Introduction

The foreign policy of the United States is the policy by which the United States deals with foreign countries. The U.S. is still highly influential in the world as the only superpower. The U.S. Secretary of State is the foreign minister and is officially in charge with state to state diplomacy, although the president has ultimate authority over the foreign policy.

The main goal of the foreign policy of the United States is to create a secure and democratic world for the American people and international community. U.S. foreign policy has been the subject of much debate criticism and praises both domestically and abroad.

In the aftermath of the brutal attack of September 11th, the foreign policy of the United States changed dramatically towards the Middle East and from high standards to double standards. The war in Afghanistan (2001), the war in Iraq and the treatment of the prisoners of war - “enemy combatants” -in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo bay have clearly damaged the image of the United States and increased dramatically the need of change in the US foreign policy.  

After the war on Iraq, the war on Lebanon, the war on Gaza and the US refusal of dealing with the democratically elected officials in Palestinian territories and the unlimited support to Israel, the double standards of the US foreign policy have become obvious. As a result of the double standards in the foreign policy of the US, the image of the United States has been badly deteriorated among the Arab and Muslim peoples, which consequently created a bigger problem for the United States - winning the hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslims in the region. The United States couldn’t afford to lose such a battle, especially, because of the importance of the Middle East for the US, its allies, stability and most of all its interests in the region, above all the oil.  
Double standards mean standards based on hypocrisy. In her 1979 seminal essay “Dictators and double standards” Jeane Jordan Kirkpatrick() precisely suggested that: “The United States should end this double standard by becoming more tolerant of the status quo in dictatorships that support American policy”. Since Kirkpatrick the term has been used, and the issue discussed, in the international relations.

Historical Background: US foreign policy making in the Middle East

The Middle East has been chosen as the subject of the thesis, because it is the region where the United States has been actively involved since 1947. Due to its central position in the American foreign policy the Middle East has become a well-representing case to study any aspect of the U.S. foreign policy, its double standards included, specifically by 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine.

This paper will begin with shedding some light on the American foreign policy in general, with a brief history of it and the US policy with its allies and the aid of the United States to these countries. Secondly, the paper will explain the foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East, particularly the US relations with Israel, Iran, Egypt and Saddam Hussein regime. 

In the second part this thesis will talk about the double standards of the United States foreign policy in the Middle East after the brutal attack of September 11th, 2001, with special regard on the Greater Middle East Project, the concept of Peace Democracy and the double standards of George W. Bush dealing with democracy. The thesis will tackle the US nuclear policy in the Middle East and show the double standards of US foreign policy when it comes to nuclear issues, especially towards Israel and Iran.

In the last section of this paper, it will show the reader the double standard of the United States when it comes to human rights issues dealing with the UN and the Security Council’s resolutions and the vetoes of the US of any resolution against Israel. Finally, the research will explain the reasons behind the double standards of the United States foreign policy in the Middle East, and try to give some suggestions for the US to regain its positive image in the Middle East as a superpower.

This study depended basically on analyzing, reading and listening to George W. Bush speeches and statements as well as his administration’s officials’ statements. For example the views of Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice are analyzed. Some other sources, such as books, articles, newspapers, interviews statements and many online and internet sources including the news, news stories and official websites were used in this study.

1. U S Foreign Policy
	
1.1 	General Idea and History
	
The foreign policy of the United States is the policy by which the United States interacts with foreign nations. While the U.S. remains highly influential in the world community and many consider it to be the world's only remaining superpower, its dominance is being challenged by rising economic powers such as China, India, Russia, and the European Union on the world stage. 

The global reach of the United States is backed by a $14.3 trillion dollar economy, the largest national economy in the world, and a defense budget of $711 billion which accounts for approximately 50% of global military spending. The U.S. Secretary of State is the foreign minister and he / she is the official charged with state-to-state diplomacy, although the president has ultimate authority over foreign policy.

The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State, are "to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community."In addition, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states as some of its jurisdictional goals: "export controls, including non-proliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; International commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation.” U.S. foreign policy has been the subject of much debate, criticism and praises both domestically and abroad.

The major themes regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy from the American Revolution to the present are isolationism in the nineteenth century and global hegemony in the twentieth century. 

Despite occasional entanglements with the European Powers such as the War of 1812 and the Spanish-American War in 1898, the foreign policy of the U.S. was marked by steady expansion in it size during the nineteenth century as well as a policy of avoiding wars with the European powers. 

Around the turn of the twentieth century, it looked as if the U.S. might become a colonial power similar to Britain or France or Spain since it acquired the territories of Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, but with the exception of Puerto Rico (which chose by election to remain a part of the United States), the U.S. has not made these territories part of the nation. The Civil War set an important precedent of national will over states' rights.

The twentieth century was marked by two serious world wars in which the United States, along with allied powers, defeated tyranny but at great cost in terms of lives and treasure. The U.S. rose to become a dominant but non-colonial mercantile power with abroad influence. 

The latter half of the twentieth century witnessed the world divided into two camps, one led by the U.S., the other by the Soviet Union, characterized by an ideological struggle. The U.S. policy of containment led to a series of proxy wars with mixed results. 

