Is U.S. Middle East Foreign Policy Dominated by Neo-Realist School of Thought?
As a formal academic discipline, international relations emerged in 1919, since then the realistic school of thought dominated not only academic debate but also major foreign policy decisions. By emphasizing the actions between states, this school of thought focuses on 'high politics.' This research article aims to demonstrate the significance of ‘low politics’ when it comes to domestic policy making which has been an under researched area in the domain of International Relations. This article explains the belief that identity and self - perception of otherness play a major role in foreign policy making, and in this regard there is no exception to U.S. Middle East policy. The analysis focuses on the U.S. desires to strengthen its ‘global actorness’ on the international stage. Through a constructivist approach, the article makes an attempt to explore however, that Self-Other perception explains foreign policy making with reference to Iraq war, Syrian war, Iran’s nuclear program, and Israel-Palestine conflict. I argue that, contrary to recent assumptions made by IR school of thought, the challenge facing identity and ideas, such as realism and liberalism, must be assessed in the context of U.S. policy making for the Middle East. These assumptions are being tested to investigate U.S. foreign policy making for the Middle East region by employing a qualitative methodology. The main methodological technique used for interpreting the role of identity and self - perception is Discourse Analysis.