How has Asad’s regime
managed to survive thus far?
An Inquiry into the
Current Civil War in Syria
P.S. To the readers of this essay: In reality, this article is not an academic essay in my own opinion. This essay is a battlefield between me and some old-fashioned & unprofessional lecturers, who by their unequal treatment of students, negligence, sabotages, stone age way of thinking and discriminatory attitude somehow and indirectly forced me to drop out of the university. As i said, this essay is a battlefield and a type of deliberate retaliatory reaction, specially when it comes to " using Walersteinian "World System Theory" in this essay, with regards to their extremely unprofessional & childish behaviors.
Written by: Mehran Sirani 04.08.2013
Table of Contents
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………2
Abstract...………………………………………………………………………………3
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….4
1- Methodology………………………………………………………………………...4
2- The Historical Background of Syria………………………………………………...4
3- The Emergence and Development of the Syrian Uprising………………………….6
4- How Has Asad’s Regime managed to Survive Thus Far?..........................................9
5- Why Iran
is Heavily Involved in the Syrian Civil War?............................................10
6- Why Russia
is Involved in the Syrian Civil War?.....................................................18
7- Some Consequences of the Syrian Civil War………………………………………23
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..25
References……………………………………………………………………………..27
The List of Figures:
Figure 1: Syria’s map and recent territorial
changes………………………………….7
Figure 2: The three levels of local, regional, and
global conflict in Syria
based on Wallenstein’s world-system theory...………………………………………………………………..22
Abstract:
It has been more than two years since the beginning of the uprising
in Syria.
During this period, some powerful international organizations such as the UN
and the League of Arab have not been able to find a diplomatic and peaceful
solution for this conflict. As a result, the Syrian uprising has turned into a
bloody and devastating civil war. The Syrian civil war, so far, has resulted in
more than 93,000 deaths and more than 1.5 million refugees, who have fled the
country. Through these two years, Asad’s regime has also experienced enormous
pressures in the domestic as well as in the international arena. Despite all
these difficulties and challenges at home and abroad, however, the Syrian
political system has managed to survive up until now. Different evidences show
that in addition to the internal actors, some external actors are also directly
or indirectly involved in this armed conflict. The presence of these external
actors not only has prolonged and expanded the scope and dimension of the Syrian
civil war from different aspects, but also has helped Asad’s regime to survive thus
far. This essay explores the Syrian civil war and the role of external actors
in this conflict.
Introduction:
In December 2010,
a desperate street vendor torched himself in protest to
the behavior of police authority in Tunisia. This event was the
starting point of series of social and political unrests in the country. The
series of uprisings, finally, led to the collapse of the political system in
Tunisia in January 2011. Before too long, the waves of political uprising and
unrest spread to other countries in the Middle East and Africa.
Amongst these countries, Bahrain,
Kuwait, Yemen, Egypt,
Libya, Jordan, Algeria,
Morocco, Sudan, and Syria could be
mentioned. In some of these countries, the political unrest has drawn down to
some extent, due to different reasons, which are out of the scope of this paper.
In some other countries such as Yemen,
Egypt, and Libya,
these political uprisings have resulted in the collapse of the political
systems, mostly in short period of time, within less than a year. Contrary to
these two different groups, Syria has been an exception, in the sense that the
political unrest, which has begun in the country in 2011, has turned into a
dramatic and bloody armed conflict between the Syrian security forces and the
opposition. During these two years, Asad’s regime has experienced enormous
pressures in the domestic as well as in the international arena. However,
despite all these challenges, Asad’s regime has not collapsed yet. This issue
raises an important question as follows. How has Asad’s regime managed to
survive thus far? Analyzing this issue is important, because 5,000 people are
losing their lives monthly in the current armed conflict within Syria. Although,
analyzing this issue in depth requires more data and time, but this essay will
attempt to find an appropriate answer to this particular question (BBC, 2011,
Sirani, 2012, UN, 2013).
1- Methodology:
All information in this essay was limited to the secondary data;
therefore, desk study method was found to be the appropriate technique for
analyzing this topic. Through this procedure, I collected, reviewed, and
evaluated the necessary information from various books, articles, journals, and
internet resources related to this topic. This essay is organized as follows: The
first part explains the historical background of Syria. The second part explores the
emergence and development of the Syrian uprising. The third part attempts to find
a reliable answer to the question of how Asad’s regime has managed to survive
so far. The fourth part evaluates the role of Iran in the Syrian civil war. The
fifth part analyzes the role of Russia
in the Syrian conflict. The final part is conclusion.
2-
The Historical Background of Syria:
The end of the First World War was
accompanied with the collapse of Ottoman Empire and consequently the emergence
of some new nation-states including Syria in the Middle East. In the beginning,
the country functioned under the authorization of France. Following the Second
World War, France agreed to grant Syria independence in 1946. The declaration
of independence along with weak political institutions plunged Syria into many
political instability and upheavals including some military coups for some
years ahead. In 1958, Syria was united with Egypt and both countries formed the
United Arab Republic. This unification, however, did not last for more than
three years; finally, the two countries separated form each other in 1961
(Factbook, 2013).
The political instability in Syria
continued up until 1970, when Hafiz Al-Asad an Alawite army general (Alawi is a
branch of Shiite Islam) took the power in the country through a military coup. The
new president, who was also a high-ranking member of the Syrian Socialist Ba'ath Party, established close ties with the former Soviet Union in
different terms particularly in the military affairs. During the cold war era, however,
Syria did not become a member of so-called the Warsaw Pact, but the country maintained
its close alliance with the former Soviet Union. After the Islamic Revolution in
1979 that brought Ayatollah Khomeini to the power in Iran, Syria has begun to
build a strong relationship with the Islamic Regime and became the closest
strategic partner to Tehran in the Middle East. The strategic bound between
Tehran and Damascus was so close and strong in the sense that during the eight
years war with Iraq, Syria was the only Arab country that fully supported Iran.
This issue was an unpleasant and unforgettable event for almost all Arab
countries in the region (Factbook, 2013, Sirani, 2012).
Hafiz Al-Asad ruled Syria for three decades up until his death in
2000. After his death, his son i.e. Bashar Al-Asad became the president of
Syria following a national referendum. Following another national referendum,
which took place in 2007, Bashar Al-Asad was re-elected to a second term as
president in the country. Since then, the situation in Syria was calm and
steady; it seemed that after two national elections the Syrian people had
accepted Hafiz Al-Asad’s son as a legitimate and reliable successor without any
serious objection or challenge. This status quo, however, did not last for many
years and finally the wave of the so-called “Arab Spring” flooded into Syria in
March 2011. Before too long, the political unrest spread throughout the country
and consequently led up to a devastating and bloody armed conflict between the
government’s forces and the opposition within the country, which it has lasted
for more than two years up to now. This issue raises some questions as follows.
How did the political unrest turn into the armed conflict in Syria? What type
of armed conflict do we witness in Syria currently? Moreover, why a powerful
international organization like the UN has not been able to prevent the
occurrence or stop the continuation of armed conflict in Syria? In order to
find the reasonable answers to these questions, we need to have more knowledge
about the emergence and development of the Syrian uprising (Factbook, 2013).
3- The Emergence and
Development of the Syrian Uprising (At Local Level):
As mentioned earlier, the situation in Syria was stable and calm until
the wave of the so-called “Arab Spring” stormed into the country in March 2011.