In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved into separate states, and as the Cold War ended without Armageddon or World War III, new challenges confronted U.S. policymakers. Still U.S. foreign policy is characterized by a commitment to free trade, protection of the American interests, and a concern for human rights.

In the twenty-first century, the U.S. influence remains strong but, in relative terms, is declining in terms of economic output compared to rising nations such as Japan, China, India, Russia, Brazil, and the newly consolidated European Union. Substantial problems remain, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and the specter of nuclear terrorism, but if the emerging powers can find common ground, then there's a chance that the next decades will be marked by peaceful growth and prosperity.
The United States is a founding member of NATO, the world's largest military alliance. The 28 nation alliance consists of Canada and much of Europe, including NATO's second largest military, Turkey. 

Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is attacked by a foreign power. NATO is restricted within the North American although there is a NATO operations in Afghanistan. 

Starting in 1989, the United States also created a major non-NATO ally status (MNNA) for five nations; this number was increased in the late 1990s and following the September 11 attacks; it currently includes fourteen nations. Each such state has a unique relationship with the United States, involving various military and economic partnerships and alliances.

The United States has seven major non-NATO allies in the Greater Middle East region. In particular, Israel is provided by the US with billions in foreign aid annually. The U.S. has built a non-NATO alliance with Pakistan to assist with the War in Afghanistan and jointly combat terror in the subcontinent.
 
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili sees membership of the NATO as a premise of stability for Georgia. On March 9, 2007, President Saakashvili announced his plans to increase total Georgian troop strength in Iraq to 2000, making Georgia one of the biggest supporters of Coalition Forces, and keeping its troops in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Following the outbreak of war between Georgia and Russia on August 8, 2008, Mikheil Saakashvili said that Georgia was pulling its entire 2,000-strong contingent of troops from Iraq. During the 10th and 11th of August 2008 the US Air Force airlifted the whole contingent out of Iraq.
Ukraine also has a close relationship with the United States. US President George W. Bush and both nominees for President of the United States in the 2008 election, U.S. Senator Barack Obama ( Current President ) and U.S. Senator John McCain, did offer backing to Ukraine's membership of NATO. 
Russian reactions were negative. At a NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008 President Bush pressed NATO to ignore Russia’s objections and to back membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Ukraine is currently the only non-NATO member supporting every NATO mission. President Bush noted that the President of Ukraine, Victor Yushchenko was the first foreign leader he called after his inaugural address. 

1.2.	The oil factor

The U.S. currently produces about 40% of the oil that it consumes; its imports have exceeded domestic production since the early 1990s. Since the U.S.'s oil consumption continues to rise, and its oil production continues to fall, this ratio may continue to decline. President George W. Bush has identified dependence on imported oil as an urgent "national security concern".

Two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be found in the Persian Gulf (and 60.4% from Arabic countries and North Africa). The Persian Gulf region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States during the World War II. Petroleum is of central importance to modern armies, and the United States—as the world's leading oil producer at that time—supplied most of the oil for the allied armies. Many US strategists were concerned that the war would dangerously reduce the US oil supply, and so they sought to establish good relations with Saudi Arabia, a kingdom with large oil reserves. 

The Persian Gulf region continued to be regarded as an area of vital importance to the United States during the Cold War. Three Cold War United States Presidential doctrines—the Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon Doctrine—played roles in the formulation of the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its "national interests" in the Persian Gulf region. 

Carter's successor, President Ronald Reagan, extended the policy in October 1981 with what is sometimes called the "Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine", which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was threatened after the outbreak of the War. Some analysts have argued that the implementation of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary also played a role in the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq War.

1.3.	The other factors

Foreign assistance is a core component of the State Department's international affairs budget and is considered an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. There are four major categories of non-military foreign assistance: bilateral development aid, economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid, and multilateral economic contributions (e.g. contributions to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund). 

In absolute dollar terms, the United States is the largest international aid donor ($22.7 billion in 2006), but as a percent of gross national income, its contribution is only 0.2%, proportionally much smaller than  contributions of countries such as Sweden (1.04%) and the United Kingdom (0.52%). The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral economic assistance; the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid.

The United States has fought wars and intervened militarily on many occasions. The U.S. also operates a vast network of military bases around the world. In recent years, the U.S. has used its military superiority as sole superpower to lead a number of wars, including, most recently, the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 as part of its global "War on Terror."

The U.S. provides military aid through many different channels. Counting the items that appear in the budget as 'Foreign Military Financing' and 'Plan Colombia', the U.S. spent approximately $26 billion in military aid in 2008, of which $2.4 billion went to Israel, Virtually all of this money is used to buy weapons (up to 75% made in the U.S.). Starting 2009, the U.S. agreed to give Israel $30 billion over 10 years. $1.7 billion went to Egypt, and $1 billion went to Colombia. As of 2004, according to Fox News, the U.S. had more than 700 military bases in 130 different countries around the world. 

United States foreign policy also includes secret actions, such as covert actions to topple foreign governments, including democratically-elected governments. For example, in 1953 the CIA, working with the British government, orchestrated a coup d’état  against the democratically-elected government of Iran led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran's oil, threatening the interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. 

More clearly, after the Palestinian elections in 2006 in which Hamas won the majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament, the U.S. provided training and major military assistance for an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and the West Bank which was successful in removing Hamas from power in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas then installed an unelected "emergency cabinet," led by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, in place of the Hamas government in the West Bank. 

