IR4099 Dissertation

The Struggle for Middle Eastern Hegemony:

Egyptian, Israeli, and Iranian foreign policy and

American regional dominance

by Cameron Curran

“This dissertation is submitted in part requirement for the Degree of M.A. (Honours with

International Relations) at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, and is solely the work

of the above named candidate”

Submitted December 9th, 2009

Table of Contents
Introduction
-Posing of the Central Research Question
-Theoretical Framework
-Methodological Framework

Chapter 1: American Hegemony, Structuralism Theory, and Soft Power

-The Structuralism Theory of Immanuel Wallerstein and Johan Galtung
-The development of the Core-Periphery Relationship and American Hegemony
-Evolving hegemony and the Rise of Soft Power

Chapter 2: Realism vs. Constructivism: Arabism, Zionism, and Islamism

-Egyptian Foreign Policy
-Israeli Foreign Policy
-Iranian Foreign Policy

Chapter 3: Egypt, Israel, Iran: Who has the most Hegemonic Potential?
-Cross Case comparison utilizing four focused questions

Conclusion
-Answering the Central Research Question
-The Future for American and Middle Eastern Hegemony

Bibliography

Abstract:
 This dissertation seeks to understand American, Egyptian, Israeli, and Iranian
foreign policy in the context of Marxist Structuralism, Constructivism, and Neo-Realism.
Through this theoretical comprehension, the article asserts that the policy strategies of
these states differ in their methods, but not their hegemonic objectives. It begins with a
study of American foreign policy in the Middle East and its relation to a core-periphery
relationship, as well as an examination of Joseph Nye’s soft power and its effect on the
international system. The essay then progresses through Pan-Arabism and Egyptian
foreign policy, focusing on the Nasser era of identity politics. A study of Israeli policy
follows this, looking at the effect of Zionism and military hegemony on the Jewish state.
Iranian foreign policy and the “simulated irrationality” of the Islamic state conclude this
chapter. Throughout this section, international structuralism serves as an overarching
lens with which to view the various theoretical and strategic foreign policies of each
Middle Eastern state in its struggle for hegemony. The final chapter serves to analyze,
critique, and compare each Middle Eastern state’s idiosyncratic strategy, with the
predicative conclusion that a rise in the significance of soft power and a struggle between
Iranian and American hegemony will ensue in the near future.

Central Research Question: Which Middle Eastern state possesses the most potential
for restructuring the international system as led by the declining global hegemon, the
United States, in order to become the region’s de facto hegemon and superpower?
Introduction

“When the king asked him what he was thinking of, that he should molest the sea, he said with
defiant independence: “The same as you when you molest the world! Since I do this with a little
ship I am called a pirate. You do it with a great fleet and are called an emperor.”

- St. Augustine of Hippo in City of God, c. 1470

The hypocrisy inherent in St. Augustine’s tale of Alexander the Great and his

encounter with a pirate is of crucial relevance to a discussion of the international system

as it exists today. A further examination of the origins of this anecdote reveals that

Augustine in fact borrowed the story from none other than Cicero, the great Roman

philosopher and theorist, who wrote this political allegory in his controversial 1st century

BC treatise, De re publica.1 The linkage between the Pax Romana with the current Pax

Americana is not to be overlooked, as the preponderance of American hegemony in the

world today has come into question at the start of the 21st century. The relationship

between the “kings” and the “pirates” of the international state system is evolving once

more, as the world experiences what some have called the “3rd industrial revolution”2.

The heart of this changing relationship exists in the “Heartland”3, etymologically known

today through West-centric terminology as the Middle East; it is in this region that one

can see the dynamics of the “king”-“pirate” relationship shifting in favor of the

disenfranchised.

The struggle of Middle Eastern states to reassert their role and importance in a

Westernized international society is the dominant theme of this dissertation, as the

transition from a bipolar global system to an American-led, unipolar environment has

1
St. Augustine refers to this political parable in Chapter 4, Book 4 of City of God. The tale had appeared
earlier in Cicero’s work on de re Publica. For more, see http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=1857
2
Duff, 1998, p. 374.
3
MacKinder, Halford J., “Democratic Ideals and Reality” in Kennedy, 2004.
diminished the power opportunities available to these embattled countries. The political

vacuum that existed for smaller nations during the Cold War has been absent for two

decades now, and as the United States strives to salvage some semblance of imperial

control in the Middle East, it is sensed that a chance at hegemonic power for the states of

this region is finally at hand once again. The conclusion of this disastrous decade for

American economic and military hegemony now raises the question of whom, if any, of

these Middle Eastern states can assume the mantle of regional superpower and, in the

process, eradicate the penetrative, occupying presence of the West for the first time in

centuries.

This dissertation asserts that the struggle for regional supremacy between Israel

and Iran will intensify as American power in the Middle East wanes and the economic

and political weight of a Chinese superpower4 looms on the horizon. Using this as a

hypothesis, this essay will examine the foreign policies of Israel, Iran, and also Egypt, in

formulating a comprehensive argument for the rise of a Middle Eastern superpower; the

focus will be on the various tendencies and ideologies that comprise each state’s policy

and which facets, presently and historically, were most effective in attempting to

establish a sovereign, independent, and hegemonically viable state.

