Actions
Iraq
The first practical step that the United States had to take was entering Iraq and controlling and managing the developments in the Middle East after 9/11. The United States government entered Iraq in 2003 under the pretext of fighting terrorism and destroying weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Doctrine, which was heavily influenced by Bernard Lewis’ plans for the Middle East, was implemented this year in the form of regime change in Iraq. Bush’s justification for invading Iraq was that the United States was attacked because “we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining. We go to Iraq to find those who are behind these evil acts and bring them to justice. The United States and our friends and allies join all those who want peace and security in the world and we stand together to win the war against terrorism.” [1]
Ever since the United States came to Iraq, the policy of “divide and rule” has been the main strategy of the United States to control Iraq and the Middle East. This strategy has long been associated with the name of England. The British usually used tribes or ethnic groups against each other to maintain control over the colonies, thereby using a small number of its forces in the colonies. Creating divisions in the Middle East has always been a tool to fight nationalism and, more recently, Islamic movements. Due to ethnic mosaics and differences in the Middle East, the emergence of small states can lead to population transfer and ethnic cleansing in these countries.
“The various American military and political strategies in Iraq are the primary causes of the continuing sectarianism. The occupation forces and their methods are dividing Iraqi groups, and instead of promoting reconciliation, they are encouraging increases in violence, power struggles, and strife.” [2]
Iraq is made up of ethnic and religious groups. The majority of Iraq’s population is Muslims. However, other ethnic groups are living in the country. “Christians (Assyrians and Armenians), Yazidis (Kurdish tribes), Mandaeans (mystics) and Jews. The Arabs are the biggest ethnic group (77 percent) in which Shi’ahs have the largest number (60 percent).
“One major concern for the United States is oil. While oil production in the United States, Mexico, and the North Sea is declining, the United States consumption is predicted to increase by one-third over the next 20 years. By 2020, two-thirds of all The United States oil will be imported, and since 65% of the world’s remaining oil reserves are in the Middle East, one doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to conclude a strategy of divide and conquer is aimed at keeping strategic control of those resources.” [3]
Another underlying reason for the United States presence in Iraq is “eliminating the threats posed against Israel and gain dominance over the Middle East.” Despite the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the overall American regional policy in the Middle East has not changed. This continued presence in the Middle East suggests that in The United States foreign policy theory takes precedence over action. In other words, the United States has entered the Middle East based on the same theories put forward by people like Huntington and Bernard Lewis, seeking to strengthen its position in the region by resorting to various means, including ethnic and religious differences.
Since its presence in Iraq, the United States government has many times used the policy of divide and rule. Given Iraq’s heterogeneous context, the United States has had a variety of tools to implement this policy. Strengthening Kurdish nationalism is one of these tools. Kurdish nationalism is considered a kind of primordialism. Many Kurds see themselves as the descendants of the ancient Medes who overthrew the Assyrian Empire in 612 BCE. Many of them believe that those who stood up against the Xenophon and his army and made them to retreat from Persia in 401 BCE, were also the ancestors of the Kurds.” [4]
American relations with Iraqi Kurds are bilateral. The Iraqi Kurds openly expressed their alignment with the policies of the United States in 1970. This year, the tensions and disagreements between Iran and Iraq in Shatt al-Arab increased. Because Iran was an ally of the United States and a barrier to pro-Soviet countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, the United States encouraged it to support Iraqi Kurds to start armed struggles.
“The Kurds believed they were fighting for their independence as dissidents re-united around Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani. “We are ready to act according to The United States policy if the United States will protect us,” Barzani stated to a group of visiting journalists while expressing his desires for Kurdistan to become The United States’s fifty-first state.” [5]
Iraqi Kurdistan is important to the United States for a number of reasons.” Hydropolitically, Iraqi Kurdistan is the heartland of the Middle East. There are many oil resources in Iraqi Kurdistan. Kurdish leaders are closely aligned with The United States policies in the Middle East. Iraqi Kurds have relatively good relations with Israel. The United States is concerned about the growing power and influence of Shi’ahs in Iraq. “Another tool the United States has used since its presence in Iraq is escalating conflicts between Shi’ah and Sunni. Many analysts believe that the West under the leadership of the United States has sowed discord between moderate Arabs and Shi’ahs to prevent the influence of Shi’ah countries, including Iran and other Arab countries, and the weapon used in this case is the same strategy of divide and rule that is pursued through inciting Sunni Arabs against Shi’ahs.
