OIL GAMES: SMART POLITICS OR HYPOCRISY?

It is not an exaggeration to say that the prosperity of the Middle East is built on its oil fields. Like many other resource rich regions, oil has been a curse for the many states, civilians, and non-state actors that have operated in the region as well. While oil has helped infinitely in the development of some states in the region, it has also been at the crux of many wars and power games. All actors in the Middle East and North Africa, whether states or otherwise, are acutely aware of this paradigm. While environmentalism might have resurged in the 21st century, renewable resources have still not taken precedence over oil as the primary source of fuel in the world. This is especially important since Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) states hold the mantle of being the custodians of the world’s energy supply. However, along with upholding this mantle the major oil dispensers in the middle east also have the honour of being at the epicentre of the world's most dubious power politics.

Shrouded in duplicity, Saudi Arabia has been in the limelight for its vast reserves of oil since its discovery of the commodity. Being the world’s largest exporter of oil obviously serves its purpose, both beneficial and sometimes detrimental to the country. The country might have partaken in the oil embargos of 1967 and 73 in an attempt to influence and constrain the US support for Israel along with other Arab oil exporters. However, while discussions around oil often concern the economic and interstate politics, recent instances have shown that involvement of non-state actors into oil politics has actually been detrimental to the countries involved. The bombings the kingdoms oil facilities brought oil to the centre stage, once again highlighting the connection of non-state actors surrounding oil politics in the MENA region. 

Instances such as these only emphasize the point that oil seems to be shaping almost all interactions in the region in some way, shape or form. Destroying oil reserves, on the backs of which the Saudi state is built, is an emotionally and politically charged move by the culprits, the Houthis in Yemen. Targeting oil becomes a “legitimate and natural response” in the words of a Houthi spokesperson; therefore, entailing the destruction of half of the Kingdoms oil output for their “aggression and blockade of Yemen". By targeting Saudis main source of revenue and the backbone of the world's oil supply, the Houthis leveraged their position against the Kingdom, a clear declaration of the lengths they would go to, to stop the war in Yemen.

​

 The “Leader of the free world” has no less a role to play in all the dirty politics surrounding this nation and the other major oil powers. Since oil was discovered in the Middle East, the US has not only supported but also protected its key suppliers in the region. Before the 1979 revolution of Iran the US was its key benefactor, going so far as to overthrow the Mossadegh government which had nationalized the oil industry in Iran. It then installed the Shah Pahlavi who vehemently sided with the US and was perceived by his own country as a US backed puppet. Though this dictatorial ruler was despised by the entire nation, the world's greatest democracy was his continuous support. The US has always, in serving its own interests supported dictator after dictator while simultaneously compromising the apparent values of the Liberal World Order.

This hypocrisy doesn't lie in the past though. The world knows of the current US-Saudi relationship. Saudi has for long piggy backed on US support seeing that the US has turned a blind eye to most of the atrocities committed by the kingdom. For decades the kingdom has followed its own “code of conduct” with very little backlash from America, its biggest beneficiary. One would not be hard pressed to speculate that this is wholly due to Saudi being the largest importer of arms in the world, most of it originating from American markets. Maybe “America first” actually translates to “Our business and money over your human rights”. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a living example of all that is wrong with the world, where they prohibit a few religions, permit slavery, subjugate women, arrest clerics and princes without warning and imprison feminists for treason. Still the US chooses to look the other way. Even the murder of Jamal Kashoggi a liberal journalist could not deter America’s vehement support for the country. 

