Connect with us

Middle East

Does the Islamic Republic of Iran collapse?

Sajad Abedi

Published

on

Pay attention to the following trends in the community: urbanization, bureaucracy, size of social classes, the severity and weakness of civil institutions, the rate of political invasion and obstruction, abundance and economic recession, rule of law, and secularism, religiosity and separationist, trust and deregulation, from the sociological point of view can be somewhat recognizable and aware of the fact about these trends and their future Gained. But contrary to the notion that at the end of the nineteenth century, the sociology of today does not claim that it can definitely predict the “movement of the entire society” (including Iran).

Today, sociology explicitly and modestly states that one cannot predict from the scientific standpoint an end to the future of society. There are many reasons for this humble sociology, one of which is reflexive, more so than society.

Communities are more likely to be exposed to information and awareness and respond to their interests in response to this awareness, and this reflection, and subsequently the redevelopment of individual and collective life (and especially the unintended consequences of individual and collective behavior of social actors) makes it difficult to predict a community called community.

According to the above introduction, the question arises as to how the sociology of medicine is affected? The answer is that although sociology cannot predict the “movement of the whole society,” as mentioned, it can describe and explain the status of important trends within society (examples of which are mentioned).

Even though sociology cannot make a definitive statement about the future of the entire Iranian society, different and possible situations can be empirically guessed (based on the existing trends of the society) and through this possible knowledge of the active and sympathetic forces of society can take into account the general situation of society To a more favorable position. One of the ways that helps us examine the current situation and speculation about the future status of the entire movement is to let us say that this community is moving in its direction (towards the future, in light of the visible features (or trends) of the Iranian society) Which of the really existing communities in the world is approaching, but this method requires more explanation.

The society and its movement towards the future are not solely due to the will and the plan of individuals and groups in the state apparatus (even within the state apparatus, there are usually conflicting plans and plans for shaping society), but due to The result is the activity of active forces in the government as well as active forces in society.

It is subtle that active forces in society and the government are cooperating, competing and hostile to maintain their position in the hierarchy of society, and in their challenges constantly examine the situation and change their behavior, so each one of society They are killing one another. Therefore, the future must come as a result of various forces in society. If we look carefully, the precise study of these forces within the community, especially considering the reflection, rethinking and reproduction of society, is not an easy task in terms of empirical evidence, and it is almost impossible. One of the ways to overcome this problem is to compare the studied community with the status of a number of really existing societies, in other words, to see if the Iranian society has a general interest in terms of its characteristics. One of the really existing communities is getting closer.

Now, with this introduction, our main point in this article is that the movement of Iranian society is a challenge between what happened in Cuba and South Korea. Therefore, we will first try to describe the characteristics of the two concepts of the Cuban and South Korean type in relation to the Iranian society. Then we will explain how the South Korea definition is closer to today’s reality in Iran.

What does Cubanism mean?

Iran, like Cuba (through its neighbors on the Iraqi border on the Gulf and Afghanistan’s borders), is a neighbor of the United States. Both countries are in constant controversy with the United States (Cuba has fifty years and Iran thirty years). At the home of the Cuban government, for over fifty years, the patriotic policy and opposition to the mechanisms of political development have been well nesting. Anti-American propaganda is the main essence of its official propaganda.

In Iran, populist politics and pessimism have become rooted in the mechanisms of political development, and anti-American politics is the official form of Iranian propaganda. The eight years of foreign policy of Hashemi Rafsanjani’s government during the period of construction (1988-1986) and eight years of foreign policy based on Khatami’s confidence-building during the reform period (2004-1984) failed to win over the foreign policy of anti-American propaganda and normalization.

Cuba, as a country that embodies the fight against America, is dominated by Latin Americans, especially among the poor in the region, and it is counting on this influence. Iran is also influential as a manifestation of the struggle against America among the people of the world, especially among the poor of the Islamic countries, and is extremely pleased with this influence.

But both Cuba and Iran, despite the influence of the world’s poor, cannot use this popular influence at the United Nations to draw the attention of the effective members of the United Nations (while defending their national interests). For example, at the beginning of the year2007, Indonesians were hooraying for the presidency of Iran, but the country’s envoy voted in the UN Security Council to issue a resolution against Iran (No. 1747).

Cuba, despite the constant struggle with the United States and having gained political independence, is among the less developed countries of Latin America, and countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Chile have a more developed status than Cuba, and are more effective in real equations of the region and the world. Iran, despite fighting with the United States and gaining political independence from its similar countries, is far behind the Islamic countries like Turkey, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

After over 50 years of its revolution, Cuba has become an illiterate society in terms of raising the standard of living of its people, which means that it has some weaknesses in some of the trends.

Cuba, for example, has grown dramatically in terms of rural development, healthcare and sugar cane industry, but has gained other indicators such as GDP growth, per capita income, increasing growth, brain drain, growing prostitution, weakness of civil institutions, media And the independent parties have a terrible situation. But other countries in the Latin American region, such as Brazil, Chile, Argentina and Mexico, have a much better status than Cuba in terms of the trends.

