“That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” Ron Suskind [1] encounters a senior Bush aide on the Bush campaign trail in 2002 [2]

There are an almost bewildering array of factors that have contributed to the generation of conflict in the Middle East since 1945, and although the historical relationship between the different areas of the region is the most significant in its influence, [3] is not part of the remit of this study, so I shall therefore present an interesting paradigm to account for the main contemporary oppositions of the Middle East to United States unilateralist foreign policy and argue that its destabilising advance and presence in the region presents major difficulties for resolution.

In the aftermath of September 11 2001, the architects of the new market driven world order “whispered into the receptive ear” of what Klein (2007) refers to as our “post-trauma consciousness”, to implement its long made plans since 1945, that of Middle Eastern US hegemony, with both political and commercial reach, an ominous “clash of civilisations”, the existence of an “axis of evil”, the rise and influence of “Islamo-fascism”, and the importance of “homeland security”[4]. The latter connected to a bona fide Middle Eastern hot potato, Israel. [5] The existence of this state and the uncompromising hostility of Islam towards it is the most cited as to blame for the contemporary situation, but its position in the war on terror is the most interesting upon which I shall elaborate in the next chapter.

The geo-strategic military importance of the region to the US is one of the reasons for this long-term strategy, which has resulted in the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, mostly attributed to the influence and interests of Big Oil. This in turn highlights the relationships the US has undertaken with oppressive regimes in the region going back decades, and more recently between the two Bush administrations and the rulers of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. All these factors demonstrate US intentions in the region, and are cited as justification for the attacks on US buildings on 9/11.

I shall attempt in this study to explore the interests of the main actors in the region with relation to the unilateralist policy of the US, and why these contribute to conflict in the region since 1945, and how a continuing of this policy is a barrier to resolution.

Israel is in on the game

The conflict between Israel and the Arabs is one of the most profound and protracted conflicts of the twentieth century and the principal percipient of wars in the Middle East. [6]

Israel since its conception has “been regarded by Arabs as an affront and outpost of yet another imperial regime by which the United States will inherit power over the Middle East”[7] as recognised by Calvocoressi (2009), “the state of Israel is as exceptional as its origins.” [8]

US commitment to the survival of Israel is more or less conditional, due to a new mutually dependent economic relationship, that of homeland security.[9] This makes Israel’s position in the war on terror interesting, as for many years it has been at the forefront of the counterterrorism industry, especially in technology, quite fitting for the most fortified state in the world.  Its economy is able to withstand continued conflict, as it profits from its occurrence.[10] In The Shock Doctrine (2007) Klein elaborates that, “Israel continues to enjoy booming prosperity, even as it wages war against its neighbours and escalates the brutality in the occupied territories; they have built an economy based on the premise of continual war worldwide.” [11]

Due to this economic relationship the US does not seek to jeopardize its relations with Israel, despite the continuing conflict and the fact that the Palestinians are still without a state, and Palestinian suffering is cited as the primary justification for 9/11. The Arab citizens of the former occupied Palestine, to whom this special relationship is quite clear, are not afforded the same rights as Israeli citizens, such as the acquisition and holding of land. [12] Three parliamentary bills in particular have caused outrage in Israel in recent months.[13] The true attitude of other powers in the region is striking, rich Arab states have abstained from offering practical assistance to Palestine since its occupation, at odds with the ‘virulence of their anti-Israeli rhetoric.’[14] The reluctance of these states to stand up for their Muslim brothers is because they too have mutually dependent economic relationships with the US, which touch upon later in the study.

Geo-strategic advance and dirty tricks

“Although the stated goal was to fight terrorism, the effect was the creation of the disaster capitalism complex – a full fledged new economy in homeland-security, privatized war and disaster reconstruction tasked with nothing less than building and running a privatized security state, both at home and abroad” [15]

The members of the administration of George W Bush were notable, many from the cabinet of the senior Bush twelve years earlier. [16] The background of these individuals is steeped in geophysical and political exploitation and the defence industry, and includes many long time Washington insiders. [17]

The message from the Bush Administration, “you’re either with us or you are with the terrorists”,[18] and the following significant scaremongering [19] with regard to Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and its alleged associations with Al-Qaeda, were quite deliberate. An excellent example of an earlier indication of the administrations imperial intentions, and strategy of “offensive realism” [20] eleven  months before 9/11, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC)[21] the conservative Washington think-tank, stated in its military plan completed for the Bush campaign in September of 2000 states:

From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region. [22]

At the top of PNAC’s policy agenda was firm support for Israel, ballistic missile defence, high levels of military spending, and the toppling of rogue regimes. When the WTC was struck, we can believe that members of the incoming administration finally saw their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.

