Sharghi A.

The Existential Process of ISIS in the Context of US Foreign Policy and International Law

Monograph

---

Шарги А.

Экзистенциальный процесс ИГИЛ* в контексте внешней политики США и международного права

Монография

* Решением Верховного Суда РФ международная организация «Исламское государство» (ИГИЛ) признана террористической, и ее деятельность на территории Российской Федерации запрещена.

---

ebooks@prospekt.org

Информация о книге

УДК 327+341

ББК 66.4+67.412.1

Ш25

Автор: Шарги А.

Author: Sharghi A. Dr. Sharghi A. was born and raised in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Despite the fact that he received education in the field of Deck Engineering, he always was interested in the issues of international relations and political sciences. This determined his choice when entering doctoral studies at Ankara University. He holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree in International Relations. Dr. Arash Sharghi was a member of academic staff at the faculties of European Union Relations and Law at the Near East University (Northern Cyprus). Author of a number of scientific articles, participant and organizer of seminars and conferences. Reviewer at the “International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science”. Academic interests include, but not limited to: International Law, terrorism studies, theories of International Relations, the Middle East studies.

The subject of this study is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in the context of United States’ foreign policy. It focuses on the most important and destructive among the extremist religious groups that had emerged and/or had strengthened as a result of US Middle East policies after the Second Gulf War, and its place in international law – questioning its ability to be a state and analyzing the concept of the “use of force” towards such entities.

The book aims to provide an overview of the US foreign policy in the Middle East in the historical context during Presidents Bush and Obama administrations, highlighting the role of intellectual background, traditions, values and models of US foreign policy, which take roots in their Anglo-Saxon founders and/or in the process of US state-building. The spatial and time limitations are applied, thus, a period of approximately 16 years has been analyzed spatially in the context of the Middle East region. The book tends to answer the question of how US policies towards Iraq and Syria created a power gap in the region and to determine how ISIS being a terrorist organization had used this gap, posing the security threat to the region and whole humanity.

This book also examines scientific and legal basis used by terrorist organization to identify itself as a state, to discuss this de facto case within the framework of international law and to put forth possible international solutions to fight against ISIS.

УДК 327+341

ББК 66.4+67.412.1

© Шарги А., 2024

© ООО «Проспект», 2024

To my homo deus parents,

Maliha & Nasser

PREFACE

The fear I experienced when I was a child, and the fact that I could not speak for my first two years or so, are the basic reasons behind my interest in the study of terrorism. Over time, as I grew and learned of the world around me, through knowledge and experience I came to understood that the ontological nature of the phenomenon of terrorism is fear, and that, in fact, every person is introduced to it when they are children (education within the family, a mother’s yelling at a child, parents’ quarrels, etc). Therefore, every individual becomes a terrorized one, and furthermore, this terrorization process continues with different perpetrators and different motives at every stage of human life. Taking this aspect into consideration, I decided to research and study terror and terrorism. As I grew up, I understood clearly that this phenomenon is intertwined with and became part of social dynamism — this inspired me even more. Later on, during my doctoral studies, parallel to various readings, my esteemed university teacher Prof. Dr. Sertaç H. Başeren gave several lectures, discussing the phenomenon in depth and from different angles, increasing my curiosity on the subject.

My doctoral dissertation research coincided with and carried on in alongside the turmoil in Syria, and it was a period when I clearly witnessed the birth, evolution, apogee and collapse of terrorist organizations. It was a period when terrorism gained functionality in foreign policy and its instrumental aspect was brought to the forefront without hesitation by countries in the region. The aforementioned processes and reasons, as well as its dimensions reflected in the foreign and security policies of all countries involved in regional politics, made the ISIS1 worthy as a research subject, both as a terrorist organization and as a foreign policy tool.

Here, I must highlight that the content you are reading is the monograph version of my PhD dissertation. In this respect, it is subject to many limitations. First of all, every researcher, or more accurately, every PhD candidate who writes a thesis, has to take into consideration the mentality, views and sensitivities or vulnerable areas of the country or even the university in which he/she works. I say he «has to» because, as practice shows, otherwise he would either have to extend the duration of studies or he will not be able to graduate.

