Spheres of Influence

At the close of World War Two, the Big Three of Britain, the United States, and Soviet Union all held
great hopes and fears for the future of their nations. Britain was fearful of the collapse of its empire,
the Soviet Union was fearful of future attacks, and America wanted both trade and international
security. As Britain and the other European powers quickly fell from international influence in the
years following World War Two however, the void they left was filled by two competing sides; the
Communist East and Capitalist West. Typically, the Communist East was dominated by either Russia
or China and the West by America or the ageing European nations. Of course, these two nations of
Soviet Russia and the United States had existed before World War Two, but neither had the power to
extend their influence beyond their own borders. By the late 1940’s however, both had emerged as
superpowers. Both held the economic means, both held giant and modern armies, and both held the
atomic bomb. More importantly, too, both now had the desire to spread their ideology and establish
their alliances.

In 1949, China fell to Mao Zedong, creating a Communist sphere of influence that spanned across
Russia, China Estonia, Latvia, Yugoslavia, Poland, North
Korea, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East
Germany, Hungary and China. Soon, these
Communist nations would be joined by Vietnam,
Tibet, Mongolia, Guinea, Cuba, Yemen, Kenya,
Sudan, Congo, Burma, Angola, Laos,
Madagascar, Mozambique, Somalia, Seychelles,
Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua. In the
space of only 50 years, therefore, Communism
had gone from existing only in Russia to existing
on every continent on earth. The Truman
Doctrine and Marshall Plan, so intent on stopping
the flow of Communism around the world, evidently
could not stop its rise now that Russia had modernised.

South Korean troops – Korean War

Clash of ideologies
Indeed, it was inevitable that in all of this there would be a clash between the two great superpowers.
Karl Marx had, after all, stated in the Communist Manifesto that Communism must expand and must
seek to overthrow the bourgeoise leaders and America, under the Truman Doctrine, had stated that
they must fight the rise of Communism wherever it rose. Thus, the two ideologies didn’t have to wait
long until they had the opportunity to square off. In 1950, only a year after Mao Zedong took power
in China, he colluded with Russia to support North Korea’s invasion of the capitalist south. In this
confrontation, lasting 3 years and costing an estimated 4 million lives, it was the United States and
United Nations that won, ensuring that Communism remained only in the North (Russia boycotted
the U.N meeting that discussed defending South Vietnam and Communist China didn’t join the U.N
until 1971 and so both couldn’t oppose the U.N force that was organised by America). In Cuba, in
1959, Russia successfully supported the Communist takeover of the American friendly government,
implanting a Communist nation on America’s doorstep. In Vietnam,
beginning in the mid 1950’s, both China and Russia supported
the Communist North and America supported the Capitalist
south. In this instance, in Vietnam, it was again Communism
that triumphed.

Kim Ill Sung – North

Mao Zedong - China
Korea
 Proxy Wars
In each of these wars, where Communism and Capitalism took competing sides, Soviet and American
troops took active combat roles or, at the very least, supplied the weapons and intelligence to ensure
their ally and their ideology prevailed. In Korea and Vietnam, American’s fought in American uniforms,
but in both of these wars the Soviet’s denied they were there, choosing to fight instead in the
uniforms of the country they were in. In Cuba, during their civil war, both the Soviets and Americans
chose to deny their presence and fought, instead, in the uniforms of local forces. In the Egyptian and
Israeli wars, too, the Soviet pilots and Soviet troops wore local Egyptian uniforms and the Americans
supplied weaponry to the Israeli’s to counter them. In Lebanon, Yemen, and finally Afghanistan, the
two great superpowers sent personnel and weapons to opposing sides in order to prop up their ally
and pursue their aims of either spreading their ideology, in the case of Communism, or stopping the
spread of Communism, in the case of the Truman Doctrine. Thus, these proxy wars between the East
and West continued from the early 1950’s right through to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991;
with both sides spending trillions to aid their allies.

