Skip to main content

US, Russia face off in Middle East

US-Russian relations involving the Middle East could be affected by the new US National Military Strategy, which sees a low but growing risk of an "interstate war with a major power."

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (L) meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at a hotel in Vienna, Austria June 30, 2015. With a Tuesday deadline for a final nuclear deal with the United States and five other major powers set to be missed, Iran's foreign minister said he believed it was possible to get an agreement.   REUTERS/Carlos Barria - RTX1IFKS
US Secretary of State John Kerry (L) meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at a hotel in Vienna, June 30, 2015. — REUTERS/Carlos Barria

For those who believe that what governments do is related to what they say, Moscow’s and Washington’s statements about one another are increasingly troubling. While actually rather cautious in its language, the United States' National Military Strategy is the latest example of evolving official threat assessments that describe new risks of direct conflict between the two countries. As a strategic region — and one of enduring competition and instability — the Middle East may well experience some of the consequences.

Signed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the strategy states “the probability of US involvement in interstate war with a major power is assessed to be low but growing,” implicitly referring to a potential military conflict with Russia or China. While this comes approximately one page after a disclaimer that “none of these nations [Russia, Iran, North Korea or China, described as nations challenging the international order] are believed to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our allies,” it nevertheless reflects — and is intended to convey — a change in the US military’s thinking.

Why does it matter to people in the Middle East that America is rewriting a government report that few people outside the US national security establishment actually read? Because the reports and Russia’s analogous documents provide formal guidance to military leaders and planners in both countries. A sense that direct conflict might be more likely makes planning and preparing for that contingency more important, even when considered improbable. Geopolitics, geography, energy and other factors could quickly involve the Middle East in any such contest. As the Russian Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky once reportedly said, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” 

Even robust competition short of war could have serious implications for the region. Operationally, a “growing” probability of armed conflict between the United States and Russia encourages US military planners to reassess America’s global force posture. If there is a conflict with Moscow, are US troops, ships and aircraft deployed in the right places? Should America move some of its military assets from the Middle East or other regions to Europe, which many assume would be the focus on any such confrontation?

SUBSCRIBER EXCLUSIVE

Continue reading this exclusive analysis

Original reporting and analysis unavailable elsewhere. Subscribe to AL-MONITOR to read this story and access everything we publish