Posted: December 6th, 2022

The Bush and Obama Administrations policies in Afghanistan and Iran

The Bush and Obama Administrations policies in Afghanistan and Iran
Why did the Bush and Obama administrations develop the policies they did toward Afghanistan and Iran, and what was the role of intelligence?
Can either of the policies succeed at this point? If so, what must the current and future administrations do differently (or the same) to achieve success?
If one or both policies fails, what is likely to happen in the Middle East and globally as a result of a Taliban Afghanistan and a nuclear Iran? Will there be major changes, or is the concern about these issues overblown?
If the policies fail, what should the US do to determine the range of threats growing out of these failures and counter them?
Assess the likelihood of “success” or “failure” based on US policy objectives. You must document your evidence completely and support your arguments thoroughly.

Provide:

(1) a brief background regarding both crises,
(2) an assessment of the effectiveness of current policies,
(3) an analysis of likely policy “success” or “failure,” and
(4) recommended courses of action in the wake of either successful or unsuccessful policy efforts.

The Bush and Obama Administrations policies in Afghanistan and Iran
The United States security concerns and related issues have continued to shape its approach to foreign policy over the years, a factor that has given the U.S. an exceptionalism interpretation of international law. Both President Bush and Obama believed that terrorism is a problem that requires to be handled by applying military interventions. Although President Obama displayed a tone of being more reluctant to pursue ground wars like his predecessor, he still applied the military in some of his foreign missions in the Middle East, particularly with the increased use of Drone strikes (Lakishyk, 2016). Analysts believe that these approaches have continued to multiply the United States enemies within the region. Unfortunately, this flawed approach is blamed for successive policy failures in Afghanistan and Iran. In particular, U.S. soldiers and the civilians of countries like Afghanistan have had to endure enormous hardships as the U.S. continues to pursue an elusive goal (Lakishyk, 2016). There is very little evidence to suggest that the U.S. is less vulnerable to the threat of terrorism as a result of the bush and Obama admirations foreign policy in both Afghanistan and Iran. This discussion compares the Bush and Obama administration’s policies in both Afghanistan and Iran, assessment of the effectiveness of current policies, an analysis of likely policy “success” or “failure,” and recommends courses of action in the wake of the existing policy efforts.
Brief Background Regarding Both Crises
Before the involvement of the U.S. and her European allies in Afghanistan, it was becoming evident that the country was turning into a failing state under the oppressive Taliban regime. As a consequence of these failures, Sheen (2012) explains that terrorist organizations such as the Al Qaeda found a haven from where they would launch their attacks against the U.S. and other western countries. Moreover, Sheen (2012) adds that there was the threat of the Islamic radicals in Afghanistan destabilizing the Pakistan government and acquiring its nuclear weapons. The aim of the Bush Administration’s policies in Afghanistan was to topple the Taliban regime and drive out Al Qaeda from the country as well as capture some of their key leaders (Sheen, 2012). Although the Taliban had been defeated by 2001, the Bush Administration recognized that the war would not end anytime soon and the United States had to be prepared for a prolonged stay in the country. For example, despite the establishment of a new democratic government, Sheen (2012) argues that the U.S. and her allies had to be around to ensure that the Taliban and the al Qaeda do not return to topple it.
President Obama Administrations policies in Afghanistan called for a more open-minded and dramatic escalation of the U.S. war efforts in Afghanistan that would commit the United States to a nation-building project lasting for nearly a decade (Tung, 2013). Like the Bush administration, Tung (2013) explains that Obama sought to deny the Al Qaeda a haven in Afghanistan. Moreover, it also sought to reverse the momentum gained by the Taliban and ensure that they do not gain the capacity to overthrow the existing government. Finally, Tung (2013) explains that the Obama administration’s policy also aimed to strengthen Afghanistan’s government and security forces capacity with the aim that they would take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.