Therefore, while conducting a research on ISIS, the factors and actors responsible for its transformation into a large-scale structure and multinational demographic character were excluded from the study. To put it more clearly, it has not been problematized: the mobilization and logistics aspects of the organization have been ignored due to the fact that (considering the freshness of the subject) the sources of academic study is inaccessible, both politically and academically. It is in a way «ex-post facto» research (from perspective of philosophy of science), not interfering in the variables, but ought to find them out and through a historical research to prevent the recurrence of undesirable events and incidents. In this respect, my reader’s criticism on these issues could be justified, appropriate and much awaited, since it will give stimulus to develop as individual and to enhance the book in the following editions.

Another issue that the reader is likely to criticize is related to the legal discussion of «use of force» concept. The related chapters of the book were written in accordance to the Türkiye-centered approach and were shaped by the classical understanding of the international legal theoretical framework. In this respect, the declarations made to the UN and its organs, which are a reflection of the will of the states in the international order, have been used. Of course, these issues have been discussed and criticized as much as the study allows.

As my last words in this preface, I would like to dedicate this study to those who were nearby during the entire journey, inspired me, believed in me and enlightened me with their knowledge and opinions. I must start by thanking my dearest parents for their unconditional love, support and patience. I would not be able to get my work done without the valuable knowledge and advice, continuous support and vision of my inspiring, experienced teachers — Prof. Dr. Sertaç Hami Başeren, Prof. Dr. Çınar Özen, Prof. Dr. Haydar Çakmak, Prof. Dr. Ömer Edip Kürkçüoğlu and Prof. Dr. Erel Tellal, as well as opportunities and contributions made by my alma mater Ankara University Faculty of Political Sciences, also known as Mekteb-i Mülkiye, to my personality, intellectual structure and research. Additionally, my special acknowledgement goes to Dr. Irina Dotu, whose advices and critiques helped me to reflect on my work through different lenses. Thanks to everyone in the «Prospekt» publishing house who put an effort to make it a reality. In deep gratitude I would like to say to Dr. Pınar Sharghi — who read draft after draft, and provided me time, a calm space, and the possibility to read, work, and write — you are as important to this book being done as I was, as together with our beloved daughter Homay Sharghi were the main motivation to move on.

INTRODUCTION

The effects and consequences of the problematic past of the Middle East region led to an identity crisis of state and non-state actors in the region and development of struggle with “others”, fed by the centuries-lasting conflict. Different and even contradictory aims, positions, ideologies and behaviors of these actors are among the factors in the continuity of the crisis in the region. On the one hand, non-state actors, Islamist groups and even terrorist-takfiri groups, on the other hand, regional and trans-regional states, in line with their own interests, strive (not) to end the ongoing power struggle.

The turmoil and uprisings that took place in Western Asia, in general, and in the Middle East, in particular, were characterized by different backgrounds, processes and actors, and, thus, varying results depending on them. On the one hand, the national and domestic backgrounds of the countries (for example, economic inadequacy and political stalemate), and on the other hand, the dissatisfied masses and new actors on the field that did not correspond the wishes of the people, became the obstacles to the stability. In this context, the popular uprisings in the Middle East region and North Africa countries have destroyed the existing political order and caused the emergence of a new situation that could be defined as “the disorder of the transition period”.

In the transition period we are in, it is obvious that state and non-state actors with varying ideologies, interests and strategies are still active in the region. Each of these actors aims to protect their interests in line with their own perspectives and perceptions. The first of the conflicting actors in the volatile atmosphere of the Middle East are the regional states that can establish temporary or long-term alliances with other actors. The other conflicting actors are the groups formed by or outside the state structure. These are the groups that carry out armed actions and gain legitimacy under the umbrella of the religion of Islam. In addition to these actors, non-regional powers with interests in the region also entered the stage in line with their own interests, depending on the course of events in the region.

The first power that comes to mind from the non-regional actors in the Middle East is, obviously, the United States of America. Especially since 9/11, terrorist organizations in the Middle East have become a strong and threatening asymmetrical force. In this context of 9/11 events, the United States that decided to invade without any prior approval from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), have strengthened terrorist organizations, which legitimized the war and struggle with the West/Western civilization. The Al-Qaeda2 organization, existing in the geography of Iraq and Syria, has started to leave its place to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) since 2006. Although al-Qaeda and ISIS are sponsored by the same sources, the conflicts in the strategy and leadership they follow to fight the enemy, have caused ISIS to become the most powerful terrorist organization in the region.

From these points of view, the subject of this work is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which can be considered as the most important among the extremist religious groups that emerged and / or strengthened as a result of the US’ Middle East policies after the Second Gulf War, and its place in international law. The aim is to reveal what kind of a power vacuum was caused by the United States’ Middle East policies during the Bush and Obama administrations, to determine how ISIS as a terrorist organization benefited from this gap, to question the scientific and legal basis of this organization’s labeling itself as a state, to discuss the its place in international law.

The study is basically supported by three hypotheses. The first hypothesis of the study focused on the reflections of the USA’s Middle East policy in the region. In this context, the instability in the Middle East policy of the USA after the Second Gulf War caused a power vacuum in the region, which caused ISIS to gain a political presence in the Middle East and to gain military control in the region. The second hypothesis of the study focuses on the evaluation of the problem in the first hypothesis within the framework of international law. In this context, it is not possible to evaluate ISIS as a state according to international law, since ISIS is a terrorist organization that emerged cyclically. The third hypothesis of the study is that a new type of intervention should be developed under the name of combating terrorism in the field of international law, based on the example of ISIS, which has emerged cyclically and is not a state and/or a terrorist organization in the international arena. The entire hypotheses were tested by and methodological finding derived from a counterfactual approach. Counterfactuals were used to explain the cause-effect relations between the foreign policies of Bush and Obama administrations and the rise of extremist groups in Syria and Iraq.

Counterfactual analysis is one of the methods to be used while discussing and analyzing the phenomenon of the ISIS. In general, counterfactuals are to be considered as “subjective conditionals in which the antecedent is known or supposed for purposes of argument to be false” (Levy, 2008: 627–644). Many scholars such as Jack Levy, Richard Ned Lebow and Frank Harvey in their research works have emphasized the increased use of counterfactuals in the history and International Relations studies and, as Philip Tetlock (1996: 4) has claimed, counterfactuals are a prerequisite for any form of learning from history and the inevitable logical by-products of applying the hypothetico-deductive method to an historical, nonexperimental discipline such as world politics (Tetlock, Belkin, 1996: 8).

“Whenever we make the apparently factual claim that factor X made a critical causal contribution to outcome Y we simultaneously make a critical counterfactual claim that, in a logical shadow universe with factor X deleted, outcome Y would not have occurred”. (Tetlock, 2006: 18)

There is a certain classification of counterfactual arguments that is providing a broader outlook on the use of this method in analyzing the historical cause-effect relations. Levy, Tetlock and Belkin distinguish mainly between three major types of counterfactuals: idiographic, nomothetic and idiographic-nomothetic.

Idiographic counterfactuals use a specific knowledge on motives, believes and constraints of individual actors to explore particular historical junctures and show us how certain things could have worked out differently. Nomothetic counterfactuals aim to find “corroborative correlational evidence” by applying theoretical and empirical generalizations to antecedent conditions. The third, joint idiographic-nomothetic counterfactuals are the combination of history and theory, thus producing a “theory-informed history” (Telock, Belkin, 2006: 6). This type of counterfactuals do not aim to make an alternative history plausible, but to provide a better understanding of causal relations in a factual world and as Frank Harvey claimed to disclose weaknesses of historic events and processes (Frank, 2011: 37). This given type of counterfactuals will be used the dissertation to explain the cause-effect relation between foreign policy of Bush and Obama administrations and rise of extremist groups and organizations in Iraq and Syria.

