Leonard Binder was among the first scholars to question the geographical and political scope of the Middle Eastern system in 1958. In defining this system, Binder considered various criteria, including the existence of regional organizations and defense pacts, the interrelationship between domestic and international politics, conflicting intra-area policies, the role of religious opposition to nationalism, government policies, and historical and colonial experiences. Based on these factors, Binder argued that “the Middle East proper stretches from Libya to Iran, with fringe areas including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Maghreb, and the core area comprising the Arab states and Israel.”
This conceptualization of the Middle East underscores its broad geographical span, while also highlighting the unifying elements of religion and colonial legacy that link its individual components. Binder’s formulation initiated a debate regarding the composition and scope of the Middle Eastern system. This discourse revealed the diversity of perspectives on what constitutes the Middle East.
One school of thought, for instance, identified ‘Ottoman political culture’ as the primary determinant of regional inclusion, which led to the exclusion of Morocco and Iran from the system. Another approach concentrated on Israel, its neighboring Arab states, and the involvement of extra-regional great powers, consequently omitting Iran, Turkey, and the Maghreb states. A third perspective restricted the definition of the Middle East to Arab states, emphasizing Arab nationalism as the central criterion. These differing approaches illustrate the inherent subjectivity in defining the Middle East, as the system’s boundaries expand or contract depending on the criteria adopted.
This issue of defining the Middle East becomes more complex when considering the impact of Islamist movements. If Islamist ideology is treated as the binding element of the system, the Middle Eastern system could theoretically encompass a vast area stretching from Morocco to the Philippines. Such a broad conceptualization, however, renders the system analytically ineffective due to its sheer size and complexity.
In response to this challenge, Buzan and Wæver introduced the notion of regional subcomplexes within larger systems. They proposed that, given the significant number of states in the Middle East, it is necessary to recognize distinct subcomplexes to better understand regional dynamics. Specifically, they identified the Levant subcomplex, consisting of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, and the Gulf subcomplex, which includes Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. However, Buzan and Wæver do not offer explicit criteria for distinguishing these subregions beyond geographic proximity. They acknowledge the considerable overlap and interconnections between these subcomplexes, making clear-cut distinctions challenging.
Additionally, their assertion that Turkey lies outside the Middle East is contentious, as Turkey has played a significant role in the region’s geopolitics, particularly in both the Levant and the Gulf. Turkey’s foreign policy initiatives, military interventions, and diplomatic engagements have frequently positioned it as a key actor in Middle Eastern affairs, further complicating its exclusion from the system.
Ultimately, the Middle Eastern system is best understood as comprising state and non-state actors that are primarily engaged in issues related to the Arab–Israeli conflict and Gulf security. This perspective allows for a coherent analysis of regional interactions, while also acknowledging the critical role of external powers and non-state actors in shaping the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
An alternative approach to conceptualizing the Middle Eastern system is to view it as a structure defined by the foreign policy priorities of its core states. From this perspective, the Middle Eastern system comprises states that primarily focus on two interrelated geopolitical issues: the Arab–Israeli conflict and Gulf security.
This framework provides a coherent and analytically useful understanding of the region, as it centers on key security dynamics that shape regional interactions. Within this context, North Africa is largely excluded from the Middle Eastern system. Although North African states may engage with the Arab–Israeli conflict, their influence on the issue is not primary. Conversely, Turkey’s increasing involvement in Middle Eastern affairs over the past seven decades has positioned it as one of the system’s main participants.
Based on this approach, the Middle Eastern system comprises sixteen state actors: Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, West Bank, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Yemen. These states are central to regional security and political dynamics, particularly concerning the Arab–Israeli conflict and Gulf security. Additionally, the Middle East is characterized by the presence of influential non-state actors that often challenge the authority of state governments and contribute to regional instability. Among these non-state actors are militant groups such as ISIS, al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas; paramilitary organizations like the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq; and political movements, including Kurdish nationalist groups, Palestinian factions such as Fatah and Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
The influence of these non-state actors varies depending on their resources, organizational capacities, and ideological motivations. The significance of non-state actors in the Middle East is particularly evident in their ability to shape security dynamics and state policies. For instance, Hezbollah’s military capabilities and political influence in Lebanon make it a critical actor in the Levant subcomplex, while the role of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq highlights the intersection of state and non-state security structures in the Gulf subcomplex. Similarly, Hamas and Islamic Jihad exert considerable influence over the Palestinian territories, complicating efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
These non-state actors operate within and across state boundaries, further blurring the lines between domestic and international politics in the region. Furthermore, external powers play a crucial role in shaping the Middle Eastern system. The involvement of great powers such as the USA, Russia, China, and the European Union influences regional security, economic policies, and diplomatic engagements.
The USA has historically maintained a strategic presence in the Gulf, ensuring the security of energy resources and supporting regional allies. Russia, on the other hand, has strengthened its ties with Iran and the Syrian government, asserting its influence in the Levant. Meanwhile, China’s growing economic footprint in the Middle East, particularly through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, signals an evolving geopolitical landscape that further complicates the dynamics of the regional system.
The Middle Eastern system is a complex and multifaceted geopolitical structure whose definition is subject to varying interpretations. Binder’s initial conceptualization of the region provided a broad framework that underscored the significance of historical, religious, and political factors in shaping the Middle East. Subsequent scholarly debates have refined this framework, introducing alternative criteria based on political culture, Arab nationalism, and security concerns. The recognition of regional subcomplexes by Buzan and Wæver offers a more nuanced approach to understanding the Middle East, although challenges remain in clearly delineating these subregions.
Ultimately, the Middle Eastern system is best understood as comprising state and non-state actors that are primarily engaged in issues related to the Arab–Israeli conflict and Gulf security. This perspective allows for a coherent analysis of regional interactions, while also acknowledging the critical role of external powers and non-state actors in shaping the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
