For decades, the Middle East has been the crucible in which global rivalries, ideological battles, and power politics have brewed. Among the most consequential dynamics shaping the region in recent years has been the uneasy interplay between the United States and Russia, particularly in their responses to the emergence of the Islamic State (ISIS). While the militant group is largely diminished in territorial terms, its legacy and the discord between Washington and Moscow continue to reverberate through the region’s fractured political and security landscape.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Cssprepforum, led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, supports 70,000+ monthly aspirants with premium CSS/PMS prep. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for daily CSS/PMS updates, solved past papers, expert articles, and free prep resources.
To understand the current volatility of the Middle East, one must first situate the roots of US-Russia tensions within a broader historical context. During the Cold War, the region became a chessboard of ideological confrontation, with Washington backing allies to contain communism, and Moscow arming regimes to expand its influence. These rivalries calcified into long-term foreign policy doctrines, leaving scars on regional stability. The post-Cold War world did little to alter this underlying suspicion, if anything, it repackaged old competitions under new pretexts.
When ISIS surged onto the global stage in 2014, capturing swathes of Iraq and Syria, the two powers were once again forced to engage in the same theater, but from sharply divergent positions. Both Washington and Moscow publicly condemned the extremist group and acknowledged its threat to global and regional security. Yet, their strategic calculations diverged so starkly that any hope for sustained cooperation remained aspirational at best.
The United States led a broad international coalition aimed at “degrading and destroying” ISIS. This involved aerial campaigns, logistical and intelligence support to Kurdish and Iraqi forces, and targeted strikes on leadership figures. The effort, while extensive, was not without limitations. American objectives were entwined with broader aims, including the fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a position rooted in its view of Assad as a war criminal and an impediment to lasting peace.
Russia, on the other hand, saw in the Syrian crisis an opportunity to reassert its influence on the global stage. Moscow’s primary goal was to shore up the Assad regime, a long-time ally that provided Russia with strategic military bases and a foothold in the Mediterranean. Under the pretext of fighting ISIS, Russian airpower was unleashed, but more often than not, its missiles struck rebel-held areas rather than Islamic State strongholds. In essence, while both powers claimed to be fighting terrorism, they were prosecuting two very different wars.
These divergent goals led to not only operational misalignments but also frequent diplomatic flare-ups. American officials accused Moscow of bombing moderate opposition groups under the guise of anti-ISIS operations. Russian officials, in turn, accused the United States of fostering instability by arming factions with unclear loyalties and by ignoring the sovereignty of the Syrian state. As each side entrenched its position, the battlefield became a kaleidoscope of shifting alliances, proxy battles, and military brinkmanship.
Despite brief moments of tactical coordination, such as establishing deconfliction lines to avoid accidental military clashes, meaningful cooperation was sparse. The deeper trust deficit and strategic rivalry remained too potent. Consequently, the anti-ISIS campaign unfolded in fragmented, often contradictory phases. This lack of coherence not only extended the group’s lifespan but also widened the fissures in the already fragile region.
The geopolitical fallout of these fractured relations quickly spread beyond the borders of Syria and Iraq. One of the clearest consequences was the fragmentation of regional alliances. Countries such as Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah drew closer to Russia, while traditional American allies like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel grew wary of Washington’s waning focus and shifting priorities. Turkey, for example, oscillated between cooperation and confrontation with both powers, engaging in joint patrols with Russia in northern Syria while still maintaining NATO ties and airspace agreements with the US.
Furthermore, the power vacuum and incoherence of the international response gave rise to a proliferation of proxy conflicts. Militias once unified against a common enemy began turning on each other. External actors armed their preferred groups, often without coordination, thus transforming localized battles into full-scale proxy wars. The conflict in Syria, originally framed as a fight against tyranny or terrorism, evolved into a sprawling, multi-faceted war involving dozens of actors, each with its own agenda and sponsor.
The rivalry between Washington and Moscow also reshaped the strategic map of the Middle East. Russia’s military success in bolstering Assad’s forces, combined with its deft diplomacy, allowed it to project influence in a region where it had once been marginalized. The Kremlin’s ability to speak with all sides, whether Iran, Israel, or Turkey, contrasted sharply with Washington’s more rigid alliances. As a result, many regional players began recalibrating their policies, hedging bets between the two powers, or exploiting their rivalry for leverage.
Yet, for all its assertiveness, Moscow's strategy was not without costs. The prolonged conflict strained its economy, tested its military, and embroiled it in a quagmire that offered limited returns beyond prestige and strategic positioning. Likewise, the United States, while avoiding large-scale troop deployments, found itself entangled in a conflict where its partners were often unreliable, its objectives muddled, and its influence diminishing.
What suffered most in this rivalry, arguably, was the overarching goal of regional security. The defeat of ISIS on the battlefield did not equate to the elimination of its ideology. The group, though territorially decimated, adapted to insurgency tactics, exploiting gaps in governance, sectarian divides, and economic despair. In Syria and Iraq, reconstruction remains sluggish, political reconciliation elusive, and humanitarian needs overwhelming. The deeper social and political wounds that gave rise to extremism remain largely unhealed.
Moreover, the US-Russia competition diverted attention and resources away from addressing these root causes. Instead of coordinated development initiatives, the region witnessed competing aid models, fragmented diplomacy, and growing cynicism among local populations. Where unity might have yielded durable solutions, division only deepened despair.
Critically assessing the broader picture, it becomes clear that the US and Russia approached the ISIS threat through the prism of their own strategic ambitions. Neither was willing to subordinate these ambitions for the sake of a common cause. The result was a disjointed, often contradictory effort that weakened the collective response and allowed extremist threats to morph and adapt.
While both powers claimed victories, territorial gains, military accolades, diplomatic influence, the Middle East remains as volatile as ever. Civil wars persist, new extremist factions continue to emerge, and the dreams of peace remain elusive for millions. The situation underscores a harsh lesson: when great powers prioritize rivalry over responsibility, those caught in between pay the highest price.
3.5-Month Extensive Compulsory Subjects Course for CSS Aspirants
Struggling with CSS Compulsory subjects? Crack Pakistan Affairs, Islamiat, GSA & Current Affairs in just 3.5 months with Howfiv’s expert-led course. New batches every April, August & December! Secure your spot now – WhatsApp 0300-6322446!
Looking ahead, any sustainable solution to the region’s instability must begin with an honest reckoning of past failures. The United States and Russia need not become allies to cooperate effectively, but they must acknowledge that fragmented agendas only empower shared enemies. A new framework for dialogue, perhaps multilateral and brokered by neutral parties, could help bridge divides and refocus efforts on stabilization, reconstruction, and inclusive governance.
The fight against extremism is not won solely through bombs and bullets. It requires diplomacy, development, and an unwavering commitment to justice. As history has shown, the Middle East’s crises cannot be managed through zero-sum games. Only when rival powers find common ground can the region begin to heal, and the shadow of ISIS truly be cast away.