The normative questions of if counterfactual arguments improve our understanding of cause-effect relation in political events and guide us towards historical possibilities that we might have omitted, germinate certain skepticism toward use of counterfactual analysis in practice. The main critics of this method is that there is no chance to measure and prove that the things could be different if antecedent event was different as well as it is impossible to do a research about events that did not happen (Fischer, 1970: 15–21). Despite this claim counterfactual analysis cannot be regarded as a mere speculation and logically, if there is a statement on correlation between events there is a complete counterfactual argument towards it, which will be certainly presented in the course of this book.

The study has time and space limits. The time dimension consists of the concepts and the history of legal regulations related to it and has been examined in the framework of international law. Presidents Bush and Obama periods are discussed spatially in the context of the Middle East region, especially Iraq and Syria. Thus, a period of approximately 16 years has been analyzed, not reducing the role of historical background and cause-effect relationships. Considering the point that the relationship between US foreign policy and extremist religious groups coincides with the Carter and Reagan eras, the attention would be paid to the initiative known as Cyclone Operation. It is also important to mention that the neo-conservative political tradition in the US foreign policy began to be institutionalized in the Reagan period and this had directing effects on the US foreign policy tendencies.

The first chapter to be focused on conceptualization of the Middle East. The meaning of the concept of the Middle East, the reasons that make the Middle East special, the importance of the Middle East in terms of religion, culture, geostrategic, geopolitical and energy resources have been examined. The chapter will also include the conceptualization of the US foreign policy. In this context, the foreign policy tradition and culture of the USA will be examined, the importance of the Middle East for the USA will be discussed, and the Middle East policy of the USA from past to present has been examined within the framework of the relevant literature. The book focuses on the US foreign policy tradition and culture and the Middle East policies of the Bush and Obama administrations. In this context, the current main schools and approaches in the US foreign policy literature are discussed: Jacksonianism, Hamiltonianism, Jeffersonianism, and Wilsonianism, and the four main practices, like exempliarism, exemptionalism, vindicationalism), and exceptionalism.

The second chapter was designed to cover the Bush period, and first of all, the dynamics, trends and traditions that were decisive in the foreign policy of that period. Here, neoconservatism, Jacksonianism, imperialism, Wilsonianism, spreading and even imposing democracy, Greater Middle East Project, preventive war, unilateralism, exceptionalism and exemptionalism, as well as vindicationalism as the distinctive aspect of Bush period foreign policy were examined. As a tangible result of the US foreign policy in this period, the invasion of Iraq and aftermath, has been paid attention, including, the reconstruction of Iraq, the democracy building process, the role and effects of the United States, the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and its effects. The support of Kurdish nationalism and the Shiite-Sunni clash have been identified as important reasons for the destabilization of Iraq and the creation of a power vacuum in country.

In the context of the causes that led to the rise of Islamic-motivated radical organizations, the US occupation of Iraq, the transition of Shiite groups to the state administration and the distrust of Sunni groups in power, the problems experienced in the liquidation process of the Baath regime were emphasized. In addition, as a result of the US intervention in Iraq, the liquidation of the civil and military bureaucracy caused social polarization, unique radicalization, serious insecurity and even destatization, leading to the emergence, feeding and even rearing of radical religious terrorist organizations, including ISIS. On the other hand, the high cost of US foreign policy in Afghanistan and Iraq pushed the US to support non-state actors in the region in line with its own interests. Through these organizations and their activities, the United States has justified its presence in the region by reflecting the image that the Middle East region is not safe to the international community, and as a founder of the New World Order itself is only country that carries the flag of the fight against terrorism. In this respect, we can say that the United States instrumentalized terrorism and used it in line with its regional interests.

The third chapter to discuss President Obama administration Middle East policies in light of intellectual background, Greater Middle East project, the Obama Doctrine and the place of the Middle East with the 2010 US National Security Strategy. The work is based on President Obama’s view of the invasion of Iraq as a “chosen war”. Based on these points, Obama’s Iraq policy, his decision to withdraw and the aftermath developments were found to be significant to examine. Under the heading of unforeseen developments, the reaction of the Obama administration to the Arab Spring was also examined and in this direction, the Syrian crisis and the US foreign policy were discussed.

