After World War II, the United States took over much of the former British colonies which included the Middle East. A British diplomat in Washington told Foreign Secretary Bevin on 9 August 1945 that
Mr. Bevin said:The United States is also now groping toward a new order of things in which Great Britain will be expected to take her place as junior partner in an orbit of power predominantly under American aegis.
British officials denounced:Sometimes in these negotiations, I make the confession, that [Washington's] power politics seem to me to be naked and unashamed.
The Financial Times observes that:the economic imperialism of American business interests, which is quite active under the cloak of a benevolent and avuncular internationalism [and is] attempting to elbow us out.
US imperial system in the Middle East outlined in the internal documentsThe US and its main allies shored up local despots [in the Middle East] in the interests of stability and cheap oil.
In a staff discussion, President Eisenhower observed that:
The reasons for this "campaign of hatred" were explained by the National Security Council:The trouble is that we have a campaign of hatred against us [in the Middle East], not by the governments but by the people.
Furthermore, the NSC acknowledged that the perception is correct:In the eyes of the majority of Arabs the United States appears to be opposed to the realization of the goals of Arab nationalism. They believe that the United States is seeking to protect its interest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic progress.
The "conservative groupings" serving US interests:Our economic and cultural interests in the area have led not unnaturally to close US relations with elements in the Arab world whose primary interest lies in the maintenance of relations with the West and the status quo in their countries.
An NSC Memorandum identified "Arab nationalism" as "inimical to U.S. interests," declaring that:forms a loose coalition of regimes that look to the US for aid because of their common interest in the existing system and opposition to the forces of revolution represented by the radicals.
The NSC warned of the dangers of Arab nationalism, observing that:The United States must] endeavor to establish an effective working relationship with Arab nationalism while at the same time seeking constructively to influence and stabilize the movement and to contain its outward thrust, and recognizing that a policy of U.S. accommodation to radical pan-Arab nationalism as symbolized by Nasser would include many elements contrary to U.S. interests.
However:..The essentially neutralist character of radical pan-Arab nationalism may make it incompatible with maintenance of the special political, military and economic interests comprising the Western strategic position in the area. Pressures on Western oil companies for arrangements more favorable to producing and transit countries will mount.
As a last resort, the National Security Council advised that:At least as long as conservative governments remain in power in the producing countries, arrangements acceptable to Western interests can probably be worked out.
Thus explains the basic US imperial designs for the Middle East- a system which is now "disintigrating in between our eyes."If we choose to combat radical Arab nationalism and to hold Persian Gulf oil by force if necessary, a logical corollary would be to support Israel as the only strong pro-West power left in the Near East.
The only way to guarantee continued access to Persian Gulf oil on acceptable terms is to insist on maintaining the present concessions and be prepared to defend our present position by force if necessary.