A Network of Diplomatic Relations in the Middle East
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/06/syrian_conflict_relationships_explained.html
This article, published last October, seeks to inform readers on the state of Middle Eastern politics by explaining the relationships between the various countries and alliances of the region, as well as other countries around the world. To each pair of nations, it assigns one of three ratings: “Friends,” “Enemies,” or “It’s Complicated.” The article also provides a one paragraph explanation for each rating. Unsurprisingly, relationships in the Middle Eastern are very complex, with most countries having multiple “It’s Complicated” relations with other countries, and even having a few so called “friendly” bonds that are actually only a strained-but-not-violent relationship.
If we think of each nation as a node on a graph, and each relationship as an edge, then the chart becomes a network that we can analyze in terms of positive and negative relationships. In particular, we’ll consider a “Friends” rating to be a positive relationship, and an “Enemies” rating to be a negative relationship. As for the “It’s Complicated” ratings, we could choose to consider them all either positive relationships, or all negative relationships, or choose to ignore them completely. For now, I will ignore the “It’s Complicated” ratings.
Unsurprisingly, this network is very unbalanced. It’s easy to find three nodes that form an unbalanced triangle. For example, according to the article, the United States is friends with Iraq, and Iraq is friends with Iran, but Iran and the United States are enemies. We can also find three nodes for which all relationships are negative. For example, the United States, the Syrian government, and Jabhat al-Nusra (a Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda) all have unfriendly relationships with each other.
The unbalanced nature of this network indicates that the relationships between countries may evolve over time, as new political movements gain strength or as new leaders come into power. Indeed, we can see that this has already happened, as this chart is an updated version of a similar chart that Slate published in July of 2014 (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/07/17/the_middle_east_friendship_chart.html). Comparing the two charts, we can find multiple differences: the United States and Turkey used to have a complicated relationship, but are now friendly; Iraq and Saudi Arabia used to be enemies, but now their relationship is more complicated.
Here’s another way to construct a network: Have each nation be a node, and connect two nodes if they are friends. When I first tried this, I thought the network would consist of multiple connected components, each representing a different faction or alliance. However, this was not the case. In fact, excluding ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, all other nations form a single connected component. Even the two opposing sides in the Syrian Civil War (the Syrian Government and the Syrian Rebels) can be connected through a series of friendships: The Syrian Government to Russia, Russia to Iraq, Iraq to the United States, and the United States to the Syrian Rebels. These chains of friends between enemies are a testament to the complexity of the situation, and perhaps also to the idea that most counties involved do not have one single enemy. For example, the United States sees both the Syrian government and ISIS as adversaries. So it may be difficult for the US to choose whether or not to align with a country such as Russia, which sees ISIS as an adversary, but is allies with the Syrian government. These difficult decisions highlight the need for intelligent leaders, including for leaders here the US. You can help select knowledgeable leaders by registering to vote! https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote.