| Summary/Abstract |
Great Britain was more successful at organizing the politics of the Middle East, maintaining its clients and securing its interests, during the interwar period when it could credibly be claimed to be the hegemon in the region, than did the United States during its period of regional dominance. That difference is best explained not by relative power disparities or the styles of regional management practiced by London and Washington, but by changes in the infrastructural power of the local actors and changes in the relationship between the local actors and the would-be hegemons to the institutions of international governance.
|