The unilateralist approach of the US to gain a strategic foothold ensured that 9/11 and resulting wars have served to justify the build-up of a massive military presence in the region, which “will leave the US in an even more dominant position than before”.[23] There may be a price to pay for attempting to impose a will upon a region such as the Middle East; does the US really believe that the consequences can be contained? As the events of 9/11 show only to clearly, US overseas policy was at odds with its public rhetoric. What made this unilateralist approach different, apart from the fact that pre-emptive war had never before been an accepted part of the US defence doctrine, is the “international and domestic context in which it is being carried out: a shadowy enemy, the absence of a counterweight to US power, the paucity of domestic opposition, and the single mindedness and moral certainty with which the US managed its primacy.” [24]

The US architects of the intervention in Middle Eastern states chose to unleash high-tech violence as the closed economies of the Middle East could not be cracked by peaceful means, not without pro-US governments being in place, and military bases installed from which to protect its interests. Bayliss (2005) emphasises the position of the US since 1945 as being favourable ground for unilateralist policy:

If a one-world economy operating under the same set of highly competitive rules was at least one consequence of the end of the cold war, another was a major resurgence of American self-confidence in a new international system where it seemed to have no serious rival [25]

The lucrative thirty year contracts handed to western oil companies who, under a new law,[26] could take as much of the oil profit out of Iraq as they saw fit, demonstrates the wish of the US to feed off freshly privatized states as the leader of a market driven world order.

Big Oil and our old friends the Saudis

The Middle East, and especially Saudi Arabia, the proprietors of the world’s largest oil field, [27] has oil coming out of its ears, and these economic factors contribute significantly to the onset, persistence, intensity and character of conflicts in and outside of the region since 1945.

Calvocorressi notes that due to new political ideas and aspirations for economic development, a new affluence has created “destabilizing divisions between rich and poor, introducing lifestyles historically and theoretically offensive to traditional Muslim faith, and opened the region up to the influence and interests of powerful state and non-state actors.” [28]

The special relationship between the US administration and Saudi Arabia[29] became more apparent at the release of records that showed that the FBI allowed 160 Saudis[30], including relatives of bin Laden[31] as well as members of the royal family, to fly out of the US after the 9/11 attacks, despite the nationwide closing of airports. It is also known that due to their unpopularity in the region, attributed to their Wahhabi brand of Islam[32] extravagant lifestyles, and ties to the United States,[33] the Saudi royal family have to buy US military protection, which in turn ensures they become even more unpopular.[34]

The increasingly obvious fact that the growing global demand for oil, and the lack of development of any alternative, combined with the fact that two-thirds of the world’s stock lay in the region, no doubt exposed the Middle East to attacks by any country that believed itself powerful enough to take what it wanted, particularly the US. In retaliation Middle Eastern Islam has produced “alarmingly violent movements” to protect its lands and interests from foreign exploitation, which is aided and profited from by its own governments.[35]

The US emphasis on the need for the defence of oil producers such as Saudi Arabia from external threats bypasses the graver problems of domestic instability and political opposition to the ruling monarchy or dictatorship. The tragic events of 9/11 could be viewed as a sign of an emerging commitment to no longer allow the West to exploit those affected by the self serving practices of capitalism and consumption. There is still no clarity of distinction between acts of aggression and acts of resistance. The US and UK should engage these governments on questions of accountability to their citizens and to their constitutions.

9/11 as a lesson

9/11 was made possible due to rapid economic globalisation, by the hand of Al-Qaeda, [36] an “unholy network, hijacked airliners and the terrorist favourite ‘force-multiplier’, primetime, cable and internet weapons of mass distraction and disruption” [37] and the “replacement of state-led development by market-driven free trade that have created new and abundant opportunities for more systematic forms of combatant financing”. [38] Terrorism, it seemed, no longer had to be state sponsored.

