26 Aug Competing imperialistic pillars: How Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye Shape the Middle Eastern Security Landscape

By Stephen Do Rego 

The Middle East’s geopolitical landscape is shaped by a complex interplay of historical legacies, religious tensions, and strategic interests. This region has long been a battleground for empires, with ancient powers like the Romans, Persians, and Ottomans influencing its political fabric. In the modern era, neo-imperialism continues to drive the ambitions of regional powers, namely Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye. These four nations, often referred to as the imperialistic pillars of the Middle East, wield significant influence through their aggressive foreign policies, funding of proxies, and strategic alliances. This article explores how these pillars impact the region’s security status quo, creating a volatile environment marked by perpetual conflict and instability.

Iran: The Axis of Resistance and Regional Hegemony

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has positioned itself as a key player in the Middle East, promoting an anti-Western, anti-imperialist narrative through its “Axis of Resistance.” This coalition, which includes Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and certain Palestinian factions like Hamas, serves as Iran’s primary mechanism for projecting power and countering Western influence. Tehran’s support for the Assad regime in Syria, to the tune of $6 billion annually, underscores its commitment to maintaining a strategic foothold in the Levant. This financial and military assistance has been instrumental in Assad’s survival, despite widespread condemnation of his regime’s use of chemical weapons against civilians, in which the regime accounted for circa 98% of all chemical weapons used, particularly sarin gas.

Iran’s influence extends beyond Syria. The Houthi insurgency in Yemen, bolstered by Iranian support, represents a significant challenge to Saudi Arabian interests in the region. The Houthis’ ability to disrupt international shipping in the Red Sea demonstrates how Iran’s proxy strategies threaten global trade and regional security for example, Maersk estimated a capacity loss of 15-20%. The involvement of international actors and the passage of UN Resolution 2722 highlight the broader implications of Iranian actions, underscoring the potential for localized conflicts to escalate into broader confrontations involving multiple state actors.

Israel: Security Imperatives and Regional Instability

Israel’s foreign policy is heavily influenced by its “existential threat” doctrine, which prioritizes national security in a hostile regional environment. This has led to a series of aggressive military actions, often justified by the need to neutralize perceived threats from neighbouring countries and non-state actors. David Ivry, an Israeli diplomat, stated that ‘We are entering a war of attrition’; this has created an excuse for the proportionality aspect of the Israeli Defence Forces to be out of control. For instance, Israel’s military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon are driven by the objective of eliminating threats from Hamas and Hezbollah, respectively. However, this has exacerbated regional tensions and provoke retaliatory measures, contributing to a cycle of violence that undermines long-term stability.

The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine remains a central issue, with Israel’s military operations frequently drawing international condemnation. The case of South Africa vs Israel was opened to hold Israel accountable, due to their war crimes of forced starvation of Palestinian civilians, and acts of collective punishment since October 7^th. The Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) actions, such as the bombing of civilian infrastructure on the 9^th of August 2024, where Gaza’s Civil Defence reported that an Israeli bombing killed twelve, hitting the al-Zahraa and the Abdel Fattah Hamoud School, in which this pretext of ‘countering Hamas’ have fuelled anti-Israel and -genocide protests across the Middle East. Additionally, Israel’s targeted assassinations of key figures, such as against senior commander Fuad Shukr, in Iran and Lebanon further destabilize the region, creating a ripple effect that complicates diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts.

Saudi Arabia: Sectarianism and Proxy Warfare

Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy is characterized by its commitment to countering Iranian influence through a combination of financial, military, and ideological means. The kingdom’s intervention in Yemen, launched in 2015, aims to curb the expansion of Iranian-backed Houthi forces. However, the use of prohibited weapons, such as U.S.-supplied white phosphorus, has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and deepened the sectarian divide between Sunni and Shia factions across the Middle East.

The Saudi government’s support for Sunni regimes, particularly in Bahrain during the 2011 uprising where many Bahrainis were abducted and tortured, and more than 40 people were killed, reflects its broader strategy of maintaining a favourable balance of power in the region. By backing Sunni rulers against Shia-led movements, Saudi Arabia seeks to prevent the rise of Iran-aligned governments that could challenge its dominance. In Lebanon, Saudi financial involvement intensified after Hariri’s assassination in 2005; the March 14th coalition formed quickly afterward, heavily supported by Saudi Arabian influence, which has polarised the Lebanese political landscape. Militaristically, the geopolitical divide can be seen even more clearer when the Saudis transferred $3 billion to the Lebanese army. This sectarian-driven approach has polarized regional politics, making it increasingly difficult to achieve reconciliation and peace in conflict zones like Yemen and Lebanon.

Türkiye: Neo-Ottomanism and Regional Ambitions

Türkiye’s foreign policy under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is rooted in a vision of neo-Ottomanism, which seeks to reassert Turkish influence over former Ottoman territories. Since the rise of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in 2002, Türkiye has pursued a more assertive role in regional geopolitics, often at the expense of its neighbors. The Kurdish issue is a prime example of Türkiye’s expansionist ambitions. Ankara conducted military operations in northern Iraq and Syria to suppress Kurdish separatist movements, and to prevent any self-realisation or determination of a Kurdish state. National security is cited by Türkiye as the justification for its military operations against Kurdish groups, which have been widely criticized for their humanitarian impact, including the displacement of 162 Kurdish villages and the deaths of numerous civilians. These actions have drawn international concern over their legality and the broader human rights implications.  These actions have not only strained relations with the Iraqi and Syrian governments but have also contributed to the displacement of Kurdish populations and heightened tensions in the region.

Türkiye’s involvement in Libya, through military agreements with the Government of National Accord (GNA), highlights its broader strategic objectives in the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa. The “Blue Homeland” doctrine, which aims to secure Türkiye’s maritime boundaries and access to energy resources, is a clear indication of Ankara’s intent to expand its sphere of influence. However, this expansionist policy risks drawing Türkiye into prolonged conflicts with other regional powers, further destabilizing the Middle Eastern security status quo.

Conclusion: The Interplay of Imperialistic Pillars and Regional Security

The actions of Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye illustrate the complex dynamics that define the Middle Eastern security landscape. Each of these powers seeks to assert its dominance through a combination of military intervention, proxy warfare, and strategic alliances. However, their competing interests and aggressive policies contribute to a volatile environment that perpetuates conflict and hinders efforts to achieve lasting peace. As these imperialistic pillars continue to shape the region’s geopolitical realities, the prospects for stability remain elusive, with new flashpoints emerging alongside the deepening of existing conflicts. Understanding the motivations and strategies of these key actors is crucial for any meaningful analysis of the Middle East’s future security status quo.

Stephen Do Rego is a research intern at the Afghanistan Security Institute. He is a second-year War, Peace, and International Relations student at the University of Reading, with a strong focus on conflict prevention and global diplomacy. His experiences in Goa and the UAE during the First Libyan Civil War shaped his commitment to understanding and resolving international conflicts. Stephen is particularly interested in the MENA region and the strategic dynamics of Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. He aspires to serve as a UN diplomat, focusing on conflict de-escalation, disarmament, and the protection of democratic rights.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of the Afghanistan Security Institute (ASI).