Summaries Finals – Politics Middle East
Lecture 7: International Politics
Chapter 11: Foreign Policymaking in the Middle East (Hinnebusch and Ehteshami)
Framework of analysis
MENA environment:
Global Environment: hierarchy region is highly penetrated by core states that lay
down the rules constraint on regional states’ autonomy.
o Some regimes sacrifce their autonomy, become clients and receive economic
beneftss/protecton from patron state in return for politcal support.
o Subaltern Realism = All states seek to evade core constraints or to manipulate
the core-periphery system
Regional Environment: dual character a states system embedded in a supra-state
(pan-Arab, Islamic) communites and cross-cut by trans-state and sub-state identtes
regional environment is both a source of conventonal military threats from other
states and threats to the legitmacy of regimes from trans-state movements or
interrelated threats.
State formaton and foreign policy tangents:
State formaton (level of stateness, social compositon of ruling coalitons and a
state’s power positon) is the major determinant of response towards challenges of
external environment.
Level of state formaton determines the main threats that foreign policy is used to
manage:
o When consolidaton of states in the regional system is low, the main threats
are within and foreign policy is used to counter domestc oppositon.
o When state formaton is sufciently high that internal threats are
manageable, the domestc environment becomes a source of
supports/resources.
o If military capabilites also advance, the main threat is from neighbours, and
foreign policy deals with external threats and ambitons.
o High levels of state formaton depend on insttuton building + inclusion social
forces
Social basis determines directon foreign policies
State power positon: states with greater resources and power capabilites
o Actvist foreign policies, including ambiton for regional hegemony
Weak states: concentrated on maintaining sovereignty
The intra-state level: the ‘black box’ of policymaking:
‘black box’ = in which policies are drafed and decisions made and implemented
foreign policy analysis:
o Mostly concerned with agency how the features of the policy process
enhance from ability of states to cope with their environments balance of
power
Foreign policy role:
1
, A state’s foreign policy role implies an identty and orientaton toward neighbours
constructed by elites: state elites in balancing among economic needs
Geopolitcal positon has major impact
Foreign policy is manipulated by eltes however sets standards of legitmacy and
performance that to a degree constrain elites Foreign policy needs a certain
consistency
Power concentraton and decision-making:
Efectve foreign policies through balance between regime autonomy of, and
accountability to society and a balance among elites in the policy process
Authoritarian republics: leader-dominant model presidencies had great power to
act and could make bold or risky decisions
Monarchies: take bolder policies where the monarch has exceptonal stature
Pluralistc states: prime minister must keep senior cabinet colleagues satsfed
more informaton and input should allow for beter policies
Fragmented leadership: tend to zigzag depending on which facton is in power
More compettve and power-hungry when leaders had to climb to power in struggle
Democratcally elected leaders are not less bellicose
The idiosyncratc variable: how much does the leader count?
In regimes in which power is personalized and concentrated, the leader’s personal
style and ideas can make an enormous diference
o E.g. big diferences between styles of Asad and Saddam, although both Baath
party regime explain key diferences in their foreign policies
Change in failing policy is most likely when an external shock is accompanied or
followed by leadership change, while new leader is more willing to reinterpret the
situaton
Intra-elite bureaucratc politcs:
Influencers: presidental advisors, senior military and intelligence ofcers, key cabinet
members, party apparatchiki, and foreign ministry ofcials
‘Bureaucratc politcs’: each of these may propose diferent policies shaped by their
special roles and material interests
Dominatng role of the military and intelligence services bias policy toward
coercive optons and prioritze ‘natonal security’ over others
Public opinion is likely to play a greater role in regimes having electoral accountability
mechanisms
Explaining foreign policy outcomes:
Locaton and intensity of the main security threat will be the main determinant of
policy
o If internal: bandwagon with an external power to get the supports/resources
to balance it or use radical natonalist rhetoric to mobilize internal support to
appease internal oppositon
