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/

Quote " Er, no, Cromwell was NOT a brutal dictator in England..."..

Erm, I note you specified that by saying in England.

Of course he was a brutal dictator. They pretty much all were.

I agree with the basic premise that it’s too complex to point a finger at the west and blame the west for all the problems in the Middle East.

But OP you picked an example of the opposite- suicide bombing is a terror tactic that was taught to Iranians by Russians. It originated in the West.

Yeah, in Ireland for example, his army genocide 1/3rd, ethnically cleansed 1/3rd by selling them off as ‘servants’ in the colonies and ethnically cleansed the last 1/3rd of the surviving Irish onto Gaeltags (reservations) in the west of Ireland. Refusal to be ethnically cleansed was a hanging offence, so you’d be added to the genocide tally.

No brutality there.

Iran wasn't actually colonised by the west.

Alexander the Great would disagree as would his Macedonian general, Selucid
Trajan might also have a point of order as he did in fact conquer and colonise Parthia- a kingdom that made up a good part of Iran.

Amazing isn't it. A "foreign" brutal dictator is an horrific brutal dictator. But an "English" brutal dictator was not. It appears he was doing it "for the good of the people" ? Or something like that.

And for long after Cromwell it was still going on. Open warfare in the UK during the '45. Go into the start of the 20th century even.. striking miners in Wales... send the army in. Famine in Bengal... let them starve.

Obviously, I know my 17th century history. Its a nonsense to say 'they' were all brutal dictators.

Oh, I didn’t even bring up the death march of Scottish prisoners by Cromwell from the battle of Dunbar. Over 5,000 prisoners of war, less than 2,000 survived. Or the Scottish women raped and murdered in the sack of Dunbar.

I think the all refers to all dictators are brutal.

No, Gaddafi was not supported by the West. In fact they were annoyed when he overthrew King Idris because he was their man. Sadam Hussein overthrew a very popular president in Iraq the West didn't like, Mohammed Pehlavi overthrew the democratically elected prime minister in Iran, Husni Al Zaim overthrew the democratically elected president in Syria, Iyad Allawi was foisted on the Iraqi people after the gulf war, Hamad Kharzai was foisted on the Afghani population to mention just some of the leaders the West were involved with which led to the instability. The West were involved in all of these unpopular leaders being foisted upon the people. Then we have the other interference. The Iran/Iraq war. The revolution in Syria where we now have a leader of ISIS in charge. The Suez crisis but I suppose Eisenhower was opposed to that. I could go on and on about how the West has interfered in the Middle East. Read the Memoirs of Mister Hempher, confessions of a British Spy.

What do you mean Cromwell wasn't a dictator strong man. He killed the king, disbanded Parliament and executed anyone who opposed him while ruling with absolute power calling himself Lord Protector. Charles the II hunted down all the signatories on Charles I execution warrant, about 60 odd. He even sent mercenaries to hunt them down in the US when they escaped to there.

Good grief, the 17th century was a completely different time. What are you all talking about!!?

And absolutely no responsibility to those tribal leaders who are as you say constantly vying violently for power? No responsibility to those criminals who care nothing for the people?

Are they savages, with no hope other than be constantly fighting or oppressed under a dictator?

Or is every single one of them, dictator to average person on the street to violent criminal making their own choices on how to behave in society?

Let's say you can't attribute the cause of the issues.

Does the presence of the West have any benefit? has it ever historically?

Even just considering contemporary Western interventions- Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran..

it seems hard to ignore that the only obvious motivation is stuff like this: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/how-us-controls-iraqs-oil-revenues-2026-01-23/

Also- why are you using 'the West' but not 'the Middle East'...?

Cromwell being such a nice and lovely ruler.
Technically though, it’s in modern history as its post medieval.

Without Western/US support, they probably wouldn't even have attempted to challenge Gaddafi but now they have and taken power, how is Libya doing?

You didn't address my question at all.

I'm not an expert on Libya but I suspect its pretty fucked right now.

And in my opinion that's partly to do with the meddling of the West, the culture of the people, and the brutality of those in power, the natural resources, the geography, the history ( including the history before the West was of any consequence) etc.

The culture of the people?? The country is totally fucked now and it is not partly due to the West but totally. Even Obama said, the worst mistake of his presidency was failing to plan for the day after the intervention in Libya.

Totally is a very strong word, and very confident.

I don't believe we can ever know with such certainty. There are so many variables, such complexity.

I prefer to believe people in the ME have more agency and control of their own situations, and are not mere helpless puppets of the West.

Most of us recognise that there are some pretty significant differences between now and the 17th century, whatever labels historians put on historical periods. Technically its know as the Early Modern Period, not the Modern anyway.

I don't know how much you know of the overthrow of Gaddafi or if you managed to read my previous posts on this thread. The primary driver that led the US to overthrow Gaddafi was his attempt to unite Africa and replace the US Dollar as the main currency with a new African Gold Dinar. When the uprising happened and the US thought that Gaddafi was going to defeat the rebels, they actually joined in to supress Gaddafi's forces. I stand by Totally. The US destroyed Libya in order to put an end to the Gold Dinar.

I think it is worth pointing out that when foreign powers install a dictator ( or Monarch) that they like, a dictatorship is already primed for a coup. It just the nature of the beast.

I did read your posts. Thanks- I learned something.

It does sound to me like some of the choices Gaddafi made may possibly have contributed to the state of Libya today. It also sounds like the people contributing to the chaos today also need to take some responsibility for their choices. Other countries not part of the West are still meddling, backing one faction over another, and those countries have had a part to play too.

I believe you're massively oversimplifying it.

Quote " Other countries not part of the West are still meddling, backing one faction over another, and those countries have had a part to play too."

How does this logic work. Other non western countries meddling is bad, but western countries doing it is not bad ?

Sometimes I think you purposely miss the point.

I've said many times the West has meddled. The vast majority of that meddling has been detrimental.

Lots of other variables have affected the trajectory of states in the ME. Including the choices of those countries own rulers. Other countries have muddled too. Some of this meddling may be good, certainly some will be bad too, as all countries act in their own best national interests.

Imo it's impossible to say with any confidence that any one situation is totally down to Western interference.

😂 even if you 'think' Russia might have 'taught' suicide bombing to middle east suicide bombers without supporting evidence of teaching thus; Russia is not part of 'the west' anyway. Geopolitically or culturally or geographically, Russia is not part of 'the west'.

Cool.

Quote : " Imo it's impossible to say with any confidence that any one situation is totally down to Western interference."

Apart from the fact that the US is actually at war with Iran. A war that Trump started.