Forget all the talk about democracy and a revolt against tyranny, the
choice here isn't being a tyrant and a populist movement, it's which
species of Islamists will come out on top. On one side is Iran and on
the other are the Gulf States and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Syria
is not an Islamist regime, except to the extent which all Muslims
countries incorporate Islamic law into their legal and social systems,
but it is the pawn of Iran, a Shiite Islamist state. On the other side
are Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulfies, Turkey and the Sunni
Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.
Forget all the nonsense
about a secular opposition. The so-called liberals will show up just
enough to legitimate the uprising and then fade away when it's time for
the Imams to take power. That is how it happened in Iran, and despite
every prediction too many people refused to listen when they were told
it would happen in Egypt. Now it has happened in Egypt.
Some neo-conservatives have insisted on treating the
Arab Spring as if it were an extension of Iraq. It's not. Iraq was meant
to be a supervised reconstruction. The Arab Spring empowers Islamists
and nothing else. So let's move on to the real issue. Is there any point
in backing one side or the other in Syria?
To begin with,
what is Syria? It's a leftover from the days when the Middle East was
overrun with local Arab Socialist tyrannies. Like most of the breed, the
Syrian version was another combination of military coup, family dynasty
tied in with religious and ethnic elements. Run by the Baath Party as
an extension of the Assad family and the Alawite splinter Shiite sect,
it's one of the last of the old tyrannies standing after the fall of
Saddam. But none of that really matters.
The days when Syria was anything more than a bypass for Iranian
weapons and influence are long gone. There was a time when it was a
building block in the Arab Socialist plan for a regional state and even
briefly merged with Egypt into the United Arab Republic. Now it's the
odd man out in a region that is being divided along religious lines. It
doesn't fit into the Sunni Islamist plans for a Caliphate and while it
is a vector for Iranian Shiite influence, the Alawites are too out of
the mainstream and Syria is mostly Sunni, making it another poor fit.
In a divided region everyone is trying to make their own regional
superstate. If the Assad family is overthrown and the Muslim
Brotherhood's version of democracy wins, then Syria will fit neatly into
the plans for a regional Caliphate. It will also neuter Hezbollah,
damage Hamas and set back Iran, which are all good things. Unfortunately
it's a matter of choosing the devil you don't know. Choking Iranian
influence is not a bad thing, but the long term implications of handing
over Syria to the Brotherhood are just as bad, if not worse.
Whatever happens the United States is not going to oversee the
transition in Syria. At most Obama will drop a few bombs and then let
the locals handle it, just as he did in Libya. There it led to the LIFG,
which is linked to Al-Qaeda and more recently to the Muslim
Brotherhood, playing a major role in the new Libya. The situation is
even worse in Syria, where the transition is likely to be overseen by
Turkey's AKP Islamist party,which is backing the Muslim Brotherhood.
The thorniest parts of the Arab Spring have been in Bahrain and
Syria, where they also double as religious civil wars fought by a
religious majority that is out of power against a religious minority in
power. The Saudi controlled Arab League backed a No Fly Zone in exchange
for a free hand in suppressing the Shiites in Bahrain using Saudi
tanks. The Arab League has ostracized Syria, which is led by an
unrecognized Islamic sect and is in bed with Iran. It's not
inconceivable that the League would back another No Fly Zone as a
gateway to regime change in Syria.
Does the United States
have an interest in backing Sunni supremacy in the region? Not really.
There are plenty of politicians, experts and generals who think
otherwise, and most of them are speaking under Saudi influence. If
anything we have a vested interest in a divided Muslim world, and it is
in our interest to deepen and multiply those divisions. But that isn't
much of a plan either.
We have no friends in the Muslim world, the closest thing that we
have to it are the dictators who needed us, and this administration
helped push a whole lot of them under the bus. Sunni Islamists now have
their claws deep into North Africa and that's bad news for everyone.
Egypt, the regional power, has fallen into the lap of the Muslim
Brotherhood, and Turkey is in the claws of an Islamist party that has
managed to purge the opposition and shut down the military leadership
without a peep from the EU or the UN.
While it's not
likely that those countries could currently be blended into a single
leadership, the fact of the matter is that Saudi Arabia is no longer the
only Sunni Islamist superpower in the region. And joining it are two
Sunni Islamist regimes with potent militaries at their disposal and
serious naval power. Iraq is still in flux, and we have yet to see if it
will fall back into the Sunni camp or away into the Shiite camp. Syria
is now in play.
Backing the democratic impulses of the Syrian people or any such
nonsense is the last thing that should be on our minds. The idea that
populist Islamism will lead to less violence and more stability is an
ominous notion. We're better off with a Muslim world that is occupied
with internal power struggles and has fewer resources to throw into
fighting us. A stable Middle East would not be a peaceful place, it
could only achieve internal equilibrium through religious and political
repression for the benefit of the majority, while directing violence
externally at the free world.
This is already the case, but the amount of resources being
thrown into the war against the West is limited compared to what it
could be if Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, the UAE, Iraq and Yemen
were all suddenly on the same page. Such a perfect union isn't likely to
happen, even with religious differences out of the way, the ethnic
divisions between Arabs and Turks still linger, not to mention the
family rivalries, but the prospect of such a thing alone is a good
reason not to pursue policies that bring it any closer.