Hegemony, as defined by Robert W. Cox, is the “construction of an order that

provides tangible material benefits to other states and elites, while serving the long term

interests of the hegemonic power and its elites through satisfying the demands of

others.”5 Alternative candidates for Middle Eastern hegemony, such as Iraq and Saudi

Arabia, were considered for analysis but ultimately not included for various reasons.

4
“When the Snarling’s Over,” The Economist, 13 March 1999
5
Robert W. Cox, 1981, p. 127.
 The Iraqi state contended for regional hegemony throughout the 1970s and

1980s, but its aggressive leadership6 and irredentist ambitions in regard to Iran and

Kuwait eventually led to the demise of Saddam Hussein’s regime and the loss of

considerable power and influence in the Middle East. Finally, in the case of Saudi Arabia,

the regime’s dependence on the world petroleum market and its reliance on American

protection from foreign and domestic threats (due to its own military weakness)7 has

created an unstable relationship between the government and the people, one that is only

held together through the oil-greased implementation of the welfare state. The hegemonic

aspirations of the House of Saud are kept in check as a consequence of this foreign-

domestic policy paradox.

In this discussion of regional and global hegemony, this author finds it prudent to

examine an alternative to this essay’s assumption of a rise in Middle Eastern power and a

decline in American power. The globalizing and inescapable influence of American

culture should not be underestimated, for just as the political and economic credibility of

the world hegemon has diminished and the maneuverability of Middle Eastern regimes

has increased, the legitimacy and significance of Joseph Nye’s soft power theory

continues to grow. The U.S. remains the world’s technological and service industry

leader, and this position of power, combined with the spreading, modernizing attraction

of consumer infotainment and corporate profitability, may be the key to a continuance of

American global hegemony in the coming decades.

The theoretical framework of this study will require an eclectic assortment of

various international relations theories in order to best explain each individual state’s

6
Lang, 1999. Lang debates the role of responsibility between state and individual actors, with specific
reference to Saddam Hussein’s responsibility in the Gulf War of 1991.
7
Noble in Korany, Dessouki, eds., 1991, pp. 71-72.
foreign policy strategies for obtaining hegemony, as well as understanding the global

system as instituted by Western powers. The first chapter will analyze the United States

and Marxist-inspired structuralism theory to illuminate how hegemonic powers have

constructed the Middle East for their economic benefit, as well as showing how these

“core” states have played a strong role in the formation of Iranian, Israeli, and Egyptian

foreign policy. The declining relevance of hard power (including oil economics and

military effectiveness) and the importance of soft power will also be looked at to

emphasize the changing nature of the core-periphery system.

Egyptian foreign policy will then be documented through a constructivist lens, as

the conflict between Egyptian national interests and a Pan-Arab identity will prove useful

in explaining the state’s attempts at hegemony during the 1950s and 1960s. The military

hegemony of Israel will then be discussed with a particular focus on John Mearsheimer’s

offensive realism theory, the “special” relationship with the U.S., and the Zionist priority

of security and survival. The theory to be used in the examination of Iranian foreign

policy will involve a more complex explanation, as a constructivist look at Islamic

rhetoric and ideology reveals a more pragmatic, defensive realist posture that has evolved

intricately over the past three decades.

Following the analysis of American, Egyptian, Israeli, and Iranian foreign policy

will be a cross-case comparison between the three Middle Eastern countries to determine

who (and how) could rise to the position of regional hegemon. Four questions will be

asked of each state’s foreign policy during this evaluation:

 1. Which state possesses the most “sovereign authority” using the Westphalian

definition of the state?

2. Which state’s foreign policy strategy (constructivism, offensive realism,

defensive realism) has been most effective in obtaining regional power?

3. Economically, which state has been most successful in achieving growth and

prosperity despite (or as a result of) the global core-periphery system?

4. Which state is the most culturally viable and attractive: who has the soft

power capabilities to compete in an evolving core-periphery system?

The results of this cross-case comparison will then be displayed in the essay’s

conclusion to determine which of the three Middle Eastern states possesses the most

potential for assuming the role of regional hegemon. The question of American soft

power and its ability to resurrect a sinking Pax Americana will also be evaluated and

answered in the conclusion.

Chapter 1: American Hegemony, Structuralism Theory, and Soft Power

“But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy…She is the champion and vindicator
only of her own…
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the
banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in
all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the
colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…”

- John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States, 1821 (emphasis added)
 The American nation-state was founded on principles of anti-imperialist

resistance and liberal idealism, fundamental maxims that seemed to set it apart from other

states of the world and from the prevailing international system itself. The colonialist

empire of the British hegemon was contingent on the extraction of primary resources

from its various mercantilist outposts in India, Africa, and it’s most populous and

profitable settlement, the 13 American colonies. This relationship between an imperial

core and a colonial, subservient periphery was the international norm until the end of the

18th century, as the peripheral American colonies united in order to restructure the system

in favor of a liberal, human rights focused enterprise. With the United States’ entrance

into the core, however, a gradual shift towards pragmatic foreign policy would occur that

increasingly did not match its idealistic rhetoric and foundational value system.

Before delving into the competing theoretical archetypes of American foreign policy, an
assessment of the theory of structuralism is needed in order to explain the transition from
liberalism to realism in U.S. affairs.