The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East: Regional Rivalries and Security Alliances [1st ed.] 9783030454647, 9783030454654

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xxiii
Introduction: The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East (Philipp O. Amour)....Pages 1-25
Front Matter ....Pages 27-27
Political Islam as an Ordering Factor? The Reconfiguration of the Regional Order in the Middle East Since the “Arab Spring” (Julius Dihstelhoff, Alexander Lohse)....Pages 29-59
Gulfization of the Middle East Security Complex: The Arab Spring’s Systemic Change (Amr Yossef)....Pages 61-94
The Conservative-Resistance Camp: The Axis of Resistance (Ana Belén Soage)....Pages 95-129
Emergence of the Turkish/Qatari Alliance in the Middle East: Making of the Moderate Resistance Bloc (Nuri Yeşilyurt, Mustafa Yetim)....Pages 131-164
Front Matter ....Pages 165-165
Expanding the Turkish Bid for Regional Control in the Somali Regional Security Complexes (Stephanie Carver)....Pages 167-194
Qatar’s Calculated Gamble on the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (Hanlie Booysen)....Pages 195-215
(Un)Limited Force: Regional Realignments, Israeli Operations, and the Security of Gaza (Colter Louwerse)....Pages 217-257
The Evolution of Iraq’s Hashd al-Sha’abi (Popular Mobilization Forces) (Zana Gulmohamad)....Pages 259-301
Between the PYD and the Islamic State: The Complex Role of Non-state Actors in Syria (Naomí Ramírez Díaz)....Pages 303-328
Front Matter ....Pages 329-329
Domestic and External Factors in the Syrian Conflict: Toward a Multi-causal Explanation (Efe Can Gürcan)....Pages 331-350
Lending an “Old Friend” a Hand: Why Does Russia Back Syria? (Umut Bekcan, Pınar Uz Hançarlı)....Pages 351-374
Contribution of Water Scarcity and Sustainability Failures to Disintegration and Conflict in the Arab Region—The Case of Syria and Yemen (Mohammad Al-Saidi)....Pages 375-405
Regional Rivalries and Security Alliances in the Gulf Region and the Middle East (Philipp O. Amour)....Pages 407-434
Back Matter ....Pages 435-446

Citation preview

The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East Regional Rivalries and Security Alliances Edited by Philipp O. Amour

The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East

Philipp O. Amour Editor

The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East Regional Rivalries and Security Alliances

Editor Philipp O. Amour Department of International Relations Sakarya University Sakarya, Turkey

ISBN 978-3-030-45464-7 ISBN 978-3-030-45465-4  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © Alex Linch shutterstock.com This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To my beloved children Adam and Ilias. Your growth provides me a constant source of fulfillment, joy, and pride. I love you to the moon and back.

Preface

The contemporary politics of the Gulf Region and the Middle East has been one of uprisings and counter-uprisings; of civil wars and proxy wars; and of deliberate and destabilizing ideational and strategic crises. This ever-growing and complex set of regional dynamics since the first Arab Spring movement is not routine politics; rather, it is a formative condition for an altered or a novel regional order. This book thematically provides a detailed analysis of this ­unfolding regional order. The analysis takes place in relation to the regional level of analysis at the interplay of a combination of a cluster of factors that include the distribution of power dynamics, ideational factors, and domestic influences. This cluster of factors involves internal and e­ xternal dimensions that have shaped and continue to shape current regional responsive dynamics. The book explores the following topics: • Major security alliances in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East • Regional great powers such as the KSA, the UAE, Iran, Turkey, Qatar, and Israel • The most vigorous non-state militant players on the ground, such as the Islamic State, Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, Hezbollah, and the Houthi movement • Global powers, such as Russia • National narratives and transnational causes that shape regional polarization vii

viii  

PREFACE

• Ecological factors (climate, water, etc.) and their roles in regional dynamics • Power rivalry in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East • Ideational polarization across the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East • Middle East competition in the Horn of Africa • Sunni-Shi’ security and competition The aim of the book is to contribute to a fuller and more encompassing understanding of regional dynamics and interactive politics in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. The book is intended to serve as a text for university-level classes on Middle East Studies and International Relations in the Middle East; and as a general reference text for practitioners interested in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. It highlights recent developments in regional context. Sakarya, Turkey

Philipp O. Amour

Contents

1

Introduction: The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East 1 Philipp O. Amour

Part I Security Alliances in the Gulf Region and the Middle East 2

Political Islam as an Ordering Factor? The Reconfiguration of the Regional Order in the Middle East Since the “Arab Spring” 29 Julius Dihstelhoff and Alexander Lohse

3

Gulfization of the Middle East Security Complex: The Arab Spring’s Systemic Change 61 Amr Yossef

4

The Conservative-Resistance Camp: The Axis of Resistance 95 Ana Belén Soage

ix

x 

5

CONTENTS

Emergence of the Turkish/Qatari Alliance in the Middle East: Making of the Moderate Resistance Bloc 131 Nuri Yeşilyurt and Mustafa Yetim

Part II State Actors and Non–state Militant Actors  in the Regional System 6

Expanding the Turkish Bid for Regional Control in the Somali Regional Security Complexes 167 Stephanie Carver

7

Qatar’s Calculated Gamble on the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood 195 Hanlie Booysen

8

(Un)Limited Force: Regional Realignments, Israeli Operations, and the Security of Gaza 217 Colter Louwerse

9

The Evolution of Iraq’s Hashd al-Sha’abi (Popular Mobilization Forces) 259 Zana Gulmohamad

10 Between the PYD and the Islamic State: The Complex Role of Non-state Actors in Syria 303 Naomí Ramírez Díaz Part III External Actors and Ecological Factors  in the Regional System 11 Domestic and External Factors in the Syrian Conflict: Toward a Multi-causal Explanation 331 Efe Can Gürcan

CONTENTS  

xi

12 Lending an “Old Friend” a Hand: Why Does Russia Back Syria? 351 Umut Bekcan and Pınar Uz Hançarlı 13 Contribution of Water Scarcity and Sustainability Failures to Disintegration and Conflict in the Arab Region—The Case of Syria and Yemen 375 Mohammad Al-Saidi 14 Regional Rivalries and Security Alliances in the Gulf Region and the Middle East 407 Philipp O. Amour Index 435

Notes

on

Contributors

Mohammad Al-Saidi is a Research Assistant Professor for Natural Resources Governance at Qatar University, Qatar. He holds two Master’s degrees and a Ph.D. in Economics from Heidelberg University, Germany. His research focuses on international development and environmental policies, particularly in the context of the Middle East. Philipp O. Amour is an Associate Professor of International Relations at Sakarya University and a frequent Visiting Professor at Boğaziçi University, Turkey. Dr. Amour’s theoretically driven yet empirically rich research is situated in the intersection of the International Relations and Middle East Studies fields and focuses on foreign policy analysis, security, and alliance studies of the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East, including the Arab States, Iran, Israel, Palestine, and Turkey. Dr. Amour’s scholarly articles and book chapters have appeared in international peer-reviewed journals (e.g., International Journal of Middle East Studies, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies) and with highly regarded press. Dr. Amour also serves as an analyst and independent consultant of international affairs, political consulting, as well as academic research and publishing. Umut Bekcan graduated from the Department of International Relations, Gazi University in 2002. He studied the Russian language at the Moscow State Pedagogical University between 2009 and 2010. In 2012, Dr. Bekcan received his Ph.D. degree in Diplomatic History from Ankara University, and his thesis was on Russia–China relations in xiii

xiv  

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

the post-Cold War era. His major fields of study include Foreign Policy in the Soviet Union and Russia. He has been published in various journals and edited books and teaches Diplomatic History, International Relations, and Turkish Foreign Policy in the Department of Political Science, Pamukkale University. Hanlie Booysen  is a Lecturer in Religious Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Dr. Booysen’s main research interest is the relationship between Islam and politics. Her Ph.D. thesis explained the moderate platform of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (SMB). In her former career, Dr. Booysen served as a diplomat to Jordan (1993–1997), acted as Chargé d’affaires to Palestine (2000–2003), and was Deputy Head of Mission in Syria (2009–2012). Stephanie Carver is a Ph.D. candidate and researcher at Monash University, Australia. She is researching armed non-state actors in the Horn of Africa. Her Ph.D. topic considers the role of maritime pirates in state formation within Somalia. Ms. Carver has worked with the United Nations in Nairobi and Kenya. She holds a B.A. (Hons) and a Master of International Relations from Monash University. Julius Dihstelhoff (Dr. des.) is a Research Fellow in the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Politics at the Center for Near and Middle Eastern Studies (CNMS) at Philipps-University Marburg, Germany. He is an Academic Coordinator for the international joint project “Merian Centre for Advanced Studies in the Maghreb (MECAM)”, funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), based in Tunis (Tunisia). His research consisted of projects supported by the German Foreign Ministry between 2012 and 2015 that analyzed the role of various Islamist parties in the ongoing transformation processes in the MENA region. His areas of research interest include the interrelated transformational processes in the MENA region since 2010/2011 (especially Tunisia), the role of Political Islam in these processes, and German–Arab relations. Zana Gulmohamad has a Ph.D. in International Politics from the University of Sheffield, UK. He is a Teaching Associate in the Politics and International Relations Department at the University of Sheffield. Dr. Zana has published in think tank and research institute journals, such as Combating Terrorism Center/CTC Sentinel at West Point. Dr. Zana’s

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS  

xv

forthcoming monograph, which will be published in January 2021 by I.B. Tauris (an imprint of Bloomsbury), is titled “The Making of Foreign Policy in Iraq: Political Factions and the Ruling Elite since 2003”. Efe Can Gürcan is Associate Dean of Research and Development for the Faculty of Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences at İstinye University. He is also a faculty member in the Department of International Relations, İstinye University and Research Associate at the University of Manitoba’s Geopolitical Economy Research Group. He completed his undergraduate education in International Relations at Koç University. He received his Master’s degree in International Studies from the University of Montréal and earned his Ph.D. in Sociology from Simon Fraser University. He speaks English, French, Spanish, and Turkish. His publications include three books as well as more than 30 articles and book chapters on international development, international conflict, and international institutions, with a geographical focus on Latin America and the Middle East. His latest book is Multipolarization, South–South Cooperation, and the Rise of Post-Hegemonic Governance. Alexander Lohse is a research fellow in the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Studies at the Center for Near and Middle Eastern Studies (CNMS) at Philipps-University Marburg, Germany. Between 2012 and 2015, he was a research assistant at the CNMS as part of the German Foreign Ministry’s “Transformation partnerships with the Arab world,” for which he analyzed the role of moderate Islamist parties in the regional transformation processes. He is currently working on his Ph.D. project, which deals with status-seeking strategies of the United Arab Emirates. His research interests include Political Islam and Islamist movements in the Arab world and their role in regional politics, as well as the foreign policies of the Arab Gulf states. Colter Louwerse is a Ph.D. Researcher in Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter, United Kingdom. His current work focuses on self-determination, the United Nations, and the Palestine Question. Naomí Ramírez Díaz  holds a Ph.D. in Arabic and Islamic Studies from the Autónoma University of Madrid. Her research focuses on political Islam in Syria in particular and the Middle East in general, and she has published various articles, papers, and reports in addition to her book, The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria: The Democratic Option of Islamism

xvi  

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

(Routledge, 2017). She has translated articles and books related to Syria from Arabic to Spanish, the most recent of which is Yassin Al-Haj Saleh’s The Impossible Revolution. Ana Belén Soage holds a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern Studies. She has studied and worked in several Western European and Arab countries and is fluent in Spanish, English, Arabic, and French. She is currently based in Madrid, where she teaches at the EAE Business School. Dr. Soage has published articles, book reviews, and book chapters on issues related to Political Islam, both in the Muslim world and in the West, and to international relations with a focus on the Middle East. In addition, she is a member of the editorial board of the academic journals Politics, Religion & Ideology, and Religion Compass. Pınar Uz Hançarlı  received her Ph.D. from the Department of Political Science, Pamukkale University, where she works as a Research Assistant. She graduated from the Middle East Technical University in the Department of International Relations. She was awarded a Jean Monnet Scholarship for 2009–2010 term at the University of Nottingham, where she completed her M.A. degree in the School of Politics. Nuri Yeşilyurt  is an Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations of Ankara University, Faculty of Political Science. He received his B.A. degree from Ankara University in 2004 and M.Phil. degree from the University of Cambridge in 2005. He completed his Ph.D. in 2013 at Ankara University with the thesis titled “Regime Security and Small State in the Middle East: The Case of Jordan.” Dr. Yeşilyurt’s publications are mainly focused on Turkish–Arab relations, and Middle Eastern politics. Mustafa Yetim is an Assistant Professor at Eskişehir Osmangazi University. He finished his undergraduate studies in 2009 at Karadeniz Technical University and then received his Master’s degree in 2011 from Sakarya University. His Master’s thesis was about “Turkey’s Middle East Policy between 2002 and 2010: Turkey’s changing perception in the Middle East”. He completed his Ph.D. in 2016 at Ankara University with the thesis entitled “Hezbollah Within the Middle East and Lebanon: Neo-Weberian Perspective”. He has published book chapters, articles, commentaries, and analysis on topics related to Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS  

xvii

Amr Yossef is an independent scholar based in Cairo, Egypt. His research focuses on Middle East politics and security. He coauthored the book The Arab Spring and the Geopolitics of the Middle East, wrote contributions in the edited volumes of Egypt’s Tahrir Revolution (Lynne Rienner, 2013) and Military Exercises (NATO Defense College, 2018) and published articles that appeared in Foreign Affairs, Journal of Strategic Studies, and Digest of Middle East Studies. Amr Yossef holds a Ph.D. in International Studies from the University of Trento and has taught at NYU and the American University in Cairo.

Abbreviations

AAH Asaib Ahl al-Haq AFAD Turkish Disaster and Emergency Management Authority AKP Turkish Justice and Development Party AMISOM African Union Mission in Somalia AQAP Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula Arab League League of Arab States AU African Union Daesh The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria EAC East African Community EMB Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood FAQ Al-Abbas Fighting Division (Furqat al-Abbaas al-Qitaliya) FDI Foreign Direct Investment FI Fadaiyun Islam FJP Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt FSA Free Syrian Army FV Fighting Vanguard GCC Gulf Cooperation Council HAF Haftar Armed Forces Hamas Islamic Resistance Movement HBJ Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani HDI Human Development Index Houthi movement Supporters of God (Ansar Allah) IA Iraqi Army ICR Iraqi Council of Representatives IDF Israeli Defense Force IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development xix

xx  

ABBREVIATIONS

IGOs Intergovernmental Organizations IIP The Iraqi Islamic Party IR International Relations IRGC Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps IRGC-QF Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force IRP Islamic Republic Party IS Islamic State ISCI The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq ISF Iraqi Security Forces ISIL Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ISIS Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham Islah Party The Yemeni Congregation for Reform IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management JAM Army of the Mahdi (Jaish al-Mahdi) JCP Justice and Construction Party in Libya JCPOA Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action KH Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq KNC Kurdish National Council KSA Kingdom of Saudi Arabia LNA Libyan National Army LNG Liquefied Natural Gas MB Muslim Brotherhood MbS KSA Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman MbZ Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince and de facto Ruler MENA Middle East and North Africa MNF Multinational Force in Lebanon n.a. Not Available NC National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces NCB National Coordination Body for Democratic Change NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations NSMA Non-State Militant Actors NTC National Transitional Council in Libya OIC Organization of Islamic Cooperation OPCW Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries PIJ Palestinian Islamic Jihad PJD Moroccan Party of Justice and Development PKK Kurdistan Worker Party PLO Palestine Liberation Organization PM Prime Minister

ABBREVIATIONS  

xxi

PMB Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood PMC People’s Mobilization Committee PMF Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces PNA Palestinian National Authority PYD Kurdish Democratic Union Party QIA Qatar Investment Authority QMB Qatari Muslim Brotherhood RSC Regional Security Complex SA State Actors SCIRI Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq SDF Syrian Democratic Forces SMB Syrian Muslim Brotherhood SNA Somali National Army SNC Syrian National Council SS Saraya al-Salam TIKA Turkish Corporation and Development Agency TSR Tacit Security Regime UAE United Arab Emirates UK United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland UN United Nations UNGA United Nations General Assembly UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNITAF Unified Task Force UNLU United National Leadership of the Uprising UNOSOM United Nations Operation in Somalia UNSC United Nations Security Council USA United States of America USSR The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, commonly known as the Soviet Union WSI Water Stress Index YPG People’s Protection Units

List of Tables

Table 1.1

Statistical data on sources of power for countries in the Gulf Region and broader Middle East 13 Table 8.1 Palestinian casualties and destruction during Pillar of Defense versus Protective Edge 223 Table 14.1 Regional subsystems in the Gulf Region and broader Middle East 408 Table 14.2 Military expenditure in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East in US$ billion 417

xxiii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East Philipp O. Amour  

Contemporaries face a daunting task when trying to understand the complex and fluid dynamics in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East, which has been witnessing turbulences since 2010. This period has been one of uprisings and counter-uprisings, of civil wars and proxy wars, and of deliberate and destabilizing ideological and strategic crises. This ever-growing and complex set of regional dynamics since the first Arab Spring movement is not routine politics; rather, it is a formative condition for an altered or a novel regional system across the broader Middle East. While these formative regional dynamics evolved during the t­ wenty-first century, they are actually a prolongation of long-standing issues, affairs, and narratives across the region, as well as domestic and foreign leanings and behaviors of state actors and non-state militant actors dating back to the early stages of the formation of the interstate system in the twentieth century. Different authors in this book take account of this continuation of regional dynamics in their respective chapters.

P. O. Amour (*)  Department of International Relations, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.philipp-amour.ch © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_1

1

2  P. O. AMOUR

This book thematically explores this unfolding regional system, which is also referred to as a regional order, make-up, or security complex. Written by scholars from diverse disciplines, it addresses the major security alliances (i.e., subsystems) and the most vigorous regional great powers and nonstate militant actors in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East, in addition to the role of external actors and ecological factors in regional dynamics. The analysis takes place at the regional level and considers the interplay of a combination of a cluster of factors, including the distribution of material power dynamics, ideational factors, and domestic influences.1 The intent of the book is to contribute to a greater understanding of interactive politics in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East from the interrelated vantage points of different systemic units and clusters of factors at the regional level of analysis. At the risk of oversimplifying a vastly varied and rich body of literature on the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East, I argue that major studies typically have used material power-based explanations and political explanations with a major focus on the foreign policy of states in the region or the determinant role of global great powers in regional dynamics. This line of inquiries draws, openly or indirectly, on insights from the realist theories of International Relations (IR) and, to a lesser degree, is informed by liberal- or c­ onstructivist-inspired approaches. However, this research design also has shortcomings once a certain level of knowledge and a disciplinary canon of literature have been established, as it hinders a fuller and wide-ranging explanation of the topic under exploration, and has a tendency to produce repetitive or unimaginative outputs. The literature on regional interactive politics in the broader Middle East reveals an apparent focus largely on the state level and/or the international level of analysis. The region, in itself and by itself, as a level of analysis on its own has attracted the attention of fewer scholars.2

1 This outline draws on Elias Götz and Neil MacFarlane, “Russia’s Role in World Politics: Power, Ideas, and Domestic Influences,” International Politics 56, no. 6 (December 2019): 713–25, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-018-0162-0. 2 To mention some exceptions: Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2013); Barry Buzan and Ole Waever, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). However, the theoretical framework used in this book is (aside from one exception, Chapter 6) independent from these references.

1  INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 

3

Moreover, few scholars have examined the regional system in terms of the interplay between material power dynamics, immaterial power dynamics (ideas, narratives, and causes), and domestic influences. Indeed, the state level and the international level are interconnected with one another and with the regional dynamics, so they deliver valuable insights for understanding regional dynamics. Regional powers and global powers still have a dominant say in the broader Middle East, as different chapters in this book demonstrate. Yet, a major aim of the book is to demonstrate that combining different clusters of factors in relation to the regional level of analysis delivers a more encompassing and comprehensive explanation for regional politics and dynamics. These are intertwined, and so their separation into one or a subset of clusters/factors does not deliver an adequate and reasonable explanation. As a contribution to the profusion of excellent scholarship on the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East, a factorial approach is taken that includes material clusters and immaterial clusters of factors, while paying attention to the region as a level of analysis in itself and by itself. Note that this approach engages internal and external dynamics, as illustrated below. As the final section in this chapter will demonstrate, the respective authors accord distinct weights to the various systemic units and clusters of factors and combine them in different ways in their chapters. The book is intended to serve as a text for university-level classes on Middle East Studies and IR in the broader Middle East and as a general reference text for practitioners interested in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. It highlights recent developments in a regional context. Notably, regional dynamics across the broader Middle East provide students of IR and Middle East Studies, as well as practitioners, with cases and topics covering fascinating lines of inquiry of regional dynamics and international politics in both their empirical and theoretical dimensions. These lines of inquiry include regional combinations of state and non-state actors, and forms of regional relations; regional powers and the scope and extent of foreign and security policy behavior; the increasing significance of non-state militant actors and ecological factors; and the involvement of global great powers; in addition to what the author calls “ideational balancing” (ideological jostling for power). The various chapters of the book are also useful for social scientists who are interested in hypotheses and gathering knowledge for theory building of regional systems, as well as alliance formation and deformation. The objective of this

4  P. O. AMOUR

book is not, however, to deliver a definitive account of the regional system in the Gulf Region and broader Middle East or to serve as an encyclopedia of all state actors and non-state militant actors (i.e., systemic units) considered part of the regional system. The rest of this introduction is divided into three main sections. The first section deals with the terminology of the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. Because this book focuses on related geographic entities, it is appropriate to define them and to explain why there are so many conflicting understandings of what exactly the region is. The second section is a broad overview of the concept of the regional system and the relationship between the different systemic units. In relation to the first, the second section theoretically demonstrates how the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East encompasses a distinct regional system. These insights are demonstrated in more depth throughout the various chapters. The final section delivers an outline of, and a reflection on, the different chapters included in the book.

Terminology of the Region In order to understand material and immaterial regional interactions between and among systemic units (state actors and non-state militant actors), it is essential to define the commonly used terms, such as “Middle East.” The term Middle East is used in this book to include all member countries of the League of Arab States, founded in 1945, in addition to the non-Arab countries of Iran, Israel, and Turkey (all of which have Arab minorities). Thus, the Middle East does not represent a geographical entity with static borders; rather, it is a transcontinental entity encompassing three different subregions, which are described below.3 The first subregion is the Fertile Crescent, also called the Levant, which spans Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Turkey. The Levant had been the power center (where the intensity of interactive dynamics is at the highest level) of the regional system in the broader Middle East from its inception to the first Arab Spring movement. The second subregion is the Gulf Region and Arabian Peninsula and includes countries that border the Arabian/Persian Gulf, namely Bahrain, Iraq, 3 Jillian Schwedler and Deborah J. Gerner, Understanding the Contemporary Middle East (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2008), 2.

1  INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 

5

the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Yemen, and Iran (a non-Arab country). Six of these countries (excluding Iran, Iraq, and Yemen) form the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC). Since 2014/2015, the Gulf Region has become the power center of regional dynamics, as explored in different parts of this book. The third subregion is North Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia) and the Horn of Africa countries of Comoros Islands, Djibouti, Mauritania, Somalia, and the republic of Sudan, also known as sub-Saharan countries.4 While this list contains exclusively countries, the book explicitly acknowledges the significance (for regional dynamics) of non-state militant actors that operate within and across national boundaries. While bearing in mind that the term is contested, in this book, we consider the term Middle East to contain the part of the world in which Islam emerged (Gulf Region) and spread to neighboring subregions in which the great Islamic empires came to the fore. Contemporary regional events have proven once more the connectivity of the different subregions in the broader Middle East. I include North Africa and the sub-Saharan countries listed above in the Middle East, due to their impact within the region, despite their geographic distance from its initial power center. During the first Arab Spring movement (2010–2013) the Jasmine revolution in Tunisia spread to other subregions and initiated a redistribution of power on the broader regional level. This movement demonstrates how a national demand for revolutionary change in Tunisia spread to other countries to become a transnational cause with region-wide implications. The second Arab Spring movement (2018–2020) in Sudan and Algeria demonstrated how changes in domestic leaderships can affect regional alliances and rivalry in the Horn of Africa (see Chapters 6 and 14). It is worth mentioning that the revolutionary drive currently brewing in Iraq and Lebanon is part of the second Arab Spring movement. The revolutionary spread of ideas is also evident in this second wave of the Arab Spring. While we employ this definition of the Middle East in the various chapters in this book, the authors of the respective chapters are aware that not all countries are involved at the same level and to the same extent in

4 Schwedler and Gerner, 2. At the time of writing this chapter, South Sudan was not among the member states of the Arab League.

6  P. O. AMOUR

the regional system across the broader Middle East. The authors are also aware of the different existing definitions of the term Middle East. Definitions of the term Middle East vary depending on the political, strategic, and geographic standpoint of the scholars and politicians concerned. For instance, not all scholars include North Africa or all of the sub-Saharan countries mentioned above in their definition of “Middle East.”5 This geographic ambiguity leads some scholars to use the term Middle East and North Africa (MENA), to mark North Africa as a distinct area.6 Middle East scholars tend to agree on the inclusion of most Arab countries as part of the broader Middle East due to their sociocultural and political commonalities; they also include Iran, Israel, and Turkey in their definition, for particular reasons. Iran and Turkey, states linked by trade and regional events, are politically and economically interdependent with other states in the region.7 Most of the states mentioned are included in a regional system with Israel, with various forms of mutual cooperation (e.g., specific Arab States having peace treaties with Israel, Iran–Israel relations before 1979, or Israeli–Turkish relations); growing rapprochement of Arab states toward Israel since the first Arab Spring movement; or mutual rivalry, enmity, and violent conflict, bearing in mind the Arab–Israeli wars. The term Middle East is a relic of the colonial period. It was originally used in elite circles, by military planners, scholars, and the media in the early twentieth century, before it circulated and spread from the West (i.e., it is a term conjuring up part of the world in which the ­culture of western Europe is outweighed) to the rest of the world, including the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East itself.8 The term became widely circulated after WWI, and conjures up a strategic region; a part

5 Michele Penner Angrist, ed., Politics & Society in the Contemporary Middle East (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2010), 1, for instance, includes North Africa in his definition but not all Sub-Saharan countries. 6 For instance: David E. Long, Bernard Reich, and Mark J. Gasiorowski, eds., The Government and Politics of the Middle East and North Africa, 6th ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2011). 7 Bruce M. Russett, International Regions and the International System (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967), https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR05652.v1. 8 Nikki Keddie, “Is There a Middle East?” International Journal of Middle East Studies 4, no. 3 (July 1973): 255–71.

1  INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 

7

of the world with a distinctly different culture from western Europe. But the name posed the questions: middle and east of where? For those living in western Europe, the Middle East is situated between the Near East and Far East, so the term makes sense. This geographic proximity is, however, distinctive to western Europe; hence, the so-called Middle East has different proximity to other states, e.g., it is the Middle West for China or the South of Russia.9 In this sense, the term is Eurocentric. Unlike other terms with an imperialist derivation the term “Middle East” persists in common use, despite its imperialist connotations. For instance, the term “Far East” was substituted by “East Asia.” However, since its introduction the term has taken root in various languages and is widely used among various peoples in the region and beyond.10 Since the creation of the regional system in the broader Middle East, the Levant subregion has constituted the power center of the regional system because of the seriousness and wider implications of some of the conflicts that have taken place there (e.g., Arab–Israeli wars) and the concentration of transnational causes (e.g., Palestine Cause, Arabism, and Pan-Arabism). The center of gravity of regional dynamics has shifted to the Gulf Region since the second decade of this twenty-first century, because of the increase in conflicts there (as illustrated in Chapters 3 and 14). What does it mean, then, to study the regional system in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East?

Theoretical Framework of the Regional System The aim of this section is to define the regional system so this definition can be used as a theoretical tool to explore the design and dynamics in the broader Middle East. Later, the section provides reflections on power projection capabilities. A regional system is defined as a frequent and intense configuration resulting from the existence of, and interactions between and among, state actors and non-state actors. This type of security and ideational configuration is typically acknowledged inwardly from within the regional system itself and outwardly by global great powers, 9 Eliezer Chammou, “Near or Middle East? Choice of Name,” MELA Notes, no. 37 (Winter 1986): 6–8. 10 Bruce Borthwick, Comparative Politics of the Middle East: An Introduction (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980), 14–16.

8  P. O. AMOUR

intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs), as a distinctive regional system of international politics.11 A regional system is a theoretical construct used as an analytical tool to help observers and practitioners investigate regional dynamics and external behavior in and of themselves.12 So, what variables designate a regional system? Geographic proximity among the interactive systemic units of the regional system is one major variable. This geography proximity can be divided into three subcategories: the power center of the regional system, with implications for the conduct of regional affairs; the fringe areas (or periphery) of the regional system, where the significance of regional dynamics appears to be lower than elsewhere in the region; and the third category originated from the international system: an external category.13 Global great powers are actively involved in the power centers and less so in the fringe areas. The subregion with the assumed highest level of strategic gravity is the power center of the regional system. Regional shake-ups appear to reallocate these power centers and the regional dynamics then grow assertive and bellicose in nature. Further variables to describe a regional system involve points of commonality and divergence. Systemic state actors and non-state militant actors usually share a resemblance in terms of ideas and national narratives, in addition to domestic political and ecological attitudes and economic-politico interrelation, so they influence each other in their external ideational and foreign behavior.14 Together, these variables demonstrate the distinctive character of a regional system in terms of the regularities and irregularities of interactive relations. Empirically, the following question emerges regarding the broader Middle East: Do we recognize a regional system in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East? The answer to this question is yes. Witnessing regional dynamics across the broader region, it becomes apparent that the 11 This definition draws on William R. Thompson, “Delineating Regional Subsystems: Visit Networks and the Middle Eastern Case,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 13, no. 2 (May 1981): 213–35, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743800055306. 12 See e.g., F. Gregory Gause, “Systemic Approaches to Middle East International Relations,” International Studies Review 1, no. 1 (June 1999): 11–31, https://doi. org/10.1111/1521-9488.00139. 13 Louise J. Cantore and Steven L. Spiegel, The International Politics of Regions: A Comparative Approach (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970). 14 Russett, International Regions and the International System.

1  INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 

9

patterns of interstate and non-state militant actors form a regional system in and of itself. Events such as the Jasmine Spring in Tunisia, the Syrian and Yemeni civil wars, and the uprisings in Sudan and Algeria show commonalities between countries from different subregions of the Middle East and have wider implications not just for domestic politics but also for the wider region beyond the individual countries directly involved. How can we analyze a regional system? A regional system can be studied (1) in term of its order (i.e., its distribution of power), which contains a set of systemic alliances (i.e., subsystems); (2) in terms of its patterns of regional dynamics and political processes (its security and foreign response options and behaviors); and (3) in terms of its transnational causes.15 Note that ideas, ideologies, and normative beliefs, as well as national narratives, are foundational for transnational causes. As suggested above, these clusters of factors reflect an explanation of the regional system that combines the interplay between material power and the immaterial power of ideas and causes, in addition to domestic influences. These clusters of factors also inform the internal/external dynamics of the regional system. The following paragraphs attempt to explain these three mentioned dimensions. The first dimension is the regional order (structure) that may correspond to the whole region (unipolar/hegemon), to two alliance subsystems (bipolar), to three power blocs (tripolar), or to four and more power subsystems (multipolar). The regional order of a regional system is made up of its systemic units: state and non-state militant actors, and the interactive relations they conduct within and between each other (e.g., security cooperation and engagement, alienation, polarization, rivalry, conflict, and war, as well as ideational balancing) in the context of alignments, arrangements, or webs of partnerships. These types of regional relations include both collaborative and non-collaborative interactions, and irregularities as well as regularities in interactive patterns between actors.16 The second explanatory dimension of the regional level of analysis tackles the patterns of regional dynamics and political processes in 15 Tareq Y. Ismael, International Relations of the Contemporary Middle East: A Study in World Politics, Contemporary Issues in the Middle East (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986), 41–42. 16 James Piscatori and R. K. Ramazani, “The Middle East,” in Comparative Regional Systems: West and East Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Developing Countries, ed. Werner J. Feld (New York; Oxford: Pergamon, 1980), 296.

10  P. O. AMOUR

a regional system. These depend largely on the characteristics of the regional order (e.g., the dominant political cultures, the set of ideas and narratives in the region, and the degree of its regionalization), the regime type of the principal state actors (e.g., authoritarian political structures likely result in proactive and assertive actions), the ideas and normative beliefs of the decision-makers, and the policy attitudes and responses of international great powers toward regional dynamics. A regional system can be impermanent and deceptive in outward appearance; it changes either through regional integration or due to regional eruption. The third explanatory dimension of the regional level of analysis includes ideas, ideologies, national narratives, and transnational causes. By ideas, I refer to the abstract concepts (e.g., identity, anarchy) or mental imagery of how things stand (e.g., Iran or the KSA as a regional hegemon). By ideology, I mean a set of ideas (e.g., democracy, communism) and normative beliefs (e.g., preferences, in the form of lookedfor and good or objectionable and bad). By narratives, I refer to a state’s distinctive perception, understanding, and representation of the national self and of other states, domestically as well as externally. By causes, I refer to affairs of transnational importance with mobilization effects internally and across borders. Transnational causes with r­egion-wide implications influence and shape regional events and, as a result, the formation or deformation of alliances and power centers, as well as shifts across the regional system as a whole. Transnational causes, such as the Arab–Israeli conflict, the Arab–Arab Cold War, the KSA–Iran rivalry, the Sunni–Shi’ polarization, and the first and second Arab Spring movements, have impacted the formation of regional subsystems and altered the regional system in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East in the aftermath of regional developments. Power dynamics in the form of alliances, regional rivalry, and political processes, as well as the ideas and ideologies of involved individuals, deeply influence and shape national narratives and transnational causes. Relatedly, the three-dimensional relationships present in the regional system engage both internal and external aspects in their wake. As mentioned above, systemic units include state actors and ­non-state militant actors. A regional system consists of at least two or more

1  INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 

11

systemic units.17 State actors and non-state militant actors create and form a regional system or a subsystem; however, this creation oscillates back and forth and molds systemic units as well. There are costs and benefits to having bigness (i.e., power in its natural, tangible, and intangible forms described in the next subsection) and there is a strong temptation to gather still more power. In an authoritarian regional system, such as the broader Middle East, even with power one cannot be completely secure; therefore, regional great powers attempt to build alliances (i.e., subsystems) with other states and ­non-state militant actors in order to balance other regional great powers. Regional great powers learn to manage their authority within their pole, and they expect less powerful actors to submit across their subsystem. Less powerful states and non-state militant actors are usually bullied into submission in one way or another. The distribution of power within a subsystem encourages a less powerful systemic actor to follow the more powerful actor or to balance vis-à-vis (e.g., to get on the bandwagon with) a regional great power, to protect itself from the arbitrariness of a higher power. The next section reflects on the concept of power projection capabilities that shape the way state and non-state militant actors can translate their influence in and across the regional system.

