III. Dependence of the Gulf states on external security guarantees
The previous part of the essay mostly focused on internal political dimensions of instability and conflict in the Arab part of the Gulf. Other factors of instability in the Gulf belong to the systemic level of the Gulf subregion. One of these factors is the existing regional security architecture, which fosters dependence on the U.S. to provide means of defence and deterrence.
Part of the issue is that U.S. security guarantees result in lack of consensus and cooperation among the Gulf states themselves, which ultimately fuels conflict. It could be argued that American security commitments and lack of cooperation are mutually reinforcing and form a vicious circle. According to this logic, the weaker the consensus among states, the higher tensions, which in turn increases the demand for more external security. But the more intense the presence of external actors, the higher is the toll on the consensus. Simply put, the more the region relies on U.S. security guarantees, the less safe and stable it becomes.
An instructive example of why Gulf states require security guarantees is the case of Kuwait, as in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion Kuwait was forced to balance between Iran on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia on the other, and in order to resist, the Kuwaiti authorities called for the intensification of its partnership with the Americans. Most small Arab states of the Gulf find themselves in the same situation in the face of Saudi dominance in the GCC and territorial claims coming from Iran, which means that for them security guarantees are just as vital.
This, however, has two negative consequences. Firsly, the intensification of U.S. security guara...
... middle of paper ...
...n University Press, 1984.
3. Dessouki A., Korany B. The Foreign Policy of Arab States. – Westview Press, 1991.
4. Doran M.S. The Saudi Paradox. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59530/michael-scott-doran/the-saudi-paradox
5. Gause G. Oil Monarchies: Domestic and Security Challenges in the Arab Gulf States. – Council on Foreign Relations, 1994.
6. Halliday F. Islam and the myth of confrontation. – I. B. Tauris, 2003.
7. Haseeb K. Arab-Iranian Relations. – Centre For Arab Unity Studies, 1998.
8. House K. E. On Saudi Arabia. – Alfred A. Knopf, 2012.
9. Moore W. P. Rentier Fiscal Crisis and Regime Stability: Business-State Relations in the Gulf.
10. Sick G., Potter L. The Persian Gulf At the Millenium: Essays in Politics, Economy, Security and Religion. – New York, 1997.
11. Wendt A. Anarchy Is What States Make Of It. c.ucsc.edu/~rlipsch/Pol272/Wendt.Anarch.pdf
In the novel War and Peace In the Middle East, author Avi Shlaim argues that Arab nations have been unable to escape the post-Ottoman syndrome. In particular he describes how the various powers inside and outside the region have failed to produce peace. While some of Shlaim's arguments hinder the message, I agree with his overall thesis that the Middle East problems were caused and prolonged by the failure of both powers and superpowers to take into account the regional interests of the local states.
The relations between the U.S and the Middle East are strained at best. The troops deployed in the area face constant threat of attack by a militant group. These broken relations between the U.S and the Middle East started over 50 years ago, with the Iran Hostage Crisis. Root causes of the crisis were many. One was U.S greed over oil in Iran. The second, the coup in Iran organized and funded by the CIA. The U.S dependence on foreign oil is another cause of the problems. Lastly, should the U.S stop moving into other countries sovereign lands and trying to “Prevent the evil of communism”, the nation would not have so many problems around the world. This worry was even shown in Iran (Kinzer, 10). While often blamed on radicals, the strained relations between the U.S and the Middle East are a direct result of a poor US foreign policy.
The Middle Eastern has developed a lot of economic success with the authoritarianism government they’ve established. To some people, if they are economically stable, they’re willing to endure the hardships of being lead under a dictator. Countries like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are flourishing in the oil business, which keeps them wealthy and involved in international relations. To the citizens of the Middle East, this makes their country look powerful because even with the Western’s opposing ideologies, they’re still working with the Middle East. This is sending the wrong message because even though the western countries have to cooperate and show political support with the Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries. Situations like these give the citizens a positive outlook of how their country is being conducted and support their governme...
“One Arab nation from Gulf to the Ocean,” gives meaning to the term “Pan-Arabism” in the Middle East. A notion where Arab nations transcend their state boundaries to form political mergers with other states and achieve an ‘Arab unity.’ The existence of Arab states had been tumultuous throughout the decline of the Muslim order, the end of the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinian defeat, Six Day War and Arab-Israeli war in 1973. This essay will critically examine Foud Ajami’s case for a raison d’état in the Middle East and his claim that there were six broad trends leading to the alteration of the balance of power away from Pan-Arabism and towards the state. It will be argued that Pan-Arabism was a romantic ideology that Arab states found convenient to support, all in advancement of their nationalistic state agendas. It was never a realistic endeavor that was physically undertaken by the Arab states and was thus never alive in a tangible sense. However, Pan-Arabism as an ideology had a place in the Middle East and was thus alive in an ideological sense.
