The Middle East and the beginning of conflict

The Middle East and the beginning of conflict

Pravda
09/28/2004

All countries fight amongst themselves – that is man’s nature.  Left
to their own devices, man and the disagreement will be settled. 
That is IF they are left to their own devices.

The Middle East situation is not the result of one thing, it is the
result of many things, many governments outside of the Middle East,
the US and Russian cold war, and the US trying to leverage itself as
the strong arm in the Middle East.

I cannot write the entire history of the Middle East, but I can
provide the reader with a sufficient background that will encourage
the reader to learn more.  

To Rashid, who asked me to write about the causes and aggravations
of the Middle Eastern issues – I have kept my promise to you.  There
are more issues you want me to address and I will do that.

The beginnings:

The end of World War One saw the Middle East carved up like a Sunday
afternoon apple pie. 

In November 1914, the Ottoman Empire called for a jihad against France,
Russia and Great Britain, as the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany
in World War One. 

The Arab leaders Arabs led by Sherif Hussein of Mecca, agree to side
with the Allies (Britain, France, and Russia).  The Hussein-McMahon
Correspondence, authored by the British, promised independence to
what is now Syria, Palestine (Israel), Jordan, Iraq, and the Arabian
Peninsula should the Allies win the war. 

Britain, however had also signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement with
France which directly contradicts the Hussein-McMahon agreement. 
The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a plan to dissect the middle east into
fiefdoms controlled by either Britain or France.  Then, one more
agreement was made and the Balfour Declaration provides for removing
the Ottomans from both Jerusalem and Baghdad, and the establishment
of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The League of Nations awards Syria and Lebanon to France and for
Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq to Britain. 

All of this is being done without any pre-knowledge by the Arab states,
and now they have new masters: Great Britain and France.  The end
result was rioting in Iraq, and Britain tightens its grip on Iraq
through more military intervention.

1920 was a bad year for the Middle East – Britain and France develop
an iron grip on the area, and America hears the word: OIL. 

>>From the Cato Institute, I quote: “Standard Oil of California
and Texaco, won the first concession to explore for oil in Saudi
Arabia in the 1930s. They discovered oil there in 1938, just after
Standard Oil of California found it in Bahrain. The same year Gulf
Oil (along with its British partner Anglo-Persian Oil) found oil in
Kuwait. During and after World War II, the region became a primary
object of U.S. foreign policy. It was then that policymakers realized
that the Middle East was “a stupendous source of strategic power, and
one of the greatest material prizes in world history.”(4) Subsequently,
as a result of cooperation between the U.S. government and several
American oil companies, the United States replaced Great Britain as
the chief Western power in the region.(5) In Iran and Saudi Arabia,
American gains were British (and French) losses.(6) Originally,
the dominant American oil interests had had limited access to Iraqi
oil only (through the Iraq Petroleum Company, under the 1928 Red Line
Agreement). In 1946, however, Standard Oil of New Jersey and Mobil Oil
Corp., seeing the irresistible opportunities in Saudi Arabia, had the
agreement voided.(7) When the awakening countries of the Middle East
asserted control over their oil resources, the United States found
ways to protect its access to the oil. Nearly everything the United
States has done in the Middle East can be understood as contributing
to the protection of its long-term access to Middle Eastern oil and,
through that control, Washington’s claim to world leadership.  The
U.S. build-up of Israel and Iran as powerful gendarmeries beholden
to the United States, and U.S. aid given to “moderate,” pro-Western
Arab regimes, such as those in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan,
were intended to keep the region in friendly hands. That was always
the meaning of the term “regional stability.”

Robert W. Tucker, a foreign policy analyst advocated in the 1970s that
the United States take over the Middle Eastern oil fields militarily,
predicted that the “more likely” threat to U.S. access to the oil would
“arise primarily from developments indigenous to the Gulf.”(10)   The
1970″s saw the rise of Arab nationalism, or Muslim fundamentalism,
that was seen as a threat to the American economic and the US”s
worldwide political leadership.

