This paper looks at how the British formulated their policy, in order to promote the Allied war effort, in the southwest Iranian province of Khuzistan during World War II, and how this policy changed by the end of the war. Khuzistan was vital to the war effort owing to the massive oil installations of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and its location as the starting point of the Persian Corridor. Throughout these years, the British were presented with numerous challenges from the Iranian government and the shaykhs of Khuzistan. In order to ensure the stability of oil production and moving material north to the Soviet Union, British officials and military planners sought to promote security in Khuzistan. The problem, however, was that historical enmities between the Arabs and the Iranian government threatened provincial stability. Throughout the war, tribal raids, disarmament campaigns, and oil workers’ strikes led by the Tudeh Party trade unions all posed a threat to the UK's ability to wage war against the Axis. Thus, the paper will examine British relations with the tribes, the Iranian government and military, and the Tudeh up until 1946. This paper will answer the following questions: How did the British balance the tribes against the Iranian government? Was there a difference in policy between the British military, the FO, and the Government of India? What role did AIOC officials have in policy formulation? How did the emergence of the Tudeh as a potent socio-political force alter British policy? And lastly, how effective was British policy in the short and long term? Studies of the British in Khuzistan have largely focused on the pre-Reza Shah period during the reign of Shaykh Khaz’al ibn Jabir, or during the oil nationalization crisis of the early 1950’s. British policy towards domestic Iranian elements has been neglected. The historical literature has not adequately address the British position vis a vis the Arab tribes, the national and provincial governments, and the Tudeh. By investigating the events unfolding in Khuzistan during the war and the way the British responded, this paper will help elucidate not only the Iranian domestic situation during WWII, but help illuminate British imperial and wartime policy in Iran and the Middle East in general. The sources employed for this paper include documents of the British Foreign Office, India Office, and War Office; materials obtained from the Archive of British Petroleum; and Iranian and British newspaper articles.

(Re-)Defining the Middle East from the American Perspective: Al Hurra’s Coverage of The Gaza War This paper will investigate how al-Hurra channel (the American-sponsored news channel broadcasted to the Arab world) seeks to promote in the Middle East a regional identity that is based on the 2004 American initiative known as the Greater Middle East Initiative. The paper will focus on the Israeli War against the Gaza Strip (the Gaza War) in December 2008 and January 2009 as case study. The paper will begin by discussing the contents of the American initiative and the reactions it triggered in the Arab world. Next, we will examine news coverage and talk shows that dealt with the Gaza War in al-Hurra channel. It will be shown that al-Hurra’s coverage used various strategies to present the event in a way that reflected and served the American perception of the desired regional order. For example, al-Hurra’s coverage emphasized a distinction made between the so-called moderate and extremist Arab states in order to downplay the pan-Arab reaction to the War. Furthermore, while Iran and Syria were portrayed as the “other,” Israel was portrayed as an integral part in the new regional order. Al-Hurra’s coverage also showed a clear interest in saving Israel’s image by emphasizing the Israeli perspective on the event and presenting images that did not show the extent of the humanitarian crisis that the war brought about in Gaza. This coverage of the event echoes concerns that Arab intellectuals had about American plans to create a new identity in the region through its Greater Middle East Initiative. The paper will employ a wide variety of sources related to media studies, public diplomacy, public opinion, and political communication. Content analysis will provide a framework for the quantitative evaluation of media content, and Critical Discourse Analysis will be employed for the qualitative assessment of that content.

Theoretically progressive in terms of economic power, gender equality, treatment of minorities, and aggressive social welfare programs, Tunisia enjoys a distinguished reputation among Western nations. As John Voll notes, since the 1960s, some Western analysts have argued that Tunisia is the model for the successful implementation of modernization theory, with its focus on liberal governance and democratization. This paper will first contextualize the American political, diplomatic, and intelligence discourse since the rise of 'Bourguibism' and Tunisian independence in 1956. I will take a critical look at this democratization discourse within the context of official American political and diplomatic correspondence of American policymakers, diplomats, and intelligence officials. Then, I will compare this Western discourse within the contemporary Islamic debate in Tunisia and the Maghrib as a whole. My paper will be based upon a variety of primary-source materials. First, the Department of State archives which document the evolving views of American consuls, analysts, diplomats, and policy-makers studying the Maghrib. The National Archives of Tunisia contain diplomatic correspondence that records relations between the US and Tunisia. CEMAT, the British Consulate, and AMIDEAST are also good forums for Tunis-based research. Newspaper archives from the past two decades provide useful insight into the evolving American mentality towards the country. The evolution of diplomatic discourse of American policies related to the Maghrib, through a case study devoted to modern Tunisia, will provide a larger framework for understanding the development of American-Maghribi relations.

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, America became painfully aware of increasing anti-American sentiment across the globe, particularly in the Middle East. A number of pundits suggested that the attacks reflected the conventional behavior of Islam and its followers, that the West and Islam are inevitably headed toward a clash, and that “they” hate our democratic values, hegemony, wealth, and the American people as a whole (Lewis 1990, 1996; Huntington 2003). Other still point out that U.S. policy in the region, unwavering support for Israel, and the denial of Palestinian rights is the cause of the contention (Mearsheimer and Walt 2007). Lastly, some blame the hypocritical U.S. support for authoritarian regimes as the root of discontent with the U.S. (Chomsky 2003). This study utilizes comprehensive survey research to understand the reasons behind growing anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, particularly in Turkey and Iran. In connection with this, it strives to assess whether traditional interpretations used in explaining the support of Islamic political and social activisms in the Islamic world apply to the cases of Turkey and Iran. Using data from public opinion polls of 1000 Turks and 1000 Iranian surveyed in 2005 and 2007, this study will analyze whether increasing anti-American sentiment is directed at the United States’ role in the world and toward American values and people, or rather toward specific policies of the government. The data reveal that Turkey, a NATO ally and a country that is generally seen as the type of secular, multi-party democracy the United States should foster in the Middle East, gives the US the lowest favorability rating than in any of the 47 countries in the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes survey. Conversely, Iran has a considerably high approval rating of the U.S. Contrary to rhetoric suggesting that Muslims dislike the U.S. based on U.S. freedoms and values, an OLS multiple regression reveals that the origins of anti-American sentiment are correlated with perceptions of U.S. foreign policy and level of education displayed by the respondents. The data provide a small baseline about foreign opinion regarding American policies, values, and people, and provide some preliminary analysis of the reasons behind these opinions.