The terms Near East and Middle East did not emerge even remotely organically within the regions they describe, but were European constructions designed to classify strategic territories according to their geographical proximity to Europe.
Given the war in Iran, Israel and the United States, both concepts have dominated the front pages of practically all national media, generating a question in public opinion: Which countries does each denomination refer to?
The term Near East emerges as a geographical and linguistic category linked to the region's proximity to Europe. Traditionally, it groups together the countries located east of the Mediterranean and close to the European continent, including:
- Turkey
- Syria
- Lebanon
- Israel
- Palestine
- Jordan
- Iraq
- Iran
- Kuwait
- Bahrain
- Qatar
- Saudi Arabia
- Yemen
- Oman
- United Arab Emirates
- Egypt
For its part, the Middle East expands the scope, including these same countries but also other strategic territories such as Afghanistan, Pakistan or even India, depending on political, military and economic interests.
But the differentiation is not arbitrary, but rather requires a review of recent history to understand both concepts.
Alfred Mahan and the geopolitical construction of the East
The distinction, almost exclusive to Castilian Spanish, reflects the way in which the West has conceived these regions. In English, Middle East brings together both concepts; in French there is Moyen-Orient, while Proche-Orient refers more to the space near the Mediterranean. The choice of term is not neutral: it responds to strategic perspectives and the historical moment in which each denomination became popular.
The American historian and strategist Alfred Mahan, at the beginning of the 20th century, coined the concept of Middle East to designate the area located east of the Ottoman Empire and west of India, encompassing the Persian Gulf, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. His definition aimed to order the region according to its relevance for international politics and maritime security, connecting geography with strategic interests.
After the Second World War, the United States began to popularize Middle East to refer to what was historically known as Near East or Near East, adapting the notion to the context of the Cold War and energy geopolitics.
Over time, the idea of Greater Near East was also coined, which included territories in North Africa and other strategic countries in the fight against terrorism, especially after the attacks of September 11, 2001. This expanded concept, although less popular than the acronym MENA (Middle East and North Africa), reflects the constant adaptation of names to geopolitical and strategic interests.
Diversity and complexity of the region
Far from being homogeneous, the region encompasses an enormous ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity. Although it is associated with the Arab world and Islam, Turks, Kurds, Persians, Israeli Hebrews, Christians, and minorities of other religions also coexist in the Near East.
Within Islam, Sunni and Shiite currents coexist, while Israel is a Jewish-majority state. This plurality demonstrates that geographic labels do not always reflect the social, cultural, and political complexity of the territories they designate.
Furthermore, the region has an enormous strategic weight. The war in Iran and the instability in the Persian Gulf directly impact global oil and gas markets, raising prices and affecting economies dependent on these resources, such as the European Union.
Understanding what is included under the notion of the Middle East allows contextualizing these crises, while the reference to the Near East highlights the historical and cultural proximity to the Mediterranean.
Names that reflect history and power
Ultimately, the difference between the Middle East and the Near East is not a play on words: it is a window into how the West has interpreted, mapped, and managed the region over time.
While the Near East retains a historical and academic sense, the Middle East dominates contemporary political and strategic analyses. Understanding this distinction allows for a clear reading of current conflicts, energy policy, international diplomacy, and the implications of wars like that of Iran, remembering that the names we use for regions reflect history, strategy, and power.