In Iran, Murray (2010) suggests that the United States is concerned about its security due to the nuclear issue that it has been unable to resolve with Tehran. As such, the essence of both the Bush and Obama administration policy objectives was to maximize the United States security interests by ensuring that Iran’s capacity and the possibility of developing nuclear weapons are constrained to zero levels. The Bush administration policy on Iran undermined the relationship between the two countries. For example, in 2002, President Bush claimed that Iran was an “axis of evil” member demonstrating the soaring relationships between the U.S. and Iran, especially during the Bush administration (Murray, 2010). Instead of utilizing diplomatic means to develop a dialogue with Iran, the Bush administration adopted a policy that was aimed at pressuring Iran through numerous economic sanctions to abandon its nuclear program.
In contrast, the Obama administration policy toward Iran adopted a different approach. Instead of adopting the insular and combative policies of the Bush administration, Obama opted for constructive dialogue between the two countries to resolve the issue (Murray, 2010). This approach implies that instead of the United States, presenting herself as an infallible and unrivalled superpower towards Iran, the Obama administration preferred a more conciliatory approach. Through diplomacy, Murray (2010) explains that the Obama admiration opted to reverse the policy adopted by previous administrations where refusal to dialogue was often taken as a type of punishment towards hostile regimes.
Finally, both Presidents Bush and Obama aim to stop Iran from implementing its Uranium enrichment program and also abandon its nuclear program. Moreover, the two administrations also tried to adopt a policy that first sought to apply diplomacy before engaging in military interventions. However, the difference between the two approaches is that Obama rejected the Bush administrations hardline position of restricting all forms of contacts with Iran as a way to pressurize Tehran (Murray, 2010). Instead, Murray (2010) explains that the Obama administration preferred to use a “dual-track approach” that involved a combination of sanctions and diplomacy, with more emphasis being given to the latter than the former.
Intelligence played a crucial role in both the Bush and Obama administration policies towards Afghanistan and Iran. For example, In Afghanistan, both administrations relied on intelligence to establish the number of troops to take into the country and also concluded that the U.S. had to prepare to stay longer in the country to safeguard her interests by ensuring that the regime in place is strong enough to deal with the insurgency. In Iran, the U.S. intelligence agencies established that if Iran chose to accelerate Uranium enrichment activities, it would develop the capacity to produce enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons somewhere between 2010 and 2015 (Murray, 2010). By relying on this type of intelligence, both administrations were able to come up with crucial administrative policies towards Afghanistan and Iran.
An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Current Policies
While some aspects of the Bush administration policy on Afghanistan were unsuccessful, some of them bore fruits, and even today it would still produce the same outcome. For example, the Bush administration realized that the process of rebuilding Afghanistan was going to be a complicated, lengthy and expensive (Sheen, 2012). With the multilateral approach that was heavily dependent on corporation among European partners had begun to fail by 2006, a situation that led to a drastic increase in attacks throughout Afghanistan. Realizing this development, Sheen (2012) explains that the Bush administration decided to improve and expand the U.S. involvement through deploying an additional 30,000 troops for two years. Moreover, the U.S. also doubled its funding towards Afghanistan’s national army to enhance its capacity to deal with the insurgencies and help the government stabilize.
Moreover, the U.S. expanded its intelligence efforts while seeking to minimize corruption within the new Afghanistan government (Sheen, 2012). While these policy frameworks were successful in the short term, in terms of defeating Taliban and constraining Al Qaeda’s influence in the region, they would be challenging to sustain in the long term. For example, the U.S. estimated that it would take more than a decade for the Afghanistan government to stabilize, and even so, it was never a guarantee that it was going to happen (Sheen, 2012). Although the Bush administration policies in the process of rebuilding Afghanistan had good intentions, it was going to be a complicated, lengthy and expensive and in some cases unrealistic.
Another critical factor that contributes to the failure of both the bush and Obama policies in Afghanistan is the fact that after the insurgents were driven out of the country, they shifted their base to Pakistan. Although negations with Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf were productive, a political crisis within the country and potential war with neighboring India prevented substantial efforts being made towards fighting the insurgents within Pakistan (Lakishyk, 2016). However, although the bush and Obama administration could not afford to send troops into Pakistan, Lakishyk (2016) explains that they increased their surveillance efforts and missile strikes using unmanned drones against the insurgents located within the tribal regions. These efforts were not as significant, and thus the U.S. remained engaged in the pursuit of achievable and tangible victories but without overreach.
The Obama and Bush administration policy to establish a democratic state and form of governance within ten or twenty years was not a feasible idea. However, goals like denying insurgents such as the Al Qaeda safe havens in Afghanistan and reversing the momentum of the Taliban are within grasp. Moreover, given the fact that the insurgency against the Afghanistan government wasn’t based on nationwide popular support, such a strategy would work even today. This was evidenced by the attempted efforts by the U.S. to improve the lives of afghan people through agriculture and other economic empowerment programs (Lakishyk, 2016). Such an approach would still work today because it would win the heart and trust of the Afghan people to denounce insurgency completely. Finally, the proposed expansion of the Afghanistan military, which would allow for the withdrawal of the American forces, was feasible. Still, it would be time-consuming and also require a lot of resources to establish and maintain. Unfortunately, this was the only logical option to pursue, and even future governments will also have to consider adopting similar administrative policies in Afghanistan.
As earlier discussed, the Bush administration policy on Iran undermined the relationship between the two countries. As a consequence, the nuclear issue in Iran was deadlocked. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refused to honor all obligations of resolutions made at the U.N. Security Council and rejected international calls for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities (JIN, 2010). As such, the Bush administration’s policy of using tough economic sanctions on Iran appears to have had a minimal outcome. In this sense, President Bush Administration’s policy in Iran is an important reason that led to Iranian nuclear impasse.
With the U.S. already spending a lot of economic, military and diplomatic resources in Iraq and Afghanistan, attempting to resolve the nuclear issue in Iran is a challenge that required more than just sanctions and the hardline positions adopted by the Bush administration. The Obama administration adopted a broad-minded approach towards resolving the Iran issue by applying diplomacy and a reconciliatory tone when negotiating with Tehran (JIN, 2010). In particular, JIN (2010) adds that President Obama was bold enough to abandon the Bush administrations demands that Iran should halt its uranium enrichment activities as the minimum condition for negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. The Obama administration approach to Iran appeared balanced out in the sense that it gave Iran the recognition of being a regional power by successfully inviting Iran to try solving the issues in Afghanistan. This approach appeared to bear fruits because Tehran agreed to negotiate with the U.S., a fete that had not to be achieved by the Bush administration and other presiding regimes.
Comparing the two administration’s policy on Iran nuclear issue, the Obama administrations tried to adopt a policy that first sought to apply diplomacy before engaging in economic sanctions or military interventions. Obama also rejected the Bush administrations hardline position of restricting all forms of contacts with Iran as a way of pressurizing Tehran to cede to the U.S. demands. Instead, the Obama administration preferred to use a “dual-track approach” that involved a combination of sanctions and diplomacy, with more emphasis being given to the latter than the former (Solomon, 2016). Such an approach would still work today because the broad-minded approach towards resolving the Iran issue by applying diplomacy and a reconciliatory tone when negotiating with Tehran has proved to be a success, and it is something that previous U.S. administration regimes have failed to achieve. Moreover, with the U.S. already spending a lot of economic, military and diplomatic resources in Iraq and Afghanistan, attempting to resolve the nuclear issue in Iran through confrontation would be counterproductive and more costly to the U.S.