1.4 	U S Foreign policy in the Middle East.

The Middle East is a term traditionally applied by western Europeans to the countries of South West Asia and North East Africa. Defined on that way it includes the Asian part of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine-Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, the countries of the Arabian peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait), and Egypt and Libya. 

The area was viewed as midway between Europe and East Asia. The term is sometimes used in a cultural sense to mean the group of lands in that part of the world mostly Islamic in culture. 
The Middle East has been the scene of political turmoil and major warfare, including World War 1, World War II, the Arab-Israeli Wars, the Iran-Iraq War and the Persian Gulf Wars, and finally American war on Iraq.  
The population in the Middle East is about 190 million, most of them are Muslims, nearly half of whom are under the age of 30 with unemployment rates between 25 and 30 percent. Most of the Middle Eastern peoples are increasingly alienated from their governments, which are undemocratic, highly corrupted, and authoritarian.

Despite the physical distance between the United States and the Middle East, the U.S. influence has been felt in every country within the region. Throughout the 20th century, strategic interests, including a longstanding competition with the Soviet Union, have provoked a variety of U.S. interventions ranging from diplomatic overtures of friendship to full-blown war.

American economic interests - particularly in assuring access to Middle Eastern oil - have long motivated presidents and lawmakers to intervene in the region. In addition, strong cultural ties bind Jewish, Arab, Iranian, and Turkish Americans, among others, to the area, and these interest groups seek to make their voices heard in the U.S. foreign policy arena.

For most of the 20th century and now into the 21st, the U.S. has had global interests and a global reach to match. In the Middle East, the U.S. has made itself a key player by using its diplomatic, economic, and military power in support of its national interests.

In 1919, in an effort led by President Woodrow Wilson, the League of Nations (a precursor to the current United Nations) was formed. The League soon handed down a series of mandates laying out the colonial boundaries of the Middle East in the territories of the defunct Ottoman Empire. These boundaries continue to shape many of the region's political realities.

The U.S. enjoyed a generally positive reputation in the region at the end of World War I. Nationalists cited President Wilson's Fourteen Points Proposal for ending the war, which enshrined the principle of self-determination, in justifying their demands for self-representation. After the war, the U.S. sent a commission to the region to ask local populations what political arrangement they would prefer. All wanted complete independence, but if that was impossible, they hoped for supervision by the U.S. rather than by the British and French mandatory powers that were actually installed as a result of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.

The U.S. began to involve deeper in regional politics in the late 1940s. It acted to support what it saw as its national interests, the most important being fighting the Communists during the Cold War, ensuring a steady supply of oil, and making sure that no single power dominated the region. More recently, it added fighting terrorism. The U.S. has supported leaders and governments it considered to be stable allies, like the Saudi royal family, Israel, and Egyptian governments since Anwar Sadat. That was the US policy towards Arabs and Israel, but in the Middle East there are other nation other than Arab countries and Israel, which is Iran.

In the case of Iran, the pro-Western Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was viewed by many as increasingly autocratic and oppressive. He tried to institute many Western social reforms by decree, and his secret police, SAVAK, viciously silenced opposition voices. A 1979 Islamist revolution against the Shah's regime swept a new kind of Islamic state into power, the Islamic Republic of Iran, governed by Islamic jurists and scholars. The popular hatred of the Shah also tarred his American supporters, and the revolution's anti-American passion led to the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, where 53 hostages were held for more than a year.

The U.S. supported Iraq's Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), when Iran's new post-revolutionary Islamic regime appeared to be the region's biggest threat. Saddam attacked Iran due to the miscalculation that Iran was weak after the resolution.

Hussein, however, became a significant focus of American anger because of his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 -- which led to the Gulf War -- in an effort to control more of the region's oil. His known desire to develop weapons of mass destruction was also a concern. He also was on Bush’s agenda since Bush came to power in 2001 which led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Israel was intended to be a national home for Jews and a place for them to return to their roots, both spiritually and physically. Many, including nearly 75,000 European Jews escaping persecution from Nazi Germany, found refuge there. But its creation came at a price. 

In addition to the many Jews who died struggling to create the new state, many Arabs were killed - and hundreds of thousands of Arabs were either displaced by Jewish settlers from areas where they had been living or became unwilling citizens of Israel.

U.S. support for Israel began when President Harry S. Truman. In 1947 Truman pushed through the UN resolution which gave birth to the State of Israel, even against the suggestions of his own State Department. Then Truman recognized the Jewish state immediately after its 1948 declaration of independence. Continued U.S. support for Israel has varied in form and intensity over time, but this support has remained a pillar of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. U.S. support for Israel is based on several factors: a commitment to one of the few democratic states in the region, a need for stable allies, a sense of a shared Judeo-Christian religious tradition, and as a market for the products of the American defense industry.		
	
            The U.S. has backed Ariel Sharon and his Likud government in Israel, even as Sharon has authorized military strikes against the Palestinian Authority and militant groups in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. At a time when Israeli soldiers are regarded by many Arabs as agents of an oppressive army of occupation, unconditional U.S. support for the Jewish state in its struggle with the Palestinians has challenged American relationships with nations long considered allies, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. These Arab allies argue that American principles like human rights and freedom of the press are not promoted in Israel in the same way that Americans push for reform elsewhere.	 	
	
