Because it was controlled by a Great power, which was able to exclude others And the “backwater” applies only to the levant. Safavid Persia was expanding and was locked in a major struggle with both the Ottomans and the Mughals India.
I take it Israeli schools dont teach non European history much? 
But why, in the modern world, is the “geographical tieup which links the three major old war regions, Africa, Europe and Asia together” very important? There’s lots of trade routes that don’t require travel through the ME. I honestly don’t see how the amount of military and diplomatic expenditure by outside powers would be remotely as high in an oil-less Middle East.
I am sorry, but what? All Europe and China/Far East routes go through the ME, at least the most economical ones. As do Europe-S Asia ones.
We learn enough, thanks.
The Middle East stretches, by some definitions, from Morocco to Iran. When you referred to the “crossroad of the world”, I assumed you meant the Levant. And I stand by my point - in the centuries between the fall of the Mamluks and the late 19th Century, with the Canal and petroleum, the Levant was not an important strategic area, its crossroad nature notwithstanding.
Well I know it’s not meaningless, looking it up 8% of sea transport goes through the Suez (though about 10% of that is oil tankers), but there are alternatives if necessary and I don’t think keeping the route open would require nearly the same amount of military and diplomatic efforts being spent on the ME now.
Like others, I question Russia’s economic and political endurance, but I also seriously question ours. The trends are working against the United States as a global player and the political winds are shifting in the direction of America’s tendency toward national populism and isolationism. The Iraq war was an experiment in Middle East nation building - one that failed. And although I don’t view Obama as a populist or an isolationist, his election was in no small part a reaction to our bungled adventure into Middle Eastern affairs. The Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS further disillusioned Americans about our obligations there. Trump won an election in part because he promised to put ‘America first’ and to lead America into an era in which we have no global responsibilities. So there’s that political context.
Beyond that, it’s going to be difficult to finance future operations when we’re threatening to disrupt global trade with the countries that lend us money to pay for these interventions and simultaneously running trillion dollar deficits. And don’t think the deficits are going away anytime soon – the Republican party is absolutely driving us off the economic cliff like Thelma and Louise. Even in the still as yet unlikely event that President Trump gets impeached or throws in the towel and turns it over to Mike Pence, these deficits and this period of instability are going to be our economic reality until we get a Democratic president with a Democratic majority in Congress that is strong enough to crush filibusters and blue dog Democrat dissent. That’s at least until 2021. Empires don’t last when they’re drowning in red ink.
It’s beyond that nowadays. The question for the west is what happens when Assad is finished - the mad concept of not leaving behind huge power vacuums because things get random when you do …
The answer is no one knows what happens but at least the Russians have skin in the game. The USA has Twitter, and before that Tomahawk missiles and before that red lines and before that hand-wringing angst while throwing $millions at a virtual reality resistance.
So, the problem for the USA is two-fold (a) it has no dog in this fight (no side it can ally with) and (b) no one trusts the USA to go any distance never mind the whole distance. It has way,way, way too much history or supporting/switching/withdrawing/abandoning groups and/or factions. All you need is one day of withdrawn air cover for your community to be massacred.
I know this from first hand accounts from a couple of former Peshmerga fighters, Iraqi refugees and a mujahadin doctor friend who now drives a black cab; the duplicitous, self-serving, fickle USA is the most unreliable sponsor possible, and you work with them at your very great peril.
That’s kind of a weird way to look at it. You think Russia has more skin in the game than the U.S.? The problem is the U.S. has too many competing skins. They have to tap dance around Kurdish, Israeli, Turkish and Saudi interests.
Russian is seen to be a reliable partner, and trades on that. Where is the USA right now - lets have a quick look at twitter.
As the US steps back internationally regional hegemonies and alliances will fill the breach. In the Middle East there is a struggle for hegemony between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudia Arabia has Israel and Egypt on its side and Iran has Yemen, Qatar, and Syria on its side. There is likely to be much more instability before an equilibrium is reached. However, it will be less and less important as oil becomes less important.