Strengthening extremism in Iraq; A new tool for disintegrating the Middle East
Developments in the Middle East, including the rise of the Shi’ah government in Iraq, the expansion of socio-political ties between Shi’ah countries, including Iran and Iraq, and the growing influence of Shi’ah thought in the Middle East during the Arab Spring, made the United States government re-evaluate its strategies and tools in this region. In the meantime, the formation and expansion of Salafi-Takfiri groups in the Middle East, including Iraq, has provided the United States with new tools. One of the most extremist groups was the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has its roots in al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was formed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi of Jordan. After fighting against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan al-Zarqawi was imprisoned for some time on terrorism charges, but he was later pardoned in 1999 by King Abdullah II. In prison, al-Zarqawi met the jihadist theorist Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi. After al-Zarqawi was assassinated in 2006 by The United States forces and Iraqi intelligence agencies, Abu Ayub al-Masri appeared as the new leader. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) became more organized when al-Qaeda, the Iraqi Mujahideen Council, and Jund al-Sahabah movements joined. In 2010, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, also known as Abu Dha’a, (whose real name was Hamid Dawoud Muhammad Khalil al-Zawawi) announced his leadership of the Iraqi Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Several factors have contributed to the formation of extremist groups, (including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) in the Middle East. In this regard, the most important reasons for the emergence of such groups in the Middle East are first the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003 and second the continuation of the country’s dividing policies since its presence in the Middle East, including Iraq. After the United States invasion, the Sunni Arabs did not have much trust in the new government. In many cases, strengthening the ethnic identity was the institutionalized political reaction of Iraqis after the fall of the Ba’athist regime. The political power and social mechanisms reinforced these identity gaps.
“Sunni Arabs primarily feared that they would be left out of government, in the same way, that the government of Saddam had left out most Shi’ah Arabs. de-Baathication, an attempt to purge Iraqi politics of those who had been active in Saddam’s regime, escalated this suspicion. Also, they were suspicious that Shi’ah could target political opponents.” [6]
In 2011, when the United States government decided to withdraw its forces from Iraq, the role of the United States and its direct presence in the Middle East was somewhat diminished. Strengthening of the government in Iraq, the expansion of Iran-Iraq relations, as well as the emergence of the Islamic Awakening and endangerment of the position of the pro-United States countries in the Middle East, triggered the alarm for the United States. On the other hand, with the spread of Shi’ah demonstrations in countries such as Bahrain and Yemen, the idea came to the policymakers of the United States that if serious measures are not taken, the power of Shi’ahs and Iran will be increased. The correctness of this hypothesis is proved when we know, “these anti-government groups include Jaysh Rijal, al-Tariqah, the General Military Council of Iraqi Revolutionaries, the Fallujah Military Council, the council of the revolutionaries tribes of al-Anbar, the 1920 Brigades, the Islamic Army of Iraq, Jaysh al-Mujahidin, and Ansar al-Islam and some other moderately capable groups which played an active role in shaping the military situation on the ground against the Iraqi government. However, all of these groups became less active after the United States withdrawal of forces.” [7]
Despite launching a propaganda campaign against extremist groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the United States is one of their main supporters in the Middle East.
“While the United States claims it has « accidentally » allowed weapons to fall into the hands of ISIL terrorists, in reality, the United States has been arming, funding, and aiding ISIL and its terrorist affiliates either directly or through Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, or Turkey since at least late 2011.” [8]
In addition to financial and military assistance, Western countries, including the United States, recruit fighters for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. According to statistics, there are different views about the number of foreign forces fighting in Iraq and Syria who are supported by Western and regional governments, including Israel, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. According to Henderson, the number of these forces is as follows: “Tunisia (3000-5000), Saudi Arabia (2500), Jordan (1500-2000), Morocco (1500), Russia (1500), France (1200), Lebanon (900), Germany (600), England (600), Indonesia (500), Pakistan (500), Belgium (440), Australia (250), USA (100 to 300), Denmark (150), Malaysia (150), Canada (100), Sudan (100), Italy (80), and Kuwait (80).”
The above statistics indicate two points. The first is how a terrorist group recruits fighters from different parts of the world on such short notice and organizes the war against the Iraqi government by paying them money. Each of these individuals belongs to different ethnic and sectarian denominations, and changing their beliefs in favour of extremist groups (including the ISIL’s leaders) is not possible, at least in the short term; but this could easily be done through the financial support provided by the United States and regional governments. Second, how a group fighting against which was the pretext for The United States invasion of Iraq, can be equipped with the latest military weapons, some of which even the regional governments are unable to possess? It seems that the extremist groups in Iraq and the Middle East can be a double privilege for the United States. First, if they succeed in occupying different parts of Iraq the United States would take a serious step toward theories of disintegrating the Middle East; however, this is less likely to happen due to the Iraqi government’s resistance and the retreat of extremist groups because of the recent developments. The second advantage which is much more important than the first one is that these extremist groups pose far less threat to the United States than the regional governments do, including Iran, as well as governments like Russia. These countries are completely engaged in the events that occurred throughout the Middle East, but the most likely threat to the United States is the bombing of American cities by extremist groups, which poses far less threat than the security issues of the Middle East.
