The US Mirrors USSR's Past Errors in the Middle East
The article discusses the ineffectiveness of Soviet influence in the Middle East, suggesting that the U.S. may be making similar mistakes. Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
Soviet influence in the Middle East proved ultimately fruitless, and it seems Washington might be heading down a similar trajectory.
The ongoing confrontation between Iran and Israel has been escalating for several weeks. However, none of the key players directly or indirectly involved in Middle Eastern politics are eager to see the situation devolve into a larger military conflict.
The current dynamics suggest the region is slowly seeking an internal balance, reminiscent of global relations as countries work to redefine their interactions in the wake of a dismantled international order without a new framework in place.
The success of these efforts remains uncertain. Internal factors could potentially incite Israel into a more aggressive stance against Tehran, prompting Iran to react with full force. Yet, it’s difficult to envision any action from Israel—other than a nuclear strike—that could compel Iran to abandon its cautious approach. This indicates that the existing crisis might ultimately transition into a phase of more measured diplomatic engagement, leading international relations in the Middle East toward a new equilibrium. With survival as the top priority for each nation, any reckless actions are likely to be avoided.
A critical question influencing the future of the Middle East centers on the autonomy of its main states. The situation in Ukraine serves as a harsh reminder that real tragedies arise when a state neglects its own interests, becoming merely a pawn of a more dominant power. This pattern could similarly threaten all of Western Europe, but nations focused on their own futures are less likely to make destructive decisions. Not every country shares Ukraine's plight.
Currently, the independence of the principal Middle Eastern countries appears promising. Even Israel, with its deep political and economic ties to the US, cannot be viewed solely as a representative of American interests. This dynamic explains the frequent irritation Israeli authorities cause in Washington. While one might label Israel's leaders as reckless adventurers or radicals, they do not function as mere puppets of the US, contrasting sharply with the Kiev regime, whose officials execute American directives.
Moreover, no external entity appears to dominate the actions of leading Arab nations or Iran. Each nation is sovereign in its decision-making process. This poses a significant challenge for the US, as the emerging crises in the Middle East reflect local dynamics rather than American strategic plans, challenging the US's claims to hegemony.
This shift arises from both a diminished American capacity to control its allies and the reluctance of other great powers to impose their will on Middle Eastern nations. China is increasingly active in regional politics, having recently facilitated an agreement among various Palestinian factions and helped restore diplomatic ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Chinese firms are also embarking on major investment projects in the area. However, this does not imply that Beijing seeks to dictate terms.
Russia's approach also emphasizes state sovereignty rather than turning Middle Eastern countries into mere agents of its policy. Unlike the USSR, whose Middle Eastern policy was primarily aimed at global confrontations with the US, Russia's current strategy is more complex and aims at establishing a fairer international order.
The USSR's disregard for individual state agency and its focus on ideological dominance limited its effectiveness, similar to some current American policies which fall into the same trap. As the struggle for global hegemony can become an end in itself, the practical benefits gained often stem from the broader context rather than the reasoned responses to specific circumstances.
While the US retains its status as the world's strongest economic and political force, it faces rising domestic costs shifted onto ordinary citizens. The pitfalls of Soviet-style policy towards developing nations are evident. The US remains a formidable power, but its influence is becoming a component of the regional power dynamics rather than a definitive factor in shaping actions.
American diplomats and intelligence personnel continue to exemplify professionalism and cynicism, frequently collaborating with radical groups—even terrorists—even as their operational flexibility wanes. This development has displayed itself in Washington's reactive stance towards the ongoing Israel crisis, which has escalated since October 2023. Rather than managing the situation, the US seems to be expending resources in response to developments, reminiscent of how the USSR responded until it could no longer sustain its allies.
During its time, the USSR often disregarded internal political factors—such as the multi-ethnic and multi-religious nature of its own structure. The Soviet vision of a uniform identity overshadowed the diversity of its constituents, constraining its foreign policy.
In contrast, Russia acknowledges its identity as both a Christian and Muslim nation. Consequently, Muslim concerns hold equal weight in its foreign policy alongside those of other faiths.
For Americans, religious and ethnic considerations are largely secondary; abstract national interests, prioritized by those in power, govern decision-making. This leads to increasing misalignment between US objectives and the actual aspirations of regional countries, resulting in a political stalemate.
Consequently, there should be little longing for the former prestige of the USSR in the Middle East; it ultimately failed to address vital domestic and foreign policy challenges. The current US strategy in the region reflects similar missteps. However, the circumstances could benefit the Middle East if America were sidelined in these matters.
