Oil, not Ideology, Has Driven Western Engagement with the Middle East since 1920 - Essay Example

Oil, not ideology, has driven Western engagement with the Middle East since 1920 Abstract The West has been interfering with the Middle East ever since it was discovered that oil-a fuel the Middle East has plenty of-is a better energy source than coal. Britain was the first Western country to take advantage of the Middle East by forming an oil company which produced oil from Iran. Later, America and Britain together overtook the Iranian oil industry by taking measures to undo its nationalization. Physical engagement with the Middle East was also done when Britain and France attacked Egypt to regain power of the Suez Canal, an important canal used for transporting oil from the Middle East. Other than physical engagement, the West has also interfered with the Middle East by taking strategic decisions related to the Israeli-Palestinian and the Arab-Israeli conflicts. The occurrences of these interferences have always been when the West’s oil interests are concerned, such as keeping a good image in front of Saudi Arabia which is a key supplier of oil. In addition to this, the West has always stated that the reason for their interferences was because they did not approve of the ideology of the Middle East. However, according to recent findings, there is a chance that America might not be that dependent on the Middle East for oil. Oil, not ideology, has driven Western engagement with the Middle East since 1920 Oil has remained an important necessity for the Western countries ever since it was discovered that oil was a much better alternate as an energy source to coal. Moreover, ever since oil was discovered in ample amounts in the Middle East, the West has been involved in many Middle East issues that concerned its commercial interests. This interference has been forced many a times, such as during Britain and France’s control of the Suez Canal and the role of American and British secret services in overthrowing the Shah to gain control of Iran’s oil. On the other hand, the West has also claimed there to be a difference in the ideology of the Middle East and the West and has used this excuse to engage with the Middle East. However, there is a possibility that the West is not entirely dependent on the Middle East for oil because of a recent oil boom in America and because of positive transformations in oil production. The significance of oil for the West developed immediately before World War I started, when Britain decided to shift to oil as its primary source of energy to be used for the war. Coal was then being used as the main energy source which was used to power Britain’s ships. Although Britain knew that oil was a better energy source than coal, it could only use it for emergency purposes because it had no oil at home. After oil was discovered in large quantities in Iran, Britain formed the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to produce it. However, after Winston Churchill decided to build oil-powered ships and big guns to be used in the war, Britain became completely dependent on oil-a commodity that had to be imported. Britain was not the only Western country whose need for oil increased. Ever since the production and private ownership of automobiles throughout the world after 1920, America’s need for oil increased so much that American oil production rose four thirty percent from1910 to 1930 (Khalidi 83-86; Northrup 213). Iran was the first Middle Eastern country to be exploited by the West for oil. In 1951, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq pressed the Shah to sign a bill that would nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Both Britain and America were opposed to this decision. Britain had owned fifty one percent of that oil company, thus its nationalization would result in loss of a lot of revenue for it. America, on the other hand, depended on Iran’s Abadan refinery for aviation fuel to be used for the Korean War. America claimed that it was afraid that its rival, the Soviet, would take over Iran. Hence, America acted as an ally of Britain and interfered in the Middle Eastern matter; it, along with Britain, encouraged opposition to Mosaddeq and the nationalization in the Parliament. When this proved to be useless, the American and British secret services organized and carried out an operation, using the Iranian military, which resulted in the temporary retreat of the Shah, the expulsion of Mosaddeq and the return of Iran’s oil industry to the submission of the Western oil companies. This proves how the West gets involved with the Middle East when it is related to their commercial interest-oil. Moreover, the major American oil companies received a forty percent share from Iran’s oil-which was more than the share they had before 1953 (Rogers 178; Khalidi 91, 92; Jones 55). Iran was not the only Middle Eastern state to be exploited by the West for oil-related purposes. Egypt was the Middle East country that contained the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal was used by many countries, both Western and Eastern, to move oil by ship from the Middle East to the Mediterranean. However, when Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, Britain and France were unable to access Middle Eastern oil easily. Thus, in 1956, they attacked Egypt in an attempt to regain power over the Suez Canal and, more importantly, Middle East oil. However, they were driven out of Egypt by America, who threatened to impose an oil embargo on it. Although this presented America as an ally of the Middle East, it is obvious that America’s intentions were purely set on its own commercial interest, which will be mentioned later on (Northrup 214). Although American oil companies managed to contribute to America’s increased economic power between 1945 and 1970, America’s position started to weaken. When cheap oil from Middle Eastern fields no longer served American interests, America needed to restrain competition among oil companies by making sure that other countries did not raise their oil prices. To do this, it needed to have a good political influence in the Middle East, especially to avoid embargoes on it. After knowing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that was going on in the Middle East, American President George W. Bush suggested a “Middle East map” which would give way to the creation of a Palestinian state that would coexist peacefully with Israel. By being the initiator of a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, America’s influence in the Middle East would increase. Such an influence would definitely lead to America gaining greater access to Middle East oil supplies or even the control of Middle East oil prices (Northrup 215). According to America, oil in the hands of the Arabs was like weapon that could be used against them, especially after the Arabs had placed an embargo on them for supporting the Israelis in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Persian Gulf was of particular interest to the West because it was one of the largest oil reservoirs and one third of America’s oil was said to be imported from there. The Persian was America’s only largest hope of oil because it was impossible to increase oil exports from Canada and Venezuela. Thus, America followed a new strategy; it provided Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states with arms and military assistance, but there is evidence that they did it only to strengthen ties with the Persian Gulf. Moreover, reliable sources in May 1977 reported that there had been an agreement between America and Saudi Arabia. According to this agreement, America assured Saudi Arabia of its security and would maintain its current rule by making sure that it does not receive any threats from foreign countries as well as from within it. In exchange of this commitment, the government of Saudi Arabia agreed to not raise oil prices by more than five percent per annum and to invest majority of the surpluses-that would build up in its present accounts-in the economy of America until the end of the year 1984 (Shaked et al. 143, 144, 146). Another excuse that the West has used to cover its true intentions-its interest in Middle Eastern oil-is ideology. Somehow America does not support the idea of the Arab states uniting as one. The American media has even disregarded the Arab Union by calling it “leftist ideology”. It has particularly supported Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict; the reason America has given for taking Israeli’s side is that Saudi Arabia’s opposition to Israel and its hostility to the spread of democratic reforms and individual freedom were a threat to America’s core interests. America’s interference in this matter became important especially after George W. Bush was elected as President. However, the main aim of America was to lower the global price of oil. The reason stated for this aim was to make sure that Saudi Arabia did not receive income that was bound to be used against them by promoting anti-American and anti-Israeli policies. It is also stated by various neoconservatives that another reason for reduced oil prices was that there were new sources of oil, especially from states located in the former Soviet Union. It is obvious that America was trying to exploit Saudi Arabia just so that it could benefit from lower oil prices (Jones 493; Haas 244). Furthermore, a former chief counterterrorism advisor on the National Security Council, Richard Clarke, stated that the main aim behind attacking Iraq in the year 2003 was also related to interests in Middle East oil. According to him, not only would it serve as an example of a liberal Arab democracy, but it would also be “another friendly source of oil”. Using Iraq as a source of oil would reduce America’s dependency on Saudi Arabian oil. However, America has majority of the times displayed diplomacy when it comes to Saudi Arabia’s oil. For instance, it declared to have a relationship with Saudi Arabia that was “about more than oil” by showing “interest in greater tolerance and cultural respect”. It accomplished this by showing respect to Wahhabism. Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia are greatly entwined because the Wahhabism school of thought is the official state enforced doctrine of Saudi Arabia. Western countries now contain schools (madrassas) which teach Wahhabism to Muslim children. This shows that Western countries are trying to get into Saudi Arabia’s good books by showing them that they care for their religion, even though their actual intention is maintaining the relationship with that Middle Eastern country just for the sake of its oil (Haas 244 246; Rogers 181). However, there is also a possibility that the Western countries’ interest in the Middle East is purely ideological. America has indeed been in more than one tight spot on Middle Eastern matters. In addition, importing oil from the Middle East, which is very far for Western countries (especially America), can be costly. On the other hand, it is said that America will have enough oil and gas by the year 2035 due to rising production of oil, bioenergy and shale gas, and better fuel efficiency in transport. Although America currently imports sixty percent of its need of oil, this amount will fall down to thirty percent and it will become a net exporter by 2035. Moreover, the Middle East is not the only place from where America currently imports oil. Canada, Venezuela and Mexico are also important suppliers of oil to America. There has also been a recent oil boom in one of the states of America, which certainly proves that the theory of America becoming an exporter of oil can be true (Rapoza). Oil has been one of the major attractions of the West ever since they started using it as a primary source of energy. The Middle East, which is abundant in oil, has thus been the victim of interference by various Western countries. For instance, when oil became a necessity to Britain, it immediately started exploiting the Middle East. Moreover, when the Iranian oil industry was nationalized by the Iranian Prime Minister, America and Britain took action to make sure that they had access to Iranian oil. Similar to this incident is the attack of Britain and France on Egypt to take over the strategic Suez Canal which had been nationalized. America has taken various steps to increase its influence in the Middle East and has also interfered in many Middle Eastern matters, using ‘ideology differences’ as the reason for doing so. However, there is a possibility that America might not be dependent on the Middle East oil. Works Cited Haas, Mark L. The Clash of Ideologies: Middle Eastern Politics and American Security. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print. Jones, Curtis F. Divide and Perish: The Geopolitics of the Middle East. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2007. Print. Khalidi, Rashid. Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East. Boston: Beacon Press, 2005. Print. Northrup, Cynthia C. The American Economy: A Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2003. Print. Rapoza, K. “So Long Middle Eastern Oil, Hello American.” Forbes. 11 Dec. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. Rogers, Harold E. The History of Democracy: From the Middle East to Western Civilizations. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2007. Print. Shaked, Haim, and Itamar Rabinovich. The Middle East and the United States: Perceptions and Policies. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Books, 1980. Print. Read More