Middle East conflict and whether Western blame oversimplifies its causes

[Ihatetomatoes]

I read a number of theads that I don't contribute on and wasn't sure where to pop this. There are many misconceptions about how 'The West' are at fault for much/many/all of the problems in the middle east. I came across this and thought I'd share it. The first suicide bomber - not due to any conflict with a Western power but arose from the conflict of Iran/Iraq.

Something that I thought might be useful for those in the West who like to blame all the ills of the world on the west and spread the myth that the middle east would be utopia if The West hadn't have etc etc etc. Issues and problems are mostly multi factorial and nuanced and the problems have built up over many, many years and it seems ridiculous to read or hear the 'the west/British/colonisers etc etc' are the fault of the problems in the middle east. Not so. Many reasons for conflicts and problems, many, many reasons.

"The modern Middle-Eastern suicide bomber, the archetypal face of 21st-century terrorism, did not first emerge from the rubble of 9/11 nor the insurgencies in Iraq and Syria. Rather, the modern architecture of martyrdom was born earlier, in a different war and under a different banner: that of the Islamic Republic of Iran during its brutal conflict with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1980s."

from here: https://aoav.org.uk/2025/the-martyrs-logic-why-provoking-iran-risks-a-global-spiral-of-violence/

This use of children by radicals. The radicalisation of the young. The ridiculous notion sold to them that their 'god' would love them to go out and kill themself and others in the process. The resultant declaration of being a 'hero' by killing oneself and others. Cynical use of children. Cruel, calculated and incredibly sad.

"The Middle-East’s first recorded suicide bomber was soon to become mythologised by Iran’s leaders. Ayatollah Khomeini declared him a national hero. Monuments were built. Streets were renamed. Stamps bore his face. His story was turned into film, television, and religious instruction. His body became an icon; not just to a nation under siege, but to a new kind of warfare."

It's plainly ridiculous to lay everything at the feet of 'the West' and in fact is just a self-centred way of denying agency to middle eastern and other countries . Some Middle Eastern countries have their own big cultural and economic barriers to sorting themselves out. And of course there are middle Eastern countries that are doing well. The West has interfered quite significantly in that part of the world, but also so have Russia and China.

The older leaders can sit back in their wealth and comfort whilst the young carry out acts of terror for them. Cowards that use the young.

I thought this was going to be a history of the Crusades, the Ottoman Turkish Empire, the Austrian-Hungarians and Russia, concluding with a bit of Sykes, Lawrence and Bell.

Attempting not to oversimplfy the cause of all the problems of the middle east (since this thread is about the middle east) by merely blaming the west for all ills. Seen and heard too many people do that.

So you missed out the whole Sykes-Picot thing ? The discovery of oil ? The colonialism? Reagan using Islamicists against Communism in the 80's ?

You missed all that out and went straight to the concept of suicide bombers ?

On the article you posted a link to, did you read the last sentence.

"One need only look at the golden statue of Fahmideh outside Tehran, clutching a belt of grenades, to understand that this war, should it come, will not be one of quick capitulations or rational retreats."

The article is from 2025.

And even this article, that appears to "have an angle", is basically saying "don't do it". But Trump done it.

Also on the site is this :

Elbit Systems' weapons supply to Israel and alleged violations of International Humanitarian Law in Gaza - AOAV

You might need to check this site is not connected to "Palestine Action" in any way. They are proscribed in the UK.

No I didn't. I know that the difficulties in the region are due to many different reasons and find it odd that some people just go to the 'blame the western colonisers' commentary.

You know, it is possible for there to be many reasons for countries to have difficulties rather than straight to blame the west. The 'west' has much to answer for, but there are more reasons for conflict that just 'the west'.

You know, just sometimes it might be usual to have threads looking at different things rather than the same old 'blame the west' or 'blame Israel'.

Iran wasn't actually colonised by the west.

Quote "Iran wasn't actually colonised by the west."

Was there anything that happened in Iran that the west caused to happen ?

Yes Trump 'did it'. I'm no fan of Trump. I don't see many are on many of these threads. I purposefully didn't put this on the Iran/US war thread.

