Omar Abdulkader Kriedie Iran: Past and Present 8 June 2011

Hegemony and Middle East: Yesterday to Tomorrow

Abstract The information presented will argue that American foreign policy is one of the most crucial factors shaping politics in the Middle East. Also, since interests within the Middle East are so great because of its strategic location, militaristic aggression could very easily be taken by hegemonies if democracy takes hold. The reason is since democracy requires for a government to subordinate itself to the will of the people, effectively removing subordination by any hegemonic system. The interests of the masses would take hold, thereby taking precedent over the interest of hegemonies. Thus, any threat to the flow of oil, arguably one of America s main interests in the region, could lead to US military aggression if the Arab Spring threatens to follow through--large-scale conflict is expected to occur. Also, Iran s rise to preeminence in the region would have the same consequences. A historical progression and analysis of: hegemony and power, origins of hegemonies and America s role as one in the Middle East, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran s roles as the main players under such a hegemonic framework, and finally the rhetorical tactics

used, will provide the context for the final conclusion. Ultimately, power can be seen acting on what is most strategically beneficial for its very legitimacy. Section I: Introduction to Hegemony and Power We believe no more in Bonaparte s fighting merely for the liberties of the seas, than in Great Britain s fighting for the liberties of making. The object is the same, to draw on themselves the power, the wealth, and the resources of other nations. Thomas Jefferson

Domination of one country over another has been a theme in human history that has existed for millennia. This can be seen from the time of Nubian domination over Egypt in 1200 BCE, as with Spartan s over the Peloponnesian League, and Persia s over the known world in 336 BCE. Although such domination has occurred across different eras, time-spans, and regions of the world-some more frequently than others-certain basic themes have existed throughout. In order to understand these themes one must be familiar with the more acute term to describe group-group domination on a national level: hegemony. The political, economic, ideological, and or cultural power exerted by a dominant group over another constitutes hegemony and entails tasks serving the interest of the formers collectivity or system, in effect the subordination of the latter. The basis for these hegemonies are cultural institutions that maintain them and allow them to not only exert their influence on others, but also on their very own population at home (Said, 7). For the institutions at home, scholars like Gramsci and Said explain these by differentiating between civil and political society. A non-

totalitarian civil society is made up of socializing agents: schools, families, and unions, that establish culture and thereby norms, values, and ideas voluntarily (Said, 7). As a result, through consent, legitimacy is provided to the system in power by adopting socializing agents that those very systems have control of. On the other hand, political society serves to establish legitimacy by direct domination through state institutions the army, police, and central bureaucracy (Said, 7). Even for the hegemonic institutions abroad there is a complex system similar to the one at home that varies between consent- soft power - and direct domination. Again, the degrees to which each are used, within different eras, and by different powers all vary, however, all serve for the same function of establishing legitimacy for the ruling elite to dominate over another. At home and abroad, systems of power can be seen to be most concerned with maintaining that very position of power or at least maintain that position which may allow them to exert power. Such a distinction is crucial because systems of power and the ruling elite that make them up are many times seen as a monolith in a Hobbesian fashion, that act purely in their own interest as Said discounts in commenting on imperialism ..nor is it representative and expressive of some nefarious western plot imperialist plot to hold down the oriental world (12). Although some veracity maybe found, the truth of the matter is that to different degrees, based on their circumstances, people are affiliated to certain factors that they identify themselves with race, religion, gender, nationalism, family, and

interests, etc. and so act in manners to accommodate those different identities; for members of the ruling elite, one factor is power. So whether it is the ruling elite,

member of a family, or even person in pursuit of some desire, humans act in ways in order to maintain those personal inclinations or relations they identify themselves as part of, ultimately according to the circumstance they are in. Some of those circumstances can be controlled and others cannot, but an important aspect to this is the outcome in and of itself-the very circumstances that are directed by different circumstances. As briefly mentioned earlier, one of those circumstances are hegemony that can be analyzed within the basic framework of the system of power, that is at home and abroad, which use institutions to ultimately establish legitimacy to allow for the ruling elite to maintain their positions (Shapiro, 17). A full understanding of such a system is much more complex than members of the ruling elite and requires an understanding and .geopolitical awareness into aesthetic,

scholarly, economic, sociological .texts .not only of geopolitical distinction ..but also of a whole series of interests .a certain will to understand, in some cases control .what is a manifestly different world ..that is by no means in direct .political power in the raw, but rather is produced and exists in an uneven exchange with various kinds of power ( Said,12). Thus, systems of power are truly an amalgamation of different factors that take their own roles to maintain the very structure that allows for it to exist, and so requires dynamic political, economic, and militarily rationale for the maintenance of such a system, namely hegemony. Conclusions: All that has been discussed so far is crucial to the understanding that power in any form can be followed from the most basic individual level of us or me versus them . For this particular essay, hegemony is an aggregation of this

