Middle East Geopolitics

Map of the Middle East.

We will reflect on developments in the Middle East and move on to the next phase of the analysis of radical Islamist terrorism.

Geopolitics is the link between a territory and politics. Geopolitics believes that political action is also dictated by interests in certain territories and resources. Institutional and political actors will reflect on states or systems of actors. Geopolitics makes the link between territory and the political systems that are on it.

The Middle East is an important region of the world in terms of acting out a set of elements, some of which are resources. The geopolitics of oil explains very well that from the 1920s onwards, the major oil companies emerged with economic and political interests in the regions of the Middle East. When we talk about geopolitics, we are talking about strategic issues related to the presence of resources, important elements of economic and political development. Geopolitics will consider the fact that it is interesting to study political systems not simply as a system, but as a relay for territories that have strategic stakes in order to explain policies. When we talk about geopolitics in the Middle East, we point out that this region of the world cannot be immune to major strategic issues and major conflicts.

The Middle East has always been a strategic space. It can be found in the Anglo-Saxon concept of Middle East, which is opposed to Near East - the Near East - which for some people refers to the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire, but can also design the Middle East. The definitions have moved a lot, not being precisely delineated. It begins in the West with Egypt and extends eastward to Iran. In the North, according to some, it can include Turkey and the South of Yemen. However, what is important is that this concept refers to a geopolitical issue. From the 19th century onwards, there was a fundamental stake in the fight against Russian expansionism towards the south.

According to some, it was the American strategist Alfred Mahan who used the word first in an article in the National Review in 1902. Admiral Mahan militates for the development of a fleet that ensures military supremacy to expand its power and capture the resources to guide a military strategy.

The concept of the Middle East

It is a concept that contradicts the concept of the Oriental Question in the sense of a questioning of the future of the Orient. Moreover, it is opposed to the French concept of "Pays du Levant" - a geographical and political vision - which postulates a continuity between the geomorphology of Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. From the 1920s and 1930s onwards, the concept of the Middle East was to take root, in particular through the constitution of large oil companies and the constitution and consolidation of political regimes such as, for example, in Saudi Arabia, which was created by Western countries. The quarrel reflects different perspectives on the legitimacy of the policies of the major powers in the region: over time, the concept of the Middle East will supersede that of the Levant. Francophone vision will not survive decolonization.

The vision of the Middle East strengthened in the years of World War II and immediately after the war. These are strategic reasons, because the stakes of the Second World War will also be played out in the Middle East. The whole strategic issue of the Second World War sets an important mission for the Middle East to hold the war effort and prevent it from joining the Axis powers. On the other hand, the Middle East is important for its energy and human resources for the continuation of the war. The Middle East is a post-war economic development issue.

Example: the appearance of Middle Eastern Studies in 1964

The Middle East studies appeared in 1964 with the idea that there was a development model to promote and that it was complex because it had to integrate Turkey and Israel, which arose in 1949.

Since its launch in 1964 Middle Eastern Studies has become required reading for all those with a serious concern in understanding the modern Middle East.

Middle Eastern Studies provides the most up-to-date academic research on the history and politics of the Arabic-speaking countries in the Middle East and North Africa as well as on Turkey, Iran and Israel, particularly during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ".

The Middle East is becoming an inescapable concept, particularly with the perception of conflicts between Israel and Arab countries. Israel is an integral part of the Middle East concept, as underlined by Middle Eastern studies.

The fragility of the concept

This concept remains very fragile. It is also a concept that allows the United States to define this geographical and political area. The concept allows all interpretations according to the ways in which the United States lives its presence in the region being more likened to a powder keg. The definition of the Middle East may become more restrictive and exclude authorities, including the oil monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula. The problem remains complex in countries such as Iran, which is classified and downgraded from the Middle East. The concept conceived exclusively in reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems more restrictive than ever.

The Middle East is a Western vision that can be subordinated to a division and strategic functions that are geographical and geopolitical. We are also talking about geoeconomics, which is the pursuit of geopolitics in the economic field that interferes with the issue of politics.

US strategic deployment in the Middle East


Acting in the Middle East 


When did the United States enter the Middle East? This dates back to the inter-war period with post-World War I issues, maximizing the use of oil and prospective work to find oil to keep Western economies running. This means that the United States was also at that time in the 1920s.

In the world that is in the process of being built, with the redefinition of resources, a link is being established between the economic exploitation of resources and the political question. The question is, what are the right political regimes so that there can be effective economic management? It is the relationship between economic resources and the political issue.