This opportunity presented the perfect situation for the US to undertake its ambitious objectives as laid out in the military strategy behind the Bush Doctrine, win the war on terror and undermine rogue states in the region that possess, or might possess, weapons of mass destruction. 9/11 was a gift to the unilateralists, it saw the elevation of neo-con thinking – and gave rise to “a vigorous US nationalism to the intellectual centre. What had been a peripheral policy thrust became the dominant school of thought.” [39]

Even some of what have been perceived to be changes in world politics and international relations with regard to the Middle East since 9/11 are not really new developments at all, [40] the more unilateral approach of the US government has been evident since 1945, the cultural conflict rhetoric pronouncements of both western and Islamic societies has prevailed for some time. Most concerning is the “retreat by states and commentators alike since 9/11 from a commitment to universal codes of human rights.” [41]

The intrastate mode of conflict which has dominated since 1945 has now changed its emphasis from one of “a consideration of depravation and scarcity to an examination of the conflict-promoting aspects of resource abundance”. [42] In this era of globalisation, Bayliss points out, “the incompatibility of states’ goals and interests enhances the competitive nature of an anarchic system and makes conflict as inevitable as cooperation” [43]

Furthermore, as stated by Klein (2007), “an economic system that requires constant growth, while bucking almost all serious attempts at environment al regulation, generates a steady stream of disasters all on its own, whether military, ecological or financial.” [44] These factors that have contributed to a generation of conflict in the Middle East have lead to the current situation in the region. The division of the Arab world and total US hegemony only serve to create further instability.

Appendices

A:  Former Defense Secretary (under H.W Bush) vice-president Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton Inc (geophysics and services) from 1995-2000, and was the most powerful and connected vice-president in history. Halliburton (and its subsidiary KBR) have benefited enormously from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; unsurprisingly not without scandal. In 2003 he continued to hold shares in the company in a charitable trust. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice served on the board of Chevron Oil (they named a tanker after her which has since been renamed), was National Security Advisor for Bush and had served on his father’s Security Council. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, militaristic politicians and ideological members of PNAC during the presidency of H.W Bush; have exerted massive influence in shaping the pre-emptive policy of the Bush Doctrine and the public’s perception of war over decades.

B: The achievement of warfare at an unconscious level[45] that enabled the US to launch military operations is a feature of a globalised world seemingly still employing cold war tactics in achieving its goal; a war of ‘escalating and competing and oppositions’[46]. It is one thing to state publicly who was behind the attacks, but it is quite another to prove in a conclusive manner that Osama bin Laden[47][48] or that Iraq had any involvement with Al-Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission Report later confirmed the absence of a link .[49] The policy of the US in Iraq during the reign of George W Bush, was dominated by self- interest, ideology and opportunism. It became clear quite early on that after the attack on Afghanistan, the next target was Iraq, and not Osama bin Laden, as many would have thought. Toppling Saddam became more important than liberating the Iraqis, or finding weapons of mass destruction.[50] planned, organised and ordered the attacks

C: When Bush assumed the presidency the people who had founded and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the people who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Rampton/Stauber (2003) wrote that “Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin. A number of prominent neo-conservatives serving within the Bush administration formed PNAC which lobbies for increasing US military spending and taking on harder defence policies. Another PNAC founder and current chairman William Kristol is better known as the editor of the Weekly Standard, an influential political affairs magazine underwritten by right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch.” [51]

Bibliography

Ballentine, K & Sherman, J. (Editors). 2003. The Political Economy of Conflict, Beyond Greed and Grievance. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers

Bayliss, J.  and Smith, S. (Editors) 2005. The Globalisation of World Politics, an introduction to international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Booth, K & Dunne, T. 2002. Worlds in Collision, Terror and the Future of Global Order New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brown, C. 2005. Understanding International Relations, New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Buckley, M & Fawn, R. (Editors). 2003. Global Responses to Terror, 9/11, Afghanistan and Beyond. London: Routledge

Calvocoressi, P. 2009. World Politics since 1945, 9th Edition. London: Pearson.

Gurtov, M. 2006. Superpower on Crusade, the Bush Doctrine in US Foreign Policy. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers

Klein, N. 2007. The Shock Doctrine, the Rise of Disaster Capitalism. London: Penguin

Rampton S. and Stauber. J 2003. Weapons of Mass Deception, Robinson.

Unger, C. 2004. House of Bush, House of Saud, The Secret Relationship between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties. New York: Scribner

Warde, I 2007. The Price of Fear Al Qaeda and the Truth Behind the Global War on Terror, I.B Tauris

Woods, N. (Editor). 2004. Explaining International Relations since 1945. New York: Oxford University Press

Donnelly, T. 2000. Rebuilding Americas Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, A Report of The Project for the New American Century