SYRIA: AMERICA VS. ISRAEL?
Via fpif.org
By Giorgio
Cafiero
The “Arab Spring” reached SYRIA in
March 2011 when SYRIAN intellectuals, students, and union leaders appeared on
the streets to demand greater transparency, political liberalization, and
economic reforms. Although they did not participate in the initial series of
demonstrations, SYRIAN ISLAMISTS joined the opposition after the regime
responded with force to the public display of dissent. As the violence has
escalated and taken over 9,000
lives, foreign powers have exploited the carnage to advance their geopolitical
interests. The UNITED STATES and other powers have used the SYRIAN MUSLIM
BROTHERHOOD as a proxy to topple the SYRIAN BA’ATHIST regime, which has
governed for almost half a century. Washington’s two primary interests in SYRIA
are to strengthen the GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL (GCC) vis-à-vis IRAN and to undermine
RUSSIA’S power and influence in the MIDDLE EAST and MEDITERRANEAN. ISRAEL shares
the U.S. interest in cutting off IRAN and RUSSIA’S reach into the LEVANT.
COMMENT BY GEOPOLITICAL
ANALYSIS AND MONITORING:
Cutting off IRAN and RUSSIA’S reach into the LEVANT
applies for IRAN but not for RUSSIA. One should not forget that ISRAEL and RUSSIA,
though not openly, do share common grounds, one being the fact that about 1
million RUSSIAN immigrants are living in ISRAEL thus being the home to the world’s largest DIASPORA of RUSSIAN speakers outside of
non-RUSSIAN-speaking countries. Second, ISRAEL’S and RUSSIA’S economic and political ties have
strengthening in recent past, thus it is hardly in the geopolitical and
strategic interest of ISRAEL to “Cut off” RUSSIA’S reach into the LEVANT.
For Background
information see:
However, security considerations
surrounding the unknown variables of a post-Assad SYRIA appear to have created
a divide between U.S. and ISRAELI strategies, as the Netanyahu government has
not followed Obama’s course on SYRIA. The ISRAELI concerns surrounding the
collapse of SYRIA’S BA’ATHIST party are legitimate. Washington should also
consider the security consequences of Assad’s ouster and avoid intervention in SYRIA.
For more background
Analysis see:
U.S. INTENTIONS IN SYRIA
Following SYRIA’S independence from FRENCH
colonial rule, relations with the UNITED STATES have been largely defined by
mistrust and conflict of interest. Beginning in 1956, in coordination with SAUDI
ARABIA, the Eisenhower administration sought to covertly overthrow SYRIA’S
left-wing nationalist government.
Background information:
PROXY WAR BETWEEN THE USA, TURKEY AND THE GCC VERSUS SYRIA
RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN
During the late 1970s and early
1980s, through JORDAN and ISRAEL, Washington backed the SYRIAN MUSLIM
BROTHERHOOD’S armed uprising against the regime of Hafez Assad. Since 1982, the
SYRIAN MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD has been in exile (primarily in SPAIN and SWITZERLAND).
However, according
to The Washington Post, “after three decades of persecution that
virtually eradicated its presence, the SYRIAN MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD has
resurrected itself to become the dominant group in the fragmented opposition
movement pursuing a 14-month uprising against President Bashar al-Assad.”
The U.S. alliance with an Islamist
organization that espouses anti-WESTERN views may appear strange. However, this
relationship is far from historically unprecedented. SYRIA is only one country
where Washington supported Islamists to undermine nationalist and leftist
forces. This alliance between the UNITED STATES and Islamist organizations was
widespread throughout the Muslim world during the Cold War, as Washington
deemed such forces — Zia ul-Haq in PAKISTAN, the Mujahideen of AFGHANISTAN, Abu
Qurah in JORDAN, and the Muslim Brotherhood in EGYPT — to be reliable partners
in the effort to undermine Communism and Arab nationalism. After the SOVIET
UNION imploded in 1991, the UNITED STATES continued to foster alliances with
Islamist groups to undermine governments that did not cooperate with the “New
World Order.” During the 1990s, Washington covertly provided Iraqi Islamist
parties, including the Islamic Call (Al-Dawa) and the Supreme Council for
Islamic Revolution in IRAQ, with millions of dollars to strengthen IRAQI opposition
to Saddam Hussein.
Today, militant Islamist organizations such as Jundullah and
Mujahadeen
e-Kalk target IRAN. Both organizations, though officially labeled
as “terrorist” organizations by the U.S. State Department, receive direct aid
from Washington. In other words, SYRIA is not the only country where militant
Islamists have received support from the UNITED STATES in their campaign to
topple a regime opposed to U.S. hegemony.
