How US ‘War On Terror’ Policy Promotes Radical Islam In The Middle East

The Bush administration and the Neoconservatives

How Has The United States “War On Terror” Foreign Policy Promote Radical Islam To Be More Efficient In the Middle East? 

Introduction

‘The dangerous clashes of the future are likely to arise from the interaction of Western arrogance, Islamic intolerance, and Sinic assertiveness.’ (Samuel Hunington, 1993). For a decade, the Middle East has been the centre of attention. In the aftermath of 9/11, the United States, along with  its allies has been engaged in military intervention in the Middle East. It is one of the oldest civilisations in the world, but unfortunately it is recognized as the most troubled region. I decided to write my dissertation on United States War on Terror policy in the Middle East. Being a very broad topic and one the most complicated region to study, I will be looking at the United States War on Terror foreign policy by relating to the rise of radical Islam, which we in West have been concerned due to the unfolding terrorist attacks we have witnessed in the past decade. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of Cold War, American foreign policy is no longer based on a communist threat. By the end of the millennium and the aftermath of 9/11, radical Islam has been  considered as a national threat as well as a threat to global security. The Bush administration had launched the War on Terror in order to stop Islamic terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and the States accused by Washington of sponsoring terrorism has been labelled as “axis of evil”. The American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the rise of ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabazz, and minority of people in the west now believe we are engaged in a war with Islam; they portray it as a war between West VS Islam. This is evident from far right ultra nationalist movements in Europe to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign who calls for the “banning” of Muslims in the United States. ‘In the wake of 9/11 attacks, analysts in the United States and abroad attributed a wide variety of motives of the perpetrators. Particularly popular was the view that 9/11 represented the opening salvo in a new war between the Islamic world and (mostly) Christian West, as Samuel P. Huntington predicted in his 1993 foreign affairs essay “The Clash of Civilization”.’ (Michael Klare, 2004.pp. 54). However, the argument I am trying to make is the opposite. I am trying to contribute to future generations that the United States and the West are not at war with radical Islam or “Islamist terrorists” at all. In fact Washington is at war with States that oppose the Washington consensus, leaders and figureheads that defy US imperialism. For Washington the enemy is not radical Islam, but is and has been secular nationalists. The main argument of this dissertation is to show how Washington is in fact promoting radical Islam. Islamic fundamentalists have been assisted financially and militarily by Washington and its regional allies for decades as a tool to topple regimes that Washington has long opposed. We also need to ask ourselves, if Washington was really at war with terror, why does it continue its diplomatic relation with its regional allies that have been sponsoring terrorism? The Middle East is in Chaos, how many wars and destruction and lives to be lost in order for peace to be implemented? Europe has witnessed the biggest migration crisis since the Second World War. As a young generation of western Muslims being influenced by radicalization to join jihad, Islamophobia is also expanding. And this is the reason why I decided to select the War on Terror as my topic. In order to understand the rise of radical Islam and the instability across the Middle East, hopefully this will answer the question to all the bloodshed.

The Obama administration and ‘Arab Spring’

I decided to structure my dissertation into three sections. Chapter One will be looking at the Bush administration and the Neoconservatives. Chapter Two will be looking at the Obama administration and Chapter Three will be covering Oil and Hegemony. I will also narrate historical facts and events, from the Cold War to early scholars and thinkers. Hopefully this will give us a broader understanding of how the United States war on terror in fact promotes radical Islam to be more efficient in the Middle East.

Chapter One will start by looking into the War on Terror and the Bush administration, following the aftermath of 9/11. As the Bush administration led a military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, I will be analysing the long hostile relation between Baghdad and Washington which eventually led to the fall of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’athist party in 2003. The War on Terror was a military campaign with an objective to dismantle Al-Qaeda, Bin-Laden and to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from expanding their operation. The Bush administration had long accused Iraq of sponsoring terrorism by having links with Al-Qaeda. Washington’s allegation of Iraq and Al-Qaeda collaboration, I will in fact argue that by overthrowing Saddam Hussein, US military intervention in Iraq led Al-Qaeda to expand across the Middle East. Al-Qaeda is a Salafist Islamic terrorist organization; however, it did not just suddenly emerge as a global terrorist movement as it is today. The next section of Chapter One will be looking into the rise of Al-Qaeda. I will take a step back to the Cold War and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In order to counterattack communism, the United States, along with its regional allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia poured billions of dollars to Islamic fundamentalists known as the Mujahedeen in order to battle communism. With financial and military assistance from the United States, the idea of Jihad would attract young Osama Bin-Laden to establish an Islamic caliphate with the establishment of Al-Qaeda in 1981.

Throughout my dissertation, I will be analysing the US-Saudi relations. Saudi Arabia, a longtime ally of the United States has been promoting terrorism for decades. By promoting Wahhabism (orthodox conservative branch of Sunni Islam) across the Islamic world, it has radicalized young Muslims to join Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist terrorist networks across the continent. Yet, Washington continues its diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. The economic trade between Riyadh and Washington gives us an understanding of Washington’s position and attitude towards the Kingdom of Al-Saud, from the oil trade agreement to military exports. By analysing the diplomatic relation between Washington and Riyadh, it will allow me to challenge the United States war on terror policy campaign. If the United States is really at war with radical Islam and terrorism, why does it continue its diplomatic relation with Saudi Arabia which promotes terrorism? This is something I will be trying to answer throughout my dissertation.

Oil and Hegemony

As a politics student, IR studies have attracted when it comes to global affairs in international politics. In terms of American foreign policy, I decided to relate Realism to the Bush administration. The final section of Chapter one will be on Realist theorist Hans Morgenthau and his critical argument of the Bush administration foreign policy in the Middle East.

Chapter two will be evaluating the difference between the Bush and Obama administration. As the previous administration led a full direct military campaign, US policy under Obama has shifted more towards multilateralism and diplomacy. However, needless to say, American firepower is still active across the Middle East and South Asia. Although US policy has softened its approach, this administration, like its predecessors, has been engaged in promoting radical Islam in the region. By 2010 the “Arab Spring” penetrated across the Arab world, young generation demonstrated to end tyranny and fall of dictatorship, unfortunately we have not witnessed the triumph of liberal democracy in the Arab world, but the triumph of radical Islam. This Chapter will be looking how the United States arms and finances in what it proclaims as “moderate rebels” in order to topple Assad in Syria, like it had successfully done in Libya to Gaddafi. However, these “moderate rebels” are no secular opposition, but a bunch of radical Islamist in order to topple regimes and States that Washington has long opposed. ISIS today is the wealthiest terrorist organization in the world, penetrating across the Middle East and Africa, its recognized for its sectarian brutality. Saudi Arabia along with Turkey and Qatar continues to arm and finance ISIS and other fractions of Islamist terrorist networks. By exporting Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia is engaged in a proxy war with Iran to export sectarian violence across the region. Despite the Saudi connection with promoting terrorism, US military export to Saudi Arabia has dramatically increased under the Obama administration. Obama like Bush continues to consider the Kingdom of Al-Saud a trustworthy ally in fighting terrorism. Although the US has launched a coalition military campaign against ISIS with its regional and western allies, it continues its commitment to support these so called “moderate rebels”. The argument here is that Washington under Obama like the Bush and Reagan administration has been arming and financing radical Islam in the region for decades. From the Mujahedeen to Al-Qaeda and ISIS, radical Islam has been more efficient in the Middle East due to Washington’s foreign policy strategy.