Iran, after thirty years of revolution, has been promoting the quality of life of people in the society. As an example, Iran has made significant advances in the development of military, general and excellent education (especially in women), the expansion and spread of health and health skills, rural development, the strengthening of economic infrastructure and the political recruitment of people. On the other hand, Iran is suffering from social dangers such as six million marginalized populations, twelve million people below the poverty line, more than four million unemployed, between two and five million drug addicts, an increasing erosion of moral values among people, especially the prevalence of distrust in the relations between people with the government. There is also a steady and growing flow of elites and financial resources of the country abroad, with a massive and non-government state of three million diaspora

The United States has followed Cuba’s policy of isolation in the last 50 years. Although the United States was able to militarily hit Cuba, it seems that the United States is a sign that wants Latin Americans to show the effectiveness of state socialism. The United States has followed Iran’s isolation policy, although it has not been able to isolate Iran like Cuba, Iran has not been able to improve its position vis-à-vis countries like Turkey and Malaysia. In other words, Iran is leading in the fight against America among Islamic countries, but in terms of its development, it is not currently a leader.

The South Korea meaning

1) South Korea’s position on South Korea against Japan and North Korea (which is also atomic) is a sensitive position and should be able to defend itself. Therefore, after World War II, the military and security forces in South Korea have played an increasingly important role, and Iran is also threatened by Western countries (America and Britain), Israel, and even Russia.

Therefore, the role of the military and security forces in this Arab country (Iraq, the time of Saddam) has been increasing. As there are currently some 5 million Iranian people in some way (full-time, part-time, part-time or volunteering) available to the country’s security forces, Iran is among the most armed countries in the world for personnel.

2) In South Korea, over the past 20 years, these were military forces that did not see the real power in South Korean military power alone, and to gain economic power (compared to Japan’s and China’s economic strength) for the South Korean leadership in the region and World recognized. Therefore, Korean military commanders moved to the barracks from the 1960s onwards and supported Korea’s ongoing policies for economic development (and, to some extent, political development).

But in Iran, the involvement of a number of security agencies in electoral affairs and economic affairs (rather than contractors in the private sector) and the lack of support for a part of the country’s security carriers from the policies of economic and political development of Hashemi and Khatami’s government in the past indicate that the process of economic development And Iran’s political system does not enjoy the undisputed support of all the security forces of the country. However, the adoption of the 20-year vision of Iran aimed at gaining superior power among the countries of the region, and the announcement and commitment of the government to the implementation of Article 44 of the Constitution on the strengthening of the private sector shows that the government in Iran as a future design also important Development of Iran, especially economic development, is not overlooked (although in practice the process is not accelerated and generalization is strengthened instead of privatization. In Iran, to be successful, it should not be fought in a competitive and efficient market, but somehow it should be rented the oil was connected to the government).

(3) South Korea has faced and is growing with the growth of the workforce (the growth of the new and most skilled middle class). Iran is faced with a growing skilled labor force, and the most important factor in responding to this massive demand is Iran’s entry into the ongoing process of economic-political development (labor migration abroad is neither possible nor appropriate). Is). South Korea cannot retreat from its neighbors (China, Japan, Singapore, etc.), and Iran cannot ignore the growing progress of Islamic countries such as Malaysia, Turkey and the Gulf states.

4) Korea’s spatial orientation (its neighbors with China and Japan) places the energy reserves of the Middle East, Korea and Iran at the center of US foreign policy attention. But South Korea faces interactive policies with the United States, and Iran has entered a policy of counter-propaganda.

The Challenge of Iranian Society

Given some of the similarities of Iranian society with Cuba and South Korea, we can illustrate the movement of Iranian society in the challenge between one of these two patterns. This means that a large part of Iran’s society (especially the growing and educated middle class) and a part of the elites in the Iranian government know the path to confronting backwardness, unemployment and poverty in the development of Iran (such as South Korea), so that Iran No more left than countries like Turkey and Malaysia.

On the other hand, part of the Iranian elite in the government, with the continuation of American-style advertising on the international scene and the hypocritical and hypocritical policies of the interior, especially with the hope of attracting the votes of 12 million people below the poverty line, oppose the development processes of the country. By relying on their oil bureaucracy, they keep themselves in the political arena.

But the consequence of their work is to slow down the development and retention of Iran from similar countries, such as Turkey and Malaysia. It should now be clarified how will Iran move towards South Korea in the challenge of Cubanization or South Korea’s rise to the Middle East?

The first condition is the peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear file in the international system, especially with the United States in the short term, because if the current situation continues or the current situation changes to serious crises resulting from the sanctions, the process of Iranian cubism will be accelerated. . In this sense, Iran becomes the center for the spread of anti-American propaganda in the world, and the poor people of the world are caught up in these anti-American stances.

But internally, because of the impossibility of moving the country in line with the 20-year perspective, one of which is the annual economic growth of over 8% (now less than 5%), the development process of the country has slowed down, and the number of addicts, the unemployed, The poor (and the increase in the size of a group that is subject to dense social damage). In other words, in such a situation, the Iranian papal elites are chanting against global arrogance, and in front of our people, they have to burn and to build the system.

The second requirement is to play all Iranians in the development process of the country, that is, South Korea, the lower classes, the middle and upper classes, all should be encouraged to participate in the development process of Iran (at least within the framework of the twenty year perspective). As long as elite elites make poor strata against the upper and middle strata, instead of strengthening the private sector and the middle section of society (civil institutions, the press and independent parties), they are pleased with the presence and support of street people in the streets. Instead of developing the country, the process of Iranian cubism in the region will be strengthened.

