Dear Josh,

for someone with a B.A. in History … you are painting that of Russian involvement in the Middle East with a rather broad stroke … AND you got the simplest facts wrong.

The Great Game was the Russian-British question for (1) access to a warm water port (Russia) and (2) protection of the approaches to India (GB). Its area was Central Asia/Afghanistan. It ended with the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention.

What you referred to – involvement in the Ottoman Empire – was the “Near Eastern Question” that was finally ‘answered’ by the post-WW1 re-organization of the Middle East.

From that time until the 1956 Suez War, GB was the most powerful foreign power in the Middle East. Until about that time the Soviet Union did not have the capabilities to seriously engage in the region: They withdrew from northern Iran right after WW2 and did not even make any attempts to support the (Soviet) republics of Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan (Mahabad).

The extension of the Soviet-Western Cold War to the Middle East came in the wake of Western attempts to establish bases on the Soviet’s southern flank and the Soviet’s endeavors to gain Middle East allies in order to attain a power equilibrium.

It had nothing to do with the earlier Great Game or Near Eastern Question.

These days, over a decade after the end of the Cold War, it is true that Russia is attempting to attain a bigger role in the Middle East but again, this isn’t some “old wine in new bottles”.

Russia has concerns about Islamist groups within its own territory (an issue that simply hadn’t existed until recently), and is obviously also doing what it can to fulfil all obligations of a “great power”.

I still can’t believe how crude of a picture you painted. Isn’t one of the main charges the authors of this blog level against governments, pundits, and the media to be inaccurate & simplistic?

Josh, you fell into the classic “since time immemorial” trap.

–MSK

http://www.aqoul.com

MSK is correct. “The Great Game” is a phrase coined by a young British officer named Arther Conolly. The “Game” was mainly concerned, as MSK indicated, with the Central Asian regions of Turkestan, Afghanistan, Persia, and Transcapsia, etc. This Game was played by British intelligence officers to undermine Russians interests in Central Asia – leading to priceless India. The Middle East was not part of that Game.

However, MSK, I am not aware of the “Near Eastern Question.” Are you referring to the “Eastern Question” that emerged from the Ottoman-Russian wars?

In general, I do see and agree with the point Josh is making, but MSK makes it more accurate.

Dear FP,

thanks for the correction – indeed, “Eastern Question” it was.

My issue with Josh’s tale is that he makes it look like what happens today is just a new phase of a continuous story that started in the 19th century: Russia vs. GB-then-replaced-by-the-US in the Middle East.

And that’s simply wrong and, for Josh, surprisingly ahistorical. And it triggered my “mu’ammarah kabiira” alarm. There was no “struggle for mastery of Middle East between Russia and England”. The Middle East was simply uninteresting in its own right, but had the (mis)fortune to lay smack between GB and India and held the warm-water ports (Black Sea & Turkish Straights) closest to Russia.

No outside power cared about the Middle East (ya’nii Egypt to Turkey/Iran) itself until oil was produced in sizeable quantities:

– Iraq/Turkey/Iran after WW1
– Persian Gulf after WW2

So, again, the big problem with Josh’s tale is not about the labels but Josh’s miscomprehension of today’s Russian and British/US politics as quite fundamentally different from that of the 19th or even mid-20th centuries.

–MSK

http://www.aqoul.com

Thanks MSK for the clarification. I agree with your comment that the hapless Middle East was of little or no interest during the Anglo-Russian Great Game. I also agree with paranoia about “mu’ammarah kabiira” that is usually more of a fantasy than a fact. I do, however, think that the interest of the Europeans in reclaiming and controlling the Holy Land region date back to the year Jerusalem was captured by the Muslim forces and the resulting spread of Islam in the region. I am reminded by the famous statement of the French general Henri Gouraud in July of 1920 when he charged ahead and took over Damascus. Walking over to Saladin tomb he proclaimed, “Saladin, we have returned. My presence here sanctifies the victory of the Cross over the Crescent.” Apparently, these sentiments are still raging. Your point, however, is well taken and understood.

Ford and MSK: excellent analysis and correct, glossing over my historical memory, Soviet involvement in the mid east culminated in the moves to counter in The Baghdad Pact ( if my memories are correct )

“I am reminded by the famous statement of the French general Henri Gouraud in July of 1920 when he charged ahead and took over Damascus. Walking over to Saladin tomb he proclaimed, “Saladin, we have returned. My presence here sanctifies the victory of the Cross over the Crescent.” Apparently, these sentiments are still raging. Your point, however, is well taken and understood.”

Ford here in lies i think the crux of the argument about whether peace can be achieved and the competing claims in the middle east about the holy land, when sentiment runs this deep, there will be no peace.

Assembled Manayek,

This is a blog, not an academic publication. If thats what you seek, find it in a polisci quarterly. Chill on the sardonic. Its good for people to air views without too much fear of the scholastic rounders.

Ya Manyak,

Josh would be the first to disagree with you. The point of this blog and its comments section isn’t that everybody can write whatever they want – it’s there to inform people and to debate. And if a poster makes an argument then it is absolutely clear that others may disagree and provide a counter-argument.

Now, if somebody had said “since Alawites are actually Shi’a, and since all Shi’a are under the religious rule of the Iranian clergy, thus the Assads have always done Iranian policy” … you wouldn’t’ve been surprised about a critical reply.

You seem to think that every view and every idea has the same value, regardless whether it’s grounded in reality.

If you don’t have anything useful to contribute to the conversation, please don’t be a killjoy.

–MSK

http://www.aqoul.com

I dont get it, Habib. What is it with the name calling? I appreciate your opinion and valid point, but why comprimise it with your intentional insults?

I am a manyouk too, its actually a term of affection. Don’t worry I still electronically love all of you.

The last link “Iranian and Syrian Government Papers on Renewed…” Par.3
“The [failure] of the efforts of the American hawks, who wish to monopolize the decisions and policies on a global level, has left the Americans stunned.”

Just wanted to emphasize on the exaggeration of that sentence. Including the author making It sound to Syrians that “90% of Amrricans are actually stunned about thr failure of The American Hawks”
(A Boys Perspective)
P.S. I like Habib (won’t be extreme and say love just yet) His cool funny Syrian bone must show every now and then:)
(A Boys Perspective)

Habib, k fine. For a while I thought I was playing Tarnib with my buddies – we use the same “affectionate” language! But for this blog, it is more like playing “trix”: civilized at first, then an all out, but friendly, war at the end! Electronic affections accepted and offered in return.

Syria Assad and ISRAEL are ALWAYS IN AGREEMENT
ON MANY IMPORTANT ISSUES SINCE THE 1960S

http://newhk.blogspot.com/