The fourth chapter examines the life cycle of ISIS and the position of the United States towards it. The answer to the question — “Is ISIL a state?” was attempted to be explained within the theoretical context offered by international law, and then a factual evaluation was made based on the criteria of the Montevideo Convention. Additionally, the use of force against ISIS and the attitudes of states in the fight against ISIS were examined in the context of the use of force by the actors involved, the Security Council resolutions and the notes given to the Security Council.

In the conclusion, the measures to be taken by the United States, the UN and the international system and the policies to be implemented have been proposed despite the current position of ISIS, despite its placelessness in international law.

Chapter one: CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST AND US FOREIGN POLICY

The concept of the Middle East, as its name suggests, has a very wide content. In the study, it is aimed to limit this negative feature of the Middle East and to deal with it in the context of the USA. From this point of view, in the first part, discussions on the meaning of the Middle East will be included, and the reasons that make the Middle East special compared to other geographies are examined. Continuing, the geostrategic and geopolitical importance of the Middle East, the religious and cultural structure of the region, and its importance in terms of energy resources were emphasized. Then, the foreign policy tradition and culture of the USA will be examined, and the reflections of this tradition on the Middle East are discussed in a historical and theoretical perspective.

1.1. The Concept of “Middle East”

Taking its roots in the ancient times, the term “East” was used to describe the rest of Europe culturally rather than a geographical region. Since the Crusades, “(Orient)” or “East” has been identified Islam and “(Occident)” or “West” with Christianity. The emergence of different “eastern” terms, such as the Near East, the Middle East, and the Far East, is Eurocentric; therefore the concept should not be considered without taking into account Western imperialism of the 19th century. “While defining the concept of the Middle East, Europe is accepted as the center and the rest of the world is based on their distance from this center; classified as near, middle and far” (Çelik, Gürtuna 2005, 17). The concept of the Middle East, which has a political content rather than a geographical concept, was used for the first time in 1902 by the American naval historian Alfred Thayer Mahan to characterize the region between Arabia and India. “When we examine the region on the map, we come across a region where Mahan covers a part of the sea route stretching from Suez to Singapore with this concept and whose boundaries are not clearly defined” (Dursun 1995, 1) As a modern political term, the Middle East entered the international relations literature after the Second World War and was adopted by the countries in the region. With the end of the Cold War, especially after 9/11, new political terms such as the Greater Middle East, the Broader Middle East and the Islamic Middle East entered the daily terminology (Özalp 2011, 12).

The concept of the Middle East is a concept that has survived to the present day with its complexity, based on the question according to whom and to what it is east or west. When the definitions that determine the borders of the Middle East region are examined, the differences of opinions become more obvious. The main reason for such differences is that the definitions made in different fields of social sciences are based on the specific characteristics of the relevant field. Geographers define the boundaries of the region on the basis of criteria specific to the field of geography. According to this view, the Asian continent is considered as a whole and the Middle East region is defined as Southwest Asia (Gözenç 1999, 5). Cemal Zehir (2004, 27) has defined the region politically. In his definition, European states such as France and England, which have followed expansionist policies to acquire new colonies, have positioned Europe as the center, and positioned the east as near, middle and far.

Mediterranean region countries, like Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon and Arabia are within the borders of the Middle East, and the term Near East is often used to cover the entire region (Kocaoğlu 1995, 5).

The Middle East, in the broadest sense, can be defined as the axis that encompasses region from the western region of India to the Egypt inclusively (Davutoğlu 2004, 119). For those who argue that the concept of the Middle East is cultural rather than geographical, the Middle East is the region between North Africa and Southwest Asia, where the same/similar culture is dominant (Dağcı 2007, 179). For those who limit culture to religion only, the Middle East is the name of Muslim-populated geography (Kılınç 2017). By the Greater Middle East, the United States means the huge area from the Aegean Sea to China and limited to North Africa, including Afghanistan and Pakistan (Cöhce 2000, 67).

