Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Russia’s Middle-East Gambit

The Syrian civil war puts Moscow’s relations with the West, Turkey, the Gulf States, and Israel to a serious test

Print Email
A man holds a portrait of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin during a rally in front of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in support of the Syrian regime. Oct. 19, 2012. (Andrey Smirnov/AFP/Getty Images)
Related Content


Bashar al-Assad has maintained his country’s key position in Mideast politics by drawing out the peace process and turning it into warfare by other means

Unlikely Martyr: Mikhail Khodorkovsky as Noble Dissident in Putin’s Russia

Newly released from prison, the Jewish tycoon was Russia’s wealthiest oligarch – and the Kremlin’s chief critic

If it does nothing else, the recent Syria summit arranged by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry formally marked the re-emergence of Russia as a power in the Middle East, after a hiatus of more than 20 years. Yet Moscow’s objectives today are vastly different. Russia is out to raise the stakes for U.S. military intervention, which it sees as destabilizing for the world order; to minimize the impact of Islamist radicalism and extremism born out of the Arab Spring; and to try to find political solutions to a host of issues, from the civil war in Syria to Iran’s nuclear issue to post-American Afghanistan.

In the days of the czars, the Eastern Question was about seizing control of the Black Sea straits and annexing Constantinople. Communist Russia immediately viewed the Muslim “workers of the East” as allies in its revolutionary struggle against Western capitalism and colonialism. As the Soviet Union turned into a superpower after World War II it assumed a more active political, military, and economic role in the Middle East, which became a theater in the global Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Once the Cold War over, the Kremlin abandoned its ally Iraq and lost interest in its remaining clients in the region, such as South Yemen and Syria. In Russian society, the long and painful experience of Soviet involvement in Afghanistan gave rise to what was called “Afghan syndrome,” i.e., shunning involvement, especially with military forces, in the Muslim world. Focused on itself and its immediate neighborhood, the Russian Federation physically quit and then neglected whole regions of former Soviet influence, including the Middle East. It continued selling arms to some of its ex-allies, including Syria, but now on a commercial rather than ideological or strategic basis.

Yet the Chechen war revealed that Chechen separatists, and terrorists, had sources of funding and recruitment in many parts of the Middle East. To the surprise of some in Moscow, Iran turned out to be a responsible neighbor and a useful partner, staying away from the Chechen conflict and even helping Russia negotiate an end to the bloody civil war in Tajikistan. Chechnya also prepared the ground for Vladimir Putin’s prompt response to Sept. 11. Putin saw little difference between al-Qaida and Chechen extremists, and he gave strong support to the United States in Afghanistan, even though Moscow later disapproved of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The need to fight against terrorism and Islamist extremism also resulted in improved understanding between Russia and Israel. The Syrian civil war, however, has put Russia’s relations with the West, Turkey, the Gulf States, and Israel to a serious test.


Moscow’s attitude toward the Arab Spring has been cautious from the very start. Russians could well see the socioeconomic roots for the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, where the rulers had lost touch with their peoples. The Kremlin was not particularly impressed with the pro-Western liberals in both countries, who managed to channel urban classes’ anger to topple the regimes but failed to come to power in the wake of revolutions. Unlike Europeans and Americans, Russian officials did not expect Western-style democracy to follow secular authoritarianism: What they began to brace for, early on, was a great Islamist revolution engulfing the entire region.

In the Russian assessment, this revolution can take a long time to unfold. It can also spread to other Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf. In general, Moscow has taken a pragmatic approach toward the new regimes in Egypt and Tunisia. It relaxed its formal ban on the Muslim Brotherhood, deemed a terrorist organization for its role in Chechnya more than a decade ago, and invited Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi for talks in Sochi last April. Despite the revolution, Egypt remains a top destination for Russian holidaymakers—2.5 million of them in 2012—and Russian energy companies may soon be following in their footsteps.