The starting point was a simple pro-democracy & political reform movement,
which took place in the southern province of Dar'a. The Syrian authority could
neither make a reasonable consensus with the protestors nor control the
uprising. Before too long, the political unrest and uprising spread to the rest
of the country. In response, the Syrian forces suppressed the peaceful protests
in different parts of the country. During these clashes, many protestors were arrested
and several were killed by the Syrian security forces. Consequently and
gradually, the protesters demanded the resignation of the president Bashar Asad
from the power. The Syrian security forces cracked down the peaceful
demonstrations repeatedly with full-scale brutality even by using the high
technological military equipments in different cities and villages across the
country (Factbook, 2013).
The international community condemned the harsh reaction of the
Syrian authorities against peaceful demonstrators and urged the UN to act.
Following this event, the UN and the League of Arab appointed two
representatives i.e. Kofi Anan and Lakhdar Brahimi to find a peaceful solution
for this conflict. The two representatives of the UN and the League of Arab
failed to establish a political and diplomatic agreement between both sides.
Following these failures, the international community asked the United Nation
Security Council to end the violence in Syria. The UN Security Council could
neither fulfill its R2P principal (The Responsibility to Protect) nor adopt any
resolution (e.g. Arms embargo) on Asad’s regime, due to the vetoes imposed by
Russia and China. These challenges led the international community to increase
the pressure on Asad’s regime in different ways. Eventually, some countries
including the members of the Arab League, EU, Turkey, and the US imposed
economic and political sanctions on the Syrian regime in order to avoid or
possibly control the further escalation of the conflict in the country. These
political and economic restrictions could not stop the killing machine of
Asad’s regime and the bloodshed continued rapidly in Syria. Following this event, the US, France
and the UK
has decided to provide non-lethal aid to the Syrian opposition. However,
finally, the combination of two main factors of the brutal behavior of the
Syrian security forces in response to the peaceful protestors and the failure
of the UN to find a diplomatic solution for this conflict, created a zero-sum
game condition between the Syrian regime and the opposition. This condition, as
a result, forced the protestors to use weapon, in order to defend their lives,
rights, and properties. This issue, consequently, dragged the whole country
into a devastating and bloody armed conflict (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010,
Factbook, 2013, Alarabiya, 2013, Bellamy, 2013, Reuters, 2013).
The harsh and brutal behavior of the Syrian security forces have
made the protestors more determined and furious. Finally, in November 2012, the vast majority
of protestors was united and formed the Syrian National Coalition (or the
Syrian National Council or the SNC). So far, the Syrian opposition has managed
to seize control of some parts of the country. Although, this process has been
and is accompanied by some fluctuations, but so far, the Syrian opposition has
seized the control of different areas in the country. These areas include most
part of the north (Bordered with Turkey) and some areas in the west (Along the
borders of Lebanon and Jordan) as shown in Figure 1 (Political Geography, 2013,
Factbook, 2013, Alarabiya, 2013, NYtimes, 2013, CNN, 2013).
Figure1:
Syria’s
map and recent territorial changes (Political Geography, 2013).
Moreover, Asad’s regime has lost the full control in many major
cities including Aleppo, Hama, Homs, and Deir ez-Zor and the battle between the
Syrian forces and the oppositions continues in these areas. The Syrian
opposition has successfully seized the city of so-called Douma near Damascus
but so far, the opposition’s attempts to capture the capital of the country
have failed. As UNHCR claims, so far, this conflict has resulted in more than
93,000 deaths, which include civilians, the members of the opposition as well
as the Syrian armed forces. In addition to these casualties, more than 1.5
million Syrian refugees have fled to Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, and
some countries in North Africa. The large numbers of casualties and refugees
raise the question: what type of armed conflict are we witnessing in Syria? Regarding
this issue, Hoeffler & Collier (1998) quoted from Singer & Small and
claim that a civil war should have four dimensions including: 1- One of the
primary actors in a civil war should be the national government, which is in
power at the time that conflict begins. 2- The stronger actors should have at
least 5% of the number of casualties suffered by the weaker actors. 3- The
number of casualties in the battle should be at least more than 1,000 deaths
per year. 4- The war should take place within the geographical territory of a
country. If we review the Syrian armed conflict, we see that Asad’s regime as
the national government is one of the main actors in this conflict; the number
of fatalities in this conflict is more than 1,000 per year; and the armed
conflict is continuing within the geographical territory of Syria. Based on
these reasons, thus, we can claim that Syria has plunged into a devastating
civil war (Hoeffler & Collier, 1998, Factbook, 2013, UNHCR, 2013, Political
Geography, 2013, Reuters,
2013).
At this point, I wish to highlight two important issues with regard
to the emergence and continuation of the civil war in Syria. The first issue is
about liberal’s positive view with regard to the human nature. Liberals have
great belief about the human reason and argue that human is a rational actor.
Based on this assumption, liberals claim that there is a natural harmony of
interests between different social groups in any given society. This part of
liberalist approach, in fact, contradicts with what we witness in the real
world. As an example, the current civil war in Syria shows clearly how two
different groups of people are killing each other within the country, in order
to achieve their particular goals and interests. Presently, the Syrian society
has been fragmented into two different groups. On the one side is a minority
group, consists of Asad’s family and his supporters, who have benefited all
kinds of opportunity, possibility and wealth over the past four decades of Asad
family rule. This group is struggling to preserve its own beneficial status
quo. On the other side is a majority group consists of poor, unsatisfied, marginalized,
and oppressed people, who are fighting to the death in order to change the unequal
and unfair circumstances in Syria. To put it simply, two different groups are
inevitably pursuing their own economic and political interests through the
civil war in Syria (Betts, 2005, Hobden & Jones, 2008, Jackson &
Sørensen, 2010).
This Syrian civil war reaffirms Zartman’s statement, when he claims:
“One does not have to be a Marxist or an economist
to recognize that all conflicts are about resources. But one does not have to
be a pastor or a psychologist to also recognize that all conflicts are about
identity. Nor does one have to be a humanist or a political scientist to see
that all conflicts are about basic needs”
(Zartman, 2005, P. 256).
The second issue, which i wish to highlight, is about the concept of
statism within realist approach. Although, there are different branches within
this approach, but almost all realist scholars to a greater or lesser extent
share some common and fundamental notions including the concept of statism.
This concept, which derives from Max Webber’s definition of state, simply means
that states are the main powerful and permanent actors of the international
relations. In other words, international relations are a set of interaction and
interplay between states. Based on this assumption, other actors including
individuals, international organizations, or NGO’s are not so important and in
some cases, they are completely unimportant, as some realist scholars claim. Through
this type of argument, in fact, some realist thinkers such as John Mearsheimer
for example, try to fabricate and impose the idea that domestically some
problems about justice, equality, order, and security are solved and the only
problems that we face in the world are just those between states at the
international level. In other words, every change in the international arena
would occur from above between states, particularly between powerful states as
Mearsheimer emphasizes (Mearsheimer, 1995, 2001, Dunne & Schmidt,
2008).
There is a major flaw in this part of realist approach and that is
that some of the realist thinkers deny or to some extent underestimate the
importance of socioeconomic factors e.g. social forces or class struggle in
their theoretical analyses about the international relations. Contrary to this
view, there are different historical evidences that show that sometimes, a
non-state actor can play an important role at different local, regional, and
global levels particularly in the contemporary globalized world. The series of
revolutions over the last century, the events of September 11, 2001, and their aftermaths
in the international arena are some examples, which clearly confirm this
statement. Another example is the current civil war in Syria. This conflict illustrates
two important points. Firstly, it shows that a non-state actor like the Syrian
opposition originated from below at the grassroots level is able to challenge
the power, legitimacy, and sovereignty of a state like Syria. Secondly, it
indicates the fact that the movement of a non-state actor like the Syrian opposition
can cause tension and instability not only at the local level within Syria but
also at the regional level in the Middle East and even further at the global
level between the super powers (This issue will be explained in the following
sections). In this respect, the example of the Syrian civil war challenges or
to some extent even refutes the concept of statism within realist approach (Dunne
& Schmidt, 2008, Jackson & Sørensen, 2010).
4- How Has Asad’s Regime
Managed to Survive Thus Far?
It has been more than two years since the beginning of the uprising
in Syria. During this period, Asad’s regime has experienced large amount of
pressures in both domestic as well as in the international arena. Despite all
these internal and external pressures and challenges, the Syrian opposition has
not been able to overthrow the Syrian regime. In
order to find a reasonable explanation for this anomaly, we need to look at the
Syrian civil war from a larger perspective, beyond the local level. To put it
simply, analyzing the current civil war in Syria cannot be just limited to an
assessment about the role, scope of power and opposing interests of the
internal actors. The reason behind this is that we are living in an
interconnected, interdependent, and globalized world. In other words, other
external actors are also involved in this conflict, which their supports and
assistances have helped Asad’s regime to survive thus far (Collier &
Hoeffler, 1998, Sirani, 2012, Guardian, 2013).
Analyzing these external actors, their interests, scope of powers
and potentialities, whether in the international arena or within Syria would
help us to have a better understanding about the current tension in this
country. The outcome of this analysis would give us a clear picture about the
dimension/s (At regional and global levels), and challenges of this conflict as
well. As a result, we would be able to understand how Bashar Asad has managed
to hold onto power for so long (Up until this moment). However, before we
proceed further, we should bear in mind that many external actors are involved
in the Syrian civil war and analyzing the role of all these actors one by one
is out of the scope of this paper. Therefore, the following sections would be
limited to the analyses about those main external actors who are supporting
Asad’s regime; namely Iran, Russia, and to some extent China as the media
portray (Collier & Hoeffler, 1998, Sirani, 2012,
Guardian, 2013).
5- Why Iran is heavily
involved in the Syrian civil war? (At the Regional level):
In order to answer this question properly, we need to have a better
understanding about the ideological characteristic as well as the foreign
policy of political system in Iran. These two issues have a direct and
inseparable correlation with each other, in a sense that every state formulates
and implements its foreign policy mainly based on its ideological
characteristic. The hostile environment between the US and North Korea or
between the West and Al-Qaida are some examples, which confirm this statement. This
statement is also applicable for the Islamic Regime in Iran. The ideological
characteristic of the political system in Iran is Shiite Islam. This religious
feature is the main foundation for all laws and regulations in Iran. As such,
the entire civil laws, penal, financial, economic, political, and cultural issues
along with the foreign policy of Iran are originally based upon Shiite Islam guidelines.
The main sources of these guidelines are either the Quran or the numerous
Shiite Islamic narratives i.e. Ahadith (Singular form= Hadith/ Plural form
Ahadith) (Sirani, 2012).
In order to find out how this religious characteristic is
influencing Iran’s foreign policy, it would be useful to review the perception of
Ayatollah Khomeini the founder of the Islamic Regime about the international
society and/ or politics. Regarding this issue, David Armstrong offers a short
and comprehensive description. According to Armstrong:
“Khomeini
challenged not just American power but the prevailing conception of
international society. He believed the problems of the Middle East and other
Muslim countries to have been caused by their disregard of Islamic religious
principles and called for the overthrow of the illegitimate political powers
that now rule the entire Islamic World and their replacement by religious
government. More generally, he argued that not only were earthly governments
illegitimate, but the states itself and the concept of nationality were equally
invalid. …Khomeini insisted that the only important social identity for Muslims
was their membership of the community of believers, or umma”
(Armstrong, 2008, p. 49).
As noted above, Khomeini’s perception can be categorized into three
interlocking phases regarding the international society and/ or politics. In
the first phase, Khomeini identifies the main cause of the problem and that is
that the leaders of the countries in the Islamic world (i.e. in Asia, the
Middle East, and Africa) are not true Muslims. Thus, these countries do not
have the legitimate and legal Political systems. In the second phase, he
introduces a medium-term alternative and that is that these corrupt political
systems should be overthrown and thereafter, new religious governments should
replace them. In the third and final phase, Khomeini describes his ideal
alternative and that is the establishment of an Islamic ultra-nationalist
society known as Ummah, which should take place after the abolition of the
states and the concept of nationalism in the entire Islamic world. This simply
means the creation of a single Islamic Empire beyond the geographical and
territorial borders of the countries in the Islamic world. If we review the
behavior of Iran in the last 34 years, we come up to the point that the Islamic
Regime has been formulating and implementing its entire foreign policy based on
its ideological characteristic and Khomeini’s doctrine explored above. This
doctrine has led Iran to map out its foreign policy based on three main
principles of 1- promoting the Shiite branch of Islam, 2- exporting the Islamic
Revolution to other countries and 3- overall supporting the Islamist groups
aground the globe, particularly in the strategic region of the Middle East and
North Africa. The fulfillment of these principles, which has always been
accompanied with meddling in domestic and foreign affairs of other countries, generates
and escalates the tension between various religious, ethnic, and political
factions in different countries such as Afghanistan, Bahrain, Yemen, Lebanon,
and Palestine in the Middle East. From this, we can claim that Iran’s unstoppable
hostility towards two regional powers of Israel and Saudi Arabia stems directly
from its inherent hegemonic religious characteristic (Kepel, 2002, Sirani,
2012).
Based on this brief information, we would be able to have a better
understanding about the close ties between Iran
and Syria.
Although the Syrian regime is a secular political system (at least
superficially), the Islamic regime has begun to build a strong relationship
with Syria as a strategic partner in the Middle East since 1979. The main
reason behind this is that the leaders of both countries share the same
assumptions against the West, Israel, and Saudi Arabia to a lesser or greater
extent, based on their ideological characteristics and some similar historical
experiences. This relationship has been and is geopolitically and strategically
beneficial for Iran based on three main reasons. Firstly, Iran and Syria have
created a powerful alliance and a balance of power against their potential enemies
in the region. Secondly, Iran has been getting the best opportunity to provide
overall support and assistance to different Islamist groups including Hezbollah
(In Lebanon), Iraqi Shiite groups (Under Sadam Hussein’s rule and onward), Islamic
Jihad, and Hamas (In Palestine) through the Syrian territory. Thirdly and
finally, Syria has been granting Iran access to its ports in the Mediterranean Sea.
This issue has provided a strategic opportunity for Iran with regard to Israeli
ports and the Suez Canal in this part of the world (Sirani, 2012).
In addition to these geopolitical and strategic reasons, the two countries
have some economic relationship with each other. Regarding this issue, Kjetil Selvik
states:
“The two countries have a skewed trade relationship,
which is characterized by state subsidized investments. The Iranian economy is
about ten times larger than the Syrian economy. Syria has neither the
technology, nor capital, nor important commodities to Iran, and trading volume
of $ 700 million is only half of Iran’s trade with Afghanistan” (Selvik, 2012, P. 506).
