EVENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST ARE REACHING THE POINT OF NO RETURN
Continuing bloodshed in Syria, violent protests in Egypt, and a ramping up of tensions between Israel and Iran.
It would be hard to think of a more dangerous period in this the most contentious region on the planet, which given its location at the epicentre of the ongoing struggle over control of the planet’s natural resources reveals the extent to which the so-called Arab Spring has laid bare the region’s deep and many contradictions.
The failure of the military hierarchy in Egypt to palliate the country’s desire for qualitative reform, by cobbling together a democratic process that leaves the military in place as the power of last resort, is expressed in the backlash that has met the deaths of 74 people at a football match in Port Said, when visiting fans of Cairo side al-Ahly were attacked by supporters of the home team al-Masry during a pitch invasion.
A welter of reports have emerged in the aftermath that the violence in Port Said was premeditated and orchestrated by the military itself, revenge for the role the ultras of al-Ahly played in the street battles in Cairo that helped topple the western-backed and pro-Israel Mubarak dictatorship in 2011. Even if these reports are exaggerated, the current backlash is evidence that the military leadership’s continued control over Egypt’s political and economic trajectory will not go unchallenged even after the country’s recent elections. Here the West’s commitment to democracy in the region is caught between its fear of the Muslim Brotherhood, who won a significant majority at the polls, and the very real possibility of the military governing council being swept aside in a renewed revolutionary upsurge that would end decades of subservience to western interests.
Meanwhile in Syria events appear to have reached the point of no return with the Syrian military’s shelling of the city of Homs in the west of the country, whose population currently finds itself on the receiving end of the regime’s inability to quell a growing and armed insurrection. However, the weasel words of concern in the West over the violence should cut no ice with those interested in ending the crisis and arriving at a peaceful resolution.
NATO’s military intervention in Libya, which has left the country destabilised and mired in chaos, would undoubtedly be Syria’s fate if not for the undoubted support that the Assad regime still retains in the country, along with the relative strength and cohesion of the Syrian military compared to its Libyan counterpart under Gaddafi. Regardless, the fact remains that the Syrian government is struggling to regain control of the situation on the ground. The fate of Libya and Iraq as recent examples of western-backed or imposed regime change has had the unintended consequence of ensuring that the current struggle taking place in Syria has been a zero-sum game from the very beginning, not only for the continued survival of the regime but for the likely explosion of sectarian violence that will explode across the country in the event that it falls.
With the Arab League enjoying little credibility in the eyes of those who understand it as a collection of puppet dictatorships with an agenda that accords to one drawn up in Washington, Tel Aviv and European capitals, this leaves Russia, China and the other members of the BRIC bloc of states as the only forces capable of effecting meaningful intervention at this stage.
Opponents of the Syrian regime must understand that stopping the bloodshed and regime change constitute different objectives. Indeed, the latter will only ensure more of the former in Syria. Assad’s ability to remain in power may now be growing more unlikely with each passing day, but whether any transition that takes place ends in a peaceful outcome or one that fractures the country along sectarian and confessional lines will depend on the manner of the resolution to the crisis, and the nature of any outside intervention. Assad retains significant support within Syria and both pro-regime and anti-regime forces are involved in the violence currently taking place.
When it comes to Iran the determination on the part of Israeli hawks, led by defence minister Ehud Barak, to mount a military strike on the country’s nuclear facilities has revealed the political weakness of the Obama administration when it comes to reining in its ally and most important strategic asset. US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta’s recent statement to the effect that he believes Israel will attack Iran within the next few months was instructive.
There is of course the possibility that it was intended to exert more pressure on the Islamic Republic, but if so it underestimates the determination of Iran to exercise its sovereignty and resist the axis of domination in the region, made up of the US, Israel, and their European allies. The continued distortion by Israel and its supporters of the Iranian leadership’s statements calling for the destruction not of Israel but of Israel as as an apartheid and racist state have succeeded in the objective of painting Tehran as the major threat to security and stability in the region, and increasingly the world.
The opposite is the case.
Israel’s objective of maintaining the imbalance of military power it currently enjoys, and its ability to continue with the colonisation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, lies behind its desire to remove the resistance to this process on the part of Iran, expressed in the material support it provides to Hezbollah and Hamas.
