ROOSEVELT, TRUMAN AND EISENHOWER: PRESIDENTS WHO SET PRECEDENT
Matt
White
February 22, 2016
Liberty University PPOG 641 U.S. Middle East Foreign Policy
Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower each
significantly contributed towards American Middle Eastern foreign policy by
setting precedent followed by subsequent administrations. As Roosevelt was in
the White House as the United States first emerged as a military superpower, as
Truman was at the helm at the end of WWII and the onset of the Cold War, and as
Eisenhower vastly expanded American involvement in the Middle East, each was
afforded the opportunity to take precedent setting actions. American oil
interests pushing the American alliance with Saudi Arabia, support for Israeli
statehood, intervening in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and supporting Middle
Eastern leaders in the name of American interests are policies that took root
based on the actions of these three presidents, and have resonated throughout
American Middle Eastern foreign policy since. The policies of Roosevelt, Truman
and Eisenhower influenced future policies that contributed towards the
development of future events that would help shape the modern Middle East.
Roosevelt
Franklin Delano Roosevelt transformed the United States from a semi-isolationist
emerging state to a great power, exerting worldwide influence, including in the
Middle East. Roosevelt’s actions and policies toward the Middle East set
precedent for future American policies. Roosevelt contributed towards the
transformation of the Middle East as an anti-colonial advocate, and in the
creation of the United Nations. Prior to WWII, much of the Middle East was
dominated by British and French colonialism, from French domination in Northern
Africa and Syria, to British colonial rule over Palestine, the smaller Gulf
States, and the southern end of the Arabian Peninsula around the Gulf of Aden.
In August 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter, which among
other provisions, asserted the “wish to see sovereign government restored to
those who have been forcibly deprived of them.” Roosevelt insisted that this
right applied to all nations, against Churchill’s view that the intent was only
for liberation of Europeans. Roosevelt did not end European colonialism by any
means, and he was far from unique among presidents in his abhorrence of European
colonialism. Though, Roosevelt drafted the arrangement and structure of an
international collective security organization, needed to replace the
ineffectual League of Nations. Though officially established after his death,
Roosevelt’s brainchild, the United Nations, gave status and an international
voice to the Middle Eastern nations that broke away from colonial rule in the
subsequent decades.
Roosevelt’s New Deal mindset spilled into the foreign policy arena, providing
material assistance to Middle Eastern nations under the umbrella of the
Lend-Lease program. Though Roosevelt was initially against providing assistance
to non-democratic Saudi Arabia, under tyrannical leadership, economic and oil
interests soon trumped ideology. The Middle East Supply Center was established
by the British in Cairo, in 1941. The United States finagled control of the
center, exerting American influence into the traditionally British sphere.
Benevolence translated into a competition with Britain for Saudi favor, with the
hopes of securing oil concessions. The American-Saudi alliance, a constant of
American Middle Eastern foreign relations, was first cemented under Roosevelt.
The United States would continue to partner with Saudi Arabia by suppling
financial assistance or military equipment, in return for oil contracts for
American companies. Primarily towards Egypt, Jordan, and Israel, the United
States has continued to provide financial aid to Middle Eastern nations to serve
American interests, Israeli security, regional stability, and oil.
Roosevelt often offered verbal support to Zionist leaders who were pressing for
Jewish statehood to replace the British Mandate. Roosevelt had the firm support
of the Jewish electorate. However, Roosevelt would not enact a policy on
Palestine in the middle of the war, not wanting to endanger British and Arab
alliances. Roosevelt tended to lead both Zionist and Arab leaders to believe
that he was on their side. On his return from Yalta, Roosevelt met with ibn
Saud, February 14, 1945. Roosevelt assured Saud that no decision on Palestine
would be made without Arab consultation. After Saud was emphatic that “Arabs
would rather die…than yield land to the Jews,” Roosevelt quickly changed course,
telling Saud that the United States would never help the Jewish cause at Arab
expense. The American Zionist lobby felt quite betrayed. Roosevelt kowtowed to
the anti-Jewish demands of a backwards tyrant after the most perilous era in
Jewish history.
