Talk:Greater Middle East/Archive 1

Huh?
This whole concept makes so little sense that I question the value of its inclusion in Wikipedia (countries west of Europe's westernmost borders labelled as 'Middle East'??). Is the world at large really taking it sufficiently seriously to justify it being here? Was it actually even put forward officially at the June 2004 G8 summit? I'm finding lots of stuff about plans to introduce to it (mostly coverage along the lines of 'huh?'), but nothing much about it eventually being included. --Oolong 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This concept is senseless, many people agree on that. The article should make clear that it is a neologism invented by the Bush administration for its uses, it is not a scholarly concept, but an ideological tool which aims at englobing in one bloc many different countries. Tazmaniacs 22:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"invented by the Bush Administration"
I believe it is inaccurate to say that the term was "invented by the Bush Administration" in 2004. A search of Google Books terms up a number of sources prior to that year, mostly of a similar geopolitical context and especially it seems concerning Central Asia.--Pharos 00:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The exact definition of the boundaries of this region depends on the authors who define it, but I agree this concept of a "greater Middle East" existed before the Bush administration. The same countries, except Pakistan, are discussed as the region "North Africa/Southwest Asia" in Geography: Realms, Regions and Concepts, 8th edition (1997) by H.J. de Blij and Peter O. Muller, a geography textbook for undergraduates in the US. 195.73.22.130 (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

is pakistan included in mid-east or indian sub-continent
As the culture Pakistan is greatly influenced by that of mid east but it is also the origin of indu valley civilization so i want to ask that whether Pakistan is included in mid east or indian sub continent.The fact that balochistan is a part of mid east and punjab and sind are part of subcontinent makes the geographical definition of pakistan a bit harder.also that northern areas and nwfp are part of central asia so its difficult to say whether pakistan is a part of india or ME or CA.. Please any1 guide me on this

Pakistan is a South Asian nation but it exists in a part of the subcontinent that has historically served as a meeting point with the regional cultures and trade of Central Asia and the Middle East. For many in what was historically Persia, Khorasan and Turkestan, the Khyber Pass (now shared between Afghanistan and Pakistan) was the gateway to the land known then as "Hindustan" but now called "India" and (depending on who you ask) Pakistan too. That being said, the main culture of Pakistan, the Urdu-speaking Muslim culture as well as the local Punjabi, Sindhi and Kashmiri cultures are defined as part of the South Asian continuum and the South Asian branch of Islamic civilization. Pashtuns are a group living in the historical border land between South Asia and Central Asia and ethnically closer to the latter yet historically tied to the former due to invasions, trade, cohabitance, and cultural symbiotic exchange. Baluchistan is generally defined as a region located in the borderland area between Central Asia, the Middle East and South Asia. The Baluch themselves are culturally identical to the Baluch in Iran and generally of Middle Eastern stock yet they number about 3-4% of the population. I consider it a South Asian state with cultural overlap, not a Middle Eastern state. In fact I don't really consider Afghanistan, the Baluchistan region or Eastern Iran to be really part of the Middle East either. The distinct cultural history in this part of the world forms (for me) a kind of bloc of its own sandwiched between the ME and the subcontinent, influencing both. I would call this region of "Greater Iranian" culture "South-Central Asia". But I'm not one to re-write geography and borders so there. Afghan Historian (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Correction..too late?
To all readers. I believe the author of this article made a giant mistake by excluding the true origins of this concept, The Greater Middle East. SecState Rice did not coin the idea of the Greater Middle East (GME), nor did she create its boundaries. If you are truly interested in this concept I recommend you read: Strategic Geography and the Changing Middle East (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) by Geoffrey Kemp and Robert E. Harkavy. This is a very good book that first coined the idea of extending the geopolitical boundaries of the Middle East. Here you will find the answers to why Pakinstan is included and India excluded. In addition, you will find that the Bush Administration made 'some' political errors in including countries like Bangladesh in their conception of the GME. Shassh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shassh (talk • contribs) 21:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is never too late. In fact, we are just warming up; you will notice that the article lacks reliable sources, so why don't you cite from that book of yours? --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Arab World vs Middle East
Seems to me that the more general term used for the region is "Middle East", especially for en.wikipedia users... Why are we using the term "Arab World"? -Harmil 18:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Because traditional Middle East does not include most North African Arab countries (except for Egypt and sometimes Libya). The Arab word always contains these countries (such as Morocco). AucamanTalk 19:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. I missed the fact that you were not calling out North Africa as separate. I assumed you were. Thanks.


