by Ben Soton
Lords of the
Desert: The Battle Between the United States and Great Britain for Supremacy in
the Modern Middle East by James Barr. Simon & Schuster UK
(2019). Hardback: 416pp; £20; ISBN-10:
1471139794; ISBN-13: 978-1471139796 Paperback:
416pp; £9.99; ISBN-10:
1471139808; ISBN-13: 978-1471139802 Kindle
Edition: 416pp; £5.99;
ASIN: B077DHWWRG
This
book describes the Anglo-US rivalry in the Middle East from 1942 to 1967 that
undermined the notion of the ‘special relationship’ between the two imperialist
powers.
James Barr’s Lords of the Desert is divided into four parts focusing on: the
formation of the state of Israel; the events in Iran in 1951; the Suez crisis
of 1956; and the final part ending with the British withdrawal from South Yemen
in 1967. Barr goes into considerable detail about various diplomatic meetings
and those involved. He also discusses differences within the British and US
ruling classes as well as between the two powers, such as the disagreements
between the pro-Zionist Winston Churchill and his ‘Arabist’ Foreign Secretary
Anthony Eden. Meanwhile in the USA, domestic oil companies were not keen on US
development of the Saudi oil industry because this would lower the price of the
‘black gold’.
Barr sees the region’s history in terms of
rivalry between imperialist powers, making little mention of popular movements
in the region – Communist, Arab Nationalist and even Islamic.
Progressive movements in the Middle East
were aided by that great anti-imperialist power the Soviet Union, which gets
little mention. The only movement Barr mentions, in an over sympathetic way, is
Zionism. Originally an instrument of the European big Jewish bourgeoisie,
Zionism eventually become a tool of US imperialism. On occasion Zionism was at
odds with British imperialism, which for much of the period favoured the
Hashemite monarchies of Jordan and Iraq. Meanwhile US imperialism was able to
trade its pro-Zionist position in the Arab world by promoting the House of
Saud, which was often at odds with Britain’s Hashemite clients.
At the beginning of the period British
imperialism was the dominant power in the region, holding key strategic assets
such the Suez Canal and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the fore-runner of
British Petroleum (BP). The changing role of US imperialism was shown when
these assets were threatened.
In 1951 the Iranian Government
nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company; the US Government sided with
Britain and orchestrated the overthrown of the Iranian government two years
later. The CIA paid Islamic mobs to riot, believing their government would
close down the mosques. One of the rioters was the late Ayatollah Khomeini.
The same British government believed the
USA would back them in 1956, when they along with France and Israel invaded
Egypt after the Nasser government nationalised the Suez Canal. The Prime
Minister Anthony Eden, who was Foreign Secretary at the time of the Iranian
crisis, made a serious error of judgement when the USA not only refused to
support them but threatened to sell off reserves of sterling.
This was the point when US imperialism
replaced Britain as the dominant power in the region. Washington’s long-term
aim in the region was to ease out their British counter parts, replacing them
as the dominant power in the region whilst fooling the region’s people and some
governments that it was not an imperialist power.
Barr paints a rosy view of two of the
region’s worst curses: imperialism and Zionism; not questioning their right to
interfere, exploit and treat the Arabs with contempt. Lords of the Desert is, however, a useful source of information for
anyone interested in Middle East history. He inadvertently provides
anti-imperialists with ammunition by making little mention of the Soviet Union.
If it was such an evil empire, why does it feature so little in a book on
inter-imperialist rivalry in the region?
No comments:
Post a Comment