I have published many articles on here about historical influences on our current conflicts. One of the areas where Americans seem to have confusion is the difference between our two adversaries Syria
and Iran
. Iraq
is right in the middle of them and terrorists from both countries cross their borders into it as well as the Syrian borders into Lebanon
and Palestine
. While this article is not about either (was not supposed to be) country, I hope that I can also shed some light on the extreme difference between those two which makes them unlikely allies in many arenas.
The first thing to note is that Syria
is ruled by Ba’thists, just as Saddam was the leader of that party in Iraq
. Iran
is led by islamists, i.e. fundamentalist muslim, radicals. It is a theocratic government in Shi’a islam. Syria
is primarily Sunni but ruled by a little known and minority sect called the Alawites, of which little is known. There does appear to be some significant disagreements, theologically with islam but like I said little is known about their beliefs.
Islamists are radical but not necessarily truly religious. They use religion rather than follow the tenets of the Koran. They use the excerpts which support their murderous mottos.
I’ve often said the more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know and in the interest of writing the truth for you I have also expanded my studies. That pursuit has born fruit, in this instance in teaching me a new term: islamism. We know the culprits of it but I only recently came across the term and the definition of it. It is the radical muslims or fundamentalist muslims or should I say that is how they are typically called.
Islamism includes the terrorists we are fighting in Al-Qaeda, the radical theocratic regime of Iran
and the non-militant but equally aggressive muslims that fight us using our laws and rights against us. Their goal is to establish governments under their version of Sharia law, with all religions not their type of islam abolished. They have ideological, economic and political goals which are designed to establish and maintain their power and financial wealth. (Militant islam Reaches America
, Daniel Pipes)
Their leaders have a tendency to come from engineering backgrounds like Osama bin Laden but also include some that are educated in Sharia law and islamic theology, like al-Zawahari. Religion is a means rather than a goal. It is a means of control and recruitment. But the basis of their argument is that the Arabs and muslims were once the center of learning and prosperity (albeit through theft and war) and should rightly be so again. The west according to their line of thought should not be, because they are not the chosen people, nor muslim.
Most of them come from middle and upper middle class backgrounds with many options in life. Many of them are educated and enjoyed the successes of the west in places like London
,
California
and Paris
but they have been rejected by their peers and find a further climb up the latter of social achievement difficult in the traditional settings. They lived decadent lives and believe that success belongs to islam, rather than the morally impure West.
They see the complaints of Americans about insufficient largesse and income to pay the debts they’ve created as proof that we don’t deserve our wealth. I can see their point to some extent because I too get a little annoyed with those that complain about such situations they created themselves when a kid in Latin America is happy using a black trashbag as a ‘superman’ cape while running down a mound of dirt, sleeping under a leaky tin roof and showing his love for his mother.
The Ba’athists on the other hand don’t even pretend that their goals are religious. In fact they almost reject it. The party was created by two Syrian students studying in Paris
at the beginning of the Great Depression. (Why do so many radicals get their education in Paris
!?!, including Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh as well as these two) They rejected Communism and Capitalism and looked to the latest, Facism as their model and for their heroes. They studied Stalin and Hitler for their techniques. They came around at the time that England
and France
were drawing lines on maps creating countries out of their empire. (The Iraq
War, Maj General Robert Scales, 2003, Harvard Press)
Their goal was one of rejection of the West and the creation of a Pan-Arab (as opposed to a pan-islamic) state. Their nationalism was to Arabs, not islam. In fact one of the two was a ‘christian.’ And from their Nazi mentors, they brought with them anti-semitism. Before Israel
was created, they were already espousing the eradication of Jews. From the Soviets, they learned a political structure of control to the lowest levels. Combining the controls of the Soviets with the measures of control and hatreds of Facism, they created a very effective method to rule their people.
Like islamism later, they rejected both Western democracy and Soviet Communism. Their methods and means are so close that they could be considered equally power hungry and equally atrocious. Syria
squashed the Muslim Brotherhood (a predecessor to AQ and still a very strong force in many countries) in their own country yet they fuel terrorism in Lebanon
and Palestine
. Their goal is to keep both places in turmoil if they cannot directly influence the leadership. Hence Hezbollah started the 2006 war in Lebanon
, shortly after the government of Lebanon
threw out Syrian troops and rejected Syrian influence in their government.
Interestingly Iran
is the official sponsor of Hezbollah (or the Party of God) which is also supported by Syria
. In effect, Syria
uses terrorism outside its borders as a foreign policy measure, but squashes it within its borders. Similarly, Iraq
was ruled by Ba’athists under Saddam, using the same but more thorough techniques of torture and purge and while Saddam’s iron tight grip on Iraq
was not ruled from Damascus
, he was still an ally of sorts. Now that he is gone, Syria
is more interested in keeping their neighbor in turmoil precisely because they have little hope of a puppet regime in Baghdad
and they are more than willing to be a transit point of terrorists to do so.
Iran
also fears a stable, democratic and successful Iraq
. Not only do they remember the 8 year Iran-Iraq war, but they also and more importantly fear that their citizens will push harder for reforms inside their country. As long as the people of Iraq
are in a state of sectarian violence, they can point to that as the effect of democracy. The citizens of Iran
are already pushing for reforms and moving away from the painful economic facts of the islamic regime. The success of Turkey
and its democracy are considered threat enough in their ideological war against democracy.
It is proven that both Al-Qaeda and Iran have given weapons and support to both Sunni and Shi’a militants inside Iraq, though both have supported primarily their own side and less so the other side. The goal of each side is to keep the nation in turmoil until they can gather sufficient strength to become the puppetmaster of the new government. Syria
of course would prefer to see neither side win though they realize that the Ba’ath party is now illegal in Iraq
. For them, the continuation of hostilities is still the best short term solution and the only viable option in the mid term as well. Next best would be democracy but that’s not all that alluring to them either.
Syria
and Iran
(as well as our ally Turkey
) both fear a strong Kurdish population in Iraq
and the Kurds have been smart enough to sit back and watch all their old foes fight each other. The Kurds in fact are probably coming out of this thing stronger than ever.
So where is that history article I promised you? Well, I will have to write that next since this article grew so long before I could even get to 20th Century Iraq
. Coming soon.
War on Terror Blog©2008, ARM, all rights reserved,
http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/
Recent Comments