Moreover, as Selvik claims, the bilateral economic relationship
between these two countries is mostly beneficial for Syria. From all above in
this section, we can deduce that Syria plays an important role for Iran mostly in
terms of the geopolitics, strategic and security issues. Two historical events,
however, have had great impacts on this issue. The first event was the
withdrawal of American forces from Iraq in 2011. This event, which was
understood as a great victory by the political leaders in Iran, provided an
excellent opportunity for Iran. As a result, Iran was able to have a free
transit highway from its geographical territory towards the borders of Israel
overland (through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon) without any serious problem. The second
event was the emergence of the Arab uprisings or so-called Arab Spring in
different parts of the Middle East. In the beginning, the Supreme Leader in
Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei identified these events as an “Islamic Awakening” and
claimed that all these upheavals have roots in the Iranian Islamic revolution. This
Islamic awakening, as Khamenei argued, would put an end in the supremacy of the
US and Israel in the Middle East (Selvik, 2012, Sirani, 2012).
Khamenei’s optimistic view, however, did not last for long and
finally the so-called Arab Spring started in Syria. This event, consequently,
dragged the entire country into a bloodiest civil war. This event facilitated
the best opportunity, particularly for the Arab countries in the Middle East to
put a pressure on Iran. Given the fact that the large numbers of the Syrian
opposition groups are Sunni Muslims, almost all Arab states have begun to help
and support the Syrian opposition from different aspects. In this respect, the
Arab League, which had suspended Syria’s membership in 2011, invited the SNC (The
Syrian National Council) to attend the League’s summit in Doha instead of
Asad’s regime representative. Moreover, the League has also given a green light
to its 22 members to provide weapons to the Syrian opposition. Furthermore,
Qatar has allowed the SNC to open an embassy in Doha. By these types of
supports, in fact, the Arab countries are trying to replace Asad’s regime by a
pro-Sunni type political system in Syria, in order to minimize or possibly
eliminate the power, influence and threat of the Shiite political system of Iran
at least in this part of the Middle East (Sirani, 2012, Political Geography,
2013, Factbook, 2013, Alarabiya, 2013, NYtimes, 2013, CNN, 2013).
Should this happen, the consequences would be devastating for Iran
in different terms. In this respect, Iran would lose its closest ally in the
Middle East. Consequently, Iran would lose its major strategic and geopolitical
stronghold in the Mediterranean Sea and in the Middle East as well. Moreover,
Iran would not be able to easily support and assist its proxies such as Jihad
and Hezbollah in the Lebanon. This issue, as a result, would dramatically
decrease the level of power and influence of Iran not just in Lebanon but also
in the Middle East. Furthermore, Syria functions as a buffer state between Iran
and Israel. If Asad’s regime would collapse, Iran would be more vulnerable in
terms of an Israel’s air strike, as Selvik (2012) claims. In sum, the
combination of all these consequences would change the balance of power in the
Middle East in the favor of Iran’s potential enemies and competitors i.e.
Israel and Saudi Arabia. Therefore, Iran uses all its power and resources to
preserve the current political system in Syria. However, as different evidences
show, as the scope of conflict in Syria is intensifying, the scope of Iran’s
support and assistance to Asad’s regime is increasing in different scales. According
to a report published in Homeland Security official website, Iran’s proxy i.e.
Hezbollah has deployed thousands of its well-trained fighters into Syria to
fight on the side of Asad’s regime against the Syrian opposition. This group of
Hezbollah fighters is assisting Asad’s regime to build and train a popular army
of about 150,000 Alawite and Shiite soldiers with Iranian funding. Moreover,
Iran has sent some of its Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel to Syria to fight
alongside the Syrian security forces. The scope of Iran’s involvement in Syria
entails logistical and financial services as well. According to this report, the
Iranian transport planes carry arms to Syria through Iraqi airspace and
furthermore, recently Iran has extended $ 1 billion credit line to Syria (Sirani,
2012, Selvik, 2012, Homeland Security, 2013).
Al explained above in this section, brings us to some important
issues. Firstly, it shows that Syria and its current political system play a
vital role for Iran in terms of strategic and geopolitical issues. Secondly, it
indicates the fact that Asad’s regime has managed to survive up until this
moment, partly, due to the overall supports and assistances contributed by Iran
and its proxy Hezbollah. Thirdly, it illustrates the fact that the Syrian civil
war, in addition to its local dimension, has also a regional dimension. On the
one side of this conflict is a group consists of the political systems in Iran
and Syria along with their Shiite and Alawites followers. On the other side of
the conflict is a group of all the Arab countries, who are Sunni and support
the Syrian Sunni opposition against Asad’s regime. This issue, as a result, has
escalated the tension between the Shiite and Sunni Muslims not only within
Syria, but also in other parts of the Middle East. The increasing numbers of
the clashes between these two religious groups in some countries such as
Pakistan, Iraq, and Lebanon in the recent months could be understood in this
respect (Sirani, 2012, globalpost, 2013).
The overall presence of Iran in the Syrian civil war sheds light on
some important points as follows. 1- The first point is about the notion of the
behavior of states within defensive realist school of thought. According to
Kenneth Waltz the founder of defensive realism, the distribution of power in
the international system shapes the behavior of states. Waltz describes the
international system as an environment that all states are worried about their
survival, because every state might forcefully extend its interests. Therefore,
all states should be constantly alert about the abilities and capabilities of
other states. Moreover, Waltz explores the two concepts of power and security
with regard to the behavior of states. Regarding this issue, T. Dunne and B. C.
Schmidt (2008) describe Waltz’s argument as follows:
“Power is a means to the end of security. Because
power is a possibility useful means, sensible statesmen try to have an
appropriate amount of it. In crucial situation, however, the ultimate concern
of states is not for power but for security”
(Dunne
& Schmidt, 2008, P. 98, 99).
Waltz’s statement noted above, simply means that all state try to
accumulate power in order to protect and maintain their security. However, as
Waltz claims, in critical situation, all states are ultimately security maximizers
rather than power maximizers. This part of Waltz’s theory, however, contradicts
with Iran’s presence in the Syrian civil war in the sense that Iran, itself, is
experiencing the most critical situation in the domestic as well as in the
international arena. Presently, Iran is under enormous international economic
and political sanctions, due to its doubtful nuclear activities. These economic
and political sanctions might cause a sudden revolt within Iran at any moment.
Moreover, Iran’s nuclear dispute might lead the country into a direct military
confrontation with the US, Israel or some other European countries. With all
these potential threats and challenges at home along with its critical position
in the international arena, however, Iran is providing full support to Asad’s
regime in Syria. In other words, by this move, Iran is jeopardizing its own
security enormously, in order to protects, maintains, and maximizes its own power
in Syria. From this, we can conclude that Iran is a power maximizer state and
this part of Waltz’s theory, which claims that all states are security
maximizers in crucial situation, is highly questionable or to some extent even
refutable (Dunne & Schmidt, 2008, Sirani, 2012).