In the context of the Second World War and the conflict with the Axis powers, the issue at stake is the possession of natural resources for the continuation of the war. The post-World War II period is an important issue because there is a need for resources for reconstruction. This is an important strategic approach, but it will be based on a major divorce of the American position which is an anti-colonial position. The Americans are anti-colonists who reproach the English and French systems for having manufactured colonies that are against the idea of freedom. The American power will also play in the Middle East against French and British interests.

In the midst of the Cold War, the discourse legitimizing the independence of the colonies - "coming out" and sacrificing the British and French from the Middle East, because the fear is that in the midst of the Cold War, the anti-colonialist model developed in the colonies would be a Marxist model. They will work to bring out the British and French power in the Middle East. The Soviet power is also seeking to use the Middle East as an area of influence, because the economic stakes are high and it is seeking to have an outlet towards the Mediterranean Sea.

Time May 22 1978, Prince Fahad Saudi Arabia Ibn Saud.

The constitution of the State of Israel also acts as a pole of political attraction for the region. Israeli wars began in 1949 with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel appears to the Arab population as a state that has usurped the land, and to the Western powers as a state that strengthens Western positions.

The first ally was Saudi Arabia's regime with the royal family of the Saudi ben, which founded modern Arabia with the help of American power in 1932. The stakes are economic and petroleum. The United States relied on Saudi royalty to counter British oil interests without completely ousting the British ally from the Gulf coastal areas, as England remained a natural ally. It's a paradox.

The first period is a critique of French colonialism. Initially, the United States was to show a well-developed benevolence towards the decolonization political regimes that emancipated themselves from the French and British tutelage in order to move on to conditional release, as with Iraq in 1932 or Egypt in 1937.

The acceleration of the American presence in the Middle East comes with the Soviet advance beyond the Black Sea. It is a question of countering the USSR by means of a strategy of Containment, that is to say that policies will be put in place to contain the political power of the other by consolidating other states. There is an opposition within the framework of a binary world between "free world" and "communist world".

The measures

Conventional means are the sale and control of arms sales to the Middle East by France, the United States and Great Britain. On the other hand, we must think of the military presence that will lead to the permanent parking of the Fifth Fleet in the Mediterranean to secure the transit routes for strategic supplies, but also to intimidate or react in the event of threats to its nationals. Strengthen support for Israel, which is seen as an area of stability to think of the Middle East as a powder keg. In the Arab-Israeli wars, Israel has always found strong support from the West for arms and logistics.

The great conflict that will arise is the conflict that will appear with Nasser. Nasser will turn to the Americans to finance the Aswan dam which will refuse to turn to the Soviets who will finance it. The Nassérien regime presents itself as socialist, but not as Marxist. Nasser will be the great charismatic leader of pan-Arabism which is the idea of the great Arab and secular nation. It is the introduction of a model that is significantly linked to the Soviet Union, but at the same time seeks to assert an original position of the non-aligned countries.

The Middle East appears to the West as an area of uncertainty, a complex area where control and precautionary systems must be developed. There is a double paradox of the American position in the 1950s with a doctrine that aims on the one hand to support the national liberation of peoples, and on the other hand to support revolutions that are in progress, but whose outcome is unknown and which often turns against the Americans and their allies such as, for example, France in Algeria, which is rebelling against arms trafficking from Egypt for the FLN. Finally, US interference in local affairs in the name of a strategic imperative. Since this region is a strategic region in terms of resources and political management, the American position will be both to maintain historical and cultural ties with traditional European allies such as England and France and to think that interference is also necessary.

This dual position involves several possible strategies:

• containment strategy: produce alliances to counter communism, such as the Baghdad Pact of 1955, which brings together Great Britain, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Iraq. The idea is to limit the advance of communist influence;
• The strategy of replacement or substitution: to replace a former colonial power such as, for example, Great Britain, particularly in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Building on Israel 


The logic is to rely on Israel first of all because there is an awareness of the impossibility of building an anti-communist front in the Middle East. There is the fear that "Arab socialism" may spread through the export of the Egyptian model through the transition from "Arab socialism" to pan-Arabism. Israel appears to be an important lever for controlling Arab socialism.

For Americans, Arab socialism appears to be dangerous. The dual purpose of "Arab nationalism" that worries the United States: Concern about building an autonomous economic development of these countries on the fact that these countries could have economic independence; Concern that this may lead to a transfer of wealth from the former pro-Western dominant classes to new pronationalist categories that run counter to their own interests.

Nasser au côté de Khrouchtchev.

The Franco-British military victory with the participation of Israel will turn into a political defeat. The United States and the Soviets pressed for the French and English to withdraw their troops from Suez. Nasser's military defeat turns into victory in front of the one who resisted giving him the glory, legitimacy and honour of the Arab people. After the Suez Canal affair, the United States became aware of the risk posed to its diplomacy by the lack of support for the Western powers in the region.

The Arab defeat of 1967 in the Kippur War against Israel fosters the radicalization of political regimes against the West and Israel, notably from Libya, Iraq, but also from South Yemen, leading to the creation of an anti-American front line that brings together secular regimes and traditional monarchies.

From the 1960s and 1970s onwards, American responses were more important interventions by confirming support for Saudi Arabia and Iran from the Pahlavi regime, but also by increasing American aid to Israel with confirmed support in the 1973 war, with a response to the Arab oil embargo.

President Sadat of Egypt, President Carter and Prime Minister Begin of Israel sign the Camp David Accords: A Framework for Peace.

Through Henri Kissinger is set up a "strategy of small steps" in order to drive one by one the regimes in favour of the United States by a specific economic aid as, for example, with Egypt which becomes an indispensable partner engaged in the peace process in particular with the Camp David Accords. On the other hand, the United States will help Iraq in the context of the Ayatollah Khomeiny's war against Iran in order to prevent the spread of the Islamist revolution.

In addition, there has been an implementation of the Delinkage strategy in international relations which are operations will seek to separate states from the same space to transfer them to the American area. The American strategy is to separate Israel's neighbours from the Gulf countries in order to incorporate the latter into a new geopolitics.

Back to hegemony



The 1980s and 1990s were interpreted as a return to the Middle Eastern scene in the United States. This return is manifested by the Soviet withdrawal towards Syria and South Yemen. Ideologically, the delinkage strategy is implemented by addressing each partner's concerns. This will lead to a reaffirmation of the military presence in the region and a commitment to a peace process with Israel with which the States of the region are committed to associate themselves.

The Oslo Accords of 1993 are behind the 1978 Camp David Accords and place the Palestinians in a hopeless situation, particularly with the establishment of new Israeli settlements. The peace process is therefore seen as a process of legitimizing the American presence in the Middle East. The success of American diplomacy was to prevent an "Arab" front against American diplomacy in the Middle East.

The new words of American hegemony

D’anciens concepts réactualisés et nouveaux concepts font leur entrée dans le domaine de la stratégie américaine :

• Bandwagoning State : refers to the act of weaker states joining a stronger power or coalition within balance of power politics.. Cela permet d’acquérir de l’influence dans le système impérial afin de ramener l’État vers soi.
• Pivotal State : countries whose fate determines the survival and success of the surrounding region and ultimately the stability of the international system. C’est un État capable de structurer une région. La gestion des relations diplomatiques et économiques est la capacité de stabiliser politiquement une région.
• Backlasch States : there are few « backlash states » : Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Irak and Libya. For now they lack the resources of a superpower, which would enable them to seriously threaten the democratic order being created around them. Nevertheless, their behavior is often aggressive ansd defiant. The ties between them are growing as they seek to thwart of quarantine themselves from a global trend to which they seem incapable of adapting. C’est un État qui n’a pas de dimension démocratique et qui a un pouvoir de nuisance notamment belliqueux.
• Rogue States : some states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. C’est un niveau supplémentaire dans la gradation de la conflictualité. Dans cette doctrine, ce sont les États qui atteignent à la paix mondiale en recourant à un régime autoritaire, restreignent la liberté humaine et qui financeraient ou utiliseraient le terrorisme comme un mode d’assurance de leur pouvoir. L’utilisation du terrorisme est un mode d’assurance de son pouvoir. C’est aussi celui qui fait de la prolifération nucléaire et d’armes de destruction massives.

Ces termes permettent de fabriquer le discours impérial sur le Moyen-Orient qui est la théorie des « amis-ennemis ».

The concept of pivotal State and its application to Egypt

Today, Egypt is questioning the western community, but has a Western benevolence. In the 1970s and 1980s, Egypt was seen as a state capable of limiting the influence of Islam.

