One of the great victories of the US in the Cold War was their out-manoeuvring of both the British and Soviets for position of pre-eminent power in the Middle East. Combined with American economic and banking power, good diplomacy helped ensure that the US had (and still has) a privileged position in the oil market at a time when oil became THE most important energy source for human civilization.
Undoubtedly, this further strengthened the already much stronger American economy and easy access to the US banking system allowed Western Europe and Japan to grow their economies by switching out coal power for more efficient oil and gas power. At the end of the Cold War, the US was mostly an oil-based economy and the Soviets lagged behind in still gaining most of their energy from coal.
So I am curious what happens if the superior American diplomatic/influence position is somehow swapped with a superior Soviet diplomatic/influence position - i.e. that most of the major powers and oil producers in the Middle East are Soviet allies, not American allies.
The US would retain its starting advantage in economics, trade and banking.
So maybe Stalin plays a more cautious game in the Middle East. Instead of trying to break up Iran and punish Turkey for breaking their treaties during WW2, Stalin chooses to respect the sovereignty of these states. Perhaps allowing Stalin to retain the good relations the Soviets had with Turkey from before WW2, and take advantage of Anglo-Iranian friction. Similarly, after WW2, relations with Saudi Arabia declined (perhaps due to the Soviet alignment with Arab nationalism, but I'm not sure) - so if possible in TTL we would avoid that.
I also suspect that good relations with Israel would be important in retaining good relations with the major oil producers in the region, since Israeli military power and the leverage over Israel that the US gained by becoming their main supporter also made the US a vital power for Isreal's neighbours to gain the goodwill of. So ideally, we would want Stalin to die early, and leave it to another Soviet leader to start the Cold War. Avoiding Stalin's anti-Jewish policies in the last years of his life would greatly improve Soviet-Israeli relations and meaningful attempts to move to a less autocratic system would greatly improve relations with the Israeli left (which was dominated by democratic leftists).
So let's say that by the mid-50s, the Soviets have strong relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran while Turkey is a friendly neutral. Saudi Arabia has started to develop her oil reserves with Soviet technicians and machinery imports rather than US ones and Iran is pushing Britain out and the new national oil company is similarly importing Soviet expertise and machinery. The Iranian Tudeh party, of course, is under strict instructions from Moscow that the revolution in Iran must wait until Mosaddegh have modernized the country enough to have a real proletariat, and in the meantime they should support the development of national consciousness. Let's further assume that the US and Britain try to overthrow Mosaddegh, but in TTL, a more supportive Tudeh party and a more respectful (to Iran) Soviet foreign policy means that Mosaddegh defeats the coup.
Let's further assume that while the Soviets gain further allies in the region, and sometimes lose them, the core allies mentioned above remain solid friends of the Soviets through the Cold War.
So what are the effects?
Does this mean the Soviets will have access to plentiful and cheap oil? I could see that the Soviets might end up inside TTL's equivalent of OPEC and maybe an OPEC-type group starts earlier. And Soviet advisers and machinery having such a role in building up Iran and Saudi Arabia's oil industries likely means Soviet extraction technology is a bit better in TTL and also the Soviets have a lucrative export market for industrial machinery that they didn't have in OTL. I can't see oil being priced in roubles though - likely it would be priced in either £s or $s, so the Soviets would still need hard currencies to import much oil.
Certainly if the Soviets can do well enough with pushing ahead their extraction technology and in pushing up the quality of their oil-sector manufactures, they might have the economic strength to import significant amounts of oil from the Middle East. But neither of those things are assured. It could be that countries like France, or even the US and Britain, end up reducing the Soviet market share in oil machinery and services.
Potentially, it may be possible that a more oil-powered Soviet Union and a less oil-powered (due to higher world oil prices) West might mean that the Soviets can continue the Cold War for longer.
Since the only plausible path I can see for the Soviets to do better in the Middle East involves them being much nicer, I'd imagine that generally the Middle East is a happier region in TTL - especially Iran. However, since the Soviets have less ability to support Israel, I'd imagine that country is less secure and prosperous in TTL. On the flip side, an Israel that was a Soviet ally likely means a much better situation for the Jewish population of the Soviet Union, doubly so since maintaining good relations with Israel requires avoiding Stalin being as much of a jerk as he was OTL. So overall, maybe Israel still gains?
So... What about the rest of you folks? How do you think the Soviets could maintain more influence in the Middle East and what kind of impact do you think Soviet pre-eminence would have? Does anyone see a path where the Soviets can get the edge by being more competent jerks than they were OTL?
And do people agree or disagree with my feeling that the oil producers of the Middle East were important enough that their alignment could decide the fate of the world?
fasquardon