2- The second point is about a theoretical notion within traditional
Marxist approach. According to this approach, the economic production is the
foundation of all human activities, in the sense that any change in the means
of production would ultimately lead to change in the social spheres in any
given capitalist society. In other words, economics is the base and some issues
such as legal and political matters are superstructure matters. Based on this
argument, Marxists agree that politics and economics are closely
interconnected, but they put economics first and politics second. The reason
behind this is that Marxists claim that the ruling-class, who dominates the
economics sphere, will aim to dominate the political sphere. This brief information
is the basis of the Marxist framework for the study of IPE (Hobden & Jones,
2008, Jackson & Sørensen, 2010).
Regarding this part of Marxist though, Robert Jackson & George
Sørensen (2010) state:
“States are driven by ruling-class interests and
capitalist states are primarily driven by the interests of their respective
bourgeoisie. That means that struggles between states, including wars, should
be seen in the economic context of competition between capitalist classes of
different states” (Jackson & Sørensen,
2010, P. 190).
There is a major flaw in the last part of this statement, wherein
claims that conflicts and wars between states should be seen in the economic
context. This part is in contradiction with the presence of Iran in the Syrian
civil war, in the sense that Iran’s involvement in this conflict is not based
on economic interest as traditional Marxist approach claims. As explained earlier,
Syria and Iran have a bilateral economic relationship. However, firstly, the
scope of this relationship is not massive and secondly this economic
relationship is mostly beneficial for Syria and not for Iran. Moreover, we
should bear in mind that Syria and its current civil war have imposed huge
pressure on Iran in terms of economic issue, particularly because Iran itself,
is under enormous international economic sanctions. Based on this argument, thus,
we can claim that there is a huge loophole in this part of traditional Marxist
theory. Regarding this loophole, Antonio Gramsci offers a more comprehensive
explanation, which is compatible with Iran’s involvement in Syria to a
considerable degree. Hobden & Jones (2008) describe this part of Gramsci’s argument
as follows:
“While the structure of society may ultimately be
a reflection of social relations of production in the economic base, the nature
of relations in the superstructure are of great relevance in determining how
susceptible that society is to change and transformation” (Hobden &
Jones, 2008, P. 150).
Based on this argument, which originally derives from the concept of
hegemony, Gramsci develops the notion of historic bloc and argues that the
socioeconomic relations (Base) on the one hand, and political, cultural and
ideas (superstructure) on the other, have a mutually reinforcing, reciprocal
and dialectical relationships with each other. In other words, some political,
ideational, and cultural factors might also play role in the process of decision-making
at individual, society, or state levels. From this, we can claim that Iran is
pursuing a political agenda in the Syrian civil war, contrary to what the
traditional Marxists claim (Hobden & Jones, 2008, Selvik, 2012, Sirani,
2012).
3- The third point is about the ideological characteristic of Iran.
As explored earlier, Iran’s foreign policy is partly based on its ideological
characteristic i.e. the Shiite doctrine. This issue raises an important
question. Does Iran have any religious agenda in Syria? The answer to this
question lies in the mythology of the Shiite branch of Islam. In fact, this is the
tricky and important part that most of the scholars and politicians do not pay
attention to it. As we know, the Shiite Muslims in Iran (Twelvers) are the
followers of the twelve descendants of the Prophet Mohammad. According to the
Shiite mythology, some three centuries after the death of the Prophet Mohammad,
the twelfth Imam i.e. Imam Mahdi went into an indefinite period of occultation.
The fundamental belief of the Shiite Muslims is as follows: when the world is
full of injustice, inequality, violence, and chaos, Imam Mahdi will return and
fill the world with equality, justice, and prosperity for all the people,
through the establishment of an Islamic Empire on Earth (Sirani, 2012, Eteghad,
2012, Al-Shia, 2012, Shia-online, 2013, Mahdi, 2013).
Based on the numerous Shiite narratives, there are some primary and
secondary signs and events, which would occur in the world (particularly in the
Middle East) during or closely before the emergence of Imam Mahdi. According to
the Shiite mythology, some of these important primary signs are including:
1- A Khorasanian Seyed is the main leader in Iran. We should bear in
mind that Khorasan is the name of a province in the North-East Iran and its
capital is Mashhad city. In addition, Seyed is a title for a descendant of the
family of the prophet Muhammad. The tricky part is that the current supreme
leader in Iran “Ayatollah Khamenei” is a Seyed, which was born in Mashhad. 2- The
second important sign is the occurrence a bloody and devastating civil war in
Syria. According to the Shiite narratives, a group of people would try to
defeat the Syrian political system and thereafter, this group would move to
Mecca in order to kill Imam Mahdi during his emergence. 3- The third important
sign is the occurrence of a justifiable and righteous Shiite Muslim uprising in
Yemen. In addition to these three signs, some other primary and secondary
events have also been anticipated, which some of them have occurred. Amongst
them, large numbers of wars and uprisings around the world, or downfall of snow
in hot and dry Saudi Arabia or a sudden fraction in the wall of a Mosque in
Kufa (a city in Iraq) could be mentioned. However, the occurrence of such events
has portrayed an image in the mind of some religious - policy makers in
Iran that they are closed to the advent of Imam Mahdi. The reason that
Ayatollah Khamenei identifies the Arab Spring as an Islamic awakening and
overall presence of Iran in the Syrian civil war could be understood partly in
this respect. This part of the Shiite mythology, however, might seem ridiculous and unrealistic for us. However, we should
bear in mind that these signs for those Iranian religious - policy makers, who
put an empty chair for Imam Mahdi next to themselves, while they are eating or
have a meeting, are not just simple myths (Eteghad, 2012, Al-Shia, 2012,
Shia-online, 2013, Mahdi, 2013).
This explanation, however, leads us to some important points.
Firstly, it shows that, in addition to the political agenda, Iran has also a
religious agenda in Syria. Secondly, the combination of this part of the Shiite
mythology (About the Syrian civil war) and Iran’s inherent hostility against
Israel and Saudi Arabia indicates the fact that the Shiite branch of Islam plays
a fundamental, determinant, and important role in the foreign policy of Iran. The
example of Iran and its hostile foreign policy towards some particular states undermines
the reliability of this part of Marxist and realist approaches, which claims
that religion is just a tool in the hand of bourgeoisie class or policy maker
in order to achieve a goal. From this, we can conclude that by identifying the religion
(Particularly Islam) just as a tool, we are underestimating and simplifying the
role of religion (particularly Islam) in different events including in the
international politics. Part of the reason that after all these efforts and
struggles, still we have not been able to fundamentally defeat the Islamist
Jihadists around the globe, lies in this matter. Because, we are not addressing
the concept of religion in an in-depth and appropriate manner (Eteghad, 2012, Al-Shia,
2012, Shia-online, 2013, Mahdi, 2013).
6- Why Russia is involved
in the Syrian Civil War? (At The Global level)
Since independence in 1946, Syria
reduced its relationship gradually with the West and became a close ally to the
former Soviet Union. This trend was mainly the
result of series of historical experiences and events, and to some extent
compulsory circumstances related to the Cold War era. One of the important
events behind this move was the emergence of Israel as a new neighbor for Syria
in 1948. This issue was a starting point for series of armed conflicts between
Israel and some Arab countries including Syria for some decades. Finally, in
1967, Israeli forces captured the Golan Heights from Syria during the Six Days
War. Through all these years conflict, the West, particularly the US were fully
supported Israel. This was an unfortunate and unpleasant experience for Syria.
