Mid East Matters Online

We all know how it started. A sparkle that was lit from the amber of the Arab Spring fueling the repressed demands of politically destitute and economically deprived Syrians. It did not start as an elite movement exploiting troubled times in the Middle East. Nor was it, as one would expect, a military coup or a hastily concocted accusation of an Imperialist, Zionist, Fascist or some other ‘ist’ conspiracy. The origins of the sparkle were much more modest. Kids scribbling anti-regime slogans on a wall in Dera’a. Mere slogans were too much to fathom for Damascus’ tyrant. Then, came the regime’s thunderous response delivered in a Stalin-like fashion.

We all know what followed. The brutal repression and mass murders perpetrated by the regime, which gradually drew hordes of Islamic fanatics of all colors and stripes. The situation soon deteriorated with bombs dropped on civilians from Syrian army helicopters only to be matched by ISIS-televised beheadings. As a result, the weakest link has been–and remains- the Assad regime and its limited number of supporters amongst the Damascene urban elite–which is taken hostage- and the rural minorities of Christians, Druzes and Alawites. Assad was severely weakened at the opening salvo of this war by the mere defiance to his regime, and to his father’s -who still rules from the grave. In dictatorships the aura, the myth and the illusion of power are more important than actual force, and armored divisions. Once the illusion is dissipated, fear quickly fades and the God-like tyrant suddenly turn into a mere mortal. The beauty of mortals is that they are. So taking aim at bringing down the regime became within reach. The unsettling of the regime was manifest though the growing threats from within. Gen. Asif Shawkat the distrusted brother-in-law, Gen. Ghazi Kanaan, the former ruler of Lebanon and Gen. Rustom Ghazali, his predecessor, to name but a few. All were assassinated by the regime in preemptive strikes, no questions asked. The SS liquidating the SA, kind of.

On the battlefield, only the intervention of Iran via its proxies made up of Lebanese, Iraqi, Syrian and Afghani paramilitaries, was able to shore-up the crumbling defenses of Damascus and other key cities and towns in Syria. This proxy army has fully undermined the Assad regime who now has to rely on foreign militias and irregulars to survive. Not only was the ‘Emperor Naked’, he was kneeling most humbly. Then, the curtain call came in once the Iranians, no longer capable of repelling the waves of suicide bombers, pleaded with Putin to save Syria’s Assad from its irreversible fate. The fate of the Assad regime was sealed the moment Russian jets entered the Syrian air space. From a former all-powerful dictator of Syria, occupier of Lebanon, ally of Iran, and junior partner of Russia, Assad became a Putin vassal at best, or his pawn at worst.

Cease fires are being negotiated than reneged between Russia and the US irrespective of Assad’s role, presence or opinion. The Syrian conflict has metamorphosed from a local rebellion into an international showdown. The Syrian theater of operations has succeeded to assemble more armies and proxy fighters than a landing on a Normandy beach. All seem to be present in one form or another including the US, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Qatar, the UK, France, and Israel. But what are the objectives of the major players?

In Syria, Russia is most naturally protecting a historical client-state and laying claims to a strategic real estate on the Mediterranean, just like Crimea on the Black Sea. But what is Russia’ end game? Keeping Assad in place (an impossible task), or keeping the US in check (a costly game), or keeping the Sunnis subjugated (a risky gamble given the restless Muslims inside the former USSR)? Is Russia eying to play guarantor of the East Mediterranean gas routes to Europe? Would this role demand an enlarged,

The breaking news that a donor to the Clinton Foundation namely, the Lebanon-born Gilbert Chagoury has been denied a visa to the US on the basis of links to the Hezbollah, via his financial patronage of Lebanon’s presidential candidate Gen. Michel Aoun came as no surprise to many. The links between the Lebanese-Nigerian Oligarch and presidency-obsessed Aoun are well-known to all parties who have any inkling into Lebanon’s murky politics. The US Embassy in Lebanon needed no covert operation to unearth this reality, which is taken at face value as a rich Lebanese businessman buying himself political access. Business as usual in the country of the Cedars one would assume, except that in this case, it was not.

