The Suez Crisis
had drastically shifted the pieces on the Middle Eastern chessboard. Following
this crisis, the US realized that the image of traditional Western colonial
powers like Britain and France in the Arab world was completely shattered, and
Soviet Russia (USSR) was rapidly filling this void, increasing its prestige.
America’s Middle East Shield: The Eisenhower Doctrine (1957)
To halt this
trend, US President Eisenhower sent a historic message to the US Congress on
January 5, 1957. In this message, Eisenhower stated that after the Suez Crisis,
the USSR was close to dominating the Suez Canal and the Middle Eastern oil
resources, the lifeblood of the West, thereby bringing the region under
political control and dealing a fatal blow to the Western Bloc.
With this move, which would go down in history as the Eisenhower Doctrine, the President requested authorization to provide direct economic and military aid to Middle Eastern countries, to use US armed forces directly if these countries faced an attack from communist nations, and to spend $200 million annually for this purpose.
![]() |
| Dwight D. Eisenhower |
How did it differ from the Truman Doctrine? Although the US first showed its interest in the Middle Eastern borders with the Truman Doctrine, that was a narrowly framed plan limited only to Türkiye and Greece, primarily envisioning “military aid.” In contrast, the Eisenhower Doctrine encompassed the entire Middle Eastern region and, most importantly, guaranteed that these countries would be defended against communism personally by the US, under the condition of “the actual use of American troops when necessary.”
Through this doctrine, the US completely filled the power vacuum left by Britain and France (following the Suez fiasco) and stepped up against the USSR as the new protector of the Middle East. However, the doctrine split the Arab world in two: while Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, Türkiye, Greece, Afghanistan, Libya, Tunisia, and Morocco supported the plan; Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, swept by nationalist winds, reacted strongly against it.


No comments:
Post a Comment