However, the combination of this type of hostility by the West, the bitter
memories of centuries Ottoman Empire and some decades France’s harsh colonial
rules along with the compulsory circumstances of the bipolar world, pushed
Syria towards the new super power i.e. the
former Soviet Union. During the Cold War and through this close
alliance, Syria made the balance of power with the former Soviet Union and
maintained its security against the West. The relationship between Syria and the
former Soviet Union became tighter, when Hafiz Al-Asad a member of the Syrian Socialist Ba'ath Party seized the power through a military coup (Factbook,
2013, Black & Morris, 1991).
Gradually and over time, the relationship between the two countries
became so strong, in the sense that even the collapse of the Soviet Union did
not cause any affect on it. Generally, the relationship between Syria and
Russia consists of three economic, geopolitical and security interests. In
terms of economic trade, Russia is one of the main suppliers to Syria.
According to a report published in Foreign Policy website, Russia has almost $4
billion trades with Syria annually, which are mostly in the forms of arms and
military equipments. In addition to this economic benefit, Syria has a
geopolitical and strategic consideration for Russia. In fact, Syria is the last
and the only remained close strategic ally of Russia in this part of the world,
since the fall of the Soviet Empire. The geographical location of Syria at the
eastern side of the Mediterranean Sea offers Russia a strategic and geopolitical
advantage in this part of the world. This accessibility, which has begun during
the Cold War, still is a valid agreement between two countries and currently Russia has a naval base in one of the main ports
of Syria,
which is called Tartus. Such a strategic opportunity offers Russia an
appropriate access and to some extent control to the Red Sea, the Suez Canal
and the Mediterranean Sea. This brief information indicates the fact that the
current political system in Syria plays a vital role for Russia in terms of
economic, strategic, and geopolitical issues. Based on these reasons, Russia
has vetoed and in the future will probably veto any resolution against Asad’s
regime within the United Nation Security Council. From this, we can conclude
Asad’s regime has managed to survive up until this moment, partly due to the
overall military and diplomatic supports of Russia as well (BBC, 2012, Weiss,
2011, Factbook, 2013).
The involvement of Russia in the Syrian civil war sheds light on
some important point with regard to the concept of “international society”
within the English School of thought. International society scholars claim that
states are not things and their existence cannot be separated from human
beings. Every state, as these scholar argue, consists of its citizens and its
government, in the sense that a government rules and acts on behalf of its
citizens. According to International Society scholars, thus, international
relations is a special part of human relations, which happen in historical time
and include rules, norms and values. Based on this assumption, Hedley Bull, one
of the leading members of this approach claims that: “There is a
worldwide social order of independent states” and develops the concept
of “international society” (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010, P. 128-130).
Hedley Bull defines the concept of international society as follows:
“A society of states (or
international society) exists when a group of states, conscious of certain
common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they
conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations
with one another, and share in the working of common institutions” (Bull, 1995, P. 13).
Based on this argument, some International Society scholars use Russia
as an example and strongly claim that the international society exists. These
scholars argue that during the Cold War, international society between the US
and the Soviet Union was minimized to low level in the sense that the foreign policies
of both states were mainly concentrated on their evaluation about the
intentions and capabilities of each other. This situation, however, changed
after the Cold War, due to the fact that Russia became allied and engaged in
the Western-centered world of international organizations such as Group of
Eight (G-8), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
International Monetary Fund (IMF), NATO, etc. In other words, some common
interests, values, and obligations have led Russia to become a member in these
Western international organizations. In this respect, as International Society
scholars claim, Russia has become a trustworthy citizen of Western-centered
international society (Jackson & Sørensen, 2010, P. 130,131).
There are major flaws in this part of the English School argument
noted above. The first point is with regard to the definition of state
developed by the English School. Contrary to International Society school of
thought, states are not always the legitimate representatives of their citizens;
thus, they do not behave, and act on behalf of their citizens in domestic as
well as international arena. The current political systems in Syria, Iran and
many other countries in the world are some examples, which undermine the
reliability of this argument of the English School and show that this statement
cannot be generalized to all states. The second point is about the concept of
international society. This is a fact that sometimes states have some common
interests, values, and obligations; as such, they cooperate with each other
through some international organizations or agreements. The military
intervention in Libya, which took place in 2011, was an example of this type of
cooperation between states. However, based on the membership of states in some
international organizations or some common cooperation, we cannot claim that states
have formed a family of nations or an international community as Mearsheimer
terms it. Because states do not always have the same common interests, values,
or obligations with regard to different issues. Such differences, as a result,
create conflict, tension, and sometimes war between states. This is the case of
Russia with regard to the current civil war in Syria. Russia has some economic
and strategic interests in Syria; therefore, it is supporting Asad’s regime. As
such, Russia is behaving on the opposite side of the western countries. Based
on this example, we can claim that the concept of international society
developed by Hedley Bull is very shallow idea and to some extent severely questionable
(Mearsheimer, 2001).
At this juncture, it would be wise to have brief explanation about
the role of China and its behavior with regard to the Syrian conflict.
Historically, China is a non-intervention state. Moreover, China does not have
any economic, strategic, or religious interests in Syria as much as Russia and
Iran have. Furthermore, China knows that its cheap, mass produced commodities
will conquer the Syrian market in the future even after the collapse of Asad’s
regime, no matter, who will govern Syria. The reason that China alongside
Russia vetoes the resolutions against Syria within the Security Council could
be understood as a response to the behavior of the US with regard to Taiwan and
some territorial disputes that China has with some of its neighbors in the East
Asia (BBC, 2012, Brzezinski, 2012).
All explained above, was brief information about the roles and types
of interests of those external actors, which their supports and assistances
have helped Asad’s regime to survive thus far. In order to understand how these actors act
and interact with each other; moreover, how these actors function within the
international system, we need to find a suitable framework, which, to some extent,
would be able to encompass all these actors in an appropriate manner. Whether
we agree or disagree with all ideas and opinions of Immanuel Wallenstein, his
world-system framework, to some extent is suitable for our analysis. Wallenstein’s
framework is suitable because it encompasses the types of economic and
political relationships between three units of Russia, Iran, and Syria in the
sense that Russia is the core, Iran is the semi-periphery, and Syria is the periphery
country. This framework is also applicable for those states, which are
supporting the Syrian opposition. However, Wallerstein defines its world-system
theory as follows. According to him, the global capitalist system is
hierarchical and consists of three different units of core, peripheral and
semi-peripheral areas, which are linked with each other based on particular economic
and political structures. Each unit has its own economic, political, and
functional characteristics within the world system. Briefly, the core
countries, which are at the top of the hierarchy within the world system, have
highly advanced and complex economic activities in terms of industrial and
agricultural productions (Wallerstein, 1979, 1984).
At the bottom of the hierarchy are the periphery countries, which
produce basic goods and raw materials. The relationship between the core and
peripheral countries is exploitative in the sense that the core countries
export their manufactured goods with relatively high price to peripheral
countries. The core countries, in turn, import raw materials and some basic
goods from the peripheral countries with relatively cheap price. In the middle
of the hierarchy are intermediate countries, which Wallerstein identifies them
as semi-periphery countries. These countries are economically mixed, in the
sense that they display some characteristic of the core as well as the
periphery countries. The semi-periphery countries play an important role in the
stabilizing the political structure of the world-system and would become more
hyperactive during the economic downturn as Wallerstein claims. A simple and
brief comparison shows that Wallenstein’s world system theory, to some extent,
is compatible with the current civil war in Syria and encompasses all the
actors, who are involved in this conflict, as shown in the figure 2 (Wallerstein,
1979, 1984).
