This historiographical essay aims to explore the history of relations between the US and the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which include such states as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Oman, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain. This particular topic is important in addressing the role of the US in the development of the GCC countries and their decision to create a Cooperation Council. Moreover, the impact of the GCC states on the ties between the US and other Arab countries is also a significant sphere of research that can be viewed through the existing literature. The studies concerned with the US-GCC relations focus on several interpretive problems. First of all, the role of oil as the primary driver of the described relationships cannot be overstated. Both the US and the separate GCC countries made or attempted to make oil the primary product of leverage in their relations.
We will write a custom Research Paper on United States-Gulf Relations in History specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Second, the diplomatic ties between the nations are also often addressed by the Gulf literature, as the interest of the US in the relations with the Persian Gulf is an integral part of its foreign politics. The transition from an imperial order of the UK to a similar influence of the US also often becomes a topic of debate. Thus, the research of the political and economic sides of the countries’ relationship is also a focus of many authors’ works. The existing literature can be divided into several categories. The policy-oriented scholarship does not feature information about the Gulf states that is irrelevant to their importance to the US. However, some authors mentioned below address the features of these countries that go beyond such descriptions. For a long time, the perspective concentrated on the US as the central part of the US-Gulf relations remained the main source of knowledge. Although recent scholarship features various unbiased viewpoints, the imbalance between perspectives remains apparent.
The current studies of the separate countries fill the gap of knowledge that was apparent in some earlier writings. However, some aspects of the countries’ relations still seem underdeveloped, which may be considered a limitation of the GCC literature. For instance, some of the countries of the Persian Gulf have a long history of relations with the UK rather than the US, which prompts many scholars to focus on the analysis of this topic instead. However, the scope of research about US-GCC relations is broad and substantial.
Categories of Scholarship
The existing scholarship about the US and the GCC reviews different sides of the states’ relations. Starting from the earliest mentions of the Middle Eastern countries, scholars were fascinated with different aspects of the relationship that gradually formed between the US and the nations of the Persian Gulf. The history of these writings presents an interesting picture of the changes that followed the countries’ interaction. For example, the contribution to the historical category of research is seen mostly in present works. These studies are concerned with the development of separate countries and their connection to each other and the US. In these books and articles, the history of political relations is not researched to present the economic state of the countries but to address the underlying tones that influenced the affairs of the nations.
The description of the earliest political and economic relations from the historical point of view can be seen in the works of Oren, where he tracks the history of the US and the countries of the Middle East from 1776 – the year when the United States of America was founded1 Thus, one can see the full scope of relations between these two entities. In this book, Oren looks at the presence of American views and politics in other cultures through the lens of three concepts: power, faith, and fantasy. This book was written in 2007, and it featured an interpretation of the relationship between the US and Israel, including the foreign policy of President Bush. Here, the history of the countries was analyzed with the use of many sources, which came from different periods and authors. The level of research was also complemented by a discussion of the studied themes through the three concepts mentioned above. The history of relations between the US and the GCC countries was displayed with a metaphorical description of some core values of the nations.
The relations between the countries, as well as their internal ties, became more researched with time. After the world suffered from two wars, international relations, in general, became more widely discussed by scholars as to the need for political unity and economic support rose. However, the scope of knowledge was still limited for many people. For example, an article by Harary attempted to investigate the internal relations of the Middle East and see how they affected other areas of the world, including the US.2 However, his grouping of the territories indicated the level of interest in the countries, as he defined Egypt and “the other Arab countries” in his comparison and his view of the global situation did not expand to outlining the individual states in more detail3 Moreover, the portrayal of the situation was also limited by the fact that the author focused on the idea of conflict resolution and did not consider other sides of the states’ relationship.
Although recent historical scholarship became more concerned with the factors of the GCC countries that did not relate to oil production, the extent of the economic and political research significantly outweighs this segment of literature. Moreover, the description of the countries ties mostly uses historical research to create a framework for further discussion of the primary topic, namely politics, and not to present the countries’ history as a separate matter. While the contribution of historians to the scholarship is substantial, the proportion of it dims in comparison to political and economic studies. Moreover, the chronological organization of many works is utilized by authors who want to show the progression of the economic and political ties of the states. The next parts of the paper discuss the scholarship concerned with the economic and political sides of the countries’ interaction.
Economics and Political Science
The issue of oil production prompted many authors to focus on the economic side of the relationship. Some early works about the influence of oil affected the authors’ views on the countries’ ties. While many contemporary writings try to investigate the relations between the US and the Persian Gulf states from the very first day of the countries’ coexistence, old articles and books were written with different topics in mind. These works focused more on the relations of countries outside the US, as its power had not been established yet. The world was more interested in discussing wars and issues related to them. The point at which relations between America and the nations of the Persian Gulf started to attract the attention of scholars happened at the beginning of the twentieth century when the US began to participate in world conflicts and generated a consistent need for imported resources.
Many writings suggest that the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, for instance, was based on the fact that this Eastern country became one of the leading suppliers of oil for the US. The search for oil in Saudi Arabia became a turning point in this relationship. One of the earlier books, Petroleum, and American Foreign Policy, examined this theme specifically.4 The author of this work, Feis, contributed to the development of the oil policy in the US. He shared his anxieties connected to the process of development of oil production, which was encouraged by the American government. The desire to build new pipes, which would allow the oil from the Middle East to be transported to the US, raised several issues. Feis’ primary concern was the possibility of losing current peaceful relations with other countries due to the unstable position of the industry and “disputes over oil.”5 Thus, one can see that scholars during that time researched the topic of oil trade and considered the conflicts of the Middle East to be a serious matter that could significantly affect world history.
The author is American. Thus, he could view the relationship between these two countries from one side. Moreover, Feis did not attempt to distance himself from being political in this work and, therefore, he described his position towards this topic, instead of presenting research exclusively. Many older documents showed a bias towards the American government and it is possible that the global focus of the American administration influenced other writers as well. While some think tanks had some openly stated missions and values, other works remained biased due to the lack of information and recent development in this field of academia. Feis was also apprehensive of the fact that this operation would put the American government in “the center of all Middle Eastern political affairs.”6
This phrase shows the attitude of the writers of that time towards the desire of the country to participate in the political affairs of other nations. The course of the US to consider political and economic relations as a single issue led to scholars describing these distinct topics as one. Economic relations were not seen as separate from the political ones, and one sphere of relations could only be affected by the other. Thus, economic relations were not possible without any political involvement in the eyes of some scholars.
