To better understand the United States’ foreign policy and the Bush administration’s ultimate decision to invade Iraq in 2003, it is necessary to first understand what realism is and how this theory has played an important role in decisions made by the US concerning other countries. Realism developed a new political theory, different to its predecessors which were based on natural law. Realism is based on the theory that every state will do whatever it feels necessary to ensure its own survival in the international arena. Realists, through power and control, pursue their own interest in the international arena as this is crucial for their survival (Spiegel, S.L). Power comes primarily from the survival and control of the international arena.
…show more content…
The Bush administration, before 2003, had reasons to believe that Hussein possessed WMDs. Prior to the Iraq war, in the decade following the Gulf war and the Iran-Iraq war, the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq had been imposed several resolutions by the United Nations for its offensive against Kuwait, as well as, for the regime’s violations of human rights against Iranian citizens and Iraqi Kurds. Six-teen of the resolutions, concerned the disarmament and destruction of all chemical and biological weapons, a well as, all ballistic missiles by the Iraqi government. However, throughout the decade Saddam Hussein’s regime was not cooperative with the fulfilment of the resolutions imposed. Special commissions’ representatives of the UN were sent to Iraq to assure the compliance of the regime. In several occasions, Iraqi security forces prevented these representatives to continue with their job of supervising weapons projects and nuclear plants. By doing so, several members of the international council were concerned about the commitment of the Iraqi regime to disarm. Ex-secretary of state, Colin Powell in his response to reports from U.N. weapons inspectors to the U.N. Security Council about the inspections in Iraq, was genuinely concerned about the lack of effort put in by the Iraqi regime to …show more content…
The image it had tried to project and maintain for years as the number one world power, indestructible, suddenly was breaking apart. According to the Pew poll of influentials, solid majorities in every region said at least many people in their countries believed it was good for Americans to know what it is like to feel vulnerable. This image of vulnerability could not be portrayed, especially during the diplomatic conflict with Iraq. In order to counter these perceptions of weakness and susceptibility, the United States showed its power by playing a role that was not theirs to take, that of an international hero that would eradicate terrorism. This decision would show the world the great power the US still possessed and demonstrates that in anarchy, according to realism, the US put their national interests over the international position on Iraq. The bold decision came from the United States’ unilateral power and increasing hegemony in world politics, as a result of the fall of the Soviet Union (E. Benvenesti, 2004). Throughout the 90’s the US gained geopolitical influence in Eurasia and shaped relations with south Caucasus countries (J. Zarifian, 2015) and international economic influence with the 1990’s economic boom. According to article 51 of the UN charter, countries are permitted to use force only in cases of self-defense only against an imminent
The Bush administration, before 2003, had reasons to believe that Hussein possessed WMDs. Prior to the Iraq war, in the decade following the Gulf war and the Iran-Iraq war, the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq had been imposed several resolutions by the United Nations for its offensive against Kuwait, as well as, for the regime’s violations of human rights against Iranian citizens and Iraqi Kurds. Six-teen of the resolutions, concerned the disarmament and destruction of all chemical and biological weapons, a well as, all ballistic missiles by the Iraqi government. However, throughout the decade Saddam Hussein’s regime was not cooperative with the fulfilment of the resolutions imposed. Special commissions’ representatives of the UN were sent to Iraq to assure the compliance of the regime. In several occasions, Iraqi security forces prevented these representatives to continue with their job of supervising weapons projects and nuclear plants. By doing so, several members of the international council were concerned about the commitment of the Iraqi regime to disarm. Ex-secretary of state, Colin Powell in his response to reports from U.N. weapons inspectors to the U.N. Security Council about the inspections in Iraq, was genuinely concerned about the lack of effort put in by the Iraqi regime to …show more content…
The image it had tried to project and maintain for years as the number one world power, indestructible, suddenly was breaking apart. According to the Pew poll of influentials, solid majorities in every region said at least many people in their countries believed it was good for Americans to know what it is like to feel vulnerable. This image of vulnerability could not be portrayed, especially during the diplomatic conflict with Iraq. In order to counter these perceptions of weakness and susceptibility, the United States showed its power by playing a role that was not theirs to take, that of an international hero that would eradicate terrorism. This decision would show the world the great power the US still possessed and demonstrates that in anarchy, according to realism, the US put their national interests over the international position on Iraq. The bold decision came from the United States’ unilateral power and increasing hegemony in world politics, as a result of the fall of the Soviet Union (E. Benvenesti, 2004). Throughout the 90’s the US gained geopolitical influence in Eurasia and shaped relations with south Caucasus countries (J. Zarifian, 2015) and international economic influence with the 1990’s economic boom. According to article 51 of the UN charter, countries are permitted to use force only in cases of self-defense only against an imminent