Violence: The Language of the Middle East
Understanding Cultural Differences Between the Middle East and the United States
The Middle East and the United States operate under fundamentally different cultural paradigms, particularly when it comes to governance, identity, and conflict resolution. While the United States is built upon a national identity that unites diverse backgrounds under the banner of American identity, the Middle East is predominantly structured around tribal affiliations. This stark difference explains why violence has remained the prevailing method of maintaining order and governance in the region.
The American Identity: Unity in Diversity
In the United States, individuals come from various ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds, yet they are united by the shared concept of being American. This identity is not based on tribal affiliation but on a common national ethos—liberty, democracy, and the rule of law. While internal political and social divisions exist, they are generally addressed through democratic processes, legal institutions, and a shared national framework that prioritizes the rights of the individual over the collective.
The Middle East: A Tribal Society
Conversely, the Middle East has long been structured around tribalism, where loyalty to family, clan, and sect takes precedence over national identity. This tribal mindset creates a fractured political landscape where alliances shift, and rivalries often result in conflict. Unlike in the United States, where a strong national identity acts as a unifying force, Middle Eastern societies are inherently divided, with competition for power among various factions.
Why Strongmen Rule the Middle East
Due to the deeply entrenched tribal divisions, the only forms of governance capable of maintaining order in the Middle East have historically been monarchies or authoritarian regimes. In a society where tribes naturally vie for dominance, a singular, forceful leader—a king or a dictator—is often the only power capable of keeping warring factions in check. These rulers act as arbiters of stability, using violence or the threat of violence to suppress internal disputes and external threats.
This is why democratic experiments in the Middle East have often failed. Without a strong central authority, tribal and sectarian conflicts resurface, plunging nations into chaos. Examples like Iraq, Libya, and Syria demonstrate how the removal of an authoritarian leader can create a power vacuum, leading to prolonged civil wars as different factions struggle for supremacy.
The Russian Parallel: A Tsarist Tradition
A similar pattern can be observed in Russia, a nation historically composed of multiple ethnic tribes and diverse regional identities. To maintain unity, Russia has consistently relied on strong central figures, from the Tsars to Soviet rulers, to modern-day leaders like Vladimir Putin. Russian governance has always depended on the presence of a strongman who can impose order upon a vast and diverse empire. Without such leadership, fragmentation and internal conflict become inevitable.
Violence as the Language of Stability
In the Middle East, violence is not just a tool of oppression—it is the mechanism through which order is maintained. The use of force is often necessary to prevent tribal rivalries from spiraling into full-scale wars. Western ideals of negotiation and democracy frequently fail in the region because they do not align with the historical and cultural context of Middle Eastern societies. In a system where power is contested among deeply entrenched factions, only the strongest can rule.
Conclusion: The Reality of Governance in the Middle East
The idea that democracy can flourish in the Middle East without a unifying identity or a powerful central authority is a Western misconception. Unlike the United States, where national identity transcends ethnic divisions, the Middle East remains deeply tribal. This reality necessitates strong leadership—whether in the form of a monarch or a dictator—to maintain stability. Violence, while often viewed negatively in the West, remains the primary language through which order is upheld in the Middle East. Understanding these differences is crucial for any foreign policy approach that seeks to engage with the region effectively.