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/

And who was it that put those despots in power ? That is the key here I reckon.

It's not even like HK so far as I can see. Before HK was due to be handed back, Deng made clear to the UK. No universal suffrage before the lease is up, or else we invade. No, They were basically handed over to whoever offered the best oil deal.

Not a great deal different really than if the SNP won an indy ref, and sovereignty was just handed over to the Duke of Argyle, to rule as an absolute monarch.

And see what happened when Iran did do democracy, the Brits and the US overthrew them and put their man in. A despot. Cos oil.

And then what happened when Iran overthrew the despot. They got crippling sanctions and were ostracized.

And if considering Iran, then Saudi Arabia needs to be considered. Ruled by an absolute monarchy, the same sharia law where women are property, but that is overlooked because they sell the oil and buy the fighter jets.

There were also despots before the West rose to power. When the centre of civilisation and trade was the Silk Roads and their surrounds, and Europe was a muddy mess of the periphery.

There are despots today that the West did not install.

Is your position that the West is fully/ mostly to blame for the problems the ME faces today?

I don't think the 'West' a group of countries all lumped together as if they all think alike can every get it right in the eyes of people than blame the 'west' for everything.

We need to help people in X country. So when some help is sent, it isn't enough, or the wrong type of help or it's interference. Why bother. Unless the problem is something that might impinge on the 'west' then maybe just leave them all to it, no supposed help because it isn't often viewed that way, no aid, (billions of dollars sunk into places like Gaza) helping them stay as perpetual refugees rather than actually agree to a solution that had been proposed over and over. I think, it is what it is and ignore the people that just blame the 'west' without the wherewithall to understand that probelms are caused by a multitude of things including shock horror electing or having leaders that do nothing to actually help their own just line their own pockets.

When I was little I was always told that two wrongs don't make a right.

How very reasonable of the people who raised you.

Of course you are correct @Ihatetomatoes that it’s overly simplistic to blame all the ills of the world on “the West”. It removes all accountability from any country not part of the all big all powerful all evil “West”.

People who do so must find it self soothing in some way, it’s a mystery otherwise why they are so determined to maintain the delusion.

Was the House of Saud installed by the West?

Second time around, pretty much.

Ibn Saud: The First King And Founder Of The Modern Saudi Arabia | TimelineDaily

The House of Saud were out in the late 1800s. In exile in Kuwait. The Ottomans wanted a fella named Ibn Rashid. The Brits wanted Ibn Saud. The Brits got their way. Treaty of Jeddah between Saud and the UK led to the formation of Saudi Arabia.

Treaty of Jeddah (1927) | The Treaty Archive

See the summary of the above treaty -

"The Treaty of Jeddah, signed on May 20, 1927, was a pivotal agreement between the United Kingdom and Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, the ruler of the Kingdom of Hejaz and Nejd. This treaty marked the formal recognition by the British of the sovereignty of Ibn Saud's territories, which would later become the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The treaty was significant in that it represented a shift in British policy towards the Arabian Peninsula, acknowledging the growing power and influence of Ibn Saud. The agreement allowed for the establishment of diplomatic relations and set the stage for future cooperation between the two entities. By recognizing Ibn Saud's rule, the British aimed to stabilize the region and secure their strategic interests, particularly in relation to the security of their colonial possessions and the protection of trade routes. The Treaty of Jeddah thus played a crucial role in shaping the political landscape of the Middle East in the early 20th century, influencing the balance of power and laying the foundation for the emergence of Saudi Arabia as a key player in regional and global affairs."

Then the US stepped in to help keep them in power when oil was discovered.

This site linked below ain't great, but it has a summary. Limited web where I am.

Analysis: Britain helped create Saudi Arabia - the Establishment won't give up their influence without a fight – Source (sourcenews.scot)

The Brits wanted their man in charge, and they made it happen. Not a lot happened in the mid east organically. The Brits were there as a massive gardener.

@dairydebris . Quote "Is your position that the West is fully/ mostly to blame for the problems the ME faces today?"