In Chapter three I will be looking at oil and hegemony, which has shaped American foreign policy towards the Middle East. Since the Second World War, the United States has been deeply involved in the Middle East. The study oil and hegemony gives a broad understanding as to why the United States war on terror promotes radical Islam to be more efficient in the Middle East. The Wolfowitz doctrine that was drafted back in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz, and adopted by the Bush administration shows how committed the US was to invade Iraq in order to have access to Iraq’s oil. This is evident from Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which he implemented the new regime in Baghdad to economic reforms. Many of these economic reforms were structured towards a neoliberal free market economy, which privatized Iraq’s oil industry to western companies. Haliburton Oil Company owned by former vice president Dick Cheney profited billions of dollars in shares. By targeting Gaddafi back in 2011, the US had successfully interrupted Gaddafi’s oil for Gold trade policy which would have been catastrophic to the dollar currency. Even after the Cold War the US is keen to weaken Russian influence and expand its hegemony in the Middle East and Asia. Throughout the 1990’s Washington continued its support of the Taliban as a tool to weaken Russian and Iranian influence. By arming these radical Islamist in order to topple Assad, Russia and Iran will lose its only Arab ally, and Washington would be able to control the gas pipes that stretches across Syria.

In terms of conducting my research I will be looking into the work of Professor Beverly Milton-Edwards, an expert in Middle Eastern studies. Noam Chomsky, a highly respected professor who has spent decades analysing American foreign policy, is undoubtedly a remarkable scholar when it comes to understanding American foreign policy. David Harvey is another theorist; I will be looking into in terms of analysing American foreign policy. Harvey, like Chomsky gives us a broad understanding of American hegemony in the Middle East. Although Realism today is undermined in IR studies, Morgenthau explains the methodology of the neoconservatives and American foreign policy in the 21^st century. I will be assessing Realism and Morgenthau as a critical theory to the Bush administration and the war on terror.  In order to understand the ideological theory of radical Islam, I will be looking into 19th century Islamic theorists Muhammad Ibn Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism. Dr Vali Nasr and Ammar Nakshawani, both an expert in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies help us analyse Wahhabism and the roots of radical Islam. By looking into these scholars and theorist, their works will help me evaluate American foreign policy and radical Islam and for me to answer the question of my dissertation.

The Bush administration and the Neoconservatives

War on terror

‘On September 11^th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years, there have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war-but not at the centre of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks-but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day- and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack. Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not to make money; its goal is remaking the world- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.’ (Bush, 2001, Freedom at War with fear speech).

Following the aftermath of 9/11, American foreign policy has shifted its security strategy in international affairs. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of Cold War, 21^st century international politics is no longer revolving around external nuclear threats from rival States but on non-state terrorist organizations. By the fall of the millennium, George W Bush and the neoconservatives have been elected into office. The Bush administration had launched the “War on Terror” campaign, a military campaign along with Britain, the West and NATO, which converted into a global military operation till this very day. Following the attack on 9/11 Osama Bin-Laden along with Al-Qaeda  were under international focus. On October 7th, 2001, the United States, Britain along with their allies had launched a direct military war against Al-Qaeda by bombing Kabul and dismantling the Taliban in Afghanistan. “Operation enduring freedom” has continued to escalate the United States into a heavy and costly military intervention in Afghanistan. Within the first month, the Taliban government had collapsed and lost control of Kabul. By fleeing into the mountains on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Taliban regrouped as an insurgent movement, targeting US and other Western forces. The conflict has left more than 20,000 civilian deaths, with the country in complete destruction of infrastructure, poverty and famine. When the Bush administration had confirmed its military campaign, Bush argued ‘by destroying camps and disrupting communication, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men, women and children of Afghanistan.’ (Bush, 2001). The real power is amongst the warlords which face a constant battle to seek power; the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and withdrawal of the Red Army back in 1989, Afghanistan, soon witnessed a longstanding civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. The Bush administration had militarily assisted the Northern Alliance under Shah Masood and his successor Rashid Dostum against the Taliban. By December 2001, the Taliban had retreated from their last major stronghold position in Kandahar. Anti-Taliban insurgents backed by the United States appointed Hamid Karzai to establish a unified national government. 

‘Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11^th. But we know their nature. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility towards America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilised world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them means to match their hatred.’ (Bush, 2002, Axis of evil speech).

It was clear the neoconservative’s foreign policy was structured more as an interventionist. Neo-conservative Robert Kagan argued ‘it was a policy driven by two imperatives: security in the post-9/11 era and an ideological sense of moral mission whose origins can be traced to the very beginning of the American republic.’ (Kagan,2003.pp. 85). Since 1991, Iraq and Saddam Hussein had been a worrying concern for the United States.  Over 600,000 US troops, along with 30 different nations combined as a coalition, including neighbouring Arab countries of Syria, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman deployed in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf to counterattack Iraqi forces in Kuwait back in 1991-2, during first-Gulf War. Hostility amongst the two nations for a decade had isolated Iraq economically. After the first Gulf-War, George Bush senior had ambitions to overthrow Saddam Hussein and the Ba’athist party. Implementing a no-fly zone in Northern Kurdistan, it promised Iraq’s Shia population in the south, a military support to overthrow the regime in Baghdad; The 1991 Shia uprising. The call for direct intervention was still not on the agenda for the United States during the Clinton administration. Instead, hoping for ways to overthrow Saddam, economic sanctions were implemented and over $97 million given to opposition groups in order to topple the regime. What alarmed Washington and the international community was Iraq’s nuclear program and weapons. With Saddam’s tightening grip, failing to topple the regime in Baghdad and the worrying concern of Iraq’s weapons of Mass destruction, the United States implemented UN resolution 687, A resolution by the UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) by visiting Iraq’s nuclear facility and observing its program. In return economic sanction would be lifted. The sanction had left Iraqi into economic turmoil, with food shortages and famine a constant struggle for ordinary Iraqis’. By failing to lift the sanctions, Saddam had removed the UNSCOM from Iraq in 1998. In retaliation “Operation Desert Fox”; a US military strike on Iraq’s nuclear facility was struck in order to destabilise any sort of nuclear program to continue. Diplomatic solution failed to solve the ongoing disputes. It was not until the neoconservatives in office that a direct military action would be drafted by the Pentagon. By 2002, tension was far ever greater, ‘US/UK plan; the work of the western intelligence service, the mission of the UN arms inspectors in Iraq, the legality of such actions all appeared to throw the international community into temporary turmoil’. (Milton-Edwards, 2011.pp.140). The neoconservative was so keen on intervention policy in Iraq that in 2002 the congress passed a US military authorization without the approval of the UN Security Council. Both France and Germany along with Russia disapproved of US and UK’s military intervention in Iraq.

 On March 2003, “Operation Iraqi Freedom” was taken into action. As the US, along with UK launched airstrike’s on Baghdad, over 13,000 US troops had been deployed to combat Saddam’s republican guards, while the British stationed in Basra city, facing local resistance from loyalist; the Saddam Feyadeen (parliamentary loyalist forces). Despite minor resistance, within months the Ba’athist regime had collapsed. On December 2003, the world witnessed the capture of Saddam Hussein and eventually to his trial and execution in 2006. The war had paid a heavy price in the United States. Throughout 2003-2011, according to the US Department of Defence casualties over 4,425 US troops had been killed. Statistics from Iraq Body Count Project documented between 12,600-123,000 civilians had been killed. But was WMD really a concern for the United States? Throughout the 1980’s Washington considered Saddam an important ally in order to counter attack Khomeini’s Islamic revolution in neighbouring Iran. In 1983 Donald Rumsfeld had paid a friendly visit to Baghdad in order to support Iraq’s war with Iran. What marked to be the Halabja Massacre of 1988, Saddam had launched a deadly chemical attack against the Iranians and its own Kurdish population, leaving up to 5000 to 10,000 casualties, mostly mothers and children as victims. A critic of the “neo-con’s” foreign policy regarding Iraq’s WMD such as Morgenthau argues, ‘it is often argued that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was especially evil because it used chemical weapons against both Iran and the Kurds in the 1980’s. However at the time, the United States was providing Iraq with overhead satellite imagery so that it could use its chemical weapons more effectively against the Iranian army. When Iraq came in for condemnation for using the chemical weapons at the United Nations and in the US Congress, the Reagan and first, Bush administrations went to considerable lengths to shield Saddam’s regime from criticism in those august bodies. The United States not only has dirty hands from Iraq, but it has also engaged in barbaric behaviour of its own.’ (Morgenthau, 2005).  The Bush administration had also long campaigned allegations against Saddam and his connection with Al-Qaeda, ‘the reason that I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. This administration never said the 9/11 attacks was orchestrated between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, we did say there was numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. For example the head of Iraqi intelligence met with Bin Laden in Sudan. There were numerous contacts between the two. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy of the United States of America just like Al-Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections, not only Al-Qaeda connections but other connections. Iraq was a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and terrorist organizations that were a threat to the United States’. (Bush,2003). However, reports from 9/11 commissions along with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded there was no evidence to prove connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. In fact, George Tenant, Director of Central Intelligence argued ‘we could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, directions and control, complicity with Al-Qaeda.’ (George Tenant, 2007).

