The Reactionary Middle East: Past, Present and Future

                   The geopolitical stability of Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran is contingent on a de-escalation of western imposition in the region. The reasons publicly cited by the west for its involvement in the Middle East are duplicitous and only reveal a portion of the actual justifications.  Due to the failure of western countries to achieve intended goals in Middle Eastern countries, western influence will soon recede resulting in an advancing Iranian authority over the region bolstered by Iran’s economic affiliation with Russia and China.

                  Western involvement in Middle-Eastern affairs is well documented and the consequential conflict can be attributed to this external manipulation. The clearest example of this is the British allocation of Palestinian lands to Zionist settlers, and the establishment of Israel in 1948, followed by further encroachment on Palestinian settlements in 1967. These actions are named by most Muslim leaders as being the root cause of that area’s conflicts: on November 14, 2000, the leaders of 56 Muslim countries, attending a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,[1] made a formal declaration condemning Israel for its subjugation of Palestinians. As the United States is the largest supplier of weapons and military technology to Israel, it is clear that western manipulation has enabled this predicament. The arming of a predominantly Jewish Israel by America has done nothing more than propagate the security dilemma it faces with the Muslim countries it borders. Without the one hundred billion dollars America has given Israel since 1949,[2] it would have had far less money for the military build-up that has exacerbated this impasse. Edward Luttwak, in his article The Middle of Nowhere,[3] argues that the “the Arab-Israeli conflict has been almost irrelevant since the end of the cold war.[4]” He cites the number of deaths resulting “from Jewish-Palestinian fighting since 1921 amount to fewer than 100,000,[5]” insinuating this is not enough to define it as a humanitarian calamity. There are 2,601,052[6] Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank combined. The 100,000 deaths would be equivalent to 1,500,000 Canadians and Americans dying as a result of a conflict between these two countries during the same period. This amount of death is certainly a humanitarian crisis and continues to be relevant as a cause for Arabic resentment of America for its financial assistance to Israel. It is important to view this Arab-Israeli conflict as laying the groundwork for opposition to western imposition into this region.America’s present occupation of Iraq reveals the actual reason for military intervention in the MiddleEast.             

              Publicly, the Bush administration justified militarily imposing a regime change with the accusation that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction and citing Hussein’s past record of humanitarian atrocities: namely the decision to use chemical weapons on the Kurds, an idea originally explored by the British. In 1920, Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, recommended gassing the Kurds in reaction to a potential uprising. Hussein’s own decision to gas the Kurds in 1988 was only a fulfillment of this recommendation. In fact, in 1988 Hussein had developed close ties with America. He was removed from the list of terrorist states and promoted as “an ally in the war against an ‘Islamic revolution.’[7]” The actual reason for western involvement did not come from Hussein’s implementation of Churchill’s recommendation, or the existence of weapons of mass destruction. America was only interested in a reversal of Iraqi oil industry policy.Attempting to nationalize its oil industry in 1967, Iraq had procured assistance from the Soviet Union and France to develop its North Rumaila oil fields. In exchange for this assistance, long-term oil contracts were confirmed for both of these countries. By 1971, Iraq had successfully nationalized its oil industry forming the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC). Prior to its establishment, the European owned Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) had monopolized this region’s oil industry. Having lost a vast amount of revenue from the nationalization of the Iraqi oil, the IPC threatened to sue any western country involving itself with the newly formed, nationalized company. This policy strengthened Iraqi-Soviet ties, as the Soviets were not responsible to the European shareholders of the IPC. By 1997, Iraq and Iran were the focus of dual containment policies adopted by America to deal with Middle-Eastern rouge states. Western embargos on Iranian and Iraqi oil inspired China, a country also estranged from western influence, to develop its own military and economic relationship with these two countries, adding China to the list of countries willing to buy Iraqi oil.   As William K. Tabb points out in his article, Fumbling the Great Game in Eurasia,[8] there are substantial reasons to believe the military intrusion into Iraq was actually inspired by the dynamics of an oil industry quickly shifting from western control to economic domination by China and Russia. In 2001, Saddam no longer accepted American currency for his oil. Instead, he was encouraged to continue to sell his oil to the countries that didn’t apply external political pressure: China and Russia. Saddam likely understood the true nature of America’s interests, summed up by Thomas Freedom in his article, Bush’s Amazing Achievement: "America's purpose is the same as imperialism's ever was, to allow the foreign power safe and unimpeded access to whatever pickings the plundered nation has to offer."

[9]
              Iran is the first case in point where the ability to rebuff western involvement in domestic and economic affairs has resulted in a more stable geopolitical circumstance. Since the 1979 expulsion of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution and founder of the present-day Islamic Republic, Iran has enjoyed a 27 year period of relative calm and advancing influence amongst the Shiite populations in the Middle-East region. By repudiating all western authority, Iran has moved into a position where it “enjoys great wealth, is the most powerful external influence in Iraq, and holds considerable sway over both Hamas and Hezbollah.[10]” Iran’s abnegation of western influence has enabled it to solidify relations with pro-Shiite neighbours, China and Russia. It has positioned itself as the dominant opposition to western influence in Syria, Lebanon and arguably Iraq. Courting the recently founded Shanghai Cooperation Organization,[11] Iran intends to use this influence in the region to propagate an oil industry that competes directly with the western-owned International Petroleum Exchange and the New York Mercantile Exchange. Rather than accept U.S. currency, Iran intends to sell their oil for Euros, a notion that has neoconservatives in America again advocating a military intervention to reverse this process. In the periphery of Middle-Eastern affairs, Syria and Lebanon bandwagon with who they see sharing their interests: Iran. While this affiliation has been a deterrent to western imposition, it has not prevented conflicts between Israel and Syria. Since November 1970, when Hafiz al-Asad, a member of the Socialist Baath Party, seized power, Syria has been engaged in military encounters with Israel on several occasions. In 1973, Syria joined Egypt and a coalition of Arabic states to attack Israel in what Arabs called the Ramadan War or the October War[12]. While this war held no clear winner, Israel managed to hold on to the Golan Heights, an area of contention, and Egypt followed this conflict by developing a peaceful relationship with Israel. Syria, on the other hand, has maintained its enmity towards Israel and was the recipient of an air strike by them on September 6 2007. The strike, known as Operation Orchard, was reportedly on a nuclear installation undergoing construction by North Korean technicians. While continuing its hostile relations with Israel, Syria has managed to rebuff any western authority that infringed on its sovereignty. This resilience to western imposition can be attributed to its close ties with the Arab League[13] and Iran. Any major threats to Syrian sovereignty would be seen as a direct threat to Iran; therefore, any decision to force western influence on Syria is made much more difficult.

             Lebanon is a country with a history demonstrating disengagement with western ascendancy and the construction of a political system that shares power between the many religious sects within the population. Following World War II, Lebanon was mandated to France after the signing of the Versailles Treaty. In 1948, Lebanon was granted its independence and left to attempt self-determination and self-preservation with the smallest standing army (3500 men) in the Middle East. The military buildup of Israel threatened the sovereignty of this poorly-equipped nation, leading to an ongoing conflict with imported, domestic effects: a civil war from 1970 to 1990 that devastated the country. One of the mechanisms that recently enabled Lebanon to recover some of its external sovereignty was its enrollment in the Ta'if Accord in 1989. One of the principle mandates of this arrangement is to recognize “Lebanon, with its Arab identity, is tied to all the Arab countries by true fraternal relations.[14]” Following entry into this accord, Lebanon has managed to safeguard its security and achieve some recognition by associating itself with a large body of Arabic states. The Ta’if Accord also re-emphasized the sectarian form of government that recognizes Lebanon’s diverse religious demographics. However, internal sovereignty is threatened in Lebanon by the renegade militant Hezbollah factions in the country that act independent of Lebanon’s parliament to launch attacks against an aggressive Israeli military.
While it is ambitious to extrapolate on what will occur in Iraq, and subsequently the Middle East, once America relinquishes control over the country, there are historical precedents in the region from which to draw conclusions. When western powers abandoned similar efforts to dominate Iran, Syria and Lebanon, there followed periods of domestic strife and instability, as in the case of the Lebanese civil war following France relinquishing control over that country. Accompanying this maladjustment has been the augmentation of anti-western Arabic authority, and a willingness to do business with economic adversaries of the west such as China and Russia, as in the case of Iran after the Shah’s expulsion. In Iraq, this will likely take the form of advancing Iranian hegemony as western opposition recedes, allowing them to bring the Shiite population to power by backing Shiite political movements within that country. While Iran is not an official member of the Sunni-dominated Arab League, as recently as 2000[15] they were invited to Arab League meetings as an observer. With an ever-expanding influence in the Middle-East, and a burgeoning nuclear program, this courtship will continue, bringing together a reluctant but necessary affiliation of Sunni and Shiite states to counter western imperialism and economic power. As an Iranian-controlled Iraq and Iranian influence over Syria and Lebanon will create a balanced, bipolar, geopolitical condition pitting a predominantly Jewish Israel against its Muslim neighbours, a period of intense yet stable order should arise. Israel will be deterred from military action against members of this growing security arrangement, particularly when one of the countries in the arrangement has nuclear-strike capabilities. As this group of Muslim nations opposes western influence, this situation will allow China and Russia to secure the oil they need to grow their perspective economies, pacifying any necessity to aggressively pursue other markets. America, alienated from a substantial portion of the Middle-Eastern oil market, will be left to diversify its energy sources. In Peter Beaumont’s article, A Noxious Form of Argument,[16] he opposes Noam Chomsky’s idea that America has become an imperialistic state whose democratic processes are being dismantled by the neoconservatives in power. While Chomsky’s view appears somewhat alarmist, the hidden rationalizations for intruding on Middle Eastern sovereignty seem to justify this reasoning. An aggressive pursuit of oil inspired failed interventionist policies. Now America will be resigned to watch as their efforts do no less than strengthen the Russian and Chinese hold on the Middle Eastern oil they have tried so hard to control.

---

[1]