2
, o If external: rely on global protector or seek a power balance through
natonalist mobilizaton of domestc support, military build-up and alliance-
making
State power positon mater: If states are too weak to balance threatening stronger
states, they may appease them or seek a patron-protector
Comparatve foreign policy in the 2000s: explaining policy variaton
Realist stressing the dominance of the states system, and liberals and foreign policy analysis
arguing for the importance of internal politcs
The 2003 Iraq War
Egypt:
Egypt did not join the ‘coaliton of the willing’ that invaded Iraq
Did blame Saddam Hussein for nut fully complying with UN resolutons
Only verbal condemnaton ignored the resoluton of LAS summit against the war
Allowed US forces to use bases in Egypt and to transit the Suez Canal to carry out the
war
Reason:
o Egypt was too economically dependent on its US patron to say no
o Main pillar of regime, the army, dependent on US arms and fnancing
o Fearful of provoking Bush administraton
Omni-balancing with the US to contain domestc oppositon however growing
erosion of domestc legitmacy would culminate in Mubarak’s fall
Turkey:
Turkey declined to bandwagon with US
o No change in degree of Turkey’s dependency on US
o But: Western ‘core’ was split, European powers opposed the war influence
EU membership
o Problem Kurdish separatsm (PKK) US policy empowers Iraqi Kurds at the
expanse of the Baghdad government
Turkish-US negotatons:
o Signifcant economic package to recover from economic crisis + Turkish forces
would enter Iraq with Americans and be in a positon to counter threats PKK
o Deal fell apart failing to win parliamentary approval widespread public
oppositon
o Strategic partnership between Turkey and US sufered major setback
Iran:
Unwelcomed US called Iran next to Iraq ‘axis of evil’ + would bring US forces to
Iran’s western borders
However, US did Iran strategic favour by disposing of its greatest regional rival
Policy: ‘actve neutrality’ sidestep the war itself, but ready to deal with fallout
Iran would likely to be the next target on US democratzaton list
Saudi Arabia:
3
, Overthrow Iraq’s regime would create regional chaos and more violence
However, opposed to Iraqi regime
Unwelcoming of largescale US troops deployments in their sphere of influence
domestc damage pressed for UN Security Council approval providing cover for
any contributon that they would inevitably be asked by US
Iraqi regime had been so weakened by internatonal sanctons no security threat
to GCC + US inspired conspiracies against regime everywhere did not support
interventon
Destabilizing Iraq would destabilize the Persian Gulf to the detriment of the US and
neighbouring Arab countries demise of Iraq as regional power and the emergence
of a pro-Iranian power elite
The 2006 Lebanon War
Egypt:
Policy based on idea of rising domestc security threats from Islamism:
o Success of MB in 2005 parliamentary electons + Hamas electons alarm of
rise of Islamism in regional politcs
Mubarak welcomed the possibility Israel would cut Hezbollah down the size
scared Hezbollah would expose Egypt’s impotence to defend Arab cause
Facing regional and domestc threats regime needed to appease US and to deflect
is pressures for politcal reform by showing itself as opposed to Islamic radicalism
Egypt’s positon exposed the growing and dangerous gap between the ruling elite
and public opinion Mubarak seen as US puppet regime bent under public
critcism calling out for a ceasefre and condemning the Israeli bombing
Turkey:
Since 1990s signifcant security and economic tes with Israel
However, 1998 Syria’s ending support of Kurdish Party (PKK) and Iraq War, Turkey’s
need for Israel had declined, especially as Israel was supportng Iraqi Kurds
Condemnaton against Israel by prime minister, but no terminaton of Turkey’s links
with Israel
However, in 2008 atack on Gaza by Israel, Erdogan denounced Israel
Policy reflected percepton of regional threats and how to deal with them public
opinion support
Iran:
Emphatc endorsement of the Irans/Syria-led ‘resistance front’
Hezbollah helped Iran to promote itself as the campion of Arab causes
Idea of proxy war between Tehran and Washington; idea that US ‘champion’ Israel
lost to much smaller Arab protégé
Iran as force able and willing to challenge US dominated status quo
Saudi Arabia:
Opposed to war blamed Iran and Hezbollah unnecessary war
Closer relatonships with Egypt and Jordan
4
Lecture 7: International Politics
Chapter 11: Foreign Policymaking in the Middle East (Hinnebusch and Ehteshami)
Framework of analysis
MENA environment:
Global Environment: hierarchy region is highly penetrated by core states that lay
down the rules constraint on regional states’ autonomy.