 * You might want to note that. Something like "Arab World (the traditional Middle East plus North African Arab countries such as Morocco)" -Harmil 19:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No the Arab world has very little to do with the Middle East. "The traditional Middle East plus North African Arab countries such as Morocco." This is not a correct definition of the Arab world. I was just giving you an example. Countries like Iran and Turkey are in the Middle East but not in the Arab world. AucamanTalk 13:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. Well, if "Arab World" is so much less comprehensive than "Middle East", then why are we refering to it in an article that is about the political concept of the Greater Middle East, which is a propper superset of the Middle East? -Harmil 16:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Middle East is a proper subset of the Greater Middle East, but so is the Arab world. The reason why I've defined it this way is because we're defining a political term (the Greater Middle East) and "Arab world" is a political/cultural region (whereas the Middle East is a historical/cultural region). It makes sense to define a political region in terms of smaller political regions.


 * The other reason is that the definition is a lot simpler. If we start with the Middle East, we have to add in the rest of the Arab world in order to get the Greater Middle East anyway. If you don't want to see the word "Arab world" in the definition then we would have to name each of the countries individually, which makes the list a lot longer.


 * Sorry if I've made this too confusing. You can try other definitions and I can tell you what's wrong with them. The shortest definition I can think of is, "the Middle East and North Africa toghether with Afghanistan and Pakistan." But again, North Africa is not a political region and somewhat ambiguous (like the Middle East). AucamanTalk 17:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that you (Aucaman) is actually confusing others but rather confusing yourself in replying to criticism. Again, I think you lack some background on the topic and fail to present a coherent argument. Europe does refer to North Africa as a political region, but then again it is because it refers to its immediate periphery. The simplest way to explain the GME is to provide basic information on how the US deals with geopolitics and its principles. These realist, political constructs are for administrative (DoS,DoD) purposes rather than concrete, coherent geographic boundaries.

Recently, the Obama Administration clearly illustrated why India is kept out this geopolitical map, as it submitted to Indian political pressure when the Administration's envoy for the region was not given responsibility over India together with Afghanistan and Pakistan, in effect decoupling the country from regional realities. India's political problems are clearly tied to Pakistan, Kashmir and Afghanistan but it fought strongly against dealing with an American envoy that did not only focus on India's intimate problems.

The concept of 'Arab World' is directly connected to the institution of the Arab League. While the State of Israel stands in the core of the Middle East (the Levant), it is not in the center of the Arab World (again, the Arab League countries).

The criticism over the inclusion of the AfPak region and Central Asia needs to acknowledge two vital countries for the American concept of the Middle East, those are Iran and Turkey. Both of which have extensive interests in the AfPak region, in addition to Israel's relations with countries like India. The natural links of Iran and Turkey with the Arab World, the Levant and the Gulf in particular, allow the US to extend this political construct through the interests of these countries as vital regional partners (in the case of Turkey as a NATO member) and regional threats (in the case of Iran). The idea of the sub-continent is also more European (British) than American. (Shassh) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.220.14 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Armenia and Georgia
Just for the record, Armenia and Georgia are not Muslim, they are Christian if these criteria were used to make the map or inclusion in the Greater Middle East. Of course, it applies to Israel as well (majority - non-Muslim). It's not a political statement, just FYI. --Atitarev (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Caucasus Countries don't belong here--- The article listed that is used to support inclusion of the Caucasus states in the Greater Middle East does not do so. It instead mentions that they should be listed as Post-Communist Eastern Europe. The only mention is that some pundits and not the Bush Administration included those countries in the GME. So please remove them from this list. Also, they are not part of Central Asia as depicted in the map. Please also correct the Middle East Article to remove them from there also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.199.222.243 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Map incorrect
The map is missing the borders for both Eritrea and South Sudan and needs to be updated. Delusion23 (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The part of Turkey that is in the European continent should be colored.