El-Shazly, N. E. (1998). The Gulf tanker war: Iran and Iraq's maritime swordplay. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Although the United Sates and Saudi Arabia present the United States and Saudi Arabia’s relationship as excellent, there are actually two nations who have bitter disagreements but who allies through oil. The only thing that has held this alliance together is the US dependence on Saudi oil. The United States has felt and still fells that it is a necessity to have bases present in the Middle East to protect oil, and silently to protect Israel. The relationship began in 1933 when Standard Oil of California signed an agreement with the Saudi government. In 1943 FDR affirmed that the defense of Saudi Arabia was a vital interest to the United States and moved troops into the region. Future presidents would emulate this declaration and mobilization of troops to Saudi Arabia. Again in 1945 Abd al Aziz, the Saudi king, and FDR would cement this alliance, on a US warship in the Suez Canal. Soon after, airfields were constructed at Dhahran and other spots over Saudi Arabia; beginning a long tradition of US military facilities in Saudi Arabia. Abd al Aziz was the first of his line of successors to meet with US presidents. The relationship was only strengthened with the onset on the Cold war, as the US used the bases in Saudi Arabia as potential air force launch sites to the USSR and constructed more military facilities. In 1941 Harry S. Truman made another assertion of Americas protection and alliance with Saudi Arabia to Abd Al Aziz. Truman stated that “support for Saudi Arabia’s territorial integrity and political independence was a primary objective of the United States.” (Countrystudies.com) Another stipulation of this pact was that the US established a permanent military training mission in the Saudi Arabia. That mission lasted until 1992. Soon after the pact between Truman and Aziz was agreed upon the US-Saudi relationship would endure its first major disagreement. On May 14th, 1948 Israel was declared an independent state in the former Arab dominated Palestine. Israel’s independence was backed the United States. Saudi Arabia refused to acknowledge the country of Israel and to engage in any relations with them. The Saudis concerns of the Israel-US relationship were reinforced in the 1970’s and 1980’s when the US sold arms to Israel, but refused to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. In some cases congressional leaders refused to sell arms to Saudi Arabia on the grounds that Saudi Arabia might use them against Israel.
Lewis, Bernard. The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years. New York: Scribner,
Griffith, William E. “The Revial of Islamic Fundamentalism: the Case of Iran.” International Security. Volume 4, Issue 1, 1979, 132-138.
This paper will discuss the history of the Houthis and the Yemeni government, the regional instability it causes and implications to the United States. This paper will also discuss consequences that will ensue if these issues continue to go unresolved and there is increas...
The article, “Why Is There So Much Conflict in the Middle East?” written by Mirjam E. Sørli et. al corresponds a great deal with the text Politics and Change in the Middle East as far as the reasons for conflict in the Middle East. Sørli et. al disputes the idea of “Middle East exceptionalism,” which says that there is something different about Middle Easterners that make them prone to violence and conflict (142). Sørli et. al says this is not true, but rather there are very simple reasons as to why there has been conflict in the Middle East. As stated, the lack of regional natural resources such as water, oil, and arable la...
Gerner, Deborah J., and Philip A. Schrodt. "Middle Eastern Politics." Understanding the contemporary Middle East. 3rd ed. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008. 85 -136. Print.
Political uprisings in the Middle East, especially in Muslim nation states have placed Arabian politics back on the focus point of international politics. Political events in certain Arab countries had an excessive impact on the political development of other neighboring states. Resistances and anxieties within different Arab countries triggered unpredictable actions, sometimes sorely to observe and believe. The authoritarian governments of Arabian countries led from various dictators have created a precarious situation for their people, especially in providing national security and maintaining peace in the region. Jack Goldstone argues that the degree of a sultan’s weakness has been often only visible in retrospect; due in part to the nature of the military-security complex common across Middle East states (Goldstone 1). In addition, the existence of various statesmen with political affiliation is concerned in faithfulness of its armed forces. Usually, the armed national forces of several states, mainly those in Arab countries are loyal and closely affiliated to their leaders, which have a major role in state regimes. Arab uprisings in their early spreading appeared legally responsible and with concrete demands from representatives’ peoples, calling for a more open democratic system and reasonable governance. Even though, the system in which popular frustration with government imposes alters considerably from one state to another. These public revolts against different authoritative governments didn’t halt just in Arab states, but they sustained also in the Far East and in the Eastern Europe. Can we say that the popular uprisings in Arab countries could be attributed to the term of globalization? In fact, globalization is a multi...
Iraq’s non-cooperation with inspection agencies by obstructing the inspection from 1997 to 2002 resulted in massive international pressure and strengthening the USA’s doubts on Iraq. The apprehension between the USA and Iraq can be considered decisive, since the USA alleged Iraq as a threat to global stability.... ... middle of paper ... ... Most of the regional actors discarded the U.S. policy towards Iraq with varying intensity as they feared insecurity after Iraq’s disintegration (Reuters, 2003). Jordan decided not to endanger its rewarding ties with Washington. Another key actor at this level is the Baathi party in Iraq which was based on tribal division, domestic oppression and economic enticement.
...Arabia is a petrostate. Oil dominates the national economy, international exports, and the nation’s politics. It has greatly shaped what the kingdom is today. Having started out as somewhat of a tourist economy, the kingdom has become a world, monetary power. From their massive amounts of oil and extremely cheap production, the country has been able to gain large amounts of affluence and political power. With its large abundance of oil, the country has been able to profit immensely on sales and spur diplomatic outcomes to their benefit due to the great need of the resource. Without the discovery oil, Saudi Arabia would be of little importance in the modern world, having the Grand Mosque be the extent of its importance. But because of its discovery of oil, Saudi Arabia became of international importance, coming to be one of the greatest assets to world superpowers.
...nd Politics." Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa. Ed. Philip Mattar. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 890-895. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.