framework, in which basic human characteristics are reflected on anything they create, namely systems of power and the hegemonies they establish. Also, since people establish these hegemonies, however different the circumstances maybe, the essence in itself of maintaining power and hegemony is still there and serves to keep the ruling elite in the position they are in. People, events, and situations come andgo, but the ultimate human circumstance of power always exists, in whatever context and reason it maybe. Therefore, it isn t farfetched to say that according to certain circumstances dire procedures could be taken to maintain that power. Historical records of past hegemonic systems could, at the very least, provide the proper perspective and context to analyze such a topic on hegemony in the Middle East and how it is maintained. We may even be able to shed insight on the direction events will take in the near future, in particular importance with the current Arab Spring. Section II: Hegemony in the Middle East Since hegemony is able to carry out its policies only through other governments complying with their lack of sovereignty, the actual citizens of those governments are in effect approving of being ruled over by outside powers. As a result, to different degrees, direct domination-forceful tactics- is more accepted by the population in subordinated client states, the third world (middle east in particular), accounting for the lack of human rights (Khalidi). Thus, leaders of countries under hegemonies are able to carry out brutal tactics to achieve their political goals because of their populace s already subordinated position. Expanding even more, regions that are heavily influenced by hegemonies face substantially greater military and political conflict than others. For this very reason it s not

coincidence that the Middle East until this very day has gone through more wars and change of rulers, empires, dynasties, and countries perhaps more than any other. Hegemony in the Middle East has truly existed for thousands of years, and not to say that all eras prior hold some lesser degree of significance, but for the current topic at hand a good starting point would be Britain and France s domination of the Eastern Mediterranean since the end of the 17th century and on (Said, 17). Both of these colonial networks were the largest held in pre-twentiethcentury history (Modigs, 2). As a result, Said argues that although Germany, Russia, Spain, Italy, and Portugal have contributed to oriental hegemonic systems, in the Middle East, France and Britain s lifts it above the doubt crucial work done . (Said,17)-had most significant effect. In Orientalism Said goes onto assert how at this time, from the 17th-20th century and on, Eurocentric biases of romanticized images of the Middle East, and other places, in Western-European culture had been used as an implicit justification for hegemonic ambitions. Such a system in the Middle East of domination was established by a complex, elaborate structure of power relaying prior knowledge to the West of the Orient as backwards, timeless, and unchanging as can be seen in the very art that was

brought back home to Europe Said). The book explores how the West saw the East, and how through such a cultural perspective, domination of the Orient by the Occident could be done. Various institutions abroad allowed for such a hegemonic relationship to be maintained. The American University of Beirut is such an institution, although was established by American Protestant missionaries from

Syria, and so doesn t constitute the archetype Orientalism established by European powers. Nonetheless, the institution has served as a westernizing agent as one of the top universities in the region, proliferating western culture and so legitimizing western hegemony. Western hegemony has also played a part in the greater Middle East, namely Iran. Russia defeated Persia s militarily several times from 1803-1804 and thereby entered into the region and implemented a make Persia obedient and useful policy (Kriedie, Iran Past II PP). As with other hegemonic powers, Russia s aspirations for domination were directed towards controlling the markets. The corporate elites are the one s who benefit most from this client-state relationship by monopolizing the markets, in effect the economy (Chomsky). The British eventually entered into the realm and became the main competing force against Russian hegemony over Persia. The British on the other hand not only saw Persia for its lucrative markets, but also as a buffer zone protecting its substantial investments in India ( Kriedie, Iran Past II PP). Ironically, competition between Britain and Russia over domination of Persia is what averted colonization, however, still created the most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial resources of a kingdom (Kriedie, Iran Past II). As a result of economic concessions to the West, Persian masses slowly began to rise up and oppose western influence, allowing different opposition groups to take hold against a common enemy-western influence-and rally popular support. The British even went so far as to try to turn Persia into its own protectorate with the Anglo-Persian Treaty of 1919 (Kriedie). The plan did not take hold and so a different route to achieve the same end of economic subjugation was taken. The

Persian central government was to be centralized to ensure a more stable situation to allow for the steady flow of oil from Persia. Both the Russians and British enjoyed their fair share of meddling and re-shaping of the Persian government to suit their hegemonic aspirations. This was seen in the forced dissolution of the Majles, which effectively ended the constitutional movement (Kriedie, Iran Past II PP). Conclusions: The same theme continues to run along this picture: hegemony is driven by economic and corporate ambition; with the states used as the driving force of hegemonic policy to ensure that conditions of subjugation are maintained. Those elites that take part and implement such policy are the responsible men that are worthy to do so in behalf of the beast , the masses that don t know what is best for themselves. (Chomsky, 6) Thucydes explains this simply yet best large nations do

what they wish, while small nations accept what they must. Ultimately, since it has been established that enormous interests and efforts go into maintaining hegemonic systems, and that as a result dire ends would be expected to achieve those goals. Furthermore, a discussion on the current hegemonic power could be a step towards understanding and predicting the direction of events in the Middle East. The current hegemony in the region is the US, and so a brief discussion on how it came to be will lay the foundations for our discussion on yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Section III: The American Connection In the 1850 s, American trade in the Middle East became substantial enough for the US to try to create a commercial treaty with the Persian Empire. However,