When the Ba’athist regime collapsed in 2003, sectarian conflict had erupted. Iraq’s major population are Shiites, 60% whom populate the south, 20% of the Kurds in Kurdistan and 17% of the Sunnis in the Anbar province; (over 3% of the population are Christians). Iraq’s Shia and Kurdish population had become victims of brutality under Saddam. Many Shiite clerics, scholars and civilians had been executed. The holy Shia shrines of Karbala and Najaf had been completely destroyed. Whilst the Kurds had faced massacre and brutally due their ethnicity, Sunni minorities had enjoyed the privileges and opportunities under the regime; from government positions, commanders and lieutenants within the armed force to respected profession. Stability, however, was promised to all Iraqis’. The US invasion had destabilized the country into anarchy. Shia militias backed by Iran such as the Mahdi Army under the cleric of Mukhta al-Sadr and the Badr brigade have full control of Baghdad and Basra; as Iranian influence has expanded ever stronger in Iraq. In Mosul, Falujah and Ramadi, Al-Qaeda has now had a stronghold. Al-Qaeda had capitalized from the war; it had an opportunity to expand into Iraq. Under the leadership of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, had transformed as a main insurgent force, targeting US forces and the Iraqi Shia population and shrines in Baghdad, Karbala and Najaf. It is impossible to estimate the casualty of the sectarian conflict, as suicide and car bombing in the Shia areas’ is a common everyday occurance. Before the War, there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, nor any connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Although the War on Terror is a campaign to destroy Al-Qaeda, it in fact helped Al-Qaeda to expand in Iraq and across the Arab peninsula.

The Table below (Table 4.1) shows Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks that unfolded across the region from US post-2003 invasion of Iraq.

Algeria	December 2007: Attacks in Algeria capital Algiers in which more than 60 people are killed, including 11 UN staff and members, when Al-Qaeda terrorist detonate two car bombs near Algeria’s Constitutional Council and the UN offices. 2010: Al-Qaeda affiliate of the Islamic Maghreb launch a series of attacks throughout the year including one in the Kabilye region that killed and injured more than 35. This affiliate group has launched attacks on targets from 2002 to the present including tourists, government officials, police officers, soldiers and security personnel.
Egypt	October 2004; a truck bomb attack kills 34 people and wounds 120 in the Hilton Hotel at the Egyptian border resort of Taba and in two other explosions which hit the resort of Nuweiba southwest of Taba. July 2005: Car bombs set off in Sharm el-Sheikh killing 67 and wounding more than 200, including some foreigners. April 2006: Three bomb blasts in the resort of Dahab killing 20 people.
Iraq	2003-present: Founded in 2003 and active to the present as Al-Qaeda infiltrates and organizes insurgency and attacks in the country. Contended that in addition to the attacks including suicide bombings were organized and led by Abu Musab Zaraqi until his assassination by coalition forces in Iraq in 2006.
Jordan	2005: Jordan capital Amman is bombed using suicide bombers targeting western hotels.
Lebanon	2007: Lebanese state forces battle with Fata al-Islam in the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al Bared. Over 400 killed. The group is believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda.
Morocco	May 2003: Al-Qaeda attack in Casablanca on 16th May. Suicide bombers using cars or explosive belts set off at least five blasts in Casablanca, killing 45 people including 13 attackers and wounding 60 people.
Saudi Arabia	May 2003: Riyadh: Suicide bombers kills 23, 8 Americans. Al-Qaeda attacks Saudi Oil company and Khobar complex. 22 people killed. Kidnapping and executing foreigners. December 2004: US consulate attacked in Jeddah. February 2006: Attack on the Abqaiq petroleum processing facility.
Tunisia	April 2002: Explosion of a fuel tanker outside a Synagogue
Turkey	October 2002: Attack on a French tanker off the coast of Yemen. Al-Qaeda attacks ongoing. Al-Qaeda also training operatives for attacks abroad.

Table 4.1 Major Al-Qaeda attacks in the Middle East 2000-10 (Cited in Milton-Edwards, 2011.pp.136)

The rise of Al-Qaeda

After the Second World War, British and French colonialism was declining as nationalism erupted vastly as a popular movement for independence and national self-determination. The United States on the other hand become deeply involved in the region. ‘The Second World War marked what American’s veteran ‘Arabist’ ambassador Raymond Hare called “the great divide” in US relations with the Middle East, ‘between our traditional national position of rejecting political responsibility in the Middle East and our Post-war acceptance of responsibility on a global or great power basis’. Three issues drove America’s new Great Power policies in the Middle East: communism, oil and Israel’. (Fawcett, 2009.pp. 310). Raymond Hare’s argument is very much apparent that oil and the threat of communism played a major role in the foundation of Al-Qaeda. The term Radical Islam or Islamic “terrorist” has only been the focus of attention globally in the 21st century due to 9/11. However, radical Islam had long been active decades before 9/11. ‘The presence of a violent radical Islamic group called Al-Qaeda, which emanated from the Middle East, only really entered into global public consciousness in the wake of the attacks on major American targets such as the Pentagon in Washington and the World Trade Centre in New York on 11^th September 2001. The dimension of political Islam that Al-Qaeda was rooted in, has been experienced in many parts of the Middle East before that time. Dimensions of political Islam have been expressed in the Middle East through political violence or terrorism that has been inflicted by organizations such as Al-Qaeda, Al-Gamma Al-Islamiyya’. (Milton-Edwards, 2011.pp. 135).

By 1970’s, nationalism and secularism were in decline, political Islam had made it the centre of attention; notably the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979 led by Ayatollah Khomeini which inspired  young generations of Muslim across the Islamic world. Afghanistan, like other developing third world countries had been a proxy battleground of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. Nur Mohammad Takari had led a coup and established a pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan. Outraged and angered by the idea of a communist takeover and the idea of a secular Afghanistan  in a Muslim holy land, deeply conservative Islamist and the Mullahs had revolted as insurgents against the socialist government of Takari. Throughout 1979-89, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had led to over 1million Afghans killed and over 15,000 casualties of the Red Army. For the Soviet Union, Afghanistan was the Vietnam for United States. For a decade the United States had armed and financed Islamic fundamentalists; known as the Mujahedeen (Jihadist). “Operation Cyclone”, the Mujahedeen under both Carter and Reagan administration received $30million financial support annually throughout 1980-87 and over $600 from 1987 and onwards. Frank Anderson, former CIA director argued ‘It is entirely true that this was a war that was fought with our gold but with their blood’. (Anderson, 2002). However, it was not just the United States that assisted radical Islamists. Regional states had and still play a very active role in assisting radical terrorist organizations. ‘Official Saudi Arabia aid matched that of the USA, which went from $30million in 1980 to $250million by 1985. Unofficial Saudi aid involved similarly, if not larger sums. Through organizations such as the Muslim World League and its subsidiaries the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and the Islamic Relief Agency played a part. Al-Faisal needed a reliable and honest man on the ground to manage the flow of funds to the recipients. Osama Bin Laden was the one’. (Burke, 2003.pp58). Born into a wealthy Saudi family, Bin Laden was in fact the largest financial independent supporter. Influential to the Afghan Mujahedeen, his leadership had attracted over 25,000 of Arab fighters to join the struggle for Jihad in Afghanistan. Pakistani intelligence (ISI) under President Muhammad Zia-UL-Haq had provided training camps for the Mujahedeen in Peshawar, Pakistan. The fact that Bin Laden was in a hideout in a military compound in Islamabad in 2011, the United States has to rethink its long diplomatic relation with Pakistan. Former CIA in counterterrorism Bruce Riedel argued, ‘for decades Pakistan has played both sides, It is our ally on the war on terror, but even a greater ally towards the Taliban’. (Riedel, 2012). ‘Pouring their new oil-based wealth into Afghan Jihad and funding campaign to increase the penetration of Saudi-style Sunni Islam oversea world, the house of Al-Saud hoped, both roll back the Shia tide while simultaneously bolstering their Islamic credentials at home and abroad. The result was the exporting on an industrial scale of Wahhabi-Salafi neo-traditionalist hard-line Islam’. (Burke, 2003.pp58). In Pakistan, Indonesia, the Arab and the Islamic world, Saudi Arabia had funded the Madrassa (School), which exports the teachings of the Wahhabi doctrine.

By 1990’s Islamic fundamentalism had become sturdier. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and withdrawal of the Red Army of Afghanistan, the enemy was no longer communism but supposedly the United States and the West. The Taliban had gained 90% of Afghanistan and Kabul under its control in what followed a civil war against Ahmed Shah Masood and the Northern alliance. The Taliban adopted Wahhabism by implementing Sharia law against the Afghan population. Meanwhile, Osama Bin-Laden had established its own Islamic network, AL-Qaeda (the base), operating in Sudan and Afghanistan. With American military base stationed in Saudi Arabia and Muslim holy lands, in 1996 Bin Laden had implemented a 16 chapter fatwa against the United States, in what he recognized as the crusaders. ‘It should not be hidden from you, the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity, and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliances and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslim blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hand of the enemies. The people of Islam awakened and realised that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist-Crusaders alliance. All false and propaganda about “human rights” were hammered down and exposed by the massacre that took place against the Muslims in every part of the world’. (Bin Laden, 1996. Ladens Epistle, fatwa). Despite his hatred towards the United States, the west or the “crusaders”, a decade earlier Bin-Laden had been admired by Washington and Riyadh as the man to defeat the “infidel” communists. Bin-Laden had transformed Al-Qaeda as  intoa global terrorist organization by using violence in order to establish an Islamic caliphate. ‘Islamist terrorist attacks were nothing new. In 1988, for example, Libyan-backed assassins had blown up a Pan American jet airliner over Scotland. Al-Qaeda simply brought a new level of intensity to the killing. The movement was linked to a first attempt to destroy New York’s World Trade Centre (1993), to the deaths of 18 servicemen in Somalia the same year, to further military deaths in Saudi Arabia in 1996, and to the loss of over 220 lives when US embassies in Tanzania and Nairobi were bombed simultaneously. In October 2000, less than a year before 9/11 attacks, Al-Qaeda-inspired suicide bombers rammed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 American sailors.’ (Ross, 2010.pp.235-6).

Saudi Arabia, for a century, has played a crucial role in regional, as well as in international affairs. Over a million Muslims travel to Saudi Arabia as pilgrims to the holiest site in Islam; Mecca and Medina.  It is also a country with the largest oil revenue and export in the world, (revenue, $266 billion per barrel and value of export $372,829million, OPEC, statistic data, 2014). A longstanding and important ally of the United States, it is also a country with a history of exporting terrorism. As previously discussed, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Mujahedeen and mentioned the word “Wahhabism”, in order to really understand the roots of these terrorist organizations is by looking into its ideology and sponsorship. In doing so, it is best to look into Saudi Arabia and the ideology of Wahhabism.

 Sunni caliphates from the Ummyads (611-750), the Abbaside (750-1517) to the Ottomans (1517-1928) ruled the Islamic world for centuries, by late 18^th century, a different brand of ideological Sunni Islam had thrived followers. The term “Wahhab” (Wahhabiyah) refers to followers of Ibn Wahhab. Muhammad Ibn Wahhab, founder of Wahhabism, was a religious scholar of the Hanbali school in Uyaynah-Najd Arabia (Saudi Arabia). Outspoken of the ruling caliphate and the interpretation of modern Islam, Ibn Wahhab argued for the recall of the interpretation practice of Islam to be traced back to its early days, the time of the prophet and hadith. According to Vali Nasr, an expert in the Middle East and Islamic studies, ‘Ibn Wahhab sought to cleanse Islam of all the cultural practices that had borrowed and incorporated over the centuries. They had corrupted and weakened Islam, and so they must be purged. Following the example of Ibn Taymiyah, he rejected other than a literal reading of the Quran and prophet tradition’. (2006, pp. 96-97). Wahhabbi’s do not tolerate any form of religion nor any form of different sect of Islam, Christianity and Judaism are considered as Kafar (infidel) and the Shiites as Shrik (Polytheism) and is their holy duty is to eliminate what they consider as “devil worshippers”. Ibn Wahhab had imprinted his radical beliefs through the Kitab at Tawid in 1774; the Tawid is the manifesto of Wahhabism. Ibn Wahhab had no desire to hide his hatred for others, ‘What I fear most for you is a form of “Shrik”. Whoever dies while ascribing partners to Allah enters the hell fire, (directed towards the Shiites). For the Jews and Christians, whom they call upon Jesus and Moses desire means of access to their lord as to which of them should be nearest and they hope for his mercy and fear his torment. The torment of your lord is something to be afraid of’. (Ibn Wahhab, 1774. Kitab at Tawid, Chapter 4,6). Ibn Wahhab, had been influenced by 13^th century Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya. Ibn Taymiyya, had so much hatred, he was imprisoned by the governor of Damascus at the time over his violence and ideological beliefs. In 1293, Ibn Taymiyya had sent a fatwa for the killing of Christians. By 1300 Ibn Taymiyya, along with his followers had massacred thousands of Shiites and Alawites. Despite his radical barbaric character, he was praised for his resistance against the Mongul invasion in 1299-1303.

