The Long-Term Impact of Foreign Influence in the Middle East

The Middle East has always been a region of immense potential. Rich in culture, history, and resources. But why does it seem like progress is constantly disrupted? Why do challenges persist despite decades of external involvement? 

In my opinion, much of what we see today is the direct result of outside forces shaping the region for their own interests rather than allowing it to develop on its own terms.

I can’t help but wonder: what if things had gone differently? What if local leaders had been given the space to build strong, self-sufficient nations without interference? The reality is, time and again, foreign powers have stepped in, often under the guise of stability, only to leave behind systems that were more dependent than independent.

Throughout history, we’ve seen leaders in the Middle East try to assert control over their own economies and resources, only to be met with strong resistance from global powers. It’s no secret that certain governments were supported while others were undermined, not based on their effectiveness but on how well they aligned with outside interests.

Think about it. How do you build a thriving country when every step toward independence is met with opposition? When national industries are taken over, when political movements are suppressed, and when strategic interests outweigh the well-being of local populations, it’s no surprise that progress remains uneven. In my view, this cycle of interference has done more harm than good, creating fragile systems that struggle to stand on their own.

Who Benefits?

Let’s talk about economics. The Middle East is home to some of the world’s most valuable resources, yet economic inequality remains a massive issue. How did that happen? Well, when key industries were shaped by external forces rather than local needs, it created a system where wealth flowed outward instead of staying within.

Policies were put in place decades ago that still impact economic structures now. The focus on maintaining relationships with powerful allies meant that real economic reform took a backseat. And in my opinion, the biggest loss wasn’t financial. It was the loss of opportunity. Nations that could have thrived were instead forced into cycles of dependency, making it even harder to create lasting change.

The shifting alliances in the Middle East have always fascinated me. Over the years, different groups have been propped up, funded, and supported—only for those same groups to be abandoned when priorities changed.

I often think about how different things might have been if the focus had been on long-term cooperation rather than short-term strategic gains. Instead of using influence to control, what if it had been used to empower?

Post-War Scenarios for Iraq: How Can Stability Be Achieved?

The situation for U.S. troops in Iraq is deteriorating. Constant attacks, an inability to effectively counter insurgents, and growing discontent are weakening support for the war. Both at home and among Iraqis

I recently traveled across Iraq, witnessing firsthand the realities on the ground. My observations align with the assessments of officials in both Europe and the United States:

  1. The U.S. cannot maintain control without reinforcements. Many military personnel I spoke with acknowledged this.
  2. Iraqis are becoming increasingly hostile. The postponement of elections and the continued presence of foreign troops are eroding trust and fueling resentment.
  3. A withdrawal strategy must be determined soon. The situation risks turning into another Vietnam, where American troops face relentless resistance, making prolonged occupation untenable.

Given these realities, calls to deploy additional forces to Iraq seem logical. Without a swift and significant increase in troop numbers, maintaining control over the situation appears nearly impossible.

How Will Iraqis React?

That remains the critical question. If President Bush remains committed to his promise of building a strong democracy in Iraq, any decision must consider the will of the Iraqi people. Ignoring public sentiment would be a grave mistake.

The situation may look dire, but not all is lost. With the resources and influence at the disposal of the U.S. and its allies, stability is still achievable. But only through decisive, strategic, and well-coordinated action.

European media have been particularly vocal about the West’s response to global crises. A recent report in the Mittelbayerische Zeitung highlighted a striking contradiction:

“The indifference with which EU nations observe Italy’s leadership today is shocking. Compare this to the outcry in 2000 when Jörg Haider’s right-wing Austrian Freedom Party joined the coalition government. Back then, Europe feared the spread of Haider’s ideology and imposed diplomatic quarantine on Austria. Now, faced with far greater challenges, the response is silence. How does this align with our proclaimed commitment to universal human values?”

 

A World on Fire

From Iraq to Europe, the world is grappling with crises. And history suggests this will not be the last time. As conflicts unfold, we can only watch, analyze, and hope for the best. But hope alone is not enough. Action is needed to shape a future that does not repeat the mistakes of the past.