Gen. Aoun is allied to Hezbollah the proxy militia of Iran in the Middle East with a military arm and a direct engagement in theatres of operations throughout the Middle East. This organization is labeled by the US State Department, which was till recently headed by no other than Mrs. Hillary Clinton, as a terrorist organization. Mr. Chagoury by financing Gen. Aoun in one hand and donating to the Clinton Foundation in the other, has shortened the distance between the two ends of this arc, former Secretary of State Clinton and Iran’s paramilitary henchmen. The current US State Department, which is not beholden to the same commitments to the Clinton Foundation as was its predecessor, took exception at the visa application of the oligarch donor. Nobody at Foggy Bottom risked receiving an angry call from the Clinton Foundation, or from ‘Huma’, summoning them to expedite the Chagoury application and to grant him a waiver from US security restrictions. Not that this US State Department under Kerry is unwilling to deal or even pay Iran a ransom of $400 m to free some US hostages. But times have changed and that was a government to government transaction not an individual to foundation transaction. After all, the current US State Secretary has principles. What are they, remains to be seen.

Not only did Mr. Chagoury donate money but it seems –according to press reports- that he attempted to get in touch –and probably did- with the top honcho at State overseeing the affairs of Lebanon. That was Jeff Feltman, former US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs from August 2009 to June 2012 with the rank of Career Minister. He was previously the US Ambassador to Lebanon from July 2004 to January 2008.

So Mrs. Clinton and her august Foundation have some questions to answer both to the US and to the Lebanese public. How did the Foundation accept money from someone with such notorious, explicit and well-advertised links to a US-labeled terrorist organization; and what access, influence, intelligence, advantage did such character obtain from the US State Department in connection with Lebanon? These are two interlinked questions that only Mrs. Clinton can and should answer. Not only for the sake of clearing the air during her presidential bid, but for coming out clean about the ways and means the US State Department worked under her watch. Could her tenure be portrayed as one where US influence in foreign affairs was for hire, or worse, for sale?

I have read with great interest the piece in the NY Times contributed by Mr. Javad Zarif the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It was a candid opinion in which Mr. Zarif ranted, most rightly, about radical Islam in its Wahhabist form, which is preached principally in Saudi Arabia. One form of such thinking is Wahabbism but the other, an almost identical brand of potion, is generously offered, sponsored and served by the very same Republic that Mr. Zarif represents, and that is Khomeinism. Had Mr. Zarif been the Foreign Minister of Sweden or Switzerland or Canada, his well-crafted argument would have struck gold. Such countries support the rule of law and due process, respect human rights including women’s and minorities, have truly elected representatives, and accountable governments. The same is not true for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Other nations in the Middle East are no different, so the whole lot can stand comfortably in the guilty box. But the Minister’s argument is farcical. It is not the cat calling the kettle black, rather the cat calling its reflection in the mirror another, totally different type of cat.

It is a fact that the brand of Khomeinism which appeared with the Iranian revolution in 1979 has had a different marketing approach than Wahhabism. It offered itself as a modern, forward-looking, reformist movement in Islam whose sole mission was to unite all Muslims into one merciful and righteous nation. One nation true, but under the authority of the Scholar-Ruler or ‘Wali Al Fakih’. One person (a man invariably) with a solid theological record (in Shia teachings only), and extensive experience (being in his 80s or better in his 90s). He would be the sole representative of all Muslims on earth. The direct link between the billion-strong faithful and their creator. Quite a modernizing approach and a refreshing way to engage others in inter-communal dialogue, peace-loving discourse and multicultural exchanges. Women were cloaked in black robes, political dissenters hanged from cranes, and all forms of normal life subjected to religious scrutiny from songs to bathing suits. That on the religious front. In politics Khomeinism engaged in a destructive war against Iraq (1980-1988), and when such folly failed to produce except 1 million casualties, it started exporting religious sectarianism to destabilize the region. The US was then the guarantor of stability in the region and hence, attacking US interests became the chief mission of Khomeinism. The bombing of the US Marines barracks in Beirut in 1984, followed by the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut during same year. The kidnapping of Western hostages including the gruesome killing of the CIA station chief in Beirut. The attack on the Marines’ barracks in Khobar Saudi Arabia in 1993. More recently the maiming, killing and targeting of US Marines in Iraq using IEDs. All vivid products of such modern, righteous and ‘so-different-from-Wahhabism’ brand of Islam, as promoted by Teheran and its Mullahs. And now by its US-educated Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I never liked ‘isms’ including Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Fascism, Racism, Sexism, Terrorism, Salafism, and surely Wahhabism. However, since we are in accord that nothing good ever came out of any ‘ism’ why not get the world rid of Khomeinism too. Neither forms of radical Islam recognize democracy as a model government, or an independent judiciary as essential to the rule of law, or freedom and liberty as unalienable rights of individuals. So dear Minister Zarif, hiding behind the beard of thy neighbor does not render yours less subject to criticism. Now this is an ‘ism’ I do like.