o Some regimes sacrifce their autonomy, become clients and receive economic
beneftss/protecton from patron state in return for politcal support.
o Subaltern Realism = All states seek to evade core constraints or to manipulate
the core-periphery system
Regional Environment: dual character a states system embedded in a supra-state
(pan-Arab, Islamic) communites and cross-cut by trans-state and sub-state identtes
regional environment is both a source of conventonal military threats from other
states and threats to the legitmacy of regimes from trans-state movements or
interrelated threats.
State formaton and foreign policy tangents:
State formaton (level of stateness, social compositon of ruling coalitons and a
state’s power positon) is the major determinant of response towards challenges of
external environment.
Level of state formaton determines the main threats that foreign policy is used to
manage:
o When consolidaton of states in the regional system is low, the main threats
are within and foreign policy is used to counter domestc oppositon.
o When state formaton is sufciently high that internal threats are
manageable, the domestc environment becomes a source of
supports/resources.
o If military capabilites also advance, the main threat is from neighbours, and
foreign policy deals with external threats and ambitons.
o High levels of state formaton depend on insttuton building + inclusion social
forces
Social basis determines directon foreign policies
State power positon: states with greater resources and power capabilites
o Actvist foreign policies, including ambiton for regional hegemony
Weak states: concentrated on maintaining sovereignty
The intra-state level: the ‘black box’ of policymaking:
‘black box’ = in which policies are drafed and decisions made and implemented
foreign policy analysis:
o Mostly concerned with agency how the features of the policy process
enhance from ability of states to cope with their environments balance of
power
Foreign policy role:
1
, A state’s foreign policy role implies an identty and orientaton toward neighbours
constructed by elites: state elites in balancing among economic needs
Geopolitcal positon has major impact
Foreign policy is manipulated by eltes however sets standards of legitmacy and
performance that to a degree constrain elites Foreign policy needs a certain
consistency
Power concentraton and decision-making:
Efectve foreign policies through balance between regime autonomy of, and
accountability to society and a balance among elites in the policy process
Authoritarian republics: leader-dominant model presidencies had great power to
act and could make bold or risky decisions
Monarchies: take bolder policies where the monarch has exceptonal stature
Pluralistc states: prime minister must keep senior cabinet colleagues satsfed
more informaton and input should allow for beter policies
Fragmented leadership: tend to zigzag depending on which facton is in power
More compettve and power-hungry when leaders had to climb to power in struggle
Democratcally elected leaders are not less bellicose
The idiosyncratc variable: how much does the leader count?
In regimes in which power is personalized and concentrated, the leader’s personal
style and ideas can make an enormous diference
o E.g. big diferences between styles of Asad and Saddam, although both Baath
party regime explain key diferences in their foreign policies
Change in failing policy is most likely when an external shock is accompanied or
followed by leadership change, while new leader is more willing to reinterpret the
situaton
Intra-elite bureaucratc politcs:
Influencers: presidental advisors, senior military and intelligence ofcers, key cabinet
members, party apparatchiki, and foreign ministry ofcials
‘Bureaucratc politcs’: each of these may propose diferent policies shaped by their
special roles and material interests
Dominatng role of the military and intelligence services bias policy toward
coercive optons and prioritze ‘natonal security’ over others
Public opinion is likely to play a greater role in regimes having electoral accountability
mechanisms
Explaining foreign policy outcomes:
Locaton and intensity of the main security threat will be the main determinant of
policy
o If internal: bandwagon with an external power to get the supports/resources
to balance it or use radical natonalist rhetoric to mobilize internal support to
appease internal oppositon
2
