The Final Solution

“Divide et Impera”

(Divide and Conquer)

As Israeli bombs rained down on Lebanon, Condoleeza Rice famously remarked that the explosions and blood were the ‘birth pangs of a new Middle East.’ She was entirely correct in her statement, although the middle east that is being born out of the carnage of the past several years bears little resemblance to the one envisaged by the USA at the moment of its conception. This moment, of course, was the violent invasion of Iraq by the USA. In effect, the new middle east is a child born of rape.

The US invaded Iraq with certain objectives in mind. The obvious one was to secure direct control of oil production and distribution. Another goal was to neutralize a state which could have potentially posed a threat to the state of Israel, the foreign policy objectives of which trump even those of the United States’ itself. Finally, the most important objective was to create a state which could serve as a massive base for the US armed forces, an unsinkable aircraft carrier for the projection of US power in the region. From this base, with its pliant government and grateful populace, democracy would spread across the Middle East, creating permanent US allies wherever it took root and then the stage would be set for the final showdown with Iran, which would by this time be surrounded and friendless. As it turned out, the exact opposite took place.

The stirrings of democracy across the Middle East began to fill parliaments and councils with people the US did not exactly consider allies. Kuwait, which is a strong American ally now has a significant Islamist bloc in parliament, while Egypt, another US ally saw significant gains by the Muslim Brotherhood in what was a highly controlled election. To venture a guess, if general elections were to be held in Saudi Arabia today, it is likely that Osama Bin Laden would control parliament. In Iraq itself, the black-robed clerics of the SCIRI and Al-Sadr took large chunks of seats, sending shockwaves through American policy makers.

To anyone who was not part of Bush’s neocon cabal, these results were no surprise but then again, the Bush administration is not known for its foresight, or indeed for any hint of common sense.

The final straw for the USA must have been when their pet Prime Minister Al-Malliki had the audacity to condemn Israeli actions in Lebanon, causing a flurry of outrage in the US, where lawmakers were incensed at his ‘ingratitude’.

In any case, the democratization experiment was hastily abandoned but not before the damage had been done to American influence in the region. All that the democracy experiment achieved was to further erode the stability of the US-allied Arab states which had already become jittery by the removal of their colleague Saddam Hussein.

Moreover, by removing Saddam and the Taliban, Washington also effectively removed the regional checks on Iran’s power. Not only that, Washington has ensured that a future united state of Iraq will be more closely aligned with Iran than with the USA. This is of course, anathema to US policy planners and so, a new plan was evolved to check the rise of Iranian power in the Middle East. Just as Iraq was the cause of the USA Middle Eastern woes, it was in Iraq’s rising sectarian violence that a solution to the overall problem was found.

This solution is to use a divided Iraq is to push the entire Middle East into a sectarian civil war, pitting Iran and her allies against the Sunni Arab states, with the backing of Israel and the USA. A de-facto independent Kurdistan can also be used to keep Iran, Syria and Turkey in check.

I am in no way implying that the sectarian violence in Iraq was caused or even meaningfully abetted by the USA, but in all fairness, what imperial power could possibly resist such a ready blueprint for dividing and conquering?

Simple logic dictates that if Iraqis are too busy killing one another, they will have less time to target US troops. Muslims in any case have shown a tremendous propensity to slaughter each other for just about any pretext you can get hold of. In Pakistan, we have seen our share of Lashkars and Sipahs ready to kill you if your beliefs do not match theirs. We don’t even need sectarian or ethnic divides to fuel the fire; just look at the way Fatah, flush with western money and backing has proceeded against a heavily sanctioned Hamas.

Indeed, civil war on a grand scale is the perfect solution to revive the USA’s flagging Mideast fortunes.

