Gauging the international balance of power from the confines of the Middle East

By: Taimoor Choudhry

The unfolding events in the Middle East provide a clear picture of the ongoing power struggle in the International system. The  Middle East is one of the most dynamic regions in the world for a reason. Mired with instability, the region is a prominent example of geopolitics at play and a fitting illustration of the so called “resource curse.” Instead of benefiting the region, its abundance energy reserves has made the Middle East a target for countries seeking hegemony. It is the modern equivalent of the “Great Game,” where the race to the top depends on securing energy resources.  The United States is one of the principle players in the Great Game. As a result, the current events in the middle east tell a great deal about US standing in the international community.

At the end of the cold war, the US emerged as the sole super power of the 20st century. Its rise to power was not coincidental. Instead, it was an outcome of a carefully planned foreign policy by men such as Henry Kissinger who were stout in the art of real politics. The aim of this foreign policy was to sustain in US drive to global hegemony by way of securing vital energy resources in the Middle East; and, up until a decade or so ago, the foreign policy had been successful, as the United States had gained a strong foothold in the Middle East.

The success, however,  came at a cost. US incessant intervention in the Middle East during the 20th century had created enemies. In turn, these enemies utilized cowardly and shameful means to attack the US, forcing its hand to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Given its historical legacy in the region, however, the war against Afghanistan and Iran tarnished US’s credibility in the Middle East. US’s opponents, such as Iran, have used the taint of war to chip away at US’s footing and influence in the Middle East, while strengthening their own standing in the region.

Many, including myself, have argued that the approach has worked. US’s ability to influence events in the Middle East has waned. For example, the US could do nothing more than employ the threat of war and sanctions to stop a defiant Iran from allegedly developing nuclear weaponry. The bite from the sanctions, however, was being undercut by other countries.[i] Furthermore, Iran, keen to the realities of a thinly stretched US military, became ever more defiant, seeing the threats of war as mere rhetoric masking the aging hegemon’s limitations. US’s diminishing influence in the Middle East is further support by the events in the Arab Spring.

The Arab Spring has uprooted old power structures and alliances, and the US can’t do anything other than letting the developments unfold. For example, the US could do nothing to stop the over through of Egyptian President Mubarak, a long standing US ally.  When it has taken action, such as in Libya, the US has been unable to control the aftermath. Libya is now a country engulfed in civil war. In addition, the Arab Spring provided a situation  in which US’s historical standing in the Middle East was challenged by its historical rival, Russia.

In Syria, the situation was rapidly deteriorating. Assad’s excessive use of force against its citizens had taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders. Images of unyielding brutality had brought the Syrian conflict to the international forefront, and many were calling for US intervention. Intervening in Syria would have been beneficial to the US for two reasons: First, supporting the rebel cause would demonstrate US support for the Arab Uprising, improving US’s image and credibility amongst the younger Middle Eastern generation. Second, the overthrow of Assad, as viewed by many, would destroy Iran’s long standing allies, enabling the US to finally put an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

However, the US, facing strong opposition from Russia and China[ii], refrained from intervening in Syria. Nevertheless, the US drew a line, which if crossed would make intervention inevitable.  The line was the use of weapons by Assad’s regime in the civil war. Unfortunately, the line was crossed; Syrian military used chemical weapons against its citizens, leaving thousands dead. Now, it was the US’s turn to respond.

After the chemical attack, both Russia and China warned against US intervention in Syria.[iii] In addressing the American people and their political leaders, Russian President Putin stated that a response would “increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism.”[iv] In the wake of this warning, long standing US allies Britain and France decided to back down and not intervene in Syria, leaving the US to consider solo military action. In the end, President Obama decided to not take military action, choosing, instead, to follow a diplomatic plan proposed by Russia.

President Obama’s decision to not take military action in Syria even after it used chemical attacks demonstrates that the international balance of power is shifting. It is no longer the unipolar system that emerged after the cold war. Instead, the international system is becoming a mulipolar where one power can no longer dictate the terms. Given this backdrop, it is critical that the US change its foreign policy to one that is more conducive to the changing environment. In addition, the US should also focus inwards to address some of the issues that its society is facing. The aging hegemon needs to tend to its wounds, which are a consequence of its historical foreign policy. In doing so, it must realize that what made it special was not its might, but its adherence to freedom and justice.