Iran, Middle East or the Greater Middle East
It is funny that Iran is listed under middle east and then here it is calling it one of the "nearby countries". The map also shows Iran and Turkey part of the traditional Middle East and then it defines it as an extension to the Middle East. It simply does not make any sense. It is also necessary to note that the link that reference this does not have any relationship to this too.--Najand (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Iran and Turkey are most definitely parts of the traditional Middle East. Some people seem to have a bizarre idea that the 'Middle East' refers only to Arab Asia - which is absurd. Irānshahr (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Turkey as an addition to the traditional Middle East?
I had my 14:28, 15 August 2012‎ revision reverted as it was a "Potentially controversial removal of information; take it to the talk page first, please." So here I am.

How can this be correct: "The Greater Middle East is a political geographic term used since at least 1980 to refer to the traditional Middle East with the addition of several nearby countries, specifically Iran, TURKEY, Afghanistan and Pakistan." Turkey cannot be an addition to the traditional Middle East as it is defined in the Middle East section as already a part of the traditional Middle East. You cannot have it both ways. Unless I have some opposition, I am going to remove Turkey as an addition to the "traditional Middle East". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.49.155 (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, and so will remove Turkey from this definition of additional countries. اردیبهشت (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I also agree. Iran and Turkey are parts of the traditional Middle East. Irānshahr (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of the Article
It makes no sense at all. This is sheer lunacy. The globe shows Ethiopia unified with Eritrea, which ended in the 20th Century. 176.251.212.18 (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an extremely pertinent article representing the way in which the US is shaping its foreign policy. We as users should not simply include exclude countries in this topic. The geographic region known as "The Greater Middle East" is a very specific grouping of countries that high level politicians have grouped together.  Please see the details of why certain countries were included in the "HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE" - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg96429/pdf/CHRG-108shrg96429.pdf.

Please stop adding / deleting countries for whimsical reasons. I have updated the topic to reflect the group of countries that this phrase was originally coined for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.25.103 (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop corrupting this page. I see it being mainly done by Washington Prime. Your edits digress from the main topic and are inaccurate. For example, I checked your references and they are not accurate. What you persistently refer to "Brookings Institute" reports are not so. The first source you list is an independent author who was given a grant by the Carnegie Endowment. This is not "Brookings Institute" who coined the term and reported to the U.S. senate and G8 leaders. This article has been fairly consistent for the last many years until your recent edit which totally changed the context of the "Greater Middle East" a few months ago. I dispute the way you keep changing the article for arbitrary reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.25.103 (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear 99.235.25.103, I just noticed that you have deleted several whole sections of this topic. In your last edit, you have removed more than 70% of the entire page content (16kb/22kb) which has been added by several authors over the last few years. As part of this process, you have erased five entire sections of this page, and removed more than 10 academic references with full block quotations. The only section you have left intact is called "Criticism" and presents a totally hostile perspective to the entire concept of a Greater Middle East, and confuses a geographical concept with religion. This violates a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, which is to provide a balanced point of view. Granted, you have added a few references, mainly to the "Criticism" section which can of course remain and add value. You are welcome to present criticism of the concept of a Greater Middle East but cannot censor the masses of documents which have been provided to support the concept, which is very well entrenched in scholarly circles. The important quotation and reference you deleted is from "Strategic geography and the changing Middle East", and it definitely was published by the "Brookings Institution Press for Carnegie Endowment for International Peace". You can see and confirm it here: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=EsQmAQAAMAAJ. There you can also verify the entire quotation you have removed. In fact, you can verify most of the quotations on books.google.com. Moreover, I can post screenshots of all the quotations which you have deleted - they are mostly accurate, contrary to your claims. In case you do find any citation which is not accurate, please be more specific post the inaccuracy here and we can take care of it. WashingtonPrime (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Washington Prime: I deleted these sections as they digress from the topic of Greater Middle East.


 * The sections that you mention have not been developed over a period of years. If you check the history of this article, from 2006 (When the article was originally written) to the end of 2012, the article was pretty much consistent. You started generalizing this article with many sections last month.


 * A desription of Transcaucasia, Greater India, Greater Pakistan, Greater Iran are totally seperate concepts of how a region or country sees its own sphere of influence. "Greater Middle East" is a concpet of a project / initiative also known as "Greater Middle East Initiative" by USA and "Broader Middle East Initiave" (BMEI) as defined by the EU. The traditionally held concept of the GME held by the G8 is contrary to your additions. See your own sources which are contrary to what you write. For example:


 * 9 ^ Asmus, Ronald D.; Kenneth M. Pollack (1 Oct 2002). "The New Transatlantic Project". Policy Review 115. http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7312
 * 12 ^ Nazemroaya, Mahdi Darius (2006-11-18). "Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a "New Middle East"". Global Research. Retrieved 2008-08-21. http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882


 * So even these links you post yourself describe the Greater Middle East as from Morocco to Afghanistan/Pakistan.


 * I also direct you to the article I am linking, which establishes from the current Vice President of the USA Joe Biden and the current Defense Secretary of the USA, Chuck Hagel, as to what the Greater Middle east is ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg96429/pdf/CHRG-108shrg96429.pdf ) They clearly spell out the geographical limits of the GME. This concept is consistent from the POV of most world powers, and a VAST MAJORITY of articles you find from credible sources (use google) are consistent with what I write. If necessary to resolve this dispute, I can start collecting the sources.


 * The section "Criticism" has been left in because there are a couple of European politicians who believe that handling geopolitics on such a vast scale is not beneficial from a policy perspective. I can see relevance in that section though it still does not take away from the Greater Middle East, which is an already established concept.


 * If you want to add the sections, please explain why concepts of "Greater Pakistan", "Greater Iran", "Greater India" belong here. I direct you to the website http://www.brookings.edu/search?start=1&q=%22Greater+Middle+East%22 . I did a search for all articles referencing "Greater Middle East" and they are all consistent with the area from Morocco to Afghanistan-Pakistan. I believe that you are diluting a very simple concept of "Greater Middle East" and your own links (see above) and my main link (US Senate Hearing) support this view. If you wish, we can take this over to Wikipedia Dispute Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution) else, please justify why this article is being generalized to the point of being irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.25.103 (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of the Article part 2 (User returning with different alias)
Attention user "24.14.205.72": Please stop reverting back to what user "Washinton Prime" was attempting to do to this article a couple of months ago. A dispute resolution was opened for this. Stop vandalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.180.29 (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note, I have left a message for the Wikipedia admin who was briefly involved in this dispute in March so that he is aware of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.180.29 (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing India
I strongly disagree of including India in the sphere of Greater Middle East. India has a completely separate culture from the Middle East not to mention the Hindu religion and the ways of thinking. Advil 1:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your POV is irrelevant. This article is not a geographic description, but the description of a concept defined by the Bush administration. Many people find it ridiculous to englobe such different countries under the name of "Greater Middle East", which is an expression devoided of any sense. Tazmaniacs 22:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, your POV is irrelevant. Please see presentations made to G8 by Brookings institute talking about the GMEI (Greater Middle East Initiative) in 2004. They justify their rationale over there. Since it was Brookings that coined this phrase, you need to acknowledge. Hindu culture is very different from Muslim culture and India remains a predominantly Hindu country. In addition, it is also not connected to the original "core" in any which way.

Islam does not equate to Middle East. Lebanon and Syria have many Christians who are also Middle Easterners and non Middle Eastern countries like Indonesia have Muslim populations. 82.42.133.138 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Afghanistan, Pakistan, & not India?
How is it that Afghanistan & Pakistan are part of the middle east, but not India? Pakistan & Afghanistan were once apart of ancient India, and if nothing else the people of all 3 areas intereacted with each other, shared cultures, and mixed....This article makes no sense. 204.102.210.1 21:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Somalia, Sudan, and Djibouti and not Ethiopia and Eritrea? How is that they are part of the middle east, but not Ethiopia and Eritrea? Somalia, Sudan, and Djibouti were once a part of ancient (Aksum) Ethiopia and Eritrea! Sorry to satirize you like that, but religion is much more a factor of whether a country is in the middle east or not. Ethiopia and Eritrea are just miles away from Yemen and closer to Mecca than all of the N. African countries save Egypt and Sudan, but because they are Christian are not generally considered part of the Middle east. India is in the same situation. It is on the whole, Hindu, even if it has a substantial number of Muslims. Plus it's always had its own little sphere, rather than being parter of a greater Islamic one.