For many decades, the U.S. has been active in its attempts to broker peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Notable achievements include the 1978 Camp David meeting that negotiated peace between Egypt and Israel and the 1993 Oslo interim peace agreement that established a framework for negotiating peace between the Israelis and Palestinians and set in motion the process for achieving a Palestinian state.
Supporters of the Palestinians, however, believe that the U.S. has not done all that it can to bring about peace. After all, because much of the support to Israel is in the form of American military equipment, the American economy and American jobs are tied to a continually upgrading Israeli army. Some Palestinians argue that the United States is too committed in its support for Israel to make unbiased decisions and is unwilling to pressure the Israelis to negotiate a fair peace.

Despite many U.S. State Department proclamations that American interests lie in promoting the creation of democratic governments around the world, U.S. power has at times supported oppressive regimes in the Middle East. During the Cold War with the Soviet Union, many key policymakers saw a stable ally -- dictatorial or not -- as far preferable to an unstable regime that might side with the Soviets.

Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. dollars and military assistance continue to flow to regimes cited by human rights monitors for violations of human rights or lack of democracy, including Saudi Arabia (where a Wahhabi regime limits women's rights), Turkey (which has suppressed the movement for Kurdish autonomy), Israel (which doesn't enforce equal rights for its Arab citizens), and the Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak (where an Egyptian American was jailed for encouraging voter participation).

The U.S. also supported the military coups in Tunisia (to depose President Bourguiba) and in Algeria, when the Islamists appeared close to winning a national election -- and winning it fairly. The U.S. supported the transfer of power in Syria from the late Hafez al-Assad to his son despite Syria's supposedly republican form of government. The US also trying to create a suitable climate to transfer the power in Egypt from Hosni Mubarak to his son Jamal despite Egypt’s republican form of government.

            
1.5.	U.S. military actions in the Middle East

U.S. troops have seen limited action in the Middle East. As peacekeepers in Lebanon after Israel's 1982 invasion, U.S. forces fared poorly. Two hundred forty-one Marines were killed when their barracks was hit by a suicide truck-bomb in October 1983, prompting a U.S. withdrawal from Beirut to offshore warships.

After a 1986 discotheque bombing in West Berlin was traced to Libya, the U.S. bombed that country, killing three dozen civilians, including Libyan ruler Muammar Qaddafi's adopted daughter.

        The most significant direct U.S. military intervention came in response to the Iraqi invasion of oil-rich Kuwait in August of 1990, which led to the Gulf War. Although the invasion didn't directly threaten American territory, a vital U.S. economic interest -- oil -- was at stake, along with principles of international law that protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations.

       The Gulf War won the U.S. the gratitude of the oil-rich states of the Persian Gulf for eliminating the Iraqi military threat, but these regimes have had to deal with increased internal criticism for allowing U.S. troops to remain in Saudi Arabia.		
	
       The Gulf War also left charges that the U.S. had abandoned some of its most vulnerable allies. The Kurds and shi’aa of Iraq were encouraged to revolt against Saddam Hussein by the U.S., with assurances of U.S. support. But little support materialized when the uprising actually got under way, and Iraqi retaliation against both rebelling groups was harsh. Limited U.S. intervention allowed the creation of Kurdish safe havens in the north and assisted shi’aa refugees fleeing into Iran in the south, but charges that the U.S. abandoned its regional allies linger to this day.		

The biggest military operation of the U.S. in the Middle East is the second Gulf War in 2003 and the consequent fighting which still continues there. Without going to the details of this well-known campaign, it is just necessary to refer at one dimension, the American military presence in the Middle East and elsewhere. Here, the military operations and the military presence form a vicious cycle, where the supposed threats against the U.S. justify the military operations and the regional bases make them easier. Once the military operation is over there is usually a stronger U.S. military presence in the region. For example, after the first Gulf War the unique American military presence in Saudi Arabia continued, and offered to Osama bin Laden to claim one reason more for his terrorist activities.  

2. U S Double Standard Policy in the Middle East
	
2.1. 	Greater Middle East Project

The Greater Middle East is a political term was found by the Bush administration to put  together various countries, pertaining to the Muslim world, specifically Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Various Central Asian countries and the lower Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia) and Cyprus are sometimes also included. Some speakers may use the term to denote areas with significant Muslim majorities, but this usage is not universal. The Greater Middle East is sometimes referred to as "The New Middle East", or "The Great Middle East Project".

In late April, 2004 the United States introduced the term to the G-8 summit in a new set of proposals for a Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI) to be adopted at their June summit in Sea Island, Georgia for sweeping change in the way the West deals with the Middle East.

The initiative is a part of President Bush's "forward strategy of freedom," by which the expansion of political rights and political participation in the Muslim world is meant to combat the appeal of Islamist extremism.