Given that much of the mid east was politically created by the UK, and that the 1953 Iranian Coup was created by the UK and US, then I would say yes, many of the issues in the region are down to the west. What %, no idea.

And lets not forget the cold war and the chasms that created.

I have never heard of Timeline Daily or Ben Wray so no idea how trustworthy they are as sources. But that aside, the Ottoman Empire is the West now? Powers making treaties with each other, sending support to each other (are we 'responsible' for what is happening in Ukraine) is a normal thing? The treaty acknowledges the growing power of Ibn Saud - should they not have acknowledged it? Why do you assume that the UK or now the US had the dominant hand in the relationship? You don't think there was any Saudi agency? How do you know what would have happened if things had been different? Who do you think would have been in power in Saudi instead? Should the UK or US 'interfere" in Saudi to make the Saudi government more democratic. I don't really know what you're saying.

You asked this . quote" Was the House of Saud installed by the West?"

And yes, it pretty much was. By the UK. The House of Saud was in exile from what is now Saudi Arabia. (in Kuwait... and that was controlled by... the Brits, but not at the start) The Ottomans wanted someone else in charge, and he was. The Brits wanted Saud. And the brits made it happen. They put him in.

I did say my web is limited, and that one of the sites I linked is not that great.

Quote "Who do you think would have been in power in Saudi instead?"

I have no idea. I suppose whoever the people there wanted. But there was no Saudi Arabia. That was set up with a massive input from the brits. I posted the Treaty of Jeddah.

You asked a question and I answered. Why are you now expanding that to Ukraine? If my answer is wrong, then debate that. Produce the data that shows my answer is wrong.

Here is a thing about other countries putting people in power. They do prefer to put strongmen in, because less chance of them being deposed by a different foreign power. What they tend not to do is want a democracy. Because they can change whenever there is an election.

And they help keep them in power too. They sell them arms. And when there are uprisings, such as the Arab Spring, they turn a blind eye when that strongman, or his descendants, execute protestors. They do not mention human rights, but they sanction other countries for the same.

The Strongmen they don't like, they support the protestors. All of a sudden "the powers" want to see democracy.

There is also the matter of proxies. Bit of trouble in Yemen ? Our man in Saudi can deal with that.

You just don't seem to entertain the notion that countries supporting powers in other countries is normal - that's where Ukraine comes in. Should we not be supporting Ukraine? Or are we interfering and creating an imperial relationship with Zelensky? Perhaps we recognise his agency, why not recognise the agency of the various powers in the ME after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire? Was Britain involved? Of course. Did they 'create' the ME. That is, going back to the subject of the thread drastically over simplistic.

This is funny really, there are lots of proxies in the ME. Most of them Iranian.

There is also the UAE. Acting as an arms supplier to a faction in Sudan. Supplying UK and US arms.

Yemen is interesting because the government there that the Houthi are fighting are historically Iron Curtain aligned. So no direct western support for them. South Yeman was also UK controlled, but they don't have any resources so when they went to the other side after indy, nobody much cared. But the Sea Trade route is an issue. So sell arms to the Saudis for that. And the arms help ensure the friendly Saud family stay in power too.

What you mean is that you can't find anything that proves my posts re the House of Saud wrong, so you are doing a whatabout.

Not at all. I am just trying to understand the difference between imperial 'bad' interference and 'good" interference. You are dodging the question.

Not quite how the thread reads, but hey ho.

Quotes from you in bold italics.
"the middle east has massive amounts of sectarianism,"
As does the west. NI for example.

Show me the widespread sectarianism across the west that is anywhere near the scale that you see in the middle east (i.e. militias etc). Silly point.

"their own political thought which basically led to things like the muslim brotherhood and ba’athism"
Imagine that. Imagine them having their own political thought. Is that good or bad in your view ?

No I have no problem with them forming their own political thought, I can see the attraction of ba’athism (formulated by a Christian no less). I just happen to think their political thought is inevitably repressive and wrong. But of course no-one would suggest any people should not be able to forumulate their own political philosophy. I just don’t have to think it results in the advancement of humanity. Again silly.

