Soviet influence in the Middle East was ultimately useless, and now it seems Washington is heading down the same path
The confrontation between Iran and Israel has been going on for several weeks now. However, none of the parties directly – or, indeed, indirectly – involved in Middle East politics are keen to see events there escalate into a larger military conflict.
In other words, the situation in this important region is slowly trying to find a kind of internal balance. This is similar to everywhere else in the world, where different countries are seeking a way to organize their relations with each other now that the old international order has collapsed but a new one has not yet emerged.
Whether they will succeed is still completely unknown. It is possible that some internal factors could provoke the Israelis into a truly full-scale aggression against Tehran. Iran will then be forced to respond with all its might.
But it’s hard to see how anything Israel does – short of a nuclear strike – could force Iran to abandon its cautious strategy. And that means the current crisis will ultimately lead to a new round of more restrained diplomatic activity. And gradually, international relations in the Middle East will settle into a new normal in which different interests will balance each other out, because the priority for each country is survival and that will prevent any truly reckless actions.
The most important question – on which the fate of the Middle East depends – is how independent all the region’s major states will be in their actions. We can see from the Ukrainian example that the real tragedy begins when a state ceases to protect its own interests and becomes a mere tool in the hands of a more powerful force. Something similar could eventually happen to the whole of Western Europe. But a country that thinks about itself and its future will never make decisions the consequences of which could lead to its destruction. Not everyone is Ukraine.
So far, the situation regarding the independence of the leading countries in the Middle East looks optimistic. Even Israel, which has traditionally been linked to the US through a wide range of political and economic contacts, cannot be seen as a mere representative of American interests. This explains the irritation that the Israeli authorities often cause in Washington. It can be said that Israel is led by dangerous adventurers and radicals, but they are not empty puppets of the US. This is in contrast to the regime in Kiev, whose representatives are simply the executors of American decisions.
Furthermore, we cannot say that someone from outside controls the actions of the leading Arab countries or Iran. They are all sovereign in their decisions. This creates a major problem for the Americans – the crises now emerging in the Middle East are not a manifestation of US plans, but have a life of their own. And this is the most serious challenge to American claims to hegemony.
This fundamental change is due to the fact that the Americans themselves have lost much of their ability to control their “subordinates.” But also because the other two great powers are not trying to force the countries of the Middle East to blindly follow their interests.
China is becoming increasingly involved in regional politics. Recently, an agreement was signed in Beijing by different factions of the Palestinian national movement. And last year, the Chinese brokered an agreement to restore diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Chinese companies are also implementing or planning several major investment projects in the region. But all of this still does not mean that Beijing is willing or able to impose its will.
This is all the more the case when it comes to Russia’s policy. It is not a question of making a country in the Middle East a mere executor of its intentions. In this respect, it is quite different from the way the USSR behaved there. Its policy in the region was subordinated to one goal – global confrontation with the US and its allies. Russia’s actions now also take this factor seriously, but not as an end in itself, but as part of a very broad strategy aimed at shaping a fairer international order.
The USSR was not interested in such things and, in general did not think in terms of global political agency, where each state has its own rights and obligations. In this sense, its strategy and practical actions in the region were much more similar to what the Americans are doing now. And they faced the same problems. At a certain point, the struggle for global hegemony becomes an end in itself, and the advantages gained in the process are related to the inertia of the country’s position as a whole, rather than to the prudence of specific decisions.
The US is still the strongest economic and political power on the planet, and that should not be forgotten. It also has enormous propaganda resources with which to influence the information space. All this automatically gives Washington a great advantage in any situation. But there are also growing costs that are being shifted onto the shoulders of ordinary citizens. Soviet policy towards developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America once fell into this trap. The US remains the most threatening power. But this ability has become part of the game that the countries of the region play among themselves. It no longer determines their actions.
The continuing professionalism and cynicism of American diplomats and intelligence services are a saving grace. They are known to work easily with the most radical movements – even terrorists – often even creating and supporting them. But as state policy becomes less flexible, even this is not enough.
The current US response to the crisis between Israel and its neighbors, which has been dragging on since October 2023, is revealing. We can see that Washington is more reacting to what is happening, not to mention wasting resources, rather than managing the situation. Remember, the USSR also behaved quite confidently until its economic ability to directly support individual allies collapsed.
The decisions that the USSR made about its policy in the Middle East didn’t take into account its own internal political factors – first and foremost, the multi-confessional and multi-ethnic composition of the Soviet Union itself. The idea of a new Soviet man replacing the diversity of religions and cultures was dominant. This limited the flexibility of foreign policy decisions,
Russia, for its part, sees itself as a Muslim country no less than a Christian one. This means that the concerns and fears of Muslims are not only taken into account in foreign policy, but they determine it on an equal footing with the aspirations of other religious denominations.
For the Americans, the religious and ethnic factor is not so important. For them, as for the USSR, the abstract interests of the state come first. That is, the interests of those who currently control the government and its decisions. As a result, policy is increasingly based on what Washington wants from the countries of the region, rather than what they themselves want. The result, not surprisingly, is a stalemate.
Therefore, we should not be nostalgic about the prestige the USSR once had in the Middle East. It was of no use in solving the most important tasks domestically and in terms of broader foreign policy. Similarly, the desire to play first fiddle in regional affairs does not help the US, which is now actually repeating Soviet mistakes. But the region itself will only benefit if the Americans are left out in the cold.
This article was first published by ‘Vzglyad’ newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.