After the 1950s, more research on the relationship between the US and the Middle East appeared. However, the countries of the latter region stayed undefined. The only name was still “the Middle East,” and scholars considered the political and economic relations from the US side. While studies of the culture of separate countries had their place in the scientific world, within the sphere of political and economic research, these states were individual entities. Thus, the study of relations between the US and the Middle East focused on the same number of topics. The relationship between these two territories was, again, restricted to oil production. One can look at the existing scholarship that explores the relations between the US and separate countries of the Gulf as well. The primary focus of the following analysis is the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US.
KSA and the US
In the 1970s, some scholars started writing about the place of Saudi Arabia in international politics, while other countries of the Gulf began to gain independence. These studies were concerned with the economic side of these relationships. However, some of them negatively viewed the differences in cultures that were apparent between the states. For instance, an article by Sullivan described Saudi Arabia as “lacking power” and “encumbered with a xenophobic religion” before discussing the political potential of the country7 Such a description did not allow the author to thoroughly investigate the progression of the relations. It is possible that the period of the research limited the author’s knowledge.
The authors’ notes at the end of the article made some of his claims rather questionable, as he often suggested that his statements were not adequately supported by evidence. Such phrases as “but logic suggests it” showed that not all information of the author could be trusted8 Moreover, the decision of the country’s government to pursue political collaboration with other nations was seen by the author as an outcome of finding oil – a resource that could be traded. The country was seen as a source of oil for other nations by most researchers. It was not untrue, as the relations between the US and KSA started to strengthen based on the former having an increasing oil demand. However, scholars viewed this collaboration through the lens of cultural differences as they considered Saudi Arabia a weak member of international politics.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
The research of foreign affairs became more detailed as scholars focused on interpreting and exploring the policies that the US and KSA created to trade with each other. However, the focus of scholars on Persian Gulf oil as the only interest of the US remained unchanged in later works. The conflict of interests that happened between the two countries in 1973 attracted the attention of researchers and can be seen in the works from that period. Thus, scholars started devoting more time to investigating the cultural and historical bases for this development in the relationship. The focus on the future also became more discussed because of this situation. The oil crisis enabled scholars to speculate about the potential development of international politics and gave Saudi Arabia more exposure.
Several later scholarly works attempted to interpret the oil crisis of 1973 caused by the proclamation of the oil embargo. Some authors argued that the importance of such “oil shocks” could have been overstated. For instance, Kilian stated that later oil crises did not offer data that would support the claim that inflation and prices on oil were significantly affected by such conflicts.9 This analysis was based on the historical research of oil prices and official declassified documents. The framework of this article was to present statistical data and calculations to create a viable argument. The author presented a strong case and discussed several previous researchers, disproving their validity10 The use of government publications and scholarly resources further supported the author’s claims.
The study of the embargo as a process of communication was offered by Graf, who viewed the oil crisis from a different point of view.11 In this article, the author was concerned with the concept of making oil a weapon and leverage to affect different aspects of the countries’ relationship. This approach to the conflict could be considered as unique as the crisis itself was not viewed through the notions of success and failure. Instead, the author focused on the process of negotiation and portrayed the conversation of countries regarding the embargo and their desire to establish its purpose and legitimacy. Here, the development of scholarly works allowed the author to focus on unique approaches and analyze the conflict from a different side. Moreover, different purposes of the embargo were also taken into account, while earlier works mostly focused on the political side of pressuring countries into agreeing to certain terms of the ongoing military conflict.
The scope of studies that explored the relations between the US and Saudi Arabia regarding the oil policy of these nations shows that it is possibly the most researched topic among the GCC scholarship. America’s partnership with the KSA and its effect on the Gulf region is explored from different points of view. While the studies note the complexity and instability of these relations, they differ in their interpretation of the narratives12 However, the primary sources of these works usually leave little room for doubt as they offer an extensive description of the historical events along with the discussion of the recurring themes. For instance, Bronson argues that the simplistic interpretation of the US-KSA relations as the exchange of oil for security ignores a significant amount of effort that went into the process of maintaining the ties between the two nations.13 Here, each aspect of history is taken into consideration to paint a bigger picture and display the details of the relationships’ progression.
The issue of the US foreign policy is also studied in the work of Miller, who examined different stages of the US-KSA relations and focuses not only on the economy but also on the political side of the cooperation14 Thus, the military support and the provision of the Gulf country during the major conflicts were incorporated into the discussion to show that the countries’ mutual interests often changed the course of their actions. Citino offered a different interpretation of the relations, instead of focusing on the transition from the British to the American type of cooperation and investigating the relationship between the nations’ rulers and their interactions15 The issue of one imperial order being replaced by another was seen as a way to place the interests of the US in the territory, where Britain had more power before. This study used official records and documents to make a valid argument and explain the place of global politics in the countries’ relations.
The theme of empire and its effect on the Gulf was also discussed in the works of O’Reilly and Davis, who explored the American and British interests in the area. O’Reilly, for instance, argued that both sides did not want their competitor to gain full economic control of the region and “each side though of other insincere.”16 Furthermore, the US admitted that Saudi Arabia played a prominent role in the economic prosperity of the Western country. The author noted that the British side lost its power as it was unable to fund the region in the same way as the US. Davis also highlighted the competitive nature of the US-UK interests in the Gulf. The author pointed out that the two empires were also interested in promoting their different ideologies.17 The work of Davis polarized the two countries and exaggerated the arguments.
Most of these works focused on the dynamics and changes in the policies of the two countries. Anderson, for instance, examined the changes in the foreign oil policy by reconstructing the timeline of a short but eventful period from 1933 to 195018 In this case, the author used various official sources to create a narrative about the influence of the US and its interest in the KSA’s resources along with their mutual considerations of safety and military cooperation. The interpretation of the political and economic relations with the focus on the American agenda is shown in the work of Vitalis who attempted to disprove the myths surrounding the US-KSA relations. The concept of “oil for security” that was mentioned by previous scholars became the main focus of the author’s discussion in this work as well19 Thus, many recent authors tried to give a more detailed explanation of the decisions that were made by the two countries regarding not only the oil embargo but also their political interests.