 * Yom 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

India should be here, India is the second largest Muslim country with a total population of 170 million muslims! It has Muslim architecture like the Taj Mahal and other famous Mosques. We should get a pic of india included, in a light green shade after all, India has a mixed culture with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, which are are predominantly muslim countries.

No india shouldnt, it has nothing to do with the middle east. Pakistan is the transition zone between the middle east, south asia and central asia. Half the country lies on the Iranian plateau, with the rest on the South Asian and Central Asian. Furthermore, Middle Eastern culture has made imprints in Pakistan throughout history and the region was once ruled as far back as the early 8th century and linked to Syria/Iraq. india's culture and history are quite different and distinct from that of the middle east, and it is rightly not included in the grouping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.63.74 (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no India because it is directly related with Israel, even today at Northern Iraq is under the invasion of USA and his servants Barzani tribe. So many people thing that Barzani family is Kurdish family but no even atinternet you can reach this reality, which reality ? Barzani tribe is not Kurdish tribe they are Jewish with Kurdish language ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.134.240 (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

India has a huge Muslim population, Muslim architecture and a history of contributing to Muslim history. 82.42.133.138 (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Countries
Is there any reason why this article does not contain a list of the countries highlighted in/on the map? Including such a list would make the article far more user-friendly and worthwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.233.69 (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Here it is:

Afghanistan Algeria Armenia Azerbaijan Comoros Djibouti Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Libya Mauritania Morocco Pakistan Somalia Sudan Tajikistan Tunisia Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Western Sahara Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (limited recognition) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.136.119 (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

vote for deletion
come on, the african part goes farther west than westernmost western europe, clearly not what anybody means by 'the middle east', greater or no. vote for deletion of this nonesense article! 109.128.182.182 (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And Australia goes further east than China, but is still a "western" nation. --Khajidha (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The term was probably made for Americans who think that any people who are neither white, black nor east Asian are middle eastern. The title can might as well be changed to "targets for invasion". TFighterPilot (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Europe is not the center of the world. Originally The term middle east referred to the British perspective of Egypt being midway between England and its colonies in The East (India) and the Far East (China). But for Anglophonic speakers today the term has morphed into basically being synonymous with the former Ottoman Empire (minus its European territory). Nobody would call Algeria or Libya "western" nations, they are clearly middle eastern because they have largely arab populations whose cultures have more similarities with Egypt than differences. Walterego (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge
has proposed a merge to Arab world, North Africa, Western Asia or Middle East, giving the reason:Poorly defined term; most listed nations are Arab-speaking or have notable arab-minorities; overlaps with other articles.

I had already nominated the article for deletion, see Articles for deletion/Greater Middle East. There is nothing worth merging and this page should be redirected to Middle_East. The countries included by the Bush administration do not fit Arab World or North Africa. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with the best option is to have this page redirected to Middle_East. Very little that this article conveys is already found in that section. There's nothing to merge.--Damianmx (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

I disagree. This defined area needs to stay. Please see book released by Colonel Andrew Bacevich of the U.S. Army titled "America's war on the Greater Middle East" (2016). The map in this article is the same map in the book on Page 2. He defines this specific area as an area of on-going concern pertaining to foreign policy. This area, has a number of collective cultural and political significance. I am reverting to previous version of this article and will debate the deletion of this article. ~AX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This article has been relatively stable in nature for over 10 years. Please stop redacting this article. A couple of users have started making MASS CHANGES to this article for a couple of weeks. Check the Article History yourselves. I am putting all this down for chronology's sake. ~ AX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I am taking out the note for a merge of this article into the "Middle East" article in wikipedia. This region is going through fundamental change with the imposed "Sykes-Picot" plan crumbling. Much going on in current news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Middle East. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081115112943/http://www.mepc.org//journal_vol11/0409_perthes.asp to http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0409_perthes.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A Chart/Layout similar to this one
Doremon764 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)