Power Projection Capabilities As suggested above, the regional system involves state and non-state militant actors, which exist and interact (or not) with one another in different forms. The structure of the regional system may show ­different forms of polarity: a hegemon or a number of regional great powers in a power alliance. In an authoritarian regional system, among other systems, the value of power prevails; hence, the might of a state or n ­ onstate militant actor is basic to its endurance, survival, and consolidation of power or bid for further power, as well as in providing assurances to its allies. In their different forms, as described below, power projection capabilities enable a systemic unit to influence and shape the regional system, to tackle other coexisting rival subsystems within the same regional

17 Ismael,

International Relations of the Contemporary Middle East, 41–42.

12  P. O. AMOUR

system, and to impose national narratives and similar-minded causes in and across the regional system. There are distinctive aspects to the awareness and measurement of power: the natural, tangible, and intangible aspects.18 The natural source of power arises from a country’s location, its geography, and its population size. Large population and territorial sizes are generally translated into a larger army and a many-sided economy in times of peace and war. These resources empower related state and non-state militant actors to counter, assert, or exercise real or potential force with respect to other systemic actors.19 The sources of power for the Middle East countries are listed in Table 1.1, which shows the wide variations in sources of both natural and tangible power among the countries. These variations and their implications are discussed further in Chapter 14. The notion of the tangible source of power pays more attention to human agency than to population size, and to military technology and arsenal advancements rather than to the size of military sector. It also emphasizes industrial progress and economic strength as crucial elements of this power measurement. Hence, the stronger a state or ­non-state actor’s economy and the more developed its industry, the more the state or non-state actor can sustain and expand its domestic progress and regional position vis-à-vis its rivals in times of peace and conflict. According to this approach, power comes from the knowhow to translate a power source into capability to control strategic events and outcomes. If the natural source of power is largely predetermined (e.g., the geographical location) the tangible source of power needs work to acquire and thus it can take a long time to do so. To understand the scope of power, we need to consider the intangible source of power, which captures further forms of power, such as soft power and public diplomacy.20 While the former two sources of power (natural and tangible power) involve material aspects (e.g., troops, tanks, aircraft, missiles, and nuclear weapons), intangible sources of power underline immaterial capabilities, such as ideas, ideologies, information, 18 Karen A. Mingst and Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft, Essentials of International Relations, 6th ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 2014), 140–46. 19 Paul R. Viotti and Mark V. Kauppi, International Relations Theory, 5th ed. (Boston: Longman, 2012). 20 Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2004).

2,381,740.0 778.0 995,450.0 1,628,760.0 434,128.0 21,640.0 17,820.0 2,149,690.0 11,610.0 1,759,540.0 446,300.0 183,630.0 769,630.0 71,020.0 527,970.0

Algeria Bahrain Egypt Iran Iraq Israel Kuwait KSA Qatar Libya Morocco Syria Turkey UAE Yemen

42,228,429 1,569,439 98,423,595 81,800,269 38,433,600 8,883,800 4,137,309 33,699,947 2,781,677 6,678,567 36,029,138 16,906,283 82,319,724 9,630,959 28,498,687

73 89 43 75 70 92 100 84 99 80 62 54 75 87 37

4278.9 24,050.8 2549.1 5627.7 5878.0 41,614.0 34,244.0 23,219.1 69,026.5 7235.0 3237.9 2032.6 9311.4 43,004.9 944.4

75 95 75 86 44 92 96 94 93 86 69 81 96 90 54

317,000 19,000 836,000 563,000 209,000 178,000 25,000 252,000 22,000 n.a. 246,000 239,000 512,000 63,000 40,000

Total population Urban popula- GDP per capita Literacy rate, Armed forces 2018 tion (% of total) current US$ adult total (% personnel, total 2018 2018 of people ages 15 2017 and above)

Source World Bank.org; World Development Indicators. Data for literacy rate and military expenditure are from different years

Land area (km2) 2018

Country

Table 1.1  Statistical data on sources of power for countries in the Gulf Region and broader Middle East

9,583,724.29 1,396,808.51 3,109,997.89 13,194,151.14 6,317,977.15 15,946,788.60 7,296,266.53 67,554,666.67 1,876,758.24 3,755,658.60 3,696,856.94 2,494,887.48 18,967,113.03 22,755,071.48 1,714,830.84

Military expenditure (current USD)

1  INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 

13

14  P. O. AMOUR

images, intellectual property, entertainment, and media. One major aim of soft power is to polish the state actor’s or non-state actor’s brand (i.e., reputation) abroad, as well as to place the nation/community in a good position politically, diplomatically, economically, and ecologically. Therefore, other systemic actors will cooperate, engage, and eventually enter alliances, or refrain from confrontation, with the actor, while foreign constituencies and elites will show understanding or even support for the actor’s regional course. Systemic actors with power projection capabilities promote their communications technology and informational infrastructure in order to reach and target foreign audiences, including elites. A systemic actor with immaterial projection capabilities could translate its communications and information infrastructure into political and ideational power across the region in order to support its normative principles (i.e., national narratives and causes) and foreign policies. It could do this, for example, by transforming national narratives and like-minded pan-causes across the region, by manipulating existing ones, or by altering the importance of competitive and rival narratives and regional causes. Regional great powers in the Gulf Region and the broad Middle East dominate information and communications infrastructure; they target their foreign constituencies intentionally. The tangible source of power is much easier to quantify and measure than the other two sources of power. It is better suited to present, defend, and guarantee a state’s national objectives across the regional system. Intangible power has been gaining importance and growing in use by state and non-state actors since the turn of the twenty-first century. Natural source of power has lost importance since WWII; hence, states with little natural source power have demonstrated the ability and knowhow to develop power capabilities beyond or despite their modest natural resources. Israel is the classical example, in the broader Middle East. When soft and material power approaches are married, a “smart power” strategy develops through the connection of military force (or the threat of it) with the soft power of persuasion, seduction, attraction, or manipulation. The level and scope of employment of a specific source of power or a mix of them depends on domestic influences, the

1  INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 

15

leadership in charge, and the set of ideas and ideologies concerned, as well as the given balance of power.21 Power projection capabilities are understood in this book to represent the ability of a state or non-state actor to exercise all or some of its sources of power (e.g., military, economic, diplomatic, and ideational/ informational) across the regional system in order to keep its regional influence in its material and immaterial forms, to retain the confidence of allies, to contribute to the prevention and containment of rivals, and to have the might to react to regional dynamics. Chapter 14 gives further theoretical and empirical insights into the concept of the regional system and power projection capabilities.

The Organization of the Book The aim of this book is to explain the regional system in the Gulf Region and broader Middle East in terms of its order (the major interstate alliances involved, the proactive state actors and non-state militant actors); its political processes (e.g., security cooperation and engagement, rivalry, and conflict) in the form of alliance building, persistence, and disintegration; and the underlying ideas and transnational causes. While several chapters focus on the aftermath of the Arab Spring movement, some chapters go back in history to the twentieth century to reflect on earlier stages in order to clarify their focus. My objective as the editor of this book was not to solicit contributions according to a circumscribed conceptual design. Instead, I asked the contributors to consider a combination of the above-mentioned clusters of factors in relation to the regional level of analysis, while still giving them flexibility regarding the conceptual structure of their chapter. In doing this my aim was to encourage thematic coherency, while still allowing innovative analysis. The outcome is a collection of conceptually similar chapters, rich in empirical inclusion, that visualize the regional system, which is otherwise a theoretical construct of a complicated reality. The respective chapters offer supplementary and complementary analyses of the regional system across the broader Middle East from different perspectives.

21 Joseph

S. Nye, The Future of Power (New York: Public Affairs, 2012).

16  P. O. AMOUR

The following outline shows that not all contributors deliver the same level of intertwined interpretation of the interrelation of material power factors, ideational factors, and domestic influences. Thus, this book is best seen as a contribution to the interplay of a combination of a cluster of factors on the regional system in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East rather than a definitive analysis. We hope it will kindle fruitful research into the interplay of factorial clusters at the regional level of analysis that shape and form regional dynamics. Part I of this book deals with the regional system in general; it examines the evolution and policies of the major subsystems in the broader Middle East, in addition to their ideational set and transnational affairs. It starts with Dihstelhoff and Lohse’s chapter (Political Islam as an Ordering Factor? The Reconfiguration of the Regional Order in the Middle East Since the Arab Spring). The authors analyze two opposing regional alliances in terms of their ideational positions and normative beliefs toward the movements of Political Islam since 2010. They demonstrate that regional great powers in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East have colliding normative beliefs regarding the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as either a systemic opportunity (e.g., Turkey and Qatar) or a security threat (e.g., the KSA and the UAE). The pro-Muslim-Brotherhood bloc is ideationally similar to the Arab Spring revolutionary forces and thus regarded the first Arab Spring movement and the rise of the MB to states’ leadership as a systemic opportunity. Qatar understood the emergence of Political Islam as a strategic possibility to gain different allies in the region in order to become independent from neighboring powers. Turkey, too, saw in the regional dynamics an opportunity to ally itself with Tunisia, Egypt, and other revolutionary leaderships promoted by the first Arab Spring movement. Neither Turkey nor Qatar regard the MB as a threat. The MB branch in Qatar officially dissolved itself in the 1990s and still lacks a branch there despite the political mobilization of the Arab Spring. Turkey, a ­non-Arab state with a long tradition of political activism, saw no threat in the emergence of the MB. Surviving under authoritarian rule, the MB across the broader region felt ideologically and empirically somewhat attracted to the Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP) that had won legislative elections and was regarded as a ruling model for good governance and for the conformity of Islam and democracy in the region. This pro-Muslim-Brotherhood bloc has stood in opposition to the anti-Muslim-Brotherhood bloc led by the KSA and UAE, as well as

1  INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 

17

Egypt, since the 2013 Egyptian coup d’état. The KSA/UAE-led power bloc regards the MB and its ideological affiliates as a threat to their domestic hold on power and to their regional might. They were likely also concerned that the new unfolding subsystem (i.e., the pro-MB bloc) in the region would result in an integration of Iran or a closer connection with the Iran-led conservative-resistance subsystem (explored in Chapter 4). For the anti-Muslim-Brotherhood bloc, the similar ideological roots of Sunni Political Islam represented in the MB and Shi’ Political Islam in the Islamic revolution would make alliance building of both power blocs more likely. Besides ideological explanations, the authors in Chapter 2 point to geopolitical pressures and domestic influences regarding threat perceptions within the anti-MB bloc. Dihstelhoff and Lohse argue that not all principal states have the same threat perception urgency toward the MB, Iran, and the Islamic State (IS). According to the authors, the KSA appears to prioritize the threat of Iran and IS, while UAE and Egypt seem to have set their security priorities on the MB. The authors explain that this difference in prioritization is due to the geostrategic threats of Iran and IS against the KSA, while domestic influences appear to be more prevalent in the case of Egypt and UAE. The pro-MB bloc witnessed setbacks after the military coup in Egypt in July 2013 and in Sudan in April 2019. Tunisia also reestablished its ties with the anti-MB bloc. So far, Turkey and Qatar have stuck to their commitment to back up movements of Political Islam. Chapter 3 (Gulfization of the Middle East Security Complex) is written by Amr Yossef, who underlines the distribution of power dynamics, internal/external pressures, and subregional ideational preferences. Amr Yossef marks in his chapter a systemic shift of the regional system in terms of its power center. The Levant had been the heart of the regional system in the broader Middle East due to its politicizing and mobilizing transnational cross-border causes; however, subregional concerns and actions in and emanating from the Gulf Region outward since 2014 have shifted the center of the regional system to the Gulf. While the Arab–Israeli conflict dominated regional affairs after 1948, Gulf affairs have gained increasing importance since 2011. Moreover, a perceived US abandonment of Gulf affairs during the Obama administration has pushed the KSA/UAE-led subsystem to pursue a proactive and assertive foreign policy and project its power capabilities through the region (e.g., in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon, among others).

18  P. O. AMOUR

This new policy approach has been underlined by volatile security and ideational threats from the IS, MB, and Iran. The rise of the novel power bloc led by Turkey and Qatar (discussed in Chapter 5) has most likely contributed to a shift in the policy attitudes and actions of the KSA and UAE. The ascension of King Salman to the throne of Saudi Arabia, as an example of domestic influences, along with his current crown prince, have most likely contributed to this alteration in regional policy. Chapter 4 (The Conservative-Resistance Camp: The Axis of Resistance) by Ana Belén Soage pays attention to the Iran-led subsystem encompassing Syria, Hezbollah, and non-state militant actors (such as the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas], the Palestinian Islamic Jihad [PIJ], the pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, and, likely, the Houthi movement in Yemen). Like the authors of previous chapters in this book, Soage argues that strategic calculations (e.g., a common enemy), and specific ideational/ideological underpinnings bind these state and non-state militant actors together. The Iran–Iraq Gulf War, civil war in Lebanon, and the Palestinian Intifadas are examples of binding and unifying events among principal actors in this subsystem. Note that these regional events correspond to transnational causes, so they increase the public support and legitimacy of these subsystemic actors among foreign audiences and elites across the Gulf Region and broader Middle East. Soage demonstrates how the Syrian Civil War has altered this transnational brand of the long-seated regional subsystems and how it has provided different systemic actors with opportunities to improve their guerrilla and militant capabilities. Moreover, the chapter delivers complementary insights to previous chapters regarding ideological/doctrinal roots of Shiite Political Islam and Sunni Political Islam. Chapter 5 (Emergence of the Turkish/Qatari Alliance in the Middle East: Making of the Moderate-Resistance Bloc) introduces the rise of the most recent regional subsystem led by Turkey and Qatar, including transition countries that are or have been run by political parties with Islamist inheritance that entered government because of the changes brought about by the first Arab Spring movement.22 Nuri Yeşilyurt 22 See more in this regard Philipp O. Amour, “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018), 1–21.

1  INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 

19

and Mustafa Yetim argue that while this Turkish–Qatari alliance has suffered setbacks since 2013/2014, it still stands and conducts different regional policies in comparison to the other long-established KSA/UAE-led and Iran-led subsystems. Yeşilyurt and Yetim call the third subsystem a “moderate-resistance” bloc; hence, they believe it features a set of ideas and normative beliefs, as well as foreign policy orientations and behaviors that intersect both these ­long-settled subsystems at various points. This is likely one reason, among others, why the longestablished subsystems are cautious toward the new Turkey/Qatar led alliance. The various security alliances in the broader Middle East are listed in Table 14.1 in Chapter 14. Part II of this book covers specific state actors (Turkey, Qatar, and Israel) and non-state militant actors (Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces [PMF], Syria’s Democratic Union Party [PYD], and the Islamic State). The respective chapters illuminate how these state and non-state actors have attempted to assert their regional position and to counter rivals with the help of hard power and soft power strategies that included military actions, military base expansion, developmental and organizational actions, and ideological projection. The cases here are illustrative for state and non-state militant actors in the region, but are not exhaustive. While the ideational position, policy attitudes, and systemic place of important countries (e.g., the KSA) and non-state militant actors (e.g., Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi movement) are explored in Part I of this book, some countries, like Egypt and UAE, require further attention.23 Chapters 6 and 7 deal with Turkey and Qatar, respectively. Both chapters demonstrate how complex regional dynamics since 2011 have moved both countries to abandon their foreign policies of zero problems with neighbors and strategic policy hedging. Chapter 6 (Expanding the Turkish Bid for Regional Control in the Somali Regional Security Complexes) explores Turkey’s humanitarian 23 The role of Egypt in the interstate system in the Middle East is largely explored. See e.g., Mustafa El-Labbad, “Egypt: A ‘Regional Reference’ in the Middle East,” in Regional Powers in the Middle East: New Constellations after the Arab Revolts, ed. Henner Fürtig, 2014, 81–99; For UAE see e.g., Rosa Vane, “Employing Militarization as a Means of Maintaining the ‘Ruling Bargain’: The Case of the United Arab Emirates,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018), 225–83.

20  P. O. AMOUR

and soft power engagement with the Federal Republic of Somalia. Stephanie Carver demonstrates how soft power empowered Ankara to brand a transnational humanist identity for Turkey across the broader Middle East. One rationale of this foreign policy was the diversification of Turkey’s economy, the ability to project power and influence in the Horn of Africa (i.e., with a military base), and the extension of its security terrain on the edge of the broader Middle East. The chapter explicitly or implicitly underlines domestic influences and ideational preferences of the leadership, in addition to status ambitions as explanations for Turkish foreign policy in the Horn of Africa. Chapter 7 (Qatar’s Calculated Gamble on the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood) examines Qatar’s regional policy and its positioning toward the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria (SMB). Hanlie Booysen concludes that Doha’s support of the MB in Syria and Egypt is not rooted solely in doctrinal/ideological motivations, but also has the strategic aim of enhancing Qatar’s regional position across the broader Middle East through alliance building. By doing so, Qatar can leverage its type of power and gain foreign policy independence vis-à-vis neighboring higher powers in the Gulf Region. Chapter 7 also gives hints regarding the roots of suspicion and points of conflict between Qatar ­vis-à-vis the KSA and Bahrain. In Chapter 8 ((Un)Limited Force: Regional Realignments, Israeli Operations, and the Security of Gaza), Colter Louwerse examines Tel Aviv’s policy and its use of force against Gaza in the context of Operation Pillar of Defense (2012) and Operation Protective Edge (2014). Louwerse demonstrates that regional dynamics since 2013 have brought about strategic advantages for Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians in both the regional and international contexts. He demonstrates how the most important constraints on Israel’s overuse of power against the Palestinians have declined since then. The conservative-resistance bloc, known for its support of non-state militant actors (Hamas and Islamic Jihad, among others) and for the Palestinian cause, has been busy with domestic uprisings, civil/proxy wars, and national crises. Israel’s rapprochement with the conservative-moderate bloc, in addition to having the unprecedented support of the Trump administration, have decreased deterrence of Israel’s over-actions. The author uses developments since the first Arab Spring movements to explain the extent and scope of the Israeli military operations against Gaza. While the international system matters, it becomes apparent in this chapter that it is the regional shift

1  INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 

21

in transnational affairs and overhauls of priorities that have enabled Tel Aviv’s excessive use of force against Gaza. Part II of this book includes two chapters dealing with non-state militant actors—Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), Syria’s Democratic Union Party (PYD), and the Islamic State. To fully understand the range of regional politics unfolding across the Gulf Region and broader Middle East since 2011, an examination of non-state militant actors is essential. Non-state militant actors are not a novelty in the region. However, these systemic units have recently become major players in regional politics operating across state boundaries and are now challenging the foundations of the regional system in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. These non-state militant actors (in addition to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi movement, which are explored in Part I of this book) are the most vigorous players on the ground and their regional importance is increasing. Chapter 9 (The Evolution of Iraq’s Hashd al-Sha’abi) surveys Iraq’s PMF, a Shi’ militia supported by Iran and primarily operating in Iraq and Syria. Zana Gulmohamad divides groups within the PMF according to their ideational affiliation and benefactors. Like Hezbollah, the PMF is part of the conservative-resistance subsystem (see Table 14.1 in Chapter 14). The PMF is an umbrella of different (Shi’) groups, so Zana Gulmohamad examines the group’s ideological roots and their domestic and regional objectives. He demonstrates how the pro-Iranian militias within the PMF contributed to the power projection capabilities of Iran, not just in Iraq but in other areas of the region. Chapter 10 (Between the PYD and the Islamic State: The Complex Role of Non-state Actors in Syria) explores the Kurdish Democratic Union Party and IS as non-state violent actors that had ambitions for autonomy at different levels. The Islamic State attempted to set up an actual state, while the PYD was allegedly pursuing an autonomous region. Both examples indicate the increasing role of non-state militant actors in Syria and in the broader Middle East, whose actions in consolidating territories under their control and establishing quasi-state entities with a considerable organizational capacity go beyond the scope and extent of a conventional non-state militant actor. Part I and Part II of this book demonstrate, collectively, that the regional system in the Gulf Region and broader Middle East rests on the interrelation of power dynamics and ideational and transnational cause-based aspects, in addition to domestic influences. All of these ­

22  P. O. AMOUR

factors interweave to influence and form the policies of the relevant systemic state actors and non-state militant actors. Part III of the book deals with Russia and ecological factors. Great powers (e.g., France, the UK, Soviet Union/Russia, and the USA) have intimately influenced and continue to influence the development of the regional system and its actors’ sets of ideas, ideologies, and normative beliefs, as well as policy choices and strategic behaviors for factors relating to their dependence on natural resources (e.g., gas, oil), interests in geopolitics (of the Middle East as a major junction of trade routes such as the Bab Al-Mandeb, Gulf of Aqaba, the Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz, and Suez Canal) and balance of power politics. As industrial states continue their development (and preeminence in related affairs), energy resources are one of their most crucial assets. Controlling the supply of energy resources and guaranteeing this supply at affordable prices are elementary for the continuity of these states’ supreme power and wealth. The external presence of major global powers in the Gulf Region and broader Middle East finds its articulation in the form of soft power projective programs and cooperative monetary relief, security, intelligence, economic cooperation, and engagement, in addition to military intervention. This part of the book includes chapters on Russia and on environmental factors. Various chapters in this book address the impact of the USA on regional politics; however, no chapter focuses exclusively on the USA’s role in the region.24 Efe Can Gürcan’s analysis in Chapter 11 (Domestic and External Factors in the Syrian Conflict: Toward a Multicausal Explanation) explores the underlying issues of the Syrian uprising and the subsequent civil war. Gürcan demonstrates how failed political-economic policies and inadequate environmental policies contributed to the Syrian uprising and how these domestic factors made the Syrian regime more vulnerable to external interference motivated by geopolitical energy security and the

24 For the USA see e.g., Shahram Akbarzadeh and Kylie Baxter, Middle East Politics and International Relations: Crisis Zone (London; New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2018), 117–64; Raymond Hinnebusch, The International Politics of the Middle East, 2nd ed. (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2015), 225–71; and Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, “The United States, Iran and the Middle East’s New ‘Cold War,’” The International Spectator 45, no. 1 (March 2010): 75–87, https://doi. org/10.1080/03932721003661624.

1  INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 

23

politics of balance of power. The author examines energy policies of specific (regional) great powers to explain their foreign policies in Syria. Chapter 12 (Lending an “Old Friend” a Hand: Why Does Russia Back Syria?) attempts to explain Russia’s involvement in Syria as arising power from a combination of different factors. Umut Bekcan and Pınar Uz Hançarli conclude that Russia’s policy behavior in the Syrian conflict and its backing of the Syrian regime overlaps with its self-perception as a reemerging global superpower. With this perception, Russia has been unwilling to watch US/Western interventionism in the region in silence. Moreover, Russia’s involvement in the Syrian conflict harmonized with domestic influences, including the mindset and normative beliefs of Vladimir Putin, as well as Russia’s economic and political objectives of upholding a long-established ally and maintaining its naval base in Tartus, which gives Russia access to the Mediterranean for commercial and strategic purposes. In Chapter 13 (Contribution of Water Scarcity and Sustainability Failures to Disintegration and Conflict in the Arab Region) Mohammad Al-Saidi looks at of the issues of water scarcity and sustainability failures (in Syria and Yemen) and shows how these environmental factors contribute to domestic disintegration and regional conflicts. The chapters in Part III deliver two particular insights: one is that regional powers are also driven by energy and natural resources motives while pursuing their security and foreign policy in Syria and across the region. The second is that ecological factors and natural resources contribute to explain regional politics and interstate affairs. While the effects appear at the state level, their implications extend beyond state borders and are thus relevant to neighboring countries. Readers may wonder if, and to what level, political leaderships are fully aware of the ecological factors and their importance for domestic stability and regime survival. The final chapter (Regional Rivalries and Security Alliances in the Gulf Region and the Middle East) by Philipp O. Amour synthesizes the major arguments in this book, while delivering further theoretical and empirical insights. Chapter 14 also discusses potential future developments in the regional system in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East.

24  P. O. AMOUR

Bibliography Akbarzadeh, Shahram, and Kylie Baxter. Middle East Politics and International Relations: Crisis Zone. London; New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2018. Amour, Philipp O. “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction.” In The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 1–21. St. James’s Studies in World Affairs. Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018. Angrist, Michele Penner, ed. Politics & Society in the Contemporary Middle East. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2010. Borthwick, Bruce. Comparative Politics of the Middle East: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Buzan, Barry, and Ole Waever. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Buzan, Barry, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2013. Cantore, Louise J., and Steven L. Spiegel. The International Politics of Regions: A Comparative Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970. Chammou, Eliezer. “Near or Middle East? Choice of Name.” MELA Notes, no. 37 (Winter 1986): 6–8. El-Labbad, Mustafa. “Egypt: A ‘Regional Reference’ in the Middle East.” In Regional Powers in the Middle East: New Constellations after the Arab Revolts, edited by Henner Fürtig, 81–99. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Gause, F. Gregory. “Systemic Approaches to Middle East International Relations.” International Studies Review 1, no. 1 (June 1999): 11–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00139. Götz, Elias, and Neil MacFarlane. “Russia’s Role in World Politics: Power, Ideas, and Domestic Influences.” International Politics 56, no. 6 (December 2019): 713–25. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-018-0162-0. Hinnebusch, Raymond. The International Politics of the Middle East. 2nd ed. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2015. Ismael, Tareq Y. International Relations of the Contemporary Middle East: A Study in World Politics. Contemporary Issues in the Middle East. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986. Keddie, Nikki. “Is There a Middle East?” International Journal of Middle East Studies 4, no. 3 (July 1973): 255–71. Leverett, Flynt, and Hillary Mann Leverett. “The United States, Iran and the Middle East’s New ‘Cold War.’” The International Spectator 45, no. 1 (March 2010): 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932721003661624.

1  INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 

25

Long, David E., Bernard Reich, and Mark J. Gasiorowski, eds. The Government and Politics of the Middle East and North Africa. 6th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2011. Mingst, Karen A., and Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft. Essentials of International Relations. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2014. Nye, Joseph S. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs, 2004. ———. The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs, 2012. Piscatori, James, and R. K. Ramazani. “The Middle East.” In Comparative Regional Systems: West and East Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Developing Countries, edited by Werner J. Feld, 274–99. New York; Oxford: Pergamon, 1980. Russett, Bruce M. International Regions and the International System. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR05652.v1. Schwedler, Jillian, and Deborah J. Gerner. Understanding the Contemporary Middle East. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2008. Smith, Steve. “Dialogue and the Reinforcement of Orthodoxy in International Relations.” International Studies Review 5, no. 1 (March 2003): 141–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.501019_6. Thompson, William R. “Delineating Regional Subsystems: Visit Networks and the Middle Eastern Case.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 13, no. 2 (May 1981): 213–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0020743800055306. Vane, Rosa. “Employing Militarization as a Means of Maintaining the ‘Ruling Bargain’: The Case of the United Arab Emirates.” In The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 225–83. St. James’s Studies in World Affairs. Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018. Viotti, Paul R., and Mark V. Kauppi. International Relations Theory. 5th ed. Boston: Longman, 2012.

PART I

Security Alliances in the Gulf Region and the Middle East

CHAPTER 2

Political Islam as an Ordering Factor? The Reconfiguration of the Regional Order in the Middle East Since the “Arab Spring” Julius Dihstelhoff and Alexander Lohse

Introduction The upheavals of 2010/11, which are known as the Arab Spring, caused far-reaching reconfigurations not only on a national level, but also on a regional level, in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. State and non-state militant actors alike had to review their logic of action, as they were confronted with new national and regional challenges. The Gulf War of 2003 had already removed Iraq from the regional balance of power equation, giving Iran, in particular, new opportunities to spread its influence in neighboring Arab countries. In 2011, Syria’s and Egypt’s roles in the Middle East were diminished because of national upheavals. Today, Syria remains weakened regionally. Egypt still has an ability to project both hard and soft power across the region; however, since 2013, J. Dihstelhoff (*) · A. Lohse  Department of Near and Middle Eastern Politics, Centre for Near and Middle Eastern Studies (CNMS), Marburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] J. Dihstelhoff · A. Lohse  Institute of Political Science, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_2

29

30  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE

the regime is largely occupied with domestic challenges of stability and economic transition. In addition, new non-state militant actors, such as ISIS, have further eroded the established post-colonial Sykes-Picot order by negating the existing borders. In regional processes since 2010, the actors of Political Islam not only had to review their own political conceptions, but they were also a point of reference for regional powers, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Turkey, and Qatar. Therefore, Political Islam has become a major factor in the reconfiguration of the regional system since 2011. The growing influence of movements of Political Islam, which began well before 2010 but gained new momentum through the Arab spring movement, continued to polarize the societies and states in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. By serving as a shared perceived threat or a shared perceived power option, Political Islam strongly influenced the formation and strengthening of new alliances at the regional level. It played an important role in the domestic power negotiations in several Arab countries (e.g., Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, and Tunisia), as well as in the civil wars in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. The actors of Political Islam—and especially the national Muslim Brotherhood (MB) branches (e.g., in Egypt and Syria), as well as ideologically associated organizations that share common ideological references but are not formally linked to the MB network (e.g., the Tunisian Ennahda or the Moroccan Party for Justice and Development)—have a role as subjects and objects of international politics with a wide conflictive reach. On the one hand, these actors are involved in the restructuring of the region. On the other hand, they are made into a political issue by the interest policies of the abovementioned regional powers. The aim of this chapter is to examine the transnational phenomenon of Political Islam as an influencing factor for the foreign policies of selected regional powers, specifically the KSA, the UAE, Turkey, and Qatar, as well as for the power relations in the region. Two key questions will be the focus of this chapter. First, to what extent are the foreign policies of these countries determined by their orientation toward Political Islam? Second, what effects does this orientation toward Political Islam have on regional processes of alliance formation and lines of conflict that shape the regional order? We therefore start by introducing the phenomenon of Political Islam and its relevance for the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East.

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

31

On this basis, we analyze the role of Political Islam for the formation of new regional axes and compare the strategies deployed by the four mentioned states facing Political Islam. Depending on the developments in the region, these different strategies contribute to processes of alliance formation that have continued to shape the regional order since 2010. The empirical basis for our analysis lies in an evaluation of various written documents, such as scientific analyses related to the chapter’s topic and statements by foreign policy decision-makers of the four regional powers, as well as interviews conducted with German foreign policy officials and representatives of the MB during field research in Germany, other European states, and several Arab countries since 2012.

Development of Political Islam and Its Relevance for the Region In public debate, as well as in academia, the appellation Political Islam is often used interchangeably with Islamism.1 However, as we define it in this chapter, the term Political Islam refers to Islamic movements that seek to reorganize political power relations and orders, whether through reforms and gradual integration into the political system or through revolutionary upheavals. The term Islamism, by contrast, is broader and encompasses all socio-political ideologies that advocate social, economic, political, and/or cultural change referring to Islam.2 Related references range from literal interpretations of religious texts to the so-called aims and purposes of Sharia (Arab.: maqasid al-shari`a) and individual core values of Islam—such as justice (`adala), charity (ihsan), freedom (hurriya), the principle of mutual counseling (shura), and mutual social responsibility (takaful)—up to general references to Islam as a universal civilization.3 Sharia interpretations (and applications) are also very diverse. While some actors are oriented toward traditional 1 John L. Esposito, ed., Political Islam: Revolution, Radicalism, or Reform? (Boulder, CO: Rienner, 1997); Graham E. Fuller, The Future of Political Islam (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003); and Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994). 2 Asef Bayat, Making Islam Democratic: Social Movements and the Post-Islamist Turn (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007), 7–9. 3 Joel Beinin and Joe Stork, eds., Political Islam: Essays from Middle East Report (London: Tauris, 1997), 73–75.

32  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE

schools of law, others demand a reinterpretation of Islamic law in the context of modernity. Although most Islamist ideologists claim a connection between religion and state (din wa daula), not all Islamic movements seek power participation.4 The spectrum of Political Islam shows a variety of currents. Apart from political Salafists,5 who are strictly oriented toward religious sources and the model of the ancestors (Salaf), their most prominent representatives include the MB and the so-called Wasatiyya parties (transl.: middle way/centered). As the oldest movement of Political Islam, the national MB branches have founded political parties in many countries of the Arab world.6 The Wasatiyya parties see themselves as parties of the conservative, liberal center; they also have their ideological origin in the MB.7 These parties include the Moroccan Party of Justice and Development (PJD) and the Tunisian Ennahda.8 The movements of Political Islam have emerged in very different historical, national, political, and cultural contexts. Above all, their formation was a defensive reaction against the monopolization of power by authoritarian postcolonial elites of the Arab states, which were and are primarily nationalist and secular. Despite different national contexts, their strength in the region results from the multitude of grievances that accompanied the crises of postcolonial development models. These continue to include high unemployment, a lack of social and political 4 John L. Esposito, Islam and Politics, 4th ed. (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1998); Frédéric Volpi and Ewan Stein, “Islamism and the State after the Arab Uprisings: Between People Power and State Power,” Democratization 22, no. 2 (2015): 276–93, https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2015.1010811. 5 Quintan Wiktorowicz, “Anatomy of the Salafi Movement,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 29, no. 3 (2006): 207–39, https://doi.org/10.1080/10576100500497004. 6 In Egypt the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), in Libya the Justice and Construction Party (JCP), in Algeria the Mouvement de la Société pur la Paix (MSP), in Jordan the Islamic Action Front Party (IAFP), in Syria the National Party for Justice and the Constitutions (Waad), in Iraq the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP), in Iraqi-Kurdistan the Kurdistan Islamic Union (KIU), and in Kuwait the Constitutional Movement. In Yemen, the Muslim Brotherhood participated in the creation of the Islah Party. In Palestine, the local Muslim Brotherhood founded HAMAS as its arm of resistance. 7 Carrie R. Wickham, “The Path to Moderation: Strategy and Learning in the Formation of Egypt’s Wasat Party,” Comparative Politics 36, no. 2 (2004), https://doi. org/10.2307/4150143. 8 Carrie R. Wickham, The Muslim Brotherhood: Evolution of an Islamist Movement (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013).