The fact is that war with Iran is already underway, with the new round of sanctions levelled against its economy by the West constituting the latest stage. The series of assassinations of Iranian scientists engaged in the country’s nuclear programme has only increased the Islamic Republic’s resolve rather than weaken it, with the danger of a major conflagration closer now than it’s ever been. The inability of hawks in Israel and its allies to learn the lessons of history, or their repeated pattern of learning the wrong lessons, is clear. The barbarity and racism implicit in Israel’s iron heel policy towards the Palestinians is the major cause of instability and insecurity in the region.
This is a truth that western policymakers know but refuse to admit.
” Long live the Ultras—a fighting faction among the revolutionaries.
Glory to the martyrs, victory for the revolution and shame on the criminals.”
Egyptian Revolutionary Socialists, 2 February 2012
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=27432
Note to admin:there’s a large white space at the end of the post. Is that being kept free for the names of those massacred by the regime in Homs?
I’m glad that John Wight can acknowledge some faults with the Syrian government but the idea that this is a “zero-sum” game is to suggest that there is no difference between them and the Syrians they are killing.
The spectre of sectarian war is propaganda that the regime has used to keep itself in power, why do you not support SCAF in Egypt for the same reason? Perhaps some actual assessment or evidence should be produced before such is repeated.
Are you really suggesting that the Syrian people should allow Assad to escape responsibility for his crimes in the name of a peaceful transition?
#2
Sectarian war, propaganda?
You cannot just wipe away the concrete evidence of Iraq and Libya so easily,I’m afraid.
So let’s be clear: are you callingfor Westernintervention in Syria?
Finally,both sides are killingand being killed.The Assad regime has support among the Syrian people too. This means that you either support western intervention ala Libya or the continuation of what is developing into a civil war.
Be careful what you wish for.
Yes, propaganda.
While the revolution remains in the hands of the Syrian people, the prospects that the declared policy of all opposition groups against sectarianism holds good. The more they feel abandoned by supposed progressives and begin to think that Western governments would be more reliable friends, the greater the chance that the powerlessness that results divides community against community.
So, to be clear, no I don’t call for western ntervention. I think an appropriate slogan might be “Down With Assad, No to Intervention”, though at the moment I’d to to bend the stick towards the former (which,sigh, does not mean in the space of twelve words I’m suddenly in favour of Western intervention) as the Egyptian revolutionary socialists quoted by Priankoff are doing.
Repressive governments always pull this “there’s violence on both sides” sleight-of-hand (along with “We’re fighting terrorists and criminals”).
The Syrian “opposition”(some now reject that term as they are the majority, if not yet the 99%) wanted their revolution to be peaceful.When day after day, armoured cars and tanks and guns come to kill their sons, it is a matter of self-preservation that some of them are forcing the price of RPGs in Lebanon up to $2000 a go. Would you have suggested that Trotsky fight off Kornilov or storm the Winter Palace with a couple of peashooters?
And before you or anyone brings up another whataboutastrawman, yes I’d like to see the other monarchies in the region overthrown too. I was glad to see a friend write that there hasn’t been as much ferment in the Gulf states in the last 15 years as there is now.
[I do note that you talk about Egypt and Israel/Iran as well in your post, and it would be nice if it wasn't just the idiot pro-imperialist (who I thought was banned from here) who addresses those issues]
Perhaps you should answer my question. Should the Syrian people allow Assad and his cronies to escape punishment, as those like Pinochet in South America were, or should they adopt a policy of saneamento like the Portuguese people did in 1974?
But which progressives are you talking about? The British left???
Assuming that the correct position is to give wholehearted unconditional support to the forces who want to overthrow the Assad regime (and I have to say it is not a regime I have a great deal of sympathy for myself), how would us being “reliable friends” to a greater extent than imperialist governments maifest itself, if the question is posed in terms of who can give the most effective support in defeating the regime? (and how else can it be posed?)
If we don’t want to campaign for Assad’s tanks and artillery to be pulverised (accompanied by inevitable slaughter of civilians) by NATO cruise missiles (which clearly I do not), then there is nothing of any significance that we can contribute to this situation that will hasten a change of regime or any other outcome.
People can condemn Assad and the regime and can proclaim support for the opposition all they want, but what effect does that actually have in the real world?
In the meantime the forces that are capable of weighing in are the military of OUR governments.
Opposing them is no less important than it was in respect of Iraq. And it no more implies support for what the Syrian regime is doing than those millions of us who marched nearly 9 years ago were supporting the regime that gassed the Kurds in Halabja or any other of its crimes.
As for this idea that a continuing armed conflict is automatically a better alternative to relative peace , I really don’t get it.