SHIA CRESCENT
Present U.S. support for SYRIAN
ISLAMISTS is part of a larger proxy war. The UNITED STATES, TURKEY, and the GCC
are pushing for Assad’s demise, while RUSSIA, CHINA, IRAN, and Hezbollah seek
to ensure Assad’s survival. U.S. interest in Assad’s downfall relates to its
overall position vis-à-vis IRAN and RUSSIA, and by extension CHINA. Washington
is skeptical about launching a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
However, by toppling IRAN’S closest regional ally, the UNITED STATES believes
that it can undermine the Islamic Republic’s regional influence by striking a
blow to the Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Hezbollah axis of power from IRAN to the MEDITERRANEAN,
which JORDAN’S King Abdullah nervously identified
as the “SHIA CRESCENT.”
Washington is assuming that the MUSLIM
BROTHERHOOD, the most influential party within the Istanbul-based SYRIAN
National Council, would end the IRAN-SYRIA alliance if it came to power. The
organization’s deputy secretary, Mohammed Faruk Tayfur, told
The Washington Times on January 18, 2012 that the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD rejects
IRAN’S offers to mediate talks between the Assad regime and the opposition. The
deputy secretary defined
his ideology and vision for SYRIA by comparing TURKEY and IRAN’S versions of
political Islam. “Islamic culturally and secular politically, [TURKEY] is the
model for the Islamic movement … the IRANIAN, on the other hand, is the worst.”
Then there’s the religious dimension.
The Assad regime is mainly composed of SYRIAN
ALAWITES who adhere to a form of Islam derived from the SHIISM practiced in IRAN.
Many orthodox SUNNI, who form the majority in SYRIA, do not consider ALAWITES
to be legitimate Muslims. The Islamic Republic’s attempts to expand SHIISM
throughout the ARAB WORLD, especially in SYRIA, have fostered intense hatred
for IRAN within certain conservative SUNNI circles that would likely influence
the SYRIAN MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD’S foreign policy vis-à-vis IRAN and Hezbollah.
COMMENT BY GEOPOLITICAL
ANALYSIS AND MONITORING:
Although SHIISM and SUNNISM
oppose each other on the geopolitical world stage; they also foster almost
harmonic coexistence when it comes to recruit followers on foreign land in
order to emerge as the dominant Islamic fraction, as is the case in BOSNIA.
BOSNIAN moderate young Muslims are the target of both, WAHHABI (SUNNI - SAUDI
ARABIA) and SHIIA IRANIAN fundamentalist groups. The ISLAMIC COMMUNITY (SUNNI) in
the Muslim part of BOSNIA obtains funds from both, SAUDI ARABIA as well as IRAN.
SUNNI clerics however show no objections to IRANIAN financed MADRASSA
projects nor IRANIAN NGO’s using drug rehabilitation
centre’s to recruit future fundamentalists, when at the same time WAHHABI
(SAUDI ARABIA) recruiting efforts prospers in public schools and universities. This
shows that as long as influence gaining on foreign soil is in process, the two religious
fractions refrain from opposing each other until the objective has been accomplished.
The minute that goal has been reached however, the “harmony” ends.
Background Information
See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madrassa
The collapse of the Assad regime
would almost inevitably decrease RUSSIAN power in the MIDDLE EAST and the MEDITERRANEAN.
SYRIA has hosted RUSSIA’S naval base in Tartus for several decades and, since
1971, SYRIA has been Moscow’s closest ARAB ally. SYRIA is the largest ARAB
purchaser of RUSSIAN weapons and is seen by Moscow as RUSSIA’S doorstep into
the MIDDLE EAST and MEDITERRANEAN. The MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD has condemned RUSSIA
and CHINA for providing Assad with weapons and diplomatic support throughout
2011 and 2012.
On February 6, 2012 the SYRIAN MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD’S spokesman,
Zouheir Salem, stated
that his organization “consider[s] RUSSIA, CHINA and IRAN as direct accomplices
to the horrible massacre being carried out against our people.” By supplying
the SYRIAN government with weapons and/or diplomatic backing, the three
countries were "directly participating in the massacre of [SYRIA’S]
defenseless people." If the SYRIAN
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD removed SYRIA from Moscow and Tehran’s spheres of influence
and aligned Damascus with Washington, Ankara, Riyadh, and Doha, the regional
balance of power would shift in favor of the UNITED STATES.