The golden statue of Fahimideh - glorifiying the purposeful encouragement of a child to kill himself and kill others. That's extremely sad. Yes, the use of their own young to kill others whilst also dying shows that the old regime leaders care not for their young in the sense that many would care for the lives of their young. They merely use them as a tool in their aim to continue power. Cynical use of the very young (as the young CHILD in the story) is not what many countries would do - a mere 13 years old - sent out to kill himself and others - what a waste.

Finally, your comment "You might need to check this site is not connected to "Palestine Action" in any way. They are proscribed in the UK". I am well aware that PA are proscribed in the UK. I don't support them or their actions.

Did you actually read the thread title at all? I didn't actually say none of the problems of Iran were linked to actions by the West. I said that Western blame oversimplifies problems.

I suppose its because we can see that the west has contributed to instability in certain countries/regions.

Colonisation has resulted in many countries being forced into poverty and exportation of their natural resources. That results in instability, corruption, extremist groups, civil wars, etc.

One example is Iraq. Saddams death brought years of instability/corruption to the country which I believe is only now beginning to stabilise. His dictatorship was terrible, but the 15-20 years in Iraq following his death would be argued by some as being the same (in a different way) or worse.

Another example is Palestine/Israel. There were many problems in the area prior, but the creation of Israel has caused many problems which have directly lead to the war/genocide today.

Would there have been war, corruption and instability in these countries if the west were not involved? Most definitely.

Has the involvement of the west resulted in better outcomes for these countries/regions? That is difficult to answer.

You are aware that The USA and it's imperialist poodles intervened on the side of Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war aren't you? Among the many armaments supplied by the West were chemical weapons. These were the only WMD found by the Coalition of the Greedy when they launched their illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Western imperialism in the Middle East goes back to WWI when it began to be apparent how important hydrocarbons were going to be. Iraq isn't a natural country. Baghdad is more closely related to the Arab World, Mosul should be part of a Kurdish state, Basra would more naturally be part of Iran. The only reason they are in the same jurisdiction is for the convenience of British Imperialist ambitions after WWI. In fact the British Army fought (illegally) after the armistice to make sure that they took possession of Mosul's oil fields. From Wikipedia:

On 30 October 1918, the Armistice of Mudros was signed and both parties remained in position. General Marshall accepted the surrender of Khalil Pasha and the Ottoman 6th Army on the same day but Cobbe did not stand fast as the armistice required and continued to advance on Mosul in the face of Turkish protests.[43] British troops marched unopposed into the city on the 14 November 1918. The ownership of Mosul Province and its rich oil fields became an international issue. The war in Mesopotamia ended on 14 November 1918, fifteen days after the Armistice of Mudros, a day after the occupation of Constantinople, and three days after the armistice of 11 November 1918.

Almost all conflicts in the ME can be traced back to The West's insatiable addiction to oil.

Indeed. The west has contributed to instability and made many mistakes. I do believe however, that an oversimplified, the west is to blame takes away any responsibility for the leaders to seek better for their own country and their own people.

(I've kept away from Israel and Gaza since there are so many threads on that conflict. There are plenty of them discussing the history of that area already)

Yes I am. However, Iran/Iraq had their own problems between the nations. (As do other nations). Again over simplified to blame the west alone.

Quote "Finally, your comment "You might need to check this site is not connected to "Palestine Action" in any way. They are proscribed in the UK". I am well aware that PA are proscribed in the UK. I don't support them or their actions. "

You might not support PA, but the site you posted a link to is not so clear.

"The prosecution of Palestine Action activists illustrates a related but distinct issue: the extent to which direct action targeting defence companies should be treated through the ordinary criminal law or through the framework of counter-terrorism legislation. While courts have recognised that some actions associated with Palestine Action may fall within statutory definitions of terrorism, they have also emphasised the importance of distinguishing between criminality and terrorism. The application of terrorism powers in this context therefore raises wider questions concerning proportionality, political protest and the boundaries of lawful dissent. AOAV is concerned such boundaries are being truncated."