the local population was not greatly impressed with American commercial, political, and religious ideas and so American trade remained stagnant in the next few decades (Modigs, 1). Also, Britain remained hegemonic throughout the region, and so despite a few efforts, American imperial ambition wasn t able to enter (Kriedie, Iran Past II PP). America established itself as hegemony in the region after it emerged unparalleled after WWII, with France removed by legalistic maneuvers and Britain declining as a junior partner in the region (Chomsky). During the Second World War, from 1939-1945, U.S foreign policy plans on the postwar period were created and presented by the War and Peace Studies project and Council on Foreign Relations. Of concern was to expand the needs of the US in a world in which it proposes to hold unquestioned power and hegemonic power in a system of world order , as told by elites a number of decades later (Chomsky, 225). From these discussions the idea of a Grand Area , encompassing the Western Hemisphere-the Monroe Doctrine, Far East, and former British Empire was planned to be subordinate to the needs of the US economy (Chomsky, 130). As the war went on it became clear that Western Europe would join the Grand Area as with the oil-producing nations in the Middle East. America didn t want Middle Eastern oil for its own consumption, it was the world s largest oil exporter, but as a lever for world domination.. (Chomsky,24). Europe, similarly industrialized and advanced, was feared to go off into its own direction and become a Third Force. To counter such measures, Europe was kept dependent on America by transforming it into relying on oil the Marshal plan aid after WWII shifted

Europe from internally abundant coal supplied to US-controlled oil supplies. The same thing was done in Japan (Chomsky and Achcar, 54). Also, in the 1940 s, the US saw world oil production fall from seventy to fifty one percent, while in the Middle East it rose from seven to sixteen percent (Fandy). As result, America needed a way to maintain its industrial advantage with the changing dynamic of oil availability, which it wasn t able to maintain anymore. All of this was in hopes of dominating in the post-war era. The Middle East happened to provide for these hegemonic wants. President Truman expresses this best:

Thus the world oil center of gravity is shifting to the Middle East where American enterprise has been entrusted with the exploitation of one of the greatest oil fields. It is in our national interest to see that this vital resource remains in American hands, where it is most likely to be developed on a scale, which will cause a considerable lessening of the drain upon Western Hemisphere reserves.

Furthermore, President Eisenhower himself commented on the Middle East as the most strategically important area in the world (Chomsky, 48). Also, The strategic importance of the region is the great petroleum reserves and global power accorded by control over them (Chomsky, ix). Such domination over resources

and wealth in the region, namely oil, ensures a substantial flow of profit to the West and maintains industrial economies. So, the greatest material prize in world

history , as named by the State Department, would surely call for great measures to

10

maintain those interests a very consistent foreign policy. The start of this can be seen with the formation of ARAMCO (Arabian American Oil Company) in Saudi in 1947, which included kicking out the French and British (Fandy). Later, after the CIA backed a coup in Iran in 1953, Operation Ajax, America was in control of 40% of Iranian oil at the behest of reinstating the dictatorial Shah. America set its hegemonic domination of the region by the mid 50 s and virtually complete domination of Saudi Arabia (Chomsky). The entrance and imposition of American hegemony into Iran is very telling of American foreign policy tactics in the region. The Mutual Defense Pact was signed between the US and Iran in 1950 and recognized that Iran wascrucially strategic for the containment doctrine against Soviet expansionism. This was threatened though, along with Britain s monopoly over the oil, when newly elected PM Mossadeq kicked out Mohammed Reza Shah and nationalized the oil (Keddie). As mentioned earlier, the US went in and forced a coup against Mossadeq, thereby reinstating the Shah and maintaing strategic interests in the country. America can be seen effectively stifling radical nationalism in such a case. To stifle nationalism is in reality stifling democratic sentiment which if takes hold, as was with the election of Massadeq, would greatly harm hegemonic ambitions in the region. Thus, a major trend can be seen from then on: America subordinating populations throughtactics contradictory to democracy- to quell nationalism and popular opinion in order to maintain hegemonic aspirations. The British used a similar framework when they were hegemons in the region by establishing the Arab Faade. This terminology was used by the British

11

Foreign Office in describing weak compliant rulers.. , namely oil producing states, whose absorption by Britain was cloaked by ..constitutional fictions.. (Chomsky, 161).If such a cost effective system went out of hand with the indigenous populations not passively submitting, airpower and poison gas was used to bomb

niggers. (Chomsky 161). The US used the same British framework, but added the nuance of peripheral states, preferably non-Arab administration called , serving as the Nixon

local cops on the beat (Chomsky). These states are to be democracy. Thus,

used to keep order in the region and quell national sentiment

with the political headquarters in Washington, America is able to have a foothold in the region, and intervene only when dire circumstances call for it to (Chomsky). Conclusions: As a whole, through quelling nationalism and establishing client governments and subordinating power, American hegemony serves to stabilize the region to allow for national interests to be maintained. In other words, the US seeks to create proper conditions that allow for the continuation of large profits for corporations and the ruling elite the beneficiaries of such a system. To be even more specific, oil corporations are the one s most influencing American foreign policy in the region. In the aftermath of the Cold War, oil became even more focused on in the region with the Soviets out of sight.Again, systems of power are seen trying to create circumstances that allow them to maintain their very power-their identity . Ultimately, in a highly demanding capitalistic world, legitimacy of power requires such an exploitation of resources and so subordination of other populations. The focal point of those interests is the resources.Basically, although

12

not near to a full explanation, the powerful want to rule, but need to attend to the people s wants to allow them, in whatever form the circumstances call for. As the way Orientalists were able justify expansion into the Middle East, American hegemony is carried by the control of social and economic life ..kept within institutions with top-down authoritarian control, while the participation of the beast to be limited to the diminished public arena (Chomsky, 6). Through such a framework, the US reinforces regimes to implement and maintain its imperial interests, some of the main players being: Israel, Saudi Arabia, and previously Iran. Thus, the conditions of these states very much direct and are directed by American foreign policy, part of the overall objective of maintaining interests, namely oil. Ultimately, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel take center stage of the level of stability of American interests in the region, and so if substantially affected by the Arab Spring, these states could cause conditions leading to catastrophic measures.