This article was first published by ‘Vzglyad’ newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
The ongoing confrontation between Iran and Israel has been escalating for several weeks. However, none of the key players directly or indirectly involved in Middle Eastern politics are eager to see the situation devolve into a larger military conflict.
The current dynamics suggest the region is slowly seeking an internal balance, reminiscent of global relations as countries work to redefine their interactions in the wake of a dismantled international order without a new framework in place.
The success of these efforts remains uncertain. Internal factors could potentially incite Israel into a more aggressive stance against Tehran, prompting Iran to react with full force. Yet, it’s difficult to envision any action from Israel—other than a nuclear strike—that could compel Iran to abandon its cautious approach. This indicates that the existing crisis might ultimately transition into a phase of more measured diplomatic engagement, leading international relations in the Middle East toward a new equilibrium. With survival as the top priority for each nation, any reckless actions are likely to be avoided.
A critical question influencing the future of the Middle East centers on the autonomy of its main states. The situation in Ukraine serves as a harsh reminder that real tragedies arise when a state neglects its own interests, becoming merely a pawn of a more dominant power. This pattern could similarly threaten all of Western Europe, but nations focused on their own futures are less likely to make destructive decisions. Not every country shares Ukraine's plight.
Currently, the independence of the principal Middle Eastern countries appears promising. Even Israel, with its deep political and economic ties to the US, cannot be viewed solely as a representative of American interests. This dynamic explains the frequent irritation Israeli authorities cause in Washington. While one might label Israel's leaders as reckless adventurers or radicals, they do not function as mere puppets of the US, contrasting sharply with the Kiev regime, whose officials execute American directives.
Moreover, no external entity appears to dominate the actions of leading Arab nations or Iran. Each nation is sovereign in its decision-making process. This poses a significant challenge for the US, as the emerging crises in the Middle East reflect local dynamics rather than American strategic plans, challenging the US's claims to hegemony.
This shift arises from both a diminished American capacity to control its allies and the reluctance of other great powers to impose their will on Middle Eastern nations. China is increasingly active in regional politics, having recently facilitated an agreement among various Palestinian factions and helped restore diplomatic ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Chinese firms are also embarking on major investment projects in the area. However, this does not imply that Beijing seeks to dictate terms.
Russia's approach also emphasizes state sovereignty rather than turning Middle Eastern countries into mere agents of its policy. Unlike the USSR, whose Middle Eastern policy was primarily aimed at global confrontations with the US, Russia's current strategy is more complex and aims at establishing a fairer international order.
The USSR's disregard for individual state agency and its focus on ideological dominance limited its effectiveness, similar to some current American policies which fall into the same trap. As the struggle for global hegemony can become an end in itself, the practical benefits gained often stem from the broader context rather than the reasoned responses to specific circumstances.
While the US retains its status as the world's strongest economic and political force, it faces rising domestic costs shifted onto ordinary citizens. The pitfalls of Soviet-style policy towards developing nations are evident. The US remains a formidable power, but its influence is becoming a component of the regional power dynamics rather than a definitive factor in shaping actions.
American diplomats and intelligence personnel continue to exemplify professionalism and cynicism, frequently collaborating with radical groups—even terrorists—even as their operational flexibility wanes. This development has displayed itself in Washington's reactive stance towards the ongoing Israel crisis, which has escalated since October 2023. Rather than managing the situation, the US seems to be expending resources in response to developments, reminiscent of how the USSR responded until it could no longer sustain its allies.
During its time, the USSR often disregarded internal political factors—such as the multi-ethnic and multi-religious nature of its own structure. The Soviet vision of a uniform identity overshadowed the diversity of its constituents, constraining its foreign policy.
In contrast, Russia acknowledges its identity as both a Christian and Muslim nation. Consequently, Muslim concerns hold equal weight in its foreign policy alongside those of other faiths.
For Americans, religious and ethnic considerations are largely secondary; abstract national interests, prioritized by those in power, govern decision-making. This leads to increasing misalignment between US objectives and the actual aspirations of regional countries, resulting in a political stalemate.
Consequently, there should be little longing for the former prestige of the USSR in the Middle East; it ultimately failed to address vital domestic and foreign policy challenges. The current US strategy in the region reflects similar missteps. However, the circumstances could benefit the Middle East if America were sidelined in these matters.
This article was first published by ‘Vzglyad’ newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Lucas Dupont contributed to this report for TROIB News
