Middle East Geopolitics
Map of the Middle East
|Faculté||Faculté des sciences de la société|
|Département||Département de science politique et relations internationales|
|Professeur(s)||Rémi Baudoui (2011 - )|
|Cours||Terrorism and international relations|
- Terrorism or terrorisms? Some epistemological considerations
- National security and counter-terrorism: the example of Latin America
- Internationalisation of struggles and emergence of international terrorism
- International relations and the fight against international terrorism
- The United States and the New International Order
- Middle East Geopolitics
- September 11, 2001 ruptures
- Al-Qaida and the "geopolitics of radical terrorism"
- Combating terrorism and rebuilding transatlantic relations
- Arab Spring Against Terrorism: Issues and Perspectives
- Homegrown jihadism: How to prevent terrorist catastrophe?
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.
- 1 The Concept of the Middle East
- 2 US strategic deployment in the Middle East
- 3 Back to hegemony
- 4 Conclusion: 1993 or the year of the three post-Cold War paradigms
- 5 Annexes
- 6 References
The Concept of the Middle East[edit | edit source]
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[edit | edit source]
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 provide 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[edit | edit source]
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 [edit | edit source]
Acting in the Middle East [edit | edit source]
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.
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[edit | edit source]
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 [edit | edit source]
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.
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.
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 [edit | edit source]
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[edit | edit source]
Old, updated concepts and new concepts are entering the field of American strategy:
- Bandwagoning State : refers to the act of weaker states joining a stronger power or coalition within balance of power politics.. This makes it possible to gain influence in the imperial system in order to bring the state back to itself.
- Pivotal State : countries whose fate determines the survival and success of the surrounding region and ultimately the stability of the international system. It is a state capable of structuring a region. Managing diplomatic and economic relations is the ability to politically stabilize a region.
- Backlasch States : there are few « backlash states » : Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq 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. It is a state which has no democratic dimension and which has the power to be a nuisance, particularly if it is belligerent.
- 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. This is an additional level in the gradation of conflict. In this doctrine, it is States that achieve world peace through authoritarian rule, restrict human freedom and finance or use terrorism as a means of securing their power. The use of terrorism is a means of ensuring its power. It is also the one that makes nuclear proliferation and weapons of mass destruction.
These terms make it possible to construct the imperial discourse on the Middle East which is the theory of "friend enemies".
The concept of pivotal State and its application to Egypt[edit | edit source]
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, containment strategy and Rogue States[edit | edit source]
The Backlash State is defined in relation to the concept of the functioning of international relations. This is what has escaped the rationality of the international order by states that no longer play by the minimum international rules.
The Rogue State opposes not only the international order imposed by the most powerful, but also regional rules put in place by the powerful or the United States, such as Cuba.
The list of Rebel States is subject to caution, varying in space-time. It has long understood Libya, Sudan, Iran and more recently Iraq. What place for Syria? Positions evolve over time and according to regional geopolitical conditions. On the one hand, there is a complicated relationship with the West and, on the other hand, an overarmed and authoritarian state.
The theory of backlash State logically leads to the theory of containment, which questions how to stem the development of either socialism or political Islam. The containment policy will aim at containing political Islam and will produce tools for management.
The contents of the containment policy include:
- economic development assistance to stabilize political regimes on the basis of trade and economic opportunities;
- military aid to ensure that the country concerned has the means to defend itself geostrategically, particularly through the sale of arms;
- an intervention policy based on "low intensity war"[low intensity conflict] based on conventional weapons and devices
repressive mechanisms such as the embargo raising the issue of the United Nations management report.
Anthony Lake posited in the mid-1990s the need for "double containment" for the two conflicting countries of Iran and Iraq. The position is very cynical. We must take advantage of the conflict between the two systems of government to weaken each other and avoid a leadership position for one of them, which is considered dangerous for regional balance and American strategic interests.
Zbigniew Brzeziski, former adviser to President Jimmy Carter, refutes Anthony Lake's theory of double containment and proposes a more adaptive variable theory based on it in the mid-1990s:
- The absolute containment of Iraq, whose military might and the Praetorian regime is defined as a major threat to regional security, Gulf peace and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process;
- a more moderate containment with Iran. The hope of possible dialogue makes it possible to imagine the trivialization of political relations with Iran. The crisis of political Islam gives hope for a natural change in the regime. We are not going to weaken Iran, but we are trying to build a regime through a different strategy;
- more active dialogue with Europe on the policy to be pursued in the Middle East.
The position on Iraq was marked by hesitations stemming from geostrategic contradictions[edit | edit source]
The first Gulf War was about the annihilation of Iraqi military power. Fear of regional destabilization for Iran's benefit has strengthened the U. S. in the preservation of Saddam Hussein's regime - the principles of realistic school -. The political regime is saved, but placed under a UN embargo. The concept of Rogue State was applied to Iraq until the last years of the 20th century.
The overthrow of the Iraqi regime becomes a necessity which is being revived after 11 September 2001 with the ambition of destroying the Iraqi regime. The passage through September 11 is very important to understand what will happen.
Conclusion: 1993 or the year of the three post-Cold War paradigms[edit | edit source]
The best analyses produced for us are those of Alain Joxe, author of several geopolitical books including L' Empire du chaos, which we refer to here.
Three paradigms contained in three books published in the same year 1993 which is considered a pivotal year:
- Samuel Huntington, The Clash of civilizations, 1993;
- Alvin and Heidi Töffler, Third wave information war, 1993;
- Anthony Lake, Enlargement versus Containment, 1993.