Saudi Arabia and the US have had an established relationship earlier than most countries of the Persian Gulf. Indeed, these states began developing relations other than oil trade before some of the other nations had even gained independence. Therefore, many scholars outlined Saudi Arabia as the country of interest, discussing extensively the strategy of the US in this territory. As earlier studies estimated, the significance of oil from Saudi Arabia grew exponentially. Military aid was also the topic of discussion, as many crises involved Saudi Arabia and the US. The relations between these countries were strengthened even more because of the events of the Gulf War. Later works discussed the creation of a very strong bond between these states and envisioned future relations from a positive standpoint. For example, Hart called this relationship a “security partnership” and believed that the actions of both countries during the Gulf War could be considered an example of an international partnership that successfully dealt with military conflicts.20 The ideas of the author were based on several scholarly sources as well as his personal experience working as the US diplomat. Thus, this book could have some information that would not be accessible to other researchers otherwise. The stability of this relationship was supported by other scholars as well.
At the start of the twenty-first century, the relations between the US and Saudi Arabia were compromised by the September 11 attacks, which significantly altered the dynamic between the two countries. The supposed presence of Saudi residents among those that participated in the attacks raised international tensions and discouraged the US residents from maintaining the same level of interaction with Saudi businesses. According to Cordesman, these attacks deeply embarrassed the Saudi government and put pressure on the country’s representatives21 The author supported all information, including this statement, with scholarly resources and working papers from conferences. The book’s extensive source material could suggest the viability of the author’s claims. The representation of Saudi Arabia as an ally was significantly complicated and studies of the countries’ relations now did not offer the same positive outlooks as before. Political tensions continued to grow in the following years as both countries were affected by the outcome of the attacks.
Moreover, the opinion of the general public gained more significance during this period. As Pollack pointed out, the media played a prominent role in the formation of the public’s opinion, which in turn significantly affected both sides.22 Scholars of this period focused on questions connected to these attacks and their possible repercussions. According to Pollack, the history of these two countries could be studied to determine future outcomes23 The author argued that this conflict highlighted the differences between the two countries, and the issues that had been neglected by researchers before were starting to concern them. Such topics as religion and culture started to become integral to any description of the relationship between the US and the KSA.
The history of relations between Saudi Arabia and the US became the center of the GCC discussion for a reason. The role of the US in every GCC country’s development was significant, but Saudi Arabia remained one of its strongest allies. The challenges brought by international terrorism further complicated the place of the US in the development of the Gulf region. In one of his works, Niblock argued that Saudi Arabia balanced many rules and regulations imposed by other countries while trying to preserve its culture and establish its place as a leader of the Gulf region.24 According to this author, the influence of the US expanded to the political and economic systems and had both negative and positive effects on progress, as the states in the Gulf had different interests and concerns. Furthermore, Niblock questioned the importance of the US as the main possible place of interest for the KSA, pointing out that it was rather difficult for the latter to preserve its independence and cultural identity with the existing political and economic relations.
UAE and the US
The UAE was founded in 1971, which did not give the country much time to gain a significant history with the US before the creation of the GCC. However, one can find some works exploring US-Arab relations. Early on, the US placed its strategic priorities in other countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. The UAE, on the other hand, was only becoming a separate entity and had more history with the UK rather than the US. Therefore, this country was only briefly mentioned in the various texts that explored the potential of the surrounding territory or investigated the military activity in the region. The authors discussed the UAE in the context of the Arab Military-Industrial Organization (AMIO), which included such countries as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, stating that the financial support of this organization would be shared among these four countries25 As such, the political influence of this nation started becoming recognized by the texts. The interest of the US, again, was based on the country having oil. The size of the UAE territory was not as big, although its reserves of resources were rather large. Thus, the oil revenue became the main research focus for many authors.
The relationship between the US and the UAE was considered amicable by many researchers. During the years after the creation of the GCC, many scholars agreed that the UAE and the US became strong allies not only because of their economic ties but also because of the US’ involvement in the politics of the Gulf region. Their strategic relationship, for example, was strengthened in 1990 by the joining of military forces to combat the invasion of Kuwait.26 Later works delved deeper into the topic of relations between the two countries, analyzing and comparing their history and experiences. Economic relations were now intertwined with military, cultural, and political ones in the minds of scholars as they finally shifted their focus from oil and started to include other aspects of the countries’ collaboration in their studies.
While earlier works were mostly concerned with the influence of the oil industry, studies at the beginning of the twenty-first century expanded their range of research subjects. Such topics as culture, public relations, media environment, and the overall political situation became more important in the discussion about possible development in the affairs of the two countries27 As the nations’ concerns shifted towards political advancement and globalization, so did the topics of academic research. One could find more information about such relations in Congressional reports. For instance, a report by Katzman investigated the foreign policy of the UAE and outlined a range of issues that could potentially harm the relationship between the two countries.28 From this document, it becomes clear that while economic relations remained essential to both countries, other problems started to be more significant. Human rights, for example, concerned scholars and the public at the same time.
Oman and the US
Before the 1970s, Oman had limited interactions with other countries. Thus, its history with the US could not become a subject of research before these years. After this period, Oman started to explore its potential on the international political stage. However, its appearance in the literature was restricted to being considered a part of the Middle East. While some contemporary historians explored the history of the two countries and their relations, outlining that Oman had a system of trade with the US before its separation from the world of international politics, scholars of the 1970s did not pay much attention to this country.29 Thus, most of the research either grouped Oman with the rest of the Persian Gulf territories or did not mention it at all, which could be explained both by its small size and its recently acquired independence.
After Oman established itself as a separate political entity, scholars started to include it in their works. In 1986, Pridham presented a book that explored the country’s various aspects, including its political and economic relations with other states30 Furthermore, the author considered economic ties of Oman that were not based on oil production. The US and Oman deepened their connection through military, economic, and humanitarian support. Many works included Oman as a secondary participant in various conflicts that mostly involved the US, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. However, more works appeared that outlined its significance as a separate country. Scholars became interested in topics that had not concerned them before. For example, educational and cultural issues of Oman, and the influence of the US on these spheres of life, were discussed in various works.
The Dhofar revolution in Oman and its outcomes were also studied by some authors. As some authors argued, the political reality of this conflict was ignored to highlight the economic development which followed the change of the country’s ruler31 Although the success of the implemented changes was questionable, some alterations did bring positive results to the country’s economy. The book by Takriti notes that some political and economic opportunities for growth were missed due to the political pressures of the West32 For instance, the chance for democratization was overshadowed by the desire of the British to display the achievements of the country. This study shows the possible flaws in the relationship dynamic between the multiple nations.