American ascendance along with the collapse of the USSR poured
money into the Gulf Islamist clan despotisms and brought down the Arab
Socialist republics. But the Obama Administration and its Arab Spring
has brought a quantum leap in the expansion of their influence at home.
Traditionally the Saudis could own Washington DC and play ball in
Bahrain and Yemen, but their influence had limits. Suddenly even Qatar
and its Al-Jazeera pet network could buy it regional revolutions backed
by the idiots in DC.
The Carter Administration helped turn Iran into a Shiite Islamist
superpower, and his successor has paved the way for the rise of a
regional Sunni Islamist union. Paradoxically that means we need Iran to
be where it is, although preferably without nuclear weapons and even
more preferably without Ayatollah rule.
The problem with
a divided Middle East is that rival Muslim countries will prove their
bona fides by waging open or covert wars against us. But the only thing
worse than that is a united Middle East, it isn't likely to happen, but
even growing unity or partial unity would be bad enough.
If the Brotherhood wins in Egypt and Syria, they can have another
go at melding the two countries under a single system. If they can
stage a revolution in Jordan, and move the LIFG into power in Libya,
then there could be an Islamist superstate stretching from North Africa
through Gaza and sitting on the board of Iraq, which will become ground
zero for another religious civil war.
Whether the various Brotherhood outposts could stitch together so
many countries is an open question, but it's a dangerous one and it's
reason enough to leave Syria alone. More compellingly we have nothing to
gain in Syria. No matter what happens whoever comes out on top will be
our enemy. And that's a general rule for the Muslim world. We have no
friends here, only lesser enemies who mean us less harm.
The Muslim world is torn in a civil war between religions,
philosophies and dynasties. It's conceivably possible that in Iran, with
a large educated elite that is tired of Islamists, we might find some
friends among the rebels, but it's an absolutely hopeless task in Syria,
which is riven between the outdated left and the Islamist right. Just
as it was a hopeless task in Egypt.
Whatever happens in Syria will be bad for us in some ways and
good for us in others, it will harm some of our enemies and help some of
our other enemies. There's no reason for us to intervene in Syria
because the losses will outweigh the gains.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Should We Intervene in Syria?

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I met some Syrian Jews at my ACT for America meeting, they were particularly vocal in their opposition to the lie of the "moderate" muslime. One of them said her grandmother had a saying that the only Arab you can trust is the one is 6' under. There is no "moderate" Islam, only gradations of persecution for the non-muslime.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant analysis, but one thing is missing: What are they going to use for money? Tourism is probably not coming back in Egypt, and everything is in turmoil. I'm afraid poverty, chaos etc. will make people leave for western Europe and provide another flood of difficult-to-deal-with refugees.
ReplyDelete"It's conceivably possible that in Iran, with a large educated elite that is tired of Islamists, we might find some friends among the rebels, but it's an absolutely hopeless task in Syria, which is riven between the outdated left and the Islamist right."
ReplyDeleteOne trend that bears mentioning is that populations that are oppressed by governments who are enemies of the US tend to be pro-US, and populations that are oppressed by governments that are friend of the US tend to be anti-US.
It's possible that all the pro-US dictatorships that Obama let fall will be succeeded by Taliban-like Muslim Brotherhood governments that will oppress their people even more, thus turning the people against Islam.
In Afghanistan polls show that people who were abused under Taliban rule don't want them back.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn K wrote: It's possible that all the pro-US dictatorships that Obama let fall will be succeeded by Taliban-like Muslim Brotherhood governments that will oppress their people even more, thus turning the people against Islam.
ReplyDeleteSuch effects are transitory. Kuwaitis were so pro-US after we threw Saddam out of Kuwait, it made senior US military officers go all weepy. But in a few short years, Kuwaitis hated the West.
Syria is the only country in the ME. that still has tolerance for Christians to openly practice their faith. Moreover, there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians who have found refuge in Syria, after being set "free" in and from Iraq.
If the Muslim Brotherhood takes power in Syria, with or without our help, the large Christian community in Syria will be murdered and driven out. Mohammed's dream will have come true.
I think the world is seeing non-Muslims both Christian and Jews and others be wiped out by the Muslim majorities in the respective countries. First it was the Jews, now with the fall of the dictators, leading to a free for all, now it is the Christians.
ReplyDeleteWill there be any one left other than Arab Muslims in the Middle East by the end of this century?
Sadly, just like religious cleansing of non Muslims was carried out in partitioned India, what is now known as Pakistan and Bangladesh, post WW2 after the creation of the UN, so too religious cleansing is happening to non-Muslims in the Middle East during this time that was supposed to end religious and ethnic cleansing from happening again.
"Whether the various Brotherhood outposts could stitch together so many countries is an open question, but it's a dangerous one and it's reason enough to leave Syria alone."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on that.
"Such effects are transitory. Kuwaitis were so pro-US after we threw Saddam out of Kuwait, it made senior US military officers go all weepy. But in a few short years, Kuwaitis hated the West."
ReplyDeleteThanks for this insight DP. I still think that oppression under a foreign and secular Saddam is different from oppression by their own government under pure Islam. I think the colonial period put a veneer of civilization on Muslim governments that has allowed people to imagine their religion, culture, and civilizations are acceptable. When full Islam is instituted, people will regret getting what they asked for.