خاورمیانه

In the years following the Arab Spring, the Middle East has experienced profound and complex transformations that have influenced patterns of convergence and divergence among countries in the region. However, one aspect that has received less attention in political analyses is the role of emotions in these developments. Accordingly, the main research question of this study is: How have emotions influenced the persistence of tensions and conflicts in the Middle East between 2011 and 2024? In response to this question, the hypothesis proposed is that ethnic, religious, and nationalist emotions in the Middle East after the Arab Spring have led to increased internal conflicts, strengthened anti-foreign sentiments, and heightened public dissatisfaction. Consequently, instead of focusing on collective cooperation, regional countries have prioritized preserving their identities and engaging in regional rivalries. As a result, these emotional dynamics have significantly shaped the orientations and relationships of Middle Eastern countries, steering them toward the persistence of tensions and divergence. The present study aims to examine the impact of emotions on the continuation of tensions and conflicts in Middle Eastern countries from 2011 to 2024.

This study employs a quantitative analysis method and an explanatory-descriptive approach to investigate the role of ethnic, religious, and nationalist emotions in the persistence of tensions and conflicts in the Middle East between 2011 and 2024. The research data has been gathered from library sources and analyzed using quantitative tools to assess the correlation between variables.

Following the Arab Spring, Middle Eastern countries faced numerous challenges that intensified nationalist, religious, and ethnic emotions in the region. Based on the theoretical framework of emotional realism, the fear of weakening national and religious identities has driven states and various groups toward reinforcing ethnic and religious boundaries. As a result, instead of fostering cooperation, these dynamics have fueled further conflicts. These emotions, particularly in countries affected by foreign interventions, have led to increased distrust toward external powers and even neighboring states. Consequently, instead of striving for regional cooperation, governments in the region have adopted isolationist policies and strengthened their national identities. Another critical aspect in explaining the hypothesis is the role of collective emotions in Middle Eastern conflicts based on religious and ethnic identities. Regional rivalries among Middle Eastern states have contributed to the formation of religious blocs, each seeking regional and international support. Here, emotional realism explains how religious and ethnic emotions can be politically instrumentalized, leading to intensified competition and conflicts instead of cooperation. Furthermore, emotional realism highlights how the fear of internal instability and external threats has compelled regional states to adopt conservative and isolationist policies.

This study aimed to examine the impact of emotions on the persistence of tensions and conflicts in the Middle East between 2011 and 2024 through the theoretical framework of emotional realism. The findings suggest that emotions have exacerbated conflicts in the post-Arab Spring Middle East. Under these conditions, collective emotions and identities have not only played a central role in shaping domestic and foreign policies but have also emerged as significant obstacles to regional cooperation. Particularly in times of crisis and instability, emotions have reinforced ethnic and religious identities, prompting states to adopt conservative and competitive policies, ultimately leading to the intensification of both internal and international conflicts in the Middle East.

China’s role in the relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as in the Middle Eastern security order, is a complex and multifaceted issue with significant implications for the geopolitical and security landscape of the region. As a signatory of the JCPOA and a major economic partner of Iran, China seeks to reduce tensions and promote stability in the Middle East through multilateral diplomacy and political mediation. Additionally, by meeting Iran's energy needs and investing in infrastructure projects, China has strengthened its strategic relationship with Tehran. These economic ties enable China to influence Iran’s nuclear policies. China also plays a calming role in the relationship between Tehran and Riyadh by offering economic opportunities to Saudi Arabia, leading to reduced tensions and enhanced regional stability. By emphasizing economic diplomacy and political mediation, China aims to prevent further crises and contribute to stability and security in the region. Consequently, China plays a crucial role in maintaining the Middle Eastern security order.

Understanding Middle East Identity Conflicts in Agent - Based and Structuralist Approaches . With the end of the Cold War , the regional system of the Middle East entered a wave of intensification of inter - identity conflicts at three levels : inter - state , inter - state , and supra - state , in which there are two conflicting approaches to explain the cause of the crises in the Middle East, including : structuralist approaches that are mainly based on neorealism and agent - based approaches that examine the role of the state and internal state factors . Therefore, the main question is what approach do the conflicting structuralist and agent - oriented approaches have to the inter - identity conflicts in the Middle East ? Accordingly , this research uses a descriptive - analytical method to explain the hypothesis that, based on the structuralist approach , the change in the international order after the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union has caused the ambiguity of polarity and competition of great powers in the new system , which has led to the revival and intensification of interpersonal conflicts in the Middle East, but based on the agent - based approach , the competition of Middle Eastern states and the weakness of the governments of this region has led to the expansion and intensification of conflicts It has be come unknown . To collect information, library and internet methods have been used. Keywords : Middle East, Identity Conflicts , Structuralistic Approach, Agent - Centered Approach .