The third is the direct connection or the two previous conditions, and that the patrolling of the elite and the military and clerical elites of the country is a mechanism of democracy until the elections in Iran are manipulated in various ways and as long as the elites are free and They will be forced to take anti-American slogans against this monopoly and, as a result, lead Iran to further Cubanism. From this perspective, the election of the eighth Majles and the free and fair amount of holding it is a good indicator of how far Iran is being drawn.

Individuals and groups that make Iran Cuban (unfortunately, during the ninth era, this process has been accelerated), it is not bad to know that the main forces of Iranian society do not want to be Cuban and think of a development that is grateful to Iran. .

It is subtle that Iran’s Cuban bearers are not only opposed to the development of the country, but also face Iran with unwanted situations. One of the unwanted situations is that the current disagreements (among women, teachers, students, workers and relatives of Iran) turn into inconsistent opposition and confront the Iranian government with uncontrollable crises. While economic and political development, free and fair elections, and resolution of problems through reforms, channel the legitimate demands of the strata and, instead of slowing down the country’s development process, adds to its speed.

Conclusion

It seems that the advent of Iranian society on the roof of the world (which the people are promising) and the advent of the Iranian society to the state of social collapse (which is part of the critics of the status quo) are not the likely destiny of our society, but The probable fate of the Iranian society should be sought in a situation between Cubanism and South Korea.

It is wise to keep all the compassion of the Iranian society (both governmental and non-governmental) from expanding the Iranian society from the Cuban pattern of the Middle East. Of course South Korea’s pattern in the Middle East does not mean parading the community. All modern societies, including South Korea, are faced with a variety of crises and challenges, and should constantly identify these crises and act to curb them. But the difference between Cuban or South Korea is that in the former, the number of unemployed, addicts, the poor, sex workers and depressed people is increasing.

I’m SajadAbedi a Resident Research Fellow at the National Security and Defense Think Tank. I obtained my Ph. D. degree in National Security from the Nationl Defense University under group of leader of Islamic Republic of Iran. My research interests pertain to Arab-Israeli studies, the Cyber Security studies and National Security.

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

A gruesome murder bares world powers’ flawed policies

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s gruesome murder raises fundamental questions that go far beyond Middle Eastern geopolitics.

They go to the risks of support for autocratic regimes by democratic and authoritarian world powers, the rise of illiberal democracy in the West, increasing authoritarianism in Russia, and absolute power in China in which checks and balances are weakened or non-existent.

Mr. Khashoggi’s killing is but the latest incident of hubris that stems from the abandonment of notions of civility, tolerance and plurality; and the ability of leaders to get away with murder, literally and figuratively. It also is the product of political systems with no provisions to ensure that the power of men like Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman is restrained and checked.

Mr. Khashoggi was an advocate of the necessary checks and balances.

In his last column published in The Washington Post posthumously, Mr. Khashoggi argued that “the Arab world needs a modern version of the old transnational media so citizens can be informed about global events. More important, we need to provide a platform for Arab voices. We suffer from poverty, mismanagement and poor education. Through the creation of an independent international forum, isolated from the influence of nationalist governments spreading hate through propaganda, ordinary people in the Arab world would be able to address the structural problems their societies face.”

Mr. Khashoggi’s words were echoed by prominent journalist and political analyst Rami Khouri. “We are heading to the law of the jungle if big power and Mideast state autocracy is not held accountable,” Mr. Khouri said.

In a similar vein, a survey by the Arab Barometer survey concluded that public institutions in the Arab world, including the judiciary enjoyed little, if any, public trust.

“Part of the lack of trust comes from the disenfranchisement felt by many, especially youth and women… The lack of alternative political forces is adding to the fatigue and lack of trust in institutions. Citizens in the region struggle to find an alternative to the ruling elite that might help address the issues of ineffective governance and corruption,” said a report by the Carnegie for Endowment of Peace.

“Citizens are increasingly turning toward informal mechanisms such as protests and boycotts, and focusing more on specific issues of governance, such as service provision, particularly at the local level. Furthermore, with democracy under threat across the globe, calls for broad democratic reform have been replaced by more basic demands,” the report went on to say.

What puts the price Mr. Khashoggi paid for advocating controls of absolute power in a class of its own, is the brutality of his killing, the fact that he was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul rather than, for example, by an unknown killer on a motorbike; and the increasingly difficult effort to resolve politically the crisis his death sparked.

Beyond the support by world powers of often brutal autocrats facilitated by a lack of checks and balances that in the past three decades has destroyed countries and costs the lives of millions, Mr. Khashoggi’s murder is also the product of the failure of Western leaders to seriously address the breakdown in confidence in leadership and political systems at home and abroad.

The breakdown peaked with the 2011 popular Arab revolts; simultaneous widespread protests in Latin America, the United States and Europe; and the increased popularity of anti-system, nationalist and populist politicians on both the right and the left.

Mr. Khashoggi joins the victims of extrajudicial poisoning in Britain by Russian operatives of people who like him may have been a thorn in the side of their leaders but did not pose an existential threat – not that that would justify murder or attempted murder.