The draft proposal includes four core components:
•	A "Greater Middle East Forum for the Future" would provide a regular venue for discussion of reform goals and programs, and to promote cooperation between states on behalf of reform. The forum would also include business and civil society leaders to facilitate coalition-formation between these groups on behalf of reform efforts.
•	A Greater Middle East Democracy Assistance Group would coordinate the efforts of the various American, European, and other foundations that sponsor non-governmental programs to build democracy. The National Endowment for Democracy and the German party-affiliated Siftings, for example, would participate in a concerted effort to maximize the effectiveness of their joint and independent programs in the region. 
•	A Greater Middle East Foundation for Democracy would go one step further, establishing a multilateral foundation modeled on the National Endowment for Democracy and focused on the Middle East. 
•	A Greater Middle East Literacy Corps would address one of the least controversial and most fundamental barriers to citizen participation in governance. 

In June 20th, 2005 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized Egypt and Saudi Arabia for democratic failings, mounting a direct challenge to autocratic U.S. allies in the Middle East and calling on governments in the region to embrace "certain basic rights for all their citizens."

"Throughout the Middle East, the fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty," Rice said.  "It is time to abandon the excuses that are made to avoid the hard work of democracy," she added.

Rice offered mild praise for President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, who has ruled since 1981, for having "unlocked the door for change" by agreeing for the first time to allow an opposition candidate to run against him. The move was "encouraging," she said, but now "the Egyptian government must put its faith in its own people." She called on Mubarak to end violent attacks on pro-democracy demonstrators, stop "arbitrary justice" and lift emergency decrees allowing the police to break up gatherings of more than five people. But she said, the United States would obey Egyptian law and maintain no contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is Egypt's largest opposition movement and has been banned from political activity since 1954.

In her remarks on Saudi Arabia, she said "many people pay an unfair price for exercising their basic rights," she noted that three people who petitioned the monarchy to adopt a constitutional system had been jailed on charges of trying to encourage dissent. "That should not be a crime in any country," Rice said. 

In the speech, the secretary said governments must protect "certain basic rights for all their citizens," including "the right to speak freely, the right to associate, the right to worship as you wish, the freedom to educate your children -- boys and girls -- and the freedom from the midnight knock of the secret police." She also made an impassioned plea for women's rights in the Middle East. "Half a democracy is not a democracy," she said. 

President Bush has made promotion of democracy a hallmark of his second term, but this was the first time a senior U.S. official has delivered that message in the heart of the Middle East. Rice mixed tough-minded rhetoric with assurances that the Bush administration was not planning to impose democracy. The United States, she said, "has no cause for false pride and we have every reason for humility," because of its history of slavery and racism. 

Rice was much tougher on Iran and Syria, two countries often in disagreement with the United States, than she was on Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two long-time U.S. partners with virtually no history of representative government. She denounced the "organized cruelty of Iran's theocratic state" and called on Syria "to make the strategic choice to join the progress all around it." 

Meanwhile, Rice decried groups such as Hamas, a militant Islamic movement labeled a terrorist organization by the United States that has been successful in Palestinian local and Parliamentary elections. "For all citizens with grievances, democracy can be a path to lasting justice," Rice said. "But the democratic system cannot function if certain groups have one foot in the realm of politics and one foot in the camp of terror." 

It looks like the United States pick and choose the time for democracy, the place for democracy, the governments for democracy and who are the people fit the description of being democratic or not according to the American Standards of democracy. It also seems like the United States is trying to specify the democratic process in the Middle East or in some parts of the Middle East and not generalize it, which I don’t think it’s working.

2.2.	Bush’s Double-Standard Policy to Deal with Democracy

In his second-term inauguration speech in 2005, President George W. Bush has made democratization a central focus of his administration's Middle East policy. He declared.

"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

The U.S. has been insincere in talking about its policy objectives in the Middle East. The Bush Administration claims its objectives in the Middle East are to achieve peace and democracy. But two years after President George W. Bush came into power, the US in 2003 launched the Iraq war without any legitimate reason except for what was so-called “regime change”, trying to spread democracy in Iraq. The U.S. (and UK) claimed that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destructions, and that he had connections to al-Qaeda. Both claims were wrong. But on the other hand, Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a democratic elected government, did not practice democracy even on the local level, no freedom of speech for oppositions, media and equality of women or women rights. On the connections to al-Qaeda, most of the hijackers were Saudis, however the U.S. did nothing to the regime there to be changed.
			
Bush supported Israel in its on-again off-again military strikes on Lebanon and Palestinian territory. The Bush administration has showed quite a different attitude from what it was preaching and marketing for democracy and freedom in the Middle East towards the elected Palestinian and Lebanese Governments. That makes not only militia groups or terrorists organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah but also ordinary people believe that the Bush administration actually aims to establish pro-American regimes rather than democratic systems in the Middle East. 

Its hypocritical policy objectives also received attacks from the conservatives who believe that the Bush administration has sacrificed US strategic interest in the Middle East for the sake of illusory democracy. This has also made the Middle East become an anti-American base.
 
Bush's objectives in the Middle East can hardly be realized, neither the democracy he has claimed nor his goal to control the whole Middle East region. In addition, one thing is for sure, the US strategy will not bring peace to the Middle East region. 

Over the past eight years, the United States has launched or supported a series of wars in the Middle East and the areas close to it. The war in Afghanistan since 2001, the war in Iraq since 2003, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Israeli military strike against Hezbollah in 2006 and the war on Gaza in 2009. The wars against Lebanon and Gaza fostered the revenge mentality of Arab people towards Israel and the United States.
 