The Iranian nuclear crisis is one of the most complex and important security issues in the Middle East, directly affecting the balance of power and regional stability. Iran, emphasizing its right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, has expanded its nuclear program. However, this issue has caused deep concerns among regional countries and global powers, and has led to the intensification of geopolitical competition and an increase in tensions. The Iranian nuclear crisis has had far-reaching effects on Middle East security, including the acceleration of the arms race, increased military cooperation between regional countries and extra-regional powers, and the formation of new security alliances. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, concerned about Iran’s growing influence, are strengthening their military capabilities and seeking to expand strategic cooperation with the United States and other Western actors. This article analyzes the various dimensions of this crisis and examines its possible consequences for regional security. In conclusion, the Iranian nuclear crisis could lead to further instability in the Middle East and even escalate the arms race to the point of acquiring weapons of mass destruction; a situation that would have an impact beyond regional borders and its consequences would also cast a shadow on global security.

The relations between Syria and Iran have been a stable feature in the political landscape of the Middle East for more than 34 years. The Iran-Syria alliance is one of the components that shape the regional order in the Middle East. The political alliance between Syria and Iran has been maintained through a shared understanding of the threat, a convergence of interests in Lebanon and Iraq, and a shared vision of Palestine, Israel, and the United States. This strategic partnership has been guided through mutual economic, diplomatic and political assistance in meeting each other's strategic needs. The purpose of the current research is to investigate the relationship between identity and material interests in the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards Syria in the period (2015-2020). In this research, the complex relationship between identity and material interests, which are mutually consistent, is examined in order to understand the multifaceted factors that shape the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards Syria. While the regional identity of Iran is examined in the framework of Shia-Islamic ideology, the material interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the regional level are usually ignored. Therefore, this article seeks to answer the question, what effect did the identity and interests have on the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards Syria? This article will examine the economic drivers of the Islamic Republic of Iran's foreign policy towards Syria through a critical structuralist approach.

With the formation of political developments inYemenregional and extraregional actors based on their interests and self-interests have adopted different orientationinrelation to this country, which has a special geopolitical and geostrategic importance in the MiddleEast, which tries to study the complexity of the country's situation, considering the positionThe strategic importance of Yemen and its importance for two regional rivals and the formation of intra-regional and international competition should answer the question of what effect Iran's role in the Yemen crisis has on the security of Saudi ArabiaThe research is based on the fact that Iran's foreign policy towards the crisis in Yemen is as a regional power against the former dependent system and the supporter of the people's movement to get rid of foreign domination and dependencies in this countryThe fall of the Saudi dependent system in Yemen and the role of the Shiitesand the revolutionariesrole in weakening Saudi Arabia and strengthening resistance and changing the balance of power to the detriment of this country and in favor of Iran to assert itself as the first power in the Middle East

The relations between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran became very tense since the Islamic Revolution and the hostility between the two countries was revealed. With the increase of Iran's power and the strategic importance of the Middle East region, various countries and people of this region have been influenced by the policies of both sides and have played a role as collaborators or allies in this conflict. Currently, a new model of war, i.e. hybrid war, which is a combination of military, insurgency, terrorism, psychological, cyber, economic and media warfare, is being developed. The question of this research is what is the effect of this conflict on the countries of the region and their role in the hybrid war between America and Iran? The research method of the present article is descriptive-explanatory and the data were collected using the library method, the hypothesis is that the change in the geography of the conflict between America and Iran to the Middle East has caused the countries of the region to participate in this war. The findings of the research show that both countries influence policies and crises in the region with the tools of hybrid warfare, and sometimes they use a third country to hit each other.