He also joins the millions of casualties of failed policy and hubris caused by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s gassing of Kurds in the 1980s and reckless 1990 invasion of Kuwait, support for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s determination to cling to power irrespective of the human cost, the Saudi-UAE-led war in Yemen that has produced the worst humanitarian crisis since World War Two, and China’s attempt to brainwash and socially engineer what the country’s leaders see as the model Chinese citizen.

And those are just some of the most egregious instances.

No better are the multiple ways in which autocratic leaders try to ensure conformity not only through repression and suppression of a free press but also, for example, by deciding who deserves citizenship based upon whether they like their political, economic or social views rather than on birth right.

Take Bahrain whose minority Sunni Muslim regime has stripped hundreds of its nationals of their citizenship simply because it did not like their views or Turkey with its mass arrests of anyone critical of the government.

The irony is that if elections in democracies are producing illiberal leaders like US President Donald J. Trump, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Hungary’s Victor Orban, in Asia and Africa they are bring forth governments mandated to reverse Belt and Road-related, Chinese funding of projects that primarily benefit China rather than the recipient economically and pave the way for greater Chinese influencing of domestic politics as well as the export of systems that enhance unchecked state power.

In some cases, like Malaysia, they produce leaders willing to take on China’s creation of a 21st century Orwellian surveillance state in its north-western province of Xinjiang.

It matters little what label world powers put on their support for autocrats and illiberals. The United States has long justified its policy with the need for regional stability in the greater Middle East. Russia calls it international legality while China packages is it as non-interference in the domestic affairs of others.

Said Middle East expert and former US official Charles Kestenbaum building on Mr. Khashoggi’s words: “If they (Middle Eastern states) want to compete with the globe in IT (information technology) and tech more broadly, they must encourage risk, innovation and freedom to fail. Such social and political freedom does not exist adequately in the region. The opposite in fact, authoritarian regimes repress such initiative and openness. So what do they have to compete and globally engage in the 2020’s? Nothing.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

Can the Idlib Memorandum Freeze the Conflict?

Published

on

During their Sochi talks in September 2018, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan reached an agreement on preserving the de-escalation zone in Idlib and abandoning the military operation that the Assad regime had been preparing to launch against the opposition groups in Idlib. The main provisions of the Sochi agreements boil down to the establishment of a demilitarized zone, 15–20 kilometres deep in the de-escalation area and the withdrawal by the conflicting parties of their heavy weaponry, including armoured vehicles, artillery, mortars and multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) by October 10, and of radical terrorist groups by October 15 (the units of moderate rebels will hold their positions). Free movement and freight carriage is set to be restored on the M4 (Aleppo to Latakia) and M5 (Aleppo to Damascus) roads.

A Step Toward a “Turkish Republic of Northern Syria”?

Ankara has consistently advocated for the preservation of the opposition-controlled de-escalation zone, and it was the efforts of Turkey, and of Erdogan personally, that averted the military threat to Idlib, even if temporarily. Many provisions of the Sochi agreements rely on the so-called “white paper” that Turkey conveyed to Russia back in July. Ankara’s demonstration of military power also played a role. Between the Tehran summit of the “Astana troika” and the Sochi talks, the Turkish military was actively building up its forces in the Idlib de-escalation zone, boosting them with tanks and artillery. At the same time, additional weapons were supplied to the Syrian National Army units deployed in the Turkish “buffer” zone in Northern Aleppo, and its forces were ready to move to Idlib to assist the local opposition groups.

These steps indicate that Turkey is ready to press for the Province of Idlib to gradually turn into a Turkish “protectorate,” as happened in the regions of Northern Aleppo, which fell under the country’s “security umbrella” following the Euphrates Shield and Olive Branch operations. Accordingly, preserving the opposition’s control over the regions remaining under its power gives Turkey a chance to head up and supervise the peaceful process together with Russia. Should Idlib transition under Assad’s control before a final political settlement in Syria is achieved, Turkey would essentially be left out of Syrian settlement, which would strip its fosterlings in the ranks of Syria’s opposition of any say and the opportunity to be represented in the transitional governmental bodies.

Therefore, it is important for Turkey to prevent the fragmentation of Idlib’s de-escalation zone and keep it under Turkish control without allowing the Russian military police to “take root” there as patrols or outposts, let alone as any administrative bodies of the Syrian regime. This is why Ankara supported the position of the Syrian rebel groups that opposed the Russian military presence in the demilitarized zone or their deployment along M4 and M5 routes. Ankara believes that Turkish troops are capable of handling the task independently. A compromise with Russia could be achieved on the issue. Turkey agreed to the demilitarized zone going exclusively through opposition-controlled territories. Consequently, the withdrawal of heavy weaponry will only apply to the insurgents, and not to the “conflicting parties” as the memorandum stated. In response, Ankara insists that any Russian military presence in the demilitarized zone is unacceptable.

