Democracy
America’s informal empire – what really went wrong in the Middle East
In this edited excerpt from the introduction to What Really Went Wrong, Fawaz A Gerges argues that US interventionism during the Cold War – especially in Iran and Egypt – steered the Middle East away from democracy towards authoritarianism, shaping the region’s political and economic landscape for decades to come.
At the end of the colonial era after World War Two, the Middle East was on the cusp of a new awakening. Imperial Britain, France, and Italy were discredited and exhausted. Hope filled the air in newly independent countries around the world. Like people across the decolonised Global South, Middle Easterners had great expectations and the material and spiritual energy needed to seize their destiny and modernise their societies. Few could have imagined events unfolding as disastrously as they did. Yet by the late 1950s, the Middle East had descended into geostrategic rivalries, authoritarianism and civil strife.
What clouded this promising horizon? Digging deep into the historical record, What Really Went Wrong critically examines flashpoints like the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)’s ousting of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in August 1953 and the US confrontation with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the mid-1950s. My argument is that such flashpoints sowed the seeds of subsequent discontent, hubris and conflict. I zero in on these historical ruptures to reconstruct a radically different story of what went wrong in the region, thus correcting the dominant narrative. My goal is to engender a debate about the past that can make us see the present differently.
What Really Went Wrong critically examines flashpoints like the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)’s ousting of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in August 1953 and the US confrontation with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the mid-1950s.
I argue that the defeat and marginalisation of secular-leaning nationalist visions in Iran and Egypt in the 1950s and ’60s allowed for Sunni and Shia pan-Islamism to gain momentum throughout the Middle East and beyond. Because of bad decisions made in the White House, power passed from popular leaders and sincere patriots to unpopular and subservient rulers, and the sympathy of the people was hijacked by Islamist leaders and movements. The consequences of events in both Iran and Egypt still haunt the Middle East today.
The dawn of US interventionism
The book’s core concern is with the legacy and impact of US foreign policy during the early years of the Cold War on political and economic development in the Middle East. It focuses on two major pieces of the puzzle: momentous events in Iran and Egypt in which America played a decisive role. Examining these, it shows how Anglo-American interventions in the internal affairs of the Middle East from the early 1950s (till the present) stunted political development and social change there and led the region down the wrong path to authoritarianism and militarism. The Middle East was reimagined as a Cold War chessboard, which left a legacy marked by dependencies, weak political institutions, low levels of civil and human rights protection, lopsided economic growth and political systems prone to authoritarianism. This is the antithesis of often-stated Western values rooted in democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
An informal empire emerges
Developing countries emerged into independence from a history that left its mark on their future. It was difficult enough for countries emerging from colonialism to build sound institutions, gain public trust and extend state authority, and America’s imperial ambitions and actions during and after the Cold War made this all the more difficult, if not impossible. With the foundations of imperialism far from completely dismantled, old structures persisted under new names. In some cases, it was more than just structures that perpetuated dependence. It was the very leaders and their descendants who were co-opted into a neocolonial reality. Anyone challenging that order was swiftly marked as an enemy of democracy and free markets.
With the foundations of imperialism far from completely dismantled, old structures persisted under new names.
Within living memory, the peoples of the Middle East viewed the US with awe and optimism. Unlike its European allies, America had never ruled over Muslim lands and appeared to have no imperial ambitions. Instead, Americans had built hospitals and major universities in the region. Washington could have built relations on the basis of mutual interests and respect, not dependency and domination. When the US signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia to begin oil exploration in 1933, the people of the region saw it as an opportunity to decrease their dependence on the “imperial colossus,” Great Britain. But from the Middle East to Africa and Asia, newly decolonised countries discovered that formal independence did not translate into full sovereignty. A creeping form of colonialism kept tying these countries to their old European masters and the new American power.
As the historian Rashid Khalidi noted, the US was following in the footprints of European colonialism. In his book Imperialism and the Developing World, Atul Kohli compares British imperialism during 19th century with America’s informal empire in the 20th. It might not have been formally called colonialism, but the effects were the same: Washington – often backed by London – pursued its interests at the cost of the right to self-determination and sovereignty of other peoples and countries.
Cold War divisions, US opportunism
Setting up defence pacts in the Middle East in the early 1950s to encircle Russia’s southern flank, Eisenhower’s Cold Warriors pressured friends and foes to join in America’s network of alliances against Soviet communism. Newly decolonised states like Iraq, Egypt, Iran (which was not formally colonised), and Pakistan had to choose between jumping on Uncle Sam’s informal empire bandwagon or being trampled under its wheels.