The
meeting between Roosevelt and Saud set a precedent for future American
engagements with Saudi leaders that placed concern for maintaining access to
Saudi oil at the forefront of Middle Eastern policy priorities, and of viewing
support for Israel as a potential liability endangering the American-Saudi
contracts. Roosevelt’s approach towards promoting Jewish statehood, but not at
the expense of arousing Saudi wrath, set a precedent followed by some future
administrations. Nixon withheld arms supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur
War and he pressured Israel to meet Arab demands for peace after the Saudis
initiated an oil embargo, with the Saudis claiming that supply would be further
squeezed until Israel returned to the pre-1967 borders. Likewise, though Carter
may have been genuinely concerned in preserving Israeli security through peace,
he greatly feared another Saudi oil embargo, and he assumed that the
Egyptian-Israeli peace process was the solution. Pre-911, George W. Bush issued
support for Palestinian statehood after the Saudi crown prince threatened to
otherwise reevaluate the alliance. Regardless of the negatives, Saudi oil has
been vital to American economic interests.
Truman
Harry
S Truman inherited the presidency as the world was on the verge of a fundamental
shift in the global geopolitical dynamic. The precedents that Truman set at the
outset of the Cold War would have significant ramifications throughout the
Middle East. Even if Truman had decided not to use nuclear weapons to end the
war with Japan, the arms race probably would have ensued, as both emerging
superpowers were developing nuclear weapons. Truman can hardly be blamed for
modern proliferation concerns, but under his presidency, the dominoes began to
fall that would affect the Middle East, from the Israeli bombing of the Osirak
plant, to Pakistan’s nuclear tensions with India, up through the current Iranian
nuclear negotiations.
The
Truman Doctrine of Soviet Containment set American foreign policy precedent for
the next forty years, and has roots in and reverberations throughout the Middle
East. At the war’s end, Soviet troops were quite slow to remove themselves from
Iran. Truman used the new United Nations to hasten their retreat. Shortly
afterwards, Soviet troops began amassing along the Turkish border as Stalin
demanded joint control over the Dardanelles. Truman’s fear of Soviet
expansionism was confirmed. The Truman Doctrine was proclaimed March 12, 1947,
in front of a joint session of Congress, as Truman requested aid for Turkey as
well as Greece, which was battling an insurgency waged by groups liable to
communist influence. $100 million
in aid went to Turkey, some of which went to bolster their military, and the
Soviets backed away from testing American resolve. Both Greece and Turkey would
soon become members of NATO. In his speech, Truman did not call out the Soviet
Union by name, but strongly implied they were the “outside pressures” in his key
phrase, “I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support
free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by
outside pressures.” The United States would continue to lure Middle Eastern
leaders away from the Soviet sphere through arms deals and economic assistance,
and by supporting leaders loyal to the United States. American support of the
Mujahedeen in Afghanistan throughout the 1980’s after the Soviet invasion was a
policy with roots in the Truman Doctrine of Soviet containment by providing aid
to dubious allies.
Much
credit has been given to Truman for transforming the Middle East by being the
first head of state to officially recognize the State of Israel. In considering
his support for Jewish statehood, Truman weighed with careful jurisprudence all
conflicting interests, including America’s standing in the oil-rich Arab world.
Truman was faced with pressures from both sides from within his administration.
Ultimately, after the horrors of the Holocaust had come to light, Truman’s
genuine humanitarian concern for the Jewish people outweighed any consideration
for America’s strategic interests in the Middle East. With the backing of UN
Resolution 181, Ben-Gurion declared Israeli statehood regardless of Truman. If
Truman refused to recognize Israel, not only would he be turning his back on a
suffering population faced with a new Arab threat, but he would have rendered
the new United Nations impotent. Relating back to the Truman Doctrine, Truman
also feared that Soviet recognition before American could lure Israel towards
the Soviet sphere. Stalin became the second leader to recognize Israel, three
days after Truman’s proclamation. Whereas Truman offered de facto recognition,
Stalin wanted to outshine Truman by granting de jure recognition. Precedent was
set for Israel to play a role in the Middle Eastern Cold War battleground.