Section IV: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Iran Before the Islamic Revolution, America controlled the region through a tripartite alliance among Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel (Chomsky). All three states played a crucial role in maintaining the flow of oil to the US until the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Before then, Israel and Iran had security ties, and were noneArabs in an Arab region helping maintain the Arab Faade the stability of the

Indian Ocean Basin: the quiet in the eye of a hurricane Senator Henry Jackson even spoke of this as the tacit alliance of Israel-Iran-Saudi Arabia as a solid base for US

13

power in the region.. (Chomsky, 248).Saudi Arabia was technically at war with Israel and Iran at this time-a theme of strategic interest over policy that runs across. The alliance between Saudi Arabia and America is rather complex. Ever since the subordination of Saudi oil with creation of ARAMCO in 1947, Saudi Arabia has been the crown jewel in the region for American interests 27% of world oil supply (Fandy). Only 10% of America s oil use is from the Persian Gulf, and America s interest in oil from there is to guarantee oil for Europe and Japan, in effect maintain control over them (Chomsky). As a result, American foreign policy in the region has been focused on Saudi Arabia first, its oil. The complexity arises with the Saudi Arabia s legitimacy as the guardian of Islamic holy places, including the Dome of the Rock in East Jerusalem; effectively annexed by Israel (Parsi). So the Saudi s have a stake for there to be Arab control over Jerusalem. However, since Israel is an effective force against nationalist sentiment, the Saudi s have a stake in Israeli power as well. Saudi Arabia s government to alarge extent holds reign over the country and oil as long as the people comply, and so the last thing wanted is nationalist sentiment (Chomsky). America also wants this Saudi monarchy-Al Saudto stay in its place to easily subordinate the oil, the Arab Faade . As a result, America has accepted and even supported practices by the monarchy to remain in power including suppression of dissent, human rights abuses, and the exclusion of the population from political participation (Fandy). Thus, the cops on the beat Israel and previously Iran-serve Saudi interest within the overall framework of American hegemony, which in and of itself serves the main Saudi interest to maintain power.

14

After the 1967 War, Israel is seen as an indispensible ally to America and thereby The Origon s of the Special Relationship began (Chomsky). The Six Day war brought an end to Arab nationalism in the region and proved that Israel would take the necessary risks for the sake of relieving the situation in the area (Chomsky, 164). Therefore, America effectively began to use Israel as a proxy state in the region to protect its interests. This is why after 1967 American military aid to Israel increased by 450%. Israel continued this in 1970 by deterring a possible Syrian intervention to protect Palestinians who were being massacred in Jordan (Chomsky, 165). One consideration of this is America s reaction to Israeli conquests before and after 1967. America greatly condemned Israel s conquest of the Sinai in 1956, compelling Israel to withdraw. It is no coincidence that also at the time France and England were Israeli allies who were trying to reestablish some position of significance in the region (Chomsky). In contrast, in 1967 America supported Israel s conquest of the Sinai, of course only after it has become its proxy state. The same relationship holds until this day with Israel attacking nationalist sentiment in its fight against Hezbollah and Hamas-the main political factions in Lebanon and Palestine. Israel greatly benefits from such a hegemonic relationship by obtaining immunity in the Security Council, billions of dollars in aid that has established it as a technological base, and regional security with its development of nuclear weapons, let alone other weapons. Ultimately, Israel is able to continue its Apartheid regime that has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and in violation of more UN resolutions than any other state. Therefore, support by America holds up the Israeli governments very legitimacy. Contrary to the opinion of many, AIPAC plays a

15

very minimal role in maintaining this relationship, especially compared with business and military lobbies like Lockheed Martin (Chomsky). The relationship is neatly set out in a memorandum for the National Security Council:

if we choose to combat radical Arab nationalism and hold Persian Gulf oil by force if necessary, a logical corollary would be to support Israel as the only strong pro-West power left in the Near East .

Unlike Israel and Saudi Arabia, Iran s alliance with the US has suffered geopolitical instability. Since the end of WWII, the Shah and the US shared strong strategic alliances. The Shah chose the clear choice of aligning himself with the US instead of the Soviet s for a number of reasons. First of all there had been centuries of battle between Iran and Russia, and so the Shah was naturally suspicious of the Soviets, the first Western subjugators into Iran (Parsi). Secondly, the communist ideology was a great threat to the Shah s rule because it supported pro-Soviet opposition groups such as the Iranian Tudeh Party (Parsi). Alliance with the US though would provide Iran economic and military assistance, preventing Soviet adventurism in the region, thereby protecting the Shah s rule. Also, even though Iran voted against the partition of Palestine and creation of Israel in the UN Special Committee on Palestine, the Shah chose to keep an alliance with Israel. Iran chose to vote this way from a strategic standpoint to avoid antagonism from the Arab world (Parsi). Furthermore, an alliance with Israel proved to be beneficial by absorbing the attention and resources of the Arab states, which were Iran s traditional

