Overview of events in the Middle East during 1991, and how the Gulf war outcome, along with the collapse of the USSR, affected the interests of countries in the region. Asserts that US foreign policy could have been more vigorous in restructuring the Middle East order: "it sought more to stabilize the old order than to remake the Middle East in its own preferred image".
Martin Indyk is Executive Director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. David Kaye provided research assistance for this paper.
Last year was a watershed in the Middle East. It began with a war in the Persian Gulf and ended with an Arab-Israeli peace conference in Madrid. The liberation of Kuwait, the destruction of Iraq’s offensive capabilities by the U.S.-led coalition and the simultaneous, though unrelated, disintegration of the Soviet Union promoted the United States to a position of unchallenged dominance in the region. The radical powers—Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)—found themselves without a superpower patron; the back of the "rejectionist front" was broken. As a direct consequence, by the end of 1991 all of Israel’s Arab neighbors were engaged in direct peace negotiations with the Jewish state and Iran had arranged the release of the remaining American hostages.
The gulf crisis exposed the inadequacies of governments and the failure of their ideologies, the perfidy of some leaders and the venality of others. And the end of superpower rivalry in the Middle East robbed the players of their most valued asset: the ability to secure patronage by playing one superpower against the other. Yet not one Middle East government was overthrown as a result of the year’s tumultuous events. Instead the region’s leaders, most of whom had been in power for at least a decade, sought to adjust to the new post-Cold War, post-Gulf War circumstances as best they could while retaining a powerful urge to cling to the old ways of doing business.
Given America’s dominant influence, things might have been different had the United States adopted a more ambitious approach to restructuring the Middle East order. The objectives were certainly lofty. In his March 6 victory speech to Congress, the president called for a new regional security structure, limitations on the Middle East arms race, an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict and economic freedom and prosperity for all the people of the region. But the Bush administration also had a preference for the status quo, and its actions fell short of its ambitious objectives. It sought more to stabilize the old order than to remake the Middle East in its own preferred image.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Related
The manner in which President Bush terminated US military action against Iraq, and the unsatisfactoriness of the residual situation in the Gulf region with Saddam Hussein still in place, served to erode that sense of purpose and self-confidence with which Americans were persuaded to embark on that action. "He left them in confusion over exactly what they had been fighting for in the Persian Gulf, hence over what America's role should be in the post-Cold War world".
Though nuclear weapons were not exploded in the coalition war against Iraq, they were 'used' in the sense of deterring use of chemical weapons by Iraq; however, US warnings might perhaps have been more carefully phrased, in order to show consistency with a 'no first use' policy. The war should also have served to heighten the need to achieve a lasting peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours.
Assesses the effects of Iraq's annexation of Kuwait on the unity of the Arab world, and the recognition among Arab elite opinion generally that US assistance will be necessary to advance Arab interests. Professor of Middle Eastern studies, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University.