Truman’s recognition of Israel set precedent that continues to dominate American
Middle Eastern foreign policy. The enduring Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict
and peace process, often seen as the root cause and the solution to other
conflicts, has fundamentally affected the way in which American presidents have
dealt with the Middle East. From Camp David to Madrid to Oslo, the United States
has consistently facilitated peace negotiations, out of concern for Israeli
national security, Arab rights, and American national interests all throughout
the Middle East.
Eisenhower
The
Eisenhower Administration played an active, yet sometimes covert role in the
Middle East, with actions and policies that would continue to echo into current
times. Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles acted without restraint in support of
American strategic interests, primarily containment of Soviet influence in the
Middle East. The Eisenhower Doctrine built upon the Truman Doctrine by
specifically offering aid to Middle Eastern countries opposed to communism.
Though not issued until 1957, the Eisenhower Doctrine had been embedded into
Eisenhower’s foreign policy since the outset of his presidency. Eisenhower left
a legacy of involvement and intervention throughout the Middle East, and of
propping up leaders to suit American interests.
In
1951, the Iranian Majlis, led by liberal democratic Iranian Prime Minister
Mohammed Mossadeq, voted to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. A year
later, Mossadeq severed relations with Britain.
Mossadeq held sympathies with the Marxist Tudeh party. Churchill, in 1953,
recruited the newly-elected Eisenhower to collude in Project AJAX, a joint
effort between the CIA and SIS to remove Mossadeq and restore Reza Pahlavi, the
recently-exiled Shah. Covert agents, led by Kermit Roosevelt and Loy Henderson,
facilitated a countercoup by disseminating false information, staging large
protests, and buying the majority vote in the Majlis. When Mohammad Reza Pahlavi
returned to power, American interests were served when communist sympathies were
purged from the government, and the United States received a stake in Iranian
oil, all at the expense of Iranian democracy. America’s covert role was covered
up domestically, but Iranian resentment festered. The 1979 Revolution in Iran
was domestically grown, but partially stirred by anti-American and anti-monarchy
sentiment, with roots tracing back to the 1953 countercoup. Iran could have
evolved as a liberal democracy, but instead, radical Shi’a Islamists took
control. Iran has been a threat to Middle Eastern stability and a threat to
Arab, Israeli, and American interests since. This incident set precedent for
propping up leaders friendly to American interests in attempt to contain Soviet
influence, with backfiring results.
Eisenhower and Dulles supported American interests in the Middle East sometimes
in opposition to allies. When Nasser nationalized the Suez Crisis, the American
interest was to oppose the imperialist and belligerent reactions of Britain,
France, and Israel. Without Eisenhower’s stern response and sanctions, global
opinion could have shifted in confirmation of Soviet claims of American
imperialism and bolstered Soviet reputation, although Soviet tanks were at the
same time rolling through Budapest to suppress the revolution. Ideological in
some regard, Eisenhower was against allied imperialist military actions against
the Egyptian nationalist leader Nasser. However, as an element of Cold war
realpolitik, Nasser was a nationalist leader hand-picked by Dulles, and though
the United States once tried to overthrow Nasser, in accordance with what would
soon become the Eisenhower Doctrine, Eisenhower aimed to reduce Soviet influence
in the Middle East by not colluding with the perceived imperialist villains.
In
addition to promoting his own persona, Nasser, like any national leader, was
most interested in promoting his own national interests, and he proceeded to be
a thorn in America’s side. The Eisenhower Doctrine and American backing during
the Suez crisis did not prevent Nasser from accepting massive aid and weapons
shipments from the Soviet Union. Backfiring, the allied cleave instead gave
Khrushchev the confidence to further penetrate the Middle East. Nasser may have
remained in power regardless if Eisenhower had not intervened, but because
Eisenhower supported him during the 1956 Suez Crisis, he was still in power in
1967 when Egypt provoked the initiation of the Six Day War, resulting in the
Israeli takeover of the West Bank and Gaza. In this regard, Eisenhower
indirectly influenced what would become a major issue in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, embroiling the United States in peace negotiations continuing through
present times.