The US Middle East strategy can not promote its own democratic development in the Middle East. Several governments in the Middle East like the Palestinian government, Israel, Cyprus, Turkey and TRNC are established through democratic elections.

Bush has taken a double-standard policy in dealing with democracy in the Middle East. It fights anti-American democratic governments and supports pro-American undemocratic states. This strategy is obviously detrimental to the United States in promoting the American democracy in the Middle East.

To explain Bush’s foreign policy and its double standards, there are two factors. Firstly, Bush was surrounded by so-called neoconservative advisers and numbers of staff. According to these neoconservatives, after the collapse of the Soviet Union the U.S. was in a unique unipolar position. Consequently, the U.S. had to use this opportunity and push forward the American interests in the world as much as possible, of course, this made a big difference between the neoconservatives and the traditional conservatives who are more toward the American isolation policy. Secondly, the attacks of September Eleven bounce the constraints of the U.S. foreign policy, until that moment it had been very difficult for the U.S. to pursue a unilateral and aggressive foreign policy. Now, the attacks offered an excellent pretext. Thirdly, in 2002 Bush published a new policy line of the U.S. called Bush Doctrine. It included the idea of pre-emptive military actions. In fact, the idea of pre-emption distorts the line between a real and imaginary threat against the U.S. Consequently, it offers a justification to all American actions under the pretext of pre-emption. Zakaria concludes his explanation of Bush’s foreign policy in a single formula: Unipolarity + 9/11 attacks + Afghanistan = Unilatiralism + Iraq. 

2.3.	The concept of Democratic Peace
 	
For G.W. Bush, the democratic peace comprised his overall foreign policy. The democratic peace—democracies do not or virtually never make war on each other and is inherently a method of non-violence—has been mentioned favorably by top leaders, such as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Clinton’s former National Security Advisor W. Anthony Lake, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The leaders of ASEAN signed a democratic peace-oriented pact in October 2003, about which its spokesman M.C. Abad stated: “The introduction of the notion of democratic peace sets the standard of political norms in the region. It means that member states subscribe to the notion that democratic processes promote regional security.”	

Promoting a democratic peace was the center of G.W. Bush’s foreign policy as is clear from his speech at the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. In it he proclaimed a Forward Strategy of Freedom. Although focused on the Middle East, it was general in tone, “As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.” Specifically, “As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export.”	
Democracies do sometimes initiate wars against authoritarian states. Some argue that democracies usually enter these wars because they are provoked by authoritarian states. Several papers show that democracies are slightly, but significantly less involved in wars in general than others states, and that they also initiate wars less frequently than non-democratic states.

Another theory is that democracies can be divided into "pacifist" and "militant". While both avoid attacking democracies, "militant" democracies have tendency to deep distrust and confrontational policies against dictatorships and may initiate wars against them. Most wars by democracies since 1950 have involved only four nations: the U.S., the U.K., Israel, and India. 

The US Middle East strategy is unable to eradicate anti-American forces. In fact, since the Afghan War broke out in 2001, the number of anti-American organizations has been increasing instead of decreasing. US Middle East strategy can hardly be dominant the Middle East. Only by controlling the Middle East region, can the United States exert its influence on the entire region from Afghanistan to Europe. Even if Bush Administration understood that their strategy could not help them realize their goals, they would never change the strategy because it would mean a slap on their own face.
 	
2.4.	Obama’s Policy

It was almost dreamlike, watching Secretary of State Hillary Clinton make her visit to Israel, one that can be called the first of many trips pretending to encourage peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. It’s a dream I’ve had several times over; one needs only to simply fill in the names of the various U.S. Secretaries of State, say that they’ve met with the Israeli leadership and with Mahmoud Abbas and also with many others as Yasser Arafat, and that no progress was made.
 Aside from saying that Abbas heads the only legitimate government of Palestine, Mrs. Clinton did say that the building of new settlements was, “unhelpful,” but also the demolition of several Palestinian apartment blocks in Jerusalem was unhelpful as well.

It’s hard to remember which one did not help. She did conveniently forget that Abbas’ term as President of the Palestinian Authority has expired, and she also forgot that in 2006 Hamas won the Parliamentary elections big time. It’s not that the Parliament has been meeting regularly, mostly because Israel arrested most of the Hamas members of Parliament, most of them still behind bars. It was the kind of election that the U.S. did not believe in. It was fair and legal, and showed the preferences of the Palestinian public, something which the U.S. chose to ignore.

Mrs. Clinton did send two diplomats to talk to the Syrians, which is as hopeful as it is interesting. Syria has been on the bad guy list since George W. Bush decided to act on Israel’s dislike of Syria and withdraw the U.S. Ambassador, Margaret Scobey. It was Syria’s support of the US and the Israeli-designated “terrorists” that caused that diplomatic rupture.

This double standard also applies to the Arab militias—Hezbollah and Hamas–that arm themselves to defend against Israel’s assaults on them and to protect their freedom. Calling Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups is, as Mrs. Clinton might say in another context, “unhelpful.” They are, under any definition, except for definitions by the U.S., some EU countries and Israel, “liberation groups.” Even though they have used some terrorist tactics against Israeli civilians, they are trying to liberate their lands from foreign occupiers namely Israel. But Israel has asked the US government to identify them as terrorist groups, which it did. 