Nonneman argued that Oman differed from other countries in the Gulf region because of its developed private business sector.33 This characteristic attracted scholars’ attention as it contributed to Oman’s economic changes. The author explored the economic development of the country. However, the focus shifted from oil distribution towards other parts of the market and various key stakeholders, including the private sector and the influence of the government. Moreover, the impact of other countries, especially the US, was also viewed in the context of economic reforms. Here, the process of oil production was mentioned to create a connection between the financial operations of different sectors. According to Nonneman, the influence of the US and its oil demand might have affected the role of the private sector in Oman.
Bahrain and the US
Bahrain shared a relationship pattern with the US similar to the one the US had with Oman. Although strategic ties between the two countries were established during the same year Bahrain gained independence, scholars did not pay much attention to the interaction between these countries. Several factors can explain this attitude. First of all, the focus on more prominent nations could be seen in the early works about the countries of the Persian Gulf. Secondly, the year when Bahrain declared its independence significantly changed the way the Persian Gulf territory was governed. Many countries became separate and strived to establish new economic relations. Thus, the attention of scholars was divided among the major countries and their struggles. Moreover, contemporary history views Bahrain differently as well, as it rapidly moved away from being an oil-centered state.34. Therefore, the point about oil production, which many researchers continuously brought up in their texts, was not applicable here. One should remember that this was a legal paper, which means that some material could be interpreted for use in a political setting.
The political and economic relations between the US and Bahrain were not studied as much as the relations of other countries due to Bahrain being a rather small and new country that was not centered on oil production. Thus, many aspects of economic relationships that were so interesting to scholars were not present here. However, some reports indicated that the US provided Bahrain with security measures, which positively affected their relationship. The interest of the US in Bahrain did attract the attention of some scholars. For instance, Joyce explored the political relations of the two countries and analyzed the place of the US in the Gulf country’s security, arguing that the political ties of the two states were largely based on military support35 Moreover, the countries signed a free trade agreement that further strengthened their bond36 However, the short history of Bahrain-US relations did not present much interest to older scholars possibly due to the issue of human rights and Bahrain’s relations with Iran.
Kuwait and the US
Kuwait falls under the category of countries that were explored by the US about the subject of possible oil production. Thus, scholars had a topic to work on, which generated several papers. The collaboration between these two countries was based on oil at the beginning. However, later interactions also included military and humanitarian support. The texts investigating these relations painted Kuwait as a somewhat affluent country with developing industries and vast potential for economic growth.37 It is necessary to note that this particular paper was written from a person that lived in Kuwait for some time. Therefore, its scholarly significance was controversial as the author spoke about personal perceptions and experiences rather than research. Moreover, the text of the article also included opinions of the author’s company and its workers. Although these factors could render the article untrustworthy, its contribution to the portrayal of Kuwait should not be underestimated as the amount of available scholarly research at that time was scarce.
The importance of oil in the early relationship between Kuwait and the US was often acknowledged to be part of the Anglo-American perspective.38 This view of the relationship did not perceive any significant disagreements between the two states, apart from their different instances on the issue of policies concerning Israel. The view of these relations by the author shows that the diplomatic relations between the two countries were considered viable and strong.
Trade and investment were often brought up as possible subjects for future research as well. However, Kuwait’s economy suffered a range of problems after its golden years which significantly damaged its place in the international arena. These issues brought more scholars into the discussion about the diplomatic relations between Kuwait and the US and their possible outcomes for the Middle Eastern country.
The liberation of Kuwait in 1991 intensified the strategic partnership between the two countries. Thus, the relationship between the US and Kuwait was primarily based on political and military support. The report describing the nature of these relationships called Kuwait “a staunch US ally,” outlining the collaboration that these countries shared with each other.39 However, the history of this nation shared a similar fate to the one of Bahrain as there were not many studies that explored these international relations in more detail.
Several works by Crystal analyzed Kuwait’s oil production and its connection to regional politics. The author investigated the history of the oil business in the country and also outlined the importance of the period when Kuwait became the center of a military conflict.40 During this period, the importance of the US as an ally increased significantly. Crystal pointed out that the relations between the two countries did not become amicable quickly as Kuwait’s government was wary of the growing US involvement in military action. Close ties with the US were not seen as favorable by the country’s public as well. However, according to Crystal, the political power of the country was rather limited in the global sense.
Later works by this author also looked at economic and political relations between the two countries. The process of transformation from a pre-oil to a post-oil economy, which Kuwait underwent in the twentieth century, was also investigated in these studies. While talking about Kuwait’s foreign policy, Crystal stated that at some point in time Kuwait was in diplomatic ties with the US while having strained relations with virtually every county of the Persian Gulf.41 This situation could affect the invasion of Kuwait.
The interest of Kuwait in its relationship with the US lay in the protection of the former from external forces, while the US was mostly concerned with oil production. The author noted that these relations would continue to influence the development of Kuwait. Moreover, Crystal pointed out the problems connected with the relations between these two countries, stating that both of them had difficulties understanding one another.42 For instance, the author suggested that the US could not adequately assess the democratic potential of the GCC country, while Kuwait misinterpreted the notion of stability as a continuity of the authoritarian regime.
Qatar and the US
The discovery of oil changed the political and economic influence of Qatar the same way as it did for other oil-rich countries in the Persian Gulf region. Qatar gained its independence at the same time as Bahrain, and its diplomatic relations were quickly established in the same period. The history of most countries of the Persian Gulf is very similar due to several factors. First of all, the countries shared access to the same range of resources, the primary one being oil. The need for oil was distributed between the counties according to their level of technological development, population, and quality of life. Thus, the establishment of relations between the US and Qatar was founded on a similar basis. The history of this relationship was not studied as a separate matter because its existence was not viewed as something distinguishable from other recent relations. Moreover, the history between the UK and Qatar also played a role in the political abilities of the latter.