The ambiguity of the concept of the Middle East is also experienced in the naming of universities working on this subject. The relevant department of Harvard University calls this geography the Middle East, while Princeton University calls it the Near East. England, which was the leading actor of the international system until the end of the Second World War, used the “Near East” conceptualization for the geography of the Middle East. For the British (Foreign Affairs and universities) basically the “Near East” is the region between the Eastern Mediterranean, the southern tip of the Caspian Sea, the northernmost tip of the Persian Gulf. In this context, the British and the French thought that the Arabian Peninsula was in the Near East. On the other hand, the Germans (for cultural reasons) extended the dividing line from Basra to Aden and included Iran and India (Carleton 1975, 237–244).

The Middle East for F. Gregory Gause III (1999, 25) can be determined by classifying the locations of east and west. According to him, the region from Egypt to Iraq, including Palestine, is the Eastern Arab states. Geographically, the Western bloc includes the United States, Israel, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Turkey and Iran. The fact that there are Muslim-populated countries such as Turkey and Iran in this group is actually an acknowledgment that, according to the author, the identity of the Middle East coincides with the Arab identity. In this context, United Kingdom is the closest “foreign” country to the region in terms of both geographical and sovereignty/exploitation power. With the founding of the discipline of International Relations, this term has been adopted and is still used by United Kingdom. However, the Second World War revealed the leading position of the United States in the international system as a milestone and it was accepted that the United Kingdom would remain under this leadership. The United States, within its global hegemony policy, has decided that “Middle East” matches the region geographically (Davison 1960, 665). The concept of the Far East, which reflects the huge geography in the Asia-Pacific region, has also taken its place in the discipline of International Relations as a product of the political conceptualization of the United States (Davison 1960, 667–668).

However, defining the Middle East as a purely Islamic region is insufficient, because Muslim-populated countries Indonesia, Bangladesh, India or Nigeria are not considered as the Middle East. Post-modern theorists, on the other hand, draw attention to the danger of orientalism and argue that separating the Middle East is “otherization” and has destructive and dehumanizing aspects (Almond 2007). According to the complex of features, the Middle East can be delimited from southwest to northeast over an area of seven million square miles, centered on the 38’ north latitude axis. The region is bordered to the west by the Atlantic coast of Morocco and stretches eastward through North Africa through Iran to Arabia and finally joins central and southern Asia in southern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan. In the north, the border is naturally drawn by the three inland seas, the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, and finally the peaks of the Hindu Kush Mountains (Lindholm 2002, 8).

In this work, the Middle East refers to Iran, the Arabian Peninsula countries and the Arab countries of North Africa. In its most specific form, the Middle East has been accepted as Syria-centered.

1.1.1. Reasons That Make the Middle East Special

For Barnett, Matar and Hilal the question of “what is the Middle East?” has a clear answer: Arabism (Barnett 1998, 239). This ideology became an important unifying factor several states sharing it, while becoming a threat that should be taken seriously for those actors, which oppose this ideology. For Matar and Hilal, the main reason why the transboundary nature of Arabism poses a threat to “other” countries is the easiness provided to countries that adopted Arabism to interfere in each other’s internal affairs. This reason is determined by factors such as family and tribal relations beyond artificial borders, the existence of the “pan” idea and the decrease in loyalty to the state, and exceeding the limit of respect in political issues inherited from the colonial period. For Matar and Hilal’s, Barnett tried to fill the gap of the ideological factor. For him, the concepts of Arabism and sovereignty are the two most important concepts that states should possess in the Arab-populated Middle East geography. However, reasons such as the feeling of “pan” among the Arab states in the region and the fact that Israel is not seen as a legitimate actor make it easier to intervene in internal affairs (Walt 1990, 216). In addition, these studies accept that the change and transformation of the international system in the Middle East depends on the interpretation of Arabism. For Barnett, a change in the Arabism factor is important to affect the systemic structure of the Middle East. Matar and Hilal, on the other hand, argue that the most important reason for the change is ideological shifts beyond Arabism. For Brown, the factor that makes the Middle East so important and gives it the capacity to influence the international system is the diplomacy culture of the region, which comes from the Ottoman remnants. As a result of the institutionalization of the state, which is formed by the rules coming from this culture, international politics has been shaped on the balance of power in the multipolar system and has led to the emergence of a unique political philosophy in the Middle East (Brown 1984, 17).