“John Foster Dulles said privately during the Lebanese crisis in 1958,
the United States “must regard Arab nationalism as a flood which is
running strongly. We cannot successfully oppose it, but we could
put sand bags around positions we must protect–the first group being
Israel and Lebanon and the second being the oil positions around the
Persian Gulf.”( John Foster Dulles said privately during the Lebanese
crisis in 1958, the United States “must regard Arab nationalism as a
flood which is running strongly. We cannot successfully oppose it,
but we could put sand bags around positions we must protect–the
first group being Israel and Lebanon and the second being the oil
positions around the Persian Gulf.” Provided by the Cato Institute.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union declared that Iran was vital
to the protection of the USSR, but America wanted Iran”s oil. There
is a tug of war between the USSR and the US, each offering sweeter
and sweeter deals to the Arab nations just for signing up.

Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was favored by the US, and the US encouraged
the Shah to bring the forces to bear and start neutralizing the
splitter groups and countries into US line. It was no secret that
the US wanted to bring the US influence over the Middle East as its
predecessor, Britain, had during the helicon of British rule.

The creation of the state of Israel also caused conflict in the
Middle East and in the UN.  The Arab countries had suggested the
Jewish survivors be given citizenship in other countries.  The UN had
developed the partition plan and that was not widely accepted. The US
was big on rhetoric about self-determination, but the Arab countries
saw the US as another obstacle to autonomy.

Evan M. Wilson, then ssistant chief of the State Department’s
Division of Near Eastern Affairs, later summarized matters best
when he said that the US solved one refugee problem by creating
another.  The present day Palestinian issues are a result of US
policies overseas.   The UN partition plan had been approved by
an overwhelming majority, but the Arab nations were left out in
the cold. 

Nasser of Egypt was a political leader who tried to remain neutral in
the US/Russian cold war.  The US found this to be wholly unacceptable
as Washington demanded absolute loyalty and subservience. Both
Britain and the US then sought to discredit Nasser by the signing of
the Baghdad Pact – hoping that outer tier Middle East countries would
pressure Nasser to fall in to line.   To the dismay of both Britain
and the US, the Baghdad Pact actually bolstered Nasser and brought
the USSR and the Arab states closer together – the plan back fired.

Israel too became its own worst enemy, and I quote from the Cato
Institute: “Israel was not able to use the canal, but the Jewish
state’s aims regarding Egypt went beyond that grievance. Since the
1948 Arab-Israeli war, Palestinian refugees had often crossed into
Israel seeking to regain property and possessions expropriated by
the government and to reach relatives. Some engaged in violence.

Israel began responding with massive reprisal raids against entire
villages in the Arab countries. Most significant was the attack on
the town of Gaza in February 1955, when children as well as men were
killed. That attack prompted Egypt to end direct peace talks with
Israel and to turn to the Soviet Union for arms.

It was only at that point that Egypt sponsored an anti-Israeli
guerrilla organization whose members were known as the Fedayeen. In
August Israel attacked the Gaza Strip village of Khan Yunis, killing
39 Egyptians. The attacks in the Gaza Strip, masterminded by officials
loyal to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, subverted Nasser’s efforts
to make peace with Israel. Ben-Gurion’s successor, Moshe Sharett,
responded positively to Nasser’s overtures, but Gen. Moshe Dayan and
others undermined Sharett.(72) During the winter of 1955, for example,
Israeli warplanes flew over Cairo repeatedly to demonstrate Egyptian
military impotence.

The Israeli government had earlier tried to prevent a warming of
U.S.-Egyptian relations by having saboteurs bomb American offices in
Cairo in 1954, an episode that became known as the Lavon Affair.(73)
When Egypt uncovered the operation, Israel accused Nasser of
fabricating the plot. Two of the 13 men arrested were hanged, and
their hangings were used as a pretext for Israel’s February 1955
attack on Gaza. Six years later, the Israeli government’s complicity
was confirmed.”

The hatred for the US is probably well earned because of the US”s
determined lebensraum expansionism.  However, we cannot overlook
British and French involvement that contributed to the escalations of
tensions and hostilities so present now.   Nor can, or should we,
forget Turkish actions in Armenia.  Each and all have contributed
directly, or indirectly, to the current state of affairs in the
Middle East.

If peace is going to prevail several things must happened.  Israel
pulls back to the pre-1967 borders and assists the Palestinians in
building their own country.  The US has to vacate and commit the
using the UN as the vessel to settling disputes. Arafat needs to
stand down.  Sharon needs to stand down.

Michael Berglin