Dr.Ramtin Rezai

With the end of World War II and the rise of the United States as a world superpower, and in other words, the determinant of the rules and regulations of acting in international relations and politics after World War II, the Middle East, generally, in three respects, America has been of vital and undeniable importance as follows:

1. Ensuring and maintaining control of the Middle East oil resources, and also their transportation, as the most vital and decisive raw material in the twentieth century.
2. Confronting the influence of communism and leftist movements and, in general, creating a strong repulsion against the Soviet Union and its very popular ideology in the region, Marxism-Leninism, which was pursued seriously through treaties such as the Baghdad Pact and Santo, and later in the form of well-known doctrine of Nixon-Kissinger.
3. maintaining Israel's existence and keeping its security, and in particular its recognition as one of the Middle Eastern states, which has been sought through peace negotiations and treaties such as Camp David (1979) and Oslo (1993) and has been put on the agenda of all the American presidents.
With the end of the Cold War and the victory of the United States in the Second Gulf War (1991), comprehensive doctrine of new world order presented by George W. Bush, set relatively new agendas for US Middle East policy. Confrontation with and prevention from development of weapons of mass destruction and specifically, proliferation of nuclear weapon, the widespread pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program (since 2003), also the military invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government, can be explained and analyzed in this regard. Countering terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, which took precedence after the events of 9/11 and the US military invasion of Afghanistan, was another agenda set by the doctrine of the New World Order for US presidents. The issue of human rights and democracy, which, of course, was allocated the lowest priority in US Middle East policy, also was disclosed in the failed project of George W. Bush, known as the Greater Middle East.
Given the general and brief framework of US Middle East policy outlined above, but since the presidency of Hussein Obama (2016-2016), fundamental changes in foreign policy priorities and sensitivities have emerged that have practically forced the US Middle East policy to make changes in the agendas. These developments are as follows:
1. The United States' becoming a major producer and especially a major exporter of oil and fossil fuels, which had a very significant impact on the world oil market, especially the mere and absolute dependence of the United States on oil in the Middle East.
2. The successful expansion of the use and exploitation of alternative and non-fossil energy sources, which has been one of the accomplishments and achievements of the Obama presidency, leading a reduction in the importance and priority of the Middle East and its energy resources.
3. Obama's doctrine based on the US withdrawal from the Middle East and having Asia-Pacific defined as a new strategic and vital region for the United States instead of the Middle East.
4. China's being defined as the most immense and the first threat and rival of the United States in US National Security Documents
The result of these fundamental changes is, in practice, a reduction in the priority, firstness, and vitality of the Middle East for the United States and its presidents. So, President Joseph Biden has inherited such a fundamental change of approach and a serious shift in US agendas in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Biden has serious contradictions and obstacles to get the United States off the agenda or out of the Middle East priorities and into the Asia-Pacific, and to focus on the Red Dragon. For US allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and the southern Gulf emirates, and more specifically, America’s most important ally in the region which is Israel, this irresponsibility and insignificance of the region, given the great commitments of the United States and the expectations of the Middle Eastern friends, is by no means justifiable and acceptable, and their powerful, wealthy, and influential lobbies in Washington, D.C. rigorously put the White House and Congress under pressure to make them restore their serious obligations and responsibilities towards the Middle East, especially defending them against the threats of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the regional deputies of this state.
Thus, the new US President is faced with a tangled dilemma called the Middle East, which on the one hand has no longer the long-standing importance for the world's greatest power, and its inaction and unplannedness in the face of widespread and catastrophic crises in the region such as Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, the commitments and the definition of responsibilities and heavy duties for themselves in this region and the very high expectations of the allies and friends of the United States and President Biden have placed them at a crossroads between accountability and shirking responsibilities. In addition to the aforementioned and unresolved crises that have been mentioned, the nuclear and missile program of the Islamic Republic of Iran, along with the discussion of regional influence, has continued to become more critical without result and with a very serious slope, and the United States is still in control. Not only has it not been successful, but it is still working on it impatiently (in other words, the Vienna talks have not yielded tangible results so far).