Syrian President Bashar al-Assad recently warned that a Western military attack on his country will set the entire Middle East ablaze. The Syrian civil war has long since ceased to be limited to just Syria. Behind the scenes, two countries play a leading role:Iran and Saudi Arabia. How exactly is the fork in the stem?
The US military says it stands ready to punish Bashar al-Assad's regime for the poison gas attack that government forces allegedly carried out against civilians on August 21. Iran, the Syrian regime's main ally, immediately warned that it would respond to Western military retaliation against targets in Syria with an attack on Israel. That country again announced that it will respond to any attack appropriately. Assad's ally Russia also warns of the consequences of a Western military intervention.
That sounds explosive, but should we no longer see this as the rhetoric of regimes in a bind? Or does the West really light a fuse with a military attack? The situation in Syria itself is just as unclear. The war is not simply one group of insurgents defying the Assad regime. There are many rebel groups, supported by many different countries for various reasons.
Symbolic action
Paul Aarts, lecturer in international relations at the University of Amsterdam, calls the situation in Syria “not yet a black box, but not very transparent”. “The consequences of a military strike on Syria will depend entirely on what kind of action the Americans and their allies take,” he said. “It is probably a small-scale, mainly symbolic action on specific military targets. In that case, I also expect a limited response from Assad and his allies.”
Many countries in the region have a strong interest in the further course of the war in Syria. Russia, for example, which has so far blocked every resolution within the UN Security Council that allowed military intervention. Probably because Russia has different interests to defend in Syria, but exactly which interests these are is unclear, because Russian policy has traditionally been very closed.
“There are a few important geopolitical interests to mention,” says Aarts. “Syria is the only country in the Middle East where Russia still has a finger in the pie. They have a lively arms trade with Syria and a military port in the city of Tartus. That is the only port where the Russian fleet can sail in the Mediterranean. The Russians are therefore very afraid of what will replace the Assad regime if it were to fall. A government with an orthodox Islamic character may come to power. Given their experiences in Chechnya, the Russians should have none of that.”
Muslim Brotherhood
It is certainly not inconceivable that orthodox Islamic groups will at some point take power once the Assad regime has fallen. “The wealthy oil state of Qatar supports groups within the Syrian opposition that are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.” The Muslim Brotherhood officially aims to unite the entire Islamic world under one empire, a Sunni Caliphate.
“But the Muslim Brotherhood has recently adapted to the rules of the political game, and seems to want to embrace democracy. For Saudi Arabia – an anti-democratic monarchy par excellence, where loyalty to the king is paramount – these kinds of ideas are the great vision of fear”, says Aarts, who is currently working on a book about the major role of Saudi Arabia. in the Middle East.
“The Saudis are the great opponent of the Muslim Brotherhood. They support groups within Syria that oppose these principles. The Saudi royal family has absolutely nothing to do with the influential Muslim Brothers. Look at Egypt, where Saudi Arabia is providing millions of petrodollars to the Egyptian military after it overthrew democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi.”
And then there's Iran, President Assad's closest ally in the region. Both Iran and the Assad elite who currently rule Syria – unlike the Muslim Brotherhood – are adherents of the Shia branch of Islam. “But it is a common mistake that Iran's foreign policy is always guided by religious arguments,” Aarts said. “That policy is quite sober and aimed at protecting national interests. For example, Iran has also supported Hamas in the past, even though they are Sunnis.”
Hegemony
Saudi Arabia and Iran have been vying for hegemony in the Middle East for decades. The two countries have opposing views on both religion and politics. Saudi Arabia and the US, on the other hand, have maintained a strategic alliance for years, in which the US supports the autocratic Saudi royal family in exchange for cheap oil. Iran, on the other hand, has followed a strictly anti-American course since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Outside of Syria, the country has virtually no Arab allies.
“To thwart Iran, the Saudis want to get rid of Assad and are willing to take a risk,” Aarts says. “That is why they have been urging the US for military action against the regime for some time.”
And that military action seems to come after last week's poison gas attack. But it is currently by no means certain whether that attack was indeed launched by Assad. The US has not yet released its evidence. Aarts:“There are all kinds of rumors that there is division within the regime. It is suggested that the poison gas was not used by Assad, but by his brother Maher. Maher is considered a real hardliner within the Assad clique. But if that is true, the regime can do little but protect Maher.”
Incidentally, the Saudi enthusiasm for military action probably does not extend to Israel, America's other ally in the region. “Israel is militarily superior and will wipe the Assad regime off the map in the event of a Syrian retaliation, so the Syrians will be reluctant to do so,” Aarts said. “But Israel was satisfied with Assad. Although the two countries are officially at war, they knew exactly what to do with Assad. Israel may have urged the US to take small-scale military action. Because if Assad falls, no one knows what will take its place. And Israel in particular has a lot to lose.”