The pivotal state theory raises the question of domino theory. If a pivotal state collapses, what are the consequences for neighbouring states? To think of the pivotal State is therefore to think of stopping any domino process. This raises the question of which countries are pivotal in the geographical area concerned? According to Paul Kennedy, there are two models: Egypt and Turkey.

There are two levels of interest in Egypt: contain the Islamist wave and through it any revolutionary demands in the region. Reference to the Iran of Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution. This is based on any revolutionary ideal in counterpoint to the Iranian revolution. to be an anchor in diplomacy and the peace process with Israel. Without a pivotal state as a bridge state, this diplomacy would be doomed to failure.

According to Daniel Pipes, Egypt is helping to counterbalance and rebalance the political balance of power in the Middle East. Egypt's entry into the regional geopolitical scene - a powerful negotiating factor with Israel - could be credited to the weakening of the Arab camp and the Palestinians.

However, it recommends that the privileged relationship between the United States and Turkey should not be abandoned in favour of a single Egypt-United States axis. Turkey's geopolitics are particularly interesting. The axis must be strengthened with the Turkish regime on the basis of particularly significant military aid. This conception is similar to that of the British historian and strategist Paul Kennedy, who testifies to the danger for the United States of abandoning any privileged axis with Turkey. Paul Kennedy, Grand Strategies in War and Peace, 1991; Preparing for the Twenty-First Century, 1993; From War to Peace: Altered Strategic Landscapes in the Twentieth Century, 2000).

According to Kennedy, U. S. aid to Egypt must be contained in strict terms of economic aid and food aid. Military aid could play into the hands of enemies from within. Egypt's problem is to have 90% desert, little agriculture and 90% wheat imports. Kennedy's strategy is to provide economic aid, food aid, but we are not going to push too much on military aid, since Egypt poses a problem with the military aid that is the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is the idea of mastered aid on the basis that complex Egypt is seen by American strategists as less structurally sound. The strategic analysis postulates that Egypt has a less structurally sound regime than Turkey.

Since the Gulf War, the United States has refocused its strategy on Saudi Arabia as the only pivotal state. It is a state perceived as stronger is serving American interests.

Egypt is thus led to redefine a more complex role with the reconquest of a geostrategic place since Nasser:

• willingness to regain a significant place in the Arab League. Behind the image that Mubarak wanted to portray, there was the Nasser image of leader in the Middle East;
• Seeking a mediation role between the United States and Israel and other states in the region;
• find a regional diplomatic leadership role;
• Good offices in a lot of complex cases, i. e. a conflict management policy in the region.

Backlash States, stratégie du containment et Rogue States

Le Backlash State [État rebelle] se définit par rapport à la notion de fonctionnement des relations internationales. C’est ce qui a échappé à la rationalité de l’ordre international par des États qui ne jouent plus les règles internationales minimales.

Le Rogue State [État voyou] s’oppose à la fois à l’ordre international imposé par les plus puissants, mais aussi aux règles régionales mises en place par les puissants ou les États-Unis comme, par exemple, Cuba.

La liste des États-rebelles est sujette à caution variant dans l’espace-temps. Elle a longtemps compris la Libye, le Soudan, l’Iran et plus récemment l’Irak. Quelle place accorder à la Syrie ? Les positions évoluent au fil du temps et selon les conjonctures géopolitiques régionales. D’un côté il y a un rapport compliqué avec l’occident et de l’autre un État surarmé et autoritaire.

La théorie du backlash State débouche logiquement sur la théorie du containment qui interroge sur comment faire pour endiguer notamment avec la nécessité d’endiguer le développement soit du socialisme soit de l’Islam politique. La politique du containment va viser à contenir l’islam politique et va fabriquer des outils d’une gestion.

Les contenus de la politique de containment comprennent :

• l’aide au développement économique pour stabiliser les régimes politiques sur la base des échanges et ouvertures économiques
• l’aide militaire pour assurer au pays concerné les moyens de se défendre sur le plan géostratégique notamment à travers la vente d’arme ;
• une politique d’intervention constituée sur la base de la « low intensity War » [conflit de faible intensité] à partir d’un armement et des dispositifs conventionnels
• des dispositifs répressifs comme l’embargo soulevant la question du rapport de la gestion de l’ONU.

Anthony Lake postule au milieu des années 1990 la nécessité du « double containment » pour les deux pays en conflit que représentent l’Iran et l’Irak. La position est très cynique. Il faut profiter du conflit entre les deux systèmes de régime pour les affaiblir mutuellement et éviter une position de leadership pour un des deux, jugée dangereuse pour l’équilibre régional et les intérêts stratégiques américains.

Zbigniew Brzeziski, ex-conseiller du Président Jimmy Carter, réfute la théorie du double containment d’Anthony Lake pour proposer au milieu des années 1990 une théorie variable plus adaptative fondée sur :

• l’endiguement absolu de l’Irak dont la puissance militaire et le régime prétorien est défini comme une menace majeure pour la sécurité régionale, la paix du Golfe et le processus de paix israélo-palestinien ;
• un endiguement plus mesuré avec l’Iran. L’espoir du dialogue possible permet d’imaginer la banalisation des rapports politiques avec l’Iran. La crise de l’Islam politique fait espérer un changement naturel du régime. On ne va pas affaiblir l’Iran, mais on essaie de fabriquer un régime à travers une stratégie différente ;
• une concertation plus active avec l’Europe sur la politique à mener au Proche et Moyen-Orient.

La position sur l’Irak a été marquée par les hésitations nées des contradictions géostratégiques

Opération Desert Storm.

La première guerre du Golfe avait pour objet l’anéantissement de la puissance militaire irakienne. La crainte d’une déstabilisation régionale au profit de l’Iran a conforté les États-Unis dans la conservation du régime de Saddam Hussein – principes de l’école réaliste –. Le régime politique est sauvé, mais placé sous embargo des Nations Unies. Le concept de Rogue State est appliqué à l’Irak jusque dans les dernières années du XXème siècle.

Le renversement le régime irakien devient une nécessité qui se réactualise après le 11 septembre 2001 avec pour ambition de détruire le régime irakien. Le passage par le 11 septembre est très important pour comprendre ce qui va se passer.

Conclusion : 1993 ou l’année des trois paradigmes pour l’après-guerre froide

Alain Joxe - L'Empire du chaos

Les meilleures analyses produites sont pour nous celles d’Alain Joxe auteur de plusieurs ouvrages de géopolitique dont L’Empire du chaos, dont nous référons ici.

Trois paradigmes contenus dans trois livres parus dans la même année 1993 qui est considérée comme une année charnière :

• Samuel Huntington, The Clash of civilizations, 1993 ;
• Alvin et Heidi Töffler, Third wave information war, 1993 ;
• Anthony Lake, Enlargement versus Containment, 1993.

Samuel Huntington [1927 – 2008]

Samuel Huntington en 2004 au Forum économique mondial de Davos.

Huntington est un brillant universitaire d’Harvard, membre du Conseil de Sécurité́ nationale, auteur de plusieurs livres sur le politique, l’armement, la culture et la stratégie. Il publie en 1993 un article The Clash of Civilizations ; sa thèse : Le monde se divise en civilisations : occidentale, tao-confucéenne, islamique, Hindoue, orthodoxe, latino-américaine. Le choc va se produire entre occidentale, tao-confucéenne et islamique soulevant la question de savoir comment diviser le monde pour le dominer ?

L’idée est de diviser le monde pour dominer proposant une stratégie impériale d’alliances. « La civilisation judéo-chrétienne » repose sur le principe de la stratégie impériale classique faite d’alliances. Selon lui, les cultures ne sont pas « mixables ». La seule modernité possible est occidentale caricaturant l’Islam et le présentant comme un danger. Le problème des best-sellers est que ce genre d’ouvrage diffuse des perceptions simplistes.

Alvin et Heidi Töffler

Alvin et Töffler sont des écrivains, sociologues et futurologues et auteurs en 1970 du Choc du futur. Ils travaillent sur :

• « la guerre de l’information », « la guerre de la connaissance » ;
• « la guerre de la troisième vague », soit la guerre de la connaissance électronique.

Le concept religieux de « choc des civilisations » est écarté. Pour eux, la nature du conflit est d’ordre entre des civilisations agraires, industrielles et informatiques. Le leadership ne peut être que fondé sur l’information au centre de toute guerre à venir. Information et connaissance vont de pair. Seul le maintien du monopole de la connaissance – non-partage et supériorité – permet de jouer sur l’information qui ne se partage donc pas.

Il ne peut donc y avoir des alliances qui ont pour objet le partage de l’information. Il faut fabriquer des alliances régionales pour permettre aux États-Unis de conserver un leadership mondial. Le concept d’alliance associe donc les États-Unis, l’Europe et le Japon.

