Conflicts and wars in the Middle East since 1945 find their roots in a struggle for both ideological and territorial supremacy. The struggle among Arabs and Israelis and inter-Arab Persian Gulf questions erupted into long term conflict with the recognition of the statehood of Israel. It is this event in the history of the Middle East which served as a primary motivating factor for future wars and power struggles. Although interstate conflicts and ideological tensions between secularists and Islamists subsisted prior to the establishment of an Israeli state, it was this event that would trigger ensuing wars that culminated in territorial disputes and was the major divide among the Arab world where you either came down on the Islamic/Arab side or were with the secular west. It was the displacement of the Palestinian populations in 1947 with Israeli recognition that led to the 1948 War and the 1956, 67 and 73 wars resulted over escalating territorial disputes motivated by ideological differences between a secular Jewish state and the Islamic Arab world. Since this time it is important to note that constantly shifting political ideologies and sentiments in the Middle East, have arisen in an attempt to combat Israel and western influence associated with stabilizing the unwanted Israeli state in the Arab world. For example, pan Arabism and the Nasser movement were so popular with the people because they were built on the foundation of strong opposition to Israel and challenging Western, (especially British) influence in the region. Likewise, Islam was a rise against the increasing secularism, associated with the West and Israel, that reverberated throughout the Arab world with Arab nationalism and was seen as the new method of eliminating Israel and western influence after the pan Arab movement failed. The internal conflict generated in the Arab world essentially results from the occurrences of the results from external conflict with Israel and the west.
It was the establishment of Israel that prompted both Arab nationalist sentiment and Islamism. With Israel unjustly displacing the Palestinian populations to
create a state and leaving millions of Palestinians refugees in the eyes of the Arab world, it became a rallying cry for which the Arab world could unite. In many instances, including the rise to power of Gamel Abdul Nasser we see this attempt to become the face of the fight against Israel which was now a common enemy around which the Arab world could fight against. Many Arab governments saw this as an issue they could manipulate for their own personal political gain. This gave the Arab world a greater problem in that many Arab leaders, in the early stages following the establishment of Israel by the United Nations in 1947, sought as much to elevate themselves in the political stratosphere rather than solve the problem faced the Palestinians. By being so soundly defeated in the first war with Israel, a year after the partition, due to ill coordinated and weak leadership the Arab world
The major event that spurred conflict and war in the latter half of the twentieth century in the Middle East was the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The revolution was
largely a reaction to growing secularism and increased Western influence threatening to overshadow the role of Islam in the political landscape of the region. The Iranian revolution also spurred the resurgence of Islam as the dominant political force in regional politics after a period of major nationalism in the 1950’s and 60’s. This led to an increasing tension between Islamic states and secular nationalists in the region as well a new hostility toward Western influence in the region and towards those associated with the West. This is demonstrated in the eight year Iran-Iraq war which was a battle essentially over both the Shaat Al Arab and an attempt by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to spread the Islamic revolution to a neighboring Shiite country of Iraq, dominated by the
secular Saddam Hussein.
The first major crisis of the post 1945 Middle East era, the War of 1948, resulted from what the Arab world perceived as an illegitimate takeover of Palestinian land. We see here the multi faceted element of the struggle in the Middle East in the lead up to the war. Arab countries utilized this issue as a vessel for gaining power and waging war with Israel, while simultaneously warring with their Arab rivals. “Arab states picked sides within the Palestinian community… rivalries among the Arab states were played out within Palestinian politics”(Class Notes). This statement exhibits how divisive this issue was under the surface of this unity behind derailing the newly formed Israeli state and how the issue of Palestine was one leading to both a struggle against Israel and a point of internal regional strife. It was this two faced outlook of the Arab states that ultimately cost them victory in this initial war following the formation of an Israeli state and exacerbated tensions not only with Israel but within the Arab community, allowing charismatic leaders to rally the Arab world and segwaying into a Pan Arab era. “the Arab forces had no unified command, nor did they have agreed upon goals”(Bickerton, Klausner, 98). This statement provides insight into why the Arab armies failed to defeat Israel, each having their own ambitions and separate goals. Iraq siding with the Istighal party, while Hajj Aminn alignhed with Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah teaming with the Nashashibis were all examples of the deep divide that only grew worse as a result of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was this event that opened the flood gates leading to a power vacuum where every respective leader in the region sought to capitalize on the Israeli Palestinian issue and untie the Arab world behind them and a deep distaste for Israel. Gamel Abdul Nasser would eventually come to power as a “symbol of pan Arabism and it’s determination to eradicate Israel”(Bickerton, Klausner, 116). Based on this new wave of nationalist sentiment sweeping through the region coupled with increasing presence of Israel following victory of the war, continued conflict seemed inevitable.