Additionally, Syrian refugees pose an extremely grave problem for the Turkish leadership. The country’s population is growing progressively more discontented with accommodating several millions of Syria’s forced migrants in the long term. Applying the Lebanese scenario to resolve this problem is unacceptable for Ankara, since it would mean pushing the refugees back into Syria while the current regime is in power. Recep Erdogan has repeatedly stated that Bashar al-Assad is guilty of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and has even called him a “murderer.” For Turkey, the most convenient solution would be to create the necessary conditions for accommodating Syrian refuges in opposition-controlled territories. Camps are being built in Northern Aleppo that can take in over 150,000 forced migrants. Nonetheless, the Turkish “protectorate” areas in Northern Aleppo may not be enough. Therefore, the de-escalation zone in Idlib could become the principal region for returning Syrian refugees from Turkey once the required infrastructure is in place. However, it will only be possible if the danger of Syria’s governmental troops conducting a military operation there is averted and if the issue of terrorist groups present there is resolved.

Has the Triumphant Progress Stopped?

For Damascus, the Sochi agreements effectively put an end to a victorious 2018. Over that time, Damascus took control over opposition enclaves one by one: Eastern Ghouta, Al-Dumayr and Eastern Qalamoun, Yarmouk, Homs, Deraa and Quneitra. It seemed that one last push would have been enough to ensure a complete triumph for Bashar al-Assad. Therefore, there is reason to believe that, despite official statements, the Syrian authorities were not satisfied with the terms of the Sochi memorandum. The Syrian regime insisted on a military operation without taking into account many risks, such as the large numbers, motivation and equipment of the Idlib insurgents, who, unlike in other regions where Bashar al-Assad had achieved success, could count on military and other support from Turkey. In addition, Ankara had 12 observation points transformed into fortified bases along the perimeter of the de-escalation zone.

Nonetheless, Damascus did not resign itself to the current situation, and its representatives have said that the opposition has until December to reconcile and put down their weapons, although there are no such provisions in the Sochi agreements. For the Syrian regime, transforming Idlib into a Turkish “protectorate” is all the more unacceptable because it essentially rules out a military solution to the Idlib problem in the foreseeable future. That is, al-Assad’s regime would like to view the Sochi agreements as the first stage of the process to force the Syrian opposition to lay down their arms and reconcile following the scenario implemented in the south of the country. Damascus is likely to put pressure on Russia to pay greater attention to Syria’s wishes and channel the process of implementing the Sochi agreements into the direction that Damascus needs.

Moscow between Ankara and Damascus

Moscow is in a rather tricky position as, on the one hand, it is forced to take the position of Damascus into account, while, on the other, it understands that it is futile to engage in an open confrontation with Ankara. Moscow is still forced to look for compromise options in implementing the Sochi agreements. Nonetheless, Russia has demonstrated that it still has a decisive word in Syrian affairs, as well as enough influence on both Damascus and Tehran to prevent a military operation with as much as a decision only. In addition, Russia can count on Turkey making concessions on the political track of the Syrian settlement process. In practice, Turkey can be expected to promote various “frozen” projects more actively within the peace process that would stand no chance of being implemented in the event that military actions were to start. This applies in particular to those initiatives that were spearheaded and elaborated by Moscow, such as forming a constitutional committee where serious shifts were taking shape following the Geneva talks on September 10–11. Such a situation could have a positive effect on Russia’s plans to involve the countries of the European Union and the Persian Gulf in restoring the Syrian infrastructure, which would allow the process of returning the refugees to start.

Therefore, if the military escalation around Idlib continues to defuse, Ankara will be able to influence the Syrian opposition, forcing it to be more receptive to suggestions coming from Russia as part of the political settlement process. Thereby, Turkey will attempt to preserve Russia’s interest in further deferring the military operation until it is removed from the agenda completely, which, on the one hand, will promote the success of Russia’s peaceful initiatives and, on the other, oppose radicals in Idlib and demonstrate specific steps taken in that area.

Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham

Turkey consistently works to undermine the standing of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) that in early 2017 subsumed Jabhat al-Nusra (Jabhat Fatah al-Sham) in Idlib. In summer 2017, the large group Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki split from the HTS. The presence of Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki had made it possible to claim that the transformation of Jabhat Fatah al-Sham into Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham was not another re-branding of Jabhat al-Nusra. The HTS’s positions were further weakened when Jaysh al-Ahrar split from it as it set a course for restoring ties and developing cooperation with its “parent” structure Ahrar al-Sham. Turkey appears to have played the key role in the HTS split, since the excessive strengthening of the radicals, who had established their control of the province’s capital of Idlib shortly before that, was against Turkey’s interests. Ankara still has influence over various groups that are part of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, as well as over the leaders of the organization. Apparently, further steps should be expected from Ankara to stimulate individual HTS factions capable of reaching and maintaining an agreement to split from the alliance and join the moderate opposition. To make the HTS more amenable, Ankara put the alliance on the list of terrorist groups in late August. Thus, even though today Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham controls a little over a half of Idlib’s de-escalation zone, it remains significantly weakened compared to the winter–summer of 2017. The HTS numbers have fallen almost twofold since then and are now estimated at 12,000–15,000 militants. Additionally, the Turkistan Islamic Party consisting of 2300 Uighur militants actively interacts with the HTS.

The HTS units are highly combat-effective and, in terms of their combat capabilities, are no worse than the larger groups of moderate opposition. Nonetheless, during the fighting that took place in February–April 2018 between Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and Jabhat Tahrir Suriya (the Syrian Liberation Front), the former lost many of its positions in Idlib. After moderate groups assembled in the National Front for Liberation, these factions gained even greater superiority in numbers, which could push the HTS to make further concessions and comply with the provisions of the Sochi agreements on the HTS withdrawing from the 15-kilometer demilitarized zone.