The United States government is trying to justify its presence in the region by pretending to fight against terrorism. Meanwhile, the role of Iran and transnational Shi’ah solidarity is the main reason. Resorting to pre-designed theories, the United States policymakers try to dismember the independent governments of the Middle East thereby turning them into small regional governments so that the United States may maintain its exclusive control over the region. Ethnic-religious divisions in the Middle East region are among the most important tools used by the United States government. Military strikes on countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq have inflicted heavy casualties on the country, and it does not want to try this strategy again; hence, the best strategy the United States is currently investing in is strengthening extremist groups in the Middle East through which it can highlight the insecurity of the Middle East in the global arena and justify its presence in the region, as it sees itself as at the pioneer of fighting against terrorism and the formation of new world order.
Syria
Syria was one of the countries introduced by the United States as a sponsor of terrorism after the events of September 11. Since then, the relationship between the United States and Syria has been based on this notion. What the Bush administration did to change the regime in Iraq in the form of Bernard Lewis’s theory also applied to Syria. Like Iraq, the United States justified and increased its presence in Syria by claiming that the Syrian government has used banned weapons.
In 2013, the United States accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons. The United States stated that certainly, the Syrian government is directing the use of chemical weapons in the country. A claim which was mostly based on the claims of ordinary people, intelligence agencies, and free resources. A White House spokesman justified the American measures in Syria by saying: “Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a large scale and without a response can pose many threats and challenges to American national security.”
Changing the regime and bringing the new government to power in Syria, which is in line with the regional policies of the United States and Israel, has always been one of the interests of the United States. Syria’s resistance and continued foreign policy toward the United States have led it to seek weakening and, if possible, overthrowing Bashar al-Assad’s government.
“Given the fluctuations and changing of political outlooks in the Middle East, Syria continues to be recognized as a state with a relatively stable agenda in its foreign policy, one of the most important of which is opposing American policy in the Middle East. Syria has been Iran’s main ally in the region and has never played a conflicting role for Iran like other countries such as Egypt and Libya.”
Supporting Bashar al-Assad’s opponents is a tool the United States has tried to use at various times. “Based on available statistics, the United States has provided the Syrian opposition with more than $1 million, and plans are underway to add about $340 million.”
The Friends of Syria Group is one of the ways the United States government is currently using to support opponents of Bashar al-Assad’s government. This group is made up of countries and international organizations that have been formed outside the Security Council to resolve the Syrian crisis. This group was formed when in 2102, a number of countries and multilateral organizations created the Contact Group, which is officially called the Group of Friends of the Syrian People.
“The group’s first meeting was held on February 24 in Tunisia, where the participants announced the formation of the Syrian National Council as the legitimate representative of Syria seeking democratic and peaceful change. At the group’s second meeting held in Istanbul in April, the Arab governments demanded $100 million to be paid to those who fight against Bashar al-Assad’s government. In addition, the Syrian National Council announced receiving about $176 million, about $12 million of which is provided by the United States.”
Due to the complexity of internal divisions, Syria’s relations with Iran, as well as advanced air defence capabilities and uncertainty over the delivery of military weapons to unreliable forces, the United States, unlike countries such as Iraq, Egypt or Libya, does not have safe options for serious intervention in Syria; however, “It has funnelled $250 million of nonlethal communications supplies and intelligence assets to various opposition groups, and begun to arrange third-party arms deliveries to Turkey for transshipment to rebel forces. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and even private individuals have sought to fill the void, buying and transporting arms to the rebels in Syria via Turkey and Jordan.” [8]
The opposition forces to the Syrian government possess large arsenals, many of which have either been purchased or looted from Iraqi and Syrian forces. These weapons include “light weapons, including rockets and mortars, and anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. In addition, they have heavy weapons and advanced technology that is commonly found in the national forces of each country. Artillery, tanks, and armoured vehicles are among these weapons. Other types of chemical weapons, including chlorine gas, have sometimes been found among the weapons of the Syrian and Iraqi rebel forces. For example, chemical weapons were used against Kurdish militants in Kobani in northern Syria.”
