This paper surveys the major forces that shaped the modern Middle East, tracing how Western industrialization created a strategic dependency on oil that drew colonial powers into the region. It examines the legacy of British and French colonialism, the tensions surrounding the creation of Israel, and Egypt's path from British domination to Sadat's peace diplomacy. The paper also critically engages Thomas Friedman's rentier-state thesis, offering a more nuanced view of Arab economic development, and analyzes Islamic fundamentalism as a product of modern political grievances rather than a simple return to doctrine. A glossary of key terms provides historical and conceptual context.
As a result of the Industrial Revolution, during the 19th and 20th centuries, the Western world grew increasingly dependent upon technological advancement in every facet of daily existence. As an unintentional consequence of this economic revolution, the major commercial powers grew more dependent upon the non-renewable resource of oil. The state that controlled oil — whether through trade routes or oil-producing colonies — could dominate other major nation-states. Ironically, as a result of technological advancement, states that had formerly dismissed the Middle East as backward, or significant only in terms of its historical role in the development of Christianity, grew progressively more dependent upon the region to sustain a modern economy.
Initially, Britain and France attempted to dominate the Middle East through colonization (as in Egypt and Algeria, respectively) and later through the not-so-subtle control of puppet leaders (as in pre-Nasser Egypt in the case of Britain, and in Iran in the case of the United States). Today, as former colonies have become independent nations, the oil-dependent West is instead reliant upon the goodwill of Arab leaders and the stability of a region fraught with tensions. Many nations in the region still regard the West, with some justification, as a colonial power.
The birth of nationalism and a surge in the demand for oil occurred almost simultaneously. World War I produced the first modern war and demonstrated that the control of the globe would be determined by which nation possessed the best military technology as well as the best-trained army. The Treaty of Versailles in Article 22 also affirmed the right of all nations — including those of the former Ottoman Empire — to self-determination over their own destinies. This both confirmed the crucial importance of oil later in the century and created a tenuous ideological position for nations such as Great Britain and France, which continued to hold onto their colonial possessions and attempted to influence the region for their own ends.
After World War II, the creation of Israel exacerbated tensions that had already existed in the Middle East, particularly since the Balfour Declaration. On one hand, the nations of the world wished to support the development of a Jewish state after the Holocaust. On the other hand, Western powers were reluctant to create animosity in such an important oil-producing region, causing Britain and other nations to support Israel with only tentative affirmations, and at times even to subvert it. Attempts to influence the region frequently proved ineffective. Egypt under Nasser flagrantly asserted Egyptian supremacy and nationalized the Suez Canal. Iran defiantly cast off the Shah and established an Islamic republic.
Today, nationalism in the Middle East — shaped by the memory of colonial domination — often comes hand-in-hand with anti-Westernism. Nationalism is frequently, if not always, ideologically linked to fundamentalism or to belief in an autocratic leader, and carries a strong anti-Israel rhetorical dimension. The West does not want to alienate Israel, given that it remains the most stable and politically friendly state in the region. Thus, in the modern Middle East, the legacy of colonialism, longstanding concepts of nationalism that divide the region along religious and ethnic lines, and the new demands of technology have created a kind of powder keg of divided loyalties and desires. As noted by James Gelvin in The Modern Middle East: A History, much as in the Balkans, although nationalism may be "real" in the sense that it reflects genuine solidarity within a historical group, it can be exacerbated by external national and economic forces — even by political conflicts between nations far away (58).
During World War I, British troops gained control of Palestine and the present areas of Jordan, Iraq, and Iran. After the settlement at Versailles, Britain maintained control of Palestine, Trans-Jordan, and parts of Iran and Iraq. With the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Great Britain formally recognized the right of all Jews to have a homeland, thereby giving Israel its first formal mandate to exist. Jews began migrating to the Palestinian-partitioned area in large numbers, especially before and during World War II, as a result of the persecution they were enduring in Europe. However, Britain — fearing a local Arab revolt — began to actively limit Jewish immigration. This created anger and resentment between Jews and the British, lasting until the declaration of Israeli independence in 1948.
In 1971, President Anwar Sadat assumed control of Egypt. Before Sadat, Nasser had expelled British influence by deposing the British-controlled leader, but he governed as an autocratic ruler rather than a diplomat. His successor, Sadat, proved far more democratic in his means of governance. Eventually, Sadat signed the Camp David Accords — a peace treaty with Israel — making Egypt the first Arab nation to sign such a treaty. Israel also ceded some of the territories it had gained during the 1967 War back to Egypt. Sadat's modernization program was partly spurred by the economic instability affecting the entire region in the early 1970s, as discussed in detail by Gelvin (2004, p. 250). Despite the partly self-serving nature of his program, Sadat's rise to power ultimately allowed this once-dominated British colony to find peace amid the turmoil spawned by decades of Western involvement in the area.
"Friedman's oil-dependency thesis and its limits"
"Fundamentalism as modern political response, not retreat"
"Glossary of key historical and theoretical terms"
You’re 38% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.