Realism and Middle East
Political situation of the world is ever changing phenomenon. In every moment of the time, states try to develop new alliances suitable to pursue their national interests. Similarly, countries leave their old friends when their relations start hearting their interests. To understand the mechanism of this making and breaking situation, pundits of politics have been presenting their viewpoints for years. Up till now, realism, idealism, neo realism, neo idealism, constructionism, Marxism, modernism and post modernism are the well-known theories which were given by different scholars.
However, realism is the most dominant theory among them. In most cases, states deal with different political situations more or less in the way which was presented by the realists. According to proponents of this theory, states always aim to gain power by hook or by crook. To attain their goals, states do not care about moral values. Moreover, according to realists, there is no rule of law in the world and selfishness is dominant feature of international relations.
To understand the fact, Middle East is considered as the case study. The reason of selection of Middle East as case study is that the region has been under immense political turmoil and facing unrest since end of World War II. From late 1940s to 1970s, Arab-Israel standoff was reason of tumultuous situations in the region. Later on, Islamic revolution in Iran, Iran nuclear program, War on Terror, and Arab Spring have changed the whole political situation of the region. Therefore, this area is more pertinent to understand the concept.
Interestingly, in all the above mentioned cases, global powers of the world dealt with the conditions of Middle East in exactly realistic way and current developments in the region are also manifestation of the same fact.
First of all, Palestine issue is one of the major conflict in the region. According to international law, struggle of Palestinians is legitimate and world community, especially big powers, has every reason to support innocent Palestinians. However, till date, world community on the whole and the US, sole superpower of last three decades, have either only offered lip services to genuine demands of Palestinians or supported Israel to make its hold strong in the occupied regions. The major reason of the US and other powers support for Israel is that they badly need Israel support in Middle East to pursue their interests. In simple words, one can say that world politics can be more precisely defined through realists’ perspective.
Similarly, America and other Western powers have always supported Arab monarchies despite knowing the fact that they are totally non democratic in nature. At the same time, they have never supported Iran even before start of its nuclear program although its governance structure is more close to western style democracy. Hence, like the previous case, major actors of the world are behaving in more realistic way in this case as well rather than showing compliance with established norms.
Likewise, Strategic Comprehensive Pact (Iran-China Pact) is also continuation of the previous story. China has decided to invest 400 billion dollars in Iran in the fields of infrastructure and energy. In reply, it will get oil and petroleum products from Iran at cheaper rates to fulfill its energy needs. In this particular case, China does not demand any guarantee from Iran about future of its nuclear program because Iran is crucial for China as a strong ally in the region against its rival block. Therefore, China has no concern about proliferation of nuclear weapons. In simple words, national interests of China is important for it than any other set principle. Hence, realism again perceives in this case on all other theories.
Summing it up, one can say that there is no doubt that every perspective from realism to post modernism is important but realism is above all of them. In the case study, in almost all three circumstances, major actors are following the course given by realists. They are not giving any importance to human rights violations in Palestine and breaches of democratic values in Arab countries because it is not in favour of their interests. Similarly, on issue of Iran nuclear program, world is looking divided because of crossroads interests of countries. In short, states only prefer to pursue their interests. To accomplish their goals, it is not possible for them to always follow the principles which rules say. Therefore, realism is the best lens to get actual know how of all major developments in the world.
Political situation of the world is ever changing phenomenon. In every moment of the time, states try to develop new alliances suitable to pursue their national interests. Similarly, countries leave their old friends when their relations start hearting their interests. To understand the mechanism of this making and breaking situation, pundits of politics have been presenting their viewpoints for years. Up till now, realism, idealism, neo realism, neo idealism, constructionism, Marxism, modernism and post modernism are the well-known theories which were given by different scholars.
However, realism is the most dominant theory among them. In most cases, states deal with different political situations more or less in the way which was presented by the realists. According to proponents of this theory, states always aim to gain power by hook or by crook. To attain their goals, states do not care about moral values. Moreover, according to realists, there is no rule of law in the world and selfishness is dominant feature of international relations.
To understand the fact, Middle East is considered as the case study. The reason of selection of Middle East as case study is that the region has been under immense political turmoil and facing unrest since end of World War II. From late 1940s to 1970s, Arab-Israel standoff was reason of tumultuous situations in the region. Later on, Islamic revolution in Iran, Iran nuclear program, War on Terror, and Arab Spring have changed the whole political situation of the region. Therefore, this area is more pertinent to understand the concept.
Interestingly, in all the above mentioned cases, global powers of the world dealt with the conditions of Middle East in exactly realistic way and current developments in the region are also manifestation of the same fact.
First of all, Palestine issue is one of the major conflict in the region. According to international law, struggle of Palestinians is legitimate and world community, especially big powers, has every reason to support innocent Palestinians. However, till date, world community on the whole and the US, sole superpower of last three decades, have either only offered lip services to genuine demands of Palestinians or supported Israel to make its hold strong in the occupied regions. The major reason of the US and other powers support for Israel is that they badly need Israel support in Middle East to pursue their interests. In simple words, one can say that world politics can be more precisely defined through realists’ perspective.
Similarly, America and other Western powers have always supported Arab monarchies despite knowing the fact that they are totally non democratic in nature. At the same time, they have never supported Iran even before start of its nuclear program although its governance structure is more close to western style democracy. Hence, like the previous case, major actors of the world are behaving in more realistic way in this case as well rather than showing compliance with established norms.
Likewise, Strategic Comprehensive Pact (Iran-China Pact) is also continuation of the previous story. China has decided to invest 400 billion dollars in Iran in the fields of infrastructure and energy. In reply, it will get oil and petroleum products from Iran at cheaper rates to fulfill its energy needs. In this particular case, China does not demand any guarantee from Iran about future of its nuclear program because Iran is crucial for China as a strong ally in the region against its rival block. Therefore, China has no concern about proliferation of nuclear weapons. In simple words, national interests of China is important for it than any other set principle. Hence, realism again perceives in this case on all other theories.
Summing it up, one can say that there is no doubt that every perspective from realism to post modernism is important but realism is above all of them. In the case study, in almost all three circumstances, major actors are following the course given by realists. They are not giving any importance to human rights violations in Palestine and breaches of democratic values in Arab countries because it is not in favour of their interests. Similarly, on issue of Iran nuclear program, world is looking divided because of crossroads interests of countries. In short, states only prefer to pursue their interests. To accomplish their goals, it is not possible for them to always follow the principles which rules say. Therefore, realism is the best lens to get actual know how of all major developments in the world.
Great sir❤️
ReplyDelete