Without considering the activism of religious institutions,including Shia and Sunni clergy,or even Jewish religious figures, studying the political and social history of the Middle East will be imperfect.The clergy within any religious or social group has had a significant impact on these groups’ internal and external developments. The focus of the present research has been whether this activism is solely aimed at defending a particular ethical or religious purity,or if it is in a close relationship with the power-seeking motives of these activists.In this regard,an attempt has been made to explore and investigate the activism of Shia clergy in Iran during one of the most crucial periods in Iran’s political history, i.e.the nationalization of the oil industry in the 1940s.The primary question of this study is what was the role of Shia clergy in the nationalization of the oil industry and what were the objectives they pursued in doing so? According to the research results, if we categorize Shia clergy into three groups:conservative,revolutionary and pragmatic,the pragmatic movement has been the dominant force in the nationalization of the oil industry.Through accepting balancing role for itself, it sought to create alliances and temporary coalitions,sometimes conflicting with other social activists in the course of nationalization of the oil industry to provide the grounds for the emergence and empowerment of activists who could better contribute to the consolidation of their power and position.In this path, the defense of religious values was on the sidelines or just served as a means to their ultimate goal.

With the onset of the Islamic awakening and the movements known as the Arab Spring, followed by escalating tensions in the West Asian region, the power dynamics among the countries in this area have shifted significantly. In this context, the crisis and civil war in Iraq and Syria stand out as unique challenges, distinct from other security issues affecting the Middle East. These crises have seen both regional and extra-regional powers pursuing their national interests vigorously. Iran, in particular, has adopted a foreign policy strategy aimed at maximizing its national interests while leveraging its existing capabilities. This research examines Iran's strategic approach to the crises in the Middle East, focusing specifically on Iraq and Syria. The central question of this study is: What strategic measures has Iran implemented in response to the crises in  Iraq and Syria?.  The final findings of this research state that the security-political problems created in the Middle East have made the role of the Islamic Republic of Iran prominent among the countries in the region, and an example of this is the presence of Iran in the regional summit in order to resolve the crisis despite the opposition. United States, convergence with the member countries of the axis of resistance in terms of hardware and software, creation of popular mobilization in order to influence and attract the people of these countries in order to ensure security and the aforementioned interests, taking the military initiative in front of its regional rivals. In the Middle East, there are examples of Iran's smart strategy.

Yemen is the poorest Arab country in the world. The corruption of the government, the marginalization of the Houthis, and the inability of the government to meet the economic needs of the citizens of this poor Arab country have been burning in the fire of instability for more than a decade. This instability is such that the transfer of power in 2011 could not be a message of peace for this country, and finally, in 2015, the country entered into a devastating civil war. This research, using the descriptive-analytical method, has tried to investigate the roots of the crisis in Yemen and the constructive role of Iran in ending this conflict. The results of the research show that the Islamic Republic of Iran evaluates the developments in Yemen in the form of Islamic awakening, which reduces the influence of the West in the region. Therefore, the Islamic Republic of Iran is concerned about the efforts of Saudi Arabia to manage the developments in Yemen and to empower the affiliated currents and demands that all religious and political currents play a role in the future of this country. What is important for Iran is, firstly, to play a constructive role in the developments of this country to solve the existing challenges towards the understanding of political groups, and secondly, to support its allies to prevent their forced exit from the power scene.

Many people had high hopes for significant improvements to the United States foreign policy when Barack Obama took office as president in 2009. Obama’s administration faced enormous financial and military burdens, as well as a great deal of anti-American sentiment due to George W. Bush Jr.'s aggressive strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Following these developments, it appeared that the US was committed to cutting costs and dispelling anti-US sentiment globally, particularly overseas. Obama discussed resolving Iran’s nuclear challenges, bringing an end to the Iraqi conflict, advancing peace between Israel and Palestine, and adopting a fresh approach to diplomacy with the Islamic world when running for office. Despite his concurrent pursuit of his “pivoting to Asia” concept, the Middle East did not appear to have lost direction in this country’s foreign and security-military policy. While in the White House, Obama announced initiatives like minimal footprint, pivoting to Asia, and distant leadership in an attempt to reverse the approaches of his predecessors. A modification that has essentially always been the topic of debate over its nature, requirements, and implementation.It took a long time for the United States to comprehend the nature of the still-unstable changes in the Arab world, where countries like Egypt are frequently close to the country. In addition to changing the military and security setup of the United States,therise of unconventional powers within formerly friendly countries also presented new threats. Washington consistently stressed that Iran should remain the primary focus of the Middle East’s challenges, although dealing with specific positions and steps in response to developments in the Arab world. Simultaneously, he forged unique partnerships with emerging players, inviting them to participate in the area.Following Obama, Donald Trump likewise believed that Iran was the primary cause of the Middle East’s problems. He referred to the nuclear agreement with Iran as a “very bad agreement” and ultimately tightened sanctions against the country by applying the greatest amount of pressure. Donald Trump was also conscious of the costs associated with his nation’s military involvement in the region. Throughout his speech, he emphasized the need for all of the nations in the region to fulfill their security and military obligations, particularly in the Persian Gulf and in anticipation of the US pulling out of the Middle East sooner rather than later. Along with the Palestinian issue, he also brought up schemes like the “Deal of the Century” and the relocation of the US embassy to Tel Aviv. In the end, he withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal.