16

rivalries in the region (Parsi, 20). Thus, as its close friend Israel did after the 1967 War, Iran played the part of cops on the beat in the region by maintaining a strong army, helping maintain the flow of oil as part of a tripartite alliance with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Such an alliance was of course tacit under the overall interests. Although a major blowback to Israel, the Islamic Revolution didn t shut ties between Israel and Iran. Israel continued to support Iran after the Revolution in order to better its relations with Khomeini as a counter to Israel s Arab enemies (Parsi). Just one example of such continued ties was the Iran-Contra Scandal. This single event highlighted that dealings and alliances between Israel and Iran, and the US for that matter, occur when deemed strategically necessary. It was Tehran s strategic interest to maintain ties with Israel post revolution in an effort to reestablish relations with the US. As a whole, For years, Israel remained willing to do business with Iran, even though the mullahs in Tehran were screaming for an end to the Zionist entity (Parsi, 2). At the end of the Cold War and defeat of Saddam Hussein s Iraq in 1991, the geopolitical interest between Iran and Israel separated. Absent of any real enemy, Israel and Iran found them in a rivalry to re-define the regional order. Israel feared it would suffer if Iran emerged as the superpower in the region (Chomsky, 32). Similarly, Iran feared that Israel s pre-eminence would threaten its regime. As a result, the Israeli s began their PR campaign of painting Iran as a radical, irrational mullah run regime (Parsi). The purpose was to keep Washington on Israel s side. The US truly began to be convinced of Israeli rhetoric once the possibility of suicidal clerics getting their hand on the bomb was interjected into the political discourse.

17

Therefore,

the allegiance of Western states to Israel was longer a matter of choice

or mere political interest, but rather of survival, or at the very least of a struggle of good against evil (Parsi, 3). However, it wasn t directed towards US government elites, specifically neoconservatives in the Bush administration, but towards the US Congress, American people, and world (Ritter, 112). The American foreign policy objective under the Bush Administration was regime change, and not noneproliferation and disbarment (Ritter). This is not to say that Iran s nuclear dilemma wasn t a threat, but that the foreign policy itself was directed toward removing the entire regime, which comes with the removal of nuclear weapons. Israel plays a great role in this by providing misleading intelligence information to the IAEA and thereby casting doubt and fear against Iran s nuclear ambitions (Ritter, 51). For a while now, Israel has been trying to push the US into military action against Iran. Iran today is one of the major threats to American hegemony in the region. Recently, Congress has passed another round of sanction against Iran, increasing penalties on foreign companies. Also, the Obama Administration has been expanding its offensive ability in the African Island Diego Garcia, a base used for attacking the Middle East and Central Asia (Chomsky). Military equipment that has already been dispatched there includes nuclear-powered-guided-submarines and 387 bunker busters, powerful bombs that only come short to nuclear weapons. They are aimed specifically at Iran (Chomsky). Also, although denied by Saudi Arabia, the head of the Mossad has assured Netanyahu that Saudi Arabia is allowing an open corridor to bomb Iran (Mahnaimi and Baxter). Some view this as America gearing up for the total destruction of Iran (Plesch).

18

One of the main focuses of all of these threats is on Iran seeking nuclear weapons capability. The threat though is not militaristic. Iran s strictly defensive military doctrine and its spending is low, less than 2% of America s. Even Iran s nuclear ambitions are for deterrent purposes and certainly not offensive, especially with its already limited capacity to exert force beyond its borders (Chomsky). Just from a simple cost benefit analysis, Iran has nothing whatsoever to gain by using its nuclear weapons, and everything to lose. Furthermore, Iran hasn t acted aggressively beyond its borders for centuries, besides invading two Arab islands in the 70 s with US backing (Chomsky). The prominent political scientist Martin Van Cleveland confirms Iran seeking nuclear weapon capability for deterrence, especially with the invasion of Iraq in 2003--"after the invasion the Iranians went crazy for not having developed any atomic weapon (Chomsky, 83). Beyond deterrence, the other focus on all these threats is Iran s will to expand influence in the region. Although trampling on nationalist sentiment in its own country, Iran is supporting nationalist sentiment in the region, namely Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran supports such organizations as proxy parties to combat its main threat in the region, Israel, in order to set off pressures trying to de-stabilize its regime (Cook). For the Americans this is very dangerous and through a labyrinth of terminology, Iran is destabilizing the regime. The de-stabilization occurring is of stable conditions that allow America to pursue its interests to maintain the flow of oil.So a threat to Israel is a serious threat to the oil flow. With slight deviation, Obama has continued Bush s policy of regime change, within the overall framework of containing Iran as long as possible, until it poses a