The HTS is split on the issue of implementing the Sochi agreements. Consequently, as of the writing of this article, this group has not yet declared its position. The debate between followers of the two major factions still continues in the HTS’s Shura Council. One faction is the pro-Turkey Syrian bloc that insists on withdrawing the HTS forces from the demilitarized zone and further integration into the moderate opposition, since they connect their future with Syria. The other group is comprised of hard-liners, the “intractables,” many of whom are foreigners who may make their presence known once again in the event of a fresh exacerbation. And in case of failure, they plan to leave the country and continue their subversive activities in other regions.

Al-Qaeda

The “Syrian” part of the HTS is ready to gradually transition to the moderate opposition camp. Should the group continue to fragment, its radical wing is ready for a rapprochement with their former partners who had split from the HTS when it declared it was cutting ties with Al-Qaeda. These radicals have formed their own association, Hurras ad-Din, which is currently an Al-Qaeda branch in Syria. However, it is not a serious force, with no more than 800 people. Another group of the “intractables” is Ansar al-Din, numbering 300 people, which is a part of the HTS that refused to join the organization, judging it to be too moderate. Thus, radical groups in Idlib number up to 20,000 people in total. The province also has IS units, however, they are represented solely by secret underground cells.

The National Front for Liberation (Jabhat al-Wataniya lil-Tahrir)

In addition to causing dissent among radicals, Ankara has been working successfully on rebuilding the positions and consolidating the forces of the moderate opposition. In February 2018, Jabhat Tahrir Suriya (the Syrian Liberation Front), an alliance that proved capable of opposing the HTS and of pushing back against HTS radicals in Idlib, was established. The next stage was deploying the National Front for Liberation in May 2018; Jabhat Tahrir Suriya joined in August.

Establishing the National Front for Liberation in May 2018 was an important step on the way toward installing Turkey’s control over the armed opposition in Idlib with the prospect of its further integration in the united Syrian National Army. Establishing the National Front for Liberation drew a line under the process of separating moderate opposition from radicals: all the groups (besides Jaysh al-Izzah) that are outside the National Front for Liberation in Idlib can be called “radical.”

The next stage, in turn, envisions the merger of the National Front for Liberation deployed in Idlib with the Syrian National Army (SNA) formed in the Syrian protectorate of Northern Aleppo. The plan is to gather all the moderate opposition forces under its banner. However, the National Front for Liberation can merge with the SNA if the Idlib problem is resolved in accordance with the “Turkish scenario,” i.e. after de facto transforming the region into Turkey’s “protectorate.” It should be kept in mind that the SNA forces did not take part in the military operations against Assad’s regime in Idlib. They operate solely in the regions covered by the Turkish “security umbrella” and were primarily geared for military operations against Syrian Kurds from the Democratic Union Party.

Virtually all factions surviving into the eighth year of the Syrian conflict and operating under the Free Syrian Army “brand” joined the National Front for Liberation: the Free Idlib Army, Jaysh al-Nasr, Jaysh al-Nukhba, the Free Syrian Army 2nd army (Jaysh al-Thani), the Free Syrian Army 1st Coastal Division, the Free Syrian Army 2nd Coastal Division, the Free Syrian Army 23rd Division, Daraya’s Shuhada al-Islam, Liwa al-Hurriya and several other small Free Syrian Army factions, including units brought into Idlib from Damascus and other regions. Nonetheless, the National Front for Liberation’s principal assault force is comprised of moderate Islamist groups such as Faylaq al-Sham, Jabhat Tahrir Suriya (a coalition of Ahrar al-Sham and Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki), Suqour al-Sham and Jaysh al-Ahrar (with the exception of the first group, they all joined the National Front for Liberation somewhat later, in August 2018). Today, the National Front for Liberation numbers 50,000–55,000 militants.

The Syrian National Army

Even though the Syrian National Army (SNA) is not deployed in Syria’s de-escalation zone, it does have an immediate influence on the situation in the region. Should the army’s units be retrained, re-armed and equipped by Turkey and shifted to Idlib, the situation there could change in terms of both possibly repelling Bashar al-Assad’s offensive and suppressing radicals there. Additionally, should the need arise, SNA units may come over to the National Front for Liberation side and join their “parent” units on the front, since both the National Front for Liberation and the SNA often comprise brigades from the same groups, for instance, Ahrar al-Sham.

The SNA is formed in the regions of the so-called Turkish “protectorate” or “buffer,” i.e. in those Syrian regions where the Turkish military operates and which are covered by Turkey’s aviation, thereby minimizing the possibilities of al-Assad’s regime and its allies carrying out a military operation.

The SNA includes five legions or corps. Three (the 1st, 2nd and 3rd) were deployed in Northern Aleppo and one (the 4th) in Homs. After the region was surrendered to al-Assad’s regime in May 2018, it was also deployed in Northern Aleppo. In July, the 5th legion began deployment in north-eastern regions of Idlib’s de-escalation zone (the Aleppo province). Factions from the National Front for Liberation are expected to join it, and the legion may become a transition model for integrating the National Front for Liberation’s Idlib factions into the SNA.