The objective of this study is to comprehend the Middle Eastern geopolitical processes that transpired from 2009 to 2018 and assess their influence on the military-security policies and plans of the United States as a global and regional actor. All levels of analysis should be used to assess these developments, which have given the world’s political knowledge a new dimension of menace and chaos. Using a new term of management and involvement in international relations for all participants in this region is a severe and essentially inevitable task today since turning to traditional ways of crisis resolution in the current world imposes astronomical costs.

This research endeavors to comprehend the contemporary tactics and reactions of the United States of America in the Middle East. The White House, the Pentagon, and US military and security agencies provide records and studies that the author of this piece uses to determine this superpower’s security strategy. As one of the major and influential actors in the area, the Islamic Republic of Iran is both impacted by and has a broad influence on regional developments. Iran may make more informed decisions about its regional alliances and increase its influence in the region by recognizing US behavior and comprehending the formula of US policies in its Middle East partnerships. This underscores the importance of this study.

After careful analysis, this report concludes that the benefits of this partnership outweigh the money the US spent on its prior military presence strategies. By boosting the possibility of aid from friends, the strategic partnership has allowed the United States to improve both deterrence against its forces in the region and its capacity to defend itself against assault. However, realism also explains why countries and non-governmental organizations in the Middle East find strategic partnerships with the United States appealing. An ally is more open to entering into a strategic alliance the weaker it is.Over more than seven decades, the United States has had many plans for security cooperation in the Middle East. These have included training local forces and direct engagement in the fight, with the most significant being the supply of weapons and ammunition to the region. Compared to Asia and Europe, the US has far more slack in its partnership with the Middle East. To combat ISIS, the United States can form a significant coalition with Arab nations and collaborate with Tehran and Damascus concurrently with a Sunni alliance. The extreme unrest in this region has made forming long-term alliances exceedingly challenging.According to US military and security records, China’s circumstances have altered so much over the years that the notion of the US having the most expensive army in the world engaged in a full-scale conflict and maybe losing is still entertained. It seems as though this army’s methods are out of step with the demands of the contemporary world.

The United States has adopted two primary and interrelated strategies to counter these contemporary threats: expanding its network of allies and partners and strengthening its military’s capacity to operate throughout the world. With the ultimate goal of preserving the balance of power in strategically important regions of the world and defending the vital interests of the United States, partners, and allies bolster America’s military and political capabilities and support its operations. Additionally, the United States provides these partners with deterrence against aggressors. Being able to confront adversarial allies and partners and strengthen this alliance while also preventing them from depending on the US to achieve their military objectives would be ideal for the US defense system because it would be less costly and risky to establish deterrence in this scenario. Furthermore, it will strengthen this nation’s capacity to deal with its adversaries in the future

Compared to other regions of the third world, the Middle East is far from the dominant global trends in the political field.The current events in the Middle East region have given rise to the view that the Middle East has been very slow and somewhat resistant in adapting to the accelerated democratization process, the region has basically witnessed the continuous rule of authoritarian leaders.The results indicate that the political developments in the Middle East during the years of World War I and II were influenced by international and Western currents and were not a spontaneous and independent movement from within, but because democracy and political and democratic development require a set of political values.And the orientations of citizens are such as balance, tolerance, civility, effectiveness,knowledge and participation, political culture is considered an important and main factor in the consolidation of political development. The political culture of most of the ruling groups in the Middle East region is based on the patrimonialist attitude (royal, hereditary, traditional),which is rooted in the "style of eastern tyranny" due to deep historical, social and psychological reasons. According to this culture, people are considered sovereign citizens and have no right to compete and participate politically.

 The geopolitical relations of the Middle East turned the Eastern Mediterranean into one of the important energy regions after the discovery of huge gas reserves in the exclusive economic zones of Israel, Cyprus and Egypt. The formation of the tripartite alliance between those countries and then the Eastern Mediterranean Regional Gas Forum between exporting and consuming countries caused not only regional energy cooperation, but also the economic and political stability of the challenging region of the Middle East despite the many lines of conflict to be discussed in political circles. And become security. Major developments in regional energy after the discovery of gas in the Eastern Mediterranean are affected by Israel's gas developments. This article, by studying energy security from the perspective of the Copenhagen school, with a descriptive-analytical method of Eastern Mediterranean gas developments, seeks to answer the question that, how has Israel developed its regional security in the Eastern Mediterranean by leveraging gas? And what is its role on Iran's energy security equations? And the proposed hypothesis is that, the discovery of gas in Israel has affected the development of the economic, political and security relations of the Eastern Mediterranean countries and then the process of the economic, political and security formations of the Middle East region.

Although deterrence can be traced back to the military literature and the writings of Carl von Clausewitz, deterrence theory neverthelessflourished in the Post-World War II era and after the advent of nuclear weapons. The deterrence strategy is especially important in some regions such as the Middle East, Eurasia and South Asia, which are among the most intense  conflict zones in the world.Research question: What are the conceptual coordinates of the internationalization of deterrence as a theoretical framework and its application to Iran's deterrence strategy in the peripheral regions?

Research hypothesis:

 In response to the main question of the article, using the case study method, the author proposes the concept of internationalization of deterrence and examines its application first by the great powers of the world and then by Iran in its peripheral regions including the Middle East, Eurasia and South Asia. The internationalization of deterrence means a situation where the deterrent power provides part of its military and security capabilities including weapons, forces, and allies to other actors who intend to raise the level of deterrence, increase its effectiveness and expands its geographical scope, thereby creating fundamental changes in the strategic calculations of a potential aggressor. Internationalization of deterrence using missile power and paramilitary groups has been a part of Iran's military and security strategy in peripheral regions including the Middle East, Eurasia and South Asia.

Methodology and theoretical framework:

 In this research, using Qualitative case study method, the concept of internationalization of deterrence and its application by Iran at the regional and global level has been analyzed. This paper presents the theoretical framework of the internationalization of deterrence. In the framework of this theory, political actors in the field of world politics transfer part of their military and weapons capacity to allied actors with the aim of strengthening deterrence.

Deterrence theory flourished after World War II and after the advent of nuclear weapons. The United States as the first nuclear power, maintained a monopoly on nuclear weapons for four years. During the Cold War, as part of the nuclear sharing policy, the United States deployed tactical nuclear weapons in Europe to counterbalance the conventional superiority of the Warsaw Pact countries. Nuclear sharing was in fact a kind of internationalization of US nuclear deterrence. In addition to nuclear deterrence, world powers internationalized their conventional deterrence at lower levels. The deployment of Jupiter missiles in Turkey, the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba, the deployment of the American and Soviet missiles on European soil, and the AUKUS treaty are among the most important examples of internationalization of conventional deterrence after World War II. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War and the emergence of new threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and limited wars, caused a change in the deterrence strategy of countries and more attention to improving conventional deterrence.Iran is one of the countries that has changed its conventional deterrence strategy in the last few decades. The 1979 revolution can be considered as the origin of Iran's proxy deterrence because one of its most important goals was the export of its revolutionary thinking for the freedom of the nations of the region. Although this ideal did not change any country in the region, it aligned some groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and etc.  with Iran’s regional doctrine. The 8-year Iran-Iraq war can be considered as the source of Iran's missile deterrence. In the early years after the victory of the revolution, the structure of Iran's military forces was practically in disarray. Saddam Hussein also tried to use this opportunity to achieve his expansionist goals in the oil-rich areas of Iran. During the war, while the Iraqi army had access to many conventional and unconventional weapons from 80 countries, Iran was under arms embargo and in order to receive a limited number of missiles, it had to enter into tough diplomatic and military negotiations with four countries: Syria, Libya, North Korea, and China. After the end of the war, the development of the missile program became a key to Iran's deterrence strategy. Due to arms embargoes and financial problems after the war, Iran first built its pillars of deterrence on the two bases of proxy and missile deterrence, and in the second stage, it internationalized its deterrence in peripheral regions such as the Middle East, Eurasia and South Asia.

The 1979 revolution and the 8-year war with Iraq prompted Iran to use a different deterrence strategy in its peripheral regions in order to internationalize its deterrence. Financial problems after the 8-year war with Iraq, as well as arms embargos, led Iran to internationalize its deterrence using missile power and allied groups. This policy has changed the strategic calculations of possible aggressive powers and has prevented a new large-scale war against Iran.

China's growing need for global energy resources has made this country pay special attention to the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf and the world's largest energy producers. In this regard, the representation of a positive image of Beijing in the eyes of rulers and Arab societies is one of the requirements for the expansion of political, economic, and social relations. This issue can strengthen Beijing's influence and position in the Middle East. On the other hand, Arab politicians, to maintain their legitimacy and present a positive image of Arab countries as developing advanced, and prosperous nations, need to attract large investments from powerful countries such as China in the field of digital infrastructures and social media platforms.This research aims to answer the question of what effect China's digital diplomacy towards Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates has had on the development process of this country's relations with Saudi Arabia and the UAE and whether this diplomacy has improved the relations between these two countries with China or not. The results of this study suggest that with the beginning of China's focus on the need to enter the Middle East to take advantage of investment opportunities and huge resources, and China's understanding of this to present a positive and peaceful image of itself by using digital diplomacy to expand its influence in this region, China's relations with the mentioned countries have expanded significantly. These relations have been progressing despite the stonewalling of the West and the United States. This is largely due to China's digital diplomacy. The present paper is a descriptive analysis using the documentary and library resources.
.

The revolutionary uprisings that have occurred in many geopolitical territories of the Middle East and North Africa since December 2010 have highlighted signs of change in the Middle East security system. The continued presence and influence of the United States in the Middle East and the follow-up of the European Union from American policies, the increase in the role of other trans-regional actors, especially rebuilding the role of Russia and strengthening China's soft balance, the escalation of geopolitical competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia and the increase in power and influence of non-state actors have played a central role in changing the balance of regional powers and the emergence of a new regional order. In the meantime, the intensification of manipulation by the United States and the west in the process of Arab Spring developments, along with the appearance of the failure of Moscow’s follow-up policy in the crises of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, convinced the Kremlin officials to adopt a relatively independent and proactive approach to the security order of the Middle East by entering the regional crisis management process.

Research question: 

What are the characteristics of Russia's Middle East policy in the period after the Arab Spring and what consequences does such an approach have for the security order of the region?

Research hypothesis:

The hypothesis of the above-mentioned question is that Russia's approach to the security system of the Middle East after the Arab Spring is based on signs of the simultaneous influence of two security and economic factions that are organized together, the balance of power factor along with the economic interests constitute the motivations for the development of Russia's relations with the Middle East.Methodology and theoretical framework: The method used in this research is the method of Trend analysis and the type of the research is basic. The nature of this paper is also qualitative. The data collection has been library method, using internet resources, articles and documents. Since the security order of the Middle East has always been influenced by the arrangement, competitions and interactions of regional actors and the interventions of extra-regional powers, in this article, an attempt will be made to use the theoretical assumptions of Neo-realism to explain Russia's Middle East policy and its effects on the regional system. The Neo-realism model provides the possibility of examining the components of the country's external environment with more emphasis to explain Russia's security strategy.

The abilities and capabilities of the country's leaders to play a role in a region and the possibility of accepting valid commitments are important determining factors for countries' strategies in regional systems, which in turn affect the type of regional system. The developments and the involvement of a wide range of regional and international actors in the Syrian crisis have convinced the Kremlin officials to use the direct balancing model with the United States. Based on this, Moscow was able to significantly improve its field of activity by using two strategies of soft balancing and direct balancing, while recovering its structural strength in the Middle East order. By strengthening its relations with Iran, Syria, and even Hamas, and being close to the traditional allies of the United States in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Egypt, Russia is trying to balance regional powers with the United States in the Middle East. Overall, Russia’s reemergence has transformed the Middle East security system in terms of structure, norms, agency, and patterns of interaction. Moscow intends to propose a new approach to the United States unilateral approach to the Middle East regional order, in which a diverse range of actors and agendas can be proposed. Adopting a middle position on regional issues and programs and avoiding a holistic approach to Middle East actors is organized and implemented with this central goal in Moscow's strategic doctrine.

The economic factor along with the balance of power is one of the main motivations for the development of Russia's relations with the Middle East. The economic variables influencing Moscow's intervention in the Syrian crisis in the aftermath of the crisis and instability and the transformation of political and military achievements into economic achievements have also been particularly prominent. Russian companies have won many concessions in the field of Syrian oil, gas, electricity and mining infrastructure. Russia's arms trade is also organized through arms deals with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Libya and Syria. The scope of Russia's activity and role in the new regional order of the Middle East includes a wide range of governments and regional actors.