Qatar-US relations strongly depended on the countries’ military alliance. According to a report for the US Congress, Qatar was a crucial participant in the fight against terrorism43 Otherwise, scholars have not addressed the relations of this country in detail. It is somewhat surprising that the history of the states and their potential for oil production did not interest scholars as much as before. Some works, however, addressed the economic relations between Qatar and the US. Crystal analyzed the change from an oil-based economy of Qatar towards a more diverse system.44 According to the author, Qatar’s pre-oil society was close to Kuwait’s one in many aspects. However, the changes brought by the discovery of oil affected these countries in different ways. The political relationship between Qatar and the US was also examined by the author. Crystal pointed out that although the states had some points in time where their relations were strained, their shared interests in the Gulf allowed them to create a stronger bond.
Formation of the GCC and Its Relations with the US
The formation of the cooperation between the countries of the Persian Gulf quickly became the topic of debate among scholars. Although the Gulf’s leaders gave several official reasons as to why the council had been formed, many researchers perceived the situation differently, analyzing the process of creation in connection with other events. Many authors distinguish between the known and unannounced reasons behind the GCC formation. For instance, the official statements outlined the need for cooperation as a natural progression of the region’s relations45 Moreover, the importance of unity in various fields was highlighted as well.46 The countries of the GCC stated that they established this institution to foster the growing progress in science and technology and respond to the increasing effects of globalization47
However, the history of the relations in the region suggested to the authors that there were more reasons behind the formation of the GCC. Some scholars noted that the issue of security could be considered the central motivation for cooperation48 For some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, it meant protection of their resources and the stable representation of their interests in the area. For others, such as Kuwait, it meant a certain level of protection from invasion. Thus, a threat to the countries’ security prompted them to unite.
The most notable issues that the Persian Gulf region had at the time were the Iran-Iraq war and the Iranian revolution. The first of these two problems could lead to the war being spread out across the countries of the Persian Gulf or threatening to affect the countries’ alignment in the conflict49 The debate surrounding this reason suggested that the fear of this conflict might have become a catalyst for the creation of the council. Other concerns included the possible challenges brought by the Iranian revolution such as the ambition of Iran to spread its influence to the region and the US-Iran relations and the US interest in the oil resources of the Persian Gulf. The last reason especially affected the relationships between the US and the GCC, as the Western country became a valuable supporter of the region through military and diplomatic aid.50
Although scholars could not receive this information from the participants of the GCC themselves, their analysis of the situation involved various observations that allowed them to come to these conclusions. Thus, the accounts of the GCC origins became another topic of discussion in the sphere of the countries’ political relations. The politics surrounding the decisions of the US regarding the conflicts mentioned above often became part of the scholarship. Moreover, the main concerns of the US also involved the Arab-Israeli struggle, which affected all countries of the region.51 The desire to ensure peace in the area was directly connected to the country’s interest in its resources52 The history of relations between the GCC countries and the US after the establishment of the council has been much more studied than all previous agreements. The countries of the Gulf started to grow their separate economies after acquiring independence, which allowed scholars to direct their attention to particular regions.
Furthermore, the US, along with the other countries around the world, began to look into other sides of this relationship, including cultural and political aspects. Scholars became more interested in countries’ views on human rights, diplomacy, and education. Khalil pointed out that Middle East studies were diversifying at that time due to the new movements in academia.53 However, several research limitations prevented scholars from being able to pay more attention to certain topics. Also, the lack of funding stopped many researchers and resulted in fewer studies. The research offered by this work was rather extensive and detailed as it used many publications and works from different periods. The author provided readers with an extensive amount of sources and data. The history of some facts was supported by evidence, and the information about new concepts was explained as well.
Some scholars continued to group countries while exploring their connections to the US. Moreover, some researchers still followed the notion of Orientalism, believing that the nature of GCC countries was unchangeable54 Such studies focused on the prospects of future political relations and were mostly concerned with the primary product that the Persian Gulf countries supplied – oil. For instance, the report by Kaplan discussed the possible implications of such relations and evaluated how the growing role of export would change the face of the world economy55 This paper also covered the place of the Persian Gulf countries in the sphere of international trade and addressed the financial side of these countries’ relationships. While discussing these topics, the author focused on the future by analyzing the current situation. This trend would become the most prominent for scholars as the relations between countries grew from being merely economic.
The creation of the GCC also inspired some studies that investigated the potential of the new organization to influence its members, as well as the main partner countries. Gawlik, for instance, argued that the US did not choose the best strategy of working with the Gulf countries, basing his statements on historical and geographical analyses.56 While the concern of the author was focused on oil and its production, he examined various parts of the countries’ systems to provide more information. This dissertation offered an analysis of many previous works on the topic and grouped these texts to investigate various systems in one paper. Interestingly, the process of globalization affected the way scholars and researchers viewed the issue of international relations. While older works observed other countries as different, they mostly focused on the country of their citizenship and its ability to gain profit. Newer research, however, changed its course, analyzing various aspects of all nations and perceiving international relations as a complex system of social, economic, and political interactions.
The growing interest in the countries of the GCC also resulted in several works that analyzed Gulf countries’ foreign policies from their establishment to the present times. The studies of Osamah F. Khalil, for instance, explored the politics of the US and the GCC in the twentieth century. The author argued that US foreign policy, which was focused on the GCC-US relations, brought many scholarly works to the light.57 Khalil was interested in the region’s shift of dominating power. As the influence of the US on the region rose, it became clear that America saw the formation of the GCC as a way to mitigate conflicts in the Gulf. Its foreign policy was centered on establishing its place as an empire in the Gulf.58
Khalil also outlined several research movements, such as Orientalism and modernization theory. The latter was concerned with change, stating that economic and political reforms were interconnected. These theorists considered the US to be the prime example of a developed nation and believed that all other countries could benefit from establishing relations with it.59 The sources for this movement could be interesting to contrast with the one of the modernization theory as their historical background could explain the reasons behind some statements. Moreover, the US government institutions also affected the scope of research as they promoted the studies of the Middle East. Thus, more and more works started to appear, and the history of the US-GCC relations gained more exposure.
Gause, for instance, focused on the region’s affairs about the three international wars – the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War, and the Iraq War.60 This particular work offered an interesting perspective on the relationship between the countries as is shifted the focus away from the oil production to politics, which rarely happened in early scholarly publications. While the emphasis on military conflicts did not place the GCC countries in the middle of the discussion, the scope of these wars affected the whole region. In this work, the author stated that the US could be considered a part of the Gulf’s security system as the country played a prominent role in every military conflict in the region.