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

33

participation opportunities, and state corruption.9 Therefore, the movements of Political Islam represent a diverse social clientele and have considerable support and influence in Arab societies, often representing the main force in national oppositions.10 In order to implement their regional and international agendas, the movements of Political Islam also rely on international networks. This is not only shown by transnational networks, which are composed of various national organizations within specific currents of Political Islam (e.g., the International Organization of the MB, based in London, or the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, located in Brussels).11 International networking also occurs through informal alliance-building processes with international actors. This includes informal networks with supportive states, like Qatar and Turkey, with ideologically associated organizations, such as the European Council for Fatwa and Research (which was headed by Yusuf ­ al-Qaradawi until November 2018 and included members such as Rachid Ghannouchi),12 and other figures of similar disposition and purposes.13 Political Islam is not a new phenomenon, but is instead the result of step-by-step transformations, both within its actors and due to exogenous factors of the different political systems of the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. As early as the 1980s, after the failure of rentseeking development models of secular-nationalist regimes, the actors of

9 Bayat,

Making Islam Democratic, 6–9. Werenfels, “Vom Umgang mit Islamisten im Maghreb: Zwischen Einbindung und Unterdrückung,” 39, SWP Studie (Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft undPolitikGerman Institute for International and Security Affairs, December 2005), https://www.swp-berlin. org/fileadmin/contents/products/studien/2005_S39_wrf_ks.pdf. 11 Werenfels; Bérengère Massignon, “Islam in the European Commission’s System of Regulation of Religion,” in Islam in Europe: Diversity, Identity and Influence, ed. Effie Fokas and Aziz Al-Azmeh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 125–48; Johannes Grundmann, Islamische Internationalisten: Strukturen und Aktivitäten der Muslimbruderschaft und der islamischen Weltliga. Aktuelle Debatte, vol. 2 (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2005). 12 Lorenzo Vidino, The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), 72. 13 Lorenzo Vidino, “The European Organisation of the Muslim Brotherhood: Myth or Reality?,” in The Muslim Brotherhood in Europe, ed. Bakker Baker and Roel Meijer (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 59. 10 Isabelle

34  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE

Political Islam were able to mobilize a broader social stratum.14 In the context of the Arab Spring movement, several political parties representing Political Islam, such as the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) in Egypt, Ennahda in Tunisia, and the PJD in Morocco, obtained excellent scores in elections in 2011. Recently, however, these actors have faced significant setbacks, including the ouster of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013 and the persecution of the MB as a terrorist organization in Egypt (December 2013), the KSA (March 2014), and the UAE (November 2014).15 Nevertheless, Political Islam still has an impact on regional developments, as will be outlined in the following sections.

Opposing Axes of Action Based on Political Islam (2010–2013) The political rise of actors of Political Islam since 2010 has furthered competing foreign policies of regional powers. This section will show that the competition between the regional powers resulted in two different reactions and strategies facing Political Islam, which in turn led to the formation of two opposing axes. Strong ideologizations played a role in the affiliation of the regional powers to these axes, in that Islamic discourses were used both to justify rational interests in foreign policies and to bring forward strategic considerations to weaken the opponent’s axis.16 In the early stage of the first Arab Spring movement, an axis of actors of Political Islam and its political allies was formed. This loose association 14 Carrie Rosefsky Wickham, “Islamic Mobilization and Political Change: The Islamist Trend in Egypt’s Professional Associations,” in Political Islam: Essays from Middle East Report, ed. Joel Beinin and Joe Stork (London: Tauris, 1997), 120–35. 15 May Darwich, “Creating the Enemy, Constructing the Threat: The Diffusion of Repression against the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East,” Democratization 24, no. 7 (2017): 1289–306, https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2017.1307824; Philipp O. Amour, “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington: Academica Press, 2018), 1–21. 16 Alexey Khlebnikov, “The New Ideological Threat to the GCC: Implications for the Qatari-Saudi Rivalry,” Strategic Assessment 17, no. 4 (2015), http://www.inss.org.il/ wp-content/uploads/systemfiles/adkan17_4ENG_7_Khlebnikov.pdf.

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

35

consisted primarily of national MB movements and ideologically associated organizations, as well as their supporting states, namely Qatar and Turkey. Neither Qatar nor Turkey understood the initial electoral successes of the actors of Political Islam in the region as a threat, but they instead viewed them as an opportunity to enhance their power positions in the region. Regarding Qatar, the Qatari MB was dissolved in the 1990s; therefore, a spread of Islamist activities within the country presented no threat. Even before 2011, Qatar had been maintaining good relations with different actors of Political Islam, which has always been an integral part of Qatar’s overall foreign policy strategy (see Chapter 7).17 In the course of the Arab Spring movement, Qatar was concerned with the historic opportunity to influence the reconfiguration of the region and to further diversify its foreign policy (hedging), in order to expand its position of power within the Middle East.18 In this context, Qatar relied on Islamic-based political and economic cooperation with the successful actors of Political Islam at the beginning of the Arab Spring movement.19 With Political Islam on the rise, Turkey also saw new opportunities to expand its influence in regional politics.20 Turkey’s own interests focused on strengthening relations with Egypt. This began after the fall of Mubarak, as political and economic cooperation intensified, so that, for example, a strategic cooperation council at the highest political level was set up in September 2011. In the context of this cooperation, government representatives rhetorically referred to the joint moderate Islamist framework of the Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Egyptian FJP as the basis

17 Khlebnikov; Linda Berger, “The Gulf Cooperation Council between Unity and Discord towards the Arab Uprisings,” Sicherheit Und Frieden (S + F)/Security and Peace 32, no. 4 (2014): 260–64. 18 Mehran Kamrava, Qatar: Small State, Big Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013), https://doi.org/10.7591/j.ctt32b4qs. 19 Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, “Qatar and the Arab Spring: Policy Drivers and Regional Implications” (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2014), https://carnegieendowment.org/files/qatar_arab_spring.pdf. 20 Joshua W. Walker, “Turkey’s Global Strategy: Introduction: The Sources of Turkish Grand Strategy—‘Strategic Depth’ and ‘Zero- Problems’ in Context,” LSE IDEAS (London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 2011), http://eprints.lse. ac.uk/43495/1/Turkey%27s%20Global%20Strategy_introduction%28lsero%29.pdf.

36  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE

for their cooperation.21 Turkey’s then-Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, wanted to make the Egyptian MB his strategic partner in the Middle East, furthering Turkey’s regional interests and profile. The Palestinian–Israeli conflict, in which Turkey had been very involved at that time (e.g., with its Gaza flotilla in 2009), was one of the main foreign policy areas in which Egypt, and in particular the Egyptian MB, were supposed to be useful for Turkey.22 In order to secure the political success of the Egyptian MB, the AKP even sent its election campaign experts and advisors to support the Egyptian MB in the parliamentary and presidential elections. When Mohamed Morsi was elected Egyptian President in 2012, the AKP saw this as their own foreign policy success.23 On an ideologically opposing front, a regional alliance of opponents to Political Islam in general, and the MB in particular, was formed. It included the KSA and the UAE, as well as some Arab nationalist groups, such as Nidaa Tounes (Tunisia), and networks of influential individuals, such as General Haftar (Libya) and the Palestinian Mohammed Dahlan, who lives in the UAE.24 The essential common motivation to form this alliance was the perception of a threat originating from the aforementioned actors.25 Among these perceived threats, the first was that the political success of the actors of Political Islam was seen as a threat to regime stability in the respective states. Rulers in the KSA and the UAE were afraid of a 21 Ahmed Hanafy, Interview in Doha by Julius Dihstelhoff, January 14, 2015; Birol Usculan, Interview by Julius Dihstelhoff in Doha, January 18, 2018. 22 For further insights see: Philipp O. Amour, “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives,” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31, https://doi.org/10.18506/ anemon.384773. 23 Senem Aydın-Düzgit, “The Seesaw Friendship between Turkey’s AKP and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, July 24, 2014, http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/07/24/seesaw-friendship-betweenturkey-s-akp-and-egypt-s-muslim-brotherhood-pub-56243. 24 Gregory Aftandilian, The New Arab Regional Order: Opportunities and Challenges for U.S. Policy (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute and United States Army War College Press, 2015), 12–22, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1000185.pdf. 25 Aydın-Düzgit, “The Seesaw Friendship between Turkey’s AKP and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.”

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

37

transfer of the MB’s political activism, which combined a push for reform and democratic means with an Islamic imperative, to their national Islamic opposition movements.26 This was especially threatening to the Wahhabi KSA, since the MB’s promotion of ­ Wasatiyya-Islam in the region could undermine the alleged religious supremacy of the Saudi royal house over all Sunni Muslims.27 In addition, the political approach of the MB of religiously based pluralistic republics challenged the state concept of the hereditary monarchy from the Saudi point of view.28 Secondly, the KSA and the UAE feared a reorientation of Egyptian– Iranian relations under President Mohamed Morsi, whereas they wanted to continue isolating Iran.29 Morsi pursued a pragmatic foreign policy approach with the stated goal of establishing diplomatic relations with countries worldwide. As part of this, Morsi also improved diplomatic relations with Iran and visited the country during a summit of the ­Non-Aligned Movement in August 2012.30 Thirdly, the economic concepts of the MB posed a threat to the architecture of rent-based authoritarian systems. This is due to the basic attitude of the MB toward a participatory and productive economy of a Keynesian nature that rejects state centrism. After all, questioning the squandering of a rentier state’s rent-based income is closely linked to the question of the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes in the Gulf Region.31 For these reasons, the KSA and the UAE, in particular, have pursued a foreign policy directed strictly against the MB since 2010. In view of these aspects, this alliance can be understood as an anti-Muslim 26 Lawrence Rubin, Islam in the Balance: Ideational Threats in Arab Politics (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014), 121–22. 27 May Darwich, “The Ontological (in)Security of Similarity Wahhabism Versus Islamism in Saudi Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy Analysis 12, no. 3 (2016): 469–88, https://doi. org/10.1093/fpa/orw032. 28 Henner Fürtig and Annette Ranko, “Durch Die Arabische Welt Ein Riss: Im Nahen Und Mittleren Osten Verschieben Sich Die Gravitationszentren.,” Internationale Politik, no. 2 (2014): 8–14. 29 Henner Fürtig, “Iran and the Arab Spring: Between Expectations and Disillusion,” GIGA Working Papers (Hamburg: German Institute for Global and Area Studies, November 2013), 11–12, https://www.giga-hamburg.de/de/system/files/publications/ wp241_fuertig.pdf. 30 Dina Esfandiyari, “Iran and Egypt: A Complicated Tango?,” ISS, October 18, 2012, https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/iran-and-egypt-complicated-tango. 31 Abdallah Djaballah, Shar’iyyat al-Amal as-Siyasi (Beirut: Dar Al-Maarifa, 2002).

38  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE

Brotherhood axis, whose guiding theme seems to be above all the extinction of the transnational political presence of the MB and other movements of Political Islam. All in all, Political Islam has been a significant factor influencing the formation of alliances in the Middle East during the Arab Spring. Between 2010 and 2013, opposing regional axes that either supported or fought Political Islam formed transnationally. In this context, regional powers have ambivalent perceptions of Political Islam, either as a power option or a threat.

Regional Changes in the Context of Political Islam (2013–2016) In the course of 2013, a far-reaching shift in the power constellation in the broader Middle East took place, as the ouster of President Mohamed Morsi by the Egyptian military in July 2013 restored Egypt as an ally of the KSA and the UAE.32 While the orientation of Egyptian foreign policy changed drastically under the new administration, Qatar’s and Turkey’s ambitions with regards to regional policy suffered severe setbacks. As will be shown in this section, the shifting balance of power between these two axes profoundly changed the Saudi threat perception and led to an overlapping of the regional axes, which temporarily lost their importance. This development can be attributed in particular to three regional developments. The first was a severe weakening of the structures of the actors of Political Islam by the removal of Mohamed Morsi and the subsequent suppression and dismantling of the Egyptian MB. The KSA and the UAE had provided financial and logistical support for the preparations of the Egyptian military coup against President Morsi.33 Since then, the three countries have temporarily coordinated their regional security policies.34 32 Philipp

O. Amour, “Editor’s Note: The End of the Arab Spring?,” ed. Philipp O. Amour, The Arab Spring: Comparative Perspectives and Regional Implications, Special issue, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations 12, no. 3 (Fall 2013): I–IV. 33 Andrey Korotayev, Leonid Issaev, and Alisa Shishkina, “Egyptian Coup of 2013: An ‘Econometric’ Analysis,” The Journal of North African Studies 21, no. 3 (2015): 354–55, https://doi.org/10.1080/13629387.2015.1124238. 34 Abdulmajeed Al-Buluwi, “Saudi, UAE Coordination Signals Differences with Qatar,” May 26, 2014, https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/05/saudi-uae-joint-committee-regional-policy-libya-egypt.html.

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

39

The climax of this cooperation was the publication of terrorist lists, first in Egypt (2013), then in the KSA (March 2014), and finally in the UAE (November 2014), whereby several actors of Political Islam were classified as terrorists.35 While the UAE mainly coordinated the secret services and disseminated anti-MB propaganda through the media and international lobbying, the KSA acted against the MB primarily through international diplomatic channels.36 As such, this strategy of outlawing Political Islam was internationalized, mainly under the guise of the fight against terrorism.37 Pressure was exerted, for example, on Great Britain to ban various actors of Political Islam, and above all the MB, as terrorist organizations, since London is regarded as an important center for the activities of the MB.38 In March 2014, David Cameron, the British Prime Minister at that time, declared that he had commissioned the British Ambassador to the KSA, John Jenkins, to launch an investigation into the classification of the MB as a terrorist organization and into possible links between representatives of Political Islam and terrorist organizations. In the summer of 2014, Jenkins concluded that the MB could not be labeled a terrorist organization, but the results of the report were initially withheld for months, under pressure from the KSA and the UAE. Only in March 2015 were some results published in a highly edited form.39 Against the background 35 “UAE

Lists Muslim Brotherhood as Terrorist Group,” Reuters, November 15, 2014, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-politics-brotherhood/uae-lists-muslim-brotherhood-as-terrorist-group-idUSKCN0IZ0OM20141115; Heidi Reichinnek, Julius Lübben, and Julius Dihstelhoff, “Die Terrorliste der Emirate: Zusammensetzung und Ziele,” MENA direct (Marburg: Centrum für Nah- und ­Mittelost-Studien, Oktober 2015), https://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/es/2015/0018/pdf/MENAdirekt10.pdf. 36 Dania Koleilat Khatib, “Arab Gulf States Lobbying in the US in the Wake of the Arab Uprisings,” in The Arab Gulf States and the West: Perception and Realities—Opportunities and Perils, ed. Marwa M. Maziad and Dania K. Khatib (New York: Routledge, 2018), 27–46. 37 Reichinnek, Lübben, and Dihstelhoff, “Die Terrorliste der Emirate.” 38 David Rose, “Cameron and the Arab Sheiks’ Web of Influence That Infiltrated Britain: The Shadowy Nexus of PM’s Cronies That Secretively Lobbied for Middle East Paymasters,” Daily Mail, October 18, 2015, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3277345/Cameron-Arab-Sheiks-web-influence-infiltrated-Britain-shadowy-nexus-PMs-cronies-secretively-lobbied-Middle-East-paymasters.html. 39 Nigel Morris and Ian Johnston, “Muslim Brotherhood: Government Report Concludes They Should Not Be Classified as a Terrorist Organisation,” Independent, March 15, 2015, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-

40  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE

of this international and regional outlawing campaign, the pressure on Political Islam in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East increased to such an extent that the MB’s potential impact on regional developments rapidly decreased.40 The second development was that the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) spread exponentially in Iraq and Syria, as well as in Egypt (northern Sinai), Libya, and Yemen. In June 2014, the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, proclaimed the Islamic Caliphate in Mossul. Iraq’s second largest city had recently been overrun by ISIS, so the states of the region saw themselves increasingly threatened by the terrorist organization.41 The Saudi border with Iraq came under attack by a small group of ISIS fighters, who killed two Saudi border guards, making the threat highly visible.42 However, even more threatening was the internal menace that the terrorist group posed to the KSA in terms of regime stability. Starting in November 2014, ISIS conducted a series of suicide bombing attacks in the KSA’s oil-rich Eastern provinces, where the majority of the three million Saudi Shiites live. Through this, ISIS tried to exploit ­anti-Shiite sentiments in Saudi society in order to build up its influence in the KSA. As Saudi rulers have always been highly suspicious of any kind of cooperation between their Shiite population and Iran, the Eastern provinces have seen decades of anti-government protest and state repression. ISIS terrorist attacks in 2014 and 2015 brought even more instability to this volatile region. As Al-Baghdadi called for the downfall of the House of Saud and for the spread of ISIS’s fight against

brotherhood-government-report-concludes-they-should-not-be-classified-as-a-terrorist-organisation-10109730.html. 40 Philipp O. Amour, “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East: A Strategic Assessment,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 293–309, https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1185696; Amour, “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics,” 1–21. 41 Charles Lister, “Profiling the Islamic State,” 2014, https://www.brookings.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2014/12/en_web_lister.pdf; Julius Dihstelhoff and Alexander Lohse, “Dynamiken regionaler (Neu)Ordnung - Die Rolle des moderaten Islamismus” (Marburg: Centrum für Nah- und Mittelost-Studien, June 2015), https://archiv. ub.uni-marburg.de/es/2015/0011/pdf/MENAdirekt04.pdf. 42 “Two Saudi Guards Killed in Suicide Attack on Iraq Border,” The Guardian, January 5, 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/05/saudi-guardskilled-suicide-attack-iraq-border-isis.

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

41

Shiism to Bahrain and Kuwait, the Saudi perception of an internal and external threat posed by ISIS grew rapidly.43 The third development was the advance of the Houthis in Yemen. Between 2004 and 2010, the Houthis and the Yemeni government under President Ali Abdullah Saleh waged several wars against each other. During the first Arab Spring movement, which also led to the fall of the long-term ruler in Yemen, the Houthis were able, in 2011, to extend their control to the provinces of Saada and Al-Jawf in northern Yemen. In September 2014, the Houthis finally controlled large parts of the capital, Sanaa. This enabled them to dissolve the previous parliament at the beginning of 2015 and to set up a Supreme Revolutionary Committee to act as a new legislative body.44 Iranian exertion of influence through local proxies—Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, the Syrian Assad regime, Shiite militias in Iraq, and, allegedly, the Houthis in Yemen—fueled fears of encirclement by the predominantly Shiite arch-enemy in Saudi Arabia.45 However, in view of the primarily national background of the ongoing conflict between Houthis and the Yemeni central government, this can be seen as a self-fulfilling prophecy: The more Saudi Arabia accused the Houthis of being an Iranian proxy, the closer the Houthis came into the Iranian sphere of influence. Correspondingly, it was not until the war in Yemen waged by the KSA and the UAE that the Houthis increasingly turned to Iran in the hope of support. This gave the conflict an explicitly regional dimension. Previously, only a loose form of cooperation had existed between the Houthis and Iran, and that was far from reaching the status and intensity of the Iranian alliance with the Lebanese Hezbollah.46 These developments in Yemen were aggravated by the fact that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known commonly as the

43 Bruce Riedel, “Why Saudi Arabia Is Vulnerable to Islamic State,” Al-Monitor, accessed November 30, 2018, https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/05/islamic-state-targets-saudi-arabia.html. 44 “Yemen: Is Peace Possible?,” Middle East Report (International Crisis Group, February 9, 2016), 1–8, https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/167-yemen-is-peacepossible.pdf. 45 “Yemen: Is Peace Possible?,” 10–12, 22–23. 46 “Yemen: Is Peace Possible?”; Jens Heibach, “Saudi Arabia‘s War in Yemen: No Exit Strategy,” GIGA Focus Middle East, May 2017, https://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/ publication/saudi-arabias-war-in-yemen-no-exit-strategy.

42  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE

Iran nuclear deal, which was approved in July 2015, showed clearly to the KSA that the USA was not a reliable partner in the Saudi’s struggle with Iran. As Iran was going to further abandon its status as pariah state in international politics, the perceived Iranian threat was growing significantly.47 Against the background of these three developments, the KSA perceived the MBs as less threatening compared to ISIS and Iran. The change in Saudi perceptions of threat was further reinforced by the death of King Abdullah in January 2015 and the subsequent ascension to the throne by his half-brother Salman. King Salman modified the assessment of foreign policy objectives and the strategies for achieving them. In addition to a gradual rapprochement with the MB, this also included the unrestricted priority of combating the Iranian threat.48 The Saudi-led war in Yemen, which is part of the containment strategy against Iran’s increasing influence in the region, is the clearest sign of this change in the KSA strategy and a demonstration of the allocation of the power center of the Middle East to the Gulf Region. In the context of the growing threats by ISIS and Iran, the KSA lacks possible allies on the ground. For this reason, selected MB movements and related organizations in the broader Middle East, such as the Syrian MB, the Yemeni Congregation for Reform (Islah Party), and the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP), have become a strategic factor for the KSA in the fight against ISIS and against Iran and Iranian allies in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria. Under these premises, the KSA depends on cooperation with regional MB organizations, which have become the lesser of the three evils in the Saudis’ view. Especially in Syria and Yemen, the KSA and the national MB branches share common interests.49 This policy shift under the reign of King Salman became clear as early as February 2015, when then-foreign minister Saud al-Faisal said that Saudi rulers “don’t have any problem with the Muslim Brotherhood” and only opposed a “small segment affiliated 47 Abdulmajeed AlSaud, “The Iran-Saudi Conflict: The Saudi Perspective,” February 18, 2016, 134, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/iran-saudi-conflictsaudi-perspective. 48 Matthew Hedges and Giorgio Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood: What Does the Future Hold?,” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (2017): 134, https://doi. org/10.1111/mepo.12256. 49 Matthias Sailer, “Changed Priorities in the Gulf: Saudi Arabia and the Emirates Rethink Their Relationship with Egypt,” SWP Comments (Stiftung Wissenschaft undPolitikGerman Institute for International and Security Affairs, January 2016), https://www. swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2016C08_sil.pdf.

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

43

with the group.”50 During the first months of his rule, King Salman was visited by three leaders of Political Islam: Rachid al-Ghannouchi (Ennahda, Tunisia), Abdul Majeed al-Zindani (Islah Party, Yemen), and Hammam Saeed (Islamic Action Front Party, Jordan).51 This selective rapprochement to the MB, however, questioned the close cooperation with the UAE and Egypt, especially as the KSA needed the support of Qatar and Turkey—despite their support for actors of Political Islam—in the KSA’s fight against current threats for strategic networking. An example of this was the temporary Saudi–Turkish– Qatari cooperation in the Syrian conflict, which encompassed mainly logistical and financial support for groups of Syrian militias in anti-Syrian regime coalitions.52 The common ground for the three countries was the shared enmity toward Assad’s regime and/or the Lebanese Hezbollah.53 Table 14.1 lists the major actors among the different security alliances. In contrast to the Saudi strategic shifts, the Egyptian Sissi regime and the UAE continued to cooperate, based on a common anti-terror policy with the aim of combating Political Islam transnationally. In this context, the international promotion of threat perceptions (for example, through the aforementioned terror lists) played a central role.54 Unlike the KSA, the UAE and Egypt continued to center their strategic priorities around Political Islam as a central threat.55 While for the Egyptian regime this is simply a matter of eliminating the greatest domestic threat to regime survival, the UAE’s case is more complex. For one, the UAE is composed of seven emirates, each with their own ruling families who often pursue different interests. Even though Abu Dhabi clearly dominates the UAE’s foreign and security policies, the Emirates’ ruling families are divided on 50 Cited

in: Hedges and Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood,” 134–35. Ibish, “Saudi Arabia’s New Sunni Alliance,” New York Times, July 31, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/opinion/hussein-ibish-saudi-arabias-new-sunni-alliance.html. 52 Sebastian Sons and Inken Wiese, “The Engagement of Arab Gulf States in Egypt and Tunisia since 2011: Rationale and Impact,” DGAP Analyse (German Council on Foreign Relations, October 2015), 29, https://dgap.org/en/article/getFullPDF/27232. 53 Christopher Phillips, “Eyes Bigger Than Stomachs: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in Syria,” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (2017): 36–47, https://doi.org/10.1111/ mepo.12250. 54 Darwich, “Creating the Enemy, Constructing the Threat,” 1296–97. 55 Neil Patrick, “The UAE’s War Aims in Yemen,” October 24, 2017, http://carnegieendowment.org/sada/73524. 51 Hussein

44  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE

the question of the Muslim Brotherhood. Whereas Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince and de facto ruler Muhammad bin Zayed (MbZ) has been pushing the oppression of al-Islah, the UAE’s MB branch, since the early 1990s, the rulers of the Emirate Sharjah had been rather supportive of al-Islah and have opposed MbZ’s anti-MB-policies.56 The diverse ideological backgrounds and interests of the Emirates’ ruling families are therefore one factor that makes the perceived threat to regime stability posed by al-Islah more immediate than it is in other countries of the region.57 Looking at the threat posed by ISIS, this is of lesser importance to the UAE, not only due to their geographically less exposed location, but also because of the minor importance for regime stability compared to the KSA. Whereas the KSA was threatened by repeated terrorist attacks and ISIS challenges to the Saudi King’s status as Custodian of the two Holy Mosques, the UAE was not hit by large-scale attacks and does not derive its legitimacy from religious positions or rhetoric. Therefore, ISIS posed a lesser threat to the UAE than to the KSA.58 Additionally, regarding Iran, the UAE does not share the same level of threat perception as the KSA does.59 Even though the UAE and Iran certainly have a conflictual relationship, the UAE pursues a more flexible foreign policy toward Iran than does the KSA.60 This can be seen, for example, in their differing strategies in Yemen, where the containment of the Islah Party was more important to the UAE than was joining forces with the KSA in their common struggle against the Houthis. The KSA wanted to push back the allegedly Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen and bring the pro-Saudi President, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, back to power. In order to reach this goal, they were even willing to 56 “UAE and the Muslim Brotherhood: A Story of Rivalry and Hatred,” Middle East Monitor, June 15, 2017, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170615uae-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-a-story-of-rivalry-and-hatred. 57 Courtney Freer, Rentier Islamism: The Influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gulf Monarchies (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018). 58 Eman Ragab, “Beyond Money and Diplomacy: Regional Policies of Saudi Arabia and UAE after the Arab Spring,” The International Spectator 52, no. 2 (2017): 37–53, https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2017.1309101. 59 Samuel Ramani, “The Saudi-UAE Alliance Could Be Weaker Than It Appears,” National Interest, December 11, 2017, https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ the-saudi-uae-alliance-could-be-weaker-it-appears-23606. 60 Sons and Wiese, “The Engagement of Arab Gulf States in Egypt and Tunisia,” 12.

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

45

support the Islah Party, which belongs to the spectrum of party foundations close to the MB. Even before 2010, the Saudis partially supported the Islah Party in its fight against the central government. By contrast, until late 2017, the UAE, first and foremost, wanted to prevent the Islah Party from using the fight against the Houthis to its own advantage.61 Only after the killing of former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh in December 2017, did the UAE realize that the Islah Party was the sole potential ally left in Yemen. Therefore, even the UAE agreed to cooperate with the Islah Party, but only after forcing them to officially disengage from the transnational MB movement.62 Furthermore, in the Syrian civil war, Saudi Arabia deviated from the line of its allies. As one of the strongest opponents of the Iran-backed Assad regime, the Saudi royal house found itself on the same side of the conflict as the Syrian MB. Egypt, however, has taken a more neutral approach toward the Syrian regime since 2016 at the latest, voting in favor of both a French resolution condemning the regime’s attacks on Aleppo as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council and a much toned-down Russian resolution. This vote was heavily criticized by the Saudi ambassador to the UN. Thus, while the KSA had a more pragmatic attitude toward the actors of Political Islam as long as they were useful allies facing Iran, the UAE and Egypt continue to prioritize the suppression of Political Islam in the region.63 To the representatives of Political Islam and their allies, by contrast, the effects of the formation of axes as they pertain to the phenomenon of Political Islam continued to be central. Meanwhile, political pressures on the actors of this axis increased significantly during this phase. Qatar and Turkey continued to support actors of Political Islam—for example, by condemning the Egyptian military coup and giving refuge to persecuted Muslim Brothers and other representatives of Political Islam from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE.

61 Patrick,

“The UAE’s War Aims in Yemen.” B. Roberts, “UAE Embrace of Islah Marks Major Shift in Yemen,” AGSIW, January 2, 2018, http://www.agsiw.org/uae-embrace-islah-marks-major-shift-yemen/. 63 “Egypt Votes for Rival UNSC Resolutions on Syria from Russia and France,” Madamasr, October 9, 2016, https://madamasr.com/en/2016/10/09/news/u/ egypt-votes-for-rival-unsc-resolutions-on-syria-from-russia-and-france. 62 David

46  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE

As a result, Qatar, in particular, was increasingly politically and economically intimidated by the KSA, the UAE, and Egypt.64 The climax of this development was a diplomatic crisis, which entailed the recall of the Bahraini, Emirati, and Saudi ambassadors by their respective governments in March 2014.65 Apart from that, the KSA and the UAE generally tried to persuade Qatar to change its foreign policy line by stopping its support of actors of Political Islam, who allegedly represent a risk to the internal security of the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The KSA and the UAE also demanded that Qatar should support the Sissi regime in Egypt and refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of the other GCC states. For this reason, Qatar was asked to restrict Al-Jazeera’s broadcasting and to expel the members of the MB from Qatar. As late as November 2014, after numerous meetings of the GCC, the dispute was settled based on the so-called first and second treaties of Riyadh (2013/2014) and a secret additional agreement (2014).66 In these agreements, Qatar agreed to the terms of its GCC allies on paper and made minor concessions. In addition to the expulsion of about 300 Muslim Brothers, Qatar closed the Egyptian branch of Al-Jazeera, Mubashir Masr, which had its headquarters in Doha. In exchange, diplomatic relations were normalized and the ambassadors who had been withdrawn were able to return to Doha.67 At the same time as the political debate, an economic dispute also arose between the two regional camps. Mohamed Morsi had planned to establish a new economic zone in the Sharq al-Tafria-area on the Suez 64 Prasanta K. Pradhan, “Qatar Crisis and the Deepening Regional Faultlines,” Strategic Analysis 42, no. 4 (2018): 437–42, https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2018.1482620. 65 Angus McDowall and Amena Bakr, “Three Gulf Arab States Recall Envoys in Rift with Qatar,” Reuters, March 5, 2014, https://www.reuters.com/article/ us-gulf-qatar-ambassadors-idUSBREA2413N20140305. 66 Both the 2013 and 2014 Riyadh agreements were leaked in July 2017 in the context of the second Qatar crisis. CNN, which originally obtained the documents, has provided copies of the original Arabic documents. “English Translation of the Agreements,” accessed July 1, 2019, http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/07/10/translation. of.agreementsupdated.pdf. 67 “Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain End Rift with Qatar, Return Ambassadors,” Reuters, November 16, 2014, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-summit-ambassadors/saudi-arabia-uae-and-bahrain-end-rift-with-qatar-return-ambassadors-idUSKCN0J00Y420141116.

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

47

Canal by expanding the harbor of Port Said and by developing an extensive industrial zone. Morsi had hoped, above all, to attract investors from Turkey and Qatar. Upon completion of this project, the Suez Canal would have hosted the largest container port and the largest industrial free trade zone in the broader Middle East.68 This would have jeopardized the importance of the port of Jebel Ali in the Emirates, which has, so far, been one of the major harbors in the region. After the fall of Morsi, the Egyptian military, which already controlled large parts of the Egyptian economy at this time, was able to take full control of the project. It decided in October 2014 that the UAE would be awarded the contract for its implementation. The Egyptian MB saw this as the Emirates’ attempt to influence Egyptian politics in order to ensure that the shipping lines in Jebel Ali were not affected by the expansion of the Suez Canal.69 As this example shows, the competition between the two regional axes, which formed inter alia around the phenomenon of Political Islam, expanded also into the economic sphere, creating even larger drivers for conflict and competition. Compared to Qatar, Turkey is less under pressure from the KSA and the UAE. The main factor here is that Turkey is not a member of the GCC. Therefore, Turkey’s support of Political Islam constitutes an exogenous threat, whereas Qatar’s policy is an endogenous threat, to regime stability within the GCC. Nevertheless, it should also be noted that the rift between Turkey on the one hand and the KSA and the UAE on the other deepened after the military coup in Egypt. A prominent example of this was a campaign by the KSA and the UAE to prevent Turkey from becoming a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council in 2014.70 By doing so, the KSA actively undermined Turkey’s ambitions on an international level. After all, only 60 of the 193 member states of the UN General Assembly voted for

68 Abdel Rahman Youssef, “Egypt: Qatar’s Suez Canal Bid,” Al-Akhbar, accessed November 30, 2018, https://english.al-akhbar.com/node/15207. 69 Ayah Aman, “UAE Replaces Qatar as Egypt’s Partner on Suez Project,” Al-Monitor, accessed November 30, 2018, http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/11/ egypt-suez-canal-uae-Katar.html. 70 Ömer Taşpınar, “Turkey and the Arab Gulf States: A Dance with Uncertain Expectations” (Washington: The Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, 2015), 6, https://agsiw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Turkey-and-the-Arab-Gulf-States.pdf.

48  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE

Turkey, which corresponds to a decrease of 91 votes compared to the successful bid of 2008.71 However, after the death of King Abdullah in early 2015, both sides worked for a Turkish–Saudi rapprochement. Immediately after the King’s death, Erdoğan cut short his trip to Africa to visit Riyadh and offer his condolences, ordering a period of mourning in Turkey.72 In December of the same year, Erdoğan visited the KSA again, and both countries established a high level of cooperation and a dialogue mechanism to expand their bilateral relations. In the same context, King Salman also made a return visit to Turkey in April 2016, where he signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) implementing the mechanism of a Turkish–Saudi Coordination Council.73 In light of these developments, one can remark that a shift in the regional power constellation has occurred since 2013. This is due to three main reasons: the ouster of Egyptian President Morsi and the subsequent oppression of the Egyptian MB, the rise of ISIS, and Iran’s growing influence in the region. All these developments have contributed to an overlapping of the axis formation, especially by shifting threat perceptions. As the influence of several MB branches in the Middle East diminished, especially the KSA started to reassess the possible usefulness of actors of Political Islam in confronting Iran and its proxies. And even the UAE allows for more pragmatism in its relations with actors of Political Islam, as the example of al-Islah in Yemen shows. However, despite such differentiations in foreign policy strategies and changes in the respective bilateral relations, in general terms both the UAE and Egypt have maintained their struggle against Political Islam, while Turkey and Qatar have continued their support for Political Islam.

71 Harut Sassounian, “Why the UN Rejected Turkey’s Bid for a Security Council Seat?,” Huffington Post, October 28, 2014, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/harut-sassounian/ why-the-un-rejected-turke_b_6036878.html. 72 Taşpınar, “Turkey and the Arab Gulf States: A Dance with Uncertain Expectations,” 6. 73 “Bilateral Political Relations between Turkey and Saudi Arabia,” Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed November 30, 2018, www.mfa.gov.tr/turkey-saudi-arabia-relations.en.mfa.

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

49

Regional Axes Resurfacing During the Qatar Crisis (Since 2017) The diplomatic crisis with Qatar—which had already led to the recall of the Bahraini, Emirati, and Saudi ambassadors in March 2014 and took eight months for resolution—re-escalated to an even greater extent in 2017. This crisis has brought the former conflict lines and alliance constellations from 2010 to 2013 back to the fore: the KSA, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt broke off their diplomatic contacts with Qatar; imposed a complete blockade on land, sea, and air; and expelled all Qatari citizens from their countries. The four countries justified their blockade by blaming the escalation on Qatar’s violations of old promises, referring to the Riyadh treaties and the secret additional agreement of 2013/14.74 At that time, Qatar had already been requested to join the foreign policy strategy of its neighboring states and to stop supporting actors who supposedly posed a risk to the internal security of the GCC states. In 2017, the blockade states articulated thirteen demands, which Qatar had to agree to if the blockade was to be lifted. A direct comparison between the thirteen demands and the agreements of 2013/14 shows that the content of these documents is extremely similar and therefore mostly refers to Political Islam and the alliances based around Political Islam.75 Correspondingly, only one demand refers to Iran (1st demand) and two further demands refer to administrative issues (12th and 13th demands), whereas the remaining ten demands (2nd to 11th) refer directly or indirectly to Political Islam. The list of demands included calls on Qatar to cease its military cooperation with Turkey (2nd demand). It was also to abandon any connection to terrorist, sectarian, and ideological organizations, including the MB,76 which are mentioned in addition to actors like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Fatah Al-Sham

74 Prasanta K. Pradhan, “Qatar Crisis and Challenges to GCC Unity,” Liberal Studies 2, no. 2 (December 2017): 244–45. 75 Julius Dihstelhoff and Alexander Lohse, “Angst am Golf: Politischer Islam in der Katar-Krise,” Zenith Magazin, July 28, 2017, https://magazin.zenith.me/de/politik/ politischer-islam-der-katar-krise. 76 “Arab States Issue 13 Demands to End Qatar-Gulf Crisis,” Al-Jazeera, July 12, 2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/arab-states-issue-list-demands-qatarcrisis-170623022133024.html.

50  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE

(the former Nusra Front), and Hezbollah (3rd demand). Qatar was also expected to stop any kind of funding for individuals, groups, or organizations that were designated as terrorists by the KSA, the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, the USA, or other countries; this list included the MB (4th demand). In addition, Qatar had to repatriate all alleged terrorists to their countries of origin and to freeze their assets (5th demand); to shut down Al Jazeera and its partner stations, which are seen as an important voice of Political Islam (6th demand); to stop interfering in the internal affairs of the other GCC states; and to cease granting Qatari citizenship to wanted Saudi, Emirati, Bahraini, or Egyptian nationals; this primarily applied to members of the MB (7th demand). Qatar was also expected to compensate for the loss of human lives and other financial losses caused by the Qatari support of individuals, groups, and organizations such as the MBs (8th demand); to reconcile Qatar’s military, political, social, and economic policies with the other GCC states and Arab countries; to suspend its support for the MB (9th demand); to stop all contacts with political opposition in the KSA, the UAE, Egypt, and Bahrain, including, in particular, the MB and to disclose all data on prior contacts with those groups (10th demand); and, finally, to close all news agencies funded directly or indirectly by Qatar, including Arabi21, Rassd, Al Araby Al Jadeed, Mekameleen, and Middle East Eye, who were accused either of complicity or providing too positive a coverage of the MB (11th demand).77 Turkey tried to maintain a neutral profile during the first few days of the crisis and to serve as a mediator between the factions. For example, it called for a diplomatic agreement between the opponents and rhetorically emphasized the Sunni connections among all participating states.78 However, Turkey began very soon to take a clear pro-Qatari position in the dispute. To this end, the Turkish government sent urgently needed food and other products to help Qatar through the boycott. Instead of complying with the demand to withdraw the Turkish armed forces from

77 “Arab

States Issue 13 Demands.” Kingsley, “Turkey Throws Support behind Qatar in Rift among Arab Nations,” New York Times, June 7, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/world/europe/ turkey-qatar-support.html. 78 Patrick

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

51

Qatar, Turkey even sent more military personnel to its Qatari base. The establishment of a military base in Qatar had previously been agreed upon in a 2014 agreement between Qatar and Turkey.79 Turkey’s relation with the KSA and the UAE had already been strained after the coup attempt against the AKP government in 2016, due to mixed reactions from both states. Referring to the UAE, Erdoğan said: “We know very well who in the Gulf was happy when the coup attempt took place in Turkey.”80 Against this background, the Turkish President stressed on June 25 2017 that Turkey “will continue to provide every support in our power to Qatar.”81 Besides Turkey, Iran was the only country located close to Qatar that had the capability to help Qatar through the crisis by providing transportation links, food, and goods. All three countries signed agreements in November 2017 to foster trade between them.82 This caused further suspicion on behalf of the KSA and the UAE, resulting in public statements by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that described Turkey as part of a “triangle of evil,” together with Iran and Islamic extremist groups.83 Overall, the Qatar crisis of 2017 has led to the resurfacing of the regional axes described in the previous sections. Political Islam—as it already did at the beginning of the Arab Spring—lies at the center of the Qatar crisis and still has a high potential for mobilization. With their thirteen demands to Qatar, the KSA and the UAE have again posited Political Islam as a main concern besides Iran in the formation of regional axes. Consequently, Political Islam has been an important point of reference for the foreign policies of the KSA, the UAE, Qatar, and Turkey since 2017.

79 Paul Cochrane, “Revealed: Secret Details of Turkey’s New Military Pact with Qatar,” Middle East Eye, January 27, 2016, https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ turkey-qatar-military-agreement-940298365. 80 Quoted in: Özden Zeynep Oktav, “Quo Vadis Turkey-GCC States Relations? A Turkish Perspective,” Insight Turkey 20, no. 2 (2018): 115. 81 Quoted in: Bulent Aliriza and Mehmet Uyanik, “The Qatar crisis and Turkey: Trump and Erdogan diverge,” CSIS, accessed November 30, 2018, https://www.csis.org/ analysis/qatar-crisis-and-turkey-trump-and-erdogan-diverge. 82 Oktav, “Quo Vadis Turkey-GCC States Relations? A Turkish Perspective,” 117–18. 83 Oktav, 117–18.

52  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE

Conclusions The foreign policies of the four analyzed states (the KSA, the UAE, Turkey, and Qatar), since the Arab Spring, have been influenced by their positions toward Political Islam to varying degrees. The transnational phenomenon of Political Islam affects the narratives of foreign policy decision-makers and their decisions. The common goal of the various foreign policy strategies of the four states continues to be securing and expanding their own power on the national and regional levels. Qatar and Turkey have been united by their perceptions of Political Islam as a strategically important factor that is seen as a power option rather than as a threat, based on its transnational leverage. Therefore, since the Arab Spring movement, both states have allied with actors of Political Islam in the Middle East. Although the KSA and the UAE undertook ­wide-ranging attempts to defeat the Qatar–Turkey–MB axis (as seen, for instance, in the Qatar crises of 2014 and since 2017), Political Islam still forms a uniting scheme for the perception of regional conflict lines for both states during the last few years. By contrast, the influence of Political Islam on Emirati and Saudi foreign policies must be seen separately. The analysis has shown that although both states have been trying to do away with the threat posed by Political Islam since the Arab Spring, the priority given to the fight against Political Islam is constantly high only in the foreign policy of the UAE. By comparison, the existing conflicts at the regional level— such as the Saudi–Iranian conflict for hegemony in the Gulf Region, the fight against ISIS, and the involvement in the civil wars in Yemen and Syria—have overlapped Political Islam as a major threat in the KSA. These differences in perceptions have led to temporary conflicts of interest between the KSA und the UAE and have occasionally weakened their regional course of action. However, even for the UAE pragmatic cooperation with Political Islam has become an option, at least in Yemen. All in all, regional alliance-building processes are determined by, and are chiefly causes of, the externalization of national conflicts. This implies that Political Islam also impacts the reconfiguration of the regional order. Since 2010, Political Islam has had different effects on ­alliance-building processes and conflicts. This has affected the regional balance of power and continues to do so. As a result, three phases can be identified, based on how the individual powers interact with Political Islam: Between 2010 and 2013, the four analyzed states formed two

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

53

opposing regional axes, largely based on opposition or support for Political Islam. While Turkey and Qatar supported the actors of Political Islam and saw them as power options in a moment of regional reconfiguration, the KSA and the UAE created an anti-MB axis that saw the actors of Political Islam as a growing threat to their own national and regional security (Phase 1). Since 2013, the regional axes were weakened as a result of shifts in power constellations in the Middle East. The decisive factors were the dismantling of the Egyptian MB, the rise of ISIS, and Iran’s increasing influence in the region. Due to these factors, the threat perceptions associated with Political Islam were overlapped, especially regarding the KSA. However, on the part of the UAE, the containment of Political Islam remained a major foreign policy objective, and Turkey and Qatar maintained their excellent relationship with each other and with actors of Political Islam (Phase 2). The Qatar crisis of 2017 has shown that Political Islam has remained a major point of contention in the foreign policies of the four states and continues to have the potential to mobilize throughout the region. On one front, the fight against Political Islam has once again gained importance for the KSA and has remained a priority for the UAE. On an opposing front, the Qatar–Turkey–MB axis has proven to be resilient even under high external pressure (Phase 3). Consequently, the opposing regional axes, which formed during the beginning of the Arab Spring movement, continue to influence the regional order in the Middle East. As the transformation processes in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East are far from over, and since Political Islam continues to play a role in political processes and conflicts all over the region, it is highly likely that Political Islam will continue to be a significant factor in the regional reconfigurations.

Bibliography Aftandilian, Gregory. The New Arab Regional Order: Opportunities and Challenges for U.S. Policy. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute and United States Army War College Press, 2015. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/ fulltext/u2/1000185.pdf. Al-Buluwi, Abdulmajeed. “Saudi, UAE Coordination Signals Differences with Qatar,” May 26, 2014. https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/05/saudi-uae-joint-committee-regional-policy-libya-egypt.html.

54  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE Aliriza, Bulent, and Mehmet Uyanik. “The Qatar Crisis and Turkey: Trump and Erdogan Diverge.” CSIS. Accessed November 30, 2018. https://www.csis. org/analysis/qatar-crisis-and-turkey-trump-and-erdogan-diverge. Al-Jazeera. “Arab States Issue 13 Demands to End Qatar-Gulf Crisis,” July 12, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/arab-states-issue-list-demands-qatar-crisis-170623022133024.html. AlSaud, Abdulmajeed. “The Iran-Saudi Conflict: The Saudi Perspective,” February 18, 2016. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/iran-saudiconflict-saudi-perspective. Aman, Ayah. “UAE Replaces Qatar as Egypt’s Partner on Suez Project.” Al-Monitor. Accessed November 30, 2018. http://www.al-monitor.com/ pulse/originals/2013/11/egypt-suez-canal-uae-Katar.html. Amour, Philipp O. “Editor’s Note: The End of the Arab Spring?” Edited by Philipp O. Amour. The Arab Spring: Comparative Perspectives and Regional Implications, Special issue, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations 12, no. 3 (Fall 2013): I–IV. ———. “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives.” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31. https://doi.org/10.18506/ anemon.384773. ———. “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East: A Strategic Assessment.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353 0194.2016.1185696. ———. “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction.” In The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 1–21. St. James’s Studies in World Affairs. Washington: Academica Press, 2018. Aydın-Düzgit, Senem. “The Seesaw Friendship between Turkey’s AKP and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, July 24, 2014. http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/07/24/seesaw-friendship-between-turkey-s-akp-and-egypt-s-muslim-brotherhood-pub-56243. Bayat, Asef. Making Islam Democratic: Social Movements and the Post-Islamist Turn. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007. Beinin, Joel, and Joe Stork, eds. Political Islam: Essays from Middle East Report. London: Tauris, 1997. Berger, Linda. “The Gulf Cooperation Council between Unity and Discord towards the Arab Uprisings.” Sicherheit Und Frieden (S + F)/ Security and Peace 32, no. 4 (2014): 260–64.

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

55

Cochrane, Paul. “Revealed: Secret Details of Turkey’s New Military Pact with Qatar.” Middle East Eye, January 27, 2016. https://www.middleeasteye.net/ news/turkey-qatar-military-agreement-940298365. Darwich, May. “Creating the Enemy, Constructing the Threat: The Diffusion of Repression against the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East.” Democratization 24, no. 7 (2017): 1289–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/13 510347.2017.1307824. ———. “The Ontological (in)Security of Similarity Wahhabism Versus Islamism in Saudi Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy Analysis 12, no. 3 (2016): 469–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orw032. Dihstelhoff, Julius, and Alexander Lohse. “Angst am Golf: Politischer Islam in der Katar-Krise.” Zenith Magazin, July 28, 2017. https://magazin.zenith. me/de/politik/politischer-islam-der-katar-krise. ———. “Dynamiken regionaler (Neu)Ordnung - Die Rolle des moderaten Islamismus.” Marburg: Centrum für Nah- und Mittelost-Studien, June 2015. https://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/es/2015/0011/pdf/MENAdirekt04.pdf. Djaballah, Abdallah. Shar’iyyat al-Amal as-Siyasi. Beirut: Dar Al-Maarifa, 2002. “English Translation of the Agreements.” Accessed July 1, 2019. http://i2.cdn. turner.com/cnn/2017/images/07/10/translation.of.agreementsupdated. pdf. Esfandiyari, Dina. “Iran and Egypt: A Complicated Tango?” ISS, October 18, 2012. https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/iran-and-egypt-complicatedtango. Esposito, John L. Islam and Politics, 4th ed. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1998. ———, ed. Political Islam: Revolution, Radicalism, or Reform? Boulder, CO: Rienner, 1997. Freer, Courtney. Rentier Islamism: The Influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gulf Monarchies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018. Fuller, Graham E. The Future of Political Islam. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2003. Fürtig, Henner. “Iran and the Arab Spring: Between Expectations and Disillusion.” GIGA Working Papers, German Institute for Global and Area Studies, Hamburg. November 2013. https://www.giga-hamburg.de/de/ system/files/publications/wp241_fuertig.pdf. Fürtig, Henner, and Annette Ranko. “Durch Die Arabische Welt Ein Riss: Im Nahen Und Mittleren Osten Verschieben Sich Die Gravitationszentren.” Internationale Politik, no. 2 (2014): 8–14. Grundmann, Johannes. Islamische Internationalisten: Strukturen und Aktivitäten der Muslimbruderschaft und der islamischen Weltliga. Aktuelle Debatte. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2005.

56  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE The Guardian. “Two Saudi Guards Killed in Suicide Attack on Iraq Border,” January 5, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/05/ saudi-guards-killed-suicide-attack-iraq-border-isis. Hanafy, Ahmed. Interview in Doha by Julius Dihstelhoff, January 14, 2015. Hedges, Matthew, and Giorgio Cafiero. “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood: What Does the Future Hold?” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (2017): 129–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/mepo.12256. Heibach, Jens. “Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen: No Exit Strategy.” GIGA Focus Middle East, May 2017. https://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/publication/ saudi-arabias-war-in-yemen-no-exit-strategy. Ibish, Hussein. “Saudi Arabia’s New Sunni Alliance.” New York Times, July 31, 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/opinion/hussein-ibish-saudi-arabias-new-sunni-alliance.html. Kamrava, Mehran. Qatar: Small State, Big Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.7591/j.ctt32b4qs. Khatib, Dania Koleilat. “Arab Gulf States Lobbying in the US in the Wake of the Arab Uprisings.” In The Arab Gulf States and the West: Perception and Realities—Opportunities and Perils, edited by Marwa M. Maziad and Dania K. Khatib, 27–46. New York: Routledge, 2018. Khlebnikov, Alexey. “The New Ideological Threat to the GCC: Implications for the Qatari-Saudi Rivalry.” Strategic Assessment 17, no. 4 (2015). http:// www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/systemfiles/adkan17_4ENG_7_ Khlebnikov.pdf. Kingsley, Patrick. “Turkey Throws Support behind Qatar in Rift among Arab Nations.” New York Times, June 7, 2017. https://www.nytimes. com/2017/06/07/world/europe/turkey-qatar-support.html. Korotayev, Andrey, Leonid Issaev, and Alisa Shishkina. “Egyptian Coup of 2013: An ‘Econometric’ Analysis.” The Journal of North African Studies 21, no. 3 (2015): 341–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629387.2015.1124238. Lister, Charles. “Profiling the Islamic State,” 2014. https://www.brookings. edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/en_web_lister.pdf. Madamasr. “Egypt Votes for Rival UNSC Resolutions on Syria from Russia and France,” October 9, 2016. https://madamasr.com/en/2016/10/09/ news/u/egypt-votes-for-rival-unsc-resolutions-on-syria-from-russia-andfrance. Massignon, Bérengère. “Islam in the European Commission’s System of Regulation of Religion.” In Islam in Europe: Diversity, Identity and Influence, edited by Effie Fokas and Aziz Al-Azmeh, 125–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. McDowall, Angus, and Amena Bakr. “Three Gulf Arab States Recall Envoys in Rift with Qatar.” Reuters, March 5, 2014. https://www.reuters.com/article/ us-gulf-qatar-ambassadors-idUSBREA2413N20140305.

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

57

Middle East Monitor. “UAE and the Muslim Brotherhood: A Story of Rivalry and Hatred,” June 15, 2017. https://www.middleeastmonitor. com/20170615-uae-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-a-story-of-rivalry-and-hatred. Morris, Nigel, and Ian Johnston. “Muslim Brotherhood: Government Report Concludes They Should Not Be Classified as a Terrorist Organisation.” Independent, March 15, 2015. http://www.independent.co.uk/ news/uk/home-news/muslim-brotherhood-government-report-concludes-they-should-not-be-classified-as-a-terrorist-organisation-10109730. html. Oktav, Özden Zeynep. “Quo Vadis Turkey-GCC States Relations? A Turkish Perspective.” Insight Turkey 20, no. 2 (2018): 107–24. Patrick, Neil. “The UAE’s War Aims in Yemen,” October 24, 2017. http://carnegieendowment.org/sada/73524. Phillips, Christopher. “Eyes Bigger Than stomachs: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in Syria.” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (2017): 36–47. https://doi. org/10.1111/mepo.12250. Pradhan, Prasanta K. “Qatar Crisis and Challenges to GCC Unity.” Liberal Studies 2, no. 2 (December 2017): 241–54. ———. “Qatar Crisis and the Deepening Regional Faultlines.” Strategic Analysis 42, no. 4 (2018): 437–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2018.1482620. Ragab, Eman. “Beyond Money and Diplomacy: Regional Policies of Saudi Arabia and UAE after the Arab Spring.” The International Spectator 52, no. 2 (2017): 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2017.1309101. Ramani, Samuel. “The Saudi-UAE Alliance Could Be Weaker Than It Appears.” National Interest, December 11, 2017. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ the-saudi-uae-alliance-could-be-weaker-it-appears-23606. Reichinnek, Heidi, Julius Lübben, and Julius Dihstelhoff. “Die Terrorliste der Emirate: Zusammensetzung und Ziele.” MENA Direct. Marburg: Centrum für Nah- und Mittelost-Studien, Oktober 2015. https://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/es/2015/0018/pdf/MENAdirekt10.pdf. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Bilateral Political Relations between Turkey and Saudi Arabia.” Accessed November 30, 2018. www.mfa. gov.tr/turkey-saudi-arabia-relations.en.mfa. Reuters. “Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain End Rift with Qatar, Return Ambassadors,” November 16, 2014. https://www.reuters.com/article/ us-gulf-summit-ambassadors/saudi-arabia-uae-and-bahrain-end-rift-with-qatar-return-ambassadors-idUSKCN0J00Y420141116. ———. “UAE Lists Muslim Brotherhood as Terrorist Group,” November 15, 2014. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-politics-brotherhood/uae-lists-muslim-brotherhood-as-terrorist-group-idUSKCN0IZ0OM20141115.

58  J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE Riedel, Bruce. “Why Saudi Arabia Is Vulnerable to Islamic State.” Al-Monitor. Accessed November 30, 2018. https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/05/islamic-state-targets-saudi-arabia.html. Roberts, David B. “UAE Embrace of Islah Marks Major Shift in Yemen.” AGSIW, January 2, 2018. http://www.agsiw.org/uae-embrace-islah-marksmajor-shift-yemen/. Rose, David. “Cameron and the Arab Sheiks’ Web of Influence That Infiltrated Britain: The Shadowy Nexus of PM’s Cronies That Secretively Lobbied for Middle East Paymasters.” Daily Mail, October 18, 2015. https:// www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3277345/Cameron-Arab-Sheiks-webinfluence-infiltrated-Britain-shadowy-nexus-PM-s-cronies-secretively-lobbiedMiddle-East-paymasters.html. Roy, Olivier. The failure of political Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994. Rubin, Lawrence. Islam in the Balance: Ideational Threats in Arab Politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014. Sailer, Matthias. “Changed Priorities in the Gulf: Saudi Arabia and the Emirates Rethink Their Relationship with Egypt.” SWP Comments. Stiftung Wissenschaft undPolitikGerman Institute for International and Security Affairs, January 2016. https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/ products/comments/2016C08_sil.pdf. Sassounian, Harut. “Why the UN Rejected Turkey’s Bid for a Security Council Seat?” Huffington Post, October 28, 2014. https://www.huffingtonpost. com/harut-sassounian/why-the-un-rejected-turke_b_6036878.html. Sons, Sebastian, and Inken Wiese. “The Engagement of Arab Gulf States in Egypt and Tunisia since 2011: Rationale and Impact.” DGAP Analyse. German Council on Foreign Relations, October 2015. https://dgap.org/ en/article/getFullPDF/27232. Taşpınar, Ömer. “Turkey and the Arab Gulf States: A Dance with Uncertain Expectations.” Washington: The Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, 2015. https://agsiw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Turkey-and-theArab-Gulf-States.pdf. Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates. “Qatar and the Arab Spring: Policy Drivers and Regional Implications.” Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2014. https://carnegieendowment.org/ files/qatar_arab_spring.pdf. Usculan, Birol. Interview by Julius Dihstelhoff in Doha, January 18, 2018. Vidino, Lorenzo. “The European Organisation of the Muslim Brotherhood: Myth or Reality?” In The Muslim Brotherhood in Europe, edited by Bakker Baker and Roel Meijer, 50–69. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. ———. The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.

2  POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 

59

Volpi, Frédéric, and Ewan Stein. “Islamism and the State after the Arab Uprisings: Between People Power and State Power.” Democratization 22, no. 2 (2015): 276–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2015.1010811. Walker, Joshua W. “Turkey’s Global Strategy: Introduction: The Sources of Turkish Grand Strategy—‘Strategic Depth’ and ‘Zero- Problems’ in Context.” LSE IDEAS. London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 2011. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/43495/1/Turkey%27s%20 Global%20Strategy_introduction%28lsero%29.pdf. Werenfels, Isabelle. “Vom Umgang mit Islamisten im Maghreb: Zwischen Einbindung und Unterdrückung.” 39. SWP Studie. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft undPolitikGerman Institute for International and Security Affairs, December 2005. https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/ products/studien/2005_S39_wrf_ks.pdf. Wickham, Carrie Rosefsky. “Islamic Mobilization and Political Change: The Islamist Trend in Egypt’s Professional Associations.” In Political Islam: Essays from Middle East Report, edited by Joel Beinin and Joe Stork, 120–35. London: Tauris, 1997. ———. The Muslim Brotherhood: Evolution of an Islamist Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013. ———. “The Path to Moderation: Strategy and Learning in the Formation of Egypt’s Wasat Party.” Comparative Politics 36, no. 2 (2004). https://doi. org/10.2307/4150143. Wiktorowicz, Quintan. “Anatomy of the Salafi Movement.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 29, no. 3 (2006): 207–39. https://doi. org/10.1080/10576100500497004. “Yemen: Is Peace Possible?” Middle East Report. International Crisis Group, February 9, 2016. https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/167-yemen-ispeace-possible.pdf. Youssef, Abdel Rahman. “Egypt: Qatar’s Suez Canal Bid.” Al-Akhbar. Accessed November 30, 2018. https://english.al-akhbar.com/node/15207.

CHAPTER 3

Gulfization of the Middle East Security Complex: The Arab Spring’s Systemic Change Amr Yossef

Introduction In public and academic debates, the post-Arab Spring Middle East is being portrayed as a Hobbesian world of war of all against all—or, at minimum, as a region of fluid coalitions characterized by constant change and fragility.1 One author put it succinctly: “any version of the region finding a workable balance of power is a mirage: the new order is fundamentally one of disorder.”2 The resultant befuddlement as to who is allied with whom in the region (e.g., Sunni vs. Shiite, Arabs vs. Iranians, or autocrats vs. reformers), and on which issues, prompted the 1 Eduard

Soler i Lecha, “Liquid Alliances in the Middle East,” Notes Internacionals CIDOB (Barcelona Centre for International Affairs [CIDOB], March 2017), https:// www.cidob.org/en/publications/publication_series/notes_internacionals/n1_169/ liquid_alliances_in_the_middle_east. 2 Marc Lynch, “The New Arab Order: Power and Violence in Today’s Middle East,” Foreign Affairs 97, no. 1 (October 2018): 116–26.

A. Yossef (*)  Cairo, Egypt e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_3

61

62  A. YOSSEF

occasional appearance in the web of guides to the complicated Middle Eastern relationships.3 Moreover, this befuddlement, especially at a time when the post-Arab Spring Middle East is a source of inwardly and outwardly directed security threats, impacts important policy choices by international actors. The confusion of the US policy in the Middle East in recent years for identifying allies and the extent to which the USA would be committed to their support is one part of this befuddlement. This view of a Middle East disorder is, of course, not without reason, given the shocking regional eruptions in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East since 2011: overthrowing authoritarian leaderships, the proliferation of devastating (proxy) wars, and the multiplication of the actors involved. Nevertheless, in every chaos there is an order, and the goal of this chapter is to reconstruct this order, to provide a strategic situational awareness of the current regional dynamics in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East, and to clarify its implications for theory and policy. Building on several scholarly contributions on the Middle East’s security complex and alliances, I argue that since the mid1950s, a region-wide, bipolar security system has primarily existed in the region. Competing in this system are two alignments, the status quo and the revisionist, each of which is composed of state and non-state actors. The revisionist alignment has two camps, Arab nationalist and Islamist, and the Islamist camp is composed of two strands, Sunni and Shiite.4 Regional conflict dynamics before, during, and since the Arab Spring first movement have continued to follow the lines of this constellation. Continuity, however, did not prevent changes from occurring, although still within the system. The most significant shift since the first Arab Spring movement is the supremacy of the Gulf parties—or what I call Gulfization—in the Middle East security system. This Gulfization has been the result of a drastic redistribution of power in the broader Middle East following the Arab Spring first movement as it weakened the status quo alignment and empowered the revisionist. The implications of 3 See for e.g., “Enemies, Alliances and Animosity in the Middle East,” The Economist, January 7, 2016, https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/01/07/enemies-alliances-andanimosity-in-the-middle-east. 4 This is by no means to say that Sunni and Shiite are just different labels for the same phenomenon of Islamism international. It does imply, however, that despite their fierce theological differences, Sunni and Shiite Islamists share the same values, establishing a Sharia-based government, and the same foes, the West and its allies in the region.

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

63

Gulfization are far-reaching. They range from having the Gulf issues gain primacy in the region (over the Arab–Israeli conflict), endangering the survival of the status quo alignment under the fragile leadership in the Gulf, and particularly the Saudi leadership, to dictating the future struggle in the Middle East as between two versions of Islamism. My argument will proceed in five sections. Section one briefly discusses the understanding of the Arabian Gulf region as a distinct, sub-regional security complex in the Middle East’s modern history. ­ Section two introduces a framework of analysis in the form of a bipolar system—the status quo and revisionist alignments—and surveys its interactions throughout. Section three demonstrates the fundamental shift in the redistribution of power in the Middle East to the Gulf States following the Arab Spring first movement, and how this shift has turned the Gulf, in its internal dynamics, into the region’s center of gravity. Section four draws comparatively on the European Revolutions of 1848. Section five concludes the chapter.

The Gulf Security Subcomplex The definition of the Gulf as a sub-regional complex is already well established in the literature.5 This definition includes all states bordering the Arabian Gulf waterway—Iran, Iraq, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (the KSA), Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (the UAE). Due to the region’s unique security interdependency, F. Gregory Gause goes as far as to consider it a security complex on its own.6 Of course, while the Gulf Region has its distinct characteristics within the Middle East complex, there has always been a strong multi-issue interdependence between the Gulf complex and the two other sub-regional complexes in the broader Middle East alluded to below.7 The Gulf is interdependent with the Levant in questions of 5 Barry Buzan and Ole Waever, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 191–93; Keith Smith, “Realist Foreign Policy Analysis with a Twist: The Persian Gulf Security Complex and the Rise and Fall of Dual Containment,” Foreign Policy Analysis 12, no. 3 (July 2016): 320, https:// doi.org/10.1111/fpa.12084. 6 F. Gregory Gause, The International Relations of the Persian Gulf (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 3–6. 7 Buzan and Waever, Regions and Powers, 192–93.

64  A. YOSSEF

the Arab–Israeli conflict, the Iranian–Syrian alliance (particularly in Lebanon, where Hezbollah has, since the early 1980s, been an ­integral part of this alliance), and the regional position of Egypt, which has, since the late 1970s, been “a major power component and a stabilizer of the regional system against Iran.”8 Similarly, the Gulf has been connected to the Maghreb, especially ever since Muammar Qaddafi took over power in Libya and started exporting his revolution by interventions in domestic affairs of countries in the region, not only in Lebanon, but also in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, particularly the KSA.9 Traditionally, the Gulf complex has been centered on a triangular rivalry among Iran, Iraq, and the KSA. Primarily, this was an outcome of the mutuality of threat perceived among these three regional powers, each of which feared the other’s advancing transnational identities that threaten its domestic security, as part of their competition over leadership in the Gulf Region. It was also an outcome of the region’s security interdependency, particularly oil—which has dominated the world’s energy supply for decades—and the frequent competition over controlling its prices at OPEC.10 This dual competition, over regional leadership and oil, has been well manifest in the three Gulf Wars fought between 1980 and 2003. The conventional wisdom held the Arab monarchies in the Gulf as status quo powers facing challenges from the revolutionary powers. Pioneering this view, Malcolm Kerr demonstrated in his 1965 seminal Arab Cold War the power struggle between two camps in the Arab world, conservative monarchies and socialist republics.11 This wisdom continued after the Arab Spring. Three scholarly works—all paraphrasing Kerr by bearing the title Arab Cold War—are notable in analyzing 8 Philipp

O. Amour, “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington: Academica Press, 2018), 7–8. 9 Patrick E. Tyler, “Two Said to Tell of Libyan Plot against Saudi,” New York Times, June 10, 2004, https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/10/world/two-said-to-tell-of-libyanplot-against-saudi.html. 10 Smith, “Realist Foreign Policy Analysis with a Twist,” 320–21. 11 Malcolm H. Kerr, The Arab Cold War: Gamal Abd al-Nasir and His Rivals, 1958– 1970, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971).

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

65

the broader Middle East as a region divided between polarized alliances. Morten Valbjørn and André Bank saw to it that, contrary to the old Arab cold war, which was between states that revolved around pan-Arabism and the use of coup d’états, the new one is on a regime/society dimension, where the essential challenge comes from n ­ on-statist societal actors advocating an Arab-Islamic order.12 Likewise, in Curtis Ryan’s view, the new Arab cold war “does not emphasize redrawing borders and revamping governments through unification schemes. Rather, the new struggle more often involves conflicts within domestic politics, sometimes with a dimension of external intercession.”13 In a similar vein, Nabeel Khoury, writing in 2013, argued that Islamist parties are an independent force of their own, manifested in what he called the transitional republics (Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya), aligned with Turkey, vis-à-vis two other blocs: the Club of Monarchs (the GCC, Jordan, and Morocco) and non-state Islamist actors (Hamas and Hezbollah), aligned with Iran.14 These fine works, however, have fallen short of capturing the complexity of the various interactions among and between the regional parties involved. In this chapter, I argue that, ever since the mid-1950s, a region-wide, bipolar security system has existed in the broader Middle East. Competing in this system are two alignments, the status quo and the revisionist, each of which is composed of state and non-state actors.

Status Quo vs. Revisionist Alignments Building on Gause’s work, I define an alignment as a group of parties with shared values on what they have to balance against, not necessarily on what their domestic politics should be. In this concept, an alignment’s parties do not balance against the strongest regional state, in terms of political/military capabilities, but rather against the power that presents the clearest threat to their domestic security in terms of 12 Morten Valbjørn and André Bank, “The New Arab Cold War: Rediscovering the Arab Dimension of Middle East Regional Politics,” Review of International Studies 38, no. 1 (January 2012): 3–24, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210511000283. 13 Curtis Ryan, “The New Arab Cold War and the Struggle for Syria,” Middle East Report 262 (Spring 2012): 29. 14 Nabeel A. Khoury, “The Arab Cold War Revisited: The Regional Impact of the Arab Uprising,” Middle East Policy 20, no. 2 (2013): 73–87, https://doi.org/10.1111/ mepo.12021.

66  A. YOSSEF

transnational ideational identities.15 At the same time, I extend the application of Gause’s thesis—which is confined to the Gulf States, Syria, and Jordan—to involve the Middle East regional security complex including its three subcomplexes. My concept corresponds to Buzan’s understanding that “[in the Middle East security complex] the insecurity of the ruling elites within their domestic sphere plays a significant role in shaping the dynamics of (in)security overall.”16 An alignment can be divided into camps. Drawing on Aharon Klieman’s work, I define a camp as a tacit security regime (TSR) that is a non-contractual and a non-institutionalized agreement, where the maintenance of national security is the prime goal of such a regime but does not preclude continued competition in a different realm.17 Clive Jones and Joel Guzansky have applied Klieman’s TSR concept—which is confined to Israel–Jordan relations—to multi-lateral ties, particularly Israel’s relations with the Arab Gulf states.18 I take the concept of TSR—or what I call here a camp—one step further by including cooperation that is based not only on shared perception of threat, but also on shared values and agreement on what the parties are for and what their domestic politics should be.19 Status quo powers aim at preserving the established order—“rules of the game” and distribution of goods—and stand to benefit from it.20 In this, the policy of the status quo “aims at the maintenance of the 15 F. Gregory Gause, “Balancing What? Threat Perception and Alliance Choice in the Gulf,” Security Studies 13, no. 2 (2004): 273–305, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09636410490521271. 16 Buzan and Waever, Regions and Powers, 187. 17 Aharon Klieman, “The Israel-Jordan Tacit Security Regime,” in Regional Security Regimes: Israel and Its Neighbors, ed. Efraim Inbar (New York: State University of New York Press, 1995), 129–30. 18 Clive Jones and Yoel Guzansky, “Israel’s Relations with the Gulf States: Toward the Emergence of a Tacit Security Regime?” Contemporary Security Policy 38, no. 3 (2017): 398–419, https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2017.1292375. 19 The term “camp” is preferred here to the terms “regime” and “alliance” for it typifies (1) the informal, non-contractual nature of relations within the group of states; and (2) the incoherent nature, including competition and cooperation, of their dealings between each other and vis-a-vis the other group of states. 20 Arnold Wolfers, “The Balance of Power in Theory and Practice,” Naval War College Review 11, no. 5 (1959): 11–13; A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler, The War Ledger (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980), 19–20.

