No, Russia Isn't Taking Over the Middle East
No, Russia Isn't Taking Over the Middle East
Screen shot / YouTube
This piece originally appeared on Informed Comment.
There has been a lot of talk of Russian reassertion in the Middle East and
angst (except in Donald Trump) about a deterioration of the US position
there.
Neither of these propositions, of a Russian assertion or a US decline, is
supported by much evidence. And a US disengagement from the region in any
case might make sense.
When Trump pulled out of northeast Syria, the inside-the-beltway Blob went
ballistic about the US giving up its hard won victories. But the fact is
that Syria has not ever been an American sphere of influence. Ever. Nor is
there a reason for it to be. It has no significant resources. Before the
Civil War that broke out in 2011 its GDP was less than that of Belarus or
Tanzania.
The US did not, or should not, have gone into Syria to hold territory. It
was a temporary strategic strike against ISIL deploying air power in support
of a largely Kurdish ground force. It could be compared to the intervention
to stop Serbian fascist leader Slobodan Milosevic from genociding the
Kosovars in the late 1990s under Clinton, which did not lead to US bases in
Kosovo.
The foreign policy lobbies in Washington D.C., funded by the military
industrial complex, of course see a US intervention as being like a Swiss
Army knife- they can think of all sorts of purposes to which they would like
to put it. The purpose du jour is an attempt to block Iranian supplies going
to the Damascus regime or their ally, the Hizbullah party-militia in
Lebanon. I don't know of any evidence at all that the few hundred US troops
assigned this mission in Syria have had any success, and the whole endeavor
strikes me as implausible.
If Syria has never been a US sphere of influence, it had been a Soviet
sphere of influence from the 1960s forward, until the end of the Cold War.
Russia's return there is like the US increasing its military presence in
South Korea. It isn't anything new.
It also isn't anything to write home about. Russia has few other toeholds in
the region. In fact, it has lost ground. Libya used to tilt toward Moscow
under Gaddafi and that is over with. Egypt was pro-Soviet until 1970, but
then decided that the US held all the cards in the Middle East. Despite the
correct Cairo-Moscow relations of today, there isn't any significant sign
that Egypt's officer corps has changed its mind about this. Tunisia and
Morocco are solidly pro-West. Only Algeria in North Africa is friendly with
Russia, but surely its relationship with France is far more important.
Algeria, moreover, is in the midst of a protest-fueled transition, and it is
not possible to predict its foreign policy in the near future.
East of Suez, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council are all
very pro-American. Two-thirds of Lebanon is, as well. Turkey is NATO, and
there isn't any real evidence of Ankara growing close to Moscow. Despite the
purchase of a Russian anti-aircraft system, Turkey is solidly embedded in
NATO. More important, Turkey's strategic goals in the region are
diametrically opposed to Russia's, and they might yet shoot at each other
over Idlib. Russia wants to help Bashar al-Assad crush what is left of the
Sunni resistance in northern Syria, whereas if Turkey could it would help
them overthrow the Syrian government.
Russia has an alliance of convenience with Iran, but it is extremely
superficial and mainly involves a conjuncture of interests in Syria itself.
There isn't any evidence of an Iraqi tilt toward Moscow, and if anything the
increasing unpopularity of Iran there could hurt Russia, as well.
You go through the map, there just aren't any grounds for all this
Washington angst.
The main US interest in the Middle East is petroleum. (The petroleum isn't
even for the US in the main but for US allies and to ensure that the oil
states have the wherewithal to buy expensive fancy US-made weapons). Syria
has no oil to speak of, despite what our addled president fondly imagines.
Moreover, petroleum is rapidly on its way out. It is mainly used to fuel
vehicles, and Volkswagen alone has plans for 20 new electric vehicle models
beginning fall 2020. China's electric vehicle sales jumped 62% in 2018 to
1.3 million. Nearly 8% of new car sales in California last year were EVs.
Petroleum is already worthless if you figure the climate and other pollution
damage it does to the earth (and Big Oil may soon start losing lawsuits over
this damage). But the markets have not yet realized it is worthless. As
extreme weather events multiply and freak out the public, petroleum may end
up being banned by many societies in the near future. Why should the US
invest a lot of resources in the Middle East for the sake of petroleum when
it will likely be over with within 15 years?
Russia went into Syria to stop Salafi fundamentalists from taking it over.
Syria is to Russia what Central America is to the US, and influences from
there could spread north. Some 15% of Russians are Muslims, and Vladimir
Putin made his bones by crushing a fundamentalist revolt in Chechnya in the
Balkans.
The Russian adventure in Syria may not even succeed in the long run. But it
is specific to that country, not a regional policy.
Juan Cole
Contributor
Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the
University of Michigan and the proprietor of the Informed Comment e-zine. He
has written extensively on modern Islamic movements in.