The Truman and Eisenhower administrations laid the foundation of an imperial foreign policy which was hardened by the Nixon and Reagan presidencies. The US provided arms, aid and security protection to the shah and to Israeli and Saudi leaders during the Cold War. This led to economic growth, but as Kohli notes, it was not evenly distributed throughout the region. After the end of the Cold War in 1989, US imperial foreign policy persisted with George W. Bush, who waged a global war on terror that saw the US invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq.
The US foreign policy establishment saw the world through imperial lenses that divided everything into binary terms – black and white, good and evil. In their eyes, the existential struggle against Soviet communism justified violence, collective punishment and all other means to achieve their ideological ends. In June 1961, then-CIA director Allen Dulles, declared that the destruction of the “system of colonialism” was the first step to defeat the “Free World.”
While establishing this foreign policy strategy, the US […] was also building the postwar international financial and trading and security institutions that allowed its competitive corporations to outperform others.
While establishing this foreign policy strategy, the US – as the dominant capitalistic superpower – was also building the postwar international financial and trading and security institutions that allowed its competitive corporations to outperform others. This global system of open, imperial economies disproportionately steered the fruits of the world’s economic growth to the citizens of the West, particularly Americans. Kohli argues that the US sought to tame sovereign and effective state power in the newly decolonised world. Regime change, covert and overt military interventions, sanctions to create open economies and acquiescent governments were all among the weapons of the informal Cold War imperialism, all wielded with the soundtrack of piercing alarm about the spectre of a Soviet communist threat.
The “Free World” fallacy
The project was not without opposition, however. Nationalist forces resisted the new imperialism, and US leaders escalated their military efforts to defeat indigenous opposition. With its thinly veiled imperialism, insubstantial justification for using military force and vague claims about impending threats to the “homeland”, the US began to lose credibility. Washington’s shortsighted views ultimately backfired, undermining security globally and forestalling good governance in the Middle East and beyond.
This imperial vision had ramifications for the West’s self-appointed role as the leader of the free world and defender of human rights, going well beyond reputation.
This imperial vision had ramifications for the West’s self-appointed role as the leader of the free world and defender of human rights, going well beyond reputation. Mistrust in the international liberal order has weakened international institutions and eroded deference to norms such as respect for human rights. What unfolds in Guantánamo Bay or Gaza, Palestine does more than hurt the individuals unjustly subject to illegal torture or civilians slaughtered by the thousands; it raises the global public’s tolerance for such abhorrent acts by having them unfold in the heart of the democratic West.
Understanding what happened in the Middle East
The book does not argue that democracy was bound to flourish in the Middle East if the US had not subverted the nascent democratic and anticolonial movements. Rather, America’s military intervention, its backing of authoritarian, reactionary regimes and neglect of local concerns, and its imperial ambitions created conditions that undermined the lengthy, turbulent processes that constitutionalism, inclusive economic progress, and democratisation require. The political scientist Lisa Anderson notes that “it is usually decades, if not centuries, of slow, subtle, and often violent change” that create the conditions for meaningful state sovereignty.
Though the experiences of the Middle East are not wholly unique, some characteristics are specific to the region, such as its contiguity to Europe and its vast quantities of petroleum, strategic waterways and markets which have proved irresistible to Western powers. Western powers have thus persistently intervened in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries as they have not in other parts of the world. This “oil curse” has triggered a similar geostrategic curse in the Middle East, pitting external and local powers against each other in a struggle for competitive advantage and influence. As the book explores, this convergence of curses has had far-reaching and lasting political and economic consequences for Middle Eastern states.
The book eschews historical determinism and offers a robust reconstruction of the international relations of the Middle East as well as social and political developments in the region. It also encourages us to reimagine the present in light of revisiting the past. In so doing, we can begin to see lost opportunities and new possibilities for healing and reconciliation.
Note: This excerpt from the introduction to What Really Went Wrong: The West and the Failure of Democracy in the Middle East by Fawaz A Gerges is copyrighted to Yale University Press and the author, and is reproduced here with their permission.
This book extract gives the views of the author, not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Read an interview with Fawaz A Gerges, “What really went wrong in the Middle East” from March 2024 for LSE Research for the World.