Spheres of influence
Despite these stated aims by both sides to confront the other, however, the two great powers never
actively sought direct military confrontation and always understood that each held a certain sphere of
influence that should not be challenged by the other. After the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, for
example, where the Soviets attempted to place nuclear weapons on the island to America’s south,
which meant they were within striking distance of America, the Soviets knew they had gone too far.
After America challenged both Russia and Cuba with the threat of nuclear war if they did not remove
the missiles, the Soviets backed down. In this, both powers wanted to be the dominant ideology, both
wanted the possibility of war away from their border, and both wanted to be the sole superpower,
but both sides also respected the might and influence of the other. Both sides knew that if they
brought the danger too close to their enemy, their enemy would lash out; and in an age of vast
nuclear stockpiles, the outcome of this could be fatal. In Eastern Europe, for example, a place that
had been forcefully dominated by the Soviets since the end of World War Two, it would seem natural
that the West would seek to engage in conflict with Russia. However, quite the contrary proved true.
American foreign policy adviser Henry Kissinger, knowing that Eastern Europe was on the Soviet’s
border and knowing that they would act hyper-aggressively if they felt threatened by an American
presence, stated in 1969 to the Soviets that America “accepted Soviet domination of Eastern Europe”
and that they “did not have the slightest intention of intervening in affairs of Eastern Europe”. Indeed,
America made this claim even though they were in the midst of losing the Vietnam war and even
though they knew it was Communist China and Communist Russia who were the reason they were
losing the war. Furthermore, in 1970 this was followed up by the American President, Richard Nixon,
who stated that the United States “fully recognises the USSR’s special interests in Eastern Europe
and… it does not intend to ignore or contest them. Among other things, that would be simply
unrealistic, since the USSR has immeasurably great capabilities and influence in that region than does
the United States”. Furthermore, President Nixon continued, “several times, over the centuries, Russia
has been invaded through central Europe; so this sensitivity is not
novel, or purely the product of Communist dogma. It is not the
intention of the United States to undermine the legitimate security
interests of the Soviet Union”. Indeed, in 1956 when the people of
Hungary rose up against Soviet rule and in Czechoslovakia in 1968
where they similarly did the same, America did nothing to support
the local populations, despite them asking for
American help and despite the Soviets crushing
the rebellion with brutal force.

Fidel Castro - Cuba Nikita Khrushchev -

Russia
Thus, as the Cold War developed and intensified after World War Two, it did so with the recognition
of both sides that there were lines that should not be crossed. North America and Western Europe,
for example, fell within the sphere of influence of the West and America, whereas Eastern Europe fell
within the sphere of influence of the East and the Soviet Union.

With respect to where the rest of the world fell however; that was not as clear.

Briefly explain what a ‘sphere of influence is’

Briefly explain what a ‘proxy war’ is:

With respect to the following, state whose sphere of influence they fell under:

Western Europe –

Eastern Europe –

Middle East -
Brezhnev Doctrine
 After Stalin’s death in 1953, the Soviet Union came to be ruled by Nikita Khrushchev. Under his
leadership, the Soviet state began to move away from much of the fear and arrests that had been a
cornerstone of the previous 20 years. Khrushchev, much like Stalin had though, continued to embark
upon ambitious attempts to solidify power, both at home and abroad. Like Stalin, Khrushchev sought
to adjust Russian agricultural policies in an attempt to provide a greater standard of living to the
Soviet people. Like Stalin, too, Khrushchev sought to increase Soviet influence abroad and spread the
Communist ideology. Unlike Stalin however, Khrushchev was not adept at foreign policy and did not
have the complete control of other political leaders back home. After his misjudged attempt to install
nuclear weapons in Cuba, and the massive American threat of nuclear war if they were not removed,
Khrushchev came under pressure within the Soviet Union from his fellow political elite. Ultimately, it
was this failed attempt in Cuba and the failed attempts at improving the living conditions of people at
home that forced him from power, ushering in a new era under Leonid Brezhnev.
Brezhnev, unlike Khrushchev and Stalin, was more balanced in his temper, more balanced in his
approach to international relations, and more balanced in his pursuit of Communist ideology.
Brezhnev was also too young to remember the Russian Revolution, too young to experience the
purges of the Stalinist era and had largely emerged into political life after Soviet Russia had become a
superpower. Thus, his outlook on the world was very different to that of both Stalin’s and
Khrushchev’s who both had to endure the poverty and violence of early 20th Century Russia. However,
where the similarities lay between the 3 was in their absolute belief in Communist ideology. Despite
being more accepting and allowing society more freedoms than Stalin or Khrushchev did, Brezhnev
still wasn’t willing to accept any opposition to Communist rule in the areas under his control;
especially in the occupied territories of Eastern Europe. When uprisings occurred in both
Czechoslovakia and Hungary, they were ruthlessly crushed by the Soviet military. Indeed, it was
amidst this uprising in Czechoslovakia that Brezhnev made clear to both the East and West what he
considered his sphere of influence and what he considered should be Russia’s path forward in
confronting the Capitalist West.

The doctrine that spelled out this path forward, named the Brezhnev Doctrine, was largely a response
to the Prague Spring and the uprising in Czechoslovakia in 1968. This Prague Spring, as it came to be
known, was viewed by Brezhnev as a threat to Communist rule, and at a meeting of Warsaw
Pact countries, Brezhnev first presented his doctrine. He notably stated that all Communist countries
had a duty to support and defend socialist gains and that any nation or people that pursue
Communist aims should be aided and defended by the Soviet Union. Less than three weeks later, on
August 20, Soviet forces invaded Czechoslovakia, and hard-liners were ultimately returned to power
and strict Communist rule again enforced.

Vladimir Lenin Joseph Stalin Nikita Khrushchev Leonid Brezhnev

1917 - 1924 1924 - 1953 1953 - 1964 1964 - 1982
 Much like the Truman Doctrine which spelled out American intentions to confront Communism, the Brezhnev
Doctrine equally came to spell out Soviet intentions. This Doctrine, made before the Polish Communist Party
Congress in 1968, ultimately came to influence Soviet decision making for the next 20 years.

Brezhnev’s original speech What each section of the speech means

(the Brezhnev Doctrine)

We recognise United Nations law and the United

The socialist states stand for strict respect Nations Charter, most specifically Article Two of the
for the sovereignty of all countries. We UN charter – ‘All Members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of
emphatically oppose interference in the force against the territorial integrity or political
affairs of any states, violations of its independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United
sovereignty. Nations.’

At the same time the establishment and

We have a special interest in nations or groups
defense of the sovereignty of states that within nations that have expressed an interest in
have embarked upon the road of building socialism (communism)
socialism is of particular significance for us
communists. The forces of imperialism and
reaction seek to deprive the people of this Imperialism (capitalism) naturally seeks to repress
these communist groups and seeks to exploit them
or that socialist country, the well-being and and crush equality.
happiness of society, free from any
oppression and exploitation and when
encroachments of this right encounter a
righteous rebuff by the socialist camp,
bourgeois propagandists raise a clamor Whenever we attempt to support these communist
over ‘defense of sovereignty’ and ‘non- groups in their pursuit of equality, imperialists
(capitalists/bourgeoisie) say we are breaking Article
intervention’. It is clear that this is utter 2 of the UN charter – this is nonsense
fraud.. on their part…

And when the internal and external forces

hostile to socialism seek to halt the
development of any socialist country and If a socialist (communism) group in a country or a
restore the capitalist order, when a threat socialist government is challenged, either by
capitalist groups within a country or by capitalist
to the cause of socialism in that country, or nations outside of that country, the Soviet Union
a threat to the security of the socialist and other communist countries should defend that
group/country together
community as a whole emerges, this is no
longer only a problem of the people of that
country but also a common problem,
concern for all socialist countries
Identify the key ideas within the Brezhnev Doctrine:

Identify the similarities to the Truman Doctrine

Identify the possible motivation/s behind the Brezhnev Doctrine:

Give examples/evidence to suggest this is what drove their foreign policy

YouTube: The Cold War: The Prague Spring 1968 and

the Crisis in Czechoslovakia - Episode 40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNYVJjyoqWQ

YouTube: Hungarian Uprising, Budapest (1956)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPXi4DDLqLo
Shifts in Ideology
Despite being guided by its revolutionary ideology that was rooted in the Communism Manifesto, the
Soviet leadership became increasingly aware of practical considerations in its foreign relations. For
example, the Communist Manifesto openly stated that both monarchies and capitalists have
“established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle…” and that society now
has “two great classes directly facing each other, bourgeoisie and proletariat”. In essence, therefore, if
you weren’t Communist then you were part of the problem and needed to be overthrown. After all,
the most well-known lines of the Manifesto are “let the ruling classes tremble at a communist
revolution” and “proletarians of all countries, unite!”.

But what was to be done with the nations around the world that were democratic, capitalist, had
monarchies, dictatorships or were theocratic? Was Russia simply to ignore them and only trade with
other Communist nations? Would they be betraying the proletariat of these other nations if they
made economic or diplomatic relations with their government that wasn’t Communist? Didn’t the
Bolsheviks overthrow the Tsar because he ignored the proletariat and didn’t Marx and Engels state
that exploitation of the proletariat will lead to revolution? So, how could Russia trade or have
relations with these capitalist nations if these capitalist nations gained their money for trade from
exploiting the proletariat?

Indeed, it was because Soviet Russia followed this strict doctrine of Marx and Engels that they initially
found themselves isolated from the rest of the world after the Revolution of 1917. In the 1920’s and
1930’s, with the world rocked by World War One and unemployment at its highest rates in modern
human history due to the Great Depression, Communism should have spread almost universally;
however, it did not. The Bolsheviks during this era were, instead, truly cut off from the rest of the
world. In 1920, when Lenin organised a conference in Baku for Middle Eastern leaders, Communism
was not rejected because of its promises of equality. In fact, it was the need for equality that these
Middle Eastern groups were there in the first place. Communism was rejected, in this instance,
because the Bolsheviks were not sensitive to local needs. Religion, culture, and tribal customs were all
ignored by the Soviets as they pushed for a strict adoption of all Communist Manifesto aims. During
this era, Russia saw Communism as the single greatest ideology, however these other leaders of the
Middle East saw religion, culture or tribal customs as more important. Thus, it was relatively easy for
the British and other local leaders to simply allow these angry groups their religious, cultural or tribal
demands in exchange for them being allowed to hold on to power.

Shift in Soviet ideology

Where this strict adherence to the Communist Manifesto all changed was during World War Two.
Faced with the absolute possibility of destruction at the hands of Nazi Germany, Stalin was forced to
compromise his ideological distaste for the capitalist nations of Britain and the United States in order
to gain their support and, thus, to save his nation. In Eastern Europe, too, Stalin was forced to
abandon the Communist idea of abandoning borders and dissolving nations when he allowed Poland,
Czechoslovakia and the other nations he occupied to remain as individual countries; albeit under
Soviet control. Stalin knew that if he simply undid their borders and folded them in to the wider
Soviet Union then he would face
extreme backlash and possible war with
the West. Thus, it was in these World
War Two years that Communist ideology
began to alter from its original form into
a more practical one that was more
mindful of international relations. The
Brezhnev Doctrine, too, was reflective of
this shift. In it, the Soviet Union now no
longer had an obligation to overthrow

President Anwar Sadat - Egypt

General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev - Russia

capitalists and monarchies by force, but simply to support those nations who had “embarked upon
the road of socialism”. Thus, the groups and nations that the Soviet Union supported didn’t have to
be Communist, but simply had to show signs of having had Communist values. Egypt, for example,
gained billions worth of Soviet support in the 1960’s and 70’s, but was still strongly religious and still
ran a capitalist system for the economy. However, in seizing power, the rulers of Egypt had
condemned their former masters’ Britain, thus alienating them from the West, and had embarked
upon a system of land reform for the poor. So, in this vein, Brezhnev was able to justify the Soviet
support for them.

According to historian Robert Freedman, Russia was forced to accept two considerations in its Middle
Eastern foreign policy after World War Two. One was its traditional ideology and was “influenced, at
least in part, by Marxist ideology” and the other “was primarily defensive in nature, directed toward
preventing the region from being used as a base for military attack or political subversion against the
USSR” by the West. So, whilst Marxism still guided their values, defence along their borders was also a
primary concern in their foreign relations.

Shift in American ideology

Indeed, Communist ideology was not alone in its shift after World War Two. One must remember that
it was America who proposed the creation of the League of Nations after World War One and the
abolition of Colonialism along with it. Moreover, it was America again who sought to create the
United Nations after World War Two and, again, the promotion of individual rights; regardless of race,
religion or economic status. It was America, in both of these occasions, that stated that an
international organisation, like the League of Nations or United Nations, was needed in order to avoid
war and provide global security. But, in 1947 under Truman and the Truman Doctrine, it was America
that stated that American aggression was needed in order to assure “the foundations of international
peace and hence the security of the United States”. American ideology therefore changed from one
centred on international peace through cooperation, to one centred on international peace through
American confrontation.

Competition for influence in the Middle East

As the nations of the Middle East gradually broke away from France and Britain after World War Two,
the new leaders of these nations often sought new alliances away from their former masters in
Europe. Thus, the Middle East became a battleground, both metaphorically and literally, between
those allied with the Soviets and those allied with the West. In Egypt and Syria, for instance, the
Soviets spent billions on economic aid. In Egypt, they built the Aswan Dam and in Syria the Euphrates
Dam. Moreover, they signed repeated trade deals that began in the 1950’s in the form of ‘friendship
and cooperation agreements’, the last of which came with Egypt (1971), Iraq (1972), Somalia (1974),
Ethiopia (1978), Afghanistan (1979), South Yemen (1979), and Syria (1980). It should be noted too
that with the exception of Afghanistan after 1979 and South Yemen after 1967, none of these
countries were Communist. Indeed, it is questionable as to whether they had even “embarked upon
the road of socialism”. According to Freedman, the Soviets pursued alliances with these nations
regardless of their individual ideological aims, concerned more with the security along their South-
Eastern borders. In this, Freedman claims that “Moscow attempted to exploit both lingering memories
of Western colonialism and the Western threats against Arab oil producers” in order to ensure that
the Middle East fell under their influence and not the Americans.

For their part, the Americans were able to equally exploit Middle Eastern fears, playing on the deeply
religious nature of many Middle Eastern communities in order to turn them away from the ‘godless
Communists’. In Israel, America was the first nation to extend diplomatic relations after it was created
in 1948. America also continued to support Israel with both weapons and economic aid, even as Israel
went to war with other nations in the Middle East in 1948, 1956, 1967 and then 1973. In Iran in 1953,
the CIA organised a coup in order to keep their ally, the Shah, in power. In Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and
the UAE, the Americans spent billions on oil in order to keep their economies afloat and Communism
away. In Jordan, the CIA spent billions in aid to King Hussein in the 1950’s and 60’s in order to stop
the spread of Arab nationalism and the rise of Soviet influence.

Thus, it came to be that through both Soviet and American aid, that the Middle East by the early
1970’s was evenly split between those who were linked to the West and those who were linked with
East. Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, UAE, and Kuwait were all under the West’s
sphere of influence. Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria were all under the East’s sphere of
influence.

Identify the ways in which Soviet foreign changed policy after World War Two

Identify the ways in which American foreign policy changed after World War Two

Identify what drove Soviet foreign policy after World War Two:

Give examples/evidence to suggest this is what drove their foreign policy

 Briefly explain what the circled elements of this political cartoon from 1947 might mean/represent

‘Aid to Greece and Turkey’ Blindfold over eyes of ‘America’

‘New American Foreign Policy’ Choppy waters below

Oil and Ideology
Oil and Soviet influence over the Middle East
After decades of Middle Eastern oil being controlled by European and American companies, the
economies of Middle Eastern nations exploded after 1973. As Britain and France gradually lost control
of the Middle East, and thus the control of the oil with it, Middle Eastern nations began to increase
their prices and, thus, their economies along with it. The United States, once producing 70% of the
world’s oil, had by 1973 been reduced to producing only 16.5% of global supplies. Moreover, its
domestic demand for oil for cars and energy meant that by as early as 1955 she was importing over
355 million barrels per year. With strong allies in the Middle East however, and prices up until 1973
still largely controlled by European oil companies, this wasn’t initially a concern. Indeed, American
President Dwight D. Eisenhower had stated in 1959 that “as long as Middle Eastern oil continues to be
as cheap as it is, there is probably little we can do to reduce the dependence of Western Europe on the
Middle East”.

In 1973, however, this dependence on Middle Eastern oil was tested, along with the West’s belief in
their alliances in the region. Led by Egypt and Syria, a coalition of Arab nations involving Jordan, Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco invaded Israel in an attempt to recapture land lost
during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Though this 1973 war was declared a success by the Arabs and
involved the returning of captured Egyptian territory back to the Egyptians, it was largely a failure in
that both sides were forced into a ceasefire. Moreover, the war highlighted the inability of the West
to ‘control’ its allies in the region. The Soviet Union and Cuba who were both allied Communist states,
sent military personnel and weapons to aid the Arabs, whereas the Americans ultimately saw their
allies fighting on different sides. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel, all allies of the United States, fought
directly against each other, using American military hardware in the process. Moreover, what was
worse for the West was that these Arab states banded together after the conflict to directly target
NATO nations for increased oil prices in response to their support for Israel. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and
Kuwait, all allies of the U.S in 1973, increased their prices by 300% to NATO nations and the West,
crippling their economies and resulting in massive shortfalls of supplies. The West, caught in the
middle of competing demands, could do little in this situation. On the one hand, they had spent
billions supporting the regimes of these 3 nations, providing military and economic support to ensure
their West friendly governments remained in power. On the other hand, however, they could not
punish them as they were dependent on their oil and dependent on them not switching allegiances
toward the Soviets.