Moreover, the history of these involvements was studied by Gause to show that Western influence changed the course of actions during the Gulf war and affected the way the power in the region was distributed. The author attempted to show the place of the US in the Gulf region’s entrance into the twenty-first century. Interestingly, Gause argued that the influence of the US on the countries of the Gulf was never absolute. Furthermore, even states such as Saudi Arabia, whose relations with the US were amicable on most occasions, did not succumb to US influence completely, enforcing its policies and decisions.
The role of the Gulf countries in the twentieth century was also analyzed by Heard-Bey, who chose to compare the state of the region before and after the establishment of its foreign relations61 Here, the emphasis on oil was viewed as necessary, and the author argued that countries of the Gulf region became associated with the word “crisis,” which was mostly concerned with economic events such as the “oil crisis” or “Gulf crisis.”62 Moreover, Heard-Bey made an interesting point, stating that although the place of the GCC countries in world economics and politics was increasingly significant in the twentieth century, the population of this region was reduced to being spectators to events. Therefore, more recent studies started to investigate the roles of people in the countries as opposed to the examination of governmental structures as the only key participants. Again, the history of the region in this study was analyzed to assess the role of this area in twentieth-century world politics.
Some authors aimed to evaluate the possibility of democratization of the Gulf. Crystal, for example, noted that political changes in the Gulf region were one of the goals of American foreign policy.63 Therefore, the influence of this country was centered on pressuring nations of the GCC to implement political reforms. The author also pointed out the interpretation of various changes that were introduced in the GCC countries, saying that the discrepancy between the perceptions of the government and academia was significant. The reasons behind this issue were explored by the author, who also proposed several possible ways to solve this problem. Here, the political relations between the US and the GCC were highlighted as opposed to their economic ties64
Current State of Scholarship
The growing independence of the GCC countries influences their relations with the US. Moreover, their partnership with other countries also changes continuously. Currently, scholars focus more on the nations of the Persian Gulf, giving attention to the perspective of these states and exploring the possible future progression of existing partnerships.65 The research in these works is more in-depth than before as it considers various historic and cultural aspects of all countries. Moreover, the sources of information become more authoritative and broad as authors no longer base their ideas on personal observations, instead of focusing on existing literature and research. The presentation of the studied material is also different as it offers a more distanced and analytical view. The production of oil, while still significant, is not the major topic of debate. The history of oil development becomes a part of a broader discussion. Many authors focus on the themes of peace and conflict, nuclear disarmament, and global trade. Moreover, ethical questions continue to be researched. The political change in the Gulf region also creates an interesting topic, where scholars attempt to investigate the geopolitical outcomes of the Middle East uprisings.
Several books attempt to explain the international relationships of the US, giving various reasons for the decisions that the country’s government once made66 Although these works center on one state, the authors try to avoid making biased statements and support their observations using many historical sources.67 The concept of explaining a past event has become a more popular way of predicting the future and assessing the present. The political and socio-cultural evaluation of relations is more researched now because of the growing role of globalization. The evolution of ties becomes a more prominent theme in many works, as all countries now have separate relations with the US while being engaged in the world of international politics.
The place of the GCC countries in current international affairs is also investigated by many authors. For instance, Ulrichsen talks about insecurities that surround the GCC countries as they transition from oil to post-oil economies.68 Here, the history of the Gulf region is taken into consideration to assess the current situation in the area. Moreover, some predictions for the future are also offered by the author. The political side of the argument is studied as deeply as the economic one. Furthermore, environmental concerns are also outlined, which is a new sphere of discussion brought by globalization. In this text, the relationship between the US and the GCC countries is seen as a part of a general debate about national security and political economy. The topics are no longer separate from each other. Finally, the place of the US in the Gulf’s development is not over-riding and one-sided.
The discussions about the future also describe the GCC countries and their history to make viable predictions. In this context, the states have their traits that are outlined by the authors to create a full picture.69 The changing political and economic relations are taken into consideration. However, the role of the US in these texts is different as it is not as positive as in previous works. Here, the possibility of democratization or economic liberalization is viewed from the perspective of the GCC countries and the history of their political structure. The reasons behind the resilience of authoritarianism are considered from all sides.
The current literature covers many aspects of the relations between the GCC countries and the US. However, while contemporary ties are heavily discussed, the most recent events concerning these countries have not been fully explored yet. Thus, one can attempt to gather more information on the conflicts that exist between the current US administration and leaders of the GCC countries. For example, the Qatar crisis that currently concerns most nations of the Persian Gulf, as well as the US, can be investigated through the countries’ historical relations70 While this conflict is somewhat recent, its events can be analyzed from a historical standpoint. The Trump administration and its statements directed towards the situation in the Persian Gulf region is a viable topic as well.
Alternatively, one can focus on searching through the history of the countries to describe possible future events or provide some new details about the states that have gained independence recently. Although the portion of the historical scholarship continues to grow, its existence is still overshadowed by the economic side of the debate. Specifically, devoting more attention to the nations that were not researched as much before can provide a rich topic for a study. The gaps in literature exist, although the history of the US-KSA relations is researched fairly well. The lack of primary-source based scholarship about the relations with the other Gulf counties can be considered a gap in existing research. The political and economic ties between some countries do not have enough structured information and analysis.
For instance, one can investigate such unexplored issues as the development of relations between the US and Qatar, Bahrain, or Kuwait. Some authors believe that political and economic ties between Oman and the US are understudied as well. The history of economic relations between these countries is examined by some authors. However, many of the works are outdated or somewhat biased, as was mentioned before. Moreover, the current relationship between these countries and the US can also be studied in more detail. All in all, the GCC countries are at the center of various research projects and their history is being investigated from different angles. The examination of changes that happened and continue to happen in the twenty-first century provides many viable topics for future research.
Al-Rasheed, Madawi, and Robert Vitalis, eds. Counter-Narratives: History, Contemporary Society, and Politics in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. New York: Springer, 2004.
Anderson Jr, Irvine H. Aramco, the United States, and Saudi Arabia: A Study of the Dynamics of Foreign Oil Policy, 1933-1950. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014.
Badran, Badran A., Judy VanSlyke Turk, and Timothy N. Walters. “Sharing the Transformation: Public Relations and the UAE Come of Age.” The Global Public Relations Handbook: Theory, Research, and Practice edited by Krishnamurthy Sriramesh and Dejan Verčič, 46-67. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.
Blanchard, Christopher M. Qatar: Background and US relations. New York: DIANE Publishing, 2011.