Anthony Lake

Anthony Lake.

Lake est universitaire à la John Hopkins University, conseiller à la sécurité nationale du président Clinton. Il fonde une nouvelle théorie sur les cendres de la théorie du containment de la bipolarité de la Guerre Froide. Il va fabriquer un « enlargement » fabriquant une ouverture par une économie de marché. À partir du moment où on ouvre les États à une économie de marché, l’idée est qu’on va aboutir à une libéralisation politique qui va créer un grand marché mondial et instaurer une paix mondiale.

Il ne s’agit plus de contenir l’ennemi ou ses alliés, mais au contraire de produire de l’enlargement par une économie de marché elle-même ouverte - et qui s’oppose à la command economy –. L’enlargement par l’économie vise par effet de ricochet un enlargement politique soit l’ouverture de régimes considérés comme bloqués et dirigistes et anti-démocratiques.

C’est une conceptualisation d’un nouveau monde globalisé avec :

• la consolidation du noyau dur des démocraties de marché : États-Unis ; Canada, Japon et Europe
• la consolidation des « nouvelles démocraties » : Amérique latine, Afrique du Sud, Nigeria.

La contre-attaque ou la stratégie de subversion libéralisante est élaborée contre les États hostiles comme l’Iran, l’Irak ou encore Cuba qui sont des États voués au blocus. L’aide humanitaire dans les régions de misère - great humanitarian concern – est mise en place pour favoriser la démocratie de marché. Émerge un nouveau monde polarisé qui n’est plus celui du libéralisme opposé au dirigisme, mais celui de la démocratie contre la barbarie.

La démocratie ne peut que faire alliance avec les États-Unis. Les États en cours de libéralisation économique dont la Chine, le Vietnam sont des États avec une économie de marché développée, mais avec des régimes autoritaires ; ou encore certains États du Moyen-Orient ne génèrent plus de la bienveillance que de l’hostilité.

La question qui est soulevée est quelle est l’étendue de la Barbarie ? Ou de la « Zone barbare ». Ce sont Les États tyranniques, les États contre la démocratie et l’économie de marché, mais aussi les États fondés sur des régimes militaires et/ou la religion. D’autre part, il y a un retour d’une théorie de l’unilatéralisme. On peut remarquer que le grand absent dans la pensée d’Anthony Lake est l’ONU qui est considérée comme impensée et impensable.

Par ses trois analyses, Alain Joxe nous invite à penser la géopolitique américaine à partir de 1993 en termes de « stocks de représentations impériales » qui peut être rapportées aux figures suivantes :

• la structure autistique. Il n’y a plus d’interaction à rechercher avec l’autre et il n’y a pas de compréhension du monde ;
• le leadership des États-Unis est réaffirmé ;
• la recherche d’un principe d’intervention expéditionnaire minimaliste. On ne va plus s’investir sur des champs bancals.

Il y a la mise à distance de la tyrannie comme domination du politico-militaire sur l’économie. Pour comprendre les conséquences diplomatiques, politiques du 11 septembre, il faut comprendre cette position autistique.

Annexes

Bibliographie

• Benjamin Barber, Djihad versus McWorld, mondialisation et intégrisme contre la démocratie, Paris, Pluriel, 1996 ;
• Pierre Hassner, « Le Barbare et le Bourgeois » Politique internationale, 84, été 1999, p. 81-98 ;
• Robert D.Kaplan, L’anarchie qui vient, ;
• Paul Kennedy, La grandeur et le déclin des nations, Paris, Payot, 1989 ;
• Fouad Nohra, Stratégies américaines pour le Moyen-Orient, Beyrouth, Al- Bouraq, 1999 ;
• Jean-Christophe Rufin, L’Empire et les nouveaux barbares, Paris, Jean-Claude Lattès, 1991 ;
• Robert Steele, « Les nations intelligentes : stratégies nationales et intelligence virtuelle », Défense Nationale, 40, 1996

Articles

• "Moyen-Orient Et Pays Limitrophes Géographie." Moyen-Orient Et Pays Limitrophes Géographie. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 July 2014. <http://le-lutin-savant.com/g-moyen-orient-geographie.html>.
• Foreign Policy,. (2015). Forget Sykes-Picot. It’s the Treaty of Sèvres That Explains the Modern Middle East.. Retrieved 11 August 2015, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/10/sykes-picot-treaty-of-sevres-modern-turkey-middle-east-borders-turkey/