In the case of Iran, it becomes even easier to draw the battle lines. The Arab world has traditionally been wary of Persia’s power and when coupled with Shia-Sunni tensions, the recipe for disaster is complete.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are particularly worried about Iran’s rise to power, given their proximity to Iran, restive Shia populations, and the memories of Iran’s attempts to export its revolution. For Iran’s part, it remembers well the support given to Saddam Hussein by these states in his war against Iran. The prospect of an Iran-allied state on the borders of Saudi Arabia is enough to make the Saudis very uneasy indeed, and this is reflected not only in official statements, but also in Saudi Arabia’s plans to fence its Iraqi border.

Nevertheless, just because tensions exist, there was no guarantee that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan would instantly leap aboard this new, highly dangerous US plan.

With the credibility of the US war machine in tatters thanks to Iraq’s low-tech insurgents, and the USA itself finding itself to be the most hated nation in the Muslim world, it wouldn’t be easy for any state in the region to openly ally itself with this new plan.

What the US needed was a victory against Iran or her proxies, to remind all concerned that the US was still a force to be reckoned with. For this victory, the USA turned to Israel, and the chosen target was Hizbollah.

The choice of Hizbollah is an important one, and not just because both the US and Israel have scores to settle with this particular group. The fact is that groups like Hizbollah, and the kind of political ideals they represent, are an existential threat to the old order of the Middle East, as represented by the monarchies and dictatorships. In this context, Hizbollah poses a more serious threat to the existence of these regimes than Israel does. Nor do Hizbollah’s rockets threaten the existence of Israel; on the contrary, such attacks serve as a unifying force for Israelis. If Israel has anything to fear, it is that democracy will spread the ideology of resistance across the Arab world, bringing groups like Hizbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

It is Hizbollah’s ideals, and its alignment with Iran that threaten the ancient regimes of the Middle East. Hence, the attack on Hizbollah was not meant to simply destroy a potential danger to Israeli/US hegemony, it was also meant to send a clear signal to the Sunni Arab powers that the battle lines were drawn and that Iran’s allies could not stand against the might of US/Israeli weaponry.

So when the war began, sparked off by routine hostage-taking, the statements coming out of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia were very hostile to Hizbollah. Right at the outset, two Saudi Sheikhs issued fatwas ordering Muslims not to ‘pray for Hizbollah’ which was a ‘heretical sect’ in their view. Official statements from the Saudi government on July 14th 2006 openly condemned Hizbollah and Hamas for their “miscalculated adventures” in resisting Israeli aggression. Hamas, while not Shiite, was targeted because of the Iranian assistance to that organization. Not to be left out, and anxious to curry the favour of the US, both Egypt and Jordan jumped on the bandwagon, condemning Hizbollah’s actions as “irresponsible” and “inappropriate”.

No doubt, had the war gone as planned, these states would have eventually stepped in as the saviors of the Lebanese people, their foresight and wisdom confirmed by Hizbollah’s defeat.

Once again however, things did not go according to plan. Rather than following the script and being defeated, Hizbollah and its leader emerged as the heroes of the Arab world.

In Saudi Arabia itself, there were protests in favour of Hizbollah. In Jordan Palestinian supporters of Hamas openly aligned themselves with Hizbollah, and the events in Egypt must have sent shudders through Hosni Mubarak. In the streets of Cairo, posters of Hasan Nasrullah were carried along with those of Gamal Abdul Nasser, the hero of Suez.

More importantly, support for Hizbollah cut across sectarian and religious lines, with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood condemning Saudi and Egyptian statements, saying that Hizbollah is defending the “entire Muslim world”.

Not only that, but Egypt’s Coptic Christian community came out in support of Hizbollah, proving that Hizbollah’s struggle was now considered an Arab struggle, not just a Muslim, or merely a Shiite one.

For the most part, the Lebanese blamed Israel and the West, and not Hizbollah for the destruction loosed upon them. Lebanese support for Hizbollah now cut across sectarian lines as well.

The consequence was that, far from being marginalized, Hasan Nasrullah emerged from his bunker as arguably the most politically powerful man in Lebanon, with the means and will to destabilize Fuad Sinioria’s weak, pro-West government.