Bronson, Rachel. Thicker Than Oil: America’s Uneasy Partnership with Saudi Arabia. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Citino, Nathan J. From Arab Nationalism to OPEC: Eisenhower, King Saʻūd, and the Making of US-Saudi Relations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002.
Cordesman, Anthony H. Saudi Arabia Enters the Twenty-First Century: The Political, Foreign Policy, Economic, and Energy Dimensions. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003.
Crystal, Jill. Kuwait: The Transformation of an Oil State. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2016.
—. Oil and Politics in the Gulf: Rulers and Merchants in Kuwait and Qatar. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Davis, Simon. Contested Space: Anglo-American Relations in the Persian Gulf, 1939-1947. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009.
de Candole, E. A. V. “Developments in Kuwait.” Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society 42, no. 1 (1955): 21-29.
Fawcett, Louise. International Relations of the Middle East. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Feis, Herbert. Petroleum and American Foreign Policy. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1944.
Gambrell, Jon. “APNewsBreak: US Military Halts Exercises over Qatar Crisis.” New York Times, 2017. Web.
Gause III, F. Gregory. The International Relations of the Persian Gulf. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Gawlik, Joseph Anthony. “Persian Gulf Security: The United States and Oman, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and Western Allied Participation.” Ph.D. diss., Naval Postgraduate School, 1982.
Graf, Rüdiger. “Making Use of the “Oil Weapon”: Western Industrialized Countries and Arab Petropolitics in 1973–1974.” Diplomatic History 36, no. 1 (2012): 185-208.
Harary, Frank. “A Structural Analysis of the Situation in the Middle East in 1956.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 5, no. 2 (1961): 167-178.
Harper, Charles L., and Kevin T. Leicht. Exploring Social Change: America and the World. New York: Routledge, 2015.
Hart, Parker T. Saudi Arabia, and the United States: Birth of a Security Partnership. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998.
Heard-Bey, Frauke. “The Gulf in the 20th Century.” Asian Affairs 33, no. 1 (2002): 3-17.
Irani, Robert G.”US Strategic Interests in Iran and Saudi Arabia.” Journal of the US Army War College 7, no. 4 (1977): 21-34.
Joyce, Miriam. Bahrain from the Twentieth Century to the Arab Spring. New York: Springer, 2012.
Kuwait, 1945-1996: An Anglo-American Perspective. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Kaplan, Sanford S. “The Strategic Implications for US-Persian Gulf Relations on Domestic and Worldwide Oil Production for Future US Oil Demand.” Naval War College. 2017. Web.
Katzman, Kenneth. Kuwait: Security, Reform, and US Policy. New York: DIANE Publishing, 2011.
Bahrain: Reform, Security, and US Policy. New York: DIANE Publishing, 2010.
United Arab Emirates (UAE): Issues for US Policy. New York: DIANE Publishing, 2010.
Khalil, Osamah Feisal. America’s Dream Palace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016.
Kilian, Lutz. “Exogenous Oil Supply Shocks: How Big Are They And How Much Do They Matter for the US Economy?” The Review of Economics and Statistics 90, no. 2 (2008): 216-240.
Miller, Aaron David. Search for Security: Saudi Arabian Oil and American Foreign Policy. Chapel Hill: UNC Press Books, 2017.
The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace. London: Bantam, 2008.
Mirhosseini, Seyed Mohsen. “The Interaction of the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) With Iran for a New Security Arrangement in the Persian Gulf.” Elixir Social Science 49 (2012): 9865-9870.
Niblock, Tim, and Emma Murphy, eds. Economic and Political Liberalization in the Middle East. London: British Academic Press, 1993.
Niblock, Tim. Saudi Arabia: Power, Legitimacy, and Survival. New York: Routledge, 2004.
O’Reilly, Marc J. Unexceptional: America’s Empire in the Persian Gulf, 1941-2007. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2008.
Oren, Michael B. Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present. New York: WW Norton & Company, 2007.
Pollack, Josh. “Saudi Arabia and the United States, 1931-2002.” Middle East Review of International Affairs 6, no. 3 (2002): 77-102.
Pridham, Brian R. Oman: Economic, Social, and Strategic Developments. Beckenham: Croom Helm Ltd., 1986.
Ramazani, Rouhollah K., and Joseph A. Kechichian. The Gulf Cooperation Council: Record and Analysis. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1988.
Sharp, Jeremy M. US Foreign Assistance to the Middle East: Historical Background, Recent Trends, and the FY2011 Request. Washington, DC: Library of Congress Washington DC Congressional Research Service, 2010.
Sullivan, Robert R. “Saudi Arabia in International Politics.” The Review of Politics 32, no. 4 (1970): 436-460.
Takriti, Abdel Razzaq. Monsoon Revolution: Republicans, Sultans, and Empires in Oman, 1965-1976. Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2013.
Tetreault, Mary A., Andrzej Kapiszewski, and Gwenn Okruhlik. “Twenty-First-Century Politics in the Arab Gulf States.” In Political Change in the Arab Gulf States: Stuck in Transition, edited by Mary Ann Tétreault, Gwenn Okruhlik, and Andrzej Kapiszewski, 1-18. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2011.
Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates. Insecure Gulf: The End of Certainty and the Transition to the Post-Oil Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Vitalis, Robert. America’s Kingdom: Mythmaking on the Saudi Oil Frontier. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007.
- Michael B. Oren, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present (New York: WW Norton & Company, 2007), 23.
- Frank Harary, “A Structural Analysis of the Situation in the Middle East in 1956,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 5, no. 2 (1961): 169.
- Ibid., 173.
- Herbert Feis, Petroleum and American Foreign Policy (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1944), 3.
- Ibid., 2.
- Ibid., 1.
- Robert R. Sullivan, “Saudi Arabia in International Politics,” The Review of Politics 32, no. 4 (1970): 450.
- Ibid., 459.
- Lutz Kilian, “Exogenous Oil Supply Shocks: How Big Are They And How Much Do They Matter for the US Economy?” The Review of Economics and Statistics 90, no. 2 (2008): 217.
- Ibid., 220.
- Rüdiger Graf, “Making Use of the “Oil Weapon”: Western Industrialized Countries and Arab Petropolitics in 1973–1974,” Diplomatic History 36, no. 1 (2012): 186.
