Final Flashcards
Pan Arabism
Hegemonic ideology from 1950-70s
Focus: Unification of Arab states into one - a transnational collective identity
The Arab world as an “imagined community” - Noble reading
Key Figure: Gamal Abdel Nasser
Arab Nationalism
Can be traced back to the Ottoman Empire with rising anti-colonial thought as the main driver.
Focus: Sovereignty and independence of Arab nations while fostering a shared sense of identity and pride. It’s goal was to strengthen individual Arab states rather than outright merging.
Key Figure: Michel Aflaq
He was the founder of the Ba’ath movement, which later became the Ba’ath party. Ba’ath meaning rebirth/renaissance. While he was from Syria, he fled to Iraq during the Syrian coup.
His ideology revolved around Arab unification as a vehicle for development and strength.
Ba’athism strongly influenced by socialist ideals of economic redistribution; separation religion and state, rallying around secular Arab identity.
Focal point: The creation of israel contributed to a sense of Arab unity and provided a focal point for Arab states, which essentially served as a tool to strengthening Nationalism’s appeal among Arab states.
Arab nationalism can be traced back to the Ottoman Empire, where rising anti-colonial thought served as its main catalyst. Its primary focus was on the sovereignty and independence of Arab nations while fostering a shared sense of identity and pride. Rather than advocating for outright merging of Arab states, the movement aimed to strengthen individual states. A key figure in this movement was Michel Aflaq, the founder of the Ba’ath movement, which later evolved into the Ba’ath Party. The term “Ba’ath” translates to “rebirth” or “renaissance,” reflecting Aflaq’s vision of Arab unification as a means of achieving development and strength. Although originally from Syria, Aflaq fled to Iraq following a coup in his homeland. His ideology, known as Ba’athism, was deeply influenced by socialist principles such as economic redistribution and emphasized the separation of religion and state, rallying around a secular Arab identity. The creation of israel served as a focal point for Arab unity, intensifying the push for Arab nationalism and strengthening its appeal among Arab states.
Gamal Abdel Nasser
Gamal Abdel Nasser - 1956-1970 (presidency)
He was a military officer and leader of the Free Officers Movement which staged a coup to take down King Farouk. - After the coup Nasser gradually gained power and became Egypt’s president in 1956.
Major Achievements: Nationalisation of Suez Canal
This act sparked outrage from British and French but boosted his popularity in the Arab world.
He had a Pan-Arab vision which called for political unification of Arab countries under a common Arab identity. This was epitomised by the creation of the United Arab Republic, which was a merger of Egypt and Syria under Nasser’s control. The UAR only lasted 3 years as the Syrians resented the union, seeing it as a power grab by Egypt to control Syrian resources. This leads to the overthrow of the UAR government in Syria and withdrawal from the Union.
Foreign policy: Nasser took a non-aligned stance during the Cold War, getting support from both the Soviet Union and Western powers.
Nasser remains a highly controversial figure in Arab politics: revered by many for his nationalist achievements but criticised for the authoritarian nature of his rule and for the failure of his Pan-Arab projects.
United Arab Republic
Formation: Established in 1958 as a political union between Egypt and Syria, intended to be the first step toward broader Arab unity.
Context:
Syria was politically unstable and sought greater support from Egypt, while Egypt was eager to promote Pan-Arab unity.
Nasser’s appeal as a champion of Arab nationalism made him a key figure in the UAR’s formation.
Key Features:
Nasser as President: Nasser became the president of the UAR, and Egypt effectively dominated the union.
Government Structure: The UAR maintained separate local governments in Egypt and Syria, but Nasser’s administration controlled most of the central government.
Economic and Military Cooperation: Efforts were made to unify economic policies and military forces between Egypt and Syria.
Challenges:
Syrian Discontent: Many Syrians felt that Egypt had too much influence and that the union primarily benefited Egypt. Syrians resented the union, seeing it as a power grab by Egypt to control Syrian resources.
Political Tensions: Significant political differences existed between the Egyptian and Syrian leadership.
End of the UAR: The union collapsed in 1961 when a military coup in Syria resulted in Syria’s secession.
The dissolution of the UAR was seen as a failure of Pan-Arab unity, though Nasser’s influence remained strong in the Arab world.
Suez Canal Crisis
Suez Canal Crisis (1956)
1956: Nasser announces the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, previously controlled by a UK-French consortium, and blocks the Straits of Tiran to israeli shipping - Tensions rise
1956: Israel, Britain, and France secretly plan military action against Egypt:
Israel invades the Sinai Peninsula.
Britain and France launched airstrikes and seized the Canal Zone.