This has to be a concrete question, based on an assesment of the situation on the ground. But most importantly its a question for those who have to live with the situation.
Yes indeed Vanya. John should have resisted the urge to tell the Syrian people what to do. Oh wait you don’t mind that do you. You don’t really have a problem with telling the Syrian people to make peace with their oppressors already from the safety of Glasgow (? sorry if i got that wrong John).
That said, I disagree with skidmarx. Our slogan must be, “No to intervention”. Because it’s our governments and ruling class we need to stand up to, not vicariously those of other nations.
Generally a good article by John, but I really do wish he had left out the unsolicited advice to the Syrian people. They can, and need to, make up their own minds.
#6 Was that aimed at me or John?
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not telling the Syrian people what to do, although (a) I certainly won’t condemn people for defending themselves, (b) I certainly don’t condone a government which massacres innocent people.
Given that my views on the subject will carry no weight whatsoever either with the regime or those fighting it, I can’t say I feel any better for having said that though.
Not of course that marching against military intervention carried much weight either, but this government is maybe a little weaker than Blair’s and more British people perhaps a little less ready to fall for interventionist propaganda (in spite of the best efforts of those who cheered the cruise missiles fired at Libya).
It wasn’t really aimed at anyone Vanya (although it does contain a criticism of John’s article), sorry I came across a bit aggressive.
#8 That’s fine, I just wanted to be sure in case there was something I had said that needed clarification.
#5 Those who claim to be opposed to oppression and exploitation, the British left among them.
The Left could support the demonstrations outside Syrian embassies, and use its press to expose the lies and slander of the government against the people of Syria.
Opposing them is no less important than it was in respect of Iraq. And it no more implies support for what the Syrian regime is doing than those millions of us who marched nearly 9 years ago were supporting the regime that gassed the Kurds in Halabja or any other of its crimes.
The context is a little different, the key factor ten years ago (and in the previous Gulf War twenty years ago) was the imperialist intervention against Iraq, and so the efforts of socialists were concentrated there. Today it is a revolt against a torturer and murderer, and I think the priorities are a little different. When there is outside intervention, when it is seriously in the offing (and I don’t count a few Sate Department sponsored astroturfers, or even the supply of weapons with which the Syrian people can do as they will) then with changed circumstances so should our stance.
There are many socialists, and I’m happy to hear that you’re among them, who didn’t whitewash Saddam’s regime while opposing the war against Iraq. I remember in particular Alex Callinicos talking before the first Gulf War about how fake Saddam’s anti-imperialism was, and how he should be supported despite his politics, not because of them [I think I can recall people asking then how meaningful it was to offer "military, but not political" support when nobody was offering to ship arms or bear arms for Iraq]. Today anyone who is inclined to believe Assad’s anti-imperialist credentials might try answering this question Syrians have asked: “Why has he sent tanks to kill Syrians, but never to re-claim the Golan?”
#6 I don’t agree. As with Tibet, the balance should be different when it is outside our ruling class’ sphere of influence, but it’s vital to be on the side of the oppressed and not the oppressors, or socialism will have little attraction for the people of Syria for a generation.
Good to see Russia and China doing the right thing at the UN today.
@6Our slogan must be, “No to intervention”. Because it’s our governments and ruling class we need to stand up to, not vicariously those of other nations.
Agree Christian H.
@10Today anyone who is inclined to believe Assad’s anti-imperialist credentials might try answering this question Syrians have asked: “Why has he sent tanks to kill Syrians, but never to re-claim the Golan?”
Why start a war with Israel that his forces could well have lost?
Sometimes conflict avoidance is necessary.
it’s vital to be on the side of the oppressed and not the oppressors
Yes, obviously. I am not at all opposed to supporting demonstrations outside Syrian embassies, if that is what the Syrian opposition calls for. I don’t believe for a second that Assad is in any way anti-imperialist, except by accident, and those parts of the left who support Assad on those grounds should stop trying to use other people’s lives to achieve what we have failed to.
But our main duty as socialists in the West is to oppose any attempts by our own ruling classes to shape events in Syria to their advantage. Any intervention will be aimed squarely not at helping the opposition, but at gaining control of it.
skidmarx #2: “the names of those massacred by the regime in Homs?”
On what basis are you so sure that ‘the regime’ is massacring people in Homs? Western and Gulf Kingdom-owned media claims, based on assertions by Western and Gulf Kingdom-backed opposition activists?