Although the first studies to determine the place of the Middle East in the international system appeared in the late 1950s, there are also opinions expressing that the Middle East does not have a unique systemic feature (Binder 15, 408–429). For Walt, states of the Middle East determine their foreign policies with the neorealist paradigm instead of bandwagoning, and, thus, they can follow a more independent and interest-oriented policy (Walt 1987, 148). According to him, Arabism sees a balancing mechanism for the regulation of interest-interested relations between rivals of the same religion and enemies of different religions in the region. Ideological divisions, including Arabism, are a threat to countries. Therefore, weak Arab states will be able to enter into alliance relations even with Israel in order to balance with the strong (Brown 1984, 16). However, according to the author, although the Arab states acted as one in events such as the Six-Day War, this remained a symbolic example (Walt 1987, 215).

Another factor that distinguishes the Middle East regional system from other regional systems is the effects of the colonial past in the region. The countries of the region that gained their independence in the world order that emerged after the Second World War, the use of Arabism in their foreign policies and even the fact that this concept weakens the sovereignty of their countries is a result of colonialism (Hinnebusch 2003). However, the sense of unity between Islamic sects has also led to the instinct of protecting transnational ideologies and being prepared for the colonial West (Gause 2009, 58).

Its geopolitical and strategic location is one of the factors that make the Middle East important. The Suez Canal, which connects the Mediterranean and the Red Seas within the borders of the region, the Strait of Hormuz, the Dardanelles and Istanbul Straits and the Persian Gulf are the clearest indication of its importance. The problems that emerged as a result of the attempt to close the Persian Gulf due to the Suez Crisis in 1956 and the Iraq-Iran War after 1980 clearly showed the importance of the region (Sander 1991, 349).

In most of the studies on the Middle East, the importance of the region is explained by the oil resources. It may be true that the oil resources determines the importance of the region due to its economic value, but considering its historical past, it would not be correct to evaluate the region only by petroleum reserves factor. Ahmet Davutoğlu expressed the importance of the region as follows: “The region, which is located in the center of the temperate climate zone where all civilization basins originate, has been of great importance in terms of agricultural potential and trade transmission line from ancient times to the present” (Davutoğlu 2004, 332)

The Middle East is a region with a unique cultural heritage where different cultures have lived throughout history of humanity. In addition, the birth of the monotheistic religions in the region, and the presence of sacred places for the members of the monotheistic religions within the borders of this region have made the region to have a unique position in the world (Ersin 2003, 21). In this context, the Middle East has a very important geostrategic position. Understanding the strategic importance of the Middle East reveals the reason for its universal spirit (Şefik 1983, 47).

1.1.2. Geostrategic Importance of the Middle East

Geostrategy is defined as the importance of the geographical position of the countries, trade routes, natural water areas, climate and similar geographical elements. The strategies that states determine to achieve their political goals are based on the geographical elements of their countries. The concept was used for the first by Frederick L. Schuman in 1942 (Schuman 1943, 347–362). The geostrategy was defined as the geographical target of foreign policy that determines how a country will use its military forces and the subjects they will focus on while outlining their diplomacy activities. Countries take advantage of the geographical factors they have when determining where, how they will position their military structures and how they will use them (Karabulut 2005, 21–22). Brzezinski recommended that for the US to maintain its global dominance, it should focus separately on four regions: “Democratic Bridgehead” (Europe), “Black Hole” (Russia), “Eurasian Balkans” (Middle East Asia and Far East), “Iron Pile” (Asia) (Brzezinski 1997, 40).

The Middle East, due its geographical location, became the center of gravity of all projects and plans covering Asia and Europe. Middle East connects Europe to India and China by sea; Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Arabian peninsula by road, thus, connecting three continents. States, like the United States and Russia, which are trying to settle in the region, try to calculate the benefits and threats caused by the geopolitical importance of the region. These countries by changing the balance of the region in the direction they pursue, tried to change the perspective of all parties on the region and caused the strategic calculations to be made again. Therefore, the Middle East “being a center of interception of Europe, Asia and Africa continents, has become the indispensable place where states that want to access the open seas determine their geostrategies” (Davutoğlu 2004, 327).