The 1st legion was formed from Turkoman brigades such as Mehmed the Conqueror Brigade and the Samarkand Brigade that formed the legion’s core. It also includes the Descendants of Saladin Kurdish Brigade (pro-Turkish), Victory Brigades, the 21st united Free Syrian Army division, the 101st Free Syrian Army division etc. The SNA’s 2nd legion is also considered Turkoman, and its principal parts are the al-Sultan Murad Division and the al-Hamza Division. Additionally, the legion includes the Mutasim Billah Brigade, the al-Safwa Battalions and others. The 3rd SNA legion may be called “Islamic,” since it comprises moderate Islamic groups, such as three factions of al-Jabhat al-Shamiya: the Northern Storm Brigade, the Sword of the Levant Brigade and the Soldiers of Islam Brigades, as well as some Ahrar al-Sham units operating in Northern Aleppo such as Tajammu Fastaqim Kama Umirt and Liwa al-Manbij, among others. The 4th SNA legion is also considered “Islamic.” It comprises Liwa al-Haqq, Faylaq Homs and Ahrar al-Sham brigades that had previously operated in Homs. As of August 2018, the SNA numbers 35,000 militants in total.

The process of units from other factions integrating into the SNA continues. The SNA may be boosted by units of Faylaq al-Rahman and Jaysh al-Islam being withdrawn from around Damascus and positioned in two camps around Afrin and al-Bab in the Turkish “protectorate” of Northern Aleppo. Today, at least Jaysh al-Islam already operates under the SNA’s “umbrella,” although it has not been fully integrated into its corps structure. Therefore, once fully deployed, the SNA may number 50,000 troops. Accordingly, if the NFL joins the SNA, they will number 100,000 troops total: these are the forces at the disposal of Syria’s moderate opposition.

In addition to the National Front for Liberation and the SNA, the Jaysh al-Izzah group should also be counted as moderate opposition. It is the only faction flying the Free Syrian Army’s flag that still preserved its independence and did not join alliances. It numbers 3500 fighters.

Thus, the balance of power between the moderate opposition and radicals gives reason to hope that Ankara’s measures to ultimately free Idlib from terrorist groups will succeed. Although the Sochi memorandum does not provide a timeframe for “cleansing” the region of terrorist groups, or indeed the terms and methods of doing so, the temporary or long-term preservation of Idlib’s status quo will largely hinge on the resolution of this very question.

First published in our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Middle East

Turkey plays Khashoggi crisis to its geopolitical advantage

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

With Turkish investigators asserting that they have found further evidence that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed when he visited the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul two weeks ago, Turkey appears to be leveraging the case to enhance its position as a leader of the Islamic World and reposition itself as a key US ally.

To enhance its geopolitical position vis a vis Saudi Arabia as well as Russia and Iran and potentially garner economic advantage at a time that it is struggling to reverse a financial downturn, Turkey has so far leaked assertions of evidence it says it has of Mr. Khashoggi’s killing rather than announced them officially.

In doing so, Turkey has forced Saudi Arabia to allow Turkish investigators accompanied by Saudi officials to enter the consulate and positioned President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as the kingdom’s saviour by engineering a situation that will allow the kingdom to craft a face-saving way out of the crisis.

Saudi Arabia is reportedly considering announcing that Mr. Khashoggi, a widely-acclaimed journalist critical of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman who went into self-exile because he feared arrest, was killed in either a rogue operation or an attempt gone awry to forcibly repatriate it him back to the kingdom.

US President Donald J. Trump offered the Turks and Saudis a helping hand by referring this week to the possibility of Mr. Khashoggi having been killed by rogues and dispatching Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Riyadh and Ankara.

Mr. Khashoggi, seeking to obtain proof of his divorce in the kingdom so that he could marry his Turkish fiancé, visited the consulate two weeks ago for the second time after having allegedly received assurances that he would be safe.

Turkey emerges as the crisis moves towards a situation in which an official version is agreed that seeks to shield Prince Mohammed from being held responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance and likely murder with its international status significantly enhanced.

Turkish leverage is further boosted by the fact that Saudi Arabia — its image in government, political and business circles significantly damaged by the crisis — and the Trump administration that wants to ensure that the kingdom’s ruling family emerges from the crisis as unscathed as possible, are in Ankara’s debt.

As a result, the denouement of the Khashoggi crisis is likely to alter the dynamics in the long-standing competition between Turkey and Saudi Arabia for leadership of the Islamic world.

It also strengthens Turkey’s position in its transactional alliance with Russia and Iran as they manoeuvre to end the war in Syria in a manner that cements Bashar al-Assad’s presidency while addressing Turkish concerns.

Turkey’s position in its rivalry with Saudi Arabia is likely to also benefit from the fact that whatever face-saving solution the kingdom adopts is likely to be flawed when tested by available facts and certain to be challenged by a host of critics, even if many will see Turkey as having facilitated a political solution rather than ensuring that the truth is established.

Already, Mr. Khashoggi’s family who was initially quoted by Saudi Arabia’s state-controlled media as backing Saudi denials of responsibility, insinuations that his fate was the product of a conspiracy by Qatar and/or Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood, and casting doubt on the integrity of the journalist’s Turkish fiancée, has called for “the establishment of an independent and impartial international commission to inquire into the circumstances of his death.”