Libya, for Russians, provided another angle for assessing the Arab Spring. In the hope of getting Western support for the Russian economic modernization agenda, Moscow decided in 2011 not to stand in the way of a humanitarian intervention in Libya. It was soon bitterly disappointed, however, when the no-fly zone in Benghazi morphed into a regime change in Tripoli. The experience of being used and then ignored by the West has informed Russia’s subsequent stance on Syria.

Moscow’s attitudes to developments in Syria are governed by three principal sets of considerations. At the top comes the concern for the global order. From the Kremlin’s perspective, any foreign military intervention must be approved by the U.N. Security Council, i.e., by Russia, and regime change under pressure from the outside should be ruled out.

At the center of the Russian approach to Syria lies a sober assessment of both the Assad regime and the opposition to it. The regime, while unquestionably brutal and too inflexible from Moscow’s perspective, is credited with having considerable toughness and staying power—an assessment that has proved correct despite countless predictions to the contrary by Western and regional leaders. Moreover, the urban merchant classes of Damascus and Aleppo have so far not turned against Assad, probably fearing the alternative more than the regime in place. As to the alternative, the Russians soon noted that what had begun as a democratic protest movement was predictably taken over by radicals and extremists whose triumph, should it come, would turn Syria into a haven for al-Qaida-style terrorists. From Moscow’s perspective, Assad may be problematic insofar as his methods are concerned—but his enemies constitute a real threat not just to Syria, but also to other countries, including Russia.

Finally, and this is both last and least, in the order of priorities: Russia’s Syria policies are guided by its interests on the ground in Syria, namely the arms-trade relationship; the modest naval resupply facility at Tartus; and the humanitarian concerns for several thousand Russian citizens who are married to Syrians and for Syria’s Orthodox Christian community.

They began to brace for a great Islamist revolution engulfing the entire region.

In terms of both the underlying geopolitical logic and the actual calculus, Russia’s approach is more solid than either the West’s or Turkey’s. Moscow’s vision is not distorted by taking sides in the regional Sunni-Shia struggle whose primary battleground now is Syria. Neither is it led by wishful thinking about the longevity of the regime in Damascus. Yet Russia’s image has suffered in many parts of the Arab world, where it is portrayed as a friend of authoritarian regimes and as an ally of and arms supplier to Bashar al-Assad and therefore as a friend of Iran. More important for Moscow, the developments in Syria appear to be leading to the worst possible outcome: the overthrow of the Assad government and the ensuing chaos, with the extremist elements in the strongest position. As a result, Moscow has long been advocating a Yemen-style power-sharing deal in Syria, only to meet with a lack of interest among the opposition groups and their Gulf, Turkish, and Western backers.

It was only when the Western calculus on the ground in Syria began to change, and the prospect of the United States being drawn into the Syrian imbroglio started to look inevitable, that the Obama Administration reached out to Putin for a possible political solution on the basis of the 2012 Geneva communiqué. The amount of heavy lifting required from both Washington and Moscow is stunning, and the odds are heavily against success at the new Geneva conference next month, but the alternative to a political settlement is truly frightening.

One obstacle is that Russia has insisted in involving Iran in Syria-related discussions, to which the Gulf Arabs and the United States strongly object. Moscow is frequently referred to as Tehran’s ally and advocate. Indeed, Russia has built a nuclear power reactor in Bushehr and has supplied Iran with a range of weapons systems. Russia, for its part, sees Iran as not so much a theocracy bent on developing nuclear weapons to terrorize the region as a power that has been in the region forever and that is likely to play a more important role in the future.

Russians appreciate that the Iranian theocracy has more checks and balances than the old Soviet system. As to nuclear weapons, a country with Iran’s resources and self-image should be able to build them, if its leadership decides to do so. Tehran, they think, is probably aiming for an outcome in which it stops at a relatively small step before reaching a nuclear capability and trades its restraint in exchange for dropping all sanctions against it and respect for its security interests. Moscow interprets Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas as both part of a low-level conflict between Iran and Israel and as an element in the Shia-Sunni competition in the Muslim world.

Yet Russia’s view of Iran, while not as bleak as Israel’s or the West’s, is anything but benign, due to history and the current lack of trust. The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is more than troubling for Moscow: Even today, Iranian missiles can reach many parts of southern and central Russia. According to U.S. diplomats, Moscow cooperates more with Washington on Iran than it is usually given credit for in the mainstream Western media. Unlike many in the United States, however, Russians believe that pressuring Iran has limits of usefulness: Beyond a certain point, it becomes counterproductive, undercutting the pragmatists and empowering the bad guys that one seeks to isolate.

At the same time, despite the baggage of history, and its current relationship with Iran, Russia’s attitudes toward Israel are overwhelmingly positive. Many Russians admire the social and economic accomplishments of the Jewish state and its technological and military prowess. Intense human contacts under conditions of a visa-free regime and the lack of a language barrier with a significant portion of Israel’s population help enormously. What also helps is Putin’s positive disposition toward the Jewish people in general and toward the State of Israel, even if he does not always see eye to eye with its leaders.

The meeting in Sochi in May between Putin and Prime Minister Netanyahu has predictably failed to resolve the issue of the Russian S-300 air-defense systems to be delivered to Syria and maintained with Russian technical support. From the Kremlin’s perspective, it is those systems that hold the bar high for outside military intervention in Syria and thus help achieve Moscow’s main objective. The Russians also appear to be more confident than many Israelis or Americans as to the nature and degree of control over those systems: Essentially, operating them would require Russian technicians. Finally, Putin knows that denying or withdrawing air-defense cover is the ultimate argument he needs to hold in reserve to make Assad buy into a real power-sharing deal, should Moscow and Washington decide to play a “Dayton for two” in Syria.


To speak of a coherent Russian strategy in the Middle East is therefore premature. What is clear is that Moscow is beginning to step out of its post-Soviet self-absorption. Its main preoccupation is with security—and Islamist extremism features as a primary threat. This is a big issue. By contrast, Russia’s interests in the Middle East are relatively modest. They are centered on oil and gas exploration deals, pipeline geopolitics, and pricing arrangements; other energy opportunities beckon in the nuclear area. While Russia’s position in the regional arms bazaar has suffered in the last decade as a result of developments in Iraq and Libya (and may yet suffer more in Syria), Moscow is clearly determined to stay in the arms business. Finally, as Russia recasts itself as a defender of traditional Christian values as well as a land of moderate Islam, it is discovering a range of humanitarian causes in the birthplace of both global religions.

To address its concerns and promote its interests, the Russian Federation is seeking both to bolster its defenses against imports of Islamist radicalism and extremism from the Middle East, and to help settle conflicts in the region in cooperation with the United States and other world and regional powers. It is using the U.N. Security Council to limit the liberty of the United States to intervene militarily and to block all attempts at regime change from the outside. Such defense of traditional international law and state sovereignty is linked not only to the Russian leadership’s generally conservative worldview but equally, if not more, to the Kremlin’s wariness toward Western democracy promotion. In an effort to upgrade Russia’s role in the region itself, Moscow has revived, albeit on a small scale, the Russian Navy’s permanent presence in the Mediterranean. To prevent the rise of a nuclear-armed Iran, Russia prefers international negotiations but with the military option kept off the table.

To further its economic interests, Russia prefers government-to-government agreements allowing its state-owned and private companies to operate in individual countries. In the energy sector, Russia has accommodated to Turkey’s new role of a regional energy hub but has worked hard to protect its own share of the European Union’s natural gas market. Gazprom’s very expensive pipeline project, the South Stream, to be built across the Black Sea and traversing the Balkans en route to Austria, may indeed evoke comparisons with the 19th-century Russian encroachments on what was then the Ottoman Empire. But it also demonstrates how much has changed in both Russia and the Middle East.


Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine’s new content in your inbox each morning.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

ACraigs says:

Terrific article, Dr. Trenin, perhaps the best I have read on Russia’s approach to Middle Eastern complexities. While I cannot agree with all of Russia’s positions, one cannot deny their consistency and logic, especially when so clearly stated. Russia makes the West look fickle and amateurish.

Habbgun says:

Middle Eastern Christians are the forgotten people in the new world order. A natural ally even one that doesn’t use military force but focuses attention on their fate is long overdue. Is Russia the right one? Who knows but if no else steps in then they are for sure the best.

jzsnake says:

I hope your analysis is correct. It eases a bit my concern over Russia. I wish you might give more examples on how Russia is friendly with Israel.

    Jzz Zzs says:

    said frienship flourished in recent elections, if only by extension, in which ex-Soviet compatriots voted in hordes for right-wing loonies, who in turn cater to their siege mentality, same mentality that governs Putin’s Russia.

      jzsnake says:

      I knew it there is a loser in in every crowd who can’t help themselves. LOL!

herbcaen says:

I think the truth is more simple. Russia’s main enemy is the US. Therefore, its goals are to support an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis. Even a nuclear armed Iran would be tolerated because it would come at the expense of US influence, just as China tolerates (and subsidizes) nuclear armed N Korea. The Russian admiration of Israel is overstated. Israel is a nation of zhyds, and if Iran were to nuke zhyds, Russians wouldnt care too much. Also, Israel is an ally of the US, and is thus by extension an enemy of Russia. The difference is that in Syria, Russia has clear objectives, while the US is too guilt ridden to pursue its own interests

PhillipNagle says:

The civil war in Syria has made it easy for Russia. Obama has thrown in with Sunnis supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, leaving Iran, Iraq and the Syrian government to Russia. This puts the US on the side of the most repressive regime in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, and the leaders of international terrorism, al-Qaeda. Has the US gone mad?

mladenm says:

Article missing most important part: Russia badly needs secular Arab countries and prominent Islamic centre of learning (like Damascus) out of Salafist influence, If majority of Muslim in Russia start demanding Sharia state, it will be really tricky. As for weapons trade, Russian sales to Syria are smaller then bribes in NATO sales to GCC block. And GCC tyrants fear democratic Syria, seeing in it writing on the wall.That is the reason why rebels reject political solution, since they cannot go against wishes of their paymasters.

    Mr Mel says:

    True democracy cannot exist in a Muslim State. It has to start with freedom of speech.

      mladenm says:

      If you talk of Muslim State as theocracy, then not. You cannot have democratic theocracy in monotheistic religions… can you? But country populated with Muslim majority can be democracy. Only problem is, they are few decades behind West in some social processes. How would you judge democracy in most Western countries in about 1942?

CiporaJuliannaKohn says:

Reading this article one would conclude that Russia is a brilliant, pragmatic state, almost altruistic, whose sole purpose is to preserve peace and a peaceful “world order.”
The truth is that Russia is aiming to re-capture its former role as a world power in opposition to the United States. Russia is sensing, quite correctly, that President Obama is a very weak president, a man without strategic vision. Hence, Russia has been able to position itself better and to its advantage in the present world order.

Russia’s position on Iran is neither prudent nor understandable. The claim that Iran’s theocracy has checks and balances is patently false. Iran is a totalitarian state ruled by Khamenei. The blithe assertion that Iran should have the right to have nuclear weapons leads one to conclude that Russia is willing to tear up and discard the NPT.
Such a cavalier attitude would definitely result in a nuclear arms race in the region and beyond–and Russia, who seems not to fear a nuclear armed Iran, would find itself surrounded by nuclear armed Sunni states with a grudge.

Syria is an admittedly difficult problem, but Russia has thus far refused to negotiate in good faith a possible end to the conflict.
The expected delivery of the advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Assad will put Israel in an untenable situation. Israel cannot live with a disintegrating Syria armed with highly advanced weapons systems. The idea that Russia would arm genocidal tyrants like Assad, and by extension his terror allies, with advanced weapons systems that could lead to a very costly regional war is most imprudent.
Ignoring completely the will of the majority of the Syrian people and siding with a regime that tortures children is morally reprehensible, even in view of state interests. The disintegration of the USSR was the result of precisely such policies.

    CrossWinds says:

    The future has been fortold……..

    …..Ezekiel 38:3-5…..

    3 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal. (modern day russia) 4 I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and lead you out, with all your army, horses, and horsemen, all splendidly clothed, a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords. 5 Persia,(modern day Iran and Iraq) Ethiopia, and Libya are with them, all of them with shield and helmet; 8. In the latter years you will come into the land of those brought back from the sword and gathered from many people on the mountains of Israel, which had long been desolate; they were brought out of the nations, and now all of them dwell safely.

stephen albert says:

“Russians appreciate that the Iranian theocracy has more checks and balances than the old Soviet system.”

This is the most fanciful statement i’ve read in some time.

That system of checks and balances was on display during the Green Revolution,when the Iranian régime used massive force to suppress the desire of its own people to control their destiny.

Its also evident every time the Iranian régime hangs a gay person,threatens Israel with extinction, arms Hezbollah or supports terrorism.

The comparison with the Soviet system is absurd. Being better than Stalin and Brezhnev is hardly a high compliment. Using this metric one could even excuse Putin’s own authoritarian rule. Is that wise policy?

Why does Tablet magazine publish this nonsense?

Netanyahu tells Putin not to send missiles to Syria.

Assad says Golan will be the next war front.

Israel has to deal with both Russia and Syria, it will not sit still. This obnoxious Syrian civil war is inevitably escalating, putting Middle East in sharp global focus again. Not good at all.

Netanyahu tells Putin not to send missiles to Syria.

Assad says Golan will be the next war front.

Israel has to deal with both Russia and Syria, it will not sit still. This obnoxious Syrian civil war is inevitably escalating, putting Middle East in sharp global focus again. Not good at all.

Efram Paul says:

A very well thought out and written article. Thank you for reminding me that Putin has, in fact, shown affinity and even affection for Jews and Israel. I think Russia’s attitude towards Iran is naive. However, on the whole, its actions do make the US and Western Europe look like amateurs.

abdulwalee says:

Once the dollar collapses Israel will be forced to change it’s behavior, many Americans know this rouge and lunatic state have no strategic value for the US. Israel will cease being a recipient of welfare at the tune of 60 billion each year. the Zionist will begin to abide by the International courts regarding their treatment of the people of Palestine. Zionism is finished. and they can no longer fake that they are a democracy while really being a racist state

Lee says:

I am a citizen of the United States, not of the Obama nation. More people in the United States, I believe, if they were to give Putin serious consideration of the values being presented that the People of the United States would support Putin rather than those in the present government. One mile from my house in El Paso, Texas is he tortilla curtain to keep citizens of the US out of Mexico and pass ports to enter your own country and why it is three does not take a rocket scientist to realize that the US is a totatalarian state. And if one does not believe me look at the US law that authorizes the totalatarian state 18 USC § 983 of non judicial seizures, which is the right of US government officials to take away all personal property without the right to due process. Russia has no counter part. This in international law of treason, a capital crime warranting death by lethal injection, started by George Bush, our idiot of mass destruction.

It is amazing how criminals always prescribe the best treatment for themselves. However, the real issue is peace. The United States whipping the smallest weakest people on earth and bullying Russia and China with its economic clout, may be the demise of us all. Imagine a military the twice the size of all the people of the United States, nuclear weapons and the worlds cheapest drones.

Give peace a chance, and all of those of the United States should support Russia and not Israels illegal apartheid state. The only support for Israel by the US is the same support afforded Sorth Africa sharing the world with all the children of Israel as God commanded. .

The reasoning is simple. Look at Iraq


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Russia’s Middle-East Gambit

The Syrian civil war puts Moscow’s relations with the West, Turkey, the Gulf States, and Israel to a serious test