RICHARD H. NOLTE, student of Islamic law and society at Yale and Oxford and on field trips to the Middle East for the Institute of Current World Affairs; WILLIAM R. POLK, of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University
IF THE United States is to pursue its objectives successfully in the Middle East it must understand that the decisive social and political force at work there is Arab nationalism, and must come to terms with it; and it must also accept realistically the fact that the Soviet Union now plays an important rôle in Arab affairs.
The strategic importance of the Middle East as a route to Asia and as an area of contention between Russia and Western Europe is not new. The Eastern Question preoccupied the Powers throughout the nineteenth century. Today, with the protagonists infinitely more powerful, the competition continues; and to the stakes have been added three-quarters of the world's proven oil reserves. What may be even more significant is that rival philosophies and ways of life are competing in the Middle East also, and the outcome there will have a profound influence on the still uncommitted peoples of Africa and Asia.
II
A necessary first step in formulating an American policy for the Middle East is to identify the basic American objectives there. In doing so, a clear distinction should be made between objectives and the means to achieve them and between essential objectives and those that are merely desirable. The importance of this is emphasized by Western experience in recent years. A concept of "vital interests" has always underlain British policy: for example, the use or usufruct of such facilities as the Suez Canal and the refinery at Abadan were regarded as of vital importance. But in practice the vital interest itself has often been understood to include the ownership, control or even military occupation thought necessary to secure it. Particular means have tended to become ends, and rigid adherence to them has in the long run often jeopardized rather than safeguarded the interest itself. Thus, we have seen that the means which Britain used to assure navigation in the Suez Canal and a continuing flow of petroleum to Europe worked against those vital interests...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Judith Miller knocked in the Middle East, and many doors opened. But her focus on Islamic militancy blinded her to enlightened currents of Islam. Separation of religion and state is not a real option in a region where the faith is central to life, but Muslims can choose what kind of Islam will hold sway.
The Middle East has probably been debating Western modernity longer than anywhere else, as many try to become modern without becoming Western. Since the sixteenth century, when British ships and trading companies sailed in, the region has become all too aware of Western superiority on the battlefield and in the marketplace. Middle Easterners have busily adopted or rejected Western innovations, trying to catch up or blaming the West for their predicament, or both. Meanwhile, their glorious history and their forebears' contribution to Western civilization is often buried and forgotten. In every age the dominant civilization defines modernity and claims the credit. Once it was Islam, now it is the West.
The greatest danger to Israel comes not from without -- in the form of Palestinian intransigence -- but from within. The ongoing occupation of the territories is destroying Israel's values and viability. It breeds an aggressive, intolerant ethnic nationalism and causes political gridlock, empowering an ultrareligious underclass that refuses to contribute and lives off the state.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.