An Analysis of Likely Policy “Success” Or “Failure”
Failure on both the Obama and Bush administration’s policies in Afghanistan and Iran has the potential to destabilize the Middle East and increase terror threats to both the United States and the world. For example, a terrorist organization such as the Al Qaeda will see Afghanistan as a haven from where they would launch their attacks against the U.S. and other western countries (Sheen, 2012). Moreover, there is the threat of the Islamic radicals in Afghanistan destabilizing the region such as the Pakistan government and acquiring its nuclear weapons. As such, the Bush and Obama Administration’s policies in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime and drive out Al Qaeda from the country and establish a stable democratic government in Afghanistan is crucial. A nuclear Iran is also dangerous to the United States and her allies because given that Iran is a powerhouse in the region, it would seek to exert influence on her neighbors (Solomon, 2016). Moreover, a radical Iranian government cannot be trusted with Nuclear weapons which explain why resolving the Iranian nuclear issue is so important.
If these policy frameworks fail, the U.S. should determine the range of threats growing out of these failures and counter them through increased surveillance efforts and missile strikes using unmanned drones against the insurgents located within the tribal regions. Moreover, denying insurgents such as the Al Qaeda safe havens in Afghanistan and reversing the momentum of the Taliban are targets within grasp and should be pursued aggressively. The U.S. should also continue with its attempted efforts to improve the lives of afghan people through agriculture and other economic empowerment programs. Such an approach would still work today because it would win the heart and trust of the Afghan people to denounce insurgency completely.
Recommended Courses of Action in the Wake of Successful or Unsuccessful Policy Efforts
The Obama and Bush administration policy to establish a democratic state within ten or twenty years is not a feasible idea. However, goals like denying insurgents such as the Al Qaeda safe havens in Afghanistan and reversing the momentum of the Taliban are within grasp. Moreover, given the fact that the insurgency against the Afghanistan government wasn’t based on nationwide popular support, such a strategy would work even today. This was evidenced by the attempted efforts by the U.S. to improve the lives of afghan people through agriculture and other economic empowerment programs. Such an approach would still work today because it would win the heart and trust of the Afghan people to denounce insurgency completely. Finally, the proposed expansion of the Afghanistan military, which would allow for the withdrawal of the American forces, was feasible. Still, it would be time-consuming and also require a lot of resources to establish and maintain. Unfortunately, this was the only logical option to pursue, and even future governments will also have to consider adopting similar administrative policies in Afghanistan.
In Iran, Solomon (2016) explains that the Obama administration preferred to use a “dual-track approach” that involved a combination of sanctions and diplomacy, with more emphasis being given to the latter than the former. Such an approach would still work today because the broad-minded approach towards resolving the Iran issue by applying diplomacy and a reconciliatory tone when negotiating with Tehran has proved to be a success, and it is something that previous U.S. administration regimes have failed to achieve. As such, future U.S. administrations should consider continuing to pursue this policy.

References
JIN, L. (2010). Analysis on Obama administration’s policy adjustment of Iranian nuclear issue. Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (in Asia), 4(2), 14-31. doi:10.1080/19370679.2010.12023153
Lakishyk, D. (2016). Evolution of US foreign policy: From George Bush to Barack Obama. American History & Politics: Scientific edition, 14-22. doi:10.17721/2521-1706.2016.02.14-22
Murray, D. (2010). The carcass of dead policies: Lessons for Obama in dealing with Iran. The SHAFR Guide Online. doi:10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim260100126
Sheen, S. (2012). From transformation to complexity : US foreign policy reform of Bush and Obama administration. Journal of International Politics, 17(2), 47. doi:10.18031/jip.2012.10.17.2.47
Solomon, T. (2016). Identity, affective attachments, and US–Iranian nuclear politics. The Obama Doctrine, 99-113. doi:10.4324/9781315731346-8
Tung, Y. (2013). Broken promises or unrealistic expectations?: Comparing the Bush and Obama administrations on counterterrorism. The SHAFR Guide Online. doi:10.1163/2468-1733_shafr_sim260100196

Order | Check Discount