Prof. Juan Cole was kind enough to link to my article Eye-Opening Graphic: Map of Muslim Countries that the U.S. and Israel Have Bombed.
He reproduced this image I created:
(Note: Image quality has improved, thanks to a reader named Mohamed S.)
However, he wrote:
(I generally agree, but there are a couple of problems here, see below)
Prof. Cole’s first problem with my article was with regard to shading Iran red (red = countries the U.S. or Israel have bombed):
I may be having a senior moment, but I actually don’t think the US has bombed Iran. It shot down an Iranian civilian air liner in 1988 and has backed the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) or People’s Jihadis to blow things up in Iran. It also gave tactical support to Saddam Hussein’s military in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988, and so bombed Iran by proxy. But I can’t remember any direct US military strike on the country.
In my article, I explained why I shaded Iran red. I wrote:
There have been a series of explosions in Iran which many believe to be linked to America and/or Israel. For example:
Bomb attacks have killed a prominent Iranian nuclear scientist and wounded another in Tehran, state TV reported today.
To me, a bomb is a bomb is a bomb–no matter how it is delivered.
Just today Haaretz is reporting:
Explosion follows two blasts that occurred in Iran in recent weeks at sites linked to Tehran’s nuclear program.
At least seven people were killed Sunday night in an explosion at a steel mill in the Iranian city of Yazd. Foreign nationals, possibly North Korean nuclear arms experts, are believed to be among the dead.
The explosion follows two blasts that occurred in Iran in recent weeks at sites linked to Tehran’s nuclear program…
The explosions in the past few months join a series of assassination attempts on Iranian nuclear scientists over the past two years…
The Los Angeles Times writes:
Attacks targeting nuclear scientists and sites lead some observers to believe that the U.S. and Israel are trying to derail Iran’s programs…
However, many former U.S. intelligence officials and Iran experts believe that the explosion — the most destructive of at least two dozen unexplained blasts in the last two years — was part of a covert effort by the U.S., Israel and others to disable Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. The goal, the experts say, is to derail what those nations fear is Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons capability and to stave off an Israeli or U.S. airstrike to eliminate or lessen the threat.
Therefore, I did not feel it unreasonable to include Iran in countries that America/Israel have bombed, although I did preface it with “[a]ccording to some experts…”
Then, Prof. Cole wrote:
Also, the US has had no base in Uzbekistan since 2005.
In my article, I hyperlinked to this BBC News article:
Uzbekistan is once again allowing the US to use a base in the south of the country for operations in Afghanistan…
US troops were evicted from Uzbekistan in 2005 after the US condemned it for shooting protesters in Andijan city.
However, Prof. Cole is correct: these U.S. troops are using an Uzbek, not American, base. This is something I should have pointed out and is an error on my part for which I thank Prof. Cole for pointing out.
Nonetheless, this error makes little substantive difference: there is still a U.S. military presence in that country, regardless of if they are stationed on a U.S. base, an Uzbek one, a farm house, or a dog house.
In retrospect, perhaps I should have entitled the image “Countries the U.S. and Israel Have Bombed and Have Troops Stationed in,” (which doesn’t flow from the tongue as easily).
Then, Prof. Cole wrote:
I also questioned Turkmenistan but found this.
In my article, I linked to this.
Lastly, Prof. Cole said:
Finally, there is a logical fallacy because having a US base in a country is the result of a bilateral agreement and it isn’t always unpopular, even at the level of the person on the street. In the Cold War, Turks were very happy to have the US presence to deter the Soviets.
I humbly disagree that this was “a logical fallacy” on my part. I never denied that there was a substantial difference between a military base resulting from “a bilateral agreement” and one resulting from a military occupation.
However, there is also a difference between (say) “a bilateral agreement” with the U.K. on the one hand and Pakistan on the other. The former is treated as an ally, whereas the latter is treated as a vassal state. The U.S. strong-armed the Pakistani leadership into acquiescing to American demands (do what we want or else “we will bomb you back to the Stone Age”) even though it was clearly not in their national interest to do so (well, not being bombed back to the Stone Age made it their national interest).
This leads to the second issue: these “bilateral agreements” are often highly unpopular among the people of such countries. As a democratic country, shouldn’t we care about the will of the people? Or do we follow a long tradition of colonialism and make deals with the elite crony leadership that has ingratiated itself to us at the expense of their people?
Prof. Cole goes on to argue that U.S. military bases arranged through bilateral agreements aren’t “always unpopular, even at the level of the person on the street.” He gives the example of Turkey in the Cold War. However, there is a greater issue at stake here: even if a U.S. military base is popular in one particular country, we must consider its popularity in neighboring countries and the region overall. If the Soviet Union had created a military base in Cuba (which the Cubans may have very much liked), would we have liked it? Or would we have (rightfully) considered it threatening?
So, even if a U.S. base in (say) Saudi Arabia was arranged through “bilateral agreement” and was (let’s pretend) popular with the Saudi people, this would still be problematic since its presence is threatening to other countries in the region, whose people view the United States and Israel as the two greatest threats to their safety.
The bottom line is that the overwhelming military presence of the United States in the Greater Middle East is responsible for creating resentment in those people who are either living in lands we occupy, station our troops in, or whom we surround.
* * * * *
I should mention that I hold Prof. Juan Cole in very high regard. He is a respected expert in the field, and I issue my response only very timidly. Furthermore, I welcome the very real possibility that I am mistaken.
Prof. Cole just added:
Still, that there are a lot of resentments because of knee-jerk US backing (since the late 1960s) for Israeli hawks and because of the way the US and its ally have sought hegemony in the region, so the mapmaker has a point.
I agree, but would just add that it adds resentment not just in people who live in Turkey but those who live in the region in general.
Lastly, I should point out that I doubt Turks still view the U.S. bases in their country positively, based on the fact that a plurality of Turks view America as the greatest threat to their national security (not surprisingly, Israel comes in at number 2).
An Informed Comment reader named Shannon pointed out that in fact the United States bombed Iran in 1988 during Operating Praying Mantis, an act that “cannot be justified” according to the International Court of Justice.