Ultimately, though, this quadrupling of oil prices after 1973 was both good and bad for the American
sphere of influence. In one sense it meant that both Europe and America, the major destinations for
Middle Eastern oil, were forced to pay more to fill up their car. On the other hand, however, it
brought the oil producing nations closer to the West in the long-term as their economies improved
and their standard of living improved. Moreover, as the major destinations for oil were North America
and Europe, it meant that the nations of the
Middle East became dependent on such trade in
order to keep their economy thriving. So, whilst
the nations of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait all
wanted to punish the West for their support of
Israel, they also knew that they were dependent
on them for their own survival. The Middle East
fell, as a result of this, into two distinct camps
based on who had oil and who didn’t. With the
exclusion of Libya and Iraq, the oil producing
nations leaned toward the West before 1979.
Places like Syria and Egypt, who didn’t produce oil,
leaned toward the East.
Oil Shortages – United States - 1973
 Contradictions in their support
All of these spheres of influence by both the East and West developed after World War Two,
regardless of the political, social or economic systems these nations of the Middle East had
developed. In the West leaning nations of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait, for example, there
was almost zero democratic process and zero choice for the people to determine who their leaders
were (with the exception of Israel). Moreover, as the West was moving toward great civil rights for
their own people during this era, nations like Saudi Arabia didn’t permit females to vote until 2015 or
hold a driver’s licence until 2017. Democracy, civil rights, and freedom from oppression, principles
that were proclaimed by Truman when he stated that Communism must be confronted, were
therefore ignored when it came to their allies in the Middle East.

Conversely, amongst the Soviet Union’s allies of Syria, Egypt and Iraq (Iraq overthrew Faisal Hussein II,
the grandson of the Sharif of Mecca, in 1958), living conditions for the working class actually got
worse after the 1960’s after the three nations slipped further into economic recession. Massive
military rearmament and costly wars by the Soviet backed states cycled their economies into freefall
and turned their leaders further toward dictatorships. Thus, enacting measures along the “road of
socialism”, as Brezhnev claimed was so necessary for Soviet support, was equally ignored if the
country in question served a strategic purpose.

Thus, with the exclusion of Israel, both the East and West failed to bring their allies closer toward
their ideological principles and continued supporting them for little other reason than for strategic
purposes. The Cold War had, as such, evolved from one based on ideological principles, ideological
aims, and one aimed at improving the living conditions of the masses, into one based on competition
for power.

The West again dominates the Middle East

After the immediate collapse of relations with the West in 1973, Middle Eastern nations gradually
began to fall back within the sphere of influence of the Americans. Even Egypt, a long-time ally of the
Soviets after the expulsion of the British, began to see their deteriorating economic situation and
persistent civil upheavals as a sign to begin to switch sides. In 1974, backed by massive military and
economic investment by the Americans, Egypt expelled 20, 000 Soviet military ‘advisers’ from the
country and ultimately pursued a path toward cooperation with the West. In 1979, Egypt even signed
a peace agreement with its long-time enemy Israel, becoming the first Arab nation to recognise the
Jewish states’ right to exist. Syria and Iraq, alone, remained within the Soviet sphere of influence and,
for at least a short period, it looked as though the West would again become the dominant influence
within the region. Thus, by 1979, the West came to be aligned with Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, Egypt, UAE, and Iran, a much greater proportion than that of the Soviets.

However, what both the East and West hadn’t factored in was the rising tide of Islamism and the
support it was gaining against the ‘godless Soviets’ and sinful West. After 1979, the balance of power
again shifted in the Middle East; the effects
of which are still being felt today.

Arab/Israeli War - 1973

Explain the foreign policy motivations with regards to the nations of the Middle East

Economic

Fear

Ideological
Evaluate the extent to which American attempts at influence over the Middle East were driven by
ideology – dot point your evidence and primary/secondary source quotes below

Contention:

Reasons For Reasons Against