19

serious enough threat to hegemonic interests and so military action would be required (Chomsky). The situation in its most extreme projections is that "The U.S. will have to confront Iran or give up the Middle East (Etzioni). A scenario has been thought up that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and possibly other states will move toward the new Iranian superpower Indeed, American interests would greatly be put at risk. Conclusions: American foreign policy is seen directing the course taken by Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Iran. Saudi Arabia and Israel are the main players in the region supporting America s hegemonic interests, while Iran is in the forefront opposing. However, all three states are serving their own interests, sometimes through the interests of others. Under the name national interests, the interests of these states are foremost for the ruling power to stay in power. However, the sole leader doesn t seem to be as important as maintaining the entire system of power governing the state-thousands of government officials, bureaucracies, lobbies, military,ect. Much of what the states are doing is very harmful to their countries, but what matters most for the central powers is to maintain their positions, and reaping all the benefits that comes with the job-the individual interests and motives for power. In the case with Israel and Saud Arabia, without American support, the very real prospect of an absence of any legitimacy would occur, and so the ruling government would inevitably be removed either by the populace or an outside source. The same goes with Iran, however, the Ayatollahs legitimacy has stemmed from anti-Zionism, Islam, and fighting for justice-all of which are greatly contradicted by the actual

20

actions. Nevertheless, the interests of these players cannot be overtly expressed, and must be hidden by an outward appeal for their actions to continue. Here, the line is created between rhetoric and action, in which action is seen defining the interests.

Section VI: Veiled Rhetoric-Interests Exposed Since the revolution both Israel and Iran have veiled the fundamentally strategic conflict- common interests-by framing the situation between themselves on ideological terms, ideological threats (Parsi). Israel did this in order to paint a picture to the world of Iran as an irrational regime that is fanning all the flames in the Middle East , in an effort to convince Washington that conventional deterrent strategies against the suicidal Mullah regime is impossible (Parsi). Using similar tactics, the Ayatollah used rhetorical threats against Israel for strategic interests. As mentioned earlier, the rhetoric was ratcheted up in 1992, with the removal of Iraq as a regional player, exposing even more Israel and Iran s interestin achieving a great-power status (Parsi).Saudi Arabia s interest was exposed to be in maintaining relations with America in order to sustain a strong oil economy. At the end of 1992, Israel began to voice its threats. Renowned scholar Trita Parsi described the situation simply-- inflammatory rhetoric employed by Rabin and Peres was unprecedented (Parsi). Blame on the Israel-Palestinian conflict was put on Iran s meddling. In front of the Knesset, Rabin announced that the problem of Iran was a struggle against murderous Islamic terror Shiite Fundamentalism

and Death is on our doorstep with the threat of Iran. Ironically, only five years earlier Rabin was invoking the strategic partner Iran was, all the time anti-Zionist 21

rhetoric was being relayed from Tehran (Parsi). Israel s policy towards Iran changed from a strategic ally to seeking its internationalisolationism, once it had the possibility of gaining influence in the region. Israel didn t want the world, Washington in particular, to see Israel and Iran as two rivals for preeminence in a disordered region, Israel framed the clash as between the sole democracy in the region and an illiberal theocracy that was anti-west, that is against western interests (Parsi). Thus, Iran s nuclear dilemma entered the game, and Israel framed the question to the international community, how can there possibly be any tolerance for an irrational regime seeking nuclearcapabilities (Parsi)? Thus, allegiance to Israel by the Western states continued. In the lead-up to and just after the Revolution, Khomeini established much of his legitimacy and charisma among both the Iranian and Arab populace by his strong stances against Zionism and the State of Israel (Kriedie). Many thought that the new Islamic regime in Iran would rally support for the Palestinian cause across the region and bring back the fight against Israel to the forefront. All of this rhetorical zeal was soon to be uncovered as merely a faade, as the case with the Israeli s, to gain strategic interests (Parsi). This was first seen only days after the Revolution when Arafat and 58 PLO officials showed up in Tehran uninvited to meet the Ayatollah. Arafat and his men were greeted kindly and escorted to a high hotel. However, relations turned sour shortly after when Arafat and Khomeini held a meeting. To Arafat s surprise, Khomeini was very critical of the PLO and their leftist and nationalistic tendencies. Khomeini argued for the need to get to the Islamic roots of the Palestinian issue. Both men never met again. Later decisions and

22

actions by the Ayatollah shed light on his lip service to the Palestinian cause only to achieve his strategic interest. The policy was was to avoid getting entangled in the Palestinian conflict (Parsi), furthering its own. Furthermore, the Iran-Contra Affair exposed Israel, Iran, and America s humanistic rhetoric and threats from opposing regimes as the determinates for the course of action, all to be merely a faade. The rhetorical threats were concerned the economic and strategic interests of the elite, realpoltik, veiled by ideology and appealing motives for the courses of action. In the Scandal, the US agree to sell arms to Iran, illegally, to fund the Nicaraguan Contras where the US was undertaking state terrorism to also secure its strategic interests in the region. As expected to maintain its strategic alliance with the US, Israel went ahead to be the middleman and deliver the arms to Iran. During 1981, when Khomeini was planning to buy arms from Israel, the hostile rhetoric against the state was ratcheted up with the introduction of Al-Quds-Day, Jerusalem Day, in Ramadan. Also, Khomeini decided against sending Iranian F-14 jets to Lebanon where the PLO, with Lebanon and Syrian allies, were fighting Israel (Parsi). In such a crucial and defining war in 1982, Khomeini s decision to not supply the Palestinians with F-14 s at the very least indicates that he isn t wasn t ready to take an active role on the Arab side against Israel. If the Ayatollah was genuinely supportive of the Palestinian cause he would ve been ready to support the Arab side against Israel anytime, especially with the dwindling map of Palestine and increasing strength of the Israeli Occupation. For arguments sake, if not anytime , Khomeini would have supported the Arabs that time in 1982 when the conflict was from the outset deemed game

23

changing (Chomsky). Thus, beyond verbal condemnations Khomeini was seen to show little support to the Palestinian cause, and ironically more dealings with the Israeli s than Palestinians up until that point.

