The Persian Gulf regional system emerged in the early 1970s when the British withdrew from the protectorate to Persia. I pointed out that the hostility of natives of the Gulf was not the reason why the British army withdrew from Persia. As a matter of fact, the presence of the British army in the protectorate did not spark rebellions. Hostility from the people would have been the biggest threat to expel the British army from the protectorate, but that was not the case. However, the excerpt states clearly that the pressure that the British military should have left the Gulf came from within the British government.
I was particularly impressed by the internal political pressure that came from within the British government and which prompted it to withdraw its forces from the protectorate. It was obvious that the British taxpayers would get tired of shouldering all the military expenses in the protectorate with no considerable gain. The political pressure that has been built within the Labor Party during the regime of Prime Minister Harold Wilson compelled government forces out of the protectorate.
The control of the Gulf area, including South Arabia and the Crown Colony by London, was the biggest hindrance to the emergence of the Gulf regional system. In my opinion, the foreign influence of British troops hindered local development in the region since most self-proclaimed local leaders were answerable to the troops, and hence they could not make their own rational decisions.
Though the excerpt was not particularly clear about other reasons that could have prompted the withdrawal of British military personnel from the Gulf area, the most outstanding reason was pressure on behalf of British taxpayers.
The author of the excerpt succeeded in helping me understand why taxpayers’ influence was strong enough to force British troops out of the protectorate. He clearly states how parliamentarians from the Labor Party brought forth motions against the British military entering the region. Their main claim was that the British economy could no longer sustain its expenditure on the protectorate. He further notes that the British government had to seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund as it cut down its expenditure considerably.
In my opinion, British withdrawal from the protectorate was not an economically-instigated move, but it came as a result of political pressure. This took place because the operations had been going on in the previous government until the regime of Prime Minister Harold Wilson. If the withdrawal really was as a result of economic reasons, it would have happened during the regime of the previous government.
However, the fact that the withdrawal happened during political unrest in Britain clearly indicates that it was politically instigated. The Gulf eventually remained independent but not without unrest caused by a number of struggles from its neighboring nations.
In my opinion, the 1968 coup in Iraq that brought Saddam Hussein to power and the sudden inferiority of the local leaders within the Gulf did not just destabilize the regional system but also derailed its economic progression. The political supremacy battle between Iraq and Iran over the waterway deterred economic growth in the region since oil tankers could no longer move freely on the waterway unless with a military escort. During the turmoil, the United States of America was better positioned to take over power after Britain, but apparently, Washington was not prepared to take up the burden. However, I do not quite understand why the USA had to deal with its long time allies, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, to cooperate on the security concerns of the Gulf.