1

A better understanding of how the Middle East and Islam have been perceived,
understood, studied and depicted would seem to be more important today than ever before. The
United States is in our time very deeply engaged in the Middle East and in other predominantly
Muslim parts of the world. That engagement, which goes back more than half a century, has had
complex political, military, economic and cultural dimensions and powerful consequences, not
only for the peoples of the Middle East but also for ourselves, as the events of September 11,
2001 brought changes to the whole world. Those events, often painful history of US involvement
in the Middle East over the past six decades, demonstrate that Americans cannot afford to remain
as uninformed as they have generally been about the histories, politics and cultures of that
region. Nor can we any longer trust blindly in the assurances, predictions and promises of those
in power or in the kinds of knowledge about the Middle East and Islam which have often been
used to shape and justify the policies they have pursued.
There has been over the past several decades a great deal of criticism of, and controversy
over, the ways in which the peoples, politics and cultures of the Middle East have been studied,
the kind of knowledge that has been produced about this part of the world, and the implications
and consequences of that knowledge.
As in other academic fields and disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, students
teaching the Middle East or Islam have, explicitly or implicitly, drawn on one or another
interpretive framework, model or paradigm often rooted in a broader vision about how the
world works in order to make sense of whatever historical period or social institution or event
or process they were seeking to understand or explain. Each of these approaches has its own
premises, analytical categories and preferred methods, and each defines what is being studied in
2

a different way. Each approach or interpretive framework thus tends to treat certain aspects or
features of the society or culture or place or period they are studying as important while ignoring
or downplaying others; each explains how and why things change differently.
Moreover, these differing paradigms always take shape within, and are thus influenced
by, complex historical and contemporary contexts, involving personalities and personal
networks, generational inclinations and shifts, political contention, cultural trends and conflicts,
and institutional developments.
Students who study the emergence and development of scholarly fields and disciplines
often refer to the contexts, arguments, conflicts and processes which affect the production,
dissemination and reception of knowledge in a particular field or discipline as its politics or its
politics of knowledge. Understanding something about the politics of knowledge in Islamic
and Middle East studies, and the alternative ways of understanding Islam and the Middle East in
the modern world which scholars advocate and argue about, is important for several reasons. For
one, scholars and students engaged in this field would, one might think, benefit from a better
understanding of its origins, history and debates.
A better grasp of the politics of contemporary East studies
1
might enable students to
make better sense of what is going on in the Middle East, and to more effectively assess the
policies advocated by government officials and politicians since those policies are often rooted
in, and justified by, certain ways of understanding the Middle East and the wider Muslim world
initially elaborated by students.



1
Edward W. Said, Orientalism (Vintage Books Edition 1979)

3

The United States in the Middle East

As elsewhere in Asia and Africa, the Cold War era witnessed heightened US interest and
involvement in the Middle East and North Africa.
After the First World War American oil companies (with the backing of the US
government) sought to buy their way into the regions burgeoning oil industry. Naturally, British
and French oil companies dominated production in those Middle Eastern countries under British
or French control, as well as in Iran where British interests were predominant, so US oil
companies usually remained junior partners
2
.
In the early 1930s some US oil men turned their attention to Saudi Arabia, then a poor
country whose king was desperate for additional revenue. Happily for him and for the
consortium of US companies which would later form the Arabian-American Oil Company
(ARAMCO), Saudi Arabia turned out to have the biggest oil reserves in the region and US
companies played the leading role in developing that countrys oil industry, reaping vast profits
in the process. Nonetheless, before the Second World War the Middle East and North Africa
were of relatively minor importance to those who made US foreign policy. They generally
perceived Americas vital political and economic interests as lying elsewhere, in western Europe,
in Central and South America, in the Philippines and in the Pacific region and Asia. As a result
they were largely content to let Britain and France run the show in the Arab lands and Iran. After
the Second World War that was no longer possible.