The Soviet Union strongly opposes the invasion.
The US, under President Eisenhower, pressures Britain, France, and Israel to halt military action, fearing escalation into a broader conflict with the USSR.
1957, the invaders withdrew, and Nasser was seen as a hero in the Arab world for resisting Western and Israeli intervention.
Impact of the Suez Crisis
The Suez Crisis highlights the declining influence of colonial powers (Britain and France) and the rise of the US and the Soviet Union as the dominant global powers.
Nasser emerges as a hero across the Arab world, gaining support for his resistance to Western intervention.
Nasser’s pan-Arabism gains momentum, inspiring nationalist movements in Iraq (1958) and Libya (1969).
The event solidifies Nasser’s role as a symbol of Arab unity and anti-colonial resistance.
Death of Arabism
Decline of Pan-Arabism Post-Nasser:
Following Nasser’s death in 1970, Pan-Arabism lost much of its momentum.
His successors in Egypt, particularly Anwar Sadat, moved away from Nasser’s Pan-Arab policies, focusing instead on Egypt’s own national interests.
Regional Rivalries:
The Arab world became increasingly divided in the 1970s and 1980s, with regional rivalries emerging between countries like Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
The Gulf War (1990–1991): The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and the subsequent international intervention highlighted the lack of Arab unity, as Arab states were divided over how to respond.
Islamism and Secularism:
The rise of political Islam in the Arab world, particularly with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, offered an alternative to secular Arab nationalist.
These ideologies often clashed with the goals of Pan-Arabism, as some Arab states embraced more Islamic-oriented governance rather than secular Arab nationalism.
Failure of Pan-Arab Institutions:
Despite the existence of organisations like the Arab League, political and economic integration remained limited. Many of these organisations failed to live up to their ideals of regional cooperation.
The Arab Spring (2011): The wave of uprisings and revolutions across the Arab world further exposed the fragility of Arab unity, with many countries descending into political chaos.
End of Pan-Arabism as a Dominant Force:
By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, Pan-Arabism as a cohesive political force had largely faded, with Arab countries focusing more on national interests than regional unity.
Petro-Islam: Saudi Propagation of Wahhabism
Definition: Petro-Islam refers to the Saudi Arabian promotion of Wahhabi Islam, a strict form of Sunni Islam, funded through oil wealth.
Global Outreach:
Saudi Arabia utilised its vast oil revenues to propagate Wahhabism worldwide, particularly in regions like West Africa.
Promoted Wahhabism to counter ideologies like communism during the Cold War, supported by the United States as part of their geopolitical strategy.
- The oil shock of the early 1970s allowed Saudi Arabia to enhance its leadership in the Muslim world through increased support for mosque building and religious education, promoting its austere Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, termed “petro-Islam.”
- The U.S. welcomed this religious outreach as a counter to the spread of communism, allowing Saudi Arabia to mask its internal Islamist dissent, which culminated in the 1979 siege of Mecca’s Grand Mosque.
Impact:
Helped spread conservative interpretations of Islam globally.
Influenced the development of Islamist movements by providing funding and ideological frameworks.
Hezbollah (Party of God)
- Origins and Development:
- Founded in 1982 in Lebanon to resist Israel’s military invasion.
- Inspired by the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 and Shi’a theology.
- Combines militia activities, political participation, and social services.
- Military Strength:
- Considered the strongest non-state armed actor globally, often surpassing Lebanon’s national army.
- Engaged in conflicts with Israel (e.g., 1992, 1996, 2006), gaining regional popularity, especially after the 2006 war.
- Complicated by its intervention in Syria’s civil war (2011-present) in support of Bashar al-Assad.
- Shi’a Theology:
- Draws on the martyrdom of Imam Hussein at Karbala as a form of liberation theology.
- Mobilizes the Shi’a community in Lebanon against external threats (e.g., Israel) and internal rivals.
- Slogan: “Every day is Ashura and every land, Karbala,” linking historical martyrdom to contemporary struggles.
- Role in Politics:
- Holds seats in Lebanon’s parliament and wields significant influence with the implicit threat of military force.
- Provides essential services to the marginalised Shi’a population in southern Lebanon, filling gaps left by the state.
Factors Contributing to the Rise of Islamism in the Middle East
- Historical and Religious Foundations:
- Islam has historically fused religious and political authority, unlike the secular separation seen in the West post-Treaty of Westphalia.
- Political Islam has roots predating modern movements, with traditions like jihad (holy struggle) being interpreted in various ways.
- State Failures:
- Weak governance and inadequate provision of services (education, infrastructure) left a vacuum in many states.
- Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and Hezbollah filled these gaps, offering social services and support to neglected populations.