Doing Israel that favor was very much like the favor done by Bush’s invasion of Iraq, which was greatly encouraged by Israel’s fear of Iraq’s policies toward them. Of course, the influence of the above mentioned neoconservatives and Israeli lobby in the Bush Administration made the decision to go to war much easier to make.

President Obama is now on record as supporting a multibillion dollar arms gift to Israel over the next ten years. The same time both Israel and the U.S. decry — in the loudest terms –arms being slipped into Gaza so the people there can defend themselves. The same is true for Hezbollah. Much is made about weapons “smuggling” to Hezbollah, which, like Hamas, does whatever it can to defend their people against Israel’s armed might. But American politicians and American journalists dutifully read Israeli talking points when the time comes to explain their feelings. Hamas’ crude weapons do not quite match the fighter jets, modern tanks, pilotless drones, cluster bombs, phosphorous shells and bombs that Israel in 2009 inflicted on the civilians in the Gaza Ghetto. The new DIME weapon, which severely burns anything it touches, was particularly effective when used on the civilians of Gaza.

The most prominent talking point handed out by the Israeli propaganda machine during the assault on Gaza was, “We would not stand by and allow our families be targets of someone shooting rockets into our cities.” Totally unexamined, that was a brilliant piece of propaganda explaining the slaughter of some 1,500 people in Gaza, most of them women and children. Like the Nazis trying to eradicate the Warsaw Ghetto, Israel wilfully and deliberately slaughtered civilians who were unable to escape because of the fences that surrounded them. When they were caught doing so, the Israeli military merely said it would investigate. Nothing has ever come from such an investigation, if, in fact, it was ever investigated by the Israeli governments. The investigation was always coming from the UN.
 
I think that there will be no peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians unless and until the President of the United States tells Israel that they must remove the settlers from the West Bank, thereby allowing a Palestinian state to be formed. If he does not do that, Mrs. Clinton and George Mitchell (President Obama’s special Envoy to the Middle East) will tire themselves out travelling to the Middle East under the pretence that they are sponsoring peace talks.

After fourteen months of his presidency, promising to push forward the peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis, respecting the Muslim and Arab worlds, his speech in Cairo, his visit to Turkey and winning the Noble Peace Prize. President Obama still didn’t achieve or fulfill his promises that much, nothing has changed on the ground, did not translate the words into actions and practice, neither in the Middle East nor elsewhere.

2.5.	Nuclear Issue in the Middle East

When he was President, George W. Bush was lecturing the world on the threat from Iraq and North Korea and on the virtues of nuclear non-proliferation. He was the commander-in-chief of a military force that not only possesses and maintains nearly 10,000 nuclear weapons but also boasts an array of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological arsenals. The American position on nuclear weapons is rife with hypocrisy and layered with double standards.

The U.S. is the number one proliferator of conventional weapons in terms of marketing and sales. Even in regions such as the Middle East where peace is deemed crucial to American interests, America is the top exporter of advanced weapons including strategic fighters (such as F-16s) and missiles to both sides--Israel and Arabs. If the next Arab-Israeli war involves vastly more sophisticated and dangerous weapons than ever before, we will have only the U.S. to thank for it.

The U.S. was not only the first to produce nuclear weapons, but to date remains the only nation in the world to have used nuclear weapons, more than once, and even against civilians targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

Washington continues to maintain close relations with such nations as India, Pakistan, and Israel that have refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and are widely known to possess significant nuclear arsenals. Israel is reputed to have anywhere between 50-200 illegal nukes. Yet the Bush administration was determined to intimidate and punish nations that evidently do not have nuclear weapons but only nuclear ambitions, such as Iran and Iraq. The nuclear ambitions of these two nations are not unlike those that spurred India, Israel, and Pakistan to develop their own nukes.
As we remember very well, one of the excuses to attack Iraq was that the country had a program to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, the U.S. ignored the information collected from Iraq by the U.N. Inspectors during the weeks and months before the war.

To this day the U.S. has never expressed any concern over the illegal nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction that Israel possesses. Now in the post-9/11 climate, Washington has decided that its own interests are best served by ignoring the fact that India and Pakistan also continue to defy not only the nuclear non-proliferation regime but also the nuclear test ban regime.

According to Washington, Iran (as Iraq before) nurse an unquenchable thirst for nuclear weapons. American propagandists have also argued that these nations desire these weapons of mass destruction for the explicit purpose of using them against the U.S. and its allies (Israel). Unless it can be demonstrated that both Iran and Iraq have a very strong desire to self-destruct it is difficult to understand why any nation would be willing to sign its own death warrant by attacking the United States. The world has not forgotten what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Children born in those cities still bear signs of the U.S. nuclear attacks.

In his first State of the Union address, President Bush made his intentions clear about the "axis of evil"--Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. He was determined to eliminate their capacity to threaten America or its allies. 