2
David W. Lesch, The Middle East And The United States: A Historical And Political
Reassessment, Second Edition (Westview Press 2003)
4

In the Middle East as elsewhere, decolonization and newly independent countries
growing insistence on reducing the political and economic influence of their former colonial
masters and achieving more rapid economic development were high on the historical agenda.
Egypt had won limited independence in 1922 and a fuller measure in 1936, but after the Second
World War many Egyptians wanted the British military bases that still remained on Egyptian soil
to be removed and increasingly resented European political and economic power. The British
and Soviet forces which had occupied Iran during the Second World War to secure it for the
Allies withdrew after the war ended, but there was widespread resentment over the fact that it
was a British-owned oil company which garnered most of the profits from Irans oil. Iraq
achieved formal independence in 1932, but after the war there was growing discontent about the
British-backed monarchys failure to use the countrys oil wealth to benefit its people.
Libya gained independence in 1951, and Tunisia and Morocco five years later. By the
later 1950s the only large Arab country still under colonial rule was Algeria, which the French
insisted was part of France and could never be given up. It took years of bloody fighting before
France came to terms with reality and, in 1962, accepted Algerias independence. And once
independence was won, governments in the Middle East faced the very difficult tasks of uniting
new nation-states and meeting growing popular demands for more rapid economic development
and social policies that would benefit the great majority of their citizenry who were poor
peasants or urban working people.
But everywhere in the region, the 1950s and 1960s were a period of great social change,
which inevitably meant considerable political instability. For one, the Middle East contained a
very substantial proportion of the worlds oil reserves, and while the United States did not itself
depend heavily on this oil, its allies in Western Europe and Japan did. A 1945 State Department
5

analysis had described oil-rich Saudi Arabia as a stupendous source of strategic power, and one
of the greatest material prizes in world history. As President Eisenhower put it in 1956, The oil
of the Arab world has grown increasingly important to all of Europe. The economy of Europe
would collapse if those oil supplies were cut off. If the economy of Europe would collapse, the
United States would be in a situation of which the difficulty could scarcely be exaggerated. The
United States was thus determined to keep as much of the region as possible and above all the
oil-rich Arab states and Iran under the control of friendly governments; this would keep cheap
oil flowing on terms advantageous to both the United States and its allies while giving the former
considerable leverage over the latter.
The Palestine issue, and then the ArabIsraeli conflict, also contributed to growing US
involvement in the region. After 1945 Britain proved unable to maintain control in Palestine or
find a political solution which would reconcile the demands of the countrys Arab majority with
those of its Jewish minority, led by the Zionist movement. The Arabs sought the independence of
Palestine as an Arab state, while the Zionists fought for unrestricted Jewish immigration and land
purchases and the creation of a Jewish state in as much of Palestine as possible. The Truman
administration pressed Britain to accept some Zionist demands, and when an exhausted Britain
turned the Palestine issue over to the new United Nations the US (along with the Soviet Union)
endorsed the UN plan to divide Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states. In 1948 a Jewish
state, Israel, was established in most of Palestine, amidst warfare between Palestinians and Jews
and then between Israel and the neighboring Arab states. After that war ended, the Arab states
refused to discuss peace with Israel unless Israel agreed to allow the hundreds of thousands of
Palestinian Arab refugees who had fled or been expelled from their homes during the fighting to
return; this Israel refused to do. The ArabIsraeli conflict remained a major source of tension in
6

the Middle East, compelling the United States to try to reconcile its support for Israel with its
close ties to Arab states which, while friendly to the US, regarded Israel as a colonial-settler
enclave illegitimately established on Arab land by violent means.
In conclusion, its all about oil. Given the vast energy resources that form the backbone
of western economies, influence and involvement in the Middle East has been of paramount
importance for the former and current super powers, including France, Britain, USA and the
former Soviet Union.
The following list
3
contains some specific incidents of U.S. policy in the Middle East since the
Second World War ended:
y 1948: Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to
return.
y 1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.
y 1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically-elected Mossadeq government in Iran
(which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter-century of
repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.
y 1980-88: Iran-Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council
action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations
supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time,
U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though

3
Stephen R. Shalom, Which Side Are You On An Introduction To Politics (Longman 2006)

7

secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical
weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy
into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side;
y 1990-91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for
example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of
Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure
targeted. To promote stability U.S. refuses to aid post-war uprisings by Shi'ites in the
south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and
refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.
y 1991-: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all
attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that
sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass
destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as
long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked
about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S.
ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of State) declares that the price is worth it.
y 1993-: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self-defense against an alleged
assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.
y 1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though
Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.
y 1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming
retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was
8

involved in chemical warfare. U.S. later acknowledges lack of evidence for the chemical
warfare charge.
y 2000-: Israel uses U.S. arms in attempt to crush Palestinian uprising, killing hundreds of
civilians.
The Gaza Crisis
4

The Israeli offensive on Hamas in the Gaza Strip on 27th December, 2008 ended on
January 17, 2009 when both Hamas and Israel announced separate ceasefires, which have turned
out to be quite fragile.
The 3 week offensive claimed some 1,300 Palestinian lives mostly civilian, 400 of which
were children. Another 5,000 were injured including some 1,800 children and 800 women. 13
Israelis (3 civilians) were also killed.
The offensive left much of Gaza in ruins. The aftermath also saw a humanitarian crisis
with tens of thousands left homeless and hundreds of thousands without water.
The conventional, mainstream, version of events is roughly this:
y Hamas started firing rockets into Israel after ending a ceasefire with Israel.
y Israel felt it had no choice but to defend itself.
y But the offensive resulted in many civilian casualties because Hamas was operating in the
densely populated Gaza strip.

4
http://www.globalissues.org/news-article
9

y The international community (usually the West), while supporting Israels overall
objective, was appalled by the civilian casualties and put pressure on Israel to prevent or
reduce the civilian toll and humanitarian crisis.

Iraq Crisis
5

For decades, Iraq was under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. After the terrible war of
attrition with Iran in the 1980s (started by Iraq), Iraqs economy faced numerous problems.
Relations with neighboring Kuwait deteriorated and eventually led to an invasion by Iraq in
August 1991.
After the resulting Persian Gulf War by the US to oust Saddam Husseins forces from
Kuwait, the United Nations imposed sanctions on Iraq. The US and UK enforced it thoroughly,
even when other nations wanted them lifted for the sanctions strengthened Saddams regime and
hurt the people of Iraq.
The 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks on the US saw a US War on Terror and
George Bush tried to link Saddam Hussein to Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, responsible for
the attacks. This link was never proved, for these two were fundamentally opposed in ideology.
Nonetheless, the US continued to raise reasons why Iraq needed to be targeted.
In 2003, the US/UK invasion of Iraq was criticized to be on false pretenses (that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction ready for deployment within minutes and posed a great threat to the

5
http://en.wikipedia.org
10

world, etc.), without the backing of the international community and even with large domestic
opposition to war in both those countries.
Since the bombing campaign ended and Saddam Hussein was overthrown, the expected
quick democracy, peace, and gratitude to the US quickly became a nightmare and disaster as
major religious and ethnic factions started fighting each other and the US/UK occupation forces.
The civilian death toll has been immense, with 2006 seeing almost 100 deaths a day.
Crisis in Libya
6

The crisis in Libya comes in the context of wider unrest throughout the Middle East and
North Africa. The surge of what looks like spontaneous and ground up pro-democracy protests
has been spreading throughout a region long controlled by authoritarian regimes from left and
right of the political spectrum, and both pro and anti-West.
Since Libyas Muammar Qadhafi came into power over 40 years ago in a coup, he has
been seen as an international pariah and his brutal willingness to kill civilians that threaten his
position has been clear for all to see. Yet, until the recent crisis, the West had been opening up to
him and was keen to do business with him as they have been with various others in the region.
Peaceful protests against the Qadhafi regime in February 2011 resulted in a violent
crackdown. As the situation quickly escalated ordinary citizens took up arms to help free
themselves from Qadhafis brutal regime. Despite some military defections, the opposition has
generally been a disorganized and out-gunned rebel force.

6
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east