Holder of balance perception in international relations belongs to Hans Morgenthau[1]. In his seminal work, which is also considered the major study of realist international relations theory “Politcs Among Nations” Morgenthau considers the “balancer” as an element of providing balance of power. Balancer, her argues, is not permanently identified with the policies of either nations or group of nations. Its only objective within the system is the maintenance of the balance, regardless of concrete policies which the balance will serve.

Realist theory in general argues that international system is anarchic and there is no world government above the sovereignty of individual states, therefore states are unitary actors in international relations. However “anarchy” doesn’t mean conflict, according to realist perception, rather it is an ordering principle[2]. A detailed analysis of realist theory of international theory is pessimistic about human nature and behavior and behavior of states towards each other. Realists argue that, it is the power of states which determines the behavior of states and that of the balance of power which holds international relations in peace.

Realist perspective provides us some understating of the current developments in the Middle East. It is basically the increase of relative power of one country that destructs the stability and peace in the region and the negligence behavior of the holder of balance to establish the peace and stability. Then the question to be answered is why the balancer is not providing a peace and stability process in international conflicts

Morgenthau, provides us how states hold balance of power among themselves and the role of the most powerful states position especially in the regional conflicts. Morgenthau presents three possible ways that the balancer use its power in such situation; resorting the balance, providing peace, and act according to objectives of its own national policy, apart from the maintenance of balance of power.            

Recent developments is the Middle East and not involvement (or late involvement) of the U.S. in recent Middle East crises requires explanation because of the position that the U.S. hold in the world and in the region as well as the importance of peace for the U.S. national interest in the region. Regional peace is important for the U.S. at least for two reasons; one is for the stability of Iraq and the approaching virtual decision deadline for the Iran policy (whether to use hard or soft power against Iran to convince her to change its nuclear policies).

As the most powerful country in the world and its hegemonic position, the US also plays a position of balancer in the region. Previous administrations played this role more openly by creating a peace process between Israel and Philistine. From Morgenthau’s perspective it’s the US national interest which redirects its policies to a position which is blamed to be as “double standard”. However, “double standard” approach does not provide a solid explanation of the foreign policy behavior of the world’s hegemon and balancer of the region.

Lets take look a the US non-involvement in the case and main obstacles to play an influencal role in the current regional conflict.

1-     Not having promising results in terms of stability and conflict in Iraq after the invasion and collapse of Saddam regime.

2-     Too much involvement in Israeli politics and its policy preferences[3] (Mearsheimer and Walt, 2006) and (Dual Loyalties: the Bush Neocons and Isreal)[4]

3-     Media influence over the public opinion, presenting the issue as a conflict between state (Israel) and a terrorist organization (Hizbullah), therefore public do not see the case clearly that conflict jeopardize the sovereignty of a country.

4-     A different focus; Iran and WMD (Weapons of Mass destruction),

Those are the immediate causes determining US foreign policy preferences in the latest Middle East Crises, however more can be found by looking at the different levels of analysis (systemic, state/societal and individual) and by opening  the ‘black box” of the state and the institutions, as well as congress and presidency.[5] For example a recent news article indicates that “Bush and Congress gave Israel the green light to pummel Lebanon for a while because "Israel is fighting a brave battle in a dangerous front in the War on Terror."

Even other theories such as liberalism (they would argue that the conflict is as result of the lack of cooperation among states against the aggressor, and the lack of effective norms to encourage cooperation among states) and constructivism (the conflict is a result of religious identities) provides valuable explanations for the fact. This is a point where we can go in detail, however, I want to stick here with the idea of “balancer” and argue that the US lost its position as a balancer in the region as a result of foreign policy preferences and should support an international response to solve the problem. Preventing UN Security Council declaration for a cease fire call by vetoing the decision last week was critical mistake which caused further aggression and provided no gain for the US policies in the region except the clarification of the support for Israel and increasing anti-Americanism in Europe and other parts of the world.