Source here. From the website you posted:

Elbit Systems' weapons supply to Israel and alleged violations of International Humanitarian Law in Gaza - AOAV

The thing is the pretence that the middle east would be a utopia where peace and love would reign rather than conflict and trouble isn't true. It also feels rather racist to assume that the people in the area are merely the pawns of the west and have no agency over what they do/their leaders do.

@RedTagAlan

The site I obtained the article from is

Action on Armed Violence
tel:+4407984645145 +44 (0) 7984 645 145
AOAV is a registered charity. Charity number 1122057.
© Copyright AOAV 2004-2026 All Rights Reserved.

They have numerous articles. They are not linked to PA.

Name any country that is a utopia.

You do know there is an ongoing war in the west just now ? There are wars all over.

Trump had one just this year in oil rich VZ. Or so he claims.

Oh dear.

Anything to say about the oversimplification of just blaming the west?

There are threads on the war following the invasion on Ukraine. Obviously, I know there is a war there and I also know that Ukraine isn't in the middle east. I started a thread on the oversimplification of blaming the west for problems in the middle east. I guess if the subject matter doesn't interest you, you could always start a thread on the war in Ukraine (or contribute to the ones already on MN) or start a thread about Trump and VZ. Or any other Trump related topic of your chosing.

Is there something you particularly don't like about discussing the oversimplification of merely blaming the west?

How did the nation known as Iraq come about ?

Who drew the lines on a map ?

I'm sure you are already aware that Iraq has been around for a long, long time, prior to the the Mongol invasion or the Ottomans (not from the west). Those naughty Mongol and Ottomans tend to excape much blame.

Anyway rather than just chuck questions about things I expect you know, you have shown how invasions from other areas contributed to the problems in the middle east and therefore how merely blaming the west is much too simplistic. Thank you.

Quote " Is there something you particularly don't like about discussing the oversimplification of merely blaming the west?
Show less"

I am discussing it. As are other posters. And it is far from simple.

The UK holds the record for independence days. 48 apparently. Iraq is on the list. 3rd of October 1932.

List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom - Reference.org

Correct, the discovery Oil leading to the carving up on the region to "share the spoils" under Sykes-Picot was the catalyst for the modern day destabilisation of the region. The lucrative nature of War means that the Military Industrial complex has a vested interest in keeping the region in conflict like as you mentioned funding the The Mujahideen Resistance against Russia in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

AI Summary:
The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement destabilized the Middle East by drawing arbitrary borders that ignored the region's ethnic, tribal, and sectarian realities, replacing a cohesive Ottoman administrative structure with artificial nation-states. This clandestine treaty between Great Britain and France laid a foundation for institutional instability, geopolitical friction, and a lasting legacy of anti-Western resentment. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Historians and political analysts generally view the destabilizing impacts through several core dynamics:

Structural Flaws and Destabilizing Factors

• Artificial Borders: The "line in the sand" drawn by diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot forced disparate groups into single nations while splitting unified populations across different countries. 1, 2]
• The Kurdish Division: The borders divided the Kurdish population across four distinct states—Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran—denying them a unified nation-state and sparking over a century of autonomy conflicts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Forced Sectarian Amalgamation: In the creation of modern Iraq and Syria, Sunnis, Shias, Alawites, and Christians were bound together under single central governments, planting the seeds for future civil wars and internal power struggles. 1, 2, 3]
• Conflicting British Promises: The secret pact directly contradicted the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, which promised Arab independence in exchange for revolting against the Ottoman Empire. This perceived betrayal shattered local trust in Western diplomacy. 1, , 4, 5]
• Divide-and-Rule Governance: To maintain control over these manufactured mandates, colonial powers frequently relied on minority rule, exacerbating internal group competition and preventing organic national cohesion. 1]

History Professor Roy Casagranda has given many lectures about the history of the region from ancient times to today.

Short 16 min video on Sykes-Picot.

The full 2 hour interview, is extremely interesting and goes through each country.

Its racist and lazy to blame the West for everything that goes wrong elsewhere. It infantilises and others people other parts of the world.