- Globalisation and Technology:
- The “Muslim Public Sphere” expanded through advancements in communication technologies, such as satellite TV and the internet.
- Islamist groups leveraged globalisation to project influence and organise transnationally.
- Cold War Dynamics:
- U.S. support for Saudi propagation of Wahhabism to counter communism indirectly fuelled Islamist ideologies.
Causes of the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88)
Causes of the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88)
- Geopolitical Ambitions:
- Saddam Hussein sought to establish Iraq as a dominant regional power.
- He coveted Iran’s oil-rich Khuzestan province and aimed to assert control over strategic waterways like the Shatt al-Arab.
- Fear of Regime Instability:
- Saddam perceived domestic unrest in Iraq’s Shi’a population as fuelled by Iran’s revolutionary rhetoric after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
- Pre-War Tensions:
- Multiple border skirmishes and sustained propaganda from both sides worsened relations.
- The 1975 Algiers Agreement temporarily resolved border disputes and collapsed under rising tensions.
- Miscalculations by Saddam:
- Saddam assumed that Iranian border populations would rise against the Islamic Republic and that his military could secure a quick victory. Both assumptions proved wrong.
Outcomes of the Iran-Iraq War
Outcomes of the Iran-Iraq War
- Human and Economic Cost:
- Over 1 million people died, and the war caused massive economic devastation for both nations.
- Stalemate and Ceasefire
- The war ended in 1988 with neither side achieving clear territorial or ideological gains.
- Iraq recaptured the al-Faw Peninsula shortly before agreeing to a UN-brokered ceasefire.
- Iran’s Revolution Consolidated:
- The war allowed Iran’s regime to solidify control domestically and suppress dissent by framing the conflict as a unifying religious and nationalist struggle.
- Iraq’s International Isolation:
- Iraq’s use of chemical weapons and aggression tarnished its international image and strained relationships with some allies.
- Shifts in Focus:
- Iran transitioned from revolutionary ambitions to a more pragmatic approach to governance and international relations.
- Iraq faced growing economic strain and challenges to Saddam’s leadership, setting the stage for the 1990 Gulf War.
Ideological Priorities in the Iran-Iraq War
Ideological Priorities in the War
- Religious Justification:
- For Iran, the war became an extension of the Islamic Revolution, portrayed as a holy defence against a secular, profane aggressor (Iraq).
- Ayatollah Khomeini emphasised martyrdom and sacrifice as spiritual duties.
- Exporting the Revolution:
- Iran’s leadership aimed to overthrow Saddam and promote its revolutionary ideals throughout the region.
- This ideological commitment prolonged the war even after initial defensive successes.
- Iraq’s Secular Nationalism:
- Saddam positioned himself as a defender of Arab nationalism against Persian influence, appealing to Sunni-majority Gulf states for support.
- International Framing:
- Both sides accused external forces (e.g., the U.S., Gulf states, and Israel) of orchestrating the war to undermine their regimes.
Takeyh’s Analysis of the Iran-Iraq War
Broader Explanation of the War (Takeyh’s Analysis)
- Ideological Contest:
- Takeyh emphasises the war was more than a territorial conflict; it symbolised a clash between Iran’s revolutionary Shi’a ideology and Iraq’s Ba’athist secularism.
- Iran’s Challenges and Resolve:
- Lacking allies and resources, Iran relied on societal mobilisation and ideological fervour to counter Iraq’s technological superiority.
- Prolonged Conflict:
- Misperceptions and maximalist goals by both sides prevented early resolution.
- Iran’s refusal to accept ceasefire proposals in 1982 prolonged the war, driven by its ambition to export its revolution.
- International Involvement:
- Gulf states and Western powers (notably the U.S.) supported Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran’s revolutionary expansion.
- Both nations engaged in proxy confrontations, such as targeting oil facilities and cities.
- War Tactics and Escalation:
- Iraq’s use of chemical weapons and attacks on Iranian ports escalated the conflict.
- Iran’s human-wave assaults underscored its prioritisation of ideology over conventional military strategy.
- Endgame and Legacy:
- The ceasefire reflected mutual exhaustion rather than the resolution of underlying tensions.
- The war solidified the Iranian regime’s control but exposed the limits of ideological warfare, leading to a pivot toward pragmatism in later years.
Iran-Iraq War paragraph
- Rooted in 3 things
- Why did Saddam do it - 3 objectives
- How did he underestimate
- How did Iran prove them wrong
- What does Takeyh emphasise
- How was it prolonged
- How did it end
- How did the outcomes differ between the 2 countries
Overview of the War
The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) was a devastating and long-lasting conflict in modern Middle Eastern history.