Throughout the late 1700’s to early 1800, Arabia had been a battleground between a variety of different tribes battling  a bloody war amongst each other in order to seek control of the holy deserted land. Exiled in al-Diriyah, Riyadh, Ibn Wahhab had attracted the most powerful tribe leader at the time, Mohammad Ibn Saud. Ibn Wahhab and Al-Saud had established a “pact”. “You are the settler chief and wise man. I want you to grant me an oath that you will perform Jihad against the nonbelievers. In return you will be a man, the leader of the Muslim community and I will be leader in religious matters’. (Ibn Wahhab letter to Ibn Saud, 1744). This was to be the birth of the first Wahhabi State. By 1804, the Wahhabi movement had expanded into Iraq and massacred thousands of Shiites and destroyed the shrines of Karbala and Najaf, the holiest Shia shrines. Ibn Wahhab, had even demolished the grave of the prophet Muhammad in 1806. In 1934, Ibn Saud had crushed all rival tribes and established a unified state, which is recognized today as Saudi Arabia. The Al-Saud has ruled Saudi Arabia for over eight decades and enforcing the Wahhabi doctrine in order to maintain its tightening grip over the throne. Dr Sayyid Nakshawani, a British-Iraqi religious scholar, argues, ‘the Wahhabies, who are they?  Al-Saud, Mohammad Ibn Wahhab, Al-Saud needs someone to defend their power. Mohammad Ibn Wahhab, has the perfect ideology. Al-Saud tells Mohammad Ibn Wahhab, we look after you and you look after our government. Your teachings do not allow anyone to speak out against us and we will fund your work’. (Dr, Nashawani, 2015). Milton-Edwards even takes the argument further, ‘the desire, for example, of the Wahhabi majority in Saudi Arabia to maintain the stability of the state structure and perpetuate by the rule of the religious or ethnic groups living in that state. The situation is exacerbated by affairs. They use their particular Wahhabi interpretation of Islam to argue for the stratified nation of citizenship and discrimination on sectarian grounds against other sects within Islam as well as other faiths’. (Milton, 2011.pp.239). Sectarianism within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is evident. The minority Shia population within the oil eastern province of Hejaz have no right to education, health care, professions and practice of religion. The execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, a Saudi Shia cleric, and known for his critical outspoken character for decades had outraged the Shia world against the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Woman rights have also been an outrage. Denied to education, profession and even access to drive an automobile, it is the only country that beheading and crucifixion are an act of capital punishment and the only Muslim country in the Middle East that has no churches at all. All an act of the Wahhabi doctrine, the “Saudi Style” form of Islam has influenced the Salafi movement of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabazz and other Islamist movements across the world. Saudi Arabia spends $2.5 billion dollars annually to expand the Wahhabi doctrine. The books of Ibn Wahhab and Ibn Taymiyya has been published by Saudi Arabia across the globe in mosques and schools. ‘Those interpretations of Islam are being propagated out of school that receives organizational and financial funding from Saudi Arabia. In fact, I would push it further; these schools would not have existed without the Saudi funding. They would not have proliferated across Pakistan, India, Afghanistan to Uzbekistan and Indonesia without Saudi funding. They would not have had the kind of prowess that they have without the Saudi funding, and they would not have trained as many people without the Saudi funding’ (Nasr, 2011). The students are taught that the United States and the West are the prime enemy. In fact 15 out of 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudi nationals. Many insurgents against US forces in Iraq were Saudi nationals whom travelled to Iraq for the sake of “jihad ”against foreign invaders. Despite the Saudi involvement, the Bush administration had turned a blind eye and continued its friendly diplomatic relation with Saudi Arabia. Reports from Council and Affairs in 2002 proclaimed individual and charity funding within Saudi Arabia had provided financial assistance to Al-Qaeda and the hijackers from 9/11. Yet, the Bush administration even praised Saudi Arabia’s cooperation on the war on terror. Saudi Arabia had endorsed its airspace for the US air force  during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. We must not forget that Saudi Arabia has also faced terrorist attacks within its sovereignty. Active in counter terrorism within its sovereignty, in terms of outside its borders, it plays the opposite role. How the United States can stop terrorism by having dinner with the ambassador of the very country that sponsors terrorism?

Neorealist critique of the Neoconservatives.

Throughout the 20^th century and the Cold War, Realism was a dominant theory within international relations. Although realism witnessed the triumph of liberalism in IR studies in the 21st century due to globalisation, Realism has emerged once again as a critical theory. Realist theorist Hans Morganthau has long been critical of the Bush administration and the Neoconservatives over  US foreign policy. According to Morganthau, the Bush administration favoured unilateralism over multilateralism, under which Washington depended more on military than diplomacy when it came to foreign policy. ‘The key to understanding why the neo-conservatives think that military force is such a remarkable effective instrument for running the world is that they believe that international politics operate according to “bandwagoning” logic. Specifically, or by attacking its adversaries, then virtually all of the States in the system- friends and foes alike-will quickly understand that the United States means business and that the world will fear the United States, which will cause any State that was even thinking about challenging Washington to throw up its hands and jump on the American bandwagon.’ (Morgenthau, 2006). The bandwagon theory is nothing new to Washington. During the Cold War, Washington’s foreign policy revolved around the “domino theory”, by going to war with Vietnam; American firepower would prevent other regional states in Asia to fall under communism and the Soviet Bloc. By removing Saddam, the neoconservative, had hoped the threat across the border would convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program. Instead Iran had stepped up its nuclear program after 2006 under the presidency of Ahmadinejad and expanded its influence across Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Washington had made allegations of coalition deaths in Iraq by accusing Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (Quds force) behind it. Bush had quoted freedom and Democracy for the Middle East as a solution to the War on Terror. ‘The neo-conservatives reacted to this problem by arguing that the root of the problem was almost the complete absence of democracy in the Middle East. By exporting democracy to the Middle East, and hopefully to the wider Islamic World and transforming the region and terrorism problem will go away. The Bush administration and its neo-conservative supporters made it clear that they intended to use the threat or application of military force to topple the regimes in Iraq, Iran and Syria and eventually to transform the entire region into a sea of democracies’. (Morgenthau, 2006). Washington had instead focused on States that are enemy of Al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organization. Both Iraq and Syria as a Ba’athist secular Arab nationalist; rejected the idea of any form of Islamist/Islamic movement. Iran, a Shia country is hostile to Al-Qaeda and any form Salafi movement that poses a threat to the Shia world. Instead Washington had turned a blind eye on other undemocratic states that actually sponsor terrorism; Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries. ‘Realist does not believe that we live in a bandwagoining world. On the contrary, realists tend to believe that we live in a balancing world, in which, when one state puts its first on another state’s face, the target usually does not throw its hands in the air and surrender. Instead, it looks for ways to defend itself; it balances against the threatening state’ (Morgenthau, 2006). Other realists such as Christopher Layne and also voiced their thoughts in regards to US policy in 21^st century. ‘Realists such as Christopher Layne argues that US effort in the war on terror are an extension of what George W Bush’s immediate predecessors had also pursued and are in fact the same effort that the US has pursued internationally since World War 2. That is, American grand strategy over the past several decades has been driven by aims at expansion, which has led the US to strive for global hegemony.’ (Solomon, 2015.pp. 6). But at what cost? ‘Realist thinkers contend, along with the member of the study group on national energy policy convened by the centre for Strategic and International studies, that as world’s only superpower must accept its special responsibilities for perusing access to world energy supply (oil). But this is not a defensible position, not when so many live are at stake and alternative are available.’ (Michael Klare, 2004.pp62).

The Obama administration

The emergence of ISIS

Since President Obama came into office, the United States has softened its approach to a certain extent. Unlike the previous administration, Obama has adopted a further focus towards diplomacy rather a military mind frame as a solution. The Iran nuclear deal and Moscow and Washington’s agreement on Syria’s chemical weapon stockpile in 2013 has shown the positivity of diplomacy. In 2011, US troops had completely withdrawn from Iraq after a decade. Despite failing to close Guantanamo Bay like Obama promised to do so, in 2011 Osama Bin Laden had finally been captured and killed. ‘Like Clinton, Obama intended on identifying himself with the cause that “we stood for and fought for.” Yet almost inescapably he also subscribed to George W Bush’s own interpretation of that narrative. As Obama went on to explain, “The security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders.” Like Bush- and those who had proceeded Bush- Obama defined America’s purposes in cosmic terms. “The mission of the United States,” he proclaimed, “is to provide global leadership grounded in understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity”.’ (Bacevich, 2009.pp.80). Although strategic of US policy has shifted from the previous administration, the issue of security has led Washington to continue its military campaign in the Middle East and South Asia. Unlike the Bush administration which deployed a full military intervention with troops on the ground, it is the CIA that controls counterterrorism operations through drone attacks. The outcome of drones has faced a lot of criticism. ‘As the New York Times informed its readers, delicately describing the statistic as one “that the White House has not advertised”: “since Mr Obama came to office, the Central Intelligence Agency has mounted more predator drone strikes into Pakistan than during Mr. Bush’s eight year in office”. The unmanned drone strikes supposedly targeting terrorists were unlawful, he argued, because they were necessary to defend US national security. Most of those killed have been civilians, including men, women and children’. (Tarik Ali, 2010.pp.57). Throughout his term in office, Obama has not mentioned the word “war on terror” like Bush; however his foreign policy is just a continuation of the Bush administration. ‘From Palestine throughout Iraq to Iran, Obama has acted as just another steward of the American empire, pursuing the same aims as his predecessors, with the same means but with more emollient rhetoric. This statement can relate to Obama’s the drone strikes counterterrorism policy as I mentioned, to the emergence of ISIS as I will be discussing further on.