Conclusions: Two levels of analysis can be extrapolated from the rhetoric put forth by Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The first is the way in which policy and doctrine frequently change in order to suit American policy, which is the main director of politics in the regime, all else acting as a result. This relates to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Now, this isn t to say that they are completely subdued into acting based on American foreign policy, but since their very legitimacy is in the hands of American support, then it s fair to say that much of their actions are in order to maintain that legitimacy based on the framework of American foreign policy. The second is that Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia can be seen to act in a manner to foremost safeguard their interests maintain the system of power. As a result, policy and doctrine frequently change to meet their interests, which for Israel and Saudi is American hegemony, and for Iran the removal of that hegemony. Both levels of analysis compliment each other, and all fall under, at least with Israel and Iran, achieving great power status. Again, great-power status for Israel ensures support from America, in effect the legitimacy of the system of power. For Iran, great power status deters off hegemonic interests from the region, thereby securing its system of power, gaining legitimacy by not complying with those hegemonic interests.

24

Section VII: The Arab Spring and Tomorrow The Arab Spring caught much of the world by surprise on December 18, 2010. It officially started when Mohammed Bouazizi, a jobless graduate, lit himself on fire after police seized his cart of fruits and vegetables, effectively destroying his very livelihood (Blight and Pullman). A series of protests erupted which became increasingly violent up until President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali bowed out and fled to Saudi Arabia. The uprisings spread to Algeria, Morocco, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Western Sahara, Mauritania, Sudan, Oman, Lebanon, and finally Syria. Although these events occurred exclusively, many of them share a lot in common. Foremost, all of these countries were and are, to different degrees, headed by dictatorial regimes. Also, many of these regimes were/are close allies to the US including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, and even Libya, just to name a few. The grievances of these protesters in all the countries included being denied fundamental rights by their dictatorial leaders, and a deterioration of the economic and social fabric of their societies. All of these grievances have been ongoing, as long as the dictatorial regimes have been existent several decades for some (Khalidi). Much hype has

been made about the role of social media as a new factor and how it has been the cause, or at least major cause, for the success and continuation of these uprisings.Although Facebook and Twitter in dynamic fashions are recent, Arab nationalist networks whose broadsheets disseminated strategies for civil disobedience throughout the region in the years after World War I are not new. (Anderson) True, modern tools of social networking can be argued to be more

25

effective in their strategies for civil disobedience. However, much of the discussions have been short-cut by only mentioning the effectiveness of such a tool today, versus the past, and most importantly what that tool has specifically done--amplified Arab nationalism. Therefore, a true discussion on the Arab Spring would greatly involve Arab nationalism and the factors that have hindered it from developing in the Arab world. With that, analysts could take a look at those stifling factors and possibly act on reversing them in an effort to progress democracy in the region. The current outlook of the situation reveals how America is continuing to seek its interests in the region, with little or no deviation in policy at the moment (Chomsky). In Libya, America has extended its neoconservative military doctrine of war, ironically with the humanistic rhetoric of intervention (Lobe). True, American intervention may very well have deterred a genocide, but the manner in which selective intervention can be seen used in only Libya, which so happens to be a major oil producer, reflects on the holistic American policy in the region. Also, in President Obama s recent speech on the Arab Spring on May 19th, 2011, one of the countries not mentioned was Saudi Arabia-the country with the largest oil supply. Very likely, American foreign policy experts are strategizing on how to maintain and safeguard the flow of oil from the region, which has been for decades to safeguard the flow of oil through quelling Arab Nationalism. Such a system has included proxy states and many wars a coercive tactics. Thus, the dilemma for American foreign policy strategists arises with Arab Nationalism striking the region,

26

as a major topic of discussion across not only within the region, but also around the world.

Conclusion: As shown throughout this paper, Arab Nationalism has been hindered in the Middle East through a steady policy across history with Europe and now America to further their hegemonic interests. A logical corollary to help establish these nationalistic sentiments then would be to stop the factors that are hindering their development. Since those factors stem from the context of American hegemony the support of the Arab Faade and cops on the beat then what is most needed is

to go against and remove American hegemony. Now, a false dichotomy could be constructed from such a framework, whereby democracies in the Middle East can only develop without hegemony. The point though is not that hegemony has to be completely extracted, but that in analyzing precedent and the way systems of power operate, a simple cost-benefit analysis would make it inconceivable for nationalism and hegemony to continue under the current context. Regardless of the way in which policy and doctrine are newly drawn up to accommodate for the current situation, the interest involved will still exist, and all else will be done in order to safeguard that interest. As discussed, American hegemony isn t the only factor, in which it could only be maintain through the compliance and subservience of client regimes. The two main one s, Israel and Saudi Arabia, have relatively stable systems of power, despite their horrid human rights records. The interests of these countries also come into play, but moreso with Saudi Arabia and not Israel. Israel has virtually

