To dominate a country, you need to secure the allegiance of two key figures: the tribal chief and the spiritual leader. Such was the philosophy of British colonialism and the very essence of the long-standing experience of the empire “on which the sun never sets”, said the columnist Mustafa Zain in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat.
It was a philosophy that French colonialists did well to adopt: while invading Egypt, Napoleon Bonaparte forged close ties with Al Azhar and local leaders to strengthen his hold over the country.
But when it came to George W Bush’s plans to invade Iraq, he chose not to take heed of the British experience and, instead, he ended up making enemies with everyone from chiefs of tribes to spiritual leaders, laymen and local people. He relied on external opposition which was a melting pot of proponents of politicisation of religion, dissidents from the Baath party and rebels against the regime.
The American occupation collided with all. Tribes took up arms to fight it; spiritual leaders issued Fatwas against it. Eventually, the Americans had to follow the advice of the British and formed a tribal group, “Al-Sahwat”, which later joined the so-called “political operation”, offering the central government protection from rebelling politicians.
“The formula hasn’t changed in Iraq until this day. Tribes resume the ‘revolution’ one day only to make peace with the government the next day. It all depends on the rations they are offered and, of course, the interests of tribal chiefs,” the writer said.
The situation is no different in Syria. When the tribes have no role to play, sects take up their place. Sects operate under a combination of religious ideologies and tribal behaviour. “They seek to share power, but the minute they feel ‘wronged’, they wage wars against the state and not the regime per se,” he said.
Power in the hands of sectarian leaders morphs into corruption and oppression, eventually opening the door to foreign intervention.
“Even the erudite among them call for foreign intervention. Case in point: the leaders of the Syrian National Council and the coalition. Both entities are mixtures of sects and tribes subjected to regional and international politics, with no role to play other than serving as a cover to these politics,” Zain said.
“The formula has been cloned in many Arab countries. One look at Sudan or Yemen is sufficient to prove it,” he concluded. “Even Egypt is at the edge of the abyss, with only the military intervention and something of the ancient philosophy standing in the way.”
The British philosophy is indeed timeless: Dominating a country inevitably passes through the allegiance of its leaders, the writer concluded.
Is Iran prepared to give up on Al Assad?
Two conflicting reports on Iran’s position vis-à-vis the Syrian issue have made their way to the media recently.
One suggests that Iran is prepared to give up on president Bashar Al Assad, but not the Assad regime as a whole; the other says the Iranian president warned his Russian counterpart that failing to invite Iran to the second Geneva conference on Syria would signal its failure.
“It seems we are witnessing a hard bargaining process around the Geneva conference that doesn’t aim to exclude Iran from the conference as much as to push it to make concessions before the conference, mainly to stop its support of Al Assad,” opined the columnist Tariq Al Homayed in the London-based daily Asharq Al Awsat.
The time is ripe to get results from Iran in Syria, especially that the reality on the battlefield isn’t as miserable as it was portrayed in terms of Al Qaeda’s involvement and power. The Free Syrian Army has had some real victories over the terrorist organisation’s offshoots in recent weeks.
Iran must be at a loss as to what its next move should be. Only a few weeks ago, it was wagering on the FSA’s defeat and Al Assad’s triumph, but the situation has changed and it transpired that Al Assad was hiding behind Isis.
It’s back to square one if Iran says there is no place for Al Assad in Syria’s future, the writer concluded.
Would the United States return to Iraq?
Earlier this week, and following a surge of violence in the Anbar province in Iraq, the US said it will supply Iraq with military equipment to help its government fight the militant groups, signalling an official return of military cooperation between Washington and Baghdad, said the columnist Mazen Hammad in the Qatari daily Al Watan.
The new development gave rise to speculation about the US sending troops to Iraq as government troops are preparing to attack the city of Fallujah, which has fallen to Islamic militants.
Nouri Al Maliki’s government is in an embarrassing situation. Al Qaeda-affiliated militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil) have stirred a lot of confusion and fear in Iraq as they took control of Fallujah and forced many of its residents out.
Pessimist observers forewarn of worsening conditions in the country, mainly after it was announced that Al Qaeda’s militants in Syria are planning to focus on action in Iraq.
Should it happen, that would mean more resistance to US military support and troops in the future; yet another reason for Washington to carefully calculate its next move in Iraq, the writer said.
* Digest compiled by The Translation Desk
translation@thenational.ae