No doubt, the issue of collective security at the international level has become synonymous with the maintenance of global
peace and security, aimed at securing the territorial integrity of the member states of the United Nations and the settlement of inter-state disputes. In this vein, the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait in 1991 saw the deployment of troops from concerned countries into the Middle East, with the primary objective of securing Kuwait’s territorial integrity: a move largely supported and sponsored by the United States, in what was referred to as the first gulf war. Following the September 11 attacks on the United States, the American government declared total war on global terrorism and wooed support from world leaders to this agenda, this culminated to a second gulf war-the invasion of Iraq, the overthrowing of the Saddam Hussein’s government and his ultimate execution. Studying the underpinning politics behind the two gulf wars, this paper views the American call for collective security as a function which serves her purpose in the Middle East: the concept of collective security is used to legalize policies and actions which are aimed at securing the United States hegemony in the region, and so long as the region serves the West economic needs, this hegemony remains important. It is the existence of this hegemony that creates artificial “colliding” forces in the region; through propaganda, the sponsorship of warring parties and direct aggression. Our argument is in two dimensions: firstly, we argued that the United States hijacked the global collective security mechanism, which she uses to pursue her interest as a hegemon in the Middle East, as evident in the cases of the two Gulf Wars. Secondly, the case of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 showed clearly that while a hegemon looses her key gramscian elements of coercion, she can sustain her position through ‘deference’.
Keywords: collective security, hegemony, American policy, Middle East, Gulf crisis.