State and non-state actors are, in the end, motivated by their own selfish interests of power accumulation. In the middle east no resource can signify the power and strategic might of the owner better than oil. Therefore, alliances are fickle and loyalties fluid. It is not only alliances between states that manifest itself in the middle east but also alliances of convenience between state and non- state actors are a dime a dozen in the region. Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group with significant presence in Lebanon’s governing structures, has been trying to secure a disputed territory between Israel and Lebanon. Hezbollah Secretary General Nasrallah’s caustic rhetoric in light of the event poses Israel as an existential threat to Hezbollah. In lieu of Israel's continuous infringement into the oil fields he issued a statement saying, “prevent us, we will prevent you; if you open fire at us, we will open fire at you."  In reality, Hezbollah's strong response stem from fears of losing crucial oil reserves that help the group solidify control off the coast of the above-mentioned territory. Therefore, can Hezbollah be blamed for the threats or is Israel the real culprit through infringement? In the end, so much of power politics revolves around the blame game, where questions of morality have no seat at the table.

In Libya, the national chessboard is dominated by Field Marshal Haftars’s Libyan National Army (LNA), a non-state actor that has systematically taken control of oil fields in the country’s south. Ever the strategist, Haftar has left the operation and management of the oil fields to the National Oil Corporation, a state-run organ, positioning himself as a reasonable leader who could look beyond the economic incentives of oil profits and towards the restoration of order. Oil revenues in Libya, as in with ISIS, have helped other militias and terrorist establish sound financial groundwork while they pursue their greater goals. Therefore, the takeover of oil fields and the handover of administration to the NOC has also helped strengthen Haftar’s narrative that he is Libya’s bulwark against terrorism. In doing so it has emboldened the LNA and Haftar and has contributed to the group’s rising confidence as they marched towards Tripoli.

On another front while the ISIS has been neutralized in the region, the ability of the organization to gain the strength that it did was largely based on whether they were able to fund their grand mission in building a Caliphate. ISIS soldiers would frequently capture new terrain and seize all oil assets, as they did in Raqqa and Mosul, and establish a monopoly on the extraction of oil. A vast market for unrefined black-market petroleum that has long existed across the borders in Turkey ensured that they had a constant stream of revenue. Black gold bought the terrorist organization a varied paraphernalia of weaponry, funded their propaganda campaigns and helped create an Islamic State. Ironically, the lucrativity of oil is perhaps one of the few reasons why ISIS was able to go beyond the typically adverse relationship state and non-state actors share. ISIS at its peak sold one million dollars’ worth of oil to the Syrian regime every day, making it one of their biggest profit sources. In this peculiar instance it is clear that if there is one factor that the regional actors can agree on is how valuable a commodity oil is for all of them. 

However, this is where one truly starts to understand the dynamics in the region. Different types of power play are not unknown to any region in the world let alone the middle east. And at the peak of its manipulation lies one key conception, that of Hypocrisy. These powers utilize the resources and any other leveraging point according to their own whims and fancies. While criticising one actor of exploitation or abuse they support another in similar scenarios. Syria and their indirect support for the ISIS through this illegal oil trade is not devoid of the same connotation, where on the one hand the government pronounced that it was fighting the extremist group, on the other, it was actually indirectly the groups largest source of revenue. Russia’s silence on these Syrian activities clubbed with the Iranian government's continuing support for the Houthis heightens the fact that in pursuit of a state’s motives they are prepared to use any means possible. And in a region such as the MENA where there are so many different powers, both regional and international, the complexity of these actions and motives only increases.

The fight for control over oil and energy thus only multiplies where the web of actors involved every year get more complicated in the Middle East. However, one thing is certain; most state goals in the middle east centre around the pursuit of oil and energy. Therefore, hypocrisy through energy politics can serve as a crucial lens to better understand all interactions in the area. Much like a carefully choreographed game, state and non- state actors interact with each other in deliberate ways to either encourage or curb certain actions. At times this means that state and non-state actors engage in the most unexpected and seemingly unholy of collaboration as in the case of ISIS and Syria. Thus, the complexities of the Middle East and North Africa are too many as almost all actors are intricately intertwined in their dealings with each other. However, if there is one factor that influences almost all of their engagements it is oil. One could say, it is not the Middle East that shapes the oil but the oil that shapes the Middle East.

​

Zeus Hans Mendez
Associate Editor

Centre For Middle East Studies

​