ISRAEL’S INTERESTS
ISRAEL would welcome the decline of IRANIAN
influence in the LEVANT, as IRAN is ISRAEL’S gravest threat, according to ISRAELI
leaders. However, ISRAEL is not proactively seeking to weaken Iran by
supporting Assad’s opposition. Alia Brahimi and George Joffe summarize
ISRAEL’S SYRIA dilemma:
The one state that is directly
implicated by the events in SYRIA, but which still has taken no public position
is ISRAEL. This is almost certainly
because the ISRAELI Prime Minister would, on balance, prefer the Assad regime
to continue; it is a known quantity and any new regime could severely destabilize
the effective balance-of-power between two uneasy neighbors’ … ISRAEL will
see the need to determine which poses more of a threat: the "ISLAMIC
FUNDAMENTALIST" SHIA state, or the "ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST" SUNNI
groups who are sure to gain a foothold in SYRIA if Assad's regime suddenly
caves in.
Whether or not ISRAEL would be in a
stronger position with Assad or SUNNI ISLAMISTS in power is the center of
debate amongst geopolitical analysts. Nonetheless, ISRAEL’S reluctance to
support SYRIA’S opposition likely indicates its calculation that Assad’s
survival is in ISRAEL’S interest, at least for now.
ISRAEL is not interested in the
Assad regime maintaining power because of any friendship between the two
states. SYRIA fought ISRAEL directly in October 1973 and via proxy in LEBANON between
1982 and 2000. Since 2000, SYRIA has continued to support HEZBOLLAH in LEBANON
and HAMAS in Gaza. Without question, SYRIA remains the most, and arguably only,
confrontational Arab state in the ARAB-ISRAELI conflict. However, ISRAEL
understands that the Assad regime will not attempt to repossess the GOLAN
HEIGHTS by military force and will meet with ISRAELI leaders to negotiate for
peace, which occurred
in 1991, 1995-1996, 1999-2001, and 2008. How a post-Assad SYRIA would conduct
foreign relations vis-à-vis ISRAEL-Palestine remains a gamble.
Regarding the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD’S position
on ISRAEL, Thomas
Pierret writes, “[the SYRIAN MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD] seeks to ‘counter the
Zionist project [the state of ISRAEL] in its different aspects’ — a position
unlikely to change before an ISRAELI withdrawal from the GOLAN HEIGHTS.
COMMENT BY GEOPOLITICAL
ANALYSIS AND MONITORING:
Israel will in most likelihood never withdraw from the
GOLAN HEIGHTS, not so much for its strategic advantage but because of access
and control to ISRAEL’S water supply. In 1996 ISRAEL offered SYRIA to lease the
GOLAN HEIGHTS, something SYRIA obviously rejected. Even if ISRAEL decides to
return the GOLAN HEIGHTS to SYRIA, it is naive to think that the MUSLIM
BROTHERHOODS stance on ISRAEL will ever change.
The group has also traditionally
supported HAMAS.” Any SYRIAN regime (Islamist or secular, democratic or
authoritarian) will lose legitimacy if it surrenders the GOLAN HEIGHTS to ISRAEL
or fails to support the Palestinian struggle for statehood, as SYRIA has
historically been the center of ARAB nationalism. Regardless of which sect,
ethnicity, or ideological party governs in Damascus, SYRIA will seek to
repossess the GOLAN HEIGHTS, defend its sovereignty, expand trade relations,
maintain deterrence capacity over ISRAEL, and retain influence in LEBANON and
the greater ARAB world. Therefore, ISRAEL is not convinced that Assad’s
downfall could advance its geopolitical interests.
EXPLAINING ISRAEL’S RELUCTANCE
Even if the SYRIAN MUSLIM
BROTHERHOOD would not take power in a post-Assad SYRIA, or even if it would not
change SYRIAN foreign policy vis-à-vis ISRAEL-Palestine once empowered, ISRAEL may
have national interests in Assad staying in power for four other reasons.
First of all, Assad’s fall could
lead to a disintegration of the SYRIAN state. Efraim Inbar, Director of its
Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies, believes that “in the event
that the SYRIAN regime collapses, SYRIA’S advanced arsenal, including chemical
weapons, shore-to-ship missiles, air defense systems, and ballistic missiles of
all types could end up in the hands of … radical elements.” The growing
presence of AL-QAEDA in Mesopotamia (AQI) in SYRIA has been evident since the
turmoil began in 2011, and the potential for AQI, or other militant groups like
Hezbollah, to acquire such weapons could create new dilemmas for ISRAEL.
DISTRUST IN THE WEST
The collapse of the SYRIAN regime
would also further isolate IRAN in the MIDDLE EAST and potentially provide it
with an additional rationale to develop a nuclear weapon. As SYRIA has provided
IRAN with the capacity to transform HEZBOLLAH into a force that the ISRAELI military
cannot defeat, the loss of SYRIA may likely mean a weaker HEZBOLLAH, thus
decreasing IRAN’S ability to deter ISRAEL from attacking its nuclear
facilities. The Islamic Republic also took note of the NATO campaign against LIBYA’S
Muammar Gaddafi. The lesson learned was that if a state disbands its WMD
program with the intentions of improving ties with the West, it will be
vulnerable to a foreign invasion. In sum, the LIBYAN case has arguably pushed
the Islamic Republic toward developing a nuclear weapon — and its further
isolation, which would come with Assad’s demise, may accelerate Tehran down
that path. Such an outcome would deprive ISRAEL of its monopoly on nuclear
weapons in the region.
