LegiStorm

Summary:

Managing policy differences on a range of issues emanating from the Middle East poses serious challenges for the United States and its European allies and friends. The most vitriolic dispute has centered on the conflict in Iraq. However, divisions over how best to approach the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, manage Iran and Syria, and combat terrorism also persist. The Bush Administration and Members of Congress are concerned that continued disagreements between the two sides of the Atlantic could both constrain U.S. policy choices in the region and erode the broader transatlantic relationship and counterterrorism cooperation over the longer term. The U.S.-initiated Broader Middle East and North Africa partnership project seeks to encourage reforms in the region and U.S.-European cooperation in tackling Mideast problems. This initiative was welcomed by the 9/11 Commission, which recommended that the United States "should engage other nations in developing a comprehensive coalition strategy against Islamist terrorism." The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-458 ) contains elements that seek to promote Middle East development and reform and enhance international cooperation against terrorism. Many analysts assert that the United States and Europe share common vital interests in the Middle East: combating terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; promoting Middle East peace and stability; ensuring a reliable flow of oil; and curtailing Islamic extremism. U.S. and European policies to promote these goals often differ considerably. Although the European governments are not monolithic in their opinions on the Middle East, European perspectives have been shaped over time by common elements unique to Europe's history and geostrategic position. Many Europeans believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be a priority. They view it as a key driver of terrorism, Islamic extremism, and political unrest among Europe's growing Muslim populations. In contrast, the U.S. Administration stresses that terrorism and weapons proliferation are the primary threats and must be pro-actively confronted; peace and stability in the region will not be possible until these twin threats are removed. A number of other factors, such as divergent perceptions of the appropriate role of the use of force and growing European Union (EU) ambitions to play a larger role on the world stage, also contribute to the policy gaps that have emerged. How deep and lasting the clash over Iraq and subsequent Middle East policies will be to transatlantic relations will likely depend on several factors, including whether Washington and European capitals can cooperate more robustly to rebuild Iraq; whether Europeans perceive a renewed U.S. commitment to revive the Middle East peace process; and whether differences over Mideast issues spill over into NATO or impede EU efforts to forge a deeper Union. This report will be updated as events warrant. For more information, see CRS Report RL31339 , Iraq: U.S. Regime Change Efforts and post-Saddam Governance ; CRS Issue Brief IB91137, The Middle East Peace Talks ; CRS Report RL32048 , Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses ; CRS Issue Brief IB92075, Syria: U.S. Relations and Bilateral Issues ; and CRS Report RL31612(pdf) , European Counter-terrorist Efforts: Political Will and Diverse Responses in the First Year after September 11 .