Watch Fawaz A Gerges interviewed by Christiane Amanpour about the US’s role in the Israel-Gaza war from December 2023 and by Fareed Zakaria about the prospect of a regional war in the Middle East from January 2024, both on CNN.
Main image: Secretary Dean Acheson (right) confers with Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran (left) at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C., 1951. Credit: The Harry S. Truman library.
‘World beating’ homelessness
World beating, yes. But what an indictment of 14 years of Conservative misrule in just one chart: Possibly the UK treats its data in a slightly different way to some others, but as it includes so many families in emergency and inadequate accommodation with children, I think we can safely assume that it retains its... Read more
The Great Conservative Election Data-Trawl Continues
In mid-April, a number of allegations emerged about Conservative Party candidates collecting voter data ahead of the next election – potentially for campaigning purposes – without clearly indicating those intentions. Byline Times’ VoteWatch team has now clocked four more instances of dubious data harvesting.
In Chelmsford, Conservative MP Vicky Ford has sent constituents a “safety survey” asking for their priorities regarding local policing. The survey initially asks residents whether they have witnessed crime and what policies would make them “feel safe” in the constituency.
It goes on to solicit detailed personal information and requires contact details to submit. The survey asks about political leanings, even asking respondents to rank political parties and candidates.
In the tiny text at the bottom of the screen, it reads: “This question contains special category data relating to your political opinion that may be shared with the wider Conservative Party for the purposes of Democratic Engagement with your permission. Please only answer this question if you consent to the processing of this data and sharing it with Conservative Party. If you do not answer this question then this data will not be shared.”
Meanwhile, in South Shropshire, Stuart Anderson MP is running a similar survey initiative, this time about “sav[ing] our recycling centres”.
Again, Anderson’s survey begins innocuously with several questions about local policies. After a few pages, it asks constituents for detailed information about their party-political history and voting intentions, and the same notice as above – once again in tiny, barely legible, text – appears beneath it.
Alicia Kearns, Conservative MP for Rutland and Stamford, has also sent local residents a survey.
In addition to local policy questions, it asks constituents: “How likely is it that you would vote for Alicia in the next election?” The only data notice respondents are given is a (very small) note about the local party’s “Data Protection and Privacy Policy”.
In Watford, Byline Times has seen a leaflet promoting Dean Russell MP that appears as a newspaper cover and uses a Labour-red colour scheme and font. A QR code on the page sends people to a questionable-looking survey in a pop-up window, asking voters about their “local policing priorities".
The survey requires detailed contact information to submit, and a tick-box at the bottom asks respondents to consent to their privacy policy and receive campaigning material from the Conservative Party (the only time the party is mentioned at all in the process).
Under current UK electoral law, it is difficult to assess the legality of such surveys.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has stated that, while targeted, data-driven social media advertising is widely used in British politics today, “it’s important that it is clear to people if they are being targeted” – and that “parties should make it clear that people’s personal information will be used to send them specific social media advertising”.
These cases may fall under a grey area. As in the first two examples, respondents are technically informed about how their data will be used, but that information is arguably not presented in a clear manner.
Digital issues can be particularly difficult to contend with under current election rules. The Law Commission has argued previously that the UK’s “Victorian era electoral laws are out-dated, confusing, and no longer fit for purpose”.
As of yet, it is unclear whether the ICO will be investigating any of these cases.
If you spot similar instances of questionable data harvesting, get in touch by emailing votewatch24@bylinetimes.com and consider reporting it to the ICO.
Gaza Shows Us The Difference Between Evil Autocracies And Free Democracies
Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):
https://medium.com/media/4182ba84dded7d51652f9a4105756a57/href
We’re always hearing international conflicts framed as a battle between Free Democracies and Evil Autocracies. What is the difference between a Free Democracy and an Evil Autocracy? Well, let’s look at the situation in Gaza to help us understand the distinction.
In Evil Autocracies the leaders commit genocide for hateful and racist reasons, whereas in Free Democracies the leaders commit genocide for noble and righteous reasons.
In Evil Autocracies the police are summoned to break up student protests in order to ensure the safety of the government, whereas in Free Democracies the police are summoned to break up student protests in order to ensure the safety of the students.
In Evil Autocracies the government monitors political speech on university campuses to suppress dissent, whereas in Free Democracies the government monitors political speech on university campuses to suppress “antisemitism”.