Turkey and Saudi Arabia differ on multiple issues that divide the Muslim world. Turkey has vowed to help Iran circumvent Saudi-supported US sanctions imposed after Mr. Trump withdrew in May from the 2015 international agreement that curbed the Islamic republic’s nuclear agreement.

Turkey further backs Qatar in its dispute with a Saudi-United Arab Emirates-led alliance that has diplomatically and economically boycotted the Gulf state for the last 16 months. The credibility of the alliance’s allegation that Qatar supports terrorism and extremism has been dented by the growing conviction that Saudi Arabia, whether in a planned, rogue or repatriation effort gone wrong, was responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s killing.

Mr. Khashoggi’s death, moreover, highlighted differing approaches towards the Brotherhood, one of the Middle East’s most persecuted, yet influential Islamist groupings. Saudi Arabia, alongside the UAE and Egypt, have designated the Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

Many brothers have sought refuge in Turkey with Mr. Erdogan empathetic and supportive of the group. A former brother, Mr. Khashoggi criticized Saudi repression of the group.

The Saudi-Turkish rivalry for leadership of the Muslim world was most evident in the two countries’ responses to Mr. Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and his as yet unpublished plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Turkey emerged as the leader of Islamic denunciation of Mr. Trump’s move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognition of the city as Israel’s capital after Prince Mohammed tried to dampen opposition. Ultimately, King Salman was forced to step in a bid to clarify the kingdom’s position and counter Turkish moves.

No matter how Turkey decides to officially release whatever evidence it has, Saudi Arabia figures out how to respond and halt the haemorrhaging, and Mr. Pompeo holds talks with King Salman and Mr. Erdogan, Turkey is likely to emerge from the crisis strengthened despite its increasingly illiberal and increasingly authoritarian rule at home,

Turkey’s success is all the more remarkable given that it has neither Saudi Arabia’s financial muscle nor the mantle the kingdom adopts as the custodian of Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina.

A successful political resolution of the Khashoggi crisis is likely to earn it the gratitude of the Trump administration, Saudi Arabia, and its other detractors like the UAE who support the kingdom even if it may help it to regain popularity in the Arab world lost as a result of its swing towards authoritarianism, alliance with Iran and Qatar, and support for Islamism.

One immediate Turkish victory is likely to be Saudi acquiesce to Mr. Erdogan’s demand that Saudi Arabia drop its support for Kurdish rebels in Syria that Ankara sees as terrorists – a move that would boost Turkey’s position the Turkish-Russian-Iranian jockeying for influence in a post-war Syria. Turkey is also likely to see Saudi Arabia support it economically.

Turkey may, however, be playing for higher stakes.

Turkey “wants to back Saudi Arabia to the wall. (It wants to) disparage the ‘reformist’ image that Saudi Arabia has been constructing in the West” in a bid to get the US to choose Ankara as its primary ally in the Middle East, said international relations scholar Serhat Guvenc.

Turkey’s relations in recent years have soured as a result of Turkish insistence that the US is harbouring a terrorist by refusing to extradite Fethullah Gulen, the preacher it accuses of having engineered the failed 2016 coup; detaining American nationals and US consulate employees on allegedly trumped up charges, cosying up to Russia and purchasing its S-400 surface to air missile system, and aligning itself with Iran. Relations were further strained by US support for Syrian Kurds.

Mr. Trump, however this week heralded a new era in US-Turkish relations after the release of unsubscribeAndrew Brunson, an evangelist preacher who was imprisoned in Turkey for two years on charges of espionage.

Mr. Guvenc argued that Turkey hopes that Saudi Arabia’s battered image will help it persuade Mr. Trump that Turkey rather than the kingdom is its strongest and most reliable ally alongside Israel in the Middle East.

Said journalist Ferhat Unlu: “”Turkey knows how to manage diplomatic crises. Its strategy is to manage tensions to its advantage,”

Continue Reading

Latest

Middle East18 hours ago

A gruesome murder bares world powers’ flawed policies

Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s gruesome murder raises fundamental questions that go far beyond Middle Eastern geopolitics. They go to the...

Green Planet22 hours ago

How Genetics and Pollution Are Threatening Wild Dolphins

Dolphins are beautiful, highly intelligent and uncannily human in their interactions. Yet, they also have a language we humans cannot...

Newsdesk1 day ago

Scaling up climate finance in Asia-Pacific through Financial Centres for Sustainability

Financial Centres for Sustainability (FC4S) today launched its Asia-Pacific Centre, one of several important steps taken to scale up the...

Europe1 day ago

A New Redrawing of Balkan Borders: A Road to Hell

More than a decade after Kosovo region’s unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia, the issue of redrawing borders is back...

Americas1 day ago

Of Dissemblers And Dismemberers

The maliciously mocking, malevolent, maladroit, misfit, malappropriating the White House got his comeuppance this week … at least for a...

Reports2 days ago

Energy efficiency is the cornerstone for building a secure and sustainable energy system

A global effort to deploy the right energy efficiency policies could, on its own, see greenhouse gas emissions peak quickly...

Newsdesk2 days ago

China, UNIDO collaborate to support the first China International Import Expo

China will host the first China International Import Expo (CIIE) from November 5 to 10, 2018, in Shanghai, in cooperation...

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy