Posts
(Here is a guest article on a key issue for imperialism
today)
Most radical thinking on Syrian is convinced that the West,
and particularly the US, Britain and France, are keen to create a situation in
Syria that will justify Western intervention so that the major powers can take
over the country - as in Iraq and Afghanistan - isolate Iran, and help Israel’s
ailing position in the Middle East.
This is a serious misreading of the situation. The dominant
Western powers are forced to adopt a policy position on anything that happens
in the world because they must constantly remind the international community
who is in charge. That does not mean, drawing out the purely logical conclusion
of these public policy positions, that they necessarily have any real intention
of getting involved or of intervening in any particular conflict. It is
important, when judging world events, to avoid the simplistic radical
counter-propaganda model and to examine what is really going on.
The conflict in Syria is being driven by Saudi Arabia and
the Gulf States. These countries all have either large Shia communities or
majority Shia populations. In addition, the ruling elites in these countries
are a tiny minority within the minority Sunni population. It is only a matter
of time before democratic and demographic realities impose themselves. Iran has
made it clear that it does not want to use its Shia influence in the region to
destabilise these regimes. Indeed, Iran has made it clear that what it wants is
a strategic but respectful relationship with these Sunni states - particularly
as Western sanctions bite more and more. Iranian commercial elites need these
Sunni states to prosper.
Nevertheless, these Sunni states, and particularly Saudi
Arabia, are not comforted by such Iranian assurances. In a way, they are right.
What they fear is not Iranian backed subversion, of which there is very little
evidence, but that the struggles of their own Shia communities will inevitably
drag Iran in, whether it wants to or not. This is sound reasoning. Iran cannot
ultimately remain aloof from Shia struggles that flare up despite its
conservative foreign policy.
So, the Saudis and the Gulf States are extremely anxious to
deal Iran a knock out blow. Fostering regime change in Iran has shown itself to
be a total failure. Iran is a relatively compact and orderly society and any
attempts to undermine its internal cohesion do not prosper. A large part of the
population hates the rule of the mullahs, but, if the country is attacked, all
Iranians close ranks.
In any case, the policy of the Saudis and the Gulf States
is too primitive to run the kind of sophisticated strategy needed to undermine
Iran internally. The only international politics they know is to offer huge
bribes, which is not enough in this case. That’s what happens when you have too
much money and you do not have to work or think for a living. Your brain goes
to mush. When the Saudis or the Gulf States need to play a more intelligent
game, they always get the Israelis to do it for them.
The eruption of the Syrian civil war has created the
illusion in the minds of the Saudi and Sunni elites that by financing regime
change they can deal Iran a severe blow by isolating it in the region. This is
more wishful thinking born of desperation than geopolitical understanding. It
is what really fuels the fighting in Syria and why the West does not want to
get involved. The Saudis and Qataris are pouring in billions of dollars – but
all their money is able to buy is an undisciplined rabble of jihadist head-bangers
who could never form an alternative political leadership and which the West
does not want to touch with a barge pole.
So, why is the West making ominous war-like noises that
sometimes sound very much like the run up to the Iraq war? Actually, carefully
analysis shows that, despite surface similarities, there is a marked difference
between Iraq and Syria. Every statement that the US, the UK and France has made
in the last two years has indeed been full of hype and hot air – but has also
been self-limiting and vague on detail and timetable. There is no build up, no
momentum, no traction to this phoney war effort. Now, General Martin Dempsey,
chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and Barack Obama's chief military
adviser, has made it clear the US is not going to get involved.[1]
If the West continues with this phoney war it is only
because its close allies, the Saudis and the Gulf States, have got themselves
into a huge jam and need to be shored up diplomatically. If the Syrian regime
manages to hang on, and all indications are that it will, it will be a
strategic disaster for the Saudis and their allies and, for them, a disastrous victory
for the Iranians who will tell the world: 'You see, these dumb Saudis, they
have all the money, they can buy anything they want, they have all the power of
the United States and the West behind them, and yet they are useless. They are
not fit to be leaders of the Islamic world.'
Western politicians must be hugely relieved to have the
excuse of Putin ostensibly stopping them from intervening!
[1] 'US "will
not intervene in Syria as rebels don't support interests", says top
general', Daily Telegraph, 21 August 2013.