According to The United States policymakers, the survival of the current Syrian government, as well as its army, could challenge the security of the United States and its allies; thus, the United States government has to take serious steps to change the war in Syria into attrition warfare thereby causing difficulties and problems for the Syrian army. Before the army can determine the political future of the Syrian government, “unlike the armies in Egypt and Tunisia, the United States has no influence and dominance over the Syrian army. This is the angle from which the United States is looking at the issue and shutting its eyes to the most terrible terroristic acts performed by the rebels in different cities in Syria so that in the shadow of growing violence, the project of defeating the Syrian army be worked out through a civil war.” [9]
Weakening the Resistance Front is another goal of the United States in promoting extremism in the Middle East and Syria. The Axis of Resistance is an alliance of countries and non-governmental actors in the Middle East that seek to fight against the interests of Western countries, including the United States and Israel. This axis includes Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and more recently the Iraqi Shi’ahs. The increasing presence of resistance forces, including Hezbollah, is a major concern for the United States.
“Hezbollah’s role in Syria shifted dramatically in early 2013 from what was primarily an advisory mission to one in which Hezbollah forces assumed a direct combat role, operating in larger numbers alongside Syrian military and paramilitary forces. They also expanded their efforts to train a reorganized pro-Assad paramilitary force. The impact of Hezbollah’s measures on the battlefield in 2013 is without question.” [10]
The geopolitical consequence of the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government is another aspect of the current Syrian crisis and the continuation of extremism and the actions of regional governments, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and foreign actors, including the United States.
“Given the traditional rivalry between Iran and Arab states of the region, the demise of Iran’s only Arab ally will constitute a major strategic advantage to the conservative Gulf states. The Arab states are obviously aware of these geopolitical motivations and the role of Iran and Hezbollah. The fall of Bashar-Assad government may lend credibility to them in the region; because these countries played a role in suppressing the uprising in Bahrain and imposing restrictions on basic civil liberties in the region and thus the West would recognize them as allies in the region.” [11]
The Arab countries in the region are among the most important supporters of the fight against the Syrian government. Qatar is the biggest supporter of insurgent fighters in various parts of the Middle East, including Syria. “It is estimated that between $1 billion and $3 billion was provided by Qatar during the Syrian war. In addition, about 70 military shipments were sent from Qatar to the rebel forces by March 2013. Due to its pragmatic ideology, Qatar plays the role of a sponsor for both the Syrian National Coalition, which is backed by the West and other rebel forces that used to support the al-Nusrah Front.”
Kuwait is another country that provides financial support for the Syrian rebels. “The peak of this fundraising which has been increasing since 2012 occurred in 2013. In one case, the New York Times recounted in 2013 that the aids raised $14 million in the course of just five days. Moreover, in November, al-Hayat quoted an activist estimating that up to $100 million had been provided in 2013.” [12]
[1] Kobek, M, Rodriguez, M, (2013), “The American Way of War: Afghanistan and Iraq,” Revista Enfoques, Vol, xi. No. 18. p82.
[2] Ahmad, M, (2011), “Divide and Rule: The Hidden Conflict in Iraq,” The Dialogue, Vol, 11. No. 4. p125
[3] Hallinan, C, (2011), “Shia vs. Sunni? Foreign Policy in Focus,” Available in http://Fpif.org/fpiftext/416. Last Visited on September 2, 2015. p3.
[4] Gunter, M, (2013), “The Contemporary Roots of Kurdish Nationalism in Iraq” KUFA Review, No. 2. Issue 1, p3.
[5] Mardini, R, (2012), “Relation with Iraq’s Kurd: Toward a Working Partnership,” Institute for the Study of War (ISW), p2.
[6] Reese, A, (2013), “Sectarian and Regional Conflict in the Middle East,” Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Middle East Security Report, No. 13. p10.
[7] Adnan, S, Reese, A, (2014), “Beyond the Islamic State: Iraq Sunni Insurgency,” Institute for Study of War, Middle East Security Report, No. 24. p9.
[8] Cartaluci, T, (2014), “How the U.S. Support the Islamic State (ISIS): on Accidental Airdrop vs. Billions in Covert Military Aid.”
[9] Abramowitz, M, Edelman, E, (2013), “U.S.- Turkish Cooperation toward a Post –Assad Syrian Bipartisan Policy Center,” Appear of BPC Turkey Tack Force, p.18.
[10] Montazeri, A, (2012), “The U.S. as the Chief Architect of Syrian Crisis,” Available in www.iranreview.org/document/htm. Last Visited on July 25, 2015.
[11] Sullivan, M, (2014), “Hezbollah in Syria,” Institute for Study of War, Middle East Security Report, No. 9. p.13
[12] Malmvig, H, (2013), “Ambiguous Endings: Middle East Regional Security in the Wake of the Arab Uprising and the Syrian Civil War,” Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), Report, No. 23. p.22.
Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments