The Middle East has been the epicenter of much global power conflict, since the 18th Century, with attraction to its waterways, strategic positioning and convenient access point to India. However, what stood in the way was the Ottoman Caliphate that dominated the region and had political projection, which inevitably complicated the great game of trying to step into the Middle East. What one witnessed from the 1850s onwards was a multiple and systematic attacks on the Ottomans from colonial powers, such as France, Britain, Russia and Italy, with their colonies, Australia, New Zealand and India being shipped in to inflict a fatal blow on the Ottomans, leading to its collapse and with its territories being carved out by the French and British, in the infamous Syke Picot Agreement in 1916, with national interests dictating the drawing of new borders, with no consideration given to the geographic, ethnic or religious make up of the region. The new nation-states that were born, were given a complete new identity, with political systems and constitutions being introduced and new kings and leaders taking power that would in principle be under the supervision of the new masters of the region; the French and the British. For example, it was an open secret in Egypt, that King Fuad and King Farouk did not posses real political power, but it was held in the hands of the British High Commissioner to Cairo that called the shots and this would create the grounds for the 1952 Egyptian revolution, that would trigger a wave of coups in the region, from Syria to Iraq, that would be flying the flag of Arab Nationalism and would have implications for the colonial powers and their influence in these key political power houses in the region. But Britain would not just sit back and allow her influence to be minimized in countries such as Egypt, Syria and Yemen, but she tried to exert herself as one saw in her invasion of the Suez Canal in 1956 and her covert war against Abdullah Sallal in Yemen when he overthrew the Zaidi Imamate in North Yemen in 1962, as Britain feared being kicked out of Aden which it had colonized since 1839. According to the Chatham House Yemeni Expert Mark Curtis, London was used as a clearing ground for British mercenaries that were paid 150 British Sterling by the Foreign Office and the MOD.
In Aden, Tony Boyle,the aide-de-camp to the Aden Governor, evolved a system for passing mercenaries through Customs while Sherif Hussein organized safe houses in Beihan from which operations into Yemen could be launched against the North Yemeni government. It is interesting to note that the Kennedy administration, according to classified documents, recognized the North Yemeni government, as the administration believed it could steer the Abdullah Sallal government to serving American interests in Yemen. This caused a diplomatic crisis between Britain and America but showed that America too now was exerting herself in the region, opening up an Anglo-American struggle that had began since the Truman Doctrine in 1947 and increased with the Eisenhower Doctrine in 1957, which penciled out the Middle East as being a key strategic area of concern and for America to be active in securing her geo-political and economic interests in the region. The traditional colonial powers were facing challenges to their penetration and influence across the region, with rise of anti-colonial movements, Arab nationalistic coups and with America leaving her isolationism and pushing herself more into the Middle East. But in other areas such as in the Gulf, the British had quite successfully signed a number of treaties with the sheikhdoms that would last from 1820 until 1971, which meant that Britain was given a free hand not only in determining the political medium in the Gulf but also had control over foreign policy, defense, security, and no economic contracts could be given without the permission of the British. With British withdrawal in 1971, and the US re-focusing her Middle East policy towards the Gulf through the Nixon Doctrine in 1969 and Carter Doctrine in 1980, America saw ascendancy in the region.
However, Tore Peterson in his book, ‘Anglo-American Policy towards the Persian Gulf, 1978-1985; Power, Influence and Restraint’, mentions that talk of American ascendancy was premature as Britain had switched from formal control to informal neocolonial control, in that she had put in place a vast array of administrators, advisors, consultants and trainers that would continue direct relations with the Sheikhdoms and perpetuate British penetration and influence in the Gulf. Peterson argues that Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s developed a very aggressive policy in keeping British influence in the Gulf, with her fully knowing American encroachment into the region and her own aggression in implanting American influence in the region. However, despite the Iran-Iraq warfrom 1980 to1988, and the First Gulf War in 1990s leading to American militarization in the Gulf, Britain – through a complex informal network in the Gulf and larger Arabian Peninsula –was able to keep her interests preserved but she had learnt the art of compromise, as Thatcher was willing to stretch her hand out to Reagan in the Gulf when American key interests were at stake but clenched her hand when it came to British interests and her influence in the region. This Anglo-American struggle lives on in the Middle East, with America increasing her influence in the region, through military power, as one saw in Iraq and Libya. Even in Yemen, US approval of Saudi airstrikes is an indication of her desire to enter this prized country after being locked out by the Sandhurst trained Ali Abdullah Saleh and a tribal structure in the south, which had formed loyalties to the British since the 1937 Ingram peace, signed by the British colonial administrator Harold Ingram. Time will tell which of the two will dominate, however, it’s a complicated task for the Americans, given that the British over decades created informal networks that continue to push British influence and remain loyal to British interests. But the tide could change with a new generation of leaders, princes and kings emerging that could switch loyalties and change the nature of the Anglo-American struggle altogether.