"he really thought westerners were total animals, women showing their bodies (i.e. being able to see them) animalistic sexual behaviour"
Yeah. Maybe he did. Not unusual really for anyone not travelled.

Thats still a view shared by many, which is why the consequences for women who do not conform can be so severe. Religiosity poisoning basic human rights for 50% of the population. So yes silly to think this isn’t still a problem. Just look at the girls on twitter complaining about being forced into a hijab now that we can read arabic twitter.

"People really have no idea how utterly unhinged some strains of thinking are."
Yup. Just look at any REFORM thread on here.

Reform don’t want to implement some sort of christian law thats led by a religious leader and to be rid of democracy, these things are not comprable. Again silly

"The oppression of women and human rights abuses are definitely not taught by the west is it."
I assume you missed out a question mark. Do they need some teaching by the West ?

When you allow child marriage, you may just need someone to tell you to fuckin stop it. That was a really stupid point, who would genuinely argue that human rights are better in the middle east than in the west.

"The arab slave trade is much older than the western one and much more enduring,"
See US prisons and their labour system. Happens today. The UK has ppl in jail for for slavery.. today.

Not comparable, and yes they bloody well should be in jail. The difference is how long it was legal and the extent of it. Everyone is guilty of slavery but the west manged to cotton on it was a bit of a shit idea and actually make it illegal before a lot of the rest of the world. Again silly.

"When Arabs fight it’s gassing Kurds, dropping chemical weapons out of helicopters on civilians."
As opposed to dropping big bombs, and firing missiles at schools. Are you saying they don't fight fair ?

There is a difference between accidentally hitting a school or hitting a school because it used as a base of operations (i.e. human shield, propaganda) and indiscriminate bombing of villages with no particular target. There is a massive difference. Again silly.

"Many countries still allow child marriage with a judges approval."
No doubt they do. Was there not a UK boxers daughter just got married at 16 ? There are still 4 US states with no minimum age.

Agree about Fury but she had to go to the isle of Man, it is illegal in the rest of the Uk and it should be illegal in the Isle of Man too, and I am horrified that the US allows this to stand. HOWEVER show me any other western country where it is perfectly legal to marry a 9yr old? A literal child Off the top of my head, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon. Again a world of difference and I still think we should raise the minimum age to 21.

"A lot of the problems really are still high amounts of religious conviction and sometimes an aversion to proper education."
Are those connected ? You mean like religious home schoolers in the west ?
Yes I think religious homeschoolers in the west are also unhinged. I knew someone at university who told me salt water and fresh water couldn’t mix because the qu’ran said so. He was doing a degree in chemistry. So yes too much religion can make you stupid. He failed btw.

"There is a tension between people who believe in caliphate style systems built around religious authority and people who believe in some sort of secularised governance."
Yes. Like everywhere else, there are different opinions. See above re Reform. Add in communists, separatists, religious fundies etc.

Reform aren’t a religious fundamentalist movement or even trying to sell a complete change of our governmental system.

"Even with Sykes Picot, the border is drawn yet people insist on bothering their neighbours."
Naughty people. Arguing over borders someone drew for them. The UK and Ireland still argue over Rockall. Spain and the UK over Gibralter. Argentina.... And have you seen is going on in South Asia ?

Yup but we aren’t actually mounting an invasion of spain over that are we? Again big difference.

"Iraq decided Kuwait was actually a province of Iraq."
Trump is saying the SOH is US territory now. Dictators really should stop doing that.

I don’t know why you think I would approve of Trump, him being a dick doesn’t make anyone else less of a dick does it.
"

When Lebanon was occupied by Syria Assad used to go on about Lebanon should be absorbed into “Greater Syria”"
Expansionist. Putin comes to mind.
yes the point is they behave like that because they want to, not because the west made them.

"Literally nothing is forcing you to try to strong arm anyone else."
Tell Trump that re Greenland, Canada, Panama, VZ, ....
I’ll give you VZ but all the others up until the point he actually invades … meh

"With Arab countries every accusation is a confession tbh."
What do they accuse people of ?

human rights abuses, colonialism, imperialism, terrorism

"History didn’t start in the 1960’s"
Yup. Big bang. But evangelists disagree with that.
Ok

"I mean even the spread of Islam is a story of war, colonialism, Imperialism, eradication of indigenous religions and cultures."
Not familiar with the History of Christianity then ?

The point is is the west the cause of the state of the middle east, no-one made early muslims do that, it wasn’t a reaction to anything, it was imperialism.

Also a further point on political philosophy, when one of your foremost thinkers is fundamentally disgusted by female freedom and thinks anyone not striving for sharia is basically an apostate (the Sayyid Qatab I referenced) the resulting philosophy is going to inevitably be repressive not only to women but to everyone it comes into contact with who is not aligned with this. And Ba’athism is arab nationalism, either nationalism is wrong for everyone (since you keep mentioning reform and I assume you will see them as right wing nationalists) or it’s fine.

Either we have universal values that apply equally regardless of sex, religion, class etc or we don’t. The west has largely accepted this concept the middle east still hasn’t. I’m not white, I’m not from a Christian background and I don’t vote reform, for some reason I feel that I have to make that clear.

So for those who believe the West is mainly to blame for the current troubles in the ME... when does this blame expire? If not 50 years after the meddling... 100? 250?

I can see many problems have some roots in colonial interference but blaming most things on events in the past risks infantilizing the people and rulers of those regions now... If we allow the West messed things up, is it not possible for rulers and people there now to sort these problems out and make progress?

Gaddafi was not liked in the West but do you have any idea what he did for his people? His biggest sin though was when he tried to unite Africa and move away from the petrodollar. That was a step too far for the West/US so in the same way they got rid of Mossadegh in Iran, he had to go, except his fate was far more grisly. Isn't Libya in a great state now! Whenever a leader emerges in the Middle East who doesn't kowtow to the West/US, they are dealt with. Look at Abdul Kareem Qasim in Iraq until he was overthrown by the West/US's man, Saddam Hussein, who enjoyed massive Western support until his usefulness expired. So I'm sorry but I totally disagree with your statement "the west is to blame takes away any responsibility for the leaders to seek better for their own country and their own people.".

Mossadegh was a bit more complicated than that, he managed to rig a vote to give himself immense powers. A lot of people in that situation did the wrong thing.

Gaddafi helped fund the IRA and was involved in terror attacks on the west.

What did Gaddafi do for his people? He ruled by divide & conquer I seem to remember and presided over an essentially totalitarian state. He murdered opponents and literally burned books. Like most totalitarian leaders he came up with some positive social programmes to keep people compliant and he created a mythological concept of government by the people in what was in fact a very centralised state.

So you're compaining that posts aren't being deleted for being pro-Israel, but it's fine for you to praise a brutal dictator and war criminal?

Who knows ?

The world today is not what it was even just 5 years ago. The Brit empire as was, was still there when many people on this forum were alive. And of course, the meddling for national interests is still going on.

The DPRK came about through western actions. The Soviets and allies. No end in sight there. But there could be a new country created somewhere else in a few years somewhere, with a history ravaged by colonialism that gets off to a flying start.

See my above post about strongmen. If they get put in by a foreign power, they can be very difficult for the population to remove. And that is if they want to anyway, what with state propaganda and so on.

And sponsor of terrorism and someone who undoubtedly played the West. In fact a pretty good example of why you can't blame 'the West' for all Africa or the ME's problems.

We were talking about what they did for their own people and country. A friend of mine was a TOEFL teacher in Tripoli under Gadaffi and he had nothing but praise for the country. Mossadegh didn't have as much power as the US's puppet, the Shah and he didn't need a Savak to keep him in power. Lots of countries helped the IRA. Private citizens within the United States were the IRA's primary source of foreign funding and it wasn't a secret.