On many occasions the question of “where is the wisdom in that?” is raised in the wake of the cut-throat battles waged by actors in the field of international relations. This question arises because these actors – in the quest for their own interests – implement policies based on their superior intelligence and strategic wisdom that result in serious losses to themselves and on many occasions result in losses for their rivals as well.

A final picture emerges where no one has won and everyone has lost. In one aspect, there is nothing strange about this since states consider the losses of their rival countries as their own gain. Whereas this type of state behavior is nothing extraordinary and creates no value either for the state in question or for the rest of the world, and has no impact in the building of a future. Extremely archaic emotions lie behind such behavior and calculations made by a state. Emotions like jealousy, envy and greed.

A country’s stance whilst competing can be ascribed to lengthy strategy analyses that are conducted to determine the superior intelligence and strategic wisdom behind that stance. However, on many occasions these are just the product of a limited intellect by those carrying out these analyses, and those carrying out the action are simply hostages to an archaic emotion.

When the issue is the Middle East, the actions of some states are the best example of what I have just mentioned. Unless some major calculation lies behind all this, it wouldn’t be wrong to think that all the actors in the field have gone crazy. 

The political stance adopted by each actor to protect the interests of their own country, and even to protect their own power, paves the way for them to lose a bit of both. The losses, of course, increase the losses suffered by the entire region and further consolidate the fragmented nature of the Middle East, which is becoming more fragmented each passing day.

Those countries, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, which evaluate their policies during this process as very effective and keep on increasing their influence in the field, are doing nothing more than increasing the tally of losses incurred by the region and themselves through each operation carried out in the field.

The Shia-orientated policy that Iran is implementing in Syria, Iraq and Yemen might look like it is helping it make advances in the field but what it leaves behind resembles the pain and emotional despair inflicted by foreign occupation forces. At the end of the day we see that, Iran, which has the potential of reaching out to approximately 1.5 billion Muslims and attaining legitimacy and sympathy in their eyes, is restricted to the 100-150 million-strong Shia population, and has become an object of mistrust and animosity for the rest of the population.

It is difficult to believe, but true, that the Iranian Islamic revolution, which sought to be the hope and inspiration for freedom for the 1.5 billion-strong Islamic world in the 1970 and early 1980s, is now expending all the skills that come from that famous Safavid strategic intellect to transform it into a simple sectarian-based state.

That strategic intellect can lead to it teetering on the brink and wrongly identifying with a murderous dictator who barbarically murders his own people. By the looks of it, Iran is making very effective moves, but these moves leave nothing of future value to the world.

The open fight waged against the Arab Spring by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is one of the most vital factors behind the instability in the Middle East today. The only target in this fight by both these countries is democracy and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular.

It is clear that they perceived the democratic processes, which brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power, as a threat to them and made an enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood that has an organizational presence and intellectual circles in almost 90 countries.

This despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood posed no threat and was not against either Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates for it to attract such animosity. Conditions in the countries where the Arab Spring was taking place were very different from conditions in Gulf countries, and the prospect of them being directly affected by the waves of the Arab Spring didn’t exist. The Muslim Brotherhood didn’t even have an active presence during the Arab Spring and had no radical stance. It joined in after the dust had settled and everyone had taken their place.

No situation existed that called for them to target this societal movement, which had the potential to strengthen and develop democracy. If they had wanted to, they could have sided with this revolutionary wave and become supporters of change that would have proved very advantageous for them, the Islamic World and the entire world as well.

They could have adopted a leadership role and thus helped the Islamic world beat this ill fate, and they would even have consolidated their power in their own countries with such a stance. Instead, they succumbed to archaic emotions and unnecessarily viewed this development as a threat to themselves. In order to counter this misperceived threat they embraced military coups as a “measure,” which is the most despicable, the most shameful and the most criminal act in the world.

The leaders of the coups they backed are now at the helm and it seems like they have created certain spheres of influence in those places. But none of these spheres are safe or sustainable for them and they have not increased their strength and respect due to their influence in these spheres. Furthermore, their support for these coups means that the legitimacy and respect they hold in the eyes of their own citizens is being eroded on a daily basis.

The measures they have implemented to counter these threat perceptions will create consequences that will threaten their security even more. Consequences to such an extent that the possibility increases every day of them being faced with threats that will make their fears a reality. 

This means that strategic wisdom and administration is not everything; a bit of heart and foresight is required too.