In this article lobbying by several Arab countries in the United States is analyzed to answer two questions: What are the ramifications of a regime change for lobbying strategy in the United States? Does lobbying matter in securing US government support? First, the study demonstrates that regime change in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya has had no effect on their lobbying in the United States so far. The analysis of lobbying by countries which eschewed regime change—Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan—surprisingly comes to the same conclusion. Second, the ability of troubled regimes to peacefully control their own populace is more important for securing US support than lobbying.
In this piece, Nathan González Mendelejis provides an overview of the combative relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. He argues that structural changes in the Middle East are forcing and will continue to force the two nations to improve their relationship. He describes routes that Iran can take to moderate its stance toward the United States and also provides a number of prescriptions for the consideration of US policymakers.
The United States frequently represents its foreign policy as a strategy of democratic renewal by focusing on the processes involved in creating popular sovereignty in other nation states. It has added rhetorical force and, in some cases, empirical reality to its claims of democratization by using the language of nonviolence and nonviolent resistance in its support for popular uprisings around the world (Chile, Indonesia, Philippines, Serbia, Iran, Tunisia, and Egypt to name a few). Yet, this language is relatively new. America overtly changed its policy of supporting dictatorships into a policy of supporting democratic regimes after the fall of the Shaw in Iran and the overthrow of the U.S. supported Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, according to William I. Robinson (1996). The so-called “Arab Spring” of 2011 offers an opportunity to further pay attention to this representational shift by comparing the U.S. treatment of Arab and African states in revolt. This paper devises three categories of nonviolence in order to better understand and evaluate the United States’ policy of supporting those who struggle nonviolently. By interpreting and evaluating the Arab and African Uprisings in terms of both the literature on nonviolence and democracy promotion, and US foreign policy it is hoped that this essay will contribute to debate between mainstream scholars and those participating in more critical analysis. Ultimately this essay’s focus on democracy and nonviolence seeks to bring people back into the discussion of international relations.
The end of the Cold War ushered in a unipolar world, cementing U.S. dominance over a generally liberal international order. Yet where once it seemed that U.S. foreign policy would be simpler and easier to manage as a result, the events of the past 15 years — the 9/11 attacks, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the ArabSpring, and Russia’s invasions of Georgia and Ukraine — strongly suggest otherwise. The world today is certainly safer for Americans than it was under the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union. But the world is undoubtedly more complex, as nonstate actors, shifting alliances, and diverse domestic political factors complicate U.S. foreign policy formation and implementation. A robust debate on America’s foreign policy choices is urgently needed.
This article purports to examine the role of the United States in the outbreak of the Arab Spring and the course of its subsequent paths. The main argument of this article is that the Arab Spring represented a major strategic surprise to the United States. It did not plan or facilitate the Arab Spring as the Tunisian, Egyptian, Yemeni and Bahraini regimes were performing to the best satisfaction of American interests in the Arab world. As the Arab Spring carried with it threats to American regional interests, the United States moved to secure its interests by steering Arab uprisings towards courses of action which best suit these interests.