Thus, the oil reserves of the region, the artificial conflicts created by the powers that aim to have access and keep these reserves and intense arms sales in the region, cause the region to maintain its feature to be at the focal point of the world (Kocaoğlu 1995, 170).

1.1.3. Geopolitical Importance of the Middle East

Ratzel and Oberhummer defined geopolitics as “the science that studies the relations between the geographical features of states and their politics” (İşcan 2004, 47–79). Kjellen, who was influenced by their work written in 1897, defined geopolitics as “the scientific study of the state in geographical formation or space” (Haggman 1998, 99–112). Although, there is no definite consensus on the definition of the concept of geopolitics, it can be said that it is a science that examines the relationship between the geographical elements of the states and the politics they follow, and examines the possible benefits and threats that they can derive from their political geographies (Evans 1998, 2). Therefore, geopolitics is a foreign policy analysis method used to understand, explain and make predictions about international politics in terms of variables such as geographical location, size, topography, demography and natural resources of a country.

Mahan, the founder of the first known geopolitical theory, outlined theory of “Sea Power” within his work published in 1890. The theory argues that world domination can only be achieved by domination in the seas. Accordingly, sovereignty in the seas depends on having a strong naval power (Mahan 2010, 17–19). Mackinder, on the other hand, in his book published in 1904, laid down foundation of his “Heartland” theory (Mackinder 1919). Mackinder’s “Continental Power” theory became one of the basic ideas that contributed to geopolitics. Mackinder, like Mahan, studied the relationship between geography and technology — he stated that until the 19th century, sea power was superior to land power, but as of the 20th century, this has changed due to the development in technology field (Mütercimler 2006, 309). The civilizations that emerged in the Mediterranean and its surroundings first got strength on the land and then they expanded their influence on the seas. For this reason, he stated that no matter how developed maritime power is, ships are dependent on land due to their essential needs in ports.

Within the framework of these views, we can say that geopolitics is a concept that includes the effect of the country’s geography on politics and the scope of this effect; geographical elements such as sea, land and air space, access to water and energy resources and the effects of national power have led theorists to investigate the geography-politics relationship and interaction. In this context, national borders, safe use and control of important sea and land routes should be among the priority issues in national policy making processes (Arda 2003, 310). Middle East being an intercontinental intersection and connecting the Mediterranean, Red Sea, Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean as adjacent basins, is a center of attraction for both regional and trans-regional actors throughout history and in present, making it a fragile and focal point of international politics/competition (Turan 2002, 16).

Additionally, petroleum that has gained importance since the 1900s in couple with the strategic location of the region’s land and sea routes, have made the Middle East more important than any other region in the world. Any power or alliance in the international arena has been trying to take control of the Middle East region in order to achieve its goal of domination. The reason for this is that as Cengiz Çandar (1984, 37) puts it “the Middle East has the function of a keyhole that can open many doors”. Evaluating Middle East from this point of view, it can be said that it is the main reason of the wars and conflicts in the region.

1.1.4. Religious and Cultural Importance of the Middle East

It is necessary to understand the religious and cultural importance of the region, in order to explain the balance of power and the dynamics of the politics pursued in the Middle East. The map of the ancient religions that were born in the Middle East, spread all over the world and still are present today, is more complex than the ethnic and linguistic map of the region. In this context, the Middle East has become a region where new religions emerged with the influence of Roman and Hellenic cultures, as a result of conquests and migrations it experienced throughout its history (Lewis 1995, 28). Throughout this historical process, it has been a geography where different beliefs such as Magusism, paganism, Hellenism and Zoroastrianism, as well as celestial religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam were accepted. Although these religions are different, they share several common features such as monotheism, concepts of punishment and reward, and resurrection. Despite having many common features, it can be said that the root of the conflicts and disagreements in the region stems from the attitudes of the members of these th

...