Does The United States Policy Towards The Middle East Change in Relation to Which Party is in Power?

A comparison of the foreign policy of President Gerald Ford and President Jimmy Carter is the basis of this analysis. United States foreign policy in the Middle East operates within the context of relationships with Middle Eastern countries and conflicts within the region and strategic considerations. Some of these considerations have remained constant and others that have varied. The reasons for any differences will be examined to consider if those differences were substantial or more cosmetic in nature. Some of the contexts in which the United States foreign policy in the Middle East operated in were the Arab – Israeli conflict, the Cold War involving competition with the Soviet Union to gain the greatest influence within the region and the relationship with the region’s Islamic governments. These contexts were all interdependent and change in one area could radically alter the political and economic situation across the Middle East. Events in the Middle East as well as differences in presidential outlook, ideology, political party and personality could also explain differences in foreign policy.

President Ford’s term in office was shorter than President Carter but was still long enough to allow a fair comparison. For President Carter the Middle East would bring both foreign policy success and even more damaging failure. Neither man would have denied the strategic importance of the region to American economic and political interests or their foreign policy importance. Another factor to consider was the importance and influence of their respective Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance. They were more important than previous Secretaries of States were largely due to the limitations of Presidents Ford and Carter when it came to directing foreign policy. There was also a role for party differences between the Republicans and the Democrats in their foreign policy approach to the Middle East. It must be remembered that policy differences did not have to be down to party political differences as the divide between the Republicans and the Democrats is frequently not as wide as the differences between left and right wing parties in Europe.

President Ford was not elected to the presidency; he replaced the disgraced Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal after replacing Spiro Agnew as Vice President only months before. Domestically a sluggish economy, combined with harsh budgetary restraints, not to mention a Democrat controlled Congress and the ease with which he pardoned Nixon weakened his presidency. President Ford’s rise to the presidency had been rapid and unexpected going from Congressman to Vice President to President in just over eight months. Ford’s main virtue was his honesty, former President Lyndon Johnson claimed his intellect had been reduced by playing ‘too much football without a helmet.’ In terms of foreign policy President Nixon had some notable successes such as an ongoing détente with the Soviet Union, improved relations with China and ending the Vietnam War. President Nixon had continued the established policy of supporting Israel and pro-American Islamic states in the Middle East. President Ford inherited President Nixon’s Secretary of State and National Security Advisor; Henry Kissinger and both had to deal with the continued economic and political consequences of the Yom Kippur war of 1973. President Nixon and Henry Kissinger certainly liked to live up to the image of the Republicans of taking hard line stances towards containing the communist or Soviet influence within the region, protecting oil supplies and safeguarding Israel.