Rethinking The ‘Middle East’: A Case For ‘West Asia’ – Analysis

 March 14, 2025  

By Dr. Kamal Azari

The term “Middle East” has long been used to define the region encompassing countries such as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. However, this designation is geographically imprecise and deeply embedded in colonialist discourse.

Originating from a Eurocentric gaze, the name does not reflect how the region identifies itself but rather how it has been perceived by external powers—primarily European imperialists and later American geopolitical strategists. The term reinforces outdated power structures that have historically marginalized indigenous perspectives in favor of Western dominance.

A more accurate and decolonized term, “West Asia,” better represents the region’s geographic placement and serves as a necessary corrective to the colonial legacy that has shaped its modern identity. Examining similar geographical renaming efforts and the role of European racialized geography in history demonstrates why this change is not merely semantic but a vital act of historical justice. Furthermore, the philosophy of Political Mehr, rooted in Persian and Zoroastrian traditions of justice and compassion, offers an alternative lens through which the region can redefine itself—not as a subject of European narratives but as an independent and self-actualizing force.

The Colonial Origins of “Middle East” and “Near East”

Both “Middle East” and “Near East” are products of European colonialism and military strategy. The term “Near East” first gained prominence in the 19th century, primarily within British diplomatic and military discourse. The British Foreign Office and colonial administrators used “Near East” to describe the Ottoman Empire, the Balkans, and parts of the Eastern Mediterranean. The logic behind this term was entirely Eurocentric—it described regions that were “near” to Britain in contrast to the “Far East,” which referred to China, Japan, and Southeast Asia.

The term “Near East” was especially dominant in British imperial discourse during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Britain was deeply involved in managing the crumbling Ottoman Empire and maintaining control over Egypt, a key territory due to the Suez Canal’s strategic importance. The Near East was a construct that served British interests in mapping their imperial domains. As historian Roger Adelson explains, “The Near East was always a British concern, not because of its peoples or cultures, but because of its function in the great imperial chessboard of the 19th century.” (Adelson, 1995, p. 62).

However, by the early 20th century, as Britain’s focus shifted towards securing oil supplies and managing new colonial acquisitions after World War I, a new term was needed to describe its increasing strategic concerns in Persia, Mesopotamia, and the Arabian Peninsula. This shift was facilitated by Alfred Thayer Mahan, the American naval strategist who introduced the term “Middle East” in a 1902 article. Mahan described the Gulf region and Iran as the “Middle East,” emphasizing its geopolitical importance for controlling trade and naval dominance (Mahan, 1902, p. 273). This term was later adopted and institutionalized by Winston Churchill and other British officials, particularly in reference to British military bases in the region.

By the mid-20th century, “Middle East” replaced “Near East” in British and American geopolitical discourse, largely due to the rise of oil politics, Cold War strategy, and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The shift reflected not a change in the region’s nature but rather the changing interests of Western powers. The United States, particularly, found the “Middle East” useful as it engaged in Cold War interventions and sought to maintain dominance over oil-rich states.

European Racial Geography and the Imposition of Arbitrary Regional Names

The transition from “Near East” to “Middle East” is an example of European racialized geography. Regions were named and categorized based on their strategic importance to imperial powers rather than any Indigenous identities. This was part of a broader racial mapping of the world, where non-European regions were viewed through hierarchical classifications.

For example, 19th-century British anthropologists and geographers divided the world into “civilized” and “uncivilized” regions, with terms like “Near East” and “Far East” corresponding to Britain’s strategic concerns. Just as Africa was long referred to as the “Dark Continent” in Western discourse—implying an absence of civilization—the “Near East” and “Middle East” constructs reinforced a racial and cultural hierarchy in which Europe remained the center of civilization. At the same time, Asia and Africa were peripheral spaces defined by their distance and utility to European interests (Said, 1978, p. 49).

Similarly, the British referred to India as the “Jewel in the Crown” of the Empire, yet paradoxically classified it as part of the “East” despite being geographically south of Britain. These inconsistencies highlight how colonial geography was never about objective descriptions but rather about projecting power and influence.

Political Mehr: An Alternative Vision for West Asia

The term “Middle East” does not merely impose an inaccurate geographical label—it also frames the region within a narrative of conflict, colonial dependency, and Western strategic interests. Renaming the region as “West Asia” would serve not only as an act of decolonization but also as a step toward reclaiming its political philosophy, heritage, and agency. In this regard, the concept of Political Mehr offers an alternative framework for understanding the region’s governance, community, and international relations.

Mehr, a fundamental concept in Persian philosophy, embodies compassion, justice, and collective well-being. In the context of governance, Political Mehr proposes a model that prioritizes participatory democracy, social equity, and the protection of communal wealth—principles that stand in stark contrast to the extractive, imperial models imposed by Western powers over the past century. The renaming of the region as West Asia aligns with this philosophy, as it reorients the region toward its historical traditions rather than perpetuating foreign-imposed identities.

Much like the transition from “Near East” to “Middle East” served Western geopolitical interests, the continued use of “Middle East” reinforces divisive, adversarial politics, portraying the region as inherently unstable and conflict-ridden. A shift toward “West Asia,” however, could signal a new era of regional unity and cooperative governance rooted in the indigenous values of Mehr rather than in Western frameworks of control and intervention.

The Case for “West Asia” as a Decolonized Term

In contrast to the arbitrary and colonial logic behind “Middle East” and “Near East,” the term “West Asia” provides a geographically precise and neutral designation. Most international organizations, including the United Nations (UN), now use “West Asia” instead of “Middle East”, acknowledging its alignment with actual continental divisions.

Using “West Asia” rather than “Middle East” offers several key advantages:

1. Geographical Accuracy – The region is part of Asia, and its correct placement is in the western part of the continent. Unlike “Middle East,” which is based on a European point of reference, “West Asia” accurately describes the region is location.
2. Rejection of Colonial Terminology – Just as countries like Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon) and Myanmar (formerly Burma) reclaimed their indigenous names, using “West Asia” allows the region to shed a name imposed by colonial rulers.
3. Emphasizing Indigenous Identity – By removing European-imposed distinctions, the region’s people can reclaim their identity on their terms rather than through Western geopolitical frameworks.

Toward a More Just and Accurate Geographic Terminology

Renaming the “Middle East” to “West Asia” is not merely a technical correction—it is a philosophical and political realignment. It acknowledges the region’s true place in the world, liberates it from Eurocentric frameworks and allows it to embrace its traditions, including the philosophy of Political Mehr. In doing so, it offers a vision for a future where West Asia is no longer seen through a Western strategic lens but through its values of justice, compassion, and shared prosperity.

Dr. Kamal Azari is a political scientist, author, and advocate for democratic reform in Iran. With a Ph.D. in Comparative Politics from Fordham University and an M.S. in Engineering from NYU, he has dedicated his career to political and economic research, focusing on community-driven governance and democratic transitions.