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

67

distribution of power as it exists at a particular moment in history.”21 Revisionist powers, dissatisfied as they “value what they covet more than what they currently possess,”22 seek to change the established order to improve their position within it or may even attempt to reorder it in their favor.23 For the purposes of this chapter, the status quo in the broader Middle East refers here to a specific order that evolved in the mid-1950s and entailed an alliance with the United States and the containment of the Soviet Union and its allies in the region. This order was renewed in the geopolitical settlement that followed the Cold War to entail the dominance of the powers that were allied with the United States in the region and the double containment of Iran, and other forces of Islamism, and Iraq (until 2003) and other forces of nationalism.24 I trace the emergence of the Middle East status quo alignment back to 1957, with the Eisenhower Doctrine. It is through this doctrine that the United States committed itself to defend the broader Middle East against the aggression of any state controlled by international Communism.25 Iran, Turkey, the KSA, Jordan, and Lebanon (and monarchical Iraq, until the 1958 revolution) endorsed this doctrine, forming the first members of the status quo alignment.26 The broad parameters of the status quo alignment are: alliance/accommodation with the West as the guarantor of the region’s security and the stability of its regimes, acceptance of peaceful settlement of the Arab–Israeli conflict 21 Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 5th ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), 46. 22 Randall L. Schweller, “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In,” International Security 19, no. 1 (Summer 1994): 105, https://doi.org/10. 2307/2539149. 23 David Zionts, “Revisionism and Its Variants: Understanding State Reactions to Foreign Policy Failure,” Security Studies 15, no. 4 (October 2006): 633, https://doi. org/10.1080/09636410601184611. 24 Walter Russell Mead, “The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the Revisionist Powers,” Foreign Affairs 93, no. 3 (June 2014): 69–79. 25 As such, this constellation predates the formation of the Gulf subcomplex after Britain’s withdrawal from the region in 1971, as in: Buzan and Waever, Regions and Powers, 191. 26 The most committed to this alliance, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, along with the United Kingdom, jointly established the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO), or Baghdad Pact, in 1955.

68  A. YOSSEF

and coexistence with Israel, and assertion of sovereignty and noninterference norms. The status quo alignment has faced, and continues to face, challenges from its revisionist rival, which seeks to mobilize publics in the status quo parties against their regimes, with the aim of replacing the established order with its own. Back in the 1950s, Egypt and Syria, dominated by the then rising revolutionary Arab nationalism/socialism, rejected the Eisenhower Doctrine, constituting the first members of the revolutionary alignment. The latter’s broad parameters, usually advocating a populist line, are hostility toward the West, which is perceived as seeking to dominate the region, adoption of armed conflict to confront Israel, and pursuit of exporting the revolution (to the status quo powers) as a core foreign policy goal. Two revisionist camps stand out—Arab Nationalism and Islamism— which share the common denominator of being transnational ideological identities that attempt to take advantage of the Arab/Muslim public yearning for the restoration of their lost historic great civilization. Though the terms “status quo” and “revisionist” carry strong normative connotations, they are used in this chapter only analytically and with no intention to pass judgment on the morality of a given policy of either orientation. Status quo and revisionist goals are only preferences over outcomes; “they say little themselves about specific actions or strategies that should or will be pursued to achieve them.”27 Therefore, the tendency to link status quo policy with defensiveness and a revisionist policy with aggressiveness is mistaken; status quo powers can behave aggressively and revisionist powers can ally with the existing “rules of the game.”28

Arab Nationalist Camp For its advocates, Arab nationalism rose against colonialism and Western influence to which Arab monarchies had surrendered. These monarchies “were held to be ‘reactionaries’—hereditary monarchs, oligarchic politicians and wealthy landowners and businessmen—who 27 Jason W. Davidson, “The Roots of Revisionism: Fascist Italy, 1922–39,” Security Studies 11, no. 4 (June 2002): 126, https://doi.org/10.1080/714005356. 28 Ka Po Ng, Interpreting China’s Military Power: Doctrine Makes Readiness (Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis, 2005), 10–11, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203325902.

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

69

found it easier to obstruct reforms by keeping the Arab world divided.”29 The latter division, combined with the corruption that characterized the monarchies, resulted in the social and economic deprivation of the Arab peoples. The alternative order offered by Arab nationalism has encompassed, internally, establishing socialist republics (e.g., Egypt and Iraq) and restoring the rights of the masses and, externally, an Arab unity confronting Western influence, including an alliance for military liberation of Palestine from Zionism. Dubbed the progressives, Arab nationalists found leadership in the charismatic Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who led the overthrow of the Egyptian monarchy in 1952 and scored a political triumph against the West in the 1956 Suez crisis. The late 1950s and most of the 1960s witnessed the heyday of Arab nationalism—using propaganda, like Sawt al-Arab (Voice of the Arabs) radio, to invoke popular protest in the status quo countries. By doing so, forces of Arab Nationalism succeeded in achieving the creation of the Egyptian–Syrian United Arab Republic (1958–1961), the overthrow of the monarchies, and the turning of Iraq (1958), Yemen (1962), and Libya (1970) into socialist republics. Several Nasserist coups were also attempted in Jordan, the KSA, and Morocco (which was concerned about revolutionary Algeria after independence in 1962). A non-state member of this camp was the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), following its establishment under Nasser’s sponsorship in 1964.30 These successes in spreading Arab nationalism were followed by setbacks due to Arab nationalists’ internal conflicts and failures, as well as to the resistance by the status quo parties: the Egyptian–Syrian union was dissolved; socialists in Syria and Iraq turned into another strand, Ba’athism, competing with Nasserism and among themselves; and the Yemeni revolution turned into a proxy war between Egypt, supporting the republicans, and the KSA (along with Jordan) supporting the monarchists. The greatest setback, which set the stage for the decline of Arab nationalism, was the June 1967 catastrophic defeat at the hands of Israel. In the 1970s, Egypt, under President Anwar Sadat, shifted sides to the status quo alignment, but the Ba’athist regimes in Hafez Assad’s Syria 29 Kerr,

The Arab Cold War, 6–7. O. Amour, “Palestinian Politics in Transition: The Case of the October War,” in The Yom Kippur War: Politics, Legacy, Diplomacy, ed. Asaf Siniver (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 137–54. 30 Philipp

70  A. YOSSEF

and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, along with Qaddafi’s Libya, continued with the Arab Nationalist Camp. However, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, on unionist grounds, had severely undermined the credibility of Arab nationalism advocates.

Islamist Camp For its advocates, Islamism rose against colonialism and foreign influence. It upholds the following values: a sense that modernization in Arab society has meant a drifting away from Islamic moral values and a sense that there has been surrender to foreign forces—atheist communism, the Christian West, and Jewish Zionism—and that corruption and economic injustice prevail in societies.31 The motto Islam is the Solution encompasses, internally, the establishment of Islamic states to restore the rule of the Sharia, and, externally, Islamic unity that will contain Western influence. Historically, the first strand of the Islamist camp has been Sunni, in the Arab world, manifested in the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) movement in Egypt in 1928. Involved in coexistence and struggle with the Egyptian monarchy, the MB initially supported the Free Officers’ 1952 revolution before turning against it, culminating in the 1954 and 1965 crises, which were met with Nasser’s iron fist policy. Following the adage of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” the KSA gave shelter in the late 1950s to the MB activists from Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere, as a tool to push against the Arab nationalists. Many other Gulf states, upon gaining independence in 1971, followed suit, so that MB became entrenched both in Arab Gulf societies and states and were known as al-Sahwa in the KSA and al-Islah in Kuwait, the UAE, and Bahrain.32 MB branches were also tolerated to a certain extent in Jordan and Morocco. Even though it was strictly banned in the republics, the MB managed to maintain a socio-economic network, widening its activities that were later to bear fruit in the Arab Spring events.

31 Saad Eddin Ibrahim, “Anatomy of Egypt’s Militant Islamic Groups: Methodological Note and Preliminary Findings,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 12, no. 4 (December 1980): 430. 32 James A. Bill, “Resurgent Islam in the Persian Gulf,” Foreign Affairs 63, no. 1 (1984): 110–11, https://doi.org/10.2307/20042088.

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

71

In parallel, the KSA and other Arab Gulf states cultivated Wahhabi Salafism that represents a radical interpretation of Islamic texts. For Wahhabi scholars, though, faith is about order and a dread of anarchy, where obedience to the rulers is given a religious sanction.33 The KSA also pioneered the use of Wahhabism as a major tool to advance its regional foreign policy interests—promoting its image as the center and leader of Islam.34 This mobilization of religion started in the 1960s to confront Arab nationalism/socialism and was then significantly expanded to confront communism in the Mujahedeen struggle against the 1979 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, in an alliance with the USA and its regional allies: Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco. This policy reached its peak in the 1980s onwards, by championing this extremist ideology worldwide to outbid Khomeini’s Iran call for theocracy.35 This policy soon exploded for its inherent contradiction—that is, a status-quo power sponsoring one revisionist camp, Islamism, to undermine another, Arab nationalism and its allies. It proved that the Arab ruling elites, by supporting extremists, were strengthening the very forces that are committed to their destruction.36 Under Sadat’s Egypt, the short-lived tolerance of the MB and Salafism led to the emergence of more extremist groups—whose members assassinated Sadat himself in 1981—all drawing on the teachings of the MB thinker Sayyid Qutb and his disciple Abd al-Salam Faraj, who advocated violence against Muslim rulers and governments viewed as un-abided by the Quran.37 As for the KSA, the Mujahedeen veterans formed Al-Qaeda in 1988, establishing the base for the proliferation of several branches, including the one targeting Saudi rule, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which presented 33 Fouad Ajami, “America and the Arabs,” Foreign Affairs 80, no. 6 (November 2001): 6–7. 34 F. Gregory Gause, “Saudi Arabia’s Regional Security Strategy,” in International Politics of the Persian Gulf, ed. Mehran Kamrava (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2011), 169–83. 35 David Goldfischer, “The United States and Its Key Gulf Allies: A New Foundation for a Troubled Partnership,” in The Small Gulf States: Foreign and Security Policies before and after the Arab Spring, ed. Jean-Marc Rickli and Khalid S. Almezaini (London: Routledge, 2017), 69. 36 Bill, “Resurgent Islam in the Persian Gulf,” 123–24. 37 Danny Orbach, “Tyrannicide in Radical Islam: The Case of Sayyid Qutb and Abd al-Salam Faraj,” Middle Eastern Studies 48, no. 6 (2012): 961–72, https://doi.org/10.10 80/00263206.2012.723629.

72  A. YOSSEF

“the most potent ideological threat to Saudi rule, as it questioned the sincerity of the Saudis’ adherence to their own Wahhabist interpretation of Islam.”38 The second strand of Islamism has been Shiite, basically in Iran. Though it was initiated by the emergence in 1946 of the Fadaiyun Islam (FI) party, the FI suppression by the Shah regime, as well as the rise in the early 1960s of Ayatollah Khomeini, made the latter and his movement the leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution.39 Revolutionary Iran explicitly applied the direct rule of the clergy, Vilayat-i Faqih, and the export of the revolution to the region’s countries, especially the monarchies that were deemed un-Islamic, as well as the republics, especially Saddam’s Iraq, which resulted in their long war (1980–1988).40 Co-opting Shiite minorities in the Arab world, Iran has established, throughout the last three decades, strongholds in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi movement), and Iraq, which turned into Iran’s backyard following the fall of Saddam. The Shiite Islamist strand has a conceptual link to its Sunni counterpart. In essence, the ideas of the MB founder, Hassan al-Banna, are not any different from those of Khomeini—with Islamic fundamentalists viewing the only remedy for Muslim society’s ills (i.e., corruption and foreign domination) is making the government fully Islamic with the Quran as its constitution.41 This is a relationship that dates back to the 1950s, when the FI identified itself along the lines of the MB.42 Revolutionary Iran has also been in support of Sunni Islamists, (i.e., the MB), including its Palestinian branch, Hamas, and local Jihadist groups in Egypt, Libya, and Algeria, with links to Al-Qaeda as well. Relations between the Sunni and Shiite Islamists are complex, as each attempts to restrain its own hegemonic ambition over the world of 38 Gause,

“Saudi Arabia’s Regional Security Strategy,” 172. M. Milani, The Making of Iran’s Islamic Revolution (Boulder: Westview Press,

39 Mohsen

1994), 39. 40 Shaharam Akbarzadeh, “Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council Sheikhdoms,” in The Small Gulf States: Foreign and Security Policies before and after the Arab Spring, ed. JeanMarc Rickli and Khalid S. Almezaini (London: Routledge, 2017), 90–96. 41 Elie Kedouri, Politics in the Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 330. 42 Mehdi Khalaji, “Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Iran,” The Washington Institute, February 12, 2009, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/egyptsmuslim-brotherhood-and-iran.

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

73

Islamism and overcome their fierce theological differences, for cooperation with the other in face of the common enemy. These attempts are not always successful, but that does not take their solid common ground away. They share the same values and the same foes: the West and its allies in the region. This is precisely how KSA Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman (MBS) came to perceive the Islamists as a triangle of evil— the Iranian regime, the MB, and the terrorists Al-Qaeda and ISIL—that is trying “to promote the idea that our duty as Muslims is to reestablish the caliphate, to reestablish the mindset of the caliphate –that the glory of Islam is in building an empire by force.”43

Rivalry in the 1990s and Afterwards Arab nationalism’s credibility was undermined by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the monarchies vs. republics bipolarity also declined. In replacement came the so-called “Arab regional order,” consolidating the status quo alignment, including the GCC countries, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, and the PLO-led Palestinian National Authority (PNA). This order gradually succeeded in pushing forward its agenda visa-vis the nationalist republics (Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen and Algeria) in the endorsement of peace with Israel as the strategic option in the Arab League summit of 1996 and the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002.44 It should be noted that Israel has been an established member of the status quo alignment. Ever since the 1950s, in what became known as the Periphery Doctrine, Israel extended ties to Kemalist Turkey and Imperial Iran to weaken a potential Arab nationalist alliance against it. As Iran in 1979 and Turkey in 2009 turned revisionist, Israel’s Arab status quo partners increased, either openly following formal peace treaties (Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994), or tacitly, as with the pre-1994 Jordan and the Gulf states since the 1990s.45 Status quo parties (excluding 43 Jeffrey Goldberg, “Saudi Crown Prince: Iran’s Supreme Leader ‘Makes Hitler Look Good’,” The Atlantic, April 2, 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/ archive/2018/04/mohammed-bin-salman-iran-israel/557036/. 44 Gamal Abul Hassan, “Defending the Regional Order Is a Political Must (in Arabic),” Asharq Al-Awsat, February 27, 2016, https://aawsat.com/home/writer/Gamal%20 Abu%20Alhasan. 45 See Klieman, “The ­Israel-Jordan Tacit Security Regime”; Jones and Guzansky, “Israel’s Relations with the Gulf States.”

74  A. YOSSEF

Israel) and revisionist ones back ending Israeli occupation of the Palestinian and Syrian territories, though they differ significantly over which means, peaceful or violent, to achieve that, as well as the legitimacy of Israel per se. As the status quo alignment was consolidating, the challenge to it from the revisionist Islamist camp heightened. Three Islamist rises took place since the mid-1990s and were reinforced in the next decade and half, culminating in the key role the Islamists played since the Arab Spring first movement. The first rise was that of Iran. Following Iraq’s defeat in 1991 and the crippling sanctions it suffered, Iran emerged as the most powerful state in the Gulf.46 Moreover, the American-led invasion in 2003 not only destroyed Iraq’s role as a regional power for long time to come, but it also turned Iraq itself into a playing field for rivalries among regional powers, including Iran, the KSA, Turkey, and Syria.47 Iran, however, has been singled out as the main beneficiary. It gained a strategic ally in the post-Saddam Iraq, thanks to the rise to power in Baghdad of Shiite Islamist parties, many of whose leaders were in exile in Iran during Saddam’s era.48 This alliance enabled Iran to establish a direct territorial connection to supply its allies in Syria and Lebanon, escape international sanctions, and support its economy by vast trade volumes with Iraq.49 The second rise was that of Islamist Turkey, following the electoral victory of the Refah party in 1995, which was later replaced by the empowered Justice and Development Party (AKP) under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in 2002. Shifting from the principle established by Kemal Ataturk—that Turkey should limit its involvement in Middle Eastern affairs—the AKP-led government has moved to spend Turkey’s foreign policy energies, as well as its security focus, in this region. Aspiring to a return to the centuries-long Ottoman rule of the Arab world, the AKP “has promoted solidarity with Islamist, a­nti-Western 46 Gause,

The International Relations of the Persian Gulf, 129. 7. 48 Suzanne Maloney, “How the Iraq War Has Empowered Iran,” Brookings Institution, March 21, 2008, https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/how-the-iraq-warhas-empowered-iran/. 49 Nima Khorrami Assl, “Iraq Makes Sanctions against Iran Ineffective,” The Guardian, January 27, 2012, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/27/ iraq-sanctions-iran-ineffective. 47 Gause,

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

75

regimes (Qatar and Sudan, for example) while dismissing secular, pro-Western Muslim governments (Egypt, Jordan, and Tunisia), aligning with Hamas against the Palestinian Authority.”50 The third rise, though only with an impact in league with Turkey, was that of Islamist-aligned Qatar, following the 1995 palace coup in Doha that brought to power a new emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. There was a dissent within the GCC against Hamad for having ousted his own father. The KSA, the UAE, and Bahrain backed the former emir, Sheikh Khalifa. Dissent developed into enmity following the aborted counter-coup in 1996, which Emir Hamad was convinced, was supported by the KSA, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt.51 Combined with the ambition of Emir Hamad for his small, wealthy country to become also an important regional player, this enmity led Emir Hamad to make a shift in Qatari foreign policy. This shift involved an allegiance with the Islamist spectrum, ranging from the MB and Hezbollah to the Afghan Taliban, with no fear of retaliation at home for their strong alliance with the regime.52 As a starter, Doha initiated the Al-Jazeera satellite news channel, which heavily engaged in criticizing the status quo governments’ domestic and foreign policies. A telling demonstration of how these developments have matured into the reality of who’s who in the rival alignments is the 2006 Lebanon war fought between Israel and the Shiite Hezbollah militia in Lebanon. Despite the rhetoric denouncing the Israeli aggression, the status quo parties (i.e., Egypt, the KSA, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia), as well as the PNA and the Lebanese government itself (then led by the March 14 coalition, a close ally of the KSA), condemned Hezbollah’s actions as unwise and responsible for the massive destruction that Israel caused in Lebanon. The revisionist alignment, in its Islamist camp (i.e., Iran, Turkey, Sudan, Qatar, and Hamas) or in its Arab nationalist one (i.e., Syria, Libya, and Algeria), were on the other side and supported Hezbollah as it continued armed conflict against Israel. 50 Soner Cagaptay, “Is Turkey Leaving the West,” Foreign Affairs, October 26, 2009, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/turkey/2009-10-26/turkey-leaving-west. 51 Andrew Rathmell and Kirsten Schulze, “Political Reform in the Gulf: The Case of Qatar,” Middle Eastern Studies 36, no. 4 (October 2000): 54. 52 David B. Roberts, “Qatar and the UAE: Exploring Divergent Responses to the Arab Spring,” Middle East Journal 71, no. 4 (Autumn 2017): 560.

76  A. YOSSEF

On the eve of the Arab Spring, the Islamist camp received a boost from the administration of President Barack Obama, who denied support to the status quo governments. Obama was convinced that the USA was overstretched in the Middle East. In this view, “rightsizing the United States’ footprint in the region meant not only reducing its material presence but also exercising restraint diplomatically, stepping back and challenging allies to take greater responsibility for their own security.”53 At the same time, Obama apparently adopted the so-called engagement leads to moderation theory. In this view, the inclusion of Islamists in the political process would transform them from radical groups into moderate forces, since their attempt to get the votes of large sectors of society would necessarily mean the Islamists’ adoption of compromises and ideas that are consistent with what the majority believes in.54 Here, the Turkish experience was considered to be a crucial reference for success. In essence, “Obama looked to Turkey, with its liberal, successful economic model, to fill any power vacuum and serve as an example to neighboring Muslim countries.”55

The Arab Spring’s Systemic Change: Gulfization The Arab Spring first movement, and the developments that accompanied it, have caused a drastic redistribution of power in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East security complex, as it weakened the status quo alignment and empowered the revisionist. This r­edistribution of power, in turn, is manifest in the supremacy of the Gulf parties— or Gulfization—in the broader Middle East. Before discussing the manifestations, I briefly review in the next few lines the causes of the redistribution of power. First, the Arab Spring first movement presented the Gulf status quo powers with an unprecedented challenge, by introducing a fundamental change in the ways in which leaderships could be ousted in the Middle 53 Marc Lynch, “Obama and the Middle East: Rightsizing the U.S. Role,” Foreign Affairs 94, no. 5 (September 2015): 18. 54 Mohamed Kamal, “Obama Wearing a Turban (in Arabic),” Al-Masry Al-Youm, August 25, 2013, https://ww.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/199659. 55 Fawaz A. Gerges, “The Obama Approach to the Middle East: The End of America’s Moment?” International Affairs 89 (March 2013): 316–17, https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1468-2346.12019.

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

77

East. Traditionally, despite Arab nationalists having targeted the domestic populations of their rivals, the act of ousting a leadership was done by a core group of military officers undertaking a coup. For this reason, Arab regimes—republics and monarchies alike—have excelled in coup-proofing strategies that deprive their militaries of the ability to challenge their rule.56 The sole exception was Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, but that was considered precisely an exception because it occurred in a non-Arab state. In 2011, coup-proofing strategies proved irrelevant since the Arab regimes were challenged, at least initially, by civilian, leaderless massive demonstrations. Also, unlike in the past, when the feared domino effect of exporting the revolution could take months or years to materialize, the two Arab Spring movements took a much faster pace of days to months, which intensified the anxiety of a revolutionary wave threat.57 This unprecedented challenge opened a strategic window of opportunity for the revisionist alignment that the three rises did not miss. Iran celebrated the Arab Spring first movement as an Islamic Awakening, a belated imitation of the Islamic revolution in Iran; it attempted to take advantage of it by supporting the Shiite minority protest in Bahrain and providing weapons to the Houthi movement in Yemen.58 Qatar made a strategic decision to support the Islamists, partly to support the “eventual winners in order to magnify its influence and reach” and partly to ally with Turkey “for fear of being too small against the sweeping regional turmoil.”59 Returning the favor, Iran and Turkey were the first to support Doha in facing the boycott imposed on it by the KSA, the UAE, Bahrain (Gulf trio), and Egypt. Apparently to counter the similar risks, Turkey went as far as to deploy forces in its military base in Qatar in 2017.60 56 James

T. Quinlivan, “Coup-Proofing: Its Practice and Consequences in the Middle East,” International Security 24, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 131–65. 57 Uzi Rabi, Back to the Future, the Middle East in the Shadow of the Arab Spring (TelAviv: Resling, 2016), 15–17, 41–45. 58 Akbarzadeh, “Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council Sheikhdoms,” 96; remarkably Sunni Islamists had earlier celebrated the triumph of Khomeini’s overthrow of the Shah. 59 Marwa Maziad, “The Turkish Burden: The Cost of the Turkey-Qatar Alliance and Hard Power Projection into Qatar’s Foreign Policy,” in The Arab Gulf States and The West: Perceptions and Realities—Opportunities and Perils, ed. Dania Koleilat Khatib and Marwa Maziad (London: Routledge, 2019), 114. 60 Md Muddassir Quamar, “The Turkish Military Base in Doha: A Step towards Gaining ‘Strategic Depth’ in the Middle East?” Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses Comment, September 26, 2017, https://idsa.in/idsacomments/the-turkish-military-basein-doha_mmquamar_260917.

78  A. YOSSEF

Second, the revolutionary wave came at a time when the Arab Gulf status quo could not count on traditional allies’ support, as mentioned above. In the pre-Arab Spring struggle against the revisionists, the Arab Gulf could count on the support from other status quo regional powers (Iran in the 1960s and Egypt from the 1980s onwards), but essentially from the USA. Since the Arab Spring first movement, neither support has been available. Iran has turned, since 1979, into the main rival, while the revolution in Egypt itself caused a severe instability of the country. Egypt’s instability caused an abrupt disturbance of the aforementioned Arab regional order, which was based on the Egyptian–Saudi axis. Unlike in the pre-Arab Spring times, the Egyptian government “is having difficulty putting its own house in order, which prevents it from playing its traditional regional and inter-Arab role.”61 Despite the declared Egyptian commitment to the security of the Arab Gulf states as a “red line,” Egypt proved ready only for limited military engagement outside its borders. In the Arab coalition war in Yemen, Egypt participates only with naval assets, with no boots on the ground. Moreover, the KSA found the USA in retreat from engagement in the Middle East: abandoning traditional allies, Mubarak and Ben-Ali, hesitant to confront foes (leading from behind against the Qaddafi regime), refrained from intervention against the Bashar al-Assad regime (even after crossing the USA-defined red line of using chemical weapons), and appeased the traditional enemy, Iran, with whom the Obama administration reached the nuclear deal in 2015. The USA–GCC summit at Camp David that President Obama convened in May 2015 appears to have had little effect. In short, the Saudi fear—understandable under expanding Iranian influence in Syria and Iraq and the chaotic regional situation—is that the House of Saud potentially might have to face a similar fate, involving popular protests and evolving into a civil war with ­Iranian-backed militias, all with USA reluctance to intervene for its allies. Finally, the GCC, established in 1981 primarily to counter Iran’s export of revolution and traditionally under Saudi dominance, is now

61 Gabriel Ben-Dor, “Overview: Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Face a Region in Flux,” in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf and the New Regional Landscape, ed. Joshua Teitelbaum (Ramat Gan: The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, 2017), 22, https://besacenter.org/ wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MSPS133.pdf.

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

79

divided. Unlike the unitary “Club of Monarchs” depicted by Khouri,62 the GCC has been divided into three factions: the belligerent status quo Gulf trio mentioned above, the revisionist Qatar, and the almost neutral Kuwait and Oman. Kuwait had been suffering from Iranian attempts on its stability ever since the 1980s, and it vehemently opposed the ouster of leaderships in the Arab Spring. However, it welcomed Iran’s nuclear deal in 2015, deliberately choosing not to fully cut ties with Iran when the KSA and Bahrain did so in 2016, and opting to mediate between Qatar and the KSA, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt. Oman similarly welcomed the nuclear deal, as it had earlier hosted secret meetings between American and Iranian negotiators, and it also had chosen not to sever diplomatic relations with Iran. Oman rejected joining the KSA-led coalition in Yemen and mediated between the two Yemeni warring parties. The causes for these choices of Kuwait and Oman are a balancing between Iran and the KSA and a greater focus on trade than on one-sided alignment.63 This redistribution of power is manifest in the Gulfization of the Middle East security complex or the supremacy of the Gulf parties in the two alignments. Traditional Arab powers in the Levant, Egypt, and Syria are consumed by their domestic conflicts, whereas the Gulf states, via abundant finance, media empires, and a central position in transnational networks, are well qualified to project power capabilities abroad.64 For the status quo alignment, and well beyond the security interdependence within the broader Middle East complex, as Buzan and Waever argue, there is now greater dependence of the Levant and the Maghreb on the Gulf. Post-2013 Egypt, as well as the rest of the status quo alignment members (i.e., Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon, and the PNA) all have been depending to a considerable extent on the Gulf trio’s support. This support existed before, but the difference here is that it provided rapid,

62 Khoury,

“The Arab Cold War Revisited.” Hamad H. Albloshi, “Kuwait’s Careful Balancing Act with Iran, Saudi Arabia,” Al-Monitor, May 24, 2018, https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/05/ iran-jcpoa-nuclear-deal-gcc-saudi-kuwait-reaction-division.html; Dina Esfandiary and Ariane M. Tabatabai, “Scent of an Oman: The Sultanate Moves toward the Saudis,” Foreign Affairs, January 17, 2017, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/persian-gulf/201701-17/scent-oman. 64 Lynch, “The New Arab Order.” 63 See

80  A. YOSSEF

unconditional credit lines precisely at a time when foreign investment was low and international donors exerted pressures.65 Currently, eight years after the Arab Spring, the Arab Gulf emerged as an island of stability in the midst of regional chaos, and the KSA “positioned itself as the chief architect of a counterrevolution to contain, and perhaps to even reverse, the Arab Spring as much as possible.”66 It is no wonder then, for example, that in the Arab–Israeli conflict (dealing with which has been traditionally the prerogative of states in the Levant subcomplex), the KSA and the UAE turned, albeit quietly, into the leading interlocutors. In an interview in April 2018, MBS only fell short of a Sadat-like speech when he voiced recognition of Israel’s right to exist.67 Recognizing the revolutionary wave threat and assuming leadership, the KSA decided to abandon its soft tools of influence and moved to the direct use of force in Bahrain (with a Saudi-led GCC forces) and in Yemen (with an Arab coalition under its command). In 2015, the Kingdom established the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism, with 34 countries, all members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (excluding Syria, Iraq, and Iran) and particularly those with military power, in troop numbers and battle experience that could contribute significantly to the defense of the Gulf in time of need, such as Egypt and Pakistan. The UAE participated militarily in the NATO-led campaign to topple the Qaddafi’s regime, and it cooperates with Egypt in supporting the military effort of General Khalifa Haftar’s Operation Dignity. In Syria, the KSA has been heavily engaged in political and military support of the Sunni Islamist forces fighting the Assad regime. For the revisionist alignment, Iran, which has already been on the lead in Shiite Islamist strand, sought to fill the regional vacuum by expanding its influence; military intervention in Syria, directly (through the

65 For the PLO, and Hamas, see e.g., Lisa Watanabe, “Gulf States’ Engagement in North Africa: The Role of Foreign Aid,” in The Small Gulf States: Foreign and Security Policies before and after the Arab Spring, ed. Jean-Marc Rickli and Khalid S. Almezaini (London: Routledge, 2017), 175–77; Philipp O. Amour, “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives,” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31, https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.384773. 66 Mehran Kamrava, “The Arab Spring and the Saudi-Led Counterrevolution,” Orbis 56, no. 1 (2012): 96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2011.10.011. 67 Goldberg, “Saudi Crown Prince.”

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

81

Revolutionary Guard Corps) and by proxy (through a Shiite foreign legion consisting of fighters from Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) to fight on Assad’s side.68 Iran is the major supplier of the Houthi movement in Yemen, and as the KSA reached out to Morocco (as well as Jordan, that both were invited to join the GCC) to strengthen the status quo, Iran started supporting the Polisario Front—an Algerian proxy militia claiming Morocco’s southern provinces—by delivering to it, through Hezbollah, anti-aircraft missiles.69 Qatar has supported the short-lived government of the MB in Egypt in 2012–2013 and provided money and weapons to MB-affiliated and other Islamist militias in Libya and Syria; Qatar was also accused by the Gulf trio of working against the Arab coalition in Yemen from within by aiding the Iran-aligned Houthi movement.70 The point of interest here, in all the above issues, is that the Gulf states are not merely players among others but they are the leading force. What are the implications of Gulfization? At least three seem to stand out, demanding special emphasis. First, and most visible, is the primacy of the Gulf issues (the KSA vs. Iran, the Arab-trio plus Egypt vs. Qatar, the war in Yemen) over others in the Middle East (e.g., the Palestine Cause). Writing in 2003, Buzan and Waever stated: “although the Gulf added a second core to the Middle Eastern Regional Security Complex (RSC), the nature of its internal security dynamics did not generate anything like the same symbolic intensity that enabled the Arab– Israeli one to tie together a wide geographical spread of Arab and Islamic states.”71 At this post-Arab Spring first movement writing (2019), this situation seems to have turned upside down. The Arab–Israeli conflict— which is in effect confined to the Palestinian–Israeli arena given the situation in Syria and Lebanon—has been relegated to a second-grade 68 Michael Eisenstadt, “Iran after Sanctions: Military Procurement and Force-Structure Decisions” (The International Institute for Strategic Studies [IISS], December 2017), 1–7, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/opeds/Eisenstadt20171219IISS-chapter.pdf. 69 Michael Rubin, “Why Is Iran Trying to Sabotage Morocco?” Washington Examiner, May 2, 2018, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/israel-isnt-the-only-countryiran-is-meddling-with. 70 “Qatar Admits That It Is against the Arab Coalition in Yemen,” Al Arabiya, July 19, 2017, http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/07/19/Qatar-admits-that-it-isagainst-the-Arab-coalition-in-Yemen.html. 71 Buzan and Waever, Regions and Powers, 192–93.

82  A. YOSSEF

issue because the state and non-state actors in the region are preoccupied with more urgent business; in turn, this provided Israel an opportunity to improve its ties with the Arab members in the status quo alignment.72 Under the current circumstances, “no one wants to hear about this conflict, no one really believes it is solvable.”73 Second, the status quo alignment, being currently led by the KSA and the UAE, is undergoing a critical stage. As noted earlier, the status quo alignment in the Gulf subcomplex is not on the majority (three of the GCC countries are either revisionist or neutral) and the rest of the Arab status quo alignment members depend, to various degrees, on political and financial support from the Gulf trio. As the support from this thin body—the Gulf trio—is so vital for the survival of the status quo as an alignment, its leadership is fragile. MBS has had to face internal challenges to his premature, rule-breaking rise to the Crown Prince position. More importantly, he has thus far made a record of high-risk policy choices (including the sudden initiation of deep socio-economic changes and the arbitrary arrests of princes of the royal family, and most recently the suspected murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi) that raise doubts about his leadership’s responsibility and reliability, two characteristics that are crucial for any alliance’s stability. Finally, Gulfization could bring more violent religious extremism than before in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. At a time when the appeal of secular Arab nationalism has declined, the Gulf subcomplex states and non-state actors—status quo and revisionist alike—appeal to religion for legitimacy. Moreover, the Gulf’s dominant actors (Iran, Qatar, the KSA, and the UAE) resort to the employment of Islamist groups, peaceful and armed alike, to serve their interests. While the employment of these groups has long been a tradition for the revisionist Islamist camp, the status quo parties are now committing the same (most likely) mistake they did in the past when they employed Wahhabism to defeat Arab nationalism and its allies, socialism and communism—only to the detriment of the status quo alignment. This might fulfill James Bill’s prophecy, made back in 1984, that the struggle in the Middle East has 72 Philipp O. Amour, “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East: A Strategic Assessment,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 293–309, https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1185696. 73 Gamal Abul Hassan, “After 25 Years of Oslo (in Arabic),” Almasry Alyoum, September 16, 2018, https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/1323041.

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

83

passed republics vs. monarchies or secular vs. Islamists divisions, and is now between Establishment Islam vs. Populist Islam.74 Has the Gulf Region and broader Middle East been exceptional in this complex reality portrayed above, during and after the revolutions? Could history be of guidance to better understand these developments in the region and perhaps provide an insight to the future? The following section seeks to answer these questions by drawing comparatively on the European Revolutions of 1848.

Historical Analogies and the Arab Spring Movements Historical analogies are a risky business, but they cannot be ignored because they influence perceptions of politicians in charge, which, in turn, influence decisions and actions of states and non-state actors. For the Arab Spring movements, the use of analogies by politicians has reflected conflicting views and consequently impacted policy decisions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel took the lead in comparing the 2011 uprisings to Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution,75 whereas the USA President Obama compared the Arab Spring first movement to the 1989 European revolutions’ overthrow of communism.76 In 2011, intellectuals and the general public in several Arab countries analogized Tunisia’s overthrow of Ben Ali and therefore “jumped to the conclusion that they could successfully challenge their own autocrats”—and then serious problems aroused.77 A comparison between the 1848 European springtime of the peoples and the Arab Spring movements is helpful for a couple of reasons. It puts the Arab Spring movements into historical perspective; it highlights the Middle East’s distinctiveness rather than its exceptionalism, especially with regards to the dynamics of competing regional alliances. Moreover,

74 Bill,

“Resurgent Islam in the Persian Gulf.” Yossef, “Israel and Post-Mubarak Egypt: Perils of Historical Analogy,” Digest of Middle East Studies 21, no. 1 (March 2012): 49–68. 76 Mark Lander, “Obama Cites Poland and Model for Arab Shift,” New York Times, May 28, 2011, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/world/europe/29prexy.html. 77 Kurt Weyland, “The Arab Spring: Why the Surprising Similarities with the Revolutionary Wave of 1848,” Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 4 (2012): 917–34, https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1537592712002873. 75 Amr

84  A. YOSSEF

a reasonable review of observed parallels offers a tool to read past events differently, as well as a range of potential future developments. Notwithstanding the differences between the two cases, they share some strong similarities. Both political phenomena were region-wide popular uprisings that emerged largely in the states whose populations were suffering most in socio-economic conditions, where the eruption of uprising in one country (France in 1848 and Tunisia in 2010) was the signal for similar events almost everywhere. Both came against the background of a major revolution (the French revolution in 1789 and Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979), whose repetition was much aspired by the neo-revolutionaries and feared by the status quo powers. Both revolutionaries of 1848 and 2011 were ultimately unable to hold state power, yielding positions after a short interval to representatives of previously established regimes; it was not long before events moved from the ongoing revolution to the post-revolution phase. These similarities between the two episodes combine to make what Henry Hale has aptly called “regime change cascades.”78 Another central similarity is that each revolutionary wave has sharpened, though not created, the division of the region into two ­ alignments—“party of order” and “party of movement.”79 The f­ormer encompassed conservative regimes whose aim is to preserve the status quo and prevent the spread of revolution into their own territories, while the latter encompassed the revolutionary revisionist governments and their supporters of transnational movements. To a great extent, the position of the KSA since 2011 is reminiscent of that of 1848 Russia, which represented not only the largest monarchy that had not witnessed a revolution, but also the one that suddenly found itself in the central position against the revolutionaries in Europe, that had the greatest stake in the prevention of revolutionary spread, and that had taken active steps, diplomatically and militarily, to that end. Tsarist Russia used military force to prevent the spread of the revolutionary wave close to its territory. In two occasions, Russia did take actions: in 1848 against Romanian nationalists in the Principalities of 78 Henry E. Hale, “Regime Change Cascades: What We Have Learned from the 1848 Revolutions to the 2011 Arab Uprisings,” Annual Review of Political Science 16, no. 1 (May 2013): 331–53, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212204. 79 Jonathan Sperber, The European Revolutions, 1848–1851 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

85

Moldavia and Wallachia and in 1849 against the revolutionary government of Hungary. The resultant impression of many observers in 1849 that “the tsar was the arbiter of the destinies of Europe,” was reinforced in 1850, when the threat of the use of force by Russia was sufficient to prevent Prussia and other German states from taking over SchleswigHolstein and to prevent the radicals from taking Berlin.80 Domestically, unlike the West, Russian opposition was lacking any type of political parties who found support in the liberal bourgeoisie or frustrated national movements elsewhere in Europe, a fact that enabled the tsarist regime, with relative ease, to take measures to prevent the revolutionary funk from infecting the Empire, canceling agrarian reforms, tightening censorship, and conducting massive arrests.81 This is not much different from the position of the KSA since 2011. Domestically, and also unlike most of the Arab republics, which had at least some sort of political organizations or frustrated national movements, the lack of these elements in the KSA enabled the regime to take severe measures against the opposition, including the execution of Shiite opposition leader Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr in 2016. Externally, the KSA has thus far intervened militarily twice, in 2011 against the protests in Bahrain and since 2015 in Yemen. On other occasions, it threatened to use force and/or engaged in proxy war in Libya and Syria, supporting the revolutionary forces against the revisionist governments there—this support makes a difference from 1848 Russia, which was completely counterrevolutionary. Nevertheless, these interventions by Russia in 1848–49 and the KSA in 2011–present show that being a status quo, or “party of order,” does not prevent its parties from behaving aggressively or from attempting a regime change in the rival revisionist, or “part of movement” states. Perhaps the second difference between 1848 Russia and the KSA is that the latter not only has the financial resources to support its allies, but it also engaged itself domestically in a sort of social and economic reform, though without endangering the interests of the ruling elite. Of course, it remains to be seen whether these unsuccessful uprisings in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East would constitute major social 80 I. W. Roberts, “Russia in 1848 and 1849,” in Encyclopedia of Revolutions of 1848, accessed August 29, 2019, https://www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/russia.htm. 81 Isaiah Berlin, “Russia and 1848,” The Slavonic and East European Review 26, no. 67 (April 1948): 341–60.

86  A. YOSSEF

and political mass movements shaping developments in the next decades, as they did in Europe until 1914.82 The suppression of the 1848 revolutions notwithstanding, it was their political and socio-economic foundations, as well as the rivalries they produced, that laid the basis for the articulated ideologies of liberalism and social democracy in the late nineteenth century. Politically, moreover, the upheavals that took Europe in the 1860s and the 1870s, resulting in the formation of new republics in Germany and Italy, are reminders that the suppression of the 1848 revolutions, although successful, may not last for long.

Conclusion The goals of this chapter have been to reconstruct the security complex, to provide a strategic situational awareness of the current dynamics in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East, and to clarify its implications for theory and policy. The chapter started by providing a framework of analysis, which views that the regional security complex’s rivalries revolve around transnational identities that threaten the domestic regime security of the parties involved. The transnational identities in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East constitute a bipolar system: status quo alignment and the revisionist alignment, with its two camps, Arab nationalist and Islamist, with the latter composed of two strands: Sunni and Shiite. Employing the framework suggested here has several advantages. It puts the regional alliances/rivalries into context, linking continuity with change. As for continuity, some basic tendencies simply endured in the old and new Arab cold wars. Unlike Valbjørn and Bank’s argument, that the “new societal Islamic Political Arabism is less about challenging the existing state system,”83 the forgoing analysis has shown that in both cases Islamist parties have been a player within the alignments, and domestic politics have been the battling ground, with the aim of challenging the existing state system. Also, in both cases, unlike Ryan’s 82 Philipp O. Amour, “The Arab Spring Movement: The Failed Revolution. Preliminary Theoretical and Empirical Deliberation,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington: Academica Press, 2018), 199–224. 83 Valbjørn and Bank, “The New Arab Cold War,” 13–15.

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

87

argument, the struggle has always been about regime security, by seeking to influence the rival’s domestic politics. The position of the parties in this bipolar system shifted and the ideology of the revisionist alignment changed, but the constellation survived. As for change, this framework’s adoption of transnational identities as threats allows a more flexible delineation of alliance membership than that portrayed in the previous literature; specifically, it shows that the regional cold war portrayed in the previous literature has not in fact been confined to the Arab world. Rather, it has always included the region’s non-Arab actors as well. The AKP-led government’s turn to spend Turkey’s foreign policy energies, as well as its security focus, in this region, signaled its inclusion in the Middle East security complex (that was omitted in Buzan’s analysis). From this perspective, Israel is not an outlier in the system, but rather an established and active member in the status quo alignment. This supports Gause’s definition of the Middle East system as one based on “sustained, durable interest and involvement, expressed in tangible commitment of resources, to a common agenda of issues among the states concerned.”84 Moreover, this framework enhances the validity of Klieman’s TSR concept and its application by Jones and Guzansky. By showing that shared values and perception of threats do not preclude competition within the alliance or cooperation with members of the rival alliance in other areas, this framework does an important service to our understanding of the regional dynamics. It solves the puzzle of the ostensibly paradoxical policies by regional actors. For example, Khouri has described Iran and Turkey as leading two distinct alliances, although they in fact belong to the revisionist alignment/Islamist camp. Despite their competition—Shiite Iran actively supports the Assad regime and Sunni Turkey opposes it—both share the motive of having a Syrian government that should, at a minimum, remain outside the USA’s sphere of influence and continue supporting armed conflict against Israel85; and, at maximum, turn Islamist domestically as well. This explains why Tehran and Ankara have been, more often than not, in a cooperative dynamic, along with

84 F. Gregory Gause, “Systemic Approaches to Middle East International Relations,” International Studies Review 1, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 25. 85 Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, “After the ‘Middle East’: Turkey and Iran in a New Region,” JETRO-IDE ME-Review 6, no. 3 (2019 [2018]): 2–7.

88  A. YOSSEF

Russia, in Syria.86 In the same vein, this explains why the Sunni monarchy of Qatar joined the revolutionary alignment/Islamist camp in destabilizing the status quo powers, monarchies, republics, and non-state actors alike. The chapter then moved to explain how, within this framework, the Gulfization emerged in the regional security complex, or the supremacy of the Gulf parties in the two alignments. The Arab Spring events have caused a drastic redistribution of power in region as it weakened the status quo alignment and empowered the revisionist. It introduced a revolutionary wave threat to the status quo, at a time when the Gulf cannot rely on its traditional allies, the USA and Egypt, the GCC itself is divided; this offered a strategic window of opportunity for the revisionist alignment. Gulfization is a manifest in the greater dependence of the Levant and Maghreb subcomplexes on the security dynamics of the Gulf subcomplex. The KSA and the UAE on the one hand and Iran on the other are not merely supporting their allies across the region, but they are the leading force behind in dynamics in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, among others. The 2019 uprisings in Sudan and Algeria—within the Arab Spring second movement—ousting the leaderships of two revisionist regimes, turned these two countries, and especially Sudan, into another area of competition between the two alignments. The implications of Gulfization are three-fold. First, the Gulf issues gain the primacy over other issues in the Middle East, including the iconic Arab–Israeli conflict. Second, the status quo alignment under the leadership of the KSA and the UAE is passing a critical stage, given the fragility and unpredictability of the leadership in the KSA and particularly the MBS style, which is considered by regional and international observers to be unpredictable and unreliable. Third, Gulfization could bring more violent religious extremism, given that governments of the Gulf parties—status quo and revisionist alike—not only appeal to religion for legitimacy, but they also employ Islamist armed groups to enforce their agendas. This might indicate that the future struggle in the Middle East would be between two versions of Islamism. 86 Hossein Aghaie Joobani and Mostafa Mousavipour, “Russia, Turkey, and Iran: Moving towards Strategic Synergy in the Middle East?” Strategic Analysis 39, no. 2 (2015): 148–51, https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2014.1000658.

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

89

In this complex reality, the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East has not been an exception in history. Despite differences, the Arab Spring first movement shares strong similarities with the 1848 European springtime of the peoples. Both constituted a revolutionary wave of region-wide popular uprisings, where the eruption of uprising in one country caused a domino effect in the neighborhood. Both revolutionaries of 1848 and 2011 were also ultimately unable to hold state power, eventually yielding positions to representatives of previously established regimes. Moreover, the current position of Saudi Arabia is reminiscent, to a great extent, of that of 1848 Russia in that both had to fight for the survival of the status quo. The latter’s effort has successfully survived for decades, while the former’s success is yet to be seen. Even with the success of counterrevolutions, the status quo alignment would not probably succeed in the long term if it does not present an alternative that provides solutions to the root causes that led to the Arab Spring uprisings in the first place. Otherwise, and regardless of how much support the Saudi-led Gulf trio gives to its status quo allies or subdues opposition at home, it could eventually find itself in an uprising like the one that took tsarist Russia in 1905 and again in 1917. The positive side of MBS’s policies, gradually liberalizing the kingdom from the strict interpretation of Wahhabism, could be a step in the right direction—a genuinely tolerant interpretation of Islam. Similarly, the UAE, having distanced itself from religious legitimacy, might have a better chance in providing an example of moving closer toward secular liberalism.87 Acknowledgements   The author would like to thank Ian Fletcher, F. Gregory Gause, Marwa Maziad, Gamal Rushdi, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their helpful input and advice.

Bibliography Abul Hassan, Gamal. “After 25 Years of Oslo (in Arabic).” Almasry Alyoum, September 16, 2018. https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/1323041. ———. “Defending the Regional Order Is a Political Must (in Arabic).” Asharq Al-Awsat, February 27, 2016. https://aawsat.com/home/writer/Gamal%20 Abu%20Alhasan.

87 Goldfischer,

“The United States and Its Key Gulf Allies,” 77–81.

90  A. YOSSEF Adib-Moghaddam, Arshin. “After the ‘Middle East’: Turkey and Iran in a New Region.” JETRO-IDE ME-Review 6, no. 3 (2019 [2018]): 2–7. Ajami, Fouad. “America and the Arabs.” Foreign Affairs 80, no. 6 (November 2001): 2–16. Akbarzadeh, Shaharam. “Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council Sheikhdoms.” In The Small Gulf States: Foreign and Security Policies before and after the Arab Spring, edited by Jean-Marc Rickli and Khalid S. Almezaini, 99–116. London: Routledge, 2017. Al Arabiya. “Qatar Admits That It Is against the Arab Coalition in Yemen.” July 19, 2017. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/07/19/Qataradmits-that-it-is-against-the-Arab-coalition-in-Yemen.html. Albloshi, Hamad H. “Kuwait’s Careful Balancing Act with Iran, Saudi Arabia.” Al-Monitor, May 24, 2018. https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/ 2018/05/iran-jcpoa-nuclear-deal-gcc-saudi-kuwait-reaction-division.html. Amour, Philipp O. “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives.” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31. https://doi. org/10.18506/anemon.384773. ———. “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East: A Strategic Assessment.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1185 696. ———. “Palestinian Politics in Transition: The Case of the October War.” In The Yom Kippur War: Politics, Legacy, Diplomacy, edited by Asaf Siniver, 137–54. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. ———. “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction.” In The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 1–21. St. James’s Studies in World Affairs. Washington: Academica Press, 2018. ———. “The Arab Spring Movement: The Failed Revolution. Preliminary Theoretical and Empirical Deliberation.” In The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 199–224. St. James’s Studies in World Affairs. Washington: Academica Press, 2018. Ben-Dor, Gabriel. “Overview: Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Face a Region in Flux.” In Saudi Arabia, the Gulf and the New Regional Landscape, edited by Joshua Teitelbaum, 19–24. Ramat Gan: The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, 2017. https://besacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MSPS133.pdf. Berlin, Isaiah. “Russia and 1848.” The Slavonic and East European Review 26, no. 67 (April 1948): 341–60.

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

91

Bill, James A. “Resurgent Islam in the Persian Gulf.” Foreign Affairs 63, no. 1 (1984): 108–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/20042088. Buzan, Barry, and Ole Waever. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Cagaptay, Soner. “Is Turkey Leaving the West.” Foreign Affairs, October 26, 2009. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/turkey/2009-10-26/turkey-leavingwest. Davidson, Jason W. “The Roots of Revisionism: Fascist Italy, 1922–39.” Security Studies 11, no. 4 (June 2002): 125–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 714005356. Eisenstadt, Michael. “Iran after Sanctions: Military Procurement and ­Force-Structure Decisions.” The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), December 2017. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/ Documents/opeds/Eisenstadt20171219-IISS-chapter.pdf. “Enemies, Alliances and Animosity in the Middle East.” The Economist, January 7, 2016. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/01/07/enemiesalliances-and-animosity-in-the-middle-east. Esfandiary, Dina, and Ariane M. Tabatabai. “Scent of an Oman: The Sultanate Moves toward the Saudis.” Foreign Affairs, January 17, 2017. https://www. foreignaffairs.com/articles/persian-gulf/2017-01-17/scent-oman. Gause, F. Gregory. “Balancing What? Threat Perception and Alliance Choice in the Gulf.” Security Studies 13, no. 2 (2004): 273–305. https://doi. org/10.1080/09636410490521271. ———. “Saudi Arabia’s Regional Security Strategy.” In International Politics of the Persian Gulf, edited by Mehran Kamrava, 169–83. New York: Syracuse University Press, 2011. ———. The International Relations of the Persian Gulf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ______. “Systemic Approaches to Middle East International Relations.” International Studies Review 1, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 11–31. Gerges, Fawaz A. “The Obama Approach to the Middle East: The End of America’s Moment?” International Affairs 89 (March 2013): 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12019. Goldberg, Jeffrey. “Saudi Crown Prince: Iran’s Supreme Leader ‘Makes Hitler Look Good’.” The Atlantic, April 2, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/mohammed-bin-salmaniran-israel/557036/. Goldfischer, David. “The United States and Its Key Gulf Allies: A New Foundation for a Troubled Partnership.” In The Small Gulf States: Foreign and Security Policies before and after the Arab Spring, edited by Jean-Marc Rickli and Khalid S. Almezaini, 74–98. London: Routledge, 2017.

92  A. YOSSEF Hale, Henry E. “Regime Change Cascades: What We Have Learned from the 1848 Revolutions to the 2011 Arab Uprisings.” Annual Review of Political Science 16, no. 1 (May 2013): 331–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevpolisci-032211-212204. Ibrahim, Saad Eddin. “Anatomy of Egypt’s Militant Islamic Groups: Methodological Note and Preliminary Findings.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 12, no. 4 (December 1980): 423–53. Jones, Clive, and Yoel Guzansky. “Israel’s Relations with the Gulf States: Toward the Emergence of a Tacit Security Regime?” Contemporary Security Policy 38, no. 3 (2017): 398–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2017.1292375. Joobani, Hossein Aghaie, and Mostafa Mousavipour. “Russia, Turkey, and Iran: Moving Towards Strategic Synergy in the Middle East?” Strategic Analysis 39, no. 2 (2015): 141–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2014.1000658. Kamal, Mohamed. “Obama Wearing a Turban (in Arabic).” Al-Masry Al-Youm, August 25, 2013. https://ww.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/199659. Kamrava, Mehran. “The Arab Spring and the Saudi-Led Counterrevolution.” Orbis 56, no. 1 (2012): 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. orbis.2011.10.011. Kedouri, Elie. Politics in the Middle East. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Kerr, Malcolm H. The Arab Cold War: Gamal Abd al-Nasir and His Rivals, 1958–1970. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. Khalaji, Mehdi. “Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Iran.” The Washington Institute, February 12, 2009. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/ policy-analysis/view/egypts-muslim-brotherhood-and-iran. Khorrami Assl, Nima. “Iraq Makes Sanctions against Iran Ineffective.” The Guardian, January 27, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ 2012/jan/27/iraq-sanctions-iran-ineffective. Khoury, Nabeel A. “The Arab Cold War Revisited: The Regional Impact of the Arab Uprising.” Middle East Policy 20, no. 2 (2013): 73–87. https://doi. org/10.1111/mepo.12021. Klieman, Aharon. “The Israel-Jordan Tacit Security Regime.” In Regional Security Regimes: Israel and Its Neighbors, edited by Efraim Inbar, 127–49. New York: State University of New York Press, 1995. Lander, Mark. “Obama Cites Poland and Model for Arab Shift.” New York Times, May 28, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/world/ europe/29prexy.html. Lynch, Marc. “Obama and the Middle East: Rightsizing the U.S. Role.” Foreign Affairs 94, no. 5 (September 2015): 18–27. ———. “The New Arab Order: Power and Violence in Today’s Middle East.” Foreign Affairs 97, no. 1 (October 2018): 116–26.

3  GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 

93

Maloney, Suzanne. “How the Iraq War Has Empowered Iran.” Brookings Institution, March 21, 2008. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/ how-the-iraq-war-has-empowered-iran/. Maziad, Marwa. “The Turkish Burden: The Cost of the Turkey-Qatar Alliance and Hard Power Projection into Qatar’s Foreign Policy.” In The Arab Gulf States and The West: Perceptions and Realities—Opportunities and Perils, edited by Dania Koleilat Khatib and Marwa Maziad, 106–33. London: Routledge, 2019. Milani, Mohsen M. The Making of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Boulder: Westview Press, 1994. Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 5th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978. Ng, Ka Po. Interpreting China’s Military Power: Doctrine Makes Readiness. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis, 2005. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203325902. Orbach, Danny. “Tyrannicide in Radical Islam: The Case of Sayyid Qutb and Abd al-Salam Faraj.” Middle Eastern Studies 48, no. 6 (2012): 961–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2012.723629. Organski, A. F. K., and Jacek Kugler. The War Ledger. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980. Quamar, Md Muddassir. “The Turkish Military Base in Doha: A Step towards Gaining ‘Strategic Depth’ in the Middle East?” Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses Comment, September 26, 2017. https://idsa.in/idsacomments/ the-turkish-military-base-in-doha_mmquamar_260917. Quinlivan, James T. “Coup-Proofing: Its Practice and Consequences in the Middle East.” International Security 24, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 131–65. Rabi, Uzi. Back to the Future, the Middle East in the Shadow of the Arab Spring. Tel-Aviv: Resling, 2016. Rathmell, Andrew, and Kirsten Schulze. “Political Reform in the Gulf: The Case of Qatar.” Middle Eastern Studies 36, no. 4 (October 2000): 47–62. Roberts, David B. “Qatar and the UAE: Exploring Divergent Responses to the Arab Spring.” Middle East Journal 71, no. 4 (Autumn 2017): 544–62. Roberts, I. W. “Russia in 1848 and 1849.” In Encyclopedia of Revolutions of 1848. Accessed August 29, 2019. https://www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/russia.htm. Rubin, Michael. “Why Is Iran Trying to Sabotage Morocco?” Washington Examiner, May 2, 2018. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ israel-isnt-the-only-country-iran-is-meddling-with. Russell Mead, Walter. “The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the Revisionist Powers.” Foreign Affairs 93, no. 3 (June 2014): 69–79. Ryan, Curtis. “The New Arab Cold War and the Struggle for Syria.” Middle East Report, no. 262 (Spring 2012): 28–31.

94  A. YOSSEF Schweller, Randall L. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In.” International Security 19, no. 1 (Summer 1994): 72–107. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2539149. Smith, Keith. “Realist Foreign Policy Analysis with a Twist: The Persian Gulf Security Complex and the Rise and Fall of Dual Containment.” Foreign Policy Analysis 12, no. 3 (July 2016): 315–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/fpa.12084. Soler i Lecha, Eduard. “Liquid Alliances in the Middle East.” Notes Internacionals CIDOB. Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB), March 2017. https://www.cidob.org/en/publications/publication_series/ notes_internacionals/n1_169/liquid_alliances_in_the_middle_east. Sperber, Jonathan. The European Revolutions, 1848–1851. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Tyler, Patrick E. “Two Said to Tell of Libyan Plot against Saudi.” New York Times, June 10, 2004. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/10/world/twosaid-to-tell-of-libyan-plot-against-saudi.html. Valbjørn, Morten, and André Bank. “The New Arab Cold War: Rediscovering the Arab Dimension of Middle East Regional Politics.” Review of International Studies 38, no. 1 (January 2012): 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0260210511000283. Watanabe, Lisa. “Gulf States’ Engagement in North Africa: The Role of Foreign Aid.” In The Small Gulf States: Foreign and Security Policies before and after the Arab Spring, edited by Jean-Marc Rickli and Khalid S. Almezaini, 178–91. London: Routledge, 2017. Weyland, Kurt. “The Arab Spring: Why the Surprising Similarities with the Revolutionary Wave of 1848.” Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 4 (2012): 917– 34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592712002873. Wolfers, Arnold. “The Balance of Power in Theory and Practice.” Naval War College Review 11, no. 5 (1959): 1–20. Yossef, Amr. “Israel and Post-Mubarak Egypt: Perils of Historical Analogy.” Digest of Middle East Studies 21, no. 1 (March 2012): 49–68. Zionts, David. “Revisionism and Its Variants: Understanding State Reactions to Foreign Policy Failure.” Security Studies 15, no. 4 (October 2006): 631–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636410601184611.

CHAPTER 4

The Conservative-Resistance Camp: The Axis of Resistance Ana Belén Soage

Introduction The term Axis of resistance appeared in the aftermath of George W. Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, in which he described Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as “an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”1 It is credited to the Libyan daily newspaper Al-Zahf al-Akhdar (The Green March), which, in response to Bush’s speech, wrote that “the only common denominator between Iran, Iraq, and North Korea is their resistance to American hegemony.”2 The term soon became popular in the Iranian and certain Arab media, but it was only picked up in the West in the second half of the 2000s, during the Israeli wars in Lebanon and the Gaza 1 See “Text of President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address,” The Washington Post, January 29, 2002, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/sou012902. htm. 2 Sa‘id Al-Shihabi, “‘Ta‘addud al-tahalufat yakshif ghiyab al-mashru‘ al-jami‘ li-l-Umma’ (The multiplicity of alliances reveals the absence of a joint project for the Umma),” Alquds AlArabi, December 3, 2017.

A. B. Soage (*)  EAE Business School, Calle del Príncipe de Vergara, 156, Madrid 28002, Spain © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_4

95

96  A. B. SOAGE

Strip. Critics of the alliance often use the term in quotation marks to express their skepticism at its stated aims, and a second term, the axis of moderation, has been coined to designate state and non-state actors in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East who are aligned with the West.3 The axis of resistance is made up of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Syrian regime, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, in addition to Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Palestine. More recently, journalists and analysts have frequently added to the list some Iraqi Shia militias and the Yemeni Houthis (see Table 14.1).4 Members of the alliance denounce what is perceived as Western interference in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East— especially that of the United States—and identify resistance to imperialism as their main foreign policy driver. Israel is singled out for vitriol,

3 The Axis of Moderation consists primarily of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Egypt. See e.g., “Mihwar al-i‘tidal’ yatamaddid bi-ri‘aya misriyya li-muharabat ‘al-irhab (The Axis of Moderation Extends under the Auspices of Egypt in Order to Fight Terrorism),” Al-Khaleej Online, July 21, 2014, https://alkhaleejonline.net/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7% D8%B3%D8%A9/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B9 %D8%AA%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A 5%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A8; Abdul Rahman Al-Tariri, “Mihwar al-i‘tidal wa-mintaqat al-fawdha (The Axis of Moderation and the Area of Chaos),” February 6, 2017, www. alarabiya.net/ar/saudi-today/2017/02/06/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8% A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9% 88%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%82%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9% 81%D9%88%D8%B6%D9%89.html; and Philipp O. Amour, “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East: A Strategic Assessment,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 296–301, 307–9, https://doi.org/10.1080/1353019 4.2016.1185696; Philipp O. Amour, “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington: Academica Press, 2018), 1–21. 4 See e.g., Joseph Puder, “Iran and the Houthis of Yemen. Shiite Revivalism and Its Challenge to Middle East Order,” Frontpage Magazine, November 29, 2016, https:// www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264974/iran-and-houthis-yemen-joseph-puder; Rafke Risseeuw, “Stirring Up the Region for Survival: Iran’s Role in the Middle East Proxy Wars” (Brussels International Center, May 16, 2018), www.bic-rhr.com/research/stirringregion-survival-irans-role-middle-east-proxy-wars.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

97

as it is considered the illegal product of British colonialism and is referred to as al-kiyan al-sahyuni (the Zionist entity).5 In fact, the alliance is also known as the axis of refusal, because its members refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist state. The present chapter looks at the ideology and politics of the axis of resistance. It starts off by exploring the ideological sources of its discourse, both religious and secular. It then looks at its emergence as a Syrian–Iranian alliance brought together by a shared enemy, Baathist Iraq, and its evolution, marked by the civil war in Lebanon and the Palestinian Intifada. Those events tested but eventually strengthened the alliance, which expanded to include the non-state actors Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and Hamas. Furthermore, as Syria and Iran were forced to move away from some of their core ideological tenets, especially on the economic front, their anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist foreign policy became a major legitimizing instrument in domestic and regional politics. The chapter also examines events that have affected the alliance, notably the Arab Spring, the civil war in Syria, and the crises in Iraq and Yemen.

Ideological Underpinnings of the Axis of Resistance Anti-western sentiment is a central theme for the axis of resistance, and its sources are both secular and religious. A frequently mentioned example of the former is Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was deposed in 1953 in a British- and US-engineered coup after he nationalized his country’s oil industry and, as a result, is still remembered as a national hero.6 In 1962, Iranian intellectual Jalal Al-e Ahmad—a former member of the (communist) Tudeh Party who 5 The term “Zionist entity” was rather common in the Arab media until the 1980s, but it is now associated with the axis of resistance. Its intention would be to emphasize that at the root of the Middle East conflict is a political ideology, Zionism, and not Judaism as a religion or the Jews as a people. Anti-Zionist Jews are often featured in media outlets to drive that point home, e.g., “Yahud dhidd al-Sahyuniyya (Jews against Zionism),” Al-Manar, October 5, 2017, www.almanar.com.lb/2713291; “Judaism Forbids Creation of a Jewish State,” Iranian Students’ News Agency (ISNA), May 20, 2018, https://en.isna.ir/news/97023016609/ Judaism-forbids-creation-of-a-Jewish-state. 6 Dan De Luce, “50 Years Later, Iranians Remember US-UK Coup,” The Christian Science Monitor, August 22, 2003, https://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0822/p08s01-wome.html; Firouzeh Mirrazavi, “Iran Celebrates 65th Anniversary of Oil Nationalization,” Iran Review, March 18, 2016, http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Iran-Celebrates-62ndAnniversary-of-Oil-Nationalization.htm.

98  A. B. SOAGE

was ambiguous about religion and despised the clergy—published a widely circulated pamphlet entitled Gharbzadegi (“westoxification” or “occidentosis”), in which he decried Iran’s cultural and economic dependency on the West. But the most influential figure of the period was Ali Shariati, a devout Muslim who read Sartre and Frantz Fanon while studying at the Sorbonne and whose radical interpretation of Shia Islam—which included harsh criticism of the conservative clergy—was heavily influenced by Marxist sociology.7 Ayatollah Khomeini’s post-1970 depiction of society as divided into two classes (tabaqat)—oppressors (mostakberin) and oppressed (mostazafin)—reflects the pervasiveness of Shariati’s ideas in ­pre-revolutionary Iran.8 The axis of resistance draws on another source of a­nti-imperialist thought that originated in the Sunni Arab world. In the late 1920s, Hasan al-Banna established the Muslim Brotherhood in an Egypt nominally independent but effectively still under British occupation. Al-Banna condemned the West’s cultural influence, as well as its military presence, and he preached moral regeneration through Islam in order to eradicate both. Moreover, he admired the totalitarian leaders who had risen to power in Italy and Germany and challenged British and French hegemony, and he adopted their discourse and parties as rhetorical and organizational models, respectively. In his writings, Islam became a “comprehensive system” (nizam shamil) governing “[all] the affairs of this life and the next.”9 The Muslim Brotherhood was banned in Egypt in 1949 following a series of bombings and murders, including that of Prime Minister Mahmoud al-Nuqrashi, and al-Banna himself was assassinated, probably by the secret police. Nevertheless, his organization survived and found a new ideologue in disenchanted former liberal intellectual Sayyid Qutb.10 7 However, Shariati rejected historical determinism and institutionalized Marxism. For a brief introduction to his life and thought, see Ervand Abrahamian, “‘Ali Shari‘ati: Ideologue of the Iranian Revolution,” Middle East Report 102 (February 1982): 24–28. 8 Ervand Abrahamian, Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic (London: University of California Press, 1993). 9 For more on the impact of such ideologies on Hassan al-Banna’s thought, see Ana Belén Soage, “Hasan Al-Banna or the Politicisation of Islam,” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 9, no. 1 (2008): 21–42, https://doi.org/10.1080/14690760701856374. 10 For more on Qutb’s evolution from liberal intellectual to Islamist firebrand, see Ana Belén Soage, “Islamism and Modernity: The Political Thought of Sayyid Qutb,” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 10, no. 2 (2009): 189–203, https://doi. org/10.1080/14690760903119092.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

99

Qutb had a strong effect on a low-ranking Iranian cleric known as Navvab-e Safavi (Prince of the Safavids). The cleric’s real name was Mojtaba Mir-Louhi, and he was the founder and leader of a small group of radical Muslim activists who called themselves Fada’iyan-e Islam (Devotees of Islam). Safavi met Qutb at the launch of the MB-sponsored General Islamic Conference on the Holy City, held in Jerusalem in 1953,11 and the following year he visited Qutb in Cairo. Some alleged that Safavi had a close relationship with Khomeini,12 and remarkable similarities exist between the literature of Fada’iyan-e Islam and Khomeini’s own writings.13 Safavi was executed in 1955 for his part in the attempted murder of Prime Minister Hossein Ala’, but in June 1963, his followers participated in the 15th Khordad uprising against the Shah’s “White Revolution” alongside Khomeini’s supporters.14 In addition, Khomeini’s successor as Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ali Khamenei, was one of the translators of Qutb’s works into Farsi and credits his political ­awakening to Safavi.15 Both Safavi and Qutb are now considered “martyrs” and precursors of the Islamic Revolution.16

11 See Martin S. Kramer, An Introduction to World Islamic Conferences (Tel Aviv: Shiloah Center, Tel Aviv University, 1978), 21–22. 12 Amir Taheri claims that Safavi and Khomeini met in 1937 and spent much time together, and that in 1943–1944 Safavi was a regular guest at Khomeini’s house in Qom. See Amir Taheri, The Spirit of Allah: Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution (Adler & Adler Pub, 1986), 98ff. 13 For instance, the system of government they advocated. See Amir H. Ferdows, “Khomaini and Fadayan’s society and politics,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 15, no. 2 (1983): 241–57, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743800052302. 14 Sohrab Behdad, “Islamic Utopia in Pre-Revolutionary Iran: Navvab Safavi and the Fada’ian-e Eslam,” Middle Eastern Studies 33, no. 1 (1997): 40–65. 15 Khamenei Ali Khamenei recalls that Safavi visited his school in Mashhad in 1952 and gave a speech that kindled in him “the very first sparks of consciousness concerning Islamic, revolutionary ideas and the duty to fight [the Shah’s regime],” see “Biography of Ayatollah Khamenei the Leader of the Islamic Revolution,” Khamenei.IR, accessed August 30, 2019, http://english.khamenei.ir/news/2130/Biography-of-Ayatollah-Khamenei-the-Leader-ofthe-Islamic-Revolution. Another founding father of the Islamic Republic, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, is also said to have had links to Safavi and Fada’iyan-e Islam during his youth; see Eskandar Sadegui-Boroujerdi and Siavush Randjbar-Daemi, “Serving the Leviathan,” Jacobin Magazine, January 18, 2017. 16 A Tehran metro station is named after the Shahid [martyr] Navvab Safavi, and in 1984 the Islamic Republic issued a stamp commemorating Qutb’s “martyrdom”.

