The Role Of The Great Power Involvement In The Middle East

The wars of the Middle East over the past one hundred year are very complicated. When the Ottoman Empire chooses the losing side in WWI, then France and Britain started drawing new borders to the region as a result of the Sykes Picot agreement. After WWII, the United States intervened its force to change the governments of countries in the Middle East. Now, the same behaviors have been continued by the major powers in the world for their own interests, as stated by Jeffrey D. Sachs, the special advisor to the Secretary General of the United Nations on the Millennium development

Things move so far and so fast in the Middle East that some of the pieces here already seem like distant history just a year or two after happening and being written. If Iran, in 2013, ‘felt that the economic pressure and the credible threat of military intervention were to threaten its very survival, it might, just as Assad did with the chemical weapons, go as far as give up the entire nuclear program altogether.’ Before 2014 started was a relatively peaceful time. But of course, we know now that the West will never make such a threat, that the mullahs will have their way, and that the Americans are in retreat amidst the confused ruins of their policies as the Russians move in.

In the post -World War II era, the competition of global supremacy between the superpowers of the time, United States and the Soviet Union resulted in the Cold War. Many countries in the world were pulled into this rivalry including many of the states of the Middle East. Allies against the Soviet Union received substantial quantities of United States aid and were encouraged to purchase weapons of Western means. Those who were in opposition to the United States’ power received economic and military assistance from the Soviet Union. The United States were inclined to view the rivalry between them and the Soviet Union as a vie for global supremacy. The challenge of attaining democracy in the Middle East has been insufficient leadership specifically in those who shared a common border and were in proximity to the Soviet Union. The United States, in their determination to impede the threat of expansion of the borders of the Soviet Union as well as contain the spread of communion, provided economic and military assistance to keep Iran, Iraq and Turkey politically stable. Although this was the goal of the United States, they actually impeded the democracy and political stability of these countries through its persistent influence in government affairs, determining its future’s livelihood.

Conflict between the U.S. and the Middle East has gone on for too long. Starting in the reagan administration and continuing until now. In the book “Fool’s Errand” Scott Horton, the author, writes about what has caused this conflict to last so long and why the U.S. is involved anyway. Horton believes that the problem in the Middle East will get worse before it gets better, and that it will last for generations to come.

The legacies left behind as a result of post-world war 1and 2 has caused tremendous problems that still occur in the twenty-first century. The carving of formal Palestine has fueled issues between ethnicities in the present day states known as: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. As a result, promises that were made prior to the war, of what lands would be awarded to the negotiating actors had been broken; the Sunni/Shia conflict in the present day, was also the result of Sunni leaders in the in the 1920s. In this paper, you will see how these conflicts have grown over time.

All The Shah’s Men is a historical account written by Stephen Kizner that reconstructs the American backed Iranian coup of 1953. I chose to read this book because I am interested in America’s role in Middle Eastern history and current affairs. One of the many reasons to place this book on a high-school American history-reading list is that it provides key insight into a quintessential example of US involvement in the politics of other independent countries. This book is important to American history because it narrates a turning point in US foreign policy and the Middle East. Unfortunately, the compelling description of the events in Iran are used to draw tenuous conclusions about the root cause acts of Jihadist violence directed against

interests between great powers with a million causalities. Either in 1980s or today in twenty-first century, the controversy of US involvement in the Middle East never stops.

The Middle East region has been seeing and absorbing the effects of war and poverty for decades. The United States (U.S.) has provided support in the past to assist the Middle East, and that has been quite successful. For this reason, the U.S., a world superpower, should be directly involved in ending conflict in the Middle East because they possess a capable military, the global economy is directly affected by the Middle East, and the U.S. is capable of peaceful mediation between conflicted areas in the Middle East. The Middle East is a region that has constantly been involved in warfare, and the U.S. has taken appropriate measures to ensure that peace was possible, even in this war-stricken area. The U.S. has also provided aid in regard to the oil reserves in the Middle East, which are significant to global development. This protection allows the industry to continue, and it benefits nations around the world. Lastly, the U.S. has successfully mediated discussion between conflicted nations, like Egypt and Israel, to achieve a common goal that set them on a path for peace. While there are many reasons the U.S. should be involved, one of the most direct reasons is military capability.

The United States and the Western Coalition has long looked at the Middle East as an asset with little risk high reward potential. They have all looked at them as high reward low risk a region that in contrast, has an abundance of natural resources in particular oil with very underwhelming population. Even if they had a product that could reach out and touch the masses the internal struggles and lack of cohesion and structure to get out of the region. Both the United States and Western coalition watched the struggles intervened when necessary and when a reward could reaped even if it was a better deal on the oil prices to actual occupation of land. The intervention, however did began to elevate and inflate the

Brown’s “Rules of the Eastern Question Game provided an interesting approach to the politics and diplomacy in the Middle East. What became of the poorly crafted agreements by Western powers have been long-lasting wars and conflicts that defined the Middle East and its inhabitants except Israel, of course. These rules made or gave: Western powers, eventually the United States too, the powerbrokers that partially dictate political decisions in regional conflicts; desire to establish Western style democracy; supports for oppressed government that control radicalism; and the ability to realign their political interests when political powers

From as early as 1953 with the assistance in the coup to overthrow then Iranian leadership to the killing of Bin Laden, we see that America has had a hand in the Middle East and as fig.1 demonstrates and if to be believed, the problems that now find need for policies, competencies and leadership had the helping hand of the United Staten in creating the dis function in the region; as Malcolm X would so eloquently state “the chickens are finally coming home to roost.”

Throughout history the Middle East has been home to some of the most powerful and influential empires in the world. As with all great empires they did not arise without difficulty. Though the Middle East has had periods of great prosperity, it has also had periods of poverty and stagnation. Within the last one hundred years the Middle East has seen many changes relating to borders, religions, and international politics. Much of the changes that have happened originated from diverse ways of thinking especially when it comes to religion and culture. Conflicts that occur in the Middle East such as Israel, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan have monumental effects on the global economy predominately due to the massive oil industry in the region and competition between outside nations trying to expand influence.

This essay analyses the reasoning behind the difficulty of solving intra-state conflicts. First, it examines the nature of Intra-State Conflicts, defining their origins and clarifying the different types. The Arab Spring serves as the case in point to elucidate the problem. Furthermore, it is necessary to describe the role of international actors in preventing as well as solving intra-state conflicts. Interventionism, as a conflict management tool will be empirically assessed. This essay argues that there are still imperialist characteristics in the behaviour of Western States, by emphasising upon NATO foreign policy conducted in response to the Arab Uprising. The biased interventions in intra-state conflict by international actors are highlighted as to why such conflicts are so difficult to resolve. Concluding, it is remarked that ethnic, religious and cultural tension within states, as well the friction between whole civilizations are a significant factor for the complicated nature of intra-state conflicts.

There is no dispute that the Middle East, for the past century, has been a region plagued with tension and conflict. Differences in religion and ethnicity have been the source for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the progression of those issues have shown very little evidence of slowing down as the bloodshed continues. Many parties on the global scale fear that the combination of evolving technology and weaponry, and desire to harness nuclear power, is fueling the hatred that some of the countries in the area have for one another and will eventually lead to an extremely disastrous nuclear war. As a result, international global organizations, such as the United Nations, have been working to prevent such an outcome. They are

the conflict in the middle east between 1948-1973 was not purely fuelled by the interest and concerns of the superpowers but rather of a series of conflictual incidents, aswell as the main wars that took place from the years from 1948-1967 such as the: 1948 War, The Six Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973. But although the conflict was not fuelled by the superpowers, the influence of the superpowers and the reach of the superpowers into the Middle East was evident in the years both prior and following 1978. But even despite the influence and interests of the superpowers between and including 1948-1967 being undeniably evident, the extent of this influence cannot be said to have “fuelled the conflict”.