Samuel Huntington [1927 – 2008][edit | edit source]
Huntington is a brilliant Harvard scholar, member of the National Security Council, author of several books on politics, arms, culture and strategy. In 1993, he published an article in The Clash of Civilizations; his thesis: Le monde se divise en civilisations: occident, tao-confucéenne, islamique, Hindoue, orthodoxe, latino-américaine. The clash is going to occur between the West, Tao-Confucian and Islamic, raising the question of how to divide the world in order to dominate it?
The idea is to divide the world to dominate proposing an imperial strategy of alliances." Jewish-Christian civilization "is based on the principle of the classic imperial strategy of alliances. According to him, cultures are not "mixable". The only possible modernity is Western, which caricatures Islam and presents it as a danger. The problem with best-sellers is that this kind of work diffuses simplistic perceptions.
Alvin and Heidi Töffler[edit | edit source]
Alvin and Töffler are writers, sociologists and futurologists and in 1970 they wrote the "Shock of the Future". They're working on it:
- "the war of information,""the war of knowledge."
- The "Third Wave War", the electronic knowledge war.
The religious concept of a "clash of civilizations" is discarded. For them, the nature of the conflict is a matter of order between agrarian, industrial and computer civilizations. Leadership can only be based on information at the centre of any future war. Information and knowledge go hand in hand. Only the maintenance of the monopoly of knowledge - non-sharing and superiority - makes it possible to play with information that is not shared.
Therefore, there can be no alliances for the purpose of sharing information. Regional alliances must be built to enable the United States to maintain global leadership. The concept of alliance therefore involves the United States, Europe and Japan.
Anthony Lake[edit | edit source]
Lake is an academic at John Hopkins University, a national security advisor to President Clinton. He based a new theory on the ashes of the theory of the containment of bipolarity of the Cold War. It is going to manufacture an enlargement', producing an opening through a market economy. From the moment we open up States to a market economy, the idea is that we will achieve political liberalization that will create a great global market and bring about world peace.
It is no longer a question of containing the enemy or its allies, but rather of producing enlargement through a market economy that is itself open - and which opposes the command economy. Enlargement by the economy aims, as a result of this effect, at political enlargement, that is to say the opening up of regimes considered as blocked and anti-democratic.
It is a conceptualization of a new globalized world with:
- consolidation of the hard core of market democracies: the United States, Canada, Japan and Europe
- consolidation of the "new democracies": Latin America, South Africa, Nigeria.
The counter-attack or the strategy of liberalising subversion is elaborated against hostile states such as Iran, Iraq or Cuba, which are States doomed to blockade. Humanitarian aid in areas of extreme poverty - great humanitarian concern - is set up to promote market democracy. A new polarized world emerges which is no longer that of liberalism opposed to dirigisme, but that of democracy against barbarism.
Democracy can only be an alliance with the United States. States that are in the process of economic liberalization, including China and Vietnam, are states with a developed market economy, but with authoritarian regimes; or some states in the Middle East are generating more benevolence than hostility.
The question that is raised is what is the extent of Barbary? Or the Barbarian Zone. These are tyrannical states, states against democracy and the market economy, but also states based on military regimes and/or religion. On the other hand, there is a return to a theory of unilateralism. It can be noted that the great absentee in Anthony Lake's thought is the UN, which is considered as impenetrable and unthinkable.
Through his three analyses, Alain Joxe invites us to think of American geopolitics from 1993 onwards in terms of "stocks of imperial representations" which can be related to the following figures:
- the autistic structure. There is no longer interaction to seek with the other and there is no understanding of the world;
- The leadership of the United States is reaffirmed;
- the search for a principle of minimalist expeditionary intervention. We're not going to get involved on any more shaky fields.
There is the distancing of tyranny as the domination of politico-military over the economy. To understand the diplomatic and political consequences of 9/11, we must understand this autistic position.
Annexes[edit | edit source]
Bibliographie[edit | edit source]
- 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[edit | edit source]
- "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/
- W.P. Deac. ‘Duel for the Suez Canal.’ Military History, Vol. 18 Issue 1. Apr2001, pp. 58- 64.
- P.H.J. Davies. 2012. Intelligence and Government in Britain and the United States, Vol. 2. ‘Ch 7: The Great Centralization, 1957-66’, pp. 163-177.
- R.J. Aldrich. 2001. The Hidden Hand. ‘Ch 21: Defeat in the Middle East: Iran and Suez’, pp. 464-494.
- W.S. Lucas. ‘The missing link? Patrick Dean, Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee.’ Contemporary British History. Vol.13 No. 2. 1999, pp. 117-125.
- P. Cradock. 2002. Know Your Enemy: How the JIC Saw the World. ‘Ch 18. Intelligence and Policy.
References[edit | edit source]
- Page personnelle de Rémi Baudoui sur le site de l'Université de Genève
- "Academy of Achievement Photo Credit." Academy of Achievement. Academy of Achievement, n.d. Web. 17 July 2014. <http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/photocredit/achievers/car0-015>.
- Quincy Wright (1890-1980) in A Study of War, 1942
- Kenneth Waltz in Theory of International Politics, 1979
- Robert S. Chase, Emily Hill, and Paul M. Kennedy, The Pivotal State, 2000
- Anthony Lake, Confronting Backlash States, 1994
- T.D.Allman, Rogue State: America at War with the World, 2004
- William Blum, Rogue state: a guide to the world's only superpower. 2006
- Noam Chomsky, Rogue States : The Rule of Force in World, 2000
- Joxe, Alain. L'empire Du Chaos: The Republics Facing American Domination in the Post-Cold War. Paris: La Découverte, 2004.