As mentioned above, Wallenstein’s framework is applicable for our
analysis to some extent. The reason behind this is that there are some
loopholes or we might say some weaknesses within Wallenstein’s world-system
framework particularly with regard to the Syrian civil war. These weaknesses
are as follows. The first issue is that the whole foundation of Wallenstein’s
world-system theory is based on economic and political ties between different
units in the international system. In the sense that the core, semi-periphery,
and periphery units are linked to each other based on particular economic and
political structures. There is a loophole in this part of the world-system
theory and that is that Iran’s overall involvement in the Syrian civil war is
partly based on religious matter, in addition to economic and political issues.
This is an important and neglected issue within Wallenstein’s world-system
framework. As mentioned earlier, the reason behind this misassumption is that
all Marxists scholars including Wallerstein claim that religion is just a tool
in the hand of ruling class (This particular issue has been discussed earlier;
therefore, we leave it). The second issue is about the presence of Hezbollah
and its role as a non-state actor in the Syrian civil war. In this respect,
Hezbollah has expanded the scope and dimension of its activity beyond its
geographical territory from Lebanon into Syria. To put it simply, Hezbollah is
playing a role, or we might say an important role in the international politics
as a powerful non-state actor by its presence in the Syrian civil war. This
issue means that, in addition to the core, semi-periphery, and periphery units,
non-state actors can play an important role in the global capitalist system.
This is an important issue, which does not have any place in Wallenstein’s
world-system framework.
.bmp)
Figure 2: The three levels
of local, regional, and global conflict in Syria based on Wallenstein’s
world-system theory.
As figure 2 illustrates, different actors are involved in the Syrian
conflict, based on some economic, geopolitical, strategic, and religious
interests. At the global level, on the one hand, there is the group of Russia and China, who supports Asad’s regime
based on economic, geopolitical, and strategic interests and rivalry against
the West. On the other hand, there is the group of the US, England
and France, who supports the Syrian opposition against Bashar Asad in order to
capture a new opportunity in economic as well as geopolitical terms in Syria. At the
regional level, there is a struggle between two regional powers of Iran and Saudi Arabia mainly based on
geopolitical and religious reasons. Both countries try to maintain and expand
their own hegemony and influence in the region. Saudi
Arabia uses all its capabilities (e.g. the League of
Arabs) and supports the Syrian opposition, in order to minimize and limit the
power and supremacy of Iran
in Syria.
On the contrary, Iran uses
all its capabilities (e.g. Hezbollah, its economic, and military sources) in
order to protect and maintain its influence in Syria. At the local level, there
is an armed struggle between the majority of marginalized, unsatisfied,
oppressed Sunni Muslims and the minority of Asad’s family, its security forces,
and Shiite Muslim followers. The important point is that there is the condition
of zero-sum game between all belligerent actors at three local, regional, and
global levels in this conflict. In this respect, China might be an exception. China
might make a deal with the US with regard to its territorial disputes in the
East Asia. As a result, China might
withdraw its support for Syria somewhere in the future. However, such a
probability is very low or we might say is almost impossible for other actors,
who are involved in this conflict. From all explained, so far, we can claim
that Bashar Asad has managed to hold onto power in Syria by overall help and
support of Russia, China, and Iran at three local, regional, and global levels (Wallerstein,
1979, 1984, Sirani, 2012).
7- Some Consequences of
the Syrian Civil War:
Whether we are supporting Bashar Asad or its opponents or are
neutral, we should pay attention to some of the consequences of the Syrian
civil war. Analyzing these consequences is very important, because some of them
might occur beyond the Syrian geographical territory within the country that we
live in. Some of these consequences are briefly as follows.
1- The first and important issue is the large number of human casualties
and near-total destruction of the country’s infrastructure. We should not be
genius to anticipate that this issue would be devastating for Syria, the Syrian
people and the neighboring countries for some decades to come.
2- The second issue is about the overall effect of the civil war on
the life of the Syrian people. This issue has caused that more than 1.6 million
people have fled Syria and taken refuge abroad in some countries such as
Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and some North African countries. We
should bear in mind that we are talking about more than 500,000 Syrian refugees
in a country such as Lebanon with a population size of 4.2 million, or nearly
500,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan with a population size of almost 6 million
people, etc. The large numbers of the Syrian refugees are the huge burden on
the shoulders of all these states, the international organizations as well as
NGOs. In the long term, this issue would cause many problems in different
arenas including security for all these countries. As an example, asylum
seekers and refuges are the most vulnerable groups around the world; because,
in most cases they don not have proper access to their basic needs and rights. As
such, some members of this vulnerable group would become the easiest preys for
different criminal organizations as well as Jihadist groups. This issue is also
applicable for some of the Syrian refugees in the Middle East. Given the fact
that most of these countries mentioned above do not have a powerful, stable and
reliable political system and the Syrian civil war has entered in the new phase
of a conflict between the Shiite and Sunni groups, we can anticipate that the
presence of large numbers of the Syrian refugees would threaten the peace, stability
and security of some countries in the Middle East in the long term.
There is also another important issue with regard to the Syrian refugees.
What these refugees would do, if Asad’s regime would manage to survive this
civil war? Given the fact that some of these refugees, themselves or their
relatives are fighting against Asad’s regime, would they dare to return to Syria
in the future? Who / which powerful international entity would be able to provide
and maintain their security in Syria under the rule of Bashar Asad? On the
contrary, if Asad’s regime would collapse somewhere in the future, who, or
which powerful entity would be able to provide and maintain security for those
Shiite or Alawites people, who have supported Bashar Asad or neutrally have
behaved during this conflict?
3- The overall presence of Hezbollah in this conflict and increasing
numbers of conflict between the Shiite and Sunni groups in different countries
in the region illustrate the fact that eventually, the Syrian civil war would
spread to some other neighboring countries in the Middle East. In this respect,
the two countries of Lebanon and Iraq are the most vulnerable states.
4- The Syrian civil war has facilitated the best environment in terms
of training, access to different facilities such as money, weapon, and network
building for all Jihadists around the world. This chaotic environment functions
like an academic institute for all Islamist fundamentalists including novice
Jihadists, who enter Syria legally or illegally from different borderlines. After
a while, these novice jihadists would be expert in different military tactics
and strategic matters such as using different weapons - explosive materials,
organizing, surviving in harsh and difficult circumstances, network building,
etc. The important and tricky point is the time that these jihadists would
decide to return to their countries of origin, whether is somewhere in the
Middle East or the EU or some other countries around the world. In this
respect, we can anticipate that each of these jihadists would function as an
ambassador of terror and would be able to organize and establish a terror cell
in his /her country of origin.
5- This is the fact that the Kurdish people has been one of the most
marginalized and deprived groups in Syria. The Syrian Kurds live mostly in the
northern part of Syria along the southern border of Turkey and partly the
northern border of Iraq. During the chaotic atmosphere of the civil war, the
Syrian Kurds might decide to establish an either autonomous or a Kurdish
self-regulated region in the northern part of Syria. This issue would threaten
the sovereignty of Syria, Turkey, and Iraq. As a result, it would create extra
instability and tension in the region.
6- We should bear in mind that some of these consequences,
inevitability, would also affect the Israeli–Palestinian peace process to some
degree.