- Madawi Al-Rasheed and Robert Vitalis, eds., Counter-Narratives: History, Contemporary Society, and Politics in Saudi Arabia and Yemen (New York: Springer, 2004), 152.
- Rachel Bronson, Thicker Than Oil: America’s Uneasy Partnership with Saudi Arabia (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 3.
- Aaron David Miller, Search for Security: Saudi Arabian Oil and American Foreign Policy (Chapel Hill: UNC Press Books, 2017), 120.
- Nathan J. Citino, From Arab Nationalism to OPEC: Eisenhower, King Saʻūd, and the Making of US-Saudi Relations (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002), 12.
- Marc J. O’Reilly, Unexceptional: America’s Empire in the Persian Gulf, 1941-2007 (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2008), 48.
- Simon Davis, Contested Space: Anglo-American Relations in the Persian Gulf, 1939-1947 (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009), 14.
- Irvine H. Anderson Jr., Aramco, the United States, and Saudi Arabia: A Study of the Dynamics of Foreign Oil Policy, 1933-1950 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), 160.
- Robert Vitalis, America’s Kingdom: Mythmaking on the Saudi Oil Frontier (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007), xii.
- Parker T. Hart, Saudi Arabia, and the United States: Birth of a Security Partnership (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998), 62.
- Anthony H. Cordesman, Saudi Arabia Enters the Twenty-First Century: The Political, Foreign Policy, Economic, and Energy Dimensions (Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003), 15.
- Josh Pollack, “Saudi Arabia and the United States, 1931-2002,” Middle East Review of International Affairs 6, no. 3 (2002): 94.
- Ibid., 72.
- Tim Niblock, Saudi Arabia: Power, Legitimacy, and Survival (New York: Routledge, 2004), 143.
- Robert G. Irani, “US Strategic Interests in Iran and Saudi Arabia,” Journal of the US Army War College 7, no. 4 (1977): 29.
- Jeremy M. Sharp, US Foreign Assistance to the Middle East: Historical Background, Recent Trends, and the FY2011 Request (Washington, DC: Library of Congress Washington DC Congressional Research Service, 2010), 5.
- Badran A. Badran, Judy VanSlyke Turk, and Timothy N. Walters, “Sharing the Transformation: Public Relations and the UAE Come of Age,” in The Global Public Relations Handbook: Theory, Research, and Practice, ed. Krishnamurthy Sriramesh and Dejan Verčič (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003), 46-67.
- Katzman, United Arab Emirates (UAE): Issues for US Policy (New York: DIANE Publishing, 2010), 6.
- Irani, “US Strategic Interests in Iran and Saudi Arabia,” 27.
- Brian R. Pridham, Oman: Economic, Social, and Strategic Developments (Beckenham: Croom Helm Ltd., 1986), 32.
- Abdel Razzaq Takriti, Monsoon Revolution: Republicans, Sultans, and Empires in Oman, 1965-1976 (Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2013), 195.
- Ibid., 196.
- Tim Niblock and Emma Murphy, eds., Economic and Political Liberalization in the Middle East (London: British Academic Press, 1993), 260.
- Kenneth Katzman, Bahrain: Reform, Security, and US Policy (New York: DIANE Publishing, 2010), 4.
- Miriam Joyce, Bahrain from the Twentieth Century to the Arab Spring (New York: Springer, 2012), 38.
- Katzman, Bahrain, 7.
- E. A. V. de Candole, “Developments in Kuwait,” Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society 42, no. 1 (1955): 23.
- Miriam Joyce, Kuwait, 1945-1996: An Anglo-American Perspective (New York: Routledge, 2014), 157.
- Kenneth Katzman, Kuwait: Security, Reform, and US Policy (New York: DIANE Publishing, 2011), 6.
- Crystal, Oil, and Politics in the Gulf, 109.
- Jill Crystal, Kuwait: The Transformation of an Oil State, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2016), 145.
- Ibid., 149.
- Christopher M. Blanchard, Qatar: Background and US relations (New York: DIANE Publishing, 2011), 3.
- Crystal, Oil, and Politics in the Gulf, 183.
- Rouhollah K. Ramazani and Joseph A. Kechichian, The Gulf Cooperation Council: Record and Analysis (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1988), 1.
- Ibid., 2.
- Ibid., 1.
- Ibid., 6.
- Seyed Mohsen Mirhosseini. “The Interaction of the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) With Iran for a New Security Arrangement in the Persian Gulf.” Elixir Social Science 49 (2012): 9866.
- Ibid., 9868.
- Ibid., 9867.
- Aaron David Miller, The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace (London: Bantam, 2008), 82.
- Osamah Feisal Khalil, America’s Dream Palace (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016), 152.
- Ibid., 204.
- Sanford S. Kaplan, “The Strategic Implications for US-Persian Gulf Relations on Domestic and Worldwide Oil Production for Future US Oil Demand,” Naval War College, Web.
- Joseph Anthony Gawlick, “Persian Gulf Security: The United States and Oman, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and Western Allied Participation” (Ph.D. diss., Naval Postgraduate School, 1982), 10.
- Khalil, America’s Dream Palace, 175.
- Ibid., 285.
- Ibid., 177.
- F. Gregory Gause, III, The International Relations of the Persian Gulf (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 23.
- Frauke Heard-Bey, “The Gulf in the 20th Century,” Asian Affairs 33, no. 1 (2002): 3.
- Ibid., 4.
- Jill Crystal, Oil, and Politics in the Gulf: Rulers and Merchants in Kuwait and Qatar (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 52.
- Ibid., 55.
- Louise Fawcett, International Relations of the Middle East, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 25.
- Frank Costigliola and Michael J. Hogan, eds., America in the World, 2nd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 6.
- Charles L. Harper and Kevin T. Leicht, Exploring Social Change: America and the World (New York: Routledge, 2015), 10.
- Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, Insecure Gulf: The End of Certainty and the Transition to the Post-Oil Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 52.
- Mary A. Tetreault, Andrzej Kapiszewski, and Gwenn Okruhlik, “Twenty-First-Century Politics in the Arab Gulf States,” in Political Change in the Arab Gulf States: Stuck in Transition, ed. Mary Ann Tétreault, Gwenn Okruhlik, and Andrzej Kapiszewski (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2011), 1-18.
- Jon Gambrell, “APNewsBreak: US Military Halts Exercises over Qatar Crisis,” New York Times, Web.