Using Network Theory to Describe Middle Eastern International Relationships
Link: http://www.rferl.org/contentinfographics/infographics/25103887.html
The Middle East is arguably one of the most complex regions of the world in terms of ethnic, religious and political conflict. Within the Middle East, there are many internal allies and enemies. For instance, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are enemies with Iran. In fact, Iran and Saudi Arabia are currently embroiled in a proxy war in Yemen. All Middle Eastern countries, with the exception of Egypt and Jordan, have not established diplomatic relations with Israel. The United States has inextricable ties with Israel and, for all intents and purposes, amicable relations with Sunni countries (Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia). All the Sunni Arab states also have diplomatic ties with each other. Before the Iran Nuclear Accords, the U.S. and Iran have been sworn enemies of each other. Here’s a visual graph of Middle Eastern foreign relations:
In order to achieve structural balance in a network, any given “triangle” of 3 nodes (or in this case, countries) can only contain either 3 positive edges and 0 negative edges or 1 positive edge and 2 negative edges. Under these conditions the network will be balanced, and the amount of instability and stress will be minimized. Naturally, most 3 country relationships tend to be balanced. However, there are exceptions.
Israel-Saudi Arabia relations illustrate how structural balance plays a role in real-world diplomatic scenarios. Triangle A encompasses Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and contains 2 positive edges and 1 negative edge; Triangle B contains Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and also has 2 positive edges and 1 negative edge. According to network theory, there should be instability in these relationships. And in reality, there are signs that this network configuration is unstable. Israel historically has desired diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia, however the Saudi government refuses to normalize relations with Israel. Recently, a Saudi delegation of government officials made a trip to Israel, and they were under a lot of scrutiny for visiting an “enemy” country. Saudis, understandably, have incentives for normalizing ties with Israel in order to join the community of other Middle Eastern nations who have recognized Israel. Thus, there is pressure to resolve the imbalance present in triangles A and B.
Triangle C, which includes Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia and has 0 positive ties and 3 negative ties, is also unstable. This instability can be seen in tangible ways. There are covert military ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia that are officially unrecognized in order to aid in Saudi Arabia’s war with Iranian-backed forces, which are also enemies of Israel. Thus, it benefits Saudi Arabia to join forces with Israel in defeating a common foe.
Another instance of structural imbalance in the network exists in the triangle encompassing Israel, the U.S., and Iran. For roughly 40 years, Iran has been enemies of both Israel and the U.S., and the U.S. and Israel have been close allies. This is a balanced situation. However, there have been recent efforts by the Obama Administration to improve American relations with Iran. Should Iran and the U.S. become allies, there would be widespread structural imbalance existing in triangles including the U.S., Iran, and every other other country included in the network. Israel, especially, is acutely aware of how U.S.-Iran ties endanger its national security. In 2014, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, advocated to U.S. Congress for continued sanctions and non-friendly ties between the U.S. and the Iranian regime.
The concept of structural imbalance is actively at work in shaping the way the Middle East looks in terms of international relationships. It will be interesting to see how these relationships evolve over time in response to the volatile political climate of this region.