Like the Reagan and the Bush administration, once again Washington and its allies have promoted a new force of radical Islam to be more efficient within the Middle East. By late 2010, early 2011 the Arab world witnessed what was to be known as the “Arab Spring”. The Young generation had marched a peaceful uprising calling for democracy and an end to dictatorship. With the fall of Mubarak in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya, Ben Ali in Tunisia and Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, Syria’s Assad has been a five year ongoing civil war. According to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), over 4.8 million Syrians’ are displaced as refugees in neighbouring countries and 0.6 % fleeing to Europe, causing the biggest migration issue since the Second World War. Amnesty International reported in 2016 that the death toll of the Syrian war is approximately 400,000 which caused outrage across the world. Demanding for Bashar Al Assad to step down, by 2012 the protestors had been converted as insurgent militants with the aid of the US. By April 2013, Washington had supplied $120 million to what it claimed as “moderate” opposition group and the FSA (Free Syrian Army), the aid extends further from 2014 by supplying over $50,000 of military assistance (BGM-71 and Tow Missiles) in order to topple the regime. Many of these “opposition” groups and fighters were not “moderate” at all, in 2013 the Pentagon reported over 50% of the FSA constitutes as a radical Islamists. As the protest turned into violence, by 2012, ISIL (Islamic Sate of Iraq and Levant) had emerged as the strongest insurgency movement in Syria. ISIL emerged as a branch of Al-Qaeda affiliates in Iraq during the US invasion, it had capitalized by the Syria uprising and crossed the border into Syria and successfully expanded by capturing Hama, Homs, Aleppo, and other main cities. Like Al-Qaeda, ISIL is a radical Salafist movement calling for an Islamic caliphate. The rise of ISIL in Syria had destroyed the idea of democracy and converted the uprising into a sectarian war. By capturing towns and villages, ISIL destroyed churches, graves and ancient pre-Islamic heritage sites. Massacring over 14,000 Alawites (A Shia sect of Islam) and Christians, beheading and crucifixion is a form of “Saudi style” punishment which ISIS has adopted towards their victims. By proclaiming Raqqa as the capital of the caliphate, in June 2014, the world was shocked to see ISIL cross the border into Iraq and captured Iraq’s second largest city Mosul. With the help of the Sunni population ISIL had Iraq’s Anbar province under its control. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had proclaimed himself the Caliph and leader of the Sunnah, the terrorist movement now goes by the name ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) or simply IS (The Islamic State). Over £425million of US military equipment had been abandoned by the Iraqi army, leaving it under ISIS control. ISIS continues its barbaric, inhumane crime by massacring the Kurds, Shiites and obtaining Yazidi Christians as sex slaves. Westerners have also been victims of the ISIS. In 2014, a live video footage showed the world the beheading of American journalist James Foley and British aid worker Alan Henning. ISIS has now focused the West as its priority target. On June 2015, 12 people had fallen under the victim of terrorist attack by ISIS in Paris; the Charlie Hebdo attack. The Paris attack on November 2015 had led 120 people dead, along with the Bombing of Brussels airport in March 2016.

Today ISIS is worth over $2billion dollars. It has converted itself to be the wealthiest and deadliest terrorist organization in the world with over 30,000 fighters. It controls territory as the same size of the United Kingdom and control oil fields which later is sold in the black market. It is the “Islamic caliphate” that Osama Bin Laden had always dreamed of. In order to weaken its rival Iran and eliminate all Shiites, Saudi Arabia has financed billions of its petrol dollar revenue into ISIS to topple Iran’s only Arab ally, Assad and Iraq and weaken Iranian backed Shia Hezbollah in Lebanon. There are over 90 different nationals from all over the world who have travelled to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS. By promoting Wahhabism in mosques and schools, the ideology has attracted 3,000 of young European Muslims to join “Jihad” in Syria and Iraq. In 2013 BBC Panorama had documented as undercover in London’s Regents Park Mosque where clerics called for arms to Syria and promoted Wahhabism. US Senator Bob Graham, author of “The 28 Pages”, (9/11 classified document), argues, ‘the 28 pages is going to come out! It is not about if it is about when. And when it does, it is going to require our government to revaluate its relationship with Saudi Arabia.’ (Graham, 2016). Aware of Saudi involvement, Washington still continues to export arms to Riyadh. For decades, Saudi Arabia has been Washington’s largest arms consumer in the world. With the ongoing conflict Obama still continues its commitment to oust Assad and by supporting what he calls “moderate rebel”. ‘Even in Western media they mention Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and ISIS organization and groups. It does not happen suddenly, it’s illogical to have suddenly to shift from moderate to extremist. They are the same grass roots’. (Assad, 2015). It is not just Saudi Arabia when it comes to backing ISIS. Turkey under the Raccyip Erdogan and Qatar, both a Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimin) are pushing to do everything they can do to expand the Muslim Brotherhood movement within the region. Many of Syrian nationals of Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria) and ISIS are ex-Muslim Brotherhood members. Turkey allows foreign radicals to freely cross its border into Syria to Join ISIS and “Jihad”. Vice president, Joe Biden claims ‘our biggest problem is our ally. Our allies in the region are our largest problem in Syria. The Turks are our great friend, I have great relations with Erdogan, the Saudis and the Emirates but what are they doing? They are so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war. What did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who will help topple Assad. Except the people who were being supplied were Al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda and ISIS elements’. (Joe Biden, 2015).

By 2014, Washington had led a coalition military campaign against ISIS with some European and regional allies, including Saudi Arabia. Republican Senator, Rand Paul, critical of Obama’s foreign policy debates, ‘we armed the Syrian rebels, whom have been fighting alongside ISIS against ISIS. ISIS is now “balkened” in two countries. But here is the immorality; we are with ISIS in Syria. We are on the same side of the war, so those who want to get involved to stop ISIS in Iraq are allied with ISIS in Syria. (Rand Paul, 2015). What is more controversial is Saudi Arabia’s commitment to the coalition. According to Dr Ammar Nakshawani, ‘If Saudi Arabia tells you it has a problem with ISIS it is the biggest political nonsense in the world. The only problem Saudi Arabia has with ISIS is the call of caliphate within ISIS is a threat to the Saudi leadership. Otherwise the vision of ISIS is the vision of Saudi. The complete destruction of Shiism and Christianity and execution and beheading is something normal. If you look at the verdict of ISIS and the verdict of Muhammad Ibn Wahhab, and the Wahhabi school in Saudi Arabia there is absolutely no difference between Saudi Arabia and ISIS.’ (Nakshawani, 2015).

