the Middle East

After the upsurge of domestic turmoil in Tunis last December,unrest spread rapidly through North Africa and the Middle East,having a profound effect on current international relations.It will continue to affect relations between the major powers and the international system as a whole for some time to come.The regional turmoil of North Africa and the Middle East is of particular interest to International Political Economy(IPE)studies.It seems to embody a geostrategic conflict between the US and the EU in contending for leadership in North Africa and the Middle East.It is also an expression of the competition for dominance of the global financial structure between the major powers during a period of transition in the international system.Lastly,it is a manifestation of America’s struggle to maintain its global economic hegemony.     

The Origin and Essence of U.S.Neutrality Policy on the Diaoyu Islands Dispute

It is common knowledge that the focus of the China-Japan dispute over the Diaoyu Islands1 is the question of sovereignty. Some scholars from both home and abroad have defined the issue as one between China and Japan. However, the basis for the Japanese government＇s territory claim2 over the Diaoyu Islands lies in U.S.-Japan backroom deals, and this has meant that the U.S. is also closely connected to the China-Japan dispute over the sovereignty of the Islands. When the U.S. transferred the Diaoyu Islands to Japan, it stated its neutral position over the issue. To date, all the previous U.S. administrations have basically followed this policy, and they often reiterated this policy at moments of intensification in the Diaoyu Islands issue. This means that that even though there is the close alliance between the U.S. and Japan, the U.S. has maintained its neutral position with regard to the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands, and never taken the view that the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands belongs to Japan. The repeatedly reiterated U.S. position of neutrality could be taken as holding no position on the issue of sovereignty, but of having a clear-cut position alongside Japan on the issue of security. Scholars have produced numerous works on the issue of the U.S. position on the China-Japan dispute over the Diaoyu Islands. By reviewing the historical evolvement of the U.S. position in relation to the Diaoyu Islands, this article will systematically investigate the origins of the U.S. neutrality policy, using documentary materials from China, Japan and the U.S..