Following the War of 1948, there was no peace or agreement to end hostilities which is traditional after such wars with a clear victor and nothing was solved. Every respective party was still pushing its initial agenda it had before the war, only more intensified than before. Israel still agreed to no proposals brought forth by the U.N. on the Palestinian issue and Arab governments, refused a peace treaty or formal recognition because it was still not in their political interests to do so , with the exception of King Abdullah of Jordan, seeking major territorial expansion. The inability of existing old elite governments in the Arab world right along with the demoralizing defeat suffered at the hands of Israel triggered fiery upheaval in the Arab world seeking newer stronger leadership to confront Israel. Arab populations now wanted that pan Arab banner to be lifted in order to avoid the dysfunction and lack of coordination costing the Arab forces
the war and to destroy the old corrupt political elites who were seen as weak and incapable. Political movements in Egypt and Syria ushered in a new era of Arab leadership with Nasser and the formation of the Baath party. They made opposition to Israel an integral part of their political strategy, a message that greatly resonated with the Arab world. With Gamel Abdul Nasser emerging as the leader of this pan Arab Movement, his leadership alone crossed national boundaries as he questioned the nature of the intentions of Arab leaders entering into the Baghdad pact , appealing to the Arab masses directly to challenge their governments. With such sentiment resounding so successfully amongst the people of the Arab world, a renewed sense of pride and strength was circulating behind Nasser. With increasing support for his ideology, came more ambitious territorial and political decisions, as Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal to build the Aswan Dam. Angering the British, the ensuing 1956 Suez war would see a victory for Egypt over the embarrassed British and French and the overconfident Israelis who thought they could repeat their performance in 1948. Just as in 1948, this was a clear victory in a battle with no end in sight. It symbolizes the nature of conflicts and wars in the region during this time period, where growing animosity and tensions stirred after every war fought in this continuous struggle. No war or conflict really was able to solve anything. In this case, Nasser gained a remarkable victory for Egyptian forces and elevated Egypt to higher status in the region, the war ultimately did nothing in the way of improving the pan Arab agenda which Nasser stood for. Qasim in Iraq breaking off from Nasser in 1958 was indicative of the inter-Arab competition for power that only intensified after the war. On war and conflict would pave the way for another in a constant power struggle among the Arab world. The wars of 1967 and 1973 would see similar internal struggle to be the face of the war against Israel, all being a reaction to Israeli presence. “this dynamic in Syrian-Egyptian relations, the kind of bidding war to see who could be more opposed to Israel, that began the political spiral which ended in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War”(Class Notes). We see again that both the internal and external conflicts were both motivated by carrying out the fight against Israel and any who supported them.