The emergence of a regime in
Damascus that bears more legitimacy than Assad’s, may also permit the SYRIAN
military to channel more resources toward external threats (primarily ISRAEL).
Currently, the SYRIAN military is focused on suppressing the domestic
opposition and dealing with potential coup d’etats and armed uprisings.
Clearly, the possibility of a future regime coming to power in Damascus with
more legitimacy may be an overly optimistic prospect (from the SYRIAN perspective).
However, the ISRAELIS would benefit from the SYRIAN military continuing to be
bogged down in domestic affairs.
Finally, although the MUSLIM
BROTHERHOOD has become increasingly moderate in the last 30 years, the other
radical Islamist elements in the region, such as the SALAFISTS WAHHABI or even AL-QAEDA,
could gain influence in SYRIA if a power vacuum forms following prolonged
violence and widespread human rights violations. Although the significance of
radical Islamist forces within SYRIA remains a hotly debated topic, a consensus
has emerged that radical Islam has gained influence in SYRIA over the last
decade. David W. Lesch, professor of Middle East History at Trinity University,
argues
that
What would emerge after the dust
settles down could very well be a polity that is Islamic extremist, one on the
border with ISRAEL and one that could make common cause with like-minded elements
in IRAQ and LEBANON. This is certainly not in anyone’s interest … Many in SYRIA,
including Bashar, see the regime, more specifically the Baath party, as the
last bastion of secularity against a seething rising tide of radical Islamic in
SYRIA … The more radical SALAFISTS
WAHHABI in SYRIA are certainly a force to be reckoned with, more so than the MUSLIM
BROTHERHOOD.
In 2005 Lucy Ashton of The
Financial Times reported
on a growing trend of radical Islam in SYRIA:
Conservative Islam is a relatively
recent phenomenon in Aleppo, known for centuries as a cosmopolitan trading city
whose merchants "could sell a dead donkey skin to a king", according
to a local proverb. Now, however, it is becoming a centre of Islamic
radicalism, known more for its bombers than its carpet bazaar and textile
weavers … On the streets of Aleppo, secular dress was ubiquitous only a decade
ago. Now, more and more children recite Koranic verses in the streets on their
way to madrassahs [Islamic schools], and women are tented completely in black.
NO LESSONS LEARNED, WASHINGTON’S
DILEMMA
The Obama administration should
consider these potential security dilemmas that have led ISRAEL to avoid aiding
Assad’s opponents. The SYRIAN military’s weapons falling into non-state actors’
hands, the increased probability that IRAN would develop a nuclear weapon to
counter its growing isolation, and the possibility of radical SYRIAN Islamist
with an anti-Western agenda rising to power would undermine U.S. interests in
the MIDDLE EAST.
Two U.S. senators, John McCain
(R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), visited the SYRIAN-TURKISH border during
April 2012 and demanded
that the UNITED STATES take military action against Assad to remove him from
power. These were the same two voices that lobbied the Clinton and Bush
administrations to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime. When the UNITED STATES did
exactly as these senators advocated, countless unintended negative consequences
ensued. Such outcomes could be expected if U.S. military action is taken
against Assad. Obama would be wise to follow ISRAEL’S lead on SYRIA, and not
the advice of McCain and Lieberman.
Instead of heeding the advice of
these two hawkish senators, the Obama administration should pursue a more
realist foreign policy vis-à-vis SYRIA that prioritizes stability.
Unquestionably, the headaches that this regime has caused many U.S.
administrations explain the political motivations behind Obama’s direct and
indirect support for SYRIA’S Islamist opposition. However, the lessons of blow back should be remembered, for the UNITED
STATES armed radical forces on many occasions to advance larger geopolitical
interests only to regret such alliances later.
Preventing the SYRIAN state from
collapsing and protecting the region from the chaos that could result should be
Washington’s top priority. This does not mean ignoring the human rights abuses
of the Assad regime or the armed
Syrian opposition. Rather, Washington should continue to work with regional
actors such as TURKEY and IRAN along with RUSSIA and CHINA to find a political
solution that holds all actors responsible for the lives lost and identifies a
political solution that brings about peace, stability, and justice. The MIDDLE
EAST doesn’t need another Iraq War or post-war crisis.
Background info
No comments:
Post a Comment