Individual Discussion Postings #6: The United States and the Middle East

What were the most important results and consequences of the 1973 Yom Kippur War? In what major ways is Salim Yaquib critical of Henry Kissinger’s approaches toward the conflicts and negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors? Do you agree with Yaquib’s arguments? How and why?

The 1973 Yom Kippur War had significant results and consequences which shaped the Middle East and global geopolitics. Israel was attacked by Egyptian forces from the Sinai and Syrian troops from the northern border. Israel suffered significant losses as the Arabs regained the land they lost in 1967. A major consequence is the 1973 oil crisis, where Arab nations led by Saudi Arabia placed an embargo on petroleum shipments to the US and quadrupled the price of crude oil going to Japan and Western Europe. The US was suffered an energy crisis and prices remained high even after the embargo had ended (Textbook, p.402). Another consequence is that the US presence in the Middle East increased. On September 1, 1975, Egypt and Israel after Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” signed a historic agreement which allowed Israel to withdraw from the Sinai, created UN-patrolled buffer zone, and “early warning” stations to detect military activity were installed. The US promised military aid to Egypt and Israel. The US Middle East policy changed to deal with radical Arabs, and that included forming an alliance with the Shah of Iran (Textbook, p.402).

Yaquib is critical of Henry Kissinger’s approaches toward the conflicts and negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The Rogers Plan was an ambitious but potential solution fior long-lasting peace in the Middle East. Rogers recommended that Israel withdraw from terroritories occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace with its neighbors. It also demanded the demilitarization of the Sinai Peninsula to allow safe passage of Israeli vessels, settlement on Jerusalem’s status, and resolution of Palestinian refugee issue via resettlement and repatriation. Kissinger strongly opposed the proposal because he feared that the Soviet Union would increase its support to Arab states; had doubts about Israel agreeing to it; ad Nixon wanted to please Israel’s American supporters. Kissinger’s strategy just achieved short-term ceasefires and agreements, at the expense of long-term peace prospects. The preference for bilateral negotiations and focus on maintaining a balance of power in the region using old school containment measures resulted in missed opportunities for comprehensive and enduring peace settlement. Kissinger failed to address underlying issues in the conflict by focusing on immediate geopolitical gains (Yaquib, p.492). Yes, I agree with Yaquib’s arguments because despite Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” preventing a Mideast blowup, thorny problems remained. Palestinian Arabs still wanted a homeland, while Israelis took over the occupied territories where they built farms and houses. Jordan still demanded West Bank and Syria remained in conflict with the Golan Heights (Textbook, p.402). Kissinger managed to play Arab nations and the Soviet Union, but remained reluctant in pushing for a comprehensive settlement, contributing to ongoing tensions and conflicts in the region. Kissinger actually created an illusion of progress despite knowing that Arab grievances could not be ignored (Yaquib, p.492).

References

(Textbook) Paterson, T. G., Clifford, J. G., Brigham, R., Donoghue, M., Hagan, K. J., Kisatsky, D., & Maddock, S. J. (2015). American foreign relations: A history, Volume 2, Since 1895 (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Yaquib, S. (2005). Short-term success at the expense of enduring peace. In Major problems in American foreign relations, volume II: Since 1914 (7th ed., pp. 393-404). Wordsworth, Cengage Learning.