 In contrast, North Korea has not only declared that it has an active nuclear weapons program but is determined to become a nuclear power in the immediate future. But the U.S. invaded Iraq along with the coalition forces and destroyed it while ruling out any military option against North Korea. Washington articulates policy in idealistic terms but applies it in realistic fashion. If the objective is to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, then the U.S. must continue to pressure those who already have them (India, Pakistan, and Israel) and those who are about to have them (North Korea) just as much if not more than those who aspire to them (Iran) and if nuclear weapons are indeed seen as a danger to world peace, then Washington should work to denuclearize South Asia and the Middle East by persuading India, Pakistan, and Israel to voluntarily denuclearize and submit to inspection regimes. 

At the same time, the U.S. should also give the world a firm timetable on its own denuclearization program (in concert with UK, France, Russia, and China) and immediately cease all further development and production of all weapons of mass destruction. 

At present, there is only one country in the Middle East with "secret" and ambiguous stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Over the last 60 years, Israel has been directly and indirectly aided and funded in its development of weapons of mass destruction by the United States, France, Norway, Britain and Germany.  These powerful nations have neither been forthright nor accountable in their roles in giving one small country in the Middle East enough clout to wipe out most of their neighbors via nuclear holocaust.  Such a stance is not only controversial and hypocritical to non proliferation; it is intrinsically detrimental to all other diplomacy and hope(s) concerning peace in the future of the Middle East.
  
Iran's rather defiant and overt intentions reproducing and maintaining nuclear energy, calls for a closer scrutiny and study of defiant nuclear ambitions in the Middle East. Israel's long standing ambiguity about its nuclear weapons, gives Iran and the world, pause and speculation as to why some governments, especially the US government and including some EU governments, chose to either subvert emphasis on non proliferation, or simply did not have the adequate intelligence to discern what historians and journalists are now only beginning to piece together as history, concerning Israel's illegal acquisitions of heavy water and uranium.	  
 	
Furthermore, to object to Iran's nuclear future without pressuring and bringing Israel into open and honest negotiations about its arsenal including forthright inspections, seems either absurd or outrageously insulting not only to the Arab world but to the world in general.
 
The United States and most of Europe, now rumbling and grumbling and on edge over Iran, still avoid even discussion, let alone confrontation, over Israel’s proliferation, and thus present this rather poor standard for diplomacy. A foreign policy that favors and entitles one country with rogue weapons while condemning another, perpetuates an uneasy clime and double standard wherein peaceful negotiations are doomed before they even begin.
  
In 1960, US military satellites determined that the reactor in Dimona might NOT be in existence for "peaceful" purpose, while the New York Times reported (Dec 19, 1960) what the CIA already knew.... that “officials are studying with mounting concern recent evidence indicating that Israel, with the assistance of France, may be developing the capacity to produce nuclear weapons”. The article further implied that Israel had been deceiving the United States in its nuclear ambitions.  These realizations and sentiments did not deter Israel from achieving its goal via any and often nefarious means. Norway had willingly provided Israel with enough heavy water to build hundreds of bombs, but only under agreement of inspections.  This agreement was rather dormant until 1986 and the kidnapping, secret trial, testament and punishment of Israel's nuclear whistle blower, Mordechai Vanunu. Only then did Norway fully realize the real price of selling "heavy water" to the state of Israel.

Iran, filled with mistrust, hate and hateful paranoia towards Israel and the West, seems to have as much practical reasons for acquiring a nuclear reactor under the guise of "energy" as Israel done.  Given its turbulent history, and the fact that two of its closest neighbors are now occupied by the West, it seems quite reasonable for Iran to desire the same protection as Israel "secretly" has.

The same German government that allowed German companies to sell materials to Iraq for "unconventional" chemical weapons now approved the funding and the construction of submarines for Israel with potential to be used with nuclear war heads in a "second strike" position. In other words, if the reactor at Dimona was suddenly attacked and wiped out. There is now in place the ways and means to provide immediate second strike in retaliation.

On June 15, 2002, the Washington Post disclosed, "Israel has acquired three diesel submarines that it is arming with newly designed cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, according to former Pentagon and State Department officials, potentially giving Israel a triad of land-, sea- and air-based nuclear weapons for the first time"

Furthermore, the US had monitored Israel's testing of a cruise missile off Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean.  How many other nuclear testing has taken place, and in retrospect one must consider the potential damage to humanity and environment that such "untold" tests produce. What seismological causes and effects do nuclear missiles and their carrier submarines produce in the surrounding areas? Especially since it stands to reason most "secret” tests would take place closest to nations who do not have the technology to monitor such activities. What is US reaction  when countries that they "suspect" have nuclear weapons, test their arms? At a time when the world requires more focus on climate and environment, famine and disease, spending money on weapons systems to up the ante around and around again seems a futile spiral.  The "second strike" suggestion and tactics set in motion by "anonymous" Bush and Israeli officials are: submarines with nuclear missile capacity, has had an opposite effect in terms of Iran's reaction to being bullied over nuclear reactors without the example(s) of Israel's honest commitment to peace.  And now Russia has also decided to make a motion by selling arms to Iran.
For more than sixty years Israel has been directly and illegitimately funded and aided in its nuclear weapons production by France, the United States, Britain, Germany and Norway, yet maintaining "ambiguity". 

During that time, Israel has also refused to sign or negotiate any commitment against the use of biological weapons, such as the 1972 Biological Weapons Conventions. Thus, there is another ambiguous stance when the same time peace would require making clearer the moral conscience and a commitment towards peace.