Western involvement in the Middle East has been a contentious issue for decades, with specific focus on

Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. These regions have been shaped by colonialism, the Cold War, and
the War on Terror. The purpose of this essay is to examine the justifications for Western intervention in
the Middle East, evaluate the actual outcomes of Western involvement, and explore criticisms that have
been brought against it. The morality of Western intervention remains in question and has significant
implications for the future of the Middle East and global relationships.

The history of Western involvement in the Middle East dates to World War I, when the Ottoman Empire
was defeated, and the region came under the control of British and French mandates. The post-World
War II era saw the rise of Arab nationalism, which led to the establishment of independent states, and
the Cold War, which heightened U.S. involvement in the region. In Egypt, the U.S. supported the
authoritarian regime of Hosni Mubarak, and the Obvious western backing of the dictator Abudl Fateh El-
Sisi while in Iraq- who according to the U.S. ”returned democracy to Egypt” before slaughtering
hundreds of protestors only a week later during the Rabaa massacre, Sisi ordered the clearing of
protestors that caused the deaths of at least 1000 civilians(1. "All According to Plan". Human Rights Watch. 17
August 2013. Archived from the original on 19 July 2015. Retrieved 15 December 2023. ), it intervened militarily to
overthrow Saddam Hussein. The ongoing war in Afghanistan, sparked by the 9/11 attacks, has been the
longest war in U.S. history. In Libya, the U.S. and its allies intervened to topple Muammar Gaddafi in
2011. Behind these interventions are patterns and motives such as securing access to oil, fighting
terrorism, and promoting democracy and human rights.

One of the justifications given for Western intervention in the Middle East is economics. The region is
rich in oil, and Western countries have sought to secure access to this valuable resource. Military
justifications have also been given, such as fighting terrorism and ensuring regional stability.
Humanitarian reasons have been cited as well, such as the need to protect civilians from atrocities and
promote democracy and human rights. However, critiques of these justifications and their validity have
been raised. Some argue that the real motive behind intervention is to serve Western interests, Which is
exacerbated through the West’s involvement within Egypt, a country that is not as oil rich and did not
have the rampant terrorism as other countries in the Middle East; the US have run CIA operations within
Egypt in hopes of serving western interests since at least the 1950’s with “Project FF”, where the CIA
attempted to pressure King Farouk into political reforms to lessen the likelihood of political change in
the country contrary to American interests, and when he refused, the aim of the project shifted to a
regime “that would be more amenable to American control. ”(2.Holland, Matthew F. (July 11, 1996). America and
Egypt: From Roosevelt to Eisenhower. Praeger. p. 27. ). and rather than the interests of the people in the region.
Others point to the unintended consequences of intervention, including state fragmentation and the
rise of extremist groups.

The actual outcomes of Western intervention in the Middle East have been mixed, with both positive
and negative consequences. While some interventions have helped increase stability and
democratization in the region, others have led to unintended consequences such as increased violence,
state fragmentation, and the rise of extremist groups. The comparison of the intended outcomes with
the actual outcomes reveals a significant gap between what was expected and what was achieved. The
significant loss of life, political instability, and economic losses indicate that interventions can often have
significant long-term consequences for the region and its inhabitants.
Western involvement in the Middle East has been heavily criticized for its cultural insensitivity and lack
of understanding of local realities. Some have argued that Western interventions have been insensitive
to the cultural, religious, and economic differences between the West and the Middle East and have
imposed Western values and norms on the region; which is perfectly incapsulated in the 2008 George
W. Bush shoeing incident in protest of the Iraq War casualties, with the perpetrator being "hailed as a
hero"(3.Williams, Timothy; Sharon Otterman (15 December 2008). "Shoe-Hurling Iraqi Becomes a Folk Hero". The New York
Times. Archived from the original on 12 December 2014. Retrieved 14 December 2023.) incident Furthermore, certain
interventions have been criticized for their moral and ethical implications, particularly with respect to
the loss of innocent lives and the violation of basic human rights. These criticisms shed light on the
complexities of intervening in foreign regions and raise important questions about the ethical and moral
implications of such interventions.

Refrences:

1."All According to Plan". Human Rights Watch. 17 August 2013. Archived from the original on 19 July 2015. Retrieved 15
December 2023.

2.Holland, Matthew F. (July 11, 1996). America and Egypt: From Roosevelt to Eisenhower. Praeger. p. 27.

3. 3.Williams, Timothy; Sharon Otterman (15 December 2008). "Shoe-Hurling Iraqi Becomes a Folk Hero". The New York Times.
Archived from the original on 12 December 2014. Retrieved 14 December 2023.