Introduction
The Middle East, once a cradle of civilizations and crossroads of trade, now stands as one of the world’s most contested geopolitical battlegrounds. From the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to the latest military interventions and covert operations, the region has been repeatedly restructured by external powers—most notably Western ones. While the era of direct colonialism may be officially over, this essay contends that Western involvement in the Middle East has simply evolved into a more discreet yet no less dominant form: neocolonialism. Today’s “spheres of influence” are not benign partnerships, but mechanisms for strategic control dressed in the language of freedom, democracy, and regional stability. Behind them lies a familiar logic: the consolidation of power, the extraction of resources, and the suppression of alternative sovereignties.
Historical Precedents: Drawing the Imperial Map
The modern map of the Middle East is, in many ways, a colonial artifact. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Britain and France divided the region through secret treaties like Sykes-Picot (1916), carving new borders and installing client regimes aligned with their interests. These borders paid little heed to tribal, ethnic, or religious realities on the ground, sowing seeds for future conflicts. The mandate system—devised to give an appearance of international legitimacy—merely masked the fact that European powers viewed the region as a strategic chessboard and a wellspring of natural wealth, particularly oil.
This early precedent of imperialist restructuring laid the foundations for the present dynamic: Western powers claiming the mantle of guidance, modernization, or guardianship—while ensuring their own economic and geopolitical supremacy.
Oil, Intervention, and the Myth of Liberation
Perhaps no commodity has shaped Western-Middle Eastern relations more than oil. The region’s vast reserves have long been treated as a “vital interest” by Western powers, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. The 1953 CIA-MI6 coup against Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh—after he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP)—exemplifies this.
Advertisement
What followed were decades of interventions framed as promoting democracy or containing extremism, yet consistently targeting regimes and movements that resisted Western economic domination. Iraq (2003) provides a glaring example: the U.S. invasion was premised on eliminating weapons of mass destruction (which didn’t exist) and “liberating” the Iraqi people. Instead, it dismantled the Iraqi state, fueled sectarian conflict, and opened the country’s oilfields to foreign companies.
Lybia in 2011 and ongoing operations in Syria fit similar patterns. Although humanitarian rhetoric featured prominently—“responsibility to protect” civilians, counterterrorism efforts—the material outcomes included regime collapse, economic instability, and increased access for Western corporate interests.
Proxy Warfare: Outsourcing Intervention
In the contemporary security landscape, direct occupation has become politically costly and diplomatically taboo. Instead, the West relies increasingly on proxy warfare. This includes arming and funding rebel factions that act as surrogates against regimes deemed hostile to Western interests—like those in Syria and Iran.
During the Syrian conflict, for instance, Western governments backed so-called “moderate rebels,” many of whom fought alongside jihadist groups like al-Nusra Front (later HTS), sharing weapons, intelligence, and supply lines. While some of these rebels may have initially pursued democratic reform, the battlefield realities quickly blurred ideological lines. In effect, any group opposed to Assad and Iran—regardless of ideology—was seen as tactically useful.
In this sense, the battlefield becomes an outsourcing platform, where Washington, London, and their allies avoid entanglement while shaping the strategic outcome from afar. Local autonomy and popular will are sidelined in favor of external engineering.
Economic Pressure as Colonial Leverage
Beyond military operations, neocolonial structures assert themselves through economic coercion. Sanctions, trade restrictions, and conditional financial aid have become instruments to subjugate uncooperative states. Iran has been subjected to decades of sanctions, crippling its economy and isolating it from global financial systems—not primarily because of aggression, but due to its resistance to American geopolitical dictates and its ambitions for independent nuclear capability.
Contrast this with the cordial relations the West maintains with autocracies like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Despite systemic human rights violations, these countries are rewarded with weapons deals, diplomatic cover, and investment flows—as long as they remain strategically aligned with Western objectives.
In effect, the economic order is designed to punish those who seek autonomy and reward those who comply, sustaining a global hierarchy of dependence.
Discursive Domination: Framing the Narrative
Modern colonialism doesn’t wear the same face as its historical counterpart. It now speaks in the vocabulary of human rights, development, and rule of law. Western governments and media often frame their involvement as benevolent, even noble—champions of “freedom” and “civil society.” But language itself becomes a tool of influence, masking underlying power dynamics.
Western media often portrays Iran, for example, as irrational or malevolent—its leadership cast as theocratic fanatics. Meanwhile, Israeli military actions are frequently described in terms of “security” or “self-defense,” even when involving civilian casualties or violations of international law. Palestinian resistance is labeled as “terrorism,” while occupation is downplayed or left unmentioned.
Such framing shapes global public opinion and legitimizes asymmetric interventions. It also reinforces the notion that progress and modernity are Western exports, while indigenous sovereignty is framed as retrograde or dangerous.
Cultural and Ideological Soft Power
Beyond economics and military affairs, Western dominance asserts itself culturally. Through media, education, international NGOs, and technological platforms, Western values are embedded across Middle Eastern societies—often at the expense of local traditions, languages, and systems of governance.
Advertisement
This isn’t inherently malevolent. Education and technology can uplift communities. But the imbalance of cultural transmission—where the West defines modernity, normalcy, and global standards—creates a subtle hierarchy of civilization. Local models of progress or justice are ignored, derided, or delegitimized.
In many ways, this is a mirror of 19th-century colonial mindsets: “We bring civilization. They resist it.”
The Iran Example: A Target of Persistence
Iran serves as a clear test case in this paradigm. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew the pro-Western Shah, the country has been in the crosshairs of the United States and its allies. Sanctions, cyberattacks, assassinations of scientists, diplomatic isolation, and now direct military strikes suggest that Iran remains a top priority for Western containment.
Despite regular elections, a literate and politically engaged population, and significant regional influence, Iran is painted as a pariah—primarily because it refuses to fall within the Western orbit. While its domestic policies are subject to valid criticism, the external pressure it faces mirrors older colonial tactics: isolate, undermine, and (if possible) install a friendlier regime.
Conclusion: The Return of Empire without the Name
The idea that the West is simply “influential” in the Middle East grossly understates the scale and intention of its involvement. Influence implies partnership, mutual benefit, consent. What we see instead is a system of control: military, economic, cultural, and ideological. A system that preserves Western access to resources, markets, and strategic depth—while systematically suppressing or destabilizing alternative political paths.
In this context, the term sphere of influence becomes a euphemism—a polished diplomatic fiction that conceals a neocolonial logic. Unlike the old empires, there are no colonial governors or red lines on the map. But the outcomes are eerily familiar: dependent states, proxy wars, resource extraction, and manufactured legitimacy.
The Middle East, once again, is not being liberated but contained. Its internal pluralism, political aspirations, and sovereign trajectories are subsumed under a global order that speaks the language of freedom—but delivers discipline and hierarchy. As long as the region is judged by its compliance with Western expectations rather than the will of its own people, the legacy of empire endures—not in name, but in function.
Dutch Echo 
Leave a comment