Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The Eurasian Middle East and the role of Turkey

In the new global geopolitical formatting, Russia – as the Heartland according to classical geopolitics – continues to play the central role in writing the new multipolar routes. The new international cooperation in the Eurasian key is confronted with the strategic positioning of Turkey, where the key turning point is, again, the question of effective opposition to the U.S. strategy in the region. Having declared the space of the entire world as a zone of its own national interests, the U.S. is pursuing a series of strategies to redistribute the regional balance of power in its favor at every point of the earth’s political space.

At present, Russia is beginning to be seriously affected by the processes taking place in the Middle East and higher up in the Pacific region. We will divide the issues of the geopolitics of the South and the East along the conditional line of Pakistan: we will understand as South the space from Egypt and Syria to Pakistan, and as East the area from India to the Pacific region, all the way to Japan.

For the Middle East -West Asia, the United States has its Greater Middle East Project, which envisages the ‘democratization’ and ‘modernization’ of Middle Eastern societies with a change in the structure of the nation-states in the region through the likely disintegration of Iraq, the emergence of a new state of Kurdistan, the possible dismemberment of Turkey. Always decisive remains the aggressiveness towards Iran, which is constantly under fire. The overall significance of the project is to strengthen the military presence of the United States and NATO in the region, weaken the positions of Islamic governments and countries with a highly developed Arab nationalism, in order to promote the introduction of globalism into the traditional religious structure.

The Russian Heartland is interested in exactly the opposite scenario:

• supporting the Arab countries in their attempt to build societies based on a unique ethnic and religious culture;

• reduce the number or, better still, achieve the absence of U.S. military bases throughout the macro-area;

• preserving traditional societies and their natural development;

• develop bilateral ties with all regional powers in this area, first and foremost with Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.

Turkey’s withdrawal from NATO would be optimal for Russia because it would allow for a clear intensification of the strategic partnership with this Eurasian country in its identity. Turkey is one in which the proportions between traditional and modern society are very reminiscent of Russian society. In recent years, Turkish leaders have spoken more and more openly about the possibility of Turkey’s withdrawal from NATO, so much so that the country has radically changed its geopolitical behavior in the last decade, transforming itself from a reliable stronghold of Atlanticism – since 1952 – into an autonomous regional power capable of pursuing an independent policy, even when it diverges and contradicts the interests of the U.S. and NATO. Therefore, today it’s entirely possible to speak of the creation of the Moscow-Ankara axis, when fifteen or twenty years ago it was out of the question.

For Russia, Turkey also plays a role of maritime dominance over the Mediterranean, because Istanbul controls the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, thus the strategic but also economic access to the great aquifer that connects Europe and Africa.

Strengthening the Moscow-Tehran Axis

Further east lies the most important element of the Eurasian sector’s multipolar model: mainland Iran, a country with a thousand-year history, a unique spiritual culture unique spiritual culture and a key geographical position. The Moscow-Tehran axis is the main line in the construction of what the German Karl Haushofer called the Eurasian pan-idea. Iran is the strategic space that automatically solves the problem of transforming the Heartland into a power global power. If with Ukraine integration is a necessary condition for this, with Iran a strategic partnership may suffice.

Considering the geographical peculiarities and cultural and ethnic differences, the Moscow-Tehran axis should be a partnership based on rational strategic calculation and geopolitical pragmatism in the name of implementing a multipolar model of the world order, the only one suitable for both modern Iran and modern Russia.

Iran, like any coastal area on the Eurasian continent, and thus Rimland, theoretically has a dual identity: it can either make a choice in favor of Atlanticism, or in favor of Eurasianism. The uniqueness of this situation lies in the fact that Iran’s political leadership, mainly the nationalist- and eschatologically-minded Shia clergy, is on extreme anti-Atlantic positions, categorically denying American hegemony and firmly opposing globalization. Acting more radically and consistently than Russia in this regard, Iran has naturally become ‘enemy number one of the United States’. In this situation, Iran has no way to continue to insist on such a position without relying on a solid military-technical force: Iran’s potential for confrontation with the U.S. is still an open question mark. Russia and Iran are united in a common strategic space by the peculiar historical moment itself. The Moscow-Tehran axis solves all fundamental problems for the two countries: it gives Russia access to warm seas and Iran a guarantor of nuclear security.

The territorial essence of Russia as Heartland and the territorial choice of modern Iran put both powers in the same position in relation to U.S. strategy in the entire Central Asian region: for both Russia and Iran, the absence of Americans near their borders and the interruption of the redistribution of the balance of power in this area pro-American interests are of vital interest.

The U.S. has already developed its plan to turn that region into the so-called Eurasian Balkans, as Brzezinski wrote, from which to drive out any Iranian and Russian influence. The plan is based on the creation of another Rimland, this time on Russia’s southern borders, designed to separate Russia from Iran, just as the western cordon sanitaire is designed to separate Russia from continental Europe. This new Rimland should include the countries of the Great Silk Road (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan), which should be placed under American influence. The first agreement in this scenario is the deployment of military bases in Central Asia and the deployment of the American military presence in Afghanistan. The task of Russia and Iran is to disrupt this project and reorganize the Central Asian political space in such a way as to remove the American military presence from there, break through the Asian Rimland, and jointly build the geopolitical architecture of the Caspian region of Afghanistan. Russia and Iran have the same strategic interests here: what is advantageous for Russia is advantageous for Iran and vice versa. This is also true at the geo-economic level, where the intensification of trade and the strengthening of routes through the Caspian region confirm the common purpose.

The Afghan problem and the role of Pakistan

If the Caspian region is first and foremost a matter of Russian-Iranian relations, then reformatting Afghanistan requires the involvement of Pakistan. This country has traditionally been oriented in line with the Atlanticist strategy in the region and was artificially created by the British when they left the West Indies specifically to create more problems for the regional power centers. But in recent years, Pakistani society has changed significantly and the previously imposed pro-Anglo-Saxon orientation is increasingly being challenged, mainly due to the discrepancy between the globalist standards of modern and post-modern global society and Pakistan’s traditional and archaic society. Iran and Afghanistan have traditionally built very tense relations, which manifested itself in the intra-Afghan conflict, in which Iran and Pakistan invariably supported the opposing sides involved in the war: the Shia, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Northern Alliance forces were supported by Iran, the Pashtuns and their radical leadership (Taliban) by Pakistan.

Under these conditions, Russia has the opportunity to play an important role in structuring the new Afghanistan through a new development of Russian-Pakistani relations, and the multipolar horizon itself dictates in which direction and on which basis to develop relations between Moscow and Islamabad. The priority is the liberation of the entire Central Asian territory from the American presence, and taking advantage of the conflicts between the Taliban forces and NATO. The Taliban’s recent diplomatic rapprochement with Russia and the BRICS+ and SCO partnerships are a clear sign of positive involvement on all fronts. The United States never does anything for nothing, not even in favor of Russia: if it has entered into conflict with the Taliban, then there are serious strategic and economic reasons, and the most obvious reason is the need to legitimize the American military presence in the region. Afghanistan is precisely geographically the base of the Asian Rimland directed against Russia and Iran.

A further advantage to be considered is the Islamabad government’s openness to partnerships: this opens up the prospect of a consolidation of the Central Asian macro-area to the point of closing it off completely from American interference. Pakistan, which is experiencing great political and social instability, has before it the opportunity to enter into a geostrategic and geo-economic alliance capable of halting the American war claim once and for all.