In my previous civic issues blogs, I have built a context on what happened in the Middle East during the first half of the last century. First, I started talking about the King-Crane Commission, which was a commission established by President Woodrow Wilson to survey designated areas in the Middle East that would be affected by the creation of a Jewish state there. The King-Crane Commission saw a problem ahead in the creation of a Jewish State. However, the commission was not released on time, and Israel was created. The creation of the Jewish State has created tension between Israel and other Arab countries. The tensions between those countries are still present, and the question of if it could have been avoided remains unknown.

Later in my other blog, I mentioned how the United States after WWII became the world hegemon and began to play a major role in shaping the Middle East. Within this new role, I spoke of two specific foreign policies: the Truman Doctrine and Eisenhower. These two doctrines had a role in shaping the Middle East by supporting countries that opposed communism.

For some instance, United States foreign policies had been doubted of their true intentions. Two examples of this would be the Iranian coup in 1953, and the oil embargo in 1973. Even though these are different, all are controversial.

The Iranian coup in 1953 serves as an example of this. It was the year 1940 when a committed Mohammad Mossadeq led a movement to take control of the oil industry in Iran. The oil was controlled by a majority British-owned company that had a better oil deal than the host country. In the year 1951, Mohammad Mossadeq got elected by the Iranian parliament as Prime Minister of Iran. In March of the same year, he nationalized the oil industry. The monarch of the time (Shah) removed him from power. However, the people reacted negatively to his removal. So, he was soon reinstalled in power. The United Kingdom and the United States did not like this. After this, London placed a worldwide embargo on Iranian oil, and the Western powers began to plot a plan to remove the Prime Minister from power. Shortly, the CIA, British Intelligence, and the Shah had a plan to remove him. It was not only oil that concerned the Western powers but also, they feared Mossadeq was growing closer to communism. After removing him from power, the U.S. received control of 40% of Iran’s oil. In this situation, the U.S. stopped democracy from happening, given that after taking Mossadeq from the power they placed the royalty in power, in this case, the Shah. This example proves that the United States has had its mistakes in the Middle East. One of the main tenets of U.S. policy has been establishing democracy, but in this case, they got in the way of it. One could say the oil was the main driver for the U.S. to do this. However, they were also worried about Mossadeq growing closer to communism. So, the true driver remains unknown.

The October War is another example of this. It was 1967 when Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula. Nations involved in the region, Egypt and Syria, believed that the only solution to make Israel move its troops was to attack it. In a joint attack, both countries attacked Israel. The Soviet Union backed Arab countries with weapon supplies. Egypt and Syria caught Israel off guard and almost win.  It was not until the U.S. intervention that Israel was able to regain the upper hand in the conflict. Just like the Soviet Union, the U.S. supplied weapons and military aircraft to Israel. After a long-time finding resolution for the current conflict, finally, an agreement was reached. But what did the United States’ involvement in this conflict mean? First, it was the closest time the U.S. was to get involved in a conflict with the Soviet Union since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Second, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) put an oil embargo against Washington and its allies, crippling the U.S. economy in 1973. However, it served as an awakening for America. to not rely on too much oil from the Middle East. In the future, the U.S. reduced its dependency on Middle Eastern oil.

The role of the United States in the Middle East underwent a remarkable evolution. It went from being a nation without a voice in foreign policy to become the main actor in shaping the region. It went from a nation with no say in foreign policy to become the principal actor in shaping the region.  It was as if the United States were the world police. The path was not free of obstacles. Becoming the main actor in Middle East policy entailed many responsibilities and consequences, and often the United States was judged for every decision made. It looked like the United States has been in a complicated position while treating the Middle East situation. There have been some successes and mistakes, and undoubtedly oil has been a driver in foreign policy action. I could argue that the United States took the best decisions possible for them under the given circumstances.

Geopolitics in the Middle East have been interesting for the last century and still are. New policies continue to shape the region. However, now the region is more autonomous from Western countries. Middle Eastern countries are now the ones who are shaping the growth of the region. Furthermore, the United States’ withdrawal from the region is opening new opportunities and threats for the Middle East. From now on, I believe we will see less participation of Western powers in the region, and more participation of emerging Asian powers and, of course, countries in the region like Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Iran.

References:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/arab-israeli-war-1973

Lectures from PLSC 267N

In the last blog, I talked about the King-Crane Commission and how it was one of the first policies in the Middle East that have contributed to shaping the region into its actual form. In the King-Crane Commission, the United States had little to nothing to appeal to other countries like Great Britain and France at that time. However, in the years ahead of that event, the United States became a major actor in Middle Eastern policy. That is why in this blog I’m going to discuss one of the roles the U.S. had in shaping the Middle East during the 20th century. It is important to remember that after the end of World War II, the world was divided by two major hegemonies: the United States of America and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). This rivalry was a major factor the U.S. took into consideration for its foreign policies during that time. This era known as the Cold War lasted from 1946 to 1991. Surely, this rivalry affected the entire world, but in this blog, I will explain how it affected the Middle East in specific.

The shape of the Middle East after the Commission was always in flux, having European countries as the main actors regarding policies. The period between the Commission and the start of the Cold War was a period for European “colonies” in the Middle East. It wasn’t until after WWII that many Middle Eastern countries gained independence from their European colonizers. Despite many countries gaining their independence, the Middle East only turned into a battleground for the Cold War. This is known as the Arab Cold War. The Arab Cold War happened mainly for the retreat of nations like France and Great Britain, the process of decolonization, oil, and many geostrategic locations. This created a vacuum that would be filled by the two rival economic systems and nations: the USA (Capitalism) and USSR (Communism).

In fact, in March of 1947, the United States would create the Truman Doctrine which consisted of giving financial, political, and military assistance to any state who was threatened by Soviet-backed communist forces. The first time this policy was put into action was after the British Government declared that it would no longer aid Greece and Turkey as the former nation was in a civil war against the Greek communist party and the latter also depended on British aid. Truman asked Congress for $400,000,000 worth of aid, and the dispatch of civilian and military personnel and equipment to the region. Truman argued that a victory of the Greek communist party in Greece would endanger the political stability of Turkey, and at the same time, endanger the political stability of the Middle East. The U.S. could not let this happen given the strategic importance of the Middle East for U.S. national security. In essence, the Truman doctrine became, according to the Office of The Historian, “the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” This was the first time the United States changed its foreign policy stand from withdrawing from non-U.S. conflicts to possibly intervening in far-away conflicts. This event set apart a new era for future U.S foreign policy. This then led to the formation of other organizations like NATO and other treaties. In the Arab world, these treaties would represent a means for Arab nations to utilize the hegemons rivalry to their benefit. The U.S. and the USSR would form any alliances with local nations without considering long-run repercussions.

Another example of U.S. foreign policy that intimately relates to the Truman Doctrine is the Eisenhower doctrine. This doctrine was born after a conflict in Egypt known as the Suez Crisis in 1956. To give a little background on this it is necessary to go back a few decades. Despite Egypt being under the Ottoman Empire, British forces had occupied the territory since 1882. It wasn’t until 1922 that Great Britain gave them nominal independence, restraining themselves from intervening in certain situations. In 1936, Great Britain pledged to withdraw all forces from Egypt except for the Suez Canal until 1956. However, Great Britain used Egypt for military operations during WWII with the pretext that Egypt would gain independence after the end of the war. Nonetheless, this didn’t happen, and after a coup in 1953, the Republic of Egypt was established, having Gamal Abdel Nasser as the President.

Nasser brought a sentiment of emancipation known as Nasserism which was a political movement advocating for all Arab unity. Nasser intending to renovate its arsenal bought $200 million worth of weapons from Soviet Czechoslovakia. This action raised alarms in Washington. Then the U.S. tried to block the financing they were using to build a dam. To this Egypt responded by nationalizing the Suez Canal. This was a major hit for France, and Great Britain because they heavily relied on the canal for oil shipments. In October 1956, the “Tripartite Alliance” (Great Britain, France, and Israel) tried to take the Sinai Peninsula (Suez Canal) by force. The Tripartite Alliance succeeded, but it was not a victory for the U.S. as they were not notified of this attack. Furthermore, this only provoked Egypt to grow closer to the Soviet Union. That’s why the U.S. had to reestablish its foreign policy in the Middle East. The Eisenhower Doctrine was this new policy and it stated, according to the Office of the Historian, “to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism.”

These policies affected the Middle East not with direct intervention, but with the Balance of Power Theory that consisted of different alliances within the Arab countries. The Eisenhower doctrine indirectly helped to divide the Arab world into two blocks. On one side were the pro-Soviet Arab countries. On the other side were the pro-West countries. This division has been reflected throughout the time when conflicts of interest arise. These divisions are still present as some countries still fight for self-determination.

References:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/truman-doctrine

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/eisenhower-doctrine

Lectures from PLSC 267N

In today’s blog, I’m going to talk about a historic event that could have changed history – King-Crane Commission. However, it didn’t and now it is only a reminder of what could have been. To give more context on this event, I’m going to start by describing what it could have prevented, and that is multiple conflicts in the Middle East, but primordially, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is globally known that both sides have been in tension for a few decades. There have been many wars between them that have ended in the destruction and reconfiguration of territories. Recently, both sides engaged in military action. In May 2021, Hamas launched several rockets towards Jerusalem claiming that Israel didn’t pull out their police from the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the deadline accorded. The conflict was a result of Palestinian children throwing rocks at Israeli police officers and civilians, and then, police officers intervening. It is needed to mention that this happened in Jerusalem and the motive for the children to throw rocks was that Israelis were celebrating their invasion to the Eastern part of the city in 1967. This incident unchained an eleven-days-long conflict between Palestinian militants and the Israel Defense Forces where both suffered losses, and both claimed victory.

Now that we have the recent conflict in mind, it is worth going back to the early 20th century and getting a little background on the region. The Ottoman Empire was one of the greatest in the whole history as it ruled large areas for more than 600 years. The empire had holdings in many territories in the Middle East by 1914. In that same year, the Ottoman Empire signed a treaty with Germany, joining the Central Powers in WWI. With that information, you can see that the Middle East was an area under the control of another nation.

Additionally, is also worth getting more background on the Zionist movement. This movement was originated at the end of the 19th century and had as a goal the establishment of a national home for Jews in Palestine all guaranteed by public law. The leader of the Zionist Federation in Britain reached out to the government to ask for their support. It was in 1917 when British officials emitted the Balfour declaration in which they stated their support for them. Consequently, after the end of WWI, the Ottoman Empire was dismantled, and Britain supported Zionist’s movement by establishing a home for them in Palestine.

As you can see, this is where the current conflict was born. In Palestine, at that time the vast majority were Arabs and Christians, you can imagine that Jews compromised very little (about 10%) to the religious diversity. Furthermore, for the British to give the Jews their nation in Palestine, they had to give their back to Arabs who they had signed treaties before too. So, it was an adverse environment for Jews. This conflict was born in a secret treaty and a lack of consensus over an important decision. But could this have been different?

During the 1919 Peace Conferences hosted in Paris, British officials saw themselves overwhelmed by the Zionist delegation and the Arab delegation as both wanted their treaties to be honored. At that moment, the United States didn’t have much presence in the world. However, Woodrow Wilson had the answer: an inter-Allied commission. The commission was intended to be between the United States, Britain, and France, but later they opted out only remaining the United States. President Woodrow Wilson appointed Henry C. King and Charles R. Crane to co-chair the commission. The commission intended to get a sincere opinion of the inhabitants regarding the Balfour declaration. Wilson instructed the Commission “to acquaint itself as intimately as possible with the sentiments of the people of these regions with regards to the future administration of their affairs” (Grossi et al. Restoring Lost Voices of Self-Determination). The commissioners were set to travel through the entirety of the Ottoman Empire but focused on the non-Turkish regions of Cilicia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. However, they were forced to make this quickly because of the urgency of the matter, so the commissioner limited themselves to Syria and Palestine. What they found made them go back as soon as possible. In their findings, they concluded that the vast majority (72%) rejected the Zionist movement. However, the report was published two years later. At that time, the Peace Treaties were over.

Could this report have prevented the ongoing conflict in the Middle East? I’m not sure, but the United States did right by trying to get an answer from the population. But maybe they couldn’t do much as they were not seen as a power in comparison to other European nations. Later in the century, the U.S. become the main power and they got the position to influence other nations.

This piece of history raises many questions. However, it is difficult to know if things could have been different. But one thing is sure: this is a battle for self-determination. On one hand, it was the land that Arabs have been inhabiting for a long time, but they spent a lot of that time under the Ottomans’ dominion. On the other hand, there is the Zionist movement trying to get back to their promised land. Both sides have many drivers for their cause, and there’s not a way to say which one is the purest. Nonetheless, I consider that being informed is the best way to get an opinion on the matter.

Resources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2021/05/10/hamas-fires-rockets-into-israel—and-threatens-to-launch-more—as-tensions-escalate/?sh=21e3b0576312

https://www.britannica.com/topic/King-Crane-Commission

https://www2.oberlin.edu/library/digital/king-crane/intro.html

Lectures from PLSC 267N

test