In Evil Autocracies the government controls the media and ensures that it only reports information which serves their interests, whereas in Free Democracies it is billionaires who do this.
In Evil Autocracies they imprison journalists who report inconvenient facts, whereas in Free Democracies they do this also, but mostly they just kill them with airstrikes.
In Evil Autocracies they massacre civilians with bullets and blades, whereas in Free Democracies they massacre civilians with military explosives and siege warfare, like civilized people.
In Evil Autocracies political speech is heavily restricted by the government, whereas in Free Democracies political speech is heavily restricted by Silicon Valley in collaboration with the government.
In Evil Autocracies they mow down disobedient civilians and bury them in mass graves, whereas in Free Democracies they mow down disobedient civilians and bury them in mass graves, and then their allies solemnly say they’re waiting for more information about these very serious allegations.
In Evil Autocracies they bomb hospitals, schools and religious centers, assassinate cultural leaders and journalists, and deliberately target civilian infrastructure in the name of inflicting death and terror, whereas in Free Democracies they bomb hospitals, schools and religious centers, assassinate cultural leaders and journalists, and deliberately target civilian infrastructure in the name of self-defense.
In Evil Autocracies they flagrantly disregard international law, whereas in Free Democracies they flagrantly disregard international law.
In Evil Autocracies they drop bombs on areas full of civilians because of genocidal bloodlust, whereas in Free Democracies they drop bombs on areas full of civilians because of “human shields”.
In Evil Autocracies you’ll get thrown in prison if you go on TV and speak out against the government, whereas in Free Democracies nobody who would speak out against the government is ever allowed to have a TV job.
In Evil Autocracies people are afraid to speak out against war crimes, injustice and oppression because they’ll be punished, whereas in Free Democracies people are afraid to speak out against war crimes, injustice and oppression because they’ll be accused of hating Jews.
In Evil Autocracies they arm terrorists with AK-47s and RPGs to help them inflict violence and suffering upon the innocent, whereas in Free Democracies they arm terrorists with war planes and 2,000-pound bombs to help them inflict violence and suffering upon the innocent.
In Evil Autocracies people are kept too brutalized and cowed to rise up against their rulers, whereas in Free Democracies people are kept too propagandized and indoctrinated to rise up against their rulers.
In Evil Autocracies the media feed the public a nonstop deluge of propaganda and people know it’s propaganda, whereas in Free Democracies the media feed the public a nonstop deluge of propaganda and people think it’s the news.
______________________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Go here to find video versions of my articles. Go here to buy paperback editions of my writings from month to month. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.
Bitcoin donations: 1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
Featured image via Montecruz Foto (CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED)
Guardian believes in MMT shock…
A remarkable editorial from yesterday’s Observer and so on the Guardian website, suggests that the so – called dismal science of economics actually provides much less a solution to our woes than being the cause of them. …the reason is that mainstream economics is proving incapable of giving sensible answers to important questions. Whether it... Read more
Nationalised rail – but don’t mention the banks
It is not often I link to the Morning Star – which is now a journalist’s co-operative rather than a USSR tool! They are spot on about the alleged rail nationalisation from Labour – it completely leaves out the rail leasing companies – operated by banks, usually using ‘tax efficient’ offshore operations… They state: It’s... Read more
The Modelers Have No Clothes
Predicting elections is an occult science—with a shoddy track record.
Video: thousands gather for Gaza at Columbia as professor condemns uni’s ‘day of shame’
History professor Christopher Brown describes scandal of university president setting riot police on peaceful anti-genocide demo and condemns craven congressional testimony
Thousands have again gathered on the lawns of Columbia University in New York, despite the attempted repression of the university’s management and the New York police – where they heard speeches from faculty members as well as students against Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the authorities’ attempts to silence them:
Despite the state’s aggression, which has included the use of riot police and state troops in various locations – and the shameful demonisation of peace protesters by politicians and pro-Israel lobby groups willing to collude in Israel’s war crimes, mirroring the tactics used in the UK – the protest movement is growing and the US public is increasingly aware and condemning of Israel’s mass murder of Palestinian civilians, mostly women and children.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Colonialists still rule us all…
Apparently David Marquand died yesterday. He wrote this with which I entirely concur… The evisceration and anti – democratic suppression of local authorities continues apace and although most of us object, the Tories in Devon, for example, entirely agree…... Read more
Just a Fraction of Voters Who Lack Photo ID Apply for ‘Free’ Identification – In Warning Sign for Mayoral Elections
Barely a tenth of voters who lack photo ID are likely to have applied for the Government’s free form of identification ahead of next week’s local elections, according to analysis of official figures.
Research by the Electoral Commission shows that people who are unemployed, people with disabilities, and people from lower socio-economic backgrounds are least likely to have an accepted form of ID, and should therefore apply for the free voter ID – a Voter Authority Certificate (VAC).
But analysis by campaign group Unlock Democracy shows that, despite a slight uptick in recent applications for the free ID, the number of applications is half of what it was over the same 100-day period ahead of the 2023 local elections. This is despite more voters being expected to head to the polls this year for many councils in England, as well as mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners.
Between mid-January last year and 25 April 2023, 89,654 applications were made for a VAC. In the same time period to the 24 April this year, just 41,792 people have applied.
The Government’s own research in 2021 found that 4% of eligible voters do not have an approved photographic ID – equivalent to more than 1.68 million people in England and Wales. While that figure may have declined in the time since, Unlock Democracy estimates that 1.5 million voters are still likely to lack necessary photo ID to vote.
The deadline to apply for a VAC passes at 5pm today, 24 April.
Tom Brake, director of Unlock Democracy, said: “Today’s figures are an unhappy reminder that voter ID will once more rob huge numbers of eligible voters of their rights. The Government’s Voter Authority Certificate scheme has proven itself a total failure.
“We already know from last May what the impact of voter ID will be – many thousands prevented from voting, disproportionately young and disabled people and voters from minority backgrounds. Worse, with several high-profile mayoral contests taking place this year, the damage will only be greater.
"Voter ID is an unnecessary, discriminatory and costly failure that’s damaging UK democracy. It should be abandoned before even greater damage is done at the general election.”
Ahead of today's 5pm deadline, Craig Westwood, director of communication, policy and research at the Electoral Commission, said: “The free ID helps ensure that everyone is able to take part in the May elections, even if they don’t currently have an accepted form of photo ID.
“The process of applying doesn’t take long and there is information and support available from the Electoral Commission and your local authority. And if you have friends or family who don’t have an accepted form of photo ID, please spread the word.”
If people miss today’s deadline, they can still apply in time for the general election.
The VAC scheme was set up with the aim of ensuring that people without a qualifying ID would still be able to cast their vote at a polling station.
The Electoral Commission found that around 4% of all people who said they did not vote at last May’s local elections listed voter ID requirements as the reason – calculated to be around 740,000 people.
More than 14,000 people were also recorded as being turned away from polling stations and failing to return due to voter ID in last year’s English local elections. But, as a recent DLUHC report concluded, the actual number of people who could not vote is likely to be much higher.
Urban areas such as London, where high-profile mayoral contests boost turnout, are likely to be hard-hit by the voter ID policy. A report last September by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy and the Constitution described the voter ID system as “poisoned cure”.
Ministers have long insisted that the introduction of voter ID is to make elections safer. However, out of 58 million votes cast across three elections in 2019, there were only 33 allegations of the type of voter fraud that the voter ID scheme could have prevented, with only one resulting in a conviction, Unlock Democracy notes.
It is estimated that the policy will cost up to £120 million over a decade to implement, due to the need for extra staff, training, larger polling cards, advertising the policy, and the roll-out of the free ID scheme.
Recent polling found that 16% of voting age respondents in Britain were not aware of voter ID requirements – equivalent to around five million people. Among 18 to 24 year-olds, the figure rises to 27%, more than one in four.
Accepted forms of photo ID include a UK, European Economic Area (EEA) or Commonwealth passport; UK or EEA drivers’ licence; and some concessionary travel passes, such as an UK government-funded older person’s bus pass or an Oyster 60+ card. Voters can use expired ID if they are still recognisable from the photo.
There has been considerable criticism of the larger number of forms of ID accepted for older voters, but almost none designed for young people.
Applications for the free ID can be submitted online or by completing a paper form and sending it to the local council’s electoral services team. Voters must provide a photo, their full name, date of birth, the address at which they are registered to vote, and their National Insurance number. Applicants must already be registered to vote before applying.
January to April 2023 figures (daily applications)
Equivalent figures for 2024
Spotted something strange ahead of the local elections? If you have a political story or tip-off, email josiah@bylinetimes.com or the VoteWatch contact above.