And by the way, it was at the insistence of the USA + Qatar and Saudi Arabia that the Arab League monitors were withdrawn from Syria. Why was that?
A key reason was to remove a relatively balanced alternative to to whatever lurid (and sometimes utterly ridiculous) claims are made by the Syrian opposition & uncritically broadcast in the West + on Al Jazeera and other Gulf royal family owned media.
You add: “The spectre of sectarian war is propaganda that the regime has used to keep itself in power…”
Rubbish. On what naive basis do you imagine that the (Saudi & Qatari funded) opposition does not use sectarianism?
As’ad AbuKhalil, hardly a supporter of the Syrian regime, has noted the appeal to sectarianism of key elements in the opposition.
And, as you mention Homs, there is daily exchange of fire between districts of the city described as anti and pro government, with a fairly obvious sectarian dimension.
#13
Noah, I’ve been in email contact with a friend who’s over their from London filming on behalf of an Arab TV channel. She is no friend of the West. She sent me a message yesterday confirming that the government is using lethal force indiscriminately to try and quell the unrest.
skidmarx #10: “Today it is a revolt against a torturer and murderer, and I think the priorities are a little different.”
Different from what… 2003 for instance, in which Saddam was not a ‘torturer and murderer’?
And the pro-regime change forces re: Syria, who among them are not torturers and murderers?
Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Britain & the USA?
And the armed elements in the Syrian opposition? Come off it. What about the Iranian electrical engineers they kidnapped, who have now confessed to being ‘revolutionary guards’, ‘snipers’ etc. How do you imagine that confession was obtained?
And what about their bombings of civilian (as well as military) targets, resulting in many fatalities?
#12
Christian:
‘I don’t believe for a second that Assad is in any way anti-imperialist, except by accident’
Assuming this is correct, what difference does it make whether it plays an anti-imperialist role in the region by accident or design? And why should this be factored into our attitude towards it?
Behold Noah, joining righteously in the war on terror – on the side of the very same government that tortured their citizens on the US’s behalf in Bush’s version of that war on terror, that took part in Operation Desert Storm, that invaded Lebanon to support the Falange. Such principled anti-imperialism!
This of course is what happens to your politics if it is warped by a reflexive campism, and by a thorough defeatism as to the chances of the left in our own countries to oppose imperialism. In desperation, the defeatist searches for that hero of anti-imperialism, or a coalition of such heroes he can support. If the Syrian people have to suffer for it, so what? It’s for the greater good, as decreed by the Western anti-imperialist.
John (16.): Our attitude towards the Syrian government should not be shaped at all by what “role” we perceive it is playing. It should be shaped by our solidarity with the people of Syria, who are more than pawns in some geopolitical game – at least I would hope that those who situate themselves on the political left would agree.
That solidarity with the people of Syria requires, first and foremost, that we oppose any and all maneuvers by our own governments to interfere and gain control. At the same time, it means that we take the agency of the Syrian people seriously; that we don’t fall into racist tropes, like asserting that the CIA must be behind it (because the Syrian people themselves could not be this organized); and that we do not argue a line based on our perception of some kind of mechanics of global politics.
Hi John #14. Sadly I have no doubt that there is widespread loss of life caused by both sides in the Syrian conflict.
#18
‘Our attitude towards the Syrian government should not be shaped at all by what “role” we perceive it is playing. It should be shaped by our solidarity with the people of Syria,’
But again, as with Libya, what about those people who support the regime? Because, clearly, they are being dismissed as mere pawns in your analysis. This is the problem with tailing anything that moves, Christian. It ends up in muddled thinking and moving beyond the focus on the role of our own governments in these events.
Where do I assert that the CIA is behind the upheaval in Syria?
And where in the article do I tell the Syrian people what they should do? I’ve checked and fail to see where I did that.
Jonathan Steele wrote an interesting article in the Guardian recently, in which he referenced the results of the latest YouGov Siraj poll, commissioned by the Qatari NGO, the Qatar Foundation. It found that the majority of respondents want the current regime to remain in place. Qatar is no friend of the Assad regime.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda
“What is the basis for this statement? A look at the methodology of the survey shows that 211 of the respondents were in Levantine countries and that 46% of those were in Syria. In other words, the finding is based on a sample of just 97 internet users in Syria among a population of more than 20 million. It’s not a meaningful result and certainly not adequate grounds for such sweeping conclusions about national opinion in Syria.”
http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2012/blog1201.htm
Just in passing Qatar is sponsoring a meeting between the leaders of Hamas and Fatah tomorrow…
Christian H #17. I can’t quite work out what you mean with your bizarre (Troskyist?) phrases about ‘reflexive campism’, ‘thorough defeatism’ etc.
Apart from which, your post seems to rest on the premise that, unless one supports every policy of the Syrian government since whenever (including its various compromises with the West etc), one must therefore line up with the campaign for the threat of military action to enforce regime change.
Reminiscent somewhat of the pre-2003 campaigns to secure support for the war on Iraq, and more recently of the run-up to the attack on Libya.
John (20.), this:
But again, as with Libya, what about those people who support the regime? Because, clearly, they are being dismissed as mere pawns in your analysis.
is utter bullshit. It’s you who is arguing the issue from a position determined by geopolitics. Not me. It is beyond belief that you would assert that the crucial factor in what position we should take regarding events in Syria itself (which is what I am talking about given that we obviously agree on the position we should take towards interference by our governments) is what our governments do. This kind of Eurocentric approach is, i should say, unbecoming of a leftist.
Now you can make an argument – as Vanya did – that we should not have any position on what is going on in Syria, either because it’s none of our business, or because it is missing the point. Fair enough. But if we decide to have an opinion, it can’t be formed in any way but by relating to the Syrian people themselves. Not by reflex against the crap propaganda spewed by our governments.
Noah (23.) is of course blatantly lying. After I explicitly said that the Western left’s main concern should be to oppose any and all interference by our governments, he claims I support military intervention. If you lie about what someone wrote, it would be better to at least wait until your lie can’t be refuted by scrolling up a bit. Bizarre.
skidmarx #22: “It’s not a meaningful result and certainly not adequate grounds for such sweeping conclusions about national opinion in Syria.”
Hmmmmm. And your methodology, presumably showing support of Syrian opinion for your own sweeping conclusions (which happen to be in line with those of the USA, Qatar & Saudi Arabia)… is what ,exactly?
christian h. #25: “Noah (23.) is of course blatantly lying”
Oh really?
You are no doubt against Western intervention (eg, sanctions and military incursions) in principle. Except that in this case you have swallowed whole the main case for the Western- and Turkish, Saudi & Qatari- position, ie the simplistic position that the Syrian crisis is about ‘the people’ versus the regime.
skid / christian – what do you get from going up against such astonishingly dishonest argumentation?
More lying from Noah. I’m not only opposing Western intervention “in principle”, but in action (well as much action as can be had here, just like Noah himself who has not so as far as I can tell volunteered to defend the glorious Syrian government against the agents of imperialism). And I haven’t swallowed anything wholesale, I’ll leave that to him.
In addition of course he now misrepresents what he himself wrote just in his previous comment, which was that I argue that “one must line up with the campaign for the threat of military action to enforce regime change”. In other words, Noah clearly suggested I support that campaign.
Here’s what I do suggest: address the arguments people actually make, not those you invent from whole cloth. At least a basic level of intellectual honesty would be appreciated.
I have been arguing about this with John Rontoul via twitter. I must say I prefer blog medium
“The barbarity and racism implicit in Israel’s iron heel policy towards the Palestinians is the major cause of instability and insecurity in the region.”
Is that why Coptic Christians are being killed in Egypt ?
#31
‘Is that why Coptic Christians are being killed in Egypt ?’
I wonder if you could expand on that. How does one negate the other?
christian h: “I’m not only opposing Western intervention “in principle”, but in action”
Oh really. Yet you support the simplistic ‘people Vs the regime’ account presented by Western Media. And of course you make no attempt to counter the lying claims by Western + Saudi / Qatari media, which are designed to engineer public support for military intervention.
Yesterday, the Gulf monarchy / Western backed Syrian opposition claimed that 360 people were killed in Homs by the regime. Even their Western sponsors realised that this was ridiculous and reported ‘deaths’ of 200 to 260. Then, after a BBC journalist reported from Homs this morning, this was seamlessly changed to a fatality figure of 50 to 60. No reason was given for the change in the casualty figures, and no doubt was thrown on those who come up with such incongruent, almost random, figures on a daily basis.
Most likely, yesterday’s very high ‘death toll’ was generated by the need to pressurise Russia and China in the Security Council.
HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain
Socialist Unity: Discussion, debate & analysis for activists and trade unionists, covering British & international politics, economics, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, music and culture