100  A. B. SOAGE

On the face of it, the long-running alliance between Islamist Iran and Baathist Syria seems counterintuitive: Baathism is a secular ideology that seeks the rebirth of the Arab nation, and Syria was aligned with the “atheist” Soviet Union. However, president Hafez al-Assad was internally challenged by forces that emphasized his regime’s heretical Alawi character and externally isolated among Western-aligned conservative monarchies and rival Arab nationalist republics. In response, he sought religious endorsement from Shiite clerics and a regional ally in Iran. Aware of Syria’s geopolitical importance and itself as an international pariah, Iran was willing to overlook ideological differences and focus on the shared rejection of Zionism and Western imperialism. As the two regimes gave up their populist economic policies and faced mounting demands for political freedoms, the axis of resistance became a central pillar of their ideological legitimacy.

Members of the Axis of Resistance What would later become known as the axis of resistance emerged in the 1990s and initially included Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Over the last decade, some Shiite militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen have often been added to the alliance. In the next sections, we will turn to the different members in the axis and examine the internal dynamics affecting their foreign policy, their role within the alliance, and their interaction with other actors.

The Islamic Republic of Iran The 1978–1979 Iranian Revolution mobilized a wide range of groups opposed to the Shah, including liberals and communists, as well as Islamists. The victory of the latter should be attributed to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s charisma rather than to the appeal of his ideas, for few Iranians at the time had even heard of his doctrine of Vilayat-i Faqih, the Guardianship of the Jurist.17 That doctrine constituted a departure from the traditional Twelver Shiism—which avoided questioning the power of the secular ruler—by claiming that religious scholars should 17 For more on perceptions of ordinary Iranians who lived through the revolutionary period, see Sepideh Parsapajouh, “Les valeurs en cause. Crise de l’idéologie et crise de la transmission dans la société iranienne depuis la Révolution de 1979,” Archives de sciences sociales des religions, Les valeurs en cause, 59, no. 166 (Avril-juin 2014): 243–68.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

101

have political authority over the people until the return of the Hidden Imam.18 The Guardianship of the Jurist is enshrined in the constitution of the Islamic Republic, which is a hybrid of theocracy and democracy but gives clerics the final say.19 The early period of the Islamic Republic was marked by the desire to export the Revolution. Khomeini’s appeals in that regard were relatively successful among the discontented Shiites in the Gulf region—who were frequently marginalized, when not derided as heretics—and serious disturbances erupted in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. They contributed to Saddam Hussein’s decision to attack Iran in 1980, and to the Gulf states’ willingness to bankroll Iraq in the ensuing 1980–1988 Iran– Iraq War.20 But rather than weaken the new regime, the conflict rallied Iranians around it and facilitated its consolidation. It also boosted the influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), originally created to protect the Revolution, and led to the establishment of two bodies subordinated to it: a paramilitary volunteer militia, the Basij (Niruyeh Moghavemat Basij, Mobilization Resistance Force) and a special unit responsible for extraterritorial operations, the Quds Force.21 The first task of the Quds Force was to support the Kurds fighting the Iraqi government. It would soon be drawn into the Lebanese Civil War, as we will see below. 18 For

a discussion on the topic of Velayat-e Faqih (in Arabic, Wilayat al-Faqih), see Shahrough Akhavi, “Contending Discourses in Shi’i Law on the Doctrine of Wilāyat Al-Faqīh,” Iranian Studies 29, no. 3/4 (Summer–Autumn 1996): 229–68. 19 The Iranian people choose by direct vote their president and their representatives in the parliament (Majlis), the Assembly of Experts (which elects the Supreme Leader), and local councils. However, members of the Assembly of Experts must be high-ranking clerics, and all candidates for public office are vetted by the Guardian Council. The Supreme Leader has wide-ranging powers, including the appointment of the six clerics that sit in the twelve-member Guardian Council; its remaining six members are jurists nominated by the Head of the Judiciary, himself an appointee of the Supreme Leader. Furthermore, the Guardian Council can veto any Majlis legislation it considers contrary to the Constitution or un-Islamic. 20 For more on the impact of the Islamic Revolution on the Gulf region see Ana Belén Soage, “The Gulf Cooperation Council, Iran, and the Limits to Integration,” Orient 59, no. 2 (2018): 47–54. 21 For an account of the early years of the Islamic Revolution and the IRGC’s o ­ rigins see Roozbeh Safshekan and Farzan Sabet, “The Ayatollah’s Praetorians: The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the 2009 Election Crisis,” The Middle East Journal 64, no. 4 (Autumn 2010): 543–58, https://doi.org/10.3751/64.4.12; Frederic M. Wehrey, ed., The Rise of the Pasdaran: Assessing the Domestic Roles of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Rand Corporation Monograph Series (Santa Monica, CA: RAND National Defense Research Institute, 2009), Chapter 3.

102  A. B. SOAGE

For nearly a decade after the Revolution, Iran was ruled by the Islamic Republic Party (IRP), set up in 1979; no other parties were allowed. The IRP comprised two main factions: The right, organized as the Society of Militant Clerics, was deeply conservative in social issues and advocated a free-market economy, reflecting its ties to the pious merchant class of the bazaar. The left, which formed the Association of Militant Clergy, championed a statist approach to the economy, put greater emphasis on social justice, and advocated a radical foreign policy. Khomeini was the arbiter between these two factions, but he leaned toward the left, whose policies were also better suited to the war effort. Tensions within the IRP resulted in its dissolution in 1987, but those two trends continued to compete for domination of Iranian politics until the death of Khomeini in 1989, when the conservative Ali Khamenei became Supreme Leader.22 That same year, Khamenei’s then-ally Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was elected president. A pragmatist, he followed a moderate foreign policy in order to improve Iran’s relations with its neighbors. With a caveat: Tehran remained inflexible in its attitude to Israel and became gradually more involved in the Arab–Israeli conflict on the side of the forces. These forces do not accept Israel’s right to exist and were against the peace process. At home, Rafsanjani advocated an economy-first policy, which included privatizations and free market reforms, in an effort to raise living standards and quell mounting social unrest. In addition, Rafsanjani tried to deradicalize the IRGC by letting it enter the economy. The now marginalized Islamist left, not immune to the s­oul-searching that characterized left-wing politics after the collapse of the Soviet Union, rebranded itself as reformist and proposed varying degrees of economic and political liberalization, as well as a renewal of ties with the West. Right-wingers reacted by calling themselves Principalists to indicate their attachment to the principles of the Islamic Revolution.23 Growing dissatisfaction with the system—even among leaders of the Islamic Revolution, like Grand Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri24—led 22 Safshekan

and Sabet, “The Ayatollah’s Praetorians.”

23 Ibid. 24 Montazeri was Khomeini’s designated successor until he was pushed aside in the late 1980s due to his condemnation of authoritarianism and repression in the Islamic Republic. In 1997, he was put under house arrest for openly criticizing Ali Khamenei, and he later attacked Ahmadinejad’s policies. He died in 2009, and he is regarded as the spiritual leader of the Green Movement (see below).

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

103

to the sweeping victory of Mohammad Khatami in the 1997 elections. However, resistance by the conservative apparatus curtailed what he was able to achieve, and his reformist agenda triggered a backlash. This did not come from the Principalists, whose ideas were perceived as dated and irrelevant by increasing numbers of Iranians; it came from the IRGC. They entered politics as allies of the conservative clerics, but eventually emerged as their rivals and became known as the N ­ eo-Principalists.25 The Neo-Principalists threw their weight behind former Basij volunteer Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose rousing speeches appealed to the disgruntled lower classes. He was elected mayor of Tehran in 2003 and president of Iran in 2005, helped by voter apathy. Supporters of the Reformists stayed away from the polls, frustrated by Khatami’s inability to achieve far-reaching reforms and by the systematic disqualification of reformist candidates wishing to run for office. Ahmadinejad was re-elected in 2009, most likely fraudulently, and the IRGC and the Basij were instrumental in the suppression of the mass demonstrations that followed, dubbed the Green Movement. During Ahmadinejad’s presidency, Iran found itself internationally isolated once again, due to his fiery rhetoric, his reckless ambiguity over the country’s nuclear program, and a more aggressive foreign policy spearheaded by Quds Force commander, Major General Qasem Soleimani.26 Furthermore, Ahmadinejad’s populist economic policies aggravated the effects of the sanctions imposed on Iran, while the IRGC benefited vastly from an acceleration in the privatization of state industries. In 2013, the Reformists threw their support behind centrist cleric Hasan Rouhani—at the time also favored by Supreme Leader Khamenei, who wished to clinch power back from the Neo-Principalists—and Rouhani won the presidential elections in the first round. He then successfully negotiated the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) over Iran’s nuclear program, thereby ending international sanctions and allowing the country to return to the fold of the international community. The deal was opposed by the IRGC out of ideological zeal but also less

25 Safshekan

and Sabet, “The Ayatollah’s Praetorians.” Ignatius, “At the Tip of Iran’s Spear,” Washington Post, June 8, 2008, https:// advance-lexis-com.ezproxysuf.flo.org/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentIte m:4SPK-H5K0-TW87-N0KY-00000-00&context=1516831. 26 David

104  A. B. SOAGE

admissible economic interests: the sanctions had eliminated international competition and weakened former elites, such as the bazaar merchants.27 Rouhani was decisively re-elected in 2017 over Ebrahim Raisi—the conservative establishment’s bid to recover control—and tried to rein in the IRGC.28 Nonetheless, the war in Syria and the emergence of the so-called Islamic State have given the Quds Force unprecedented international projection, while the USA’s withdrawal from and sabotaging of JCPOA have significantly undermined the position of the Iranian president. Syria The alliance between the Shiite Islamic Republic and the ­Alawi-dominated Syrian regime is often assumed to be based on religious affinity. In reality, Alawism is markedly different from Shiite Islam, and throughout history it has been considered a heresy by Sunni and Shiite Muslims alike.29 Its followers’ acceptance into the Muslim community in the early twentieth century was due to political, rather than religious, considerations. While some Alawis were hoping to establish their own state after the end of the French Mandate for Syria, others deemed it more prudent to throw in their lot with the Arab nationalists fighting the colonial powers, and they took steps to be recognized as Muslims. In 1936, their efforts were validated by a fatwa issued by Jerusalem Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini,

27 See Ali Alfoneh, “All the Guard’s Men: Iran’s Silent Revolution,” World Affairs 173, no. 3 (September 2010): 73–79. 28 Cyrus Namjoo Moghadam, “Conflict between Rouhani and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Intensifies,” Gulf News, July 31, 2017, https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/ conflict-between-rouhani-and-irans-revolutionary-guards-intensifies-1.2066878. 29 The Shiites accuse the Alawis of being ghulat (extremists) because they deify Ali bin Abi Talib, cousin and son-in-law of prophet Muhammad, who is venerated in Shiism but only as an imam (political and spiritual leader). Among the heterodox beliefs of Alawism is the worship of a divine triad made up of Ali, Muhammad, and Salman the Persian (one of the prophet’s Companions); the transmigration of souls; and that Alawis used to be stars and will return to the world of light after death if they are virtuous. However, esoteric wisdom is only revealed to a small group of carefully selected male initiates, and ordinary Alawis know little about their religion. For more on the Alawis and their faith see Mahmud A. Faksh, “The Alawi Community of Syria: A New Dominant Political Force,” Middle Eastern Studies 20, no. 2 (1984): 133–53, https://doi. org/10.1080/00263208408700577.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

105

who wished to form the largest possible coalition against the Western occupation of the Levant and the Zionist project in Palestine.30 In Syria, where most Alawis live, a handful of Sunni families from Aleppo and Damascus had traditionally monopolized political and economic power. Muslim minorities (Alawis, but also Ismaelis and Druze) concentrated in poor rural areas and were looked down upon by the Sunni majority. During the French Mandate, the children of the relatively prosperous small and middle landowners among those minorities found opportunities for social advancement in the military, and later many of them were attracted to the egalitarian ethos of Baathism. The combined force of the Army and the Baathist Party enabled the largest minority, the Alawis, to become the rulers of the country, consolidating power through successive coups in 1963, 1966, and 1970.31 The latter, known as the Corrective Movement, overthrew the more radical wing of the Baathist Party and allowed Hafez al-Assad to become the first non-Sunni president of Syria. Assad endeavored to obtain the acquiescence of the Sunni majority: He sought to expand the social base of his regime by tempering the populist statism of the most uncompromising Baathists and by lifting some of the economic restrictions that had hurt Sunni merchants and industrialists. He watered down the secular principles of Baathism, relaxed restrictions on Sunni religious institutions, and exhibited his personal piety by attending public prayers at the mosque on Fridays and Muslim holidays. He tried to avert accusations of heresy with the support of Shiite clerics, who reiterated that Alawism is a branch of Shia Islam.32 In addition, he took steps to minimize the differences between Alawism and mainstream Islam, banning specifically Alawi religious organizations and festivities and imposing a unified religious curriculum based on Sunni Islam for all Muslim children.33 30 The Shia seats of learning in Najaf and Qom remained conspicuously silent on the issue. See Martin Kramer, “Syria’s Alawis and Shi’ism,” in Shi’ism, Resistance, and Revolution, ed. Martin Kramer (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987), 237–54. 31 Faksh, “The Alawi Community of Syria.” 32 Specifically, two Lebanon-based clerics eager for the support of a powerful patron in the highly charged pre-Civil War atmosphere: Imam Musa al-Sadr and Ayatollah Hasan al-Shirazi. See Kramer, “Syria’s Alawis and Shi’ism” We will encounter Musa al-Sadr again in the section about Hezbullah. Iraqi-born al-Shirazi was assassinated in Lebanon in 1980, allegedly on orders of the Iraqi Baathist regime. 33 Information based on direct observation and field interviews conducted by the author during months-long stays in Syria in 1999–2000 and 2004–2005.

106  A. B. SOAGE

Assad was rather successful at co-opting certain segments of the former elite, particularly the old Damascene bourgeoisie, but many Sunnis resented the newfound political power and economic dominance of the despised Alawi minority. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (SMB), which started operating in the country in the 1940s, presented themselves as the defenders of Islamic orthodoxy vis-à-vis the heretical Baathist regime. The SMB organized protests, planted car bombs, and tried to assassinate Assad, thereby eliciting brutal repression. The cycle of violence reached its climax in February 1982, when an uprising in the city of Hama was ruthlessly and indiscriminately crushed. However, the regime had to deal with the gradual Islamization of Syrian society, analogous to that taking place throughout the region. It responded by building thousands of mosques, founding hundreds of religious institutions, and promoting a moderate and apolitical form of Islam through state media.34 From the late 1990s, it also allowed the proliferation of Islamic charitable associations, which helped mitigate the destabilizing effects of rising poverty.35 Baathist Syria did not have friendly relations with its neighbors. It fell out with Nasserist Egypt and Baathist Iraq over (often minor) doctrinal issues and petty personal rivalries; it also denounced conservative monarchies like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Shah’s Iran as stooges of the West. Assad moderated the rhetoric of his more radical Baathist predecessors, but when Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat sought peace with Israel, the Syrian president seized the occasion to portray himself as the new pan-Arab leader in the fight against the Zionist state. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution and Iran’s dramatic realignment, Syria became the Islamic Republic’s only Arab ally and its sole regional backer during the

34 In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, 8000 new mosques were built and 600 religious institutions were established. Pro-regime Sunni sheikhs—derided by many as “Mashaykh al-Sultan,” the Sultan’s clergy—became prominent public figures, particularly Sheikh Ahmad Kaftaru, Grand Mufti of Syria from 1964 until his death in 2004, and Sheikh Said al-Bouti, who hosted a popular TV program. See Line Khatib, Islamic Revivalism in Syria: The Rise and Fall of Ba’thist Secularism (London; New York: Routledge, 2011), Chapters 5, 6; Al-Bouti was assassinated in 2013 in a suicide attack which gave rise to conspiracy theories. See Jim Muir, “Syria ‘Death Video’ of Sheikh al-Bouti Poses Questions,” BBC News, April 9, 2013. 35 Thomas Pierret and Kjetil Selvik, “Limits of ‘Authoritarian Upgrading’ in Syria: Private Welfare, Islamic Charities, and the Rise of the Zayd Movement,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 41, no. 4 (2009): 595–614.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

107

Iran–Iraq War. For its part, Iran appreciated an alliance that called into question the propaganda depicting the Persians as the eternal enemy of the Arabs36 and afforded access to the first line of the struggle against Israel. Syria plays a crucial role in the axis of resistance, as a conduit for funds and weapons from Iran to Lebanon and as a safe haven for training and weapons storage. In return, the alliance provides the Syrian regime with an ideological legitimization which became ever more important as Syria progressively abandoned the tenets of Baathism. In effect, confronted with rapid population growth and inefficient economic structures, the regime ditched its populist socialism and embraced liberal economic policies—a process that started under Hafez al-Assad and accelerated under his son and heir, Bashar. Already frustrated by decades of repression, nepotism, and corruption, Syrians had to contend with high rates of unemployment, the loss of subsidies for staple goods, and growing social inequalities. Opposition to the regime finally exploded in the context of the Arab Spring, in the form of the 2011 popular mobilizations that degenerated into the ongoing Civil War.

Palestinian Islamist Groups The Palestinian cause is central to the anti-imperialist discourse of movements and parties in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East, whether nationalist, leftist, or Islamist—although for the latter it holds special significance owing to the status of Jerusalem as the third holiest site of Islam. Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, who was a friend of Palestinian religious and political leader Hajj Amin al-Husseini, sent his son-in-law and close collaborator, Said Ramadan, to Jerusalem in the mid-1940s to establish a presence there. By 1947, the Muslim Brotherhood had two dozen branches and between 12,000 and 20,000 members throughout Palestine.37 In 1948, its volunteers fought alongside

36 Iraqi propaganda during the Iran–Iraq War characterized the conflict as Qadisiyyat Saddam (Saddam’s Qadisiya), in reference to the historic battle in which the (Arab) Muslim armies defeated the (Persian) Sassanid Empire in 636. 37 Robert Dreyfuss, “Cold War, Holy Warrior,” Mother Jones, February 2006, www. motherjones.com/politics/2006/01/cold-war-holy-warrior.

108  A. B. SOAGE

the regular armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in the first Arab–Israeli War, and their literature makes much of their heroic role in the conflict.38 However, from the mid-1950s the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood (henceforth PMB) shunned activism and focused on religious and social activities, for ideological as well as practical reasons. Firstly, it felt that the liberation of Palestine required the moral regeneration of its people as a precondition. Secondly, given the unfavorable balance of forces, it deemed it wise to prioritize its own survival. Consequently, the PMB chose not to join the alliance of nationalist and leftist groups that fought a guerrilla war against Israel after the occupation of the Gaza Strip in 1967. These forces were crushed, while the PMB was able to develop a network of religious, health, and education charities to proselytize while helping the poor. It was tolerated, even encouraged, by the Israeli authorities, which hoped to weaken support for the nationalists, at the time perceived as more dangerous for the Israeli state. The organization’s leader, frail but charismatic Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even obtained official Israeli recognition for his Islamic Centre in 1979. This no doubt contributed to the PMB’s public appeal being rather limited at the time.39 The situation began to change in the late 1970s in a context of widespread disillusionment with pan-Arabism, which had failed to achieve Arab unity or liberate Palestine. Inspired by the proliferation of radical Islamist groups in Egyptian campuses and by the Islamic Revolution in Iran, some PMB students in Egypt decided to react to what they considered their organization’s neglect of the nationalist question, and they set up Islamic Jihad—commonly known as PIJ to differentiate it from other groups with similar names. Their intellectual references were the usual Sunni authors (e.g., Rashid Rida, Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and Abu-l-A‘la Maududi), but also Shiite scholars, such as Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, Ayatollah Khomeini, Ali Shariati, and Muhammad Hussein

38 For instance, Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Yusuf al-Qaradawi wrote in his autobiography that the heroism of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine prompted the British to put pressure on the Egyptian authorities to ban the organization. See Yusuf al-Qaradawi, “Al-Qaradhawi sira wa-masira (Al-Qaradawi: Autobiography),” Archive Islam Online, Chapter 18, accessed August 30, 2019, https://archive.islamonline.net/. 39 Ann M. Lesch, “Prelude to the Uprising in the Gaza Strip,” Journal of Palestine Studies 20, no. 1 (Autumn 1990): 1–23; J­ean-Pierre Filiu, “The Origins of Hamas: Militant Legacy or Israeli Tool?,” Journal of Palestine Studies 41, no. 3 (Spring 2012): 54–70, https://doi.org/10.1525/jps.2012.XLI.3.54.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

109

Fadlallah.40 They launched their first military operations in Gaza in the mid-1980s, just as the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah was achieving huge prestige by forcing the hitherto unbeaten Israeli army into retreat. The PMB did not appreciate competition from within the Islamist camp and denounced the new group’s enthusiasm for the Iranian Revolution, even accusing its members of having converted to Shiism.41 Moreover, the PIJ’s daring actions—including attacks against Israeli soldiers and escapes from prison—galvanized the population and contributed to the outburst of the Intifada in December 1987.42 This forced the hand of Sheikh Yassin and his followers, who within a week had founded Hamas—both “zeal” and an acronym for Harakat ­al-Muqawama al-Islamiya (Islamic Resistance Movement)—as ostensibly separate from the PMB to avoid Israeli retaliation. Only in August 1988, when Hamas published its Charter, was it announced that the group was a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.43 40 According to Abdallah Shallah, who became PIJ leader in 1995 after Israel assassinated its founder, Fathi Shiqaqi. See Ramadan ‘Abdallah Shallah and Khalid Al-‘Ayid, “The Movement of Islamic Jihad and the Oslo Process,” Journal of Palestine Studies 28, no. 4 (Summer 1999): 61–73. 41 ‘Abdallah Shallah and Al-‘Ayid, 62. For its part, the PIJ criticized the PMB for its close relationship with countries aligned with the West, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan. 42 Tensions had been escalating owing to deteriorating economic conditions and accelerating Israeli expropriations of land in Gaza. Furthermore, the Arab Summit held in Amman in November 1987 had focused on the Iran–Iraq War and all but ignored the plight of the Palestinians. Still, the role of PIJ militants in the eruption of the Intifada should not be overlooked. See Lesch, “Prelude to the Uprising in the Gaza Strip,” 54–70. 43 For years, the Hamas Charter was nowhere to be found in Hamas’s website, possibly because it was an embarrassment due to its outdated rhetoric and politically incorrect references. Nevertheless, the organization refused to revise it until May 2017, when it issued “A Document of General Principles and Policies” which manifested a desire to abide by the rules set by the international community in exchange for recognition. The original Hamas Charter is available in “The charter of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)- Palestine (in Arabic),” Palestine Net, 1988, http://palestine.paldf.net/Uploads/pdf/%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AB% D8%A7%D9%82-%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%82 %D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B3.pdf; English translation available in “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (18 August 1988),” Yale Law School, accessed August 30, 2019, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp; The new Document is available on Hamas’s website, both in Arabic “A Document of General Principles and Policies (in Arabic),” 2017, http://hamas.ps/ar/uploads/documents/599abf9aafa1b76837c1242eb229e87b.pdf; and in English “A Document of General Principles and Policies,” The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), 2017, https://hamas.ps/en/ post/678/a-document-of-general-principles-and-policies.

110  A. B. SOAGE

While the PIJ coordinated its activities with the United National Leadership of the Uprising (UNLU), set up by nationalist and leftist forces, Hamas opted to go it alone. However, the two Islamist organizations coincided in their rejection of any compromise with Israel. Iran first established contacts with the Palestinian Islamists in the late 1980s, after the end of the Iran–Iraq War. This probably happened in Lebanon, where the Israeli authorities routinely expelled Palestinian activists. In 1988, around twenty PIJ members were exiled there and started receiving funds from Iran and training from Hezbollah. Revealingly, in 1990, the PIJ moved its headquarters to Damascus, already the main base of far-left Palestinian groups, such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Nonetheless, and unlike Hamas, the PIJ was never able to attract a wide following among the Palestinians. Conversely, Hamas was reluctant to be associated with Iran. Like much of the Muslim Brotherhood, it distrusted the Islamic Republic due to its Shiite character, and it did not wish to jeopardize the support of its Arab benefactors in the Gulf Region. The situation changed with the launch of the Israeli–Palestinian peace process, which the Islamists opposed. Hamas attended the first International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada held in Tehran in October 1991—concurrently with the Madrid peace conference—alongside the PIJ, Hezbollah, and the Syrian regime. The following year, 400 members of the movement—among them, many of its leaders—were deported to Lebanon, where they became closer to Hezbollah. Hamas chose Damascus for its headquarters in 1999, after it was expelled from Amman.44 For much of the 1990s and 2000s, it obtained funds, weapons, and training from Iran and its allies, which allowed it to run its operations—including charitable activities, but also suicide attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians during the Second Intifada. Those attacks contributed to Israel’s decision to withdraw from Gaza in 2005 and to Hamas’s 2006 electoral victory against a Fatah undermined by the stalling of the peace process and pervasive corruption within the Palestinian National Authority. However, the Civil War in Syria since 2011 gave rise to tensions between Hamas and its backers, as we will see below. 44 King Hussein had a long history of conflict with PLO leader Yasser Arafat and saw Hamas as a potential ally. His son and successor, King Abdullah, was less keen to pursue that relationship and came under pressure from the West due to Hamas’s suicide attacks in Israel. In August 1999, he decided to expel the Hamas leadership from Jordan.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

111

Hezbollah The emergence of Hezbollah must be contextualized within the process of awakening and mobilization of Lebanon’s Shiite community, which had traditionally been economically disadvantaged and politically dominated by a handful of feudal-style landowning families. That process is often credited to Imam Musa al-Sadr, who founded the Amal Movement in the mid-1970s.45 Amal was not Islamist; it advocated individual freedoms, downplayed its sectarian identity, and borrowed leftist jargon to denounce feudalism in Lebanon and imperialist interference in the region. As Islamism became an ascendant political force, and especially after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, some of Amal’s members grew disgruntled with its secular character. Then, in 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon for the second time in four years, and Iran sent a contingent of 1500 Quds Force advisers to the Beqaa Valley to train Shiite troops, provoking a wave of defections from Amal. This was the origin of Hezbollah.46 The new militia soon came into action. Between 1982 and 1986, there were dozens of suicide bombings in Lebanon against  US, French, and Israeli targets; these attacks have since been ­ attributed to Hezbollah.47 However, the group did not make itself known until the publication of the “Open Letter from Hezbollah to the

45 Born in Iran to a Lebanese family of Islamic scholars, Musa al-Sadr arrived in Lebanon in the mid-1950s on an invitation by Shiite clerics from the southern city of Tyre. In 1974, he established Harakat al-Mahrumin (Movement of the Dispossessed). The following year, among the rising communal tensions that would trigger the Lebanese Civil War, he added a military wing, Amal (Afwaj a­ l-Muqawama al-Lubnaniyya, or Lebanese Resistance Brigades; the acronym means “hope”). Sadr mysteriously disappeared during a trip to Libya in 1978, probably murdered on orders from Gaddafi, but his movement survived thanks to a great extent to the support of Hafez al-Assad, who had been an ally of Sadr’s (see Footnote 32). 46 Hezbollah means “party of God” and is a reference to the Qur’an (58:22). The name has been adopted by a number of groups and movements, but the most prominent among them is undoubtedly the Lebanese one. For more on Amal and Hezbollah in the 1970s and 1980s see Marius Deeb, “Shia Movements in Lebanon: Their Formation, Ideology, Social Basis, and Links with Iran and Syria,” Third World Quarterly 10, no. 2 (1988): 683–98, https://doi.org/10.1080/01436598808420077. 47 At the time, the group would have been operating under the name Islamic Jihad. Its bloodiest attack, in October 1983, targeted the barracks of the Multinational Force in Lebanon (MNF)—perceived as biased toward Maronite Christians—and left 241 US marines and 58 French paratroopers dead. The withdrawal of the MNF within months of the attack was depicted as a humiliating defeat for the United States.

112  A. B. SOAGE

downtrodden, in Lebanon and around the world,” printed in the leftist daily newspaper As-Safir on February 16, 1985.48 In the Open Letter, Hezbollah identified Ayatollah Khomeini as its leader and the Guardianship of the Jurist as its political model, while conceding that the Lebanese people should be able to decide for themselves how they wish to be governed. It stressed its bond to the Islamic Umma (community of believers) and its solidarity to the oppressed in Lebanon and elsewhere, and it stated as its first goal the expulsion of foreign military forces (i.e., the Americans, the French, and their allies) from Lebanon. Despite the Syrian–Iranian alliance, relations between Hezbollah and Syria have not always been good. President Assad entered the Lebanese Civil War with his own agenda: expanding Syria’s influence over its small neighbor and making sure that he would have a place at the table in any future Middle East peace negotiations. He initially backed the Maronite Christians, only to turn against them when they sought Israeli help to impose their rule. Later, his hostility to Yasser Arafat led him to use Amal and anti-PLO Palestinian groups to crack down on the PLO and its allies during the so-called War of the Camps. When Hezbollah came on the scene, Assad became increasingly exasperated at its suicide bombings and kidnappings of Westerners, which undermined his attempts to appear in control. In early 1987, he found the opportunity to reassert his authority when Hezbollah and the Druze assisted the Palestinians against Amal in a new round of the War of the Camps. He deployed 7000 Syrian troops in West Beirut, and clashes ensued. In the worst incident, nearly two dozen Hezbollah members were killed at their Fathallah barracks in Beirut in February 1987, apparently in cold blood. The Hezbollah leadership denounced the massacre but urged restraint, and an escalation was prevented.49 After the war, Hezbollah relied on the Syrian presence in Lebanon to keep its weapons, whereas other militias had to give them up.50 48 English translation available in “An Open Letter: The Hizballah Program,” 1985, https://web.archive.org/web/20060821215729/www.ict.org.il/Articles/Hiz_letter.htm. Revealingly, the Open Letter does not appear in any H ­ ezbollah-affiliated website. It has been superseded by other texts, especially Hezbollah’s 2009 Political Manifesto (see Footnote 51). 49 Asad

Abukhalil, “Syria and the Shiites: Al‐Asad’s Policy in Lebanon,” Third World Quarterly 12, no. 2 (1990): 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/01436599008420231; Christopher Dickey, “Assad and His Allies: Irreconcilable Differences?,” Foreign Affairs 66, no. 1 (Fall 1987): 58–76. 50 This situation contravened the 1989 Taif Agreement, which put an end to the Civil War. The accord contemplated the disarmament of all militias within six months and the withdrawal of Syrian troops within two years.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

113

Iran has been a major source of funding and support for Hezbollah since its creation, allowing it not only to maintain its military wing, but also to offer a wide range of social welfare services to its Shiite constituency. Despite this, it would be incorrect to characterize the group as merely an Iranian proxy, especially after the end of the Lebanese Civil War in 1989. In effect, Hezbollah has undergone a process often described as Lebanonization, which has entailed toning down its religious rhetoric and emphasizing its Lebanese nationalism and its defense of the Lebanese people as a whole.51 In addition, it has entered the political process, participating in elections since they resumed in 1992— although it remains critical of the sectarian nature of the Lebanese political system.52 Furthermore, Hezbollah’s resistance to Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon and subsequent Israeli withdrawal in 2000 earned it supporters far beyond the Shiite community. However, the Israeli withdrawal was also seized upon by those who resented Hezbollah’s (and Syria’s) supremacy in Lebanon and who started publicly questioning the militia’s role.53 They demanded Hezbollah’s disarmament, accused it being a state within a state, and criticized the continued presence of Syrian troops since the end of the Civil War. Frictions were exacerbated by the assassination of the former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri in February 2005, widely blamed on Syria. The ensuing Cedar Revolution polarized the country into the pro-Syrian

51 As part of this process, in 2009 Hezbollah published a Political Manifesto markedly less Islamist in tone than its 1985 Open Letter. See “Hezbolla’s 2009 Political Manifesto (in Arabic),” Moqawama, 2009, https://www.moqawama.org/essaydetailsf. php?eid=16245&fid=47; English translation available in “The New Hezbollah Manifesto,” November 2009, www.lebanonrenaissance.org/assets/Uploads/15-The-New-HezbollahManifesto-Nov09.pdf. 52 Since independence in 1943, political power has been distributed on a sectarian basis favoring Maronite Christians and Sunni Muslims. The 1989 Taif Agreement went some way toward a more representative system, equalizing the ratio of seats allocated to Muslims and Christians (although the latter are now only around 40% of the population, owing to a lower birth rate and high emigration), and distributing Muslim seats evenly between Sunnis and Shiites (the Shiite population is probably larger). 53 Hezbollah insists resistance must continue due to Israel’s occupation of the Shebaa Farms, the Lebanese prisoners still held in Israeli jails, and the inability of the Lebanese National Army to protect the country from a potential Israeli attack. For its part, Israel considers the Shebaa Farms part of the Syrian Golan Heights, captured in the 1967 Six-Day War.

114  A. B. SOAGE

March 8 Alliance and the anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance, and the latter succeeded in forcing the departure of the Syrian army. In the summer of 2006, the Lebanese rallied around Hezbollah when the usual ­tit-for-tat attacks across the border with Israel unexpectedly degenerated into a full-blown Israeli onslaught. Tensions resumed after the conflict, however, and culminated in Hezbollah’s invasion of Sunni West Beirut in May 2008. An agreement brokered by Qatar later that month gave the Hezbollah-led opposition a blocking third in the Lebanese cabinet, effectively precluding attempts to force the Shiite militia to disarm. The Civil War in Syria had a direct and profound impact on Lebanon, which not only received over a million refugees—in a middle-income country of six million people—but also experienced sectarian polarization, acts of violence, and terrorist attacks. In June 2012, the March 8 and March 14 alliances signed the Ba‘abda Declaration, aimed at preserving peace in the country by keeping it out of the Syrian conflict. Nonetheless, persistent information of Hezbollah’s involvement in the Civil War, which the group initially denied, was confirmed by Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah on May 25, 2013, during his speech at the annual celebration of “Liberation Day” (which commemorates the 2000 Israeli withdrawal). Lebanese attitudes to Hezbollah, which had been positive overall before the conflict, are now split along sectarian lines.

Iraq and Yemen Recently, two new forces have often been added to the axis of resistance: the Shiite militias in Iraq and the Yemeni Houthis. Nevertheless, the two cases are quite different. While it is clear that Iran has invested heavily in its presence in Iraq, its efforts in Yemen appear more limited.54 Iraq The toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 and the instauration of a system of government based on proportional representation opened the way for increased Iranian influence in Iraq. Over 60% of the Iraqi population is Twelver Shiite, and much of the post-2003 Iraqi political

54 For more on this topic see Ana Belén Soage, “Iraq and Yemen: The New Iranian Proxies?,” Documento de Opinión (Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos, 2018).

