Book review
The Middle East and the United States: History, Politics, and Ideologies is a 560 page book that has a collection of articles written by a carefully selected group of US, European and Middle East diplomats and scholars. Its entire work was edited by two distinguished historians: Professor David W. Lesch, senior Middle East lecturer, Trinity University together with Mark L. Haas, a distinguished political scientist at the University of Duquesne. These are authorities in this area. Besides this book, they are accredited for making other publications like the 1979: The Year That Shaped the Modern Middle East and The Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics, 1989 respectively.
On its part, the 02/08/2011 book published by the prestigious Westview Press has a dimension of 8.9X6.0X1.4 Inches has five editions today with the International Book Standard Number of ISBN 13: 978-0813345291.
This book gives an in depth analysis of the United States of America’s foreign policies regarding the crucial Middle East. This is done right from the early 19th century to the present Barrack Obama administration. Particularly, this new edition gives a more detailed approach by the insertion of five more updated chapters about the relationship between USA and Israel, Iran, Syria and the Al Qaeda terrorists. It also sheds more light on the Bush and Obama regimes.
It is reported that the US interest in this region began immediately after the First World War that occurred between 1939-1945. She wanted to occupy the power vacuum that resulted from the collapse of the then stronger Ottoman Empire.
What would follow was the gradual and abrupt formulation and stringent implementation of foreign policies regarding the demands of this great nation to out do the United Socialist Soviet Republic 9USSR). It is this nation that was perceived as a threat to the US dominance over this oil rich region.
As the book unfolds, US continued to formulate policies that would allow her to adjust to the changing socio-political climate. For instance, her reactions to the 1967 Six Day War made her are in a better position to align herself to Israel, one of the battling countries. This trend continued throughout the cold war period and extended beyond the Gulf War of 1990s. Therefore, it clearly appears that US was out to maneuver at this important time in her history.
James Gelvin introduces the book by highlighting the pos World War I events that inevitably made US to develop an interest in the Middle East. He says that president Woodrow Wilson found it necessary at the France, Italy, Britain and the US, Paris conference to institute the King-Crane Commission to negotiate peace after the dreaded battle in which the former great power: Germany lost 9page 6). This commission was to carry out investigations in Syria and other countries in the region and eventually submit its findings and recommendations back to the group. This actually provoked the US interest to formulate policies that would put her in a position to closely monitor the Middle East affairs.
In chapter two, Paul T.W. Kingston reports on the commitments of the US administration under President Harry S. Truma who later strengthened the US- Middle East relationship through the establishments of diplomatic ties with this region (page 17). Paul says that during his last years in office, President Harry, in 1951, established a Beurut based regional office under the control of a young flamboyant banker called Locke Edwin, Jr. He was granted powers to act as an honorary assistant secretary of state whose major role was to oversee the US foreign economic policies in the Middle East (page 27-28).
Consequently, Mark Gassiorowski traces the unpredicted US ties with the populist Iranian Prime Minister: Muhammad Mussadiq. He reports that Muhammad initially appeared as a darling of the US government particularly after terminating the long period of British dominance in the country. After nationalizing all the industries that were initially under the Britons, he became popular with his people who viewed him as a real nationalist who returned the Iranian lost glory.
Muhammad’s linkage with the US strengthened because, all along, the Iranians had viewed the Americans as well behaved persons; a trait seen in the Iran based US missionaries, archaeologists and teachers. Therefore, the US policy at this time was tilted to condone their cordial ties with Iran (page 46).
However, the US later changed her policies to rule against their former darling whom they engineered his ousting from the helm of the Iranian power. Instead, Mark reports, she supported the new Shah administration. However, this was not taken lightly by the ordinary Iranians who perceived US as an imperialist, contemptuous and a rude nation who was depriving them of their nationalist democrat. Ironically, the US citizens showed discontent with the Iranians’ conduct because they thought they were justified as the long time ‘protectors’ of the Iranians, something they had actually done for more than two decades(page 54). The US- Iranian ties were actually traumatized. Hence, there was a need to formulate appealing policies to heal this wound as reports Susan Siavoshi.
Erika Alin reports that after president Dwight Eisenhower feeling threatened by the emergence of the Moscow allied regime in Lebanon, he chose to adopt a policy that would see his US eliminate this administration and instead, establish a pro western regime.(page 128). The US government openly offered to give this regime military support that would be essential in containing the dissents (page 144).
In page 146, Fawes Gerges reports on the shifting US international policies regarding the Middle East. He gives a clear role of US in the mediation process after the Israeli-Egypt six day war of July 1967. This war made US to openly change her policies in favor of Israel. I think this was heightened based on the fact that the Egyptian wing was becoming a very great ally of the wrangling USSR (page 182).
This situation, as Janice Stein, would later report, led to a flawed strategies aimed at negotiating a joint peace deal.(page 191) therefore, the two super powers under the US secretary of state, Mr. Henry Kissinger and the USSR secretary, Leonid Brezhnev, would later harmonize their foreign policies especially after negotiating a ceasefire on 10/23/1967(page 200).
On the other hand, the United Nations later adopted policies that allowed her to occupy a better position in the Gulf War of 1990-19991. She readily deployed her military forces in the wrangling Middle East countries so that she could consolidate her position and prevent any other power from exerting her dominance in the region.
According to Janice Stein, the then US secretary of state, Mr. Henry with his USSR counterpart, Mr. Leonid Brezhnev was ready to negotiate a cease fire on 23/10/1967(page 446).
Besides, the US later became very serious in trying to defend the Muslim world which had been perceived as a threat to her during this crucial period in her history. Therefore, Washington formulated policies that were put as a priority in helping her to assert her hegemony in the region.
Later in 1988-1990, the United States government shifted focus to Iraq that was under a strong leadership of the dreaded Saddam Hussein. Because of the desire to establish and maintain her friendship with Saddam, Washington tilted its policies to give room for the tolerance of Bagdad’s aggressive conducts of offensive attacks to their enemies in the region.
This made Saddam signed a peace and friendship accord with US even after the Iraq had been a great ally of the USSR. All these, according to Baram Amatzia were meant to eliminate USSR from establishing a strong base in this region. This, as Baram reports, made USA is in a tight position to tolerate Bagdad’s aggressive acts of its offensive attacks to the more ‘subversive’ Iran.
On page 322, Gregory highlights the long time cordial relations between USA and Saudi Arabia. This, he claims, was an opportunistic game that was played tactfully in order to give the Washington administration to play both Iraq and Saudi leaders. More importantly, America found herself in a tight condition of openly declaring their military support to either of the two hostile enemies. Despite all these, the US government still found it comfortable to constantly supply the Saudi administration with fire arms to retaliate the Bagdad’s regular attacks (page 339).
On the other hand, Yair Evron gives a precise account of the Israeli-US collaboration during the Gulf War in which Kuwait was attacked. Says he, US opted to establish close ties with Israel because it was viewed as a possible power through which America would maintain her dominance in this region9page 3470. However, as events unfolded, the already existing rift between Moscow and Washington was intensified in 1990 when US openly stood with Iraq for attacking Moscow (page 372).
however USA later decided to cooperate with the gulf cooperation council (GCC) that consisted of Saudi-Arabia, Roman, United Arabs emirates and Qatar (page 382).this as Gorgiy Mirsky argues, was meant to fulfill US strategic commercial defense political and strategic interest in the region. Late reports by Yvonne Haddad shows the later perception of US and her relationship with Muslims Al-Qaida Israel, and other groups from the middle East.
Finally the book gives a detailed analysis of President Bush and Barrack Obama’s foreign policies towards the Middle –East. It is clear that their relationship with the Muslim has deteriorated especially after the death of Saddam Hussein and the September 9th attack on USA. Similarly president Obama has also launched offensive campaign against the Al-Qaida, an exercise that has been perceived as an attack on the entire Muslim world.
Having looked at all this, I would like to commend the two editors for the production of a good book that will shed more light not only to the Americans, but to all the people who may be interested in understanding more about the long staggering relationship between the United States of America and the Middle East.
Actually, this is a must read book because it unwisely gives a clear analysis of these historical events. This clearly opens our mind to deeply make out the reasons why this great nation is both hated and loved by all the people from all corners of the globe.
Besides, it is worth reading because it helps people to understand the successes of USA and their efforts made on the Middle East over the years. This definitely helps in making us to understand the reasons behind the recent and up to date US-Muslim, Al Qaeda, Israel and Arab
However, I would like to condemn the writers for showing a lot of national jingoism in their entire work. Even if we all understand that the US policies regarding the Middle East is an opportunistic one aimed at exploiting their oil resources, the two editors do, not come strongly to rebuke this conduct. Instead, they only portray US intensions as well informed and aimed at liberating the region.
I think the US tendency of playing one power against another one was ill informed and should not be viewed as imperial. The US throughout her interactions with this region did not show any commitment in liberating them as they were claiming. Therefore, the writers and editors of this otherwise invaluable book ought to have treated this cautiously.
Therefore, I suggest that this book was supposed to be written from a critical point of view. This could definitely put it in a position to give us a clear picture making it appeal not only to the ‘imperial’ Americans, but also to the downtrodden Arabs.
References
Adelson, Roger (1995). London and the Invention of the Middle East: Money, Power, and War, 1902-1922. Yale University Press.
Anderson, R., Seibert, R., & Wagner, J. (2006). Politics and Change in the Middle East (8th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Barzilai, Gad. (1996). Wars, Internal Conflicts and Political Order. State University of New York Press.
John Barry, From Drug War to Dirty War: Plan Colombia and the U.S. Role in Human Rights Violations in Colombia, 12 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 161, 164 (Spring, 2002)
George C. Herring, ''From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776 (2008)
Lewis, Bernard. The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years. New York: Scribner, 1995.