27

no alternative than to serve American demands (Chomsky, 165). Saudi Arabia though, with or without America still has its oil, and so can seek other sources and relationship to protect its economy and power system. Whether the system of power or economic interests comes first, or whether they re intertwined, is a topic for later discussion. Ultimately, if the Arab Spring takes hold, particularly in Saudi Arabia, American hegemony over its oil could be threatened. Therefore, if conditions stay as they are and American foreign policy is maintained in the region, coercion would likely be America s course of action. Also, since the Saudi monarchy and American hegemony are at stake, military intervention by the US is likely to take place, in whatever situation it may be. Ultimately, although we can only speculate, yesterday and today can provide the proper framework for hegemony s influence on tomorrow in the Middle East.

Works Cited

28

Anderson, Lisa. "Demystifying the Arab Spring | Foreign Affairs." Home | Foreign Affairs. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67693/lisaanderson/demystifying-the-arab-spring>. Blight, Garry, and Sheila Pulham. "Arab Spring: an Interactive Timeline of Middle East Protests | World News | Guardian.co.uk." Latest News, Comment and Reviews from the Guardian | Guardian.co.uk. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/mar/22/middle-east-protestinteractive-timeline>. Burt, Jo-Marie, and Coletta Youngers. "U.S. Oil Policy in the Middle East | FPIF." Foreign Policy In Focus | International Affairs, Peace, Justice, and Environment. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.fpif.org/reports/us_oil_policy_in_the_middle_east>. Chomsky, Noam. " Chomsky: What's At Stake in the Issue of Iran : Information

Clearing House - ICH." INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE.NEWS, COMMENTARY & INSIGHT. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25347.htm>. Chomsky, Noam, and Anthony Arnove. The Essential Chomsky. New York: New, 2008. Print. Chomsky, Noam. "Chomsky on IRAN and USA Israel (WAR DRUMS)." Noam Chomsky - Deterring Democracy. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://chomsky-mustread.blogspot.com/2010/06/chomsky-on-iran-and-usaisrael-war-drums.html>. Chomsky, Noam. Fateful Triangle: the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. Cambridge, MA: South End, 1999. Print.

29

Chomsky, Noam, Gilbert Achcar, and Stephen Rosskamm Shalom. Perilous Power: the Middle East & U.S. Foreign Policy : Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War, and Justice. Boulder: Paradigm, 2007. Print. Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Metropolitan, 2003. Print. "The Containment Myth | Middle East Research and Information Project." MERIP Home | Middle East Research and Information Project. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.merip.org/mer/mer208/containment-myth>. Cook, Steven A. "Unholy Alliance: How Syria Is Bringing Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia Together - Steven A. Cook - International - The Atlantic." The Atlantic News and Analysis on Politics, Business, Culture, Technology, National, International, and Life TheAtlantic.com. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/unholy-alliance-howsyria-is-bringing-israel-iran-and-saudi-arabia-together/238084/>. DiPaolo, Amanda. Zones of Twilight: Wartime Presidential Powers and Federal Court Decision Making. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2010. Print. Hutchins, Matthew W. "Noam Chomsky: Iran Pursuing Nuclear Weapons out of Fear News." The Harvard Law Record - Harvard University Law School. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.hlrecord.org/news/noam-chomsky-iran-pursuing-nuclearweapons-out-of-fear-1.1265656>. "The Iranian Threat." Chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100702.htm>. Lind, Michael. "Let's End America's "Middle East First" Policy - War Room -

30

Salon.com." Salon.com - Salon.com. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/01/lind_middle_east_fir st/index.html>. "Middle East Policy (Chomsky) - Wikisource." Wikisource, the Free Library. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Middle_East_Policy_(Chomsky)>. November, Early. "Noam Chomsky Speaks Up." Matrix Masters. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.matrixmasters.com/wtc/chomsky/prospects/prospects.html>. "Oil Imperialism and the US-Israel Relationship, Noam Chomsky Interviewed by Roger Hurwitz, David Woolf & Sherman Teichman." Chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/197703--.htm>. Parsi, Trita. Treacherous Alliance: the Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States. New Haven: Yale UP, 2007. Print. Ritter, Scott. Target Iran: the Truth about the White House's Plans for Regime Change. New York: Nation, 2006. Print. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 2003. Print. "Saudis Give Nod to Israeli Raid on Iran - Times Online." The Times | UK News, World News and Opinion. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6638568.ece>. Shapiro, Martin. Courts. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1981. Print. "TR Document Retrieval." DTIC Online. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2>. "Under the Veil of Ideology | Middle East Research and Information Project." MERIP

31

Home | Middle East Research and Information Project. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://www.merip.org/mero/mero060906>. "US Neo-cons Urge Libya Intervention - Features - Al Jazeera English." AJE - Al Jazeera English. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/02/2011227153626965756.htm l>. Walt, Stephen M. "Can the United States 'control' the Middle East? (Nope) | Stephen M. Walt." Stephen M. Walt | FOREIGN POLICY. Web. 10 June 2011. <http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/19/can_the_us_control_the_middle_east_n ope>.

32