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

115

leadership spent years of exile in Iran, where they were welcomed after fleeing the Baathist regime in the 1980s and 1990s. One of the main political parties of the post-Saddam era, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (now known as the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, or ISCI), was established in Iran in 1982, and its former military wing, the Badr Brigade, fought in the Iran–Iraq War on the Iranian side. However, the advent of an Iranian-style government is not in the cards. It is opposed by the highly respected religious leadership in Najaf, led by Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Among the major political parties, ISCI was the only one to advocate the Guardianship of the Jurist system and it changed track in 2007 when, in a bid to boost its popularity, it announced that it would follow Sistani’s guidance instead of Khamenei’s, prompting the split of the Badr Brigade from the party. After decades of hostility from its western neighbor, Iran was glad to see Iraq become a Shia-dominated, federal country keen to cultivate friendly links, unlikely to re-emerge as a threat or a competitor for regional hegemony, and presenting a large market for Iranian products. Eager to expedite the departure of the US-led coalition, Iran supported Shiite militias targeting foreign troops—prominent among them, Muqtada al-Sadr’s Jaysh al-Mahdi (the Mahdi Army, or JAM), although the young cleric’s fervent Iraqi nationalism and reckless unpredictability did not make him a natural or desirable ally. Consequently, Tehran encouraged splinter groups from JAM, such as ‘Asa’ib Ahl al-Haqq (League of the Righteous). It also supported other Shiite militias accused of sectarian atrocities, such as the Badr Brigade and a split thereof, the Hizbullah Brigades. The rise of the self-proclaimed Islamic State among the disaffected Sunni minority and its dramatic capture of large swathes of Syria and Iraq offered Tehran the opportunity to scale up its involvement. In June 2014, Mosul fell to IS and Sistani issued a fatwa calling on all Iraqi citizens to join the fight against that existential threat, initiating a rush to volunteer. However, instead of enlisting in the disgraced security forces, many joined existing or newly created militias, which came to be collectively known as Wahdat al-Hashd al-Sha‘bi (Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMF), and they divided their loyalties between Sistani, Sadr, and Khamenei.55 Iran provided funds and materiel to many of them, 55 Renad Mansour and Faleh A. Jabar, “The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s Future” (Carnegie Middle East Center, April 28, 2017), https://carnegie-mec. org/2017/04/28/popular-mobilization-forces-and-iraq-s-future-pub-68810.

116  A. B. SOAGE

but particularly to the pro-Iran groups. These have tried to capitalize politically on the military triumph over IS, and their Fatah alliance obtained the second largest number of seats in the May 2018 parliamentary elections—crucially, behind Sadr’s nationalist, anti-sectarian coalition, Marching Toward Reform (Sa’irun). Clearly, the Islamic Republic is cautious about projecting its influence in Iraq too aggressively to avoid offending Iraqi patriotic sensitivities (see Chapter 9). Yemen The Houthi movement appeared in the 1990s in the mountainous and isolated Saada Governorate, which borders Saudi Arabia, to give expression to local grievances—notably economic and political marginalization and the spread of Saudi-sponsored Salafism, which represented a challenge to the Zaidi identity.56 Much has been made of the movement adopting a rhetoric usually associated with revolutionary Iran—for example, referring to the United States as the “Great Satan” and taking as its slogan: “God is Great. Death to America. Death to Israel. Curse upon the Jews. Victory for Islam.” However, this type of rhetoric is not uncommon among Islamist movements, and the likely intention of Houthi leaders was to build on widespread anti-US sentiment and to denounce US allies in the region—first and foremost, Yemen’s long-running autocrat, Ali Abdullah Saleh (himself a member of the Zaidi minority).57 Saleh himself found it convenient to characterize

56 Zaidism branched off mainstream Shia Islam in the eighth century and is now almost exclusive to Yemen, where it is followed by around a third of the population. It differs significantly from the Twelver Shiism of Iran and Iraq, and its doctrine and practice are very close to those of the Sunni Shafi‘i majority in Yemen. As a result, inter-sectarian relations have customarily been cordial. 57 Barak A. Salmoni, Bryce Loidolt, and Madeleine Wells, Regime and Periphery in Northern Yemen: The Huthi Phenomenon, Rand Corporation Monograph Series (Santa Monica: National defense research institute, 2010), https://www.rand.org/content/ dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG962.pdf. The authors point out that the founder of the movement, Hussein al-Houthi, praised Iran and Hezbollah in his sermons for their stand against the foes of Islam, not for their Shiite character.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

117

the Houthis as Iranian proxies in order to delegitimize them at home and obtain foreign support against them.58 Between 2004 and 2010 the Houthis fought half a dozen wars against Saleh, who was backed by Saudi Arabia. This attracted Tehran’s interest, and the Iranian regime started sending small shipments of weapons to the Houthis in 2009. Not uncoincidentally, that same year Saudi troops were sent into Saada.59 In 2011, the Houthis took part in the Yemeni uprising, but they were unhappy with the Saudi-brokered deal whereby Saleh was replaced by his vice president, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. They took up arms again and expanded well beyond their traditional area of influence with the help of their former enemy, Saleh. The deposed president still commanded significant loyalty among tribesmen and army commanders and had access to much of the well-stocked Yemeni arsenal, supplied by the United States to fight Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). In September 2014 the Houthis captured Sanaa virtually unopposed, and in March 2015 Hadi fled to Riyadh, precipitating the continuing Saudi-led intervention among accusations of Iranian meddling. As for Saleh, he was killed by the Houthis in late 2017, after reportedly switching sides again. Ironically, the war aimed at curtailing Iranian influence has done much to boost it. Confronted by a wealthy enemy with a technologically advanced military, the Houthis became more dependent on the support of Iran, which seized the opportunity to importune Saudi Arabia in its own backyard at little cost to itself.60 There is evidence that Iranian involvement increased substantially after the Saudi-led attack, such as the deployment of weapons that could not have come from the Yemeni army’s

58 Implausibly, Saleh also claimed that the Houthis were backed by Libya and by Al-Qaeda. See Christopher Boucek, “War in Saada. From Local Insurrection to National Challenge,” Yemen on the Brink (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 2010), 2, https://carnegieendowment.org/files/war_in_saada.pdf. 59 Thomas Juneau, “Iran’s Policy towards the Houthis in Yemen: A Limited Return on a Modest Investment,” International Affairs 92, no. 3 (2016): 647–63, https://doi. org/10.1111/1468-2346.12599. 60 According to Bruce Riedel, by late 2017 Iran was spending a few million dollars a year on the war in Yemen, whereas it was costing Saudi Arabia at least $5 billion a month, see Bruce Riedel, “In Yemen, Iran Outsmarts Saudi Arabia Again,” Brookings Institution, December 6, 2017, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/12/06/in-yemen-iran-outsmartssaudi-arabia-again/.

118  A. B. SOAGE

arsenal (e.g., Burkan-2H missiles and “kamikaze” drones). Moreover, the Houthis now blatantly imitate Hezbollah in their discourse and aesthetics.61 Nevertheless, Yemen is a low priority for Iran, whose limited resources are already overstretched. High on its list of more pressing matters to attend to is the situation in Syria, to which we now turn. The Current Civil War in Syria and Its Consequences The Arab Spring shook several regimes aligned with the West—the so called conservative-moderate camp—and the Islamists emerged as the political force best placed to take advantage of the revolutionary turmoil, thanks to their strong organizational structures and decades of grassroots activism. The Iranian leadership was quick to portray the revolts as an Islamic Awakening, a continuation of its own Islamic Revolution, and it set up the World Assembly for the Islamic Awakening in order to disseminate that narrative.62 Its first conference, held in Tehran in September 2011, was reportedly attended by over 700 delegates from 84 countries and focused on familiar themes: the need for the Muslim Ummah to unite against the predatory powers led by the United States; the promotion of an Islamic system of governance, legitimized and supported by the will of the people but distinct from Western-style democracy; and references to the valiant struggle of the Palestinians confronting Zionist aggression. In addition, Khamenei saluted the revolutionaries in on-going uprisings in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Bahrain, “where Muslim masses are involved in struggles to regain their dignity and honour.” 63

61 Abd al-Ilah Taqi, “Alat al-i‘lam al-huthiyya: ‘Hizbullah’ marra min huna” (The Houthis’ media machine: Hezbollah came this way),” Al-‘Arabi, April 11, 2015, www.alaraby.co.uk/ medianews/2015/4/11/%D8%A2%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B 9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%AB%D9%8A%D 8%A9-%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%87%D9%86%D8%A7. According to Taqi, Hezbollah provided invaluable assistance to the Houthis in the development of their propaganda apparatus. 62 Payam Mohseni, “The Islamic Awakening: Iran’s Grand Narrative of the Arab Uprisings,” Middle East Brief, no. 71 (April 2013), https://www.brandeis.edu/crown/publications/meb/MEB71.pdf. 63 Zafar Bangash, “Tehran Conference Puts People’s Uprisings in Proper Islamic Context,” Crescent International, October 1, 2011, https://crescent.icit-digital.org/ articles/tehran-conference-puts-people-s-uprisings-in-proper-islamic-context.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

119

Conspicuously absent from Khamenei’s list were the Syrian revolutionaries, even though their own struggle was no different from that of the revolutionaries he praised elsewhere. Conscious of that fact, the Iranian authorities were not enthusiastic about backing the Syrian regime: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke of “needed reforms,” while his foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, called on Bashar al-Assad to “be accountable to his people’s legitimate demands.”64 However, Iran was well aware that a post-Assad Syria ruled by the Sunni majority was unlikely to remain an ally and decided to throw its support behind Assad, claiming that Syria was the victim of a Western–Zionist conspiracy due to its central role in the axis of resistance. Furthermore, it denounced extremist groups such as Islamic State as part of a ploy to stain the name of Islam and divert attention from the fight against Israel.65 The two main non-state militant actors in the axis of resistance reacted very differently to the war in Syria. Hezbollah’s leader Hasan Nasrallah has revealed that he traveled to Tehran early on in the crisis to talk a reluctant Khamenei into getting involved, convinced that otherwise the Assad regime would fall within weeks.66 In the May 2013 speech in which Nasrallah admitted Hezbollah’s participation in the conflict, he characterized Syria as pillar of resistance and echoed the discourse of the Syrian government, asserting that the dominant force within the opposition

64 “Syria Crisis: Iran’s Ahmadinejad Criticises Killings,” BBC News, October 22, 2011, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15416410. 65 Different articles in Khamenei’s Ali Khamenei website illustrate these points, e.g., Khamenei.ir, “Leader’s Speech at Inauguration of Islamic Awakening and Ulama Conference,” Khamenei.IR, April 29, 2013, http://english.khamenei.ir/news/1772/Leaders-Speech-at-Inauguration-of-Islamic-Awakening-and-Ulama; “ISIS Was Created to Divert the Resistance from Fighting Zionism: Analyst,” Khamenei.IR, May 14, 2017, http://english. khamenei.ir/news/4805/ISIS-was-created-to-divert-the-Resistance-from-fighting-Zionism. 66 Raialyoum, “‘Nasr Allah yakshif kayfa aqna‘ Khamini’i bi-dukhul al-midan al-suri wa-yakshif ‘an ‘aradh sa'udi li-l-Asad li-inha’ al-azma fi bidayati-ha’ (Nasrallah reveals how he convinced Khamenei to enter the Syrian theatre and reveals a Saudi offer to Assad to put an end to the crisis at its inception),” September 12, 2017, www.raialyoum.com/index.php/%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%B4%D9%81-%D9%83%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A3%D9%82%D9%86%D8%B9-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85.

120  A. B. SOAGE

were takfiris controlled by the United States and Israel.67 For good measure, he added that they also posed a threat to Lebanon.68 For its part, Hamas had to balance the advantages of its alliance with Iran and its gratitude to the Syrian regime with its sympathy toward the Syrian opposition (which soon came to be dominated by Sunni Islamists) and the reputational risks of continued association with Assad. The movement was divided over the issue. In February 2012, its political leader, Khaled Mishaal, left Damascus for Qatar, hoping for a rapprochement with the Gulf states, but the rift between Riyadh and Doha over the Muslim Brotherhood thwarted his efforts.69 As the regional balance of forces turned against Hamas—notably after the 2013 coup that deposed Egyptian MB president Mohamed Morsi—and it became clear that the Assad regime was likely to survive, the advocates of mending the relationship with Iran carried the day.70 At the propaganda level, the cost of involvement has been great. Despite the protestations of Iran and Hezbollah—which pointed to their support for Sunni Muslims in places like Palestine and Bosnia— the Civil War appeared as a sectarian conflict: Just as Islamist and Salafi Sunni clerics fed the flames of sectarianism by referring to it as a jihad, Iranian recruitment campaigns focused on the need to protect the Shia

67 The term takfiri designates someone who practices takfir (i.e., excommunication),that is, declares other Muslims infidels (kuffar, plural of kafir). Extremists like Al-Qaeda and Islamic State are notorious for their practice of takfir and their hostility toward Shiites. 68 “Al-Sayyid Nasr Allah ­ li-jumhur al-Muqawama: A‘idukum bi-l-nasr mujaddadan” (Sayyed Nasrallah to the Crowds of the Resistance: I Promise You Victory Again),” Moqawama, May 27, 2013, https://www.moqawama.org/essaydetails.php?eid=27814&cid=141; English translation of the speech is available in “Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah’s Speech on Syria,” May 25, 2013, www.voltairenet.org/article178691.html. 69 See Philipp O. Amour, “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives,” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31, https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.384773. 70 Ahmad Majidyar, “Iran and Hamas Seeking to Further Boost Relations,” Middle East Institute, January 25, 2018, https://www.mei.edu/publications/iran-and-hamas-seeking-further-boost-relations; For an analysis of the consequences for Hamas of the shifting balance of forces in the broader Middle East over the last decade see Amour, “HamasPLO/Fatah within the Regional Order in the Middle East,” 621–31.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

121

sanctuaries in Syria.71 Thousands of underprivileged young men from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan answered the call. As a result, perceptions of Iran have become overwhelmingly negative in most Arab and Muslim countries,72 and Sunni Islamists who previously praised the Islamic resistance, like Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Yusuf al-Qaradawi, have felt compelled to publicly express their contrition.73 In March 2016, the Arab League labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Nevertheless, at the military level, the intervention of Iranian forces and Hezbollah has been a success. It proved crucial for the survival of the Assad regime at a time when the Syrian army had almost collapsed due to mass desertions.74 Iran’s presence in Syria has never been so palpable—to Israel’s great displeasure.75 Furthermore, the war has turned the axis of resistance into a more capable force, successfully integrating troops and militias from half a dozen different countries and allowing Iran to implement and finetune its hybrid warfare

71 Especially Sayyida Zaynab, in the south-eastern suburbs of Damascus. While the rise of Islamic State facilitated recruitment efforts, there were reports of Shiite foreign fighters in Syria as early as the autumn of 2012. See Christopher Anzalone, “Zaynab’s Guardians: The Emergence of Shi`a Militias in Syria,” CTC Sentinel 6, no. 7 (July 2013), https://ctc.usma. edu/zaynabs-guardians-the-emergence-of-shia-militias-in-syria. 72 “Poll: Sectarianism, Syria Drive Negative Image of Iran,” Arab American Institute, March 5, 2013, https://www.aaiusa.org/poll-sectarianism-syria-drive-negative-image-of-iran-readmore-http-wwwal. 73 “Al-Qaradhawi: Al-Shi‘a khada‘uni. Wa-Hizbullah kidhba kabira (Al-Qaradawi: The Shiites Deceived Me, and Hezbollah Is a Big Lie),” Al Arabiya, June 2, 2013, www.alarabiya. net/ar/arab-and-world/syria/2013/06/02/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%B6 %D8%A7%D9%88%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D8% AE%D8%AF%D8%B9%D9%88%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%83%D8%B0%D8%A8%D8%A9%D9%83%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9-.html. 74 The Quds Force and Hezbollah helped to organize the National Defense Force, a reportedly 100,000-strong pro-government militia modeled on the Iranian Basij. See Chris Zambelis, “Institutionalized ‘Warlordism’: Syria’s National Defense Force,” Terrorism Monitor 15, no. 6 (March 24, 2017), https://jamestown.org/program/institutionalizedwarlordism-syrias-national-defense-force. 75 Tom O’Connor, “Can Iran Stop Israel in Syria? New Warnings as Russia Prepares Missile Defense,” Newsweek, September 27, 2018, https://www.newsweek.com/ can-iran-stop-israel-syria-new-warnings-russia-prepares-missile-defense-1142437.

122  A. B. SOAGE

capabilities.76 By contrast, regional great powers more threatened by the growth in Iranian power (i.e., Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Israel) belong to different alliances (see Chapter 14), have distinct  national  goals, and support disparate  transnational causes, all of which hinders the formation of a unitary bloc against the axis of resistance.77

Conclusion The alliance known as the axis of resistance is held together not by religious identity or ideological affinity, but by mutual regional objectives and a common rejection of (Western) imperialist and Zionist designs in the Middle East. Iran is its linchpin and offers its allies varying degrees of material assistance (e.g., money, weapons, oil), logistical support, and ideological guidance. Syria owes its importance to being the only Arab country allied to the Islamic Republic with access to the front line of the Levant—although Syria itself has avoided military action against Israel since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The non-state members of the Axis, which carry the burden of fighting Israel, benefit from having state backers and provide them with asymmetric deterrence. As a military alliance, the Axis claims credit for forcing Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005—which made it popular across the region—and for saving the Assad regime. The axis of resistance has a second and equally vital function: that of bolstering the legitimacy of the Syrian and Iranian regimes. Pan-Arabism, in general, lost credibility after the catastrophic 1967 defeat against Israel. Baathism called for unity but was riven by divisions and degenerated into brutal autocracies based on personality cults. Similarly, since the 1990s Islamism is increasingly out of favor in Iran, where it is widely felt that the association of politics and Islam has gravely undermined the

76 See Marcin Andrzej Piotrowski, “‘Mosaic Defence:’ Iran’s Hybrid Warfare in Syria 2011–2016,” Polish Quarterly of International Affairs 26, no. 3 (2017): 18–67. 77 See F. Gregory Gause, “Ideologies, Alignments, and Underbalancing in the New Middle East Cold War,” PS: Political Science & Politics 50, no. 3 (July 2017): 672–75, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517000373.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

123

latter.78 Furthermore, both Syria and Iran have moved away from their initial statist approach to the economy and turned to neoliberal policies to tackle their mounting economic problems. This has exacerbated social inequalities and lost them the support of an important constituency: the lower and lower-middle urban classes. The focus on foreign enemies shifts the blame for domestic problems—or, at the very least, distracts from them. The 2009–2010 Green Movement in Iran and the Civil War in Syria since 2011 show that this type of strategy has its limits. Both regimes are unpopular, as they are perceived as self-serving and detached from the needs of ordinary people, which makes  them insecure and prone to resorting to repression, conspiracy theories, and rhetorical brinkmanship. This undermines the appeal of the axis of resistance narrative even among those who pay it lip service. For example, the Iranian regime’s attempt to capitalize on the Arab Spring was  dismissed by Iranian reformists and Arab leftist revolutionaries, as was to be expected, but even the Muslim Brothers rejected any comparison with the Islamic Revolution.79 As a final point, the Civil War in Syria, which has served to display and boost the military effectiveness of the axis of resistance, has also exposed its internal strains and the persisting power of sectarian narratives in the Middle East.

Bibliography “A Document of General Principles and Policies (in Arabic),” 2017. http://hamas.ps/ar/uploads/documents/599abf9aafa1b76837c1242e b229e87b.pdf. ‘Abdallah Shallah, Ramadan, and Khalid Al-‘Ayid. “The Movement of Islamic Jihad and the Oslo Process.” Journal of Palestine Studies 28, no. 4 (Summer 1999): 61–73.

78 Disenchantment with Islamism has led Iranian intellectuals to advocate an Islam autonomous from the political sphere in order to preserve the integrity of religion, as explained by Farhad Khosrokhavar, “Les nouveaux intellectuels en Iran” Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie, no. 125 (July 2008): 347–63. 79 See Charles Kurzman, “The Arab Spring: Ideals of the Iranian Green Movement, Methods of the Iranian Revolution,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 44, no. 1 (February 2012): 162–65, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743811001346.

124  A. B. SOAGE Abrahamian, Ervand. “‘Ali Shari‘ati: Ideologue of the Iranian Revolution.” Middle East Report 102 (February 1982): 24–28. ———. Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic. London: University of California Press, 1993. Abukhalil, Asad. “Syria and the Shiites: Al-Asad’s Policy in Lebanon.” Third World Quarterly 12, no. 2 (1990): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01436599008420231. Akhavi, Shahrough. “Contending Discourses in Shi’i Law on the Doctrine of Wilāyat Al-Faqīh.” Iranian Studies 29, no. 3/4 (Summer–Autumn 1996): 229–68. Al Arabiya. “Al-Qaradhawi: Al-Shi‘a khada‘uni. Wa-Hizbullah kidhba kabira (Al-Qaradawi: The Shiites Deceived Me, and Hezbollah Is a Big Lie),” June 2, 2013. www.alarabiya.net/ar/arab-and-world/syria/2013/06/02/%D8%A7% D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%B6%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%8A-%D8%A7% D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D8%AE%D8%AF%D8%B9 %D9%88%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8% A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%83%D8%B0%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D9% 83%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9-.html. Al-Khaleej Online. “Mihwar al-I‘tidal’ yatamaddid bi-ri‘aya misriyya ­li-muharabat ‘al-irhab (The Axis of Moderation Extends under the Auspices of Egypt in Order to Fight Terrorism),” July 21, 2014. https://alkhaleejonline.net/ %D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A9/%D9%85%D8%AD% D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D 8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%AF%D8% AF-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8% A9-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AD %D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B1%D 9%87%D8%A7%D8%A8. Al-Manar. “Yahud dhidd al-Sahyuniyya (Jews against Zionism),” October 5, 2017. www.almanar.com.lb/2713291. Al-Shihabi, Sa‘id. “‘Ta‘addud al-tahalufat yakshif ghiyab al-mashru‘ al-jami‘ ­li-l-Umma’ (The multiplicity of alliances reveals the absence of a joint project for the Umma).” Alquds Al-Arabi, December 3, 2017. Al-Tariri, Abdul Rahman. “Mihwar al-I‘tidal wa-mintaqat al-fawdha (The Axis of Moderation and the Area of Chaos),” February 6, 2017. www. alarabiya.net/ar/saudi-today/2017/02/06/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9% 88%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D8%AF%D 8%A7%D9%84-%D9%88%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%82%D8%A9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%88%D8%B6%D9%89.html. Alfoneh, Ali. “All the Guard’s Men: Iran’s Silent Revolution.” World Affairs 173, no. 3 (September 2010): 73–79.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

125

Amour, Philipp O. “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives.” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31. https://doi. org/10.18506/anemon.384773. ———. “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East: A Strategic Assessment.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1185696. ———. “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction.” In The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 1–21. St. James’s Studies in World Affairs. Washington: Academica Press, 2018. “An Open Letter: The Hizballah Program,” 1985. https://web.archive.org/ web/20060821215729/www.ict.org.il/Articles/Hiz_letter.htm. Arab American Institute. “Poll: Sectarianism, Syria Drive Negative Image of Iran,” March 5, 2013. https://www.aaiusa.org/poll-sectarianism-syria-drivenegative-image-of-iran-read-more-http-wwwal. Bangash, Zafar. “Tehran Conference Puts People’s Uprisings in Proper Islamic Context.” Crescent International, October 1, 2011. https://crescent.icit-digital.org/articles/tehran-conference-puts-people-s-uprisings-in-proper-islamic-context. Behdad, Sohrab. “Islamic Utopia in Pre-Revolutionary Iran: Navvab Safavi and the Fada’ian-e Eslam.” Middle Eastern Studies 33, no. 1 (1997): 40–65. Boucek, Christopher. “War in Saada. From Local Insurrection to National Challenge.” Yemen on the Brink. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 2010. https://carnegieendowment.org/files/war_in_saada.pdf. Christopher Anzalone. “Zaynab’s Guardians: The Emergence of Shi`a Militias in Syria.” CTC Sentinel 6, no. 7 (July 2013). https://ctc.usma.edu/zaynabsguardians-the-emergence-of-shia-militias-in-syria. Deeb, Marius. “Shia Movements in Lebanon: Their Formation, Ideology, Social Basis, and Links with Iran and Syria.” Third World Quarterly 10, no. 2 (1988): 683–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436598808420077. Dickey, Christopher. “Assad and His Allies: Irreconcilable Differences?” Foreign Affairs 66, no. 1 (Fall 1987): 58–76. Dreyfuss, Robert. “Cold War, Holy Warrior.” Mother Jones, February 2006. www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/01/cold-war-holy-warrior. Faksh, Mahmud A. “The Alawi Community of Syria: A New Dominant Political Force.” Middle Eastern Studies 20, no. 2 (1984): 133–53. https://doi. org/10.1080/00263208408700577. Ferdows, Amir H. “Khomaini and Fadayan’s Society and Politics.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 15, no. 2 (1983): 241–57. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0020743800052302.

126  A. B. SOAGE Filiu, Jean-Pierre. “The Origins of Hamas: Militant Legacy or Israeli Tool?” Journal of Palestine Studies 41, no. 3 (Spring 2012): 54–70. https://doi. org/10.1525/jps.2012.XLI.3.54. Gause, F. Gregory. “Ideologies, Alignments, and Underbalancing in the New Middle East Cold War.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50, no. 3 (July 2017): 672–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517000373. “Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah’s Speech on Syria,” May 25, 2013. www. voltairenet.org/article178691.html. Ignatius, David. “At the Tip of Iran’s Spear.” Washington Post, June 8, 2008. https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxysuf.flo.org/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:4SPK-H5K0-TW87-N0KY-00000-00 &context=1516831. Iranian Students’ News Agency (ISNA). “Judaism Forbids Creation of a Jewish State,” May 20, 2018. https://en.isna.ir/news/97023016609/ Judaism-forbids-creation-of-a-Jewish-state. Juneau, Thomas. “Iran’s Policy towards the Houthis in Yemen: A Limited Return on a Modest Investment.” International Affairs 92, no. 3 (2016): 647–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12599. Khamenei.IR. “Biography of Ayatollah Khamenei the Leader of the Islamic Revolution.” Accessed August 30, 2019. http://english.khamenei.ir/news/2130/ Biography-of-Ayatollah-Khamenei-the-Leader-of-the-Islamic-Revolution. ———. “ISIS Was Created to Divert the Resistance from Fighting Zionism: Analyst,” May 14, 2017. http://english.khamenei.ir/news/4805/ISIS-wascreated-to-divert-the-Resistance-from-fighting-Zionism. Khameneiir. “Leader’s Speech at Inauguration of Islamic Awakening and Ulama Conference.” Khamenei.IR, April 29, 2013. http://english.khamenei.ir/ news/1772/Leader-s-Speech-at-Inauguration-of-Islamic-Awakening-andUlama. Khatib, Line. Islamic Revivalism in Syria: The Rise and Fall of Ba’thist Secularism. London & New York: Routledge, 2011. Khosrokhavar, Farhad. “Les nouveaux intellectuels en Iran.” Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie, no. 125 (July 2008): 347–63. Kramer, Martin S. An Introduction to World Islamic Conferences. Tel Aviv: Shiloah Center, Tel Aviv University, 1978. ———. “Syria’s Alawis and Shi’ism.” In Shi’ism, Resistance, and Revolution, edited by Martin Kramer, 237–54. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987. Kurzman, Charles. “The Arab Spring: Ideals of the Iranian Green Movement, Methods of the Iranian Revolution,.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 44, no. 1 (February 2012): 162–65. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0020743811001346. Lesch, Ann M. “Prelude to the Uprising in the Gaza Strip.” Journal of Palestine Studies 20, no. 1 (Autumn 1990): 1–23.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

127

Luce, Dan De. “50 Years Later, Iranians Remember US-UK Coup.” The Christian Science Monitor, August 22, 2003. https://www.csmonitor.com/2003/ 0822/p08s01-wome.html. Majidyar, Ahmad. “Iran and Hamas Seeking to Further Boost Relations.” Middle East Institute, January 25, 2018. https://www.mei.edu/publications/ iran-and-hamas-seeking-further-boost-relations. Mansour, Renad, and Faleh A. Jabar. “The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s Future.” Carnegie Middle East Center, April 28, 2017. https://carnegie-mec. org/2017/04/28/popular-mobilization-forces-and-iraq-s-future-pub-68810. Mirrazavi, Firouzeh. “Iran Celebrates 65th Anniversary of Oil Nationalization.” Iran Review, March 18, 2016. http://www.iranreview.org/content/ Documents/Iran-Celebrates-62nd-Anniversary-of-Oil-Nationalization.htm. Moghadam, Cyrus Namjoo. “Conflict between Rouhani and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Intensifies.” Gulf News, July 31, 2017. https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/conflict-between-rouhani-and-irans-revolutionary-guards-intensifies-1.2066878. Mohseni, Payam. “The Islamic Awakening: Iran’s Grand Narrative of the Arab Uprisings.” Middle East Brief, no. 71 (April 2013). https://www.brandeis. edu/crown/publications/meb/MEB71.pdf. Moqawama. “Al-Sayyid Nasr Allah li-jumhur al-muqawama: A‘idukum bi-l-nasr mujaddadan” (Sayyed Nasrallah to the Crowds of the Resistance: I Promise You Victory Again),” May 27, 2013. https://www.moqawama.org/essaydetails.php?eid=27814&cid=141. ———. “Hezbolla’s 2009 Political Manifesto (in Arabic),” 2009. https://www. moqawama.org/essaydetailsf.php?eid=16245&fid=47. Muir, Jim. “Syria ‘Death Video’ of Sheikh al-Bouti Poses Questions.” BBC News, April 9, 2013. O’Connor, Tom. “Can Iran Stop Israel in Syria? New Warnings as Russia Prepares Missile Defense.” Newsweek, September 27, 2018. https://www. newsweek.com/can-iran-stop-israel-syria-new-warnings-russia-prepares-missile-defense-1142437. Palestine Net. “The Charter of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)Palestine (in Arabic),” 1988. http://palestine.paldf.net/Uploads/pdf/%D9% 85%D9%8A%D8%AB%D8%A7%D9%82-%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85% D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B3.pdf. Parsapajouh, Sepideh. “Les valeurs en cause. Crise de l’idéologie et crise de la transmission dans la société iranienne depuis la Révolution de 1979.” Archives de sciences sociales des religions, Les valeurs en cause, 59, no. 166 (Avril-juin 2014): 243–68.

128  A. B. SOAGE Pierret, Thomas, and Kjetil Selvik. “Limits of ‘Authoritarian Upgrading’ in Syria: Private Welfare, Islamic Charities, and the Rise of the Zayd Movement.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 41, no. 4 (2009): 595–614. Piotrowski, Marcin Andrzej. “‘Mosaic Defence:’ Iran’s Hybrid Warfare in Syria 2011–2016.” Polish Quarterly of International Affairs 26, no. 3 (2017): 18–67. Puder, Joseph. “Iran and the Houthis of Yemen. Shiite Revivalism and Its Challenge to Middle East Order.” Frontpage Magazine, November 29, 2016. https:// www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264974/iran-and-houthis-yemen-joseph-puder. Qaradawi, Yusuf al-. “Al-Qaradhawi sira wa-masira (Al-Qaradawi: Autobiography).” Archive Islam Online. Accessed August 30, 2019. https://archive.islamonline. net/. Raialyoum. “‘Nasr Allah yakshif kayfa aqna‘ Khamini’i bi-dukhul al-midan al-suri wa-yakshif ‘an ‘aradh sa‘udi li-l-Asad li-inha’ al-azma fi bidayati-Ha’ (Nasrallah reveals how he convinced Khamenei to enter the Syrian theatre and reveals a Saudi offer to Assad to put an end to the crisis at its inception),” September 12, 2017. www.raialyoum.com/index.php/%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%B4%D9%81%D9%83%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A3%D9%82%D9%86%D8%B9%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85. Riedel, Bruce. “In Yemen, Iran Outsmarts Saudi Arabia Again.” Brookings Institution, December 6, 2017. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/ 2017/12/06/in-yemen-iran-outsmarts-saudi-arabia-again/. Risseeuw, Rafke. “Stirring Up the Region for Survival: Iran’s Role in the Middle East Proxy Wars.” Brussels International Center, May 16, 2018. www.bic-rhr. com/research/stirring-region-survival-irans-role-middle-east-proxy-wars. Sadegui-Boroujerdi, Eskandar, and Siavush Randjbar-Daemi. “Serving the Leviathan.” Jacobin Magazine, January 18, 2017. Safshekan, Roozbeh, and Farzan Sabet. “The Ayatollah’s Praetorians: The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the 2009 Election Crisis.” The Middle East Journal 64, no. 4 (Autumn 2010): 543–58. https://doi.org/10.3751/64.4.12. Salmoni, Barak A., Bryce Loidolt, and Madeleine Wells. Regime and Periphery in Northern Yemen: The Huthi Phenomenon. Rand Corporation Monograph Series. Santa Monica: National Defense Research Institute, 2010. https://www.rand. org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG962.pdf. Soage, Ana Belén. “Hasan Al-Banna or the Politicisation of Islam.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 9, no. 1 (2008): 21–42. https://doi. org/10.1080/14690760701856374. ———. “Iraq and Yemen: The New Iranian Proxies?” Documento de Opinión. Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos, 2018.

4  THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 

129

———. “Islamism and Modernity: The Political Thought of Sayyid Qutb.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 10, no. 2 (2009): 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/14690760903119092. ———. “The Gulf Cooperation Council, Iran, and the Limits to Integration.” Orient 59, no. 2 (2018): 47–54. “Syria Crisis: Iran’s Ahmadinejad Criticises Killings.” BBC News, October 22, 2011. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15416410. Taheri, Amir. The Spirit of Allah: Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution. Adler & Adler Pub, 1986. Taqi, Abd al-Ilah. “Alat al-i‘lam al-huthiyya: ‘Hizbullah’ marra min huna” (The Houthis’ media machine: Hezbollah came this way).” Al-‘Arabi, April 11, 2015. www.alaraby.co.uk/medianews/2015/4/11/%D8%A2%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8% A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84% D8%AD%D9%88%D8%AB%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%B1-%D9%85%D9%86%D9%87%D9%86%D8%A7. “Text of President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address.” The Washington Post, January 29, 2002. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/sou012902.htm. The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). “A Document of General Principles and Policies,” 2017. https://hamas.ps/en/post/678/a-document-of-generalprinciples-and-policies. “The New Hezbollah Manifesto,” November 2009. www.lebanonrenaissance. org/assets/Uploads/15-The-New-Hezbollah-Manifesto-Nov09.pdf. Wehrey, Frederic M., ed. The Rise of the Pasdaran: Assessing the Domestic Roles of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Rand Corporation Monograph Series. Santa Monica, CA: RAND National Defense Research Institute, 2009. Yale Law School. “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (18 August 1988).” Accessed August 30, 2019. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/ hamas.asp. Zambelis, Chris. “Institutionalized ‘Warlordism’: Syria’s National Defense Force.” Terrorism Monitor 15, no. 6 (March 24, 2017). https://jamestown. org/program/institutionalized-warlordism-syrias-national-defense-force.

CHAPTER 5

Emergence of the Turkish/Qatari Alliance in the Middle