All mentioned above, indicates the fact that the consequences of the
Syrian civil war from different angles and to some degrees would be devastating
not just for the Syrian people or the country of Syria, but also for all of us,
no matter whom we are or where we live.
Conclusion:
As explained in this essay, the Syrian uprising has turned into a
devastating and bloody civil war.
In addition to the internal actors, other external actors are also
involved in this armed conflict based on socioeconomic, geopolitical,
strategic, rivalry against the West and religious matters. Briefly, these external
actors can be categorized into two different groups, which struggle and compete
with each other directly or indirectly at three local, regional, and global
levels. The first group consists of Russia, China, and Iran, which their
overall assistances and supports have helped Asad’s regime to survive up until
this moment. Amongst this group, the two countries of Russia and China have
paralyzed the United Nation Security Council to take any serious action and
resolution with regard to this conflict by their vetoes. On the opposite side,
there is the second group consists of the
US, France, the UK, Saudi Arabia and other members of the Arab League, which are
supporting the Syrian opposition from different angles. The presence of these
external actors has expanded the dimension of the Syrian civil war from local
into regional and global levels. As such, we might expect that this conflict would
eventually spread to other parts of the Middle East. In the final part of this
essay, I have to imply that the Syrian civil war is not the only catastrophic
event that we have not been able to prevent or solve it. So is the life of 2.7
billion people around the world, who are living under the poverty line with less
than $2 per month. So is the case of millions of people, who are dying
annually, because they do not have access to clean water and basic sanitation. So
is the numbers of conflicts in most of the countries in Asia, the Middle East,
and North Africa. So is the situation of billions of people around the world
that their basic needs and rights have been violated by their corrupt and
undemocratic political systems. So is the case of millions of unemployment
people, who are suffering in the developed countries. So is the case of
unfinished and infinite war on terror around the globe and many other unsolved
problems. Each of these problems would threaten the international peace,
stability, and security from different angles. The existence of all these
problems at local, regional, and global levels, however, indicates the fact
that the current theoretical frameworks (with all due respects to all scholars
and students) and our international institutions are not able anymore to deal
with most of the contemporary issues in an appropriate and fundamental manner. There
are many reasons behind this total failure, which are out of the scope of this
essay. However, one thing is clear and that is that we have entered in a new
era. As such, we need new comprehensive theoretical frameworks, fundamental and
tangible solutions, better authoritative international institutions and finally
a new reliable and stable world order.
Mehran Sirani Norway 04.08.2013
References:
Alarabiya. (2013). Arab League
allows member states to arm Syrian opposition.
Al-Shia. (2012). The Emergence of Imam
Mahdi.
Armstrong, D. (2008). The evolution of international society. In:
Baylis, J. & Smith, S. & Owens, P. (4th ed). THE
GLOBALIZATION OF THE WORLD POLITICS: An introduction to international relations,
p. 36-52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Betts, K, R. (2005). Conflict AFTER THE Cold War; Arguments on
Causes of War and Peace. (2nd ed). Published by Pearson
Education, Inc.
BBC. (2011). Tunisia suicide protester
Mohammed Bouazizi dies.
BBC. (2012). China’s
stake in the Syria
stand-off.
Bellamy, A, J. (2013). The
Responsibility to Protect. In: Williams, P, D. (2nd ed). SECURITY
STUDIES; AN INTRODUCTION. P. 486-502. Published by Routledge.
Black, I. & Morris, B. (1991). ISRAEL’S SECRET WARS, A History of Israel’s
Intelligence Services. GROVE PRESS, New
York.
Brzezinski, Z. (2012). Strategic Vision. America and the Crisis of Global
Power. Published by Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Book Group, New York.
Bull, H. (1995). The Anarchic Society: A Study of Order in World Politics.
Published in Columbia
University press, New York.
CNN. (2013). Syrian opposition opens embassy in Qatar.
Accessed on: 01.06.2013.
Dunne, T. & Schmidt, B, C. (2008). Realism. In: Baylis, J. & Smith, S. & Owens, P.
(4th ed). THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE WORLD POLITICS: An
introduction to international relations, p. 92-103. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Eteghad. (2012). The Emergecne of Imam
Mahdi.
Globalpost. (2013). Conflict
between Sunni and Shia Muslims seen as escalating across the Middle
East.
Guardian. (2013). Hezbollah is
helping Assad fight Syria
uprising, says Hassan Nasrallah.
Accessed on: 12.06.2013.
Hobden, S. & Jones, R, W. (2008). Marxist
theories of international relations. In: Baylis, J.
& Smith, S. & Owens, P. (4th ed). THE GLOBALIZATION OF
THE WORLD POLITICS: An introduction to international relations, p. 144-157.
Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hoeffler & Collier (1998). On economics causes of civil war.
Oxford Economics papers 50 (1998), 563-573. Oxford University
Press 1998.
Homeland Security. (2013). The Two-track Syria Strategy of Iran and Hezbollah.
Jackson, R. & Sørensen, G. (2010). Introduction to
International Relations; Theories and Approaches. (4th ed).
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New
York.
Kepel, G. (2002). JIHAD: THE TRIAL OF POLITICAL ISLAM. Translated
by: Anthony F. Roberts, Published by THE BELKNAP PRESS OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY
PRESS, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Mahdi.etudfrance. (2013). We are Closed to the Emergence of Imam
Mahdi.
Mearsheimer, J, J. (1995). The
False Promise of International Institutions.
Mearsheimer, J, J. (2001). THE
TRAGEDY OF GREAT POWER POLITICS. (1ST ED). Printed in the United States of America.
NyTimes. (2012). Friction at the U.N. as Russia and China
Veto Another Resolution on Syria
Sanctions.
Political Geography. (2013). Syria-Uprising-Map.
Accessed on: 12.06.2013.
Reuters. (2013). U.S. readies new non-lethal military aid for Syria opposition.
Reuters. (2013). U.N. says 93,000
Killed in Syrian conflict, fears for Aleppo.
Selvik, K. (2012). Iran og den nye kampen om Syria.
In Internasjonal POLITIKK. ÅRGANG 70. Nr. 4. P. 504-512. UNIVERSITETFORLAGET.
Shia-online. (2013). Khorasanian
Seyed and The Emergence of Imam Mahdi.
Accessed on: 12.04.2013.
Sirani, M.
(2012). WHEN A NATION DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT, THE WAR HAS BEGUN.
The World Factbook. (2013). SYRIA.
Accessed on: 19.02.2013.
UN.
(2013). Nearly 93,000 people killed in ‘vicious’ Syria conflict – UN human rights
chief.
Accessed on: 15.06.2013.
UNHCR. (2013). Syria
Regional Refugee Response.
Wallerstein, I. (1979). THE
CAPITALIST WORLD-ECONOMY. Published by Cambridge University Press & Editions
de la Maison des Sciences de I`Homme.
Wallerstein, I. (1984).THE POLITICS
OF THE WORLD-ECONOMY. THE STATES, THE MOVEMENTS AND THE CIVILIZATIONS.
Printed in Great Britain at
the University Press, Cambridge.
Weiss, M. (2011). Safe Area for Syria.
Zartman, W. (2005). Need, Creed, and Greed in Intrastate Conflict. In
Rethinking the Economics of War, The Intersection of Need, Creed, and Greed.
Edited by Cynthia J. Arnson & William Zartman, Woodrow Wilson center Press.
Washington, D.C.
.bmp)