So which country or group in the Middle East do you see switching to team Russia in the near future?
Reliable partner with respect to whom?.. Surely not Israel, or Afghanistan for that matter.
The one thing that you can say reliably about Russia is that it is committed to exerts every effort in opposing and undermining western interest around the globe. Russia (Putin specifically) is a chaos troll. A very determined and effective one - give him that.
Yes, certainly. Let’s see…Iran and Syria are definitely on board with Russia being a ‘reliable partner’. Then there is…Iran and Syria. And, of course, there is Iran and Syria. Oh, and I nearly forgot, there is Syria and Iran. Definitely overwhelming support for Russia and a broad range of support from the major players in the region!
And Russia is very trustworthy. While the US, UK and France has evidence it was Syria, Russian intelligence apparently has evidence that it was actually the UK who initiated the chemical attack to frame Russia, probably at the behest of the US who just wants to use this as an excuse to attack Assad (almost certainly why we were all ready for the attack and struck back so quickly and in such a unified way) and change the regime. It was amazing how quickly the US, France, the UK and all the others began the air campaign (almost like they knew what was coming!) and the build up for invasion. I hear there are US tanks approaching Damascus as we speak! Though to be sure they were turned back by the massive forces of Russia and the valiant forces of Syria, so it’s probably just another running dog Yankee rumor.
There is no evidence. There is just standard Colin Powell grade bullshit, plus internet hysteria. This is more helpful:
An independent investigation? Crazy stuff.
The areas of conflict in the ME tend to sit between Iran and the Mediterranean Sea.
With Iran having a GDP greater than Israel, a population far larger than Iraq and Syria combined, connection with Iraq strong and growing stronger and with its investment in Syria, I’d say it’s Iran who would likely have a commitment that they would never back down from.
He seems to be doing pretty darn well with the hand he was dealt.
Regardless of what one thinks about the last election, there is NO doubt that Putin would give his left nut not to have Clinton foreign policy on his western border. And for whatever reason, the west hasn’t made much progress in the region.
Russia’s global footprint is trivial compared to the Soviet Union’s, and that includes in the Middle East (they used to be allies with South Yemen as well as with Syria), so I don’t see how you can say the US is losing influence. Maybe compared to a very short window right after 1990, Gulf War I, etc… Possibly.
Anyway, why is the US “losing influence” a bad thing? What’s wrong with being a, you know, normal country? Denmark isn’t a global superpower with military forces roaming all over the world, and Danish people seem to be very happy & comfortable.
I agree it isn’t all about Russia.
I would say that conquering Iraq and handing it to Iran was a little weird, especially when you consider the stupendous investment.
Plus, our destabilization was one of the factors that resulted in what we have today in Syria.
We’re at odds with the entire rest of the world on Israel, having taken strong stance in favor of ethnic cleansing in West Bank and continuation of the decade long war on Gaza.
We muffed Egypt, being stuck in a foreign policy that weighed stable US trade relations above what was good for the people.
Again, I’m not sure that our influence v. Russian influence is the best way to evaluate what we’ve done in the ME. It might be best to simply consider what has happened.
I don’t really expect an answer, but I thought I’d circle back on this and see if you still feel that Russia is ‘seen to be a reliable partner’ after recent events. I’m not asking if your opinion has changed wrt the US, just how you see things in light of the fact that Russia apparently stood aside and let this attack through, despite your assurances in other threads that this was all an elaborate trap to demonstrate the feet of clay that is the US military and show off the vaunted Russian capabilities, easily swatting down our pitiful attempts with contemptuous ease and showing the world who can be trusted to have their backs.
What’s your take now?
I’m not all that attractive.
If I want to look better on stage, one easy way is to make sure the guy I’m beside is far inferior.
Likewise, if I want to give the impression that I’m a genius without having to really be one, I can cheat by making sure I’m being compared only with people of lesser intellect.
Anyway, Putin sure looks more like a worthwhile leader than he did a couple of years ago. Some people seem to think of him differently these days. Not sure why - he doesn’t seem to have changed all that much.