, o If external: rely on global protector or seek a power balance through
natonalist mobilizaton of domestc support, military build-up and alliance-
making
State power positon mater: If states are too weak to balance threatening stronger
states, they may appease them or seek a patron-protector
Comparatve foreign policy in the 2000s: explaining policy variaton
Realist stressing the dominance of the states system, and liberals and foreign policy analysis
arguing for the importance of internal politcs
The 2003 Iraq War
Egypt:
Egypt did not join the ‘coaliton of the willing’ that invaded Iraq
Did blame Saddam Hussein for nut fully complying with UN resolutons
Only verbal condemnaton ignored the resoluton of LAS summit against the war
Allowed US forces to use bases in Egypt and to transit the Suez Canal to carry out the
war
Reason:
o Egypt was too economically dependent on its US patron to say no
o Main pillar of regime, the army, dependent on US arms and fnancing
o Fearful of provoking Bush administraton
Omni-balancing with the US to contain domestc oppositon however growing
erosion of domestc legitmacy would culminate in Mubarak’s fall
Turkey:
Turkey declined to bandwagon with US
o No change in degree of Turkey’s dependency on US
o But: Western ‘core’ was split, European powers opposed the war influence
EU membership
o Problem Kurdish separatsm (PKK) US policy empowers Iraqi Kurds at the
expanse of the Baghdad government
Turkish-US negotatons:
o Signifcant economic package to recover from economic crisis + Turkish forces
would enter Iraq with Americans and be in a positon to counter threats PKK
o Deal fell apart failing to win parliamentary approval widespread public
oppositon
o Strategic partnership between Turkey and US sufered major setback
Iran:
Unwelcomed US called Iran next to Iraq ‘axis of evil’ + would bring US forces to
Iran’s western borders
However, US did Iran strategic favour by disposing of its greatest regional rival
Policy: ‘actve neutrality’ sidestep the war itself, but ready to deal with fallout
Iran would likely to be the next target on US democratzaton list
Saudi Arabia:
3
, Overthrow Iraq’s regime would create regional chaos and more violence
However, opposed to Iraqi regime
Unwelcoming of largescale US troops deployments in their sphere of influence
domestc damage pressed for UN Security Council approval providing cover for
any contributon that they would inevitably be asked by US
Iraqi regime had been so weakened by internatonal sanctons no security threat
to GCC + US inspired conspiracies against regime everywhere did not support
interventon
Destabilizing Iraq would destabilize the Persian Gulf to the detriment of the US and
neighbouring Arab countries demise of Iraq as regional power and the emergence
of a pro-Iranian power elite
The 2006 Lebanon War
Egypt:
Policy based on idea of rising domestc security threats from Islamism:
o Success of MB in 2005 parliamentary electons + Hamas electons alarm of
rise of Islamism in regional politcs
Mubarak welcomed the possibility Israel would cut Hezbollah down the size
scared Hezbollah would expose Egypt’s impotence to defend Arab cause
Facing regional and domestc threats regime needed to appease US and to deflect
is pressures for politcal reform by showing itself as opposed to Islamic radicalism
Egypt’s positon exposed the growing and dangerous gap between the ruling elite
and public opinion Mubarak seen as US puppet regime bent under public
critcism calling out for a ceasefre and condemning the Israeli bombing
Turkey:
Since 1990s signifcant security and economic tes with Israel
However, 1998 Syria’s ending support of Kurdish Party (PKK) and Iraq War, Turkey’s
need for Israel had declined, especially as Israel was supportng Iraqi Kurds
Condemnaton against Israel by prime minister, but no terminaton of Turkey’s links
with Israel
However, in 2008 atack on Gaza by Israel, Erdogan denounced Israel
Policy reflected percepton of regional threats and how to deal with them public
opinion support
Iran:
Emphatc endorsement of the Irans/Syria-led ‘resistance front’
Hezbollah helped Iran to promote itself as the campion of Arab causes
Idea of proxy war between Tehran and Washington; idea that US ‘champion’ Israel
lost to much smaller Arab protégé
Iran as force able and willing to challenge US dominated status quo
Saudi Arabia:
Opposed to war blamed Iran and Hezbollah unnecessary war
Closer relatonships with Egypt and Jordan
4
