The Geostrategic Competition over the Middle East and the Far East

The conflicts at the borders of areas of influence would continue to shape the world, sparking a state of rivalry, even a conflict, among the major powers over the global hegemony through seeking to exploit such transformations to satisfy the relevant national security requirements. Hence, the question is raised on how would the ongoing transformations during 2019 change the geostrategic importance of the Middle East and the Far East?

Relevant studies and reports in international relations indicate that the Middle East's importance in shaping international interactions is declining, while the Far East region, where there is the backyard of China and Russia, is gaining greater value. These two countries were explicitly labeled by the U.S. National Security Strategy as enemies. This slow-paced geostrategic shift towards the Far East is a logical consequence of the dynamics of rising powers that aspire to snatch the U.S. supremacy over the semi-polar world order.

The Strategic Importance of the Middle East

The Middle East has gained its weight in the U.S. foreign policy since the second half of the last century, influenced by a range of determinants, the most significant of which are: Israel’s security; ensuring the flow of energy resources in international shipping routes within reasonable production levels; and protecting allies from various threats.

The importance of some of these determinants has relatively declined. The U.S., which rushed to protect the oil flow in the Strait of Hormuz in 1991, is now turning a blind eye to the current conflict in the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb. The new Middle East philosophy also necessitates the U.S. allies to adapt to the new political requirements, which are based on strengthening these countries' political structures to reduce their strong reliance on the U.S. to protect their presence in such a troubled environment.

The security of Israel, however, remains the most significant invariable for which the U.S seizes every opportunity to "renew its firmly established commitment" to Israel's security. Such commitment is guaranteed by the high-tech arms deals that have been implemented such as the F-35 fighter jet. The U.S. strives effortlessly to further strengthen this commitment through diplomatic relations with some Arab capitals to ensure a "stable century" for the Israeli existence, according to the U.S. vision of the peace processes in the Middle East.

The Middle East's changing importance in the U.S. foreign policy was more evident in President Donald Trump’s statements. In an interview with The Washington Post on November 2018, he said that if the U.S. intends to keep its troops in this part of the world, it is because of one reason which is Israel, adding that oil importance is declining since the U.S. is producing oil more than ever.

Despite the indications of the Middle East's declining importance to the U.S. vital interests, no withdrawal would take place without reaching a major regional settlement to prevent a power vacuum that Russia may exploit. Otherwise, the U.S. would be committing a strategic mistake by which it disrupts the balance of power that is already disrupted. To ensure a smooth and noiseless withdrawal, the U.S. would seek to limit Iran’s regional influence by pushing for a new comprehensive agreement with Iran. It would also help regional allies to achieve comprehensive development, which will be the starting point to shift from the notion of an "almost failing country", a state that is prevalent in many of the region's states.

Geopolitical Quid Pro Quo

Although Russia has made additional gains in this region, such gains were not at the expense of the U.S. interests but were rather described as a relatively suspended U.S.-Russian understanding over re-dividing the shares of the areas of influence across the global political map (Geopolitical Quid Pro Quo). Russia, which has put its full weight to help the Syrian regime against the risks that threaten its existence, is aspiring to expand and diversify its regional options and tools. This includes, for example, signing deals to build peaceful nuclear reactors as part of its "peaceful nuclear diplomacy" policy to deepen its regional partnerships. In fact, one-third of the agreements that the state-owned Rosatom for peaceful nuclear energy signed during the last few years was with Middle Eastern countries. Despite the significance of such transformations, these deals will relatively remain of medium strategic importance unless relations are strengthened at the military and security levels. Russia is thus seeking to supply some Gulf countries with the S-400 missile systems in spite of the U.S. threats to impose sanctions on countries that import this technology.

U.S. Foothold in the South China Sea

Speaking of turning points, the U.S. will continuously seek to neutralize nuclear capabilities in the Korean Peninsula to avoid being hindered by the rigid structure and nature of the North Korean political system, which cannot cope with strategic changes. These negotiations may also be faced with a non-supportive stance by North Korea's public in spite of the marginalization of the public opinion in such a totalitarian system, as labeled by many academic classifications. The U.S. intelligence is also "uncertain" when it assesses North Korea’s nuclear status and evaluates the seriousness of Pyongyang’s reconciliation intentions.

Historically, the region was not among the U.S. areas of influence, implying a strategic dilemma as the lack of reliable traditional allies also underscores U.S. need to create the tools and means to bring about the desired change; a change that seems to be elusive with the new U.S. approach of producing crises and seeking to exploit them as an opportunity. Such an approach would not work with a giant economic power like China, whose share of investment in the U.S. bonds is increasing. Despite the recent exchange of harsh sanctions between the two countries, China's shares during this year accounted for nearly 20% of the U.S. total public debt, urging the need to maintain a non-confrontational situation with China.

As the U.S. minimized its interest in the Middle East straits, the South China Sea, in which there are territorial disputes, has become of greater value. The U.S. is struggling to break up the "status quo" after accusing China of militarizing this vital treasure, in which oil reserves are estimated to be around 11 billion barrels, while there 190 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves. Moreover, the sea is a passage to nearly 30% of the world trade, which is equivalent to $5.3 trillion, out of which $1.2 trillion is a trade with the U.S.

For instance, Trump’s threat to withdraw from the 1988 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the Soviet Union is attributed, according to some analysts, to the U.S. desire to draft a new treaty that includes China. This is to ensure the safety of the U.S. military bases that are deployed in the western Pacific Ocean against China’s increasing offensive capabilities.

Furthermore, this treaty restricts the navigation freedom of the U.S. Navy, whose battleships would be within the range of the Chinese fire in case they tried to reach the depth of the Chinese territories.

Geostrategic Advantage

Existing signs and indications suggest that the relative importance of the Far East region is increasing compared to the Middle East. However, at least in the near future, the Middle East is still perceived as having a geostrategic advantage since it is a center of the hotbed of global conflicts, even with the lack of a clear U.S. strategy regarding many issues in the region

The Black Swan Event:

The outbreak of war in the South China Sea.