Conclusion
Today, Saudi Arabia is the top global oil producer and remains a key American
ally in the Middle East. However, the nation is a highly repressive monarchy
whose oil-rich government subsidizes organizations that spread extremist views
of Wahhabi Islam, schools influencing Osama bin Laden and countless others.
Tensions are rising between the Iranian Shi’a theocracy and the neighboring Gulf
States, and Iranian nuclear ambition is a global concern. Though still
threatened by the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt is only now returning to stability
under el-Sisi and the rebirth of the Egyptian parliament in the December 2015
elections. Power vacuums in Iraq and Libya were filled by ISIS and its
affiliates, a much greater menace than the deposed nationalist leaders. Conflict
is ongoing between Israelis and Palestinians over West Bank settlements,
Palestinian repatriation, and civil rights in the territories, backed by genuine
Israeli national security and anti-terrorism concerns.
The
foreign policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower set a
precedent for subsequent administrations to play a highly active role in Middle
Eastern politics: in supporting Israel, supporting the Saudi regime, military
intervention, and supporting American-friendly leaders while deposing others. It
is overly American-centric to claim that the policies of the United States
created all of the conflict in the modern Middle East. If the United States did
not exist, the region would still be rife with tribalistic conflict, clashes
between the diverse multitude of sects within Islam, and political friction
between secular nationalists, Islamists, and other parties. Indeed, much good
was done in the Middle East by the three presidents, depending on point of view.
Oil has remained absolutely vital to the United States, and the alliance with
Saudi Arabia has been mutually-beneficial. Holocaust survivors were given a safe
haven in the State of Israel. Modern nation states were created from the ashes
of European imperialism. In sum, Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower helped set in
motion, along with many other motive forces, a long series of events that in the
context of the continuum of history, significantly contributed towards the
development of the modern Middle East.
References
Balaghi, Shiva. “Silenced Histories and Sanitized Autobiographies: The 1953 CIA
Coup in Iran.” Biography: An
Interdisciplinary Quarterly 36.1 (Winter 2013): 71-96. Accessed February 17,
2016. http://goo.gl/nR7f8T.
Churchill, Winston S. and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The Atlantic Charter (August 14,
1941). Accessed from The Avalon Project:
Yale Law School, Accessed February 19, 2016.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/atlantic.asp.
Eisenhower, Dwight D. Special Message to
the Congress on the Situation in the Middle East (Speech January 5, 1957).
Accessed from The American Presidency
Project. Accessed February 17, 2016.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=11007&st=&st1=.
Herring, George C. From Colony to
Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2008.
Jewish Virtual Library. “International Recognition of Israel.” Accessed February
16, 2016. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogIsrael.html
Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New
York: Touchstone, 1994.
Merrill, Dennis. “The Truman Doctrine: Containing Communism and Modernity.”
Presidential Studies Quarterly 36.1
(March 2006): 27-37. Accessed February 16, 2016. http://goo.gl/EU8j9C.
National Archives of the United Kingdom. “Maps in time 1900 to 2000.” National
Archives of the United Kingdom. Accessed February 19, 2016.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/documents/maps-in-time.pdf
Oren,
Michael B. Power,
Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle
East 1776 to the Present. 2008. Reprint, New York: Norton, 2007.
Radosh, Allis, and Ronald Radosh. A Safe
Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel. New York: Harper Collins,
2009.
Ross,
Dennis. Doomed to Succeed: The
U.S.-Israel Relationship from Truman to Obama. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 2015.
Schild, Georg. “The Roosevelt Administration and the United Nations: Re-creation
or Rejection of the League Experience?
World Affairs 158, no. 1 (Summer 1995): 26-34. Accessed February 14, 2016.
http://goo.gl/0d3yoj.
Sharp, Jeremy M. “U.S. Foreign Assistance to the Middle East: Historical
Background, Recent Trends, and the FY2011 Request.”
Congressional Research Service. June
15, 2010. Accessed February 15, 2016.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL32260.pdf.
Truman, Harry S. The Truman Doctrine
(Speech delivered before U.S. Congress March 12, 1947). Accessed from
The Avalon Project: Yale Law School.
Accessed February 20, 2016. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/trudoc.asp.