The Impact of Soviet and American Policies on the Middle East - Essay Example

The Impact of Soviet and American Policies on the Middle East By Introduction The US and Soviet Union’s relationship during the Cold War Era marked approximately 40 years of competing policies for hegemony in the Middle East (Reich & Gotowicki, 1994). The Cold War rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union took centre stage in the Middle East and virtually dominated international relations during the period from the end of the Second World War to the collapse of the Soviet Union (Reich & Gotowicki, 1994). The primary impact of this super power rivalry and its ensuing policies on the Middle East is framed in terms of the balance of power theory of international relations. The impact is usually characterised as the Israeli-Arab conflict which is not only attributed to super and world power intervention during the Second World War, but perpetuated and exacerbated by US and Soviet intervention during the Cold War Era (Azar, Jureidini & McLaurin, 1978). During the period from the Second World War to the end of the Cold War, the Middle East has been a cauldron of tensions and conflicts with major conflicts primarily concentrated around the Israeli-Arab conflict (Shlaim, 1996). Using the balance of power theory, this paper will analyse how and to what extent US and Soviet policies in the Middle East produced and/or contributed to these conflicts. These conflicts are arguably the main impact of US and Soviet policies in the Middle East. Balance of Power Theory and the US and Soviet Policies in the Middle East The classical balance of power theory argues that states align their allies and interests in the creation of an international system that ensures that no state is possessed of “overwhelming power” or dominancy over other states (Chatterjee, 1972, p. 51). The modified version of the balance of power theory is more appropriate to studies of Soviet and US relations and their policies in the Middle East. In this modified version of the balance of power theory, each of the super powers aligned their allies and interest in the Middle East as a means of preventing the spread and influence of the other super power in the region and globally (Walt, 1985). Under the modified version of the balance of power theory, competing states respond to one another in that when one state pursues hegemony aggressively through alignment with other states, the competing state will attempt to match that aggressive alignment (Walt, 1985). The US and the Soviet Union persistently attempted to “balance against aggregate power” (Walt, 1985, p. 35). As Walt (1985) explained, the US and the USSR saw each other as the “other’s greatest potential threat” and devoted their “primary attention to the actions of the other” (p. 36). In focusing attention on the actions of one another, both the USSR and the US generally became involved in proxy wars in which their allies fought with the military and economic support of the two super powers (Jackson & Sorensen, 2013). While the most significant wars for larger ally involvement were the Vietnam and the Korean Wars, there were several proxy wars in the Middle East. The wars in the Middle East were primarily related to a balance of power between the Arabs and the Israelis, but were essentially a proxy war for a balance of power between the US and the Soviet Union (Jackson & Sorensen, 2013). The question is whether or not and how, the US and Soviet Union policies impacted these proxy wars in the Middle East and somehow influenced Middle Eastern policies and attitudes toward outsiders. The Impact of US and Soviet Policies on the Middle East While it is generally argued that the US and Soviet policies during the Cold War had a significant impact on the balance of powers in the Middle East, it has also been argued that the balance of powers in the Middle East impacted US and Soviet polices and how they approached the balance of powers in the region and in international relations generally. According to van Dijk, Gray, Savranskaya, Suri, and Zhai (2008), although the balance of power activities of the Cold War are usually equated with the US and Soviet Union rivalry, “smaller or peripheral state actors affected the balance of power in various regions” (p. 428). For example, in 1956, tensions between Israel and Egypt resulted in the Six Day War in 1967 over a power struggle for control of the Suez Canal. This in turn led to a conflict known as the Yom Kippur War in 1973 in which Egypt and Syria formed an alliance against Israel for reclaiming territory lost to Israel in the Six Day War (van Kijk, et al., 2008). All in all, there were seven major wars in the Middle East during the Cold War Era: the Palestine War during 1948, the Suez War of 1956, the Six Day War of 1967, the War of Attrition 1969, the Yom Kippur War 1973, the Lebanon War 1982 and the Gulf War 1991 (Shlaim, 1996). Arguably, the US entered these conflicts in terms of support of Israel, as a means of protecting its interest in the oil production in the region and for preventing Soviet “penetration” of the region (van Dijk, 2008, p. 428). Even so, one thing is apparently clear, the balance of power approach adopted by the Middle Eastern powers was quite different from that of the two super powers. The Middle Eastern smaller powers were only concerned about the balance of powers in the region and were not concerned about how that balance might be impacted by or will impact international relations. The US and the Soviet Union on the other hand were concerned about the larger picture: how the balance of power in the Middle East could benefit their positions in international dominance (Sayigh & Shlaim, 1997). As Sayidh and Shlaim (1997) argue: …what both of the superpowers had in common was a globalist approach to the Middle East. Both the US and the Soviet Union approached the Middle East from the perspective of the global rivalry between the West and East (p. 280). Each side saw a benefit by the other as a loss to them and looked upon gains as necessary for building their sphere of influence. For both the US and the USSR, their policies in the Middle East were no more than “an extension of their global strategy in the Cold War” (Sayigh & Shlaim, 1997, p. 280). From the perspective of the Soviet Union however, there was a more legitimate reason for forming alliances and supporting the Arabs in the Middle East. The Soviet Union was near the borders of the Middle East and therefore had a legitimate reason for becoming involved in the conflicts in the region. However, the US involvement in the region fortified the Soviet Union’s commitment to the Middle East and maintaining the balance of power. The US, on the other hand, “had a pronounced globalist outlook on the Middle East during the Cold War” (Sayigh & Shlaim, 1997, p. 280). It can be argued that the US and Soviet policies in the Middle East served to fuel the balance of power rivalries between the Arabs and the Israelis in the region. This is because support from the US and the Soviet Union primarily came in the form of arms. The US had a greater political influence in the region as its worldwide reputation was far more established than the Soviet Union. In response the Soviet Union was more effective in the provision of arms. In its attempts to upstage the Soviet Union, the US increased its supply of arms to its Middle Eastern allies (Sayigh & Shlaim, 1997). Thus both the US and the USSR can be said to have provided the Middle East with the weaponry necessary for perpetuating and inflaming the conflicts and tensions between the Arabs and the Israelis. For example after the 1967 war in the Middle East, the Soviets became involved in improving Egypt’s military power. This enable Egypt to pursue military action against Israeli. Egypt’s confidence was increased to the point where it felt comfortable with its changes in an all-out war against Israeli and this gave way to the War of Attrition. Israel, with the US’s assistance was able to defend itself admirably and in doing so penetrated Egypt who in turn receiving increasing assistance from the Soviets (Dawish, 1997). Despite the wars that characterised most the Cold War Era in the Middle East, Hadar (2005) argues that the impact of US and Soviet Union policies in the Middle East had a calming influence. The rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union when examined under a classical balance of power theory demonstrates that an unofficial system of “checks and balances existed” (Hadar, 2005, p. 39). Both the US and the Soviet Union were fully aware of the consequences of a nuclear war in the event the two states came head to head with each other in a war. This threat alone constrained the risks that the US and the Soviet Union would take with one another in the Middle East and elsewhere. In the meantime, the threat of an all-out nuclear war also “forced each superpower to restrain their” Middle Eastern allies (Hadar, 2005, p. 39). In other words, according to Hadar (2005), had it not been for the US and the Soviet’s involvement in the Middle East, it is quite possible that the wars experienced in the region during the Cold War Era would have been far more devastating that they actually were. It was in the US and the Soviet Union’s interest to contain those wars. However, it is also possible that since the US and the Soviet Union did not want to go to war with one another, they chose to use their allies in the Middle East to fight proxy wars for them and on their behalf. As previously discussed, it was the military assistance of the Soviet Union to the Middle East, and in particular, Egypt that emboldened the Arab’s in their attack on Egypt. No doubt, the Israeli’s had a similar feeling of confidence and were therefore likewise emboldened in their offensives and defensives against Egypt and the remaining of the Arab states in the Middle East. Regardless, as Habar (2005) argues that the bipolar international system in which the US and the Soviet Union rivalled one another for hegemony in the Middle East limited the aggression of the super powers. This is so, even if it emboldened Middle Eastern actors and increased the risk of war in the region. However, the Gulf War in 1991 during a time when the Soviet Union was substantially weakened, arguably would not have happened if the Soviet Union had at that point in time, remained a formidable rival to the US (Hadar, 2005). In this regard it can be argued that the bipolar international order during the Cold War Era had a positive impact on the peace and security in the international world order, although it may have been questionable in the Middle East. In contrast to the Gulf War of 1991, during the heart of the Cold War Era, the world’s super powers and their external allies were never directly involved in the wars in the Middle East. Conclusion The balance of power theory informs that the US and Soviet Union policies in the Middle East during the Cold War Era had both a positive and negative impact on the Middle East. While the struggle for hegemony in the Middle East encouraged and supported proxy wars between the Middle Eastern powers on behalf of or in support of US and USSR rivalries, the balance of power between the two super powers provided a system of checks and balances which involved the two super powers containing their allies in the Middle East. Therefore, while it was convenient for the US and the Soviet Union to express their power positions through conflicts between allies in the Middle East, it was certainly inconvenient for them to allow the conflicts to go too far. However, without support from the US and the Soviet Union it is quite possible that many of the wars that occurred during the Cold War Era in the Middle East, may not have occurred. It is also possible, that in the absence of the backing of super powers, the two sides may have eventually reached a peaceful agreement. It is also possible that the Middle East may have engaged in more aggressive wars had it not been for the US and Soviet Union’s support since both the US and the Soviet Union had an interest in curtailing the degree to which the conflicts in the Middle East progressed. Bibliography Azar, E.E.; Jureidini, P. and McLaurin, R. Autumn 1978. ‘Protracted Social Conflict: Theory and Practice in the Middle East. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 8(1): 41-60. Chatterjee, P. 1972. ‘The Classical Balance of Power Theory.’ Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 9(1): 51-61. Dawisha, A. 1997. ‘Egypt.’ In Sayidh, Y. and Shlaim, A. (Eds.) The Cold War and the Middle East. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hadar, L. 2005. Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Jackson, R. and Sorensen, G. (2013). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reich, B. and Gotowicki, S.H. 1994. ‘The United States and the Soviet Union in the Middle East.’ In Goldber, D. H. and Marantz, P. (Eds.) The Decline of the Soviet Union and the Transformation of the Middle East. Boulder: Westview Press. Sayigh, Y. and Shlaim, A. 1997. The Cold War and the Middle East. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shlaim, A. 1996. ‘The Middle East: The Origins of Arab-Israeli Wars. In Woods, N. (Ed.) Explaining International Relations Since 1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Dijk, R.; Gray, W.G.; Savranskaya, S.; Suri, J. and Zhai, Q. 2008. Encyclopedia of the Cold War. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Walt, S.M. Spring 1985. ‘Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power.’ International Security, Vol. 9(4): 3-43. Read More