Defeated in its Hizbollah strategy, the USA still seems determined to escalate against Iran. A second carrier group is enroute from the US to the Gulf, where it will be joined by naval mine clearing assets from both the United States and the UK. Patriot missile defense systems have also been ordered to deploy to the Gulf. Just as Iran is supporting groups inside Iraq, the United States is supporting groups inside Iran. Note the execution in Iran of Shiite Arabs blamed for acts of terrorism.

Just as Iran has special operations troops operating inside Iraq, we’ve read the United States has long had special operations troops operating inside Iran. Just as Iran is supporting Hamas, the United States is supporting arms for Abbas. Just as Iran and Syria are supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, the White House has approved funding to allow the CIA to support opposition groups inside Lebanon. Just as Iran is supporting Syria, the United States is going to fund Syrian opposition groups.

In another measure of escalation, US forces attacked Iranian liaison offices in Iraq with the sanction of George W Bush, who said that it ‘makes sense’ for his troops to shoot Iranian agents.

Finally, only the hopelessly naïve could believe that the USA had nothing to do with the timing and manner of Saddam’s execution. The execution of a Sunni leader on Eid sends a clear message to all the Sunni leaders in the area that if Shiite strength is not countered, they may well be next.

For the anti-Shia groups in Iraq it provides them with a brand new martyr. Now, it is possible that all this is simply to keep the pressure on Iran and no serious military measures are called for, but relying on the good nature and common sense of George W Bush is a fool’s hope.

Following Lebanon, Egypt once again turned to repression as a poitical tool, but Saudi Arabia chose a more dangerous tack. The recent statement by King Abdullah not only condemns Iran’s ‘interference’ in Iraq, but also warns of the dangers of ‘Shiite proselytism’ and cautions that ‘Arabs alone should solve the problem of Palestine’. A classic example of killing two birds with one stone: a statement that highlights not only sectarian, but ethnic differences as well.

In Saudi Arabia’s defence, the Shiite violence in Iraq is largely due to militias such as Moqtada Al-Sadr’s Mehdi army, which is closely aligned with Iran. Sunni violence, on the other hand, is committed by groups that as yet have no alignment with Saudia and in some cases, are openly hostile to the House of Saud.

Under no circumstances could the Saudi rulers allow Shiite militias to gain power via Iraq in the Kingdom’s eastern regions, and in the absence of a reduction in Iraqi violence, they may well once again turn to patronage of militant Sunni groups as a counter to Iranian influence in Iraq.

The nightmare scenario for the region would then be an all-out civil war in Iraq, with Sunni groups being funded by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, and Shia groups by Iran. Eventually, a pretext will be found for a direct strike on Iran itself…and then we can kiss the whole region goodbye.

It is pointless to make appeals to Muslim unity in order to avert this potential catastrophe, but appeals to pragmatism can be made.

Saudi Arabia needs to engage Iran and not needlessly antagonize it. The long-term survival of the House of Saud does not lie in an unquestioning American alliance and nor can their oil wealth and ideology alone guarantee the prime position in the Muslim world.

Saudi Arabia needs to realize that its position as the land where Islam was born gives it a place of honour in the Muslim world, but not necessarily a leadership role. Politically, militarily and economically, other players have overtaken them and they need to compromise with this new reality, not fight it tooth and nail to the detriment of all.

Iran, for its part, needs to make an all-out effort to contain sectarian violence in Iraq, and being in a position of relative strength, needs to alleviate the concerns of its western neighbors. It is true that Iraq has been a windfall for Iranian interests, but unless Iran can convince the Arab states that it is not the enemy, Iraq may well prove Iran’s destruction. Moreover, President Ahmedinejad would do well to pay attention to growing discomfort at home over his foreign policy and his perceived lack of interest in domestic issues.

It is possible that through a miracle this catastrophe may yet be averted, but if history is any judge, we may have to wade through rivers of blood to arrive at that miracle.

This article was originally printed in The News Pakistan and is reproduced here with their permission.

[Many Thanks To: Ozymandias]