The Iranian revolution of 1979 followed the 1967 and 1973 Arab Israeli wars, which would see great territorial expansion on the part of Israel and a peace treaty among Egypt and the Israelis, the first of it’s kind. It would also witness the rise of the PLO and Palestinian nationalist sentiment, the last wave of nationalism before Islam would elevate itself back as the catalyst of a greater war against Israel and the West. The Islamic revolution certainly had cross border appeal with it’s home grown Islamic revolution successfully disposing of a secular leader in the Shah, Muhammad Reza Pahlavi. The Iranian revolution was significant in escalating conflict because once again it lead to a clash of ideologies. The revolution was described as bringing down “Twenty five centuries of Persian Monarchy”(Mansfield, Pelham 329). Such a massive political movement carried great influence on the status of the region. Pahlavi and President Anwar Sadat of Egypt orchestrated secular operations seeking only to improve their own countries, tailoring their policies away from greater regional conflicts such as the issue of Palestine and they openly cooperated with western forces. “Islamic activists… turned outspokenly against him because of his peace with the Zionist enemy and his contemptuous hostility towards the Islamic revolution in Iran”. This statement refers to Anwar Sadat, who in 1979 made peace with Israel. This demonstrates how despite being Persian and Shiites, the Iranian revolution become a landmark symbol of Islamic resurgence in the region and Islam as a new but familiar means of combating outside threats. This would inevitably lead to internal conflict within the region, as the movement like Arab nationalist sentiment was dependent on spreading across state lines. It is this idea the prolonged the wars and conflicts that emerged during this time period. In order to defeat Israel cross national ideology and unification were needed, however all ideologies arising during this era called for political upheaval to take place, forcing many political leaders to distance themselves from joining such movements. Another common thread was the respective ideologies inability to produce results, which ultimately escalated the struggle. The Islamic revolutions failure at achieving this all important unification was nowhere more evident than in the Iran Iraq war. Iraq was a secular state ruled by Saddam Hussein and the pan Arab Baathist party in a country of oppressed majority Shiites. Like Nasser’s calls for upheaval, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini called for the overthrow of Hussein. “Tehran Arabic broadcasts poured hatred on the Iraq regime and called on the Iraqi people to overthrow it”(Mansfield, Pelham, 330). Hussein would initiate the war in a preemptive strike to derail the Iranian regime. They would be quickly driven out by a larger Iranian force and a brutal eight year war saw hundreds of thousands dead and eventual Iraqi victory with western and gulf Arab state support and a lack of unity displayed from the Arab Shiite population in Iraq. The contributions of the west cannot be underestimated in these wars and conflicts. Like Nasser, the United States would influence the downfall of Saddam following this brief support to fulfill personal interests in the region. Wherever a cross state ideology with much populist sentiment occurred, running counter to American policy, the U.S. sought to contain it and keep such ideologies from spreading and gaining momentum. Although the Iranian revolution was incapable of spreading through the region, it’s influence was still great, as I personally believe it being the event that catapulted militant Islam to the forefront, with the regime funding to this day groups like Hezbullah in the fight gainst Israel
In concluding, wars and conflicts in the Middle East have arisen so frequently and constantly in the region since 1945 is due to the nature of the ideologies that emerged in this era, mainly a reaction to unwanted Israeli presence. Leaders in the Islamic world have a fine line to walk in terms of how they can lead. Islam will always be a powerful force in the political landscape of the Middle East, which is why it’s influence in regional occurrences can never be disregarded. However struggles and conflicts are largely a product of conflict of identity, outlined in this essay. This is evident to this day. Sunni or Shiite, secular or Islamist, Arab or Persian… however the Islamic identity of Arabs and Persians and even Turks in the Middle East is what links them in fighting a clear unwanted outsider in Israel. All these countries want Israel out, however this bigger conflict sheds light on and exposes the internal strife that subsists beneath the surface of Middle Eastern politics. Nasser and Khomeini are two of the largest examples of major attempts to fight Israeli occupation and western influence, and both failed to evoke a sustaining cross border ideology to rally the region behind it. In one case, Arabs in certain states like Saudi Arabia and Iraq associated with one identity more so than the pan Arabism Nasser proclaimed. The Saudis were built on Wahhabist Islamic principles and joining the movement would delegitimize their own political leadership, while Iraq favored it’s state over this regional sentiment. In the Iranian revolution I believe strongly
it’s about identity above all things that dissolved the revolution’s ability to spread. Six Arab Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait all united behind Iraq in this war along with the United States. A Shiite country of Persian Farsi speaking people failed to bring out support from even those Shiites living in Iraq who they fervently believed were in their corner. Until there is some sort of agreement on the Israeli Palestinian conflict the violence with Israel and neighboring states will only persist, and until state politics is upended by a successful cross border ideology, than inter regional conflict will only grow worse as long as the Israeli issue looms ever so large.
Reference:
- History of the Middle East, Peter Mansfield & Nicolas Pelham