Since Obama in office, the Pentagon has increased its military export to Saudi Arabia. (See below Table B-1)

Table B-1. Proposed Major US. Defence Sales to Saudi Arabia (October 2010 – February 2016)

(Congressional Research Service. Saudi Arabia: Background and U.S. Relations, 2016.pp.34-5)

Formal Notification Date	System	Recipient Force	POs. Value
October 2010 October 2010 October 2010 October 2010 November 2010 May 2011 June 2011 June 2011 September 2011 October 2011 December 2011 August 2012 November 2012 November 2012 November 2012 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 October 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013   December 2013 April 2014 August 2014 October 2014 May 2015 July 2015 July 2015 October 2015 October 2015 November 2015 February 2016 February 2016 TOTAL	F-15 Sales, Upgrades, Weaponary and Training. APACHE, BLACKHAWK, AH-61 and MD-530F Helicopters. APACHE Longbow Helicopters. APCHE Longbow Helicopters. Javelin Missiles and Launch Units. Night Vision and Thermal Weapons Sight. Light Armoured Vehicles. Light Armoured Vehicles. Howitzers, Fire Finder Radar, Ammunition, HMMWV’s. Up-Armoured HMMWV’s. PATRIOT Systems Engineering Services. RSAF Follow-on Support. C-130J-30 Aircraft and KC-130J Air Refuelling Aircraft. RSLF Parts, Equipment, and Support. PATRIOT (PAC-2) Missiles Recertification. SANG Modernization Program Extension. Mark V Patrol Boats. RSAF Follow-on Support. U.S Military Training Mission (USMTM) Program Support Service. SLAM-R,JSWOW, Harpoon Block (2), GBU-9/B Munitions. C41 System Upgrades. TOW 2A and 2B Missiles. Tow 2A and 2B, RF Missiles. Facilities Security Forces- Training and Advisory Group (FSF-TAG) Support. AWACS Modernization. Patriot Air Defence System with PAC-3 enhanced. MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopters. Ammunition. Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) Missiles. UH-60M Black Hawk Utility Helicopters. Multi-Mission Surface Comatant Ships. Air-to-Ground Munitions. MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) Block 1B Baseline 2 Kits. USMTH Technical Assistance Field Teams and other Support.	RSAF SANG RSLF Royal Guard _ RSLF _ SANG _ RSLF _ RSAF RSAF RSLF RSADF SANG RSNF RSAF MOD RSAF RSNF RSLF SANG MOI RSAF _ _ RSLF _ RSLF Aviation Command. RSNF RSNF RSNF _	$29.400 £25.600 $3.300 $2.200 $0.071 $0.330 $0.263 $0.350 $0.886 $0.033 $0.120 $0.257 $6.700 $0.300 $0.130 $4.000 $1.200 $1.200 $0.090 $6.800 $1.100 $.170 $0.900 $0.080 $2.000 $1.750 $1.900 $0.500 $5.400 $0.495 $11.250 $1.290 $0.154 $0.200 $111.624

Oil and Hegemony

‘Persian oil is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for the Saudi Arabian oil, it’s ours’. (Franklin D, Roosevelt to British ambassador, 1945). Since the Second World War, the United States have deeply been involved within the region. Between 1940-67, US increased its oil reserves in the Middle East from 10% to 60%. The US spends $50 billion a year on Saudi Arabia’s oil, being the Kingdom’s largest consumer. The oil trade between the two nations explains the long diplomatic ties between Washington and Riyadh. ‘As for the US-Arab oil relationship, the Arabian-American oil company (ARAMCO), a consortium of US companies active in Saudi Arabia, had mounted a remarkably effective, indeed amicable, working relationship that has endured through to the first decades of the 21^st century, weathering even the transfer to Saudi ownership’. (Fawcett, 2009.pp.312). Since the Second World War, the US has firmly done everything to maintain the control the flow of oil within the region. A prime example would be the CIA and British led coup of the democratically elected Prime Minster of Iran (Mossadegh), who nationalized the Anglo-Persian (British Petroleum) oil company. According to John C. Campell, US defence of the Middle East during the Cold War, stated, ‘the entrenchment of Soviet Power in that strategic region would bring a decisive shift in the world balance, outflanking NATO. Soviet control of Middle Eastern oil could disrupt the economy of the free world. And the triumph of communism in the heart of the Islamic world could be the provide to its triumph through Asia, Africa and Europe.’ (Campell, 1958). Even after the Cold War, Washington continues to expand its hegemony to weaken Russian influence in Asia and Middle East. Robert Dreyfus argued, ‘even in the post-Cold War World, the United States sought to gain advantage in oil-rich Central Asia, and throughout the 1990’s Washington Jockeyed for the position. In the American view, its allies were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and its competitors were Russia, China, India and Iran. Cold War or not, the United States explicitly stated its intention to challenge Russian hegemony in Central Asia and Afghanistan, US policy promoted the independence of these oil-rich countries, to break Russia’s monopoly control over the transportation of oil from that region. ‘(Robert Dreyfuss,2006.pp.31). Throughout 1992-6, Washington continued its support of the Taliban in order to weaken the Northern alliance and Shah Massoud, which depended on support from Moscow and Tehran.

‘A narrow conspiracy thesis rests on the idea that the government in Washington is nothing more than an oil mafia that has usurped the public domain. This idea is supported by the close connections of Bush and Cheney to Oil-interests, coupled with reports that Halliburton, vice president Cheney’s old company, stands to gain nearly a billion dollars in contracts for oil services in the inedible aftermath of the war’. (David Harvey,2011.pp.18). Although David Harvey scripted his statement as a “narrow conspiracy”, what he is trying to explain here is the main objective of the Iraq war was Washington’s long interest of Iraq’s oil. This is completely evident from Iraq’s economic reforms that were implemented by the new government of Baghdad back in 2003 and how corporate America benefited from Iraq’s oil resources. I will explain this in more detailed as I go on.

The Washington consensus under the Bush administration had been influenced by Regan’s neoliberal free-market economic policy. Iraq, under Saddam was a centrally planned economy; the state maintained control of trade and tariffs, along with industries that contributed to the economy. As the relationship between Washington and Baghdad declined after the first-Gulf War, by mid-1990’s Russian and Chinese oil firms had strong trade with Baghdad. By 2000, there were major concerns that Saddam would stop the flow of oil export and destabilize the global market. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority implemented the new government of Baghdad to economic reforms. The CPA pushed for privatization, free trade and reduces tariffs. Washington and London, once again were back in business! Shell, BP (British Petroleum) and Vice president Dick Cheney’s Halliburton oil company profited billions of dollars. Iraq had been on the agenda way before the war on terror. Paul Wolfowitz, who served as Secretary of Defence under George W Bush manifested the Wolfowitz doctrine back in 1992. The doctrine would shape the whole agenda of the Bush administration foreign policy towards the Middle East and the world. ‘In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserves U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq’s Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a Hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian Peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a role through enhanced deterrence and improve cooperative security’. (Wolfowtiz doctrine, 1992). According to Noam Chomsky, ‘what Washington wants, and what it means by democracy, is the installation of government under US control with democratic facades, and nothing more. That was the project for Iraq.’ (Chomsky, 2007.pp.57).

For NATO’s intervention in Libya back in 2011, that eventually led to the fall and killing of Mummar Gaddafi, like Iraq, oil was the primary concern for Washington. Gaddafi had implemented the idea of exporting Libyan oil not with the dollar but Gold Dinar. For Washington and the dollar currency this would have been a catastrophic economic threat. By implementing a no-fly zone and arming rebels to overthrow the regime, Libya is now a failed state with numerous ongoing conflicts between fractions of radical Islamist militias and ISIS is growing ever stronger across the country. As for Syria, Damascus an important ally of Moscow for decades, it depends on Russian gas pipe and Iran’s oil that stretches from Abadan, Basra to Aleppo. By toppling Assad, Qatar an important ally of Washington would have access to construct its gas pipe across Syria to Turkey, leaving Moscow vulnerable by losing not only an important ally but a trading partner. ‘If the Middle East did not have the major energy reserves of the world, then policy makers today would not care much more about it than they do about Antarctica.’ (Chomsky, 2007).