It was rooted in geopolitical ambitions, regime insecurities, and clashing ideologies.
Saddam Hussein’s Goals
Saddam initiated the war to make Iraq the dominant regional power.
His goals: control Khuzestan (Iran’s oil-rich province) and the Shatt al-Arab waterway.
He also wanted to counter domestic Shi’a unrest, which he believed was inspired by Iran’s 1979 Revolution.
Initial Miscalculations
Saddam assumed Iran’s border populations would rebel, and that the leadership lacked resolve.
Instead, Iran showed remarkable resilience and framed the war as a holy defence of Islam.
Ideological Clash
The war became a clash of ideologies: Iran’s revolutionary Shi’a zeal vs. Iraq’s Ba’athist secularism (Takeyh’s analysis).
Escalation of Brutality
The conflict was marked by tactics like human-wave assaults and chemical weapons.
It was prolonged by Iran’s aim to export its revolution and Saddam’s ambition to lead the Arab world.
Stalemate and Aftermath
By 1988, the war ended in a stalemate with over one million dead.
No side achieved clear territorial or ideological goals.
Iran’s regime was consolidated, while Iraq faced international isolation and economic strain.
Long-term Consequences
For Iran, the war suppressed internal dissent and shifted its focus to pragmatic governance.
Iraq’s consequences set the stage for the 1990 Gulf War.
Key Takeaway (Takeyh’s Insight)
The war highlighted the limitations of ideological warfare and the consequences of miscalculations and maximalist ambitions.
The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) was a devastating conflict rooted in geopolitical ambitions, regime insecurities, and clashing ideologies, marking one of the longest and most destructive wars in modern Middle Eastern history. Saddam Hussein initiated the war to establish Iraq as a dominant regional power, aiming to control Iran’s oil-rich Khuzestan province and the Shatt al-Arab waterway while countering domestic Shi’a unrest that he believed was incited by Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. Preceded by border skirmishes and the collapse of the 1975 Algiers Agreement, Saddam miscalculated Iran’s resilience, assuming its border populations would rise against the Islamic Republic and its leadership would lack resolve. Instead, Iran demonstrated remarkable societal mobilisation and ideological fervour, framing the war as a holy defence of Islam against a secular aggressor. Takeyh emphasises that the conflict transcended territorial disputes, becoming a “clash of ideologies” between Iran’s revolutionary Shi’a zeal and Iraq’s Ba’athist secularism. Prolonged by Iran’s commitment to exporting its revolution and Saddam’s aspirations to lead the Arab world, the war saw tactics such as human-wave assaults and chemical weapons, escalating its brutality. By 1988, the conflict ended in a costly stalemate, with over one million dead and neither side achieving clear territorial or ideological objectives. However, the war consolidated Iran’s revolutionary regime, suppressed internal dissent, and shifted its focus to pragmatic governance. Iraq, on the other hand, faced international isolation and economic strain, setting the stage for further instability and the 1990 Gulf War. Ultimately, as Takeyh notes, the war underscored the limitations of ideological warfare and the enduring consequences of miscalculations and maximalist ambitions.
The Role of “Frames” in Shaping US Policy
The Role of “Frames” in Shaping US Policy
The Vietnam War shaped US foreign policy by creating a mindset aimed at avoiding humiliation, with a focus on reasserting military dominance.
The Middle East became a key venue for the US to demonstrate power and recover from the “Vietnam Syndrome.”
The Gulf War of 1991, framed as a noble cause to liberate Kuwait, allowed the US to showcase overwhelming military strength, boosting domestic support for its armed forces.
Frames such as protecting global stability, liberating oppressed nations, or responding to terrorism have often been used to justify interventions in the Middle East.
The Relation Between US Domestic Politics and Middle Eastern Policies
The Relation Between US Domestic Politics and Middle Eastern Policies
Public Opinion and Military Deployments: The Marine barracks bombing in 1983 prompted the US to prioritise deployments with clear objectives and American public support, as stated by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger.
Presidential Image: The Iranian hostage crisis weakened Carter’s presidency, while Reagan and Bush used Middle Eastern interventions (e.g., Gulf War) to bolster their leadership and public perception.
Economic Interests: Dependence on Middle Eastern oil has historically influenced US policies, with energy security remaining a priority in domestic and foreign agendas.
Terrorism and Security Narratives: Post-9/11, the framing of Middle Eastern policies as part of the global War on Terror shaped public discourse and justified military actions.
Military-Industrial Complex: US interventions in the Middle East have often been tied to domestic political and economic interests, including defense spending and arms sales.