Conclusion:

So how has the United States “War on Terror” policy promote radical Islam to be more efficient in the Middle East? Critics of US policy in the Middle East would argue that the rise of radical Islam and terrorist organizations throughout the past decade has dramatically expanded due to Washington’s aggression intervention within the region. Although the idea of ‘Jihad’ attracts younger generations to take up arms and join these terrorist organizations against foreign invaders or ‘infidels, but in reality, Washington promotes direct support to promote Islamic fundamentalists. Following the aftermath of 9/11, Washington has given dramatic publicity on the world stage to Islamic terrorism. The Bush administration had launched the war on terror as a global campaign to destroy terrorism and establish a global security. However, the complete opposite has erupted. Not only terrorism has expanded, instability and insecurity have been a major concern for the public. In fact, Washington has focused more towards States that defy US imperialism and the Washington consensus than terrorism itself. Throughout the past several decades, Islamic fundamentalism has been a great “tool” for the United States foreign policy. It is no conspiracy that the CIA had armed, trained and financed the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. By doing so, it gained what it wanted, and that was the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda became ever more active across the region, throughout the 1990’s Washington, focused more on Iraq and ways of removing Saddam from power, rather than combating Al-Qaeda which promoted an actual threat (e.g. Bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1993). By removing Saddam and the Ba’athist regime in Iraq, the war had opened a gate for Al-Qaeda in Iraq and successfully expanded its terrorist activities across the border (See Table 4.1 above). The idea of Saddam collaborating with Al-Qaeda is ludicrous. Before the invasion, there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, nor any form of political opposition movement. Saddam for decades brutally crushed any form of political rivalry to the Ba’athist party. Would Saddam risk losing his grip of power to collaborate with an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organization such as Al-Qaeda that opposed Iraq’s Secular government? Surely Bin-Laden’s dream to build an Islamic caliphate would have also been a threat to Saddam Hussein’s leadership.

Today Islamic fundamentalism have reached its peak! With the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq it has penetrated throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia and attracting young generations of Muslims in the west. By shipping arms and financial support to topple Gaddafi and Assad for the sake of establishing “democracy” we did not see the triumph of liberal democracy but instead the triumph of Islamic fundamentalism. Despite witnessing the growing concern and threat, the Obama administration still stands firmly to support the so called “moderate rebels” to topple Assad in order to establish a democratic Syria. If Washington’s top priority is democracy in Syria or Libya, why has it not taken any action on its allies within the region which are more dictatorial and autocratic than Assad’s Syria? Saudi Arabia is a ruthless autocratic dictatorship that shows no respect to any elements of human rights. By exporting its Wahhabi doctrine globally, Saudi Arabia is the root behind terrorism. It has promoted nothing but sectarian conflict and hatred for decades. Let’s pause for a second and actually believe that Washington is in fact at war with terrorism, so why has it not taken any form of action against the Al-Saud monarchy which is the grassroots of Islamic terrorism? It is the simple; the country with the biggest problem is the country with the best oil. Since the Second World War, Washington has enjoyed the flow of oil that Saudi Arabia exports to the United States. In return Saudi Arabia is Washington’s largest military consumer, purchasing billions of dollars of US military equipment’s. What is also controversial is both Bush and Obama have praised the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its counter terrorism and collaboration with the West on the war on terror. Poor record of Human rights violation, Saudi Arabia was appointed chairman of Human rights watch at the United Nations back in 2015. It is clear, that Washington is not in fact war with terror but actually a “best friend” of terror. These terrorist organizations focus by targeting regional states that Washington has long opposed. What better way of arming and financing bunch of radicals to pick up a machine gun and target a regime that Washington despises? The enemy is not Islamists but secular nationalists or governments that refuse to privatize the nation’s natural resources for the benefit of corporate America.

Since 1979, Iran has been considered a threat, a country that sponsored terrorism. Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia militia backed by Iran’s revolutionary guard has been listed by the US, Israel and the West as a terrorist organization. In the Muslim and Arab world, Hezbollah has been respected and praised for resisting Israeli aggression and forcing the end of Israeli occupation of Lebanon back in 2006. For decades, the international community has shown its worrying concern over Iran’s nuclear program. But surely a nuclear Pakistan is more of an alarming concern than a nuclear Iran? Iran can be a very positive ally in the war on terror. Its influence across the region is something that cannot be forgotten. Shia militias in Iraq, backed by the Iran’s’ head of revolutionary guard General Qasim Solemani who have been very active in fighting ISIS. Tikrit, Fallujah and towns in the Anbar province have been liberated by Iranian backed Shia militias. As for Syria, Iran has trained and armed the NDF (National Defence Force) and ordered thousands of Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon to Syria to aid the Syrian Arab Army in order to combat ISIS. In Yemen, the Houthis who rely on support from Tehran, have successfully forced ISIS and Al-Qaeda from Aden and Sana. The country that is listed as the Axis of Evil for supporting terrorism has in fact been the most active in fighting terrorism. Even military action is not enough to fight terrorism. In order to defeat terrorism, we need to prevent the Wahhabi doctrine and tackle its ideology. The whole region is burning. How many more casualties, deaths and conflict is the Middle East going to witness? It is time to wake up that Washington, Riyadh and the West have worked hand in hand for decades and promoted Radical Islam to be more efficient in the region for their own national interest and agenda. Until pressure or change within the international community does not occur, the ongoing bloodshed will continue. In decades to come, like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, a new even more radical terrorist organization might occur. The mass population has to acknowledge that we are not at war with terror at all but that our governments and policy makers are the ones that promote terror. ‘In any case, this review of US policy makes clear that it would be a mistake to assume that the United States is morally opposed to fundamentalist government or extremist Islamic movements. The degree of US opposition or support for reaching Islamists is related not to their level of violence and repression, but their perceived willingness or unwillingness to cooperate with American political and economic interest’. (Stephen Zunes, 2003.pp.179)

Textbook

Achar, G.A., Chomsky, N.C. (2007). Perilous Power. The Middle East & United States foreign policy. United Kingdom: Penguin Books

Ali, T.A. (2010). The Obama Syndrome. Surrender at Home, War Abroad. United Kingdom: Verso

Burke, J.B. (2003). Al-Qaeda. New York: I.B. Tauris & CO LTD

Chomsky, N.C. (2003). Hegemony Or Suruvial. United States: Penguin Books

R.D. (2006). The Devil’s Game: How The United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. United States: Metropolitan Books

Fawcett, L.F. (2009). International Relations of Middle East, (Second Edition). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press

Harvey, D.H. (2005). Neoliberalism. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press

Harvey, D.H. (2005). The New Imperialism. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press

Jackson, R.J. Sorensen, G.S. (2010). Introduction to International Relations, Theories & Approaches. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press

Milton-Edwards, B. (2011).Contemporary Politics In The Middle East, (Third Edition). United Kingdom: Polity Press

Nasr, V.N. (2006). The Shia Revival. United States: Norton

Ross, S.R. (2010). Understand The Middle East, (Since 1945).United States: Teach Yourself

Sageman, M.S. (2008). Leaderless Jihad. Terror Networks In The Twenty-First Century. United States: Pennsylvania Press

Sanger, D.S. (2009). The Inheritance. The World Obama Confronts and Challenges to American Power. Great Britain: Transworld Publisher

Solomon, T.S. (2015). The Politics of Subjectivity in American Foreign Policy Discourses. United States: University of Michigan Press

Zunes, S.Z. (2003). Tinderbox. US Middle East Policy And The Roots of Terrorism: Zed Books LTD  

Articles & Journals

Blanchard, C.B. 2016. Saudi Arabia: Background and US Relations. Congressional Research Service. [Online]. Available at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33533.pdf [Accessed 20th May 2015]

Morgenthau, H.M. 2006. Hans Morgenthau and The Iraq War: Realism versus Neo-Conservatism. [Online]. Available at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp [Accessed 27th May 2016]

Nasr, V.N. 2014. Analysis of Madrassas. Frontline. [Online]. Available at: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/interviews/nasr.html [Accessed 22nd May 2016]

Documentaries

Brainiaction, (2015). The Origins of ISIS- Dr Sayyid Dr. Ammar Nakshawani. [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orxVODpOL6s [Accessed 23rd May 2016]

Press TV, (2015). 10 Minutes: From Wahhabsim to Daesh. [Online]. [Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5eg6k7KAO4 [Accessed 22nd May 2016]

Vice News, (2016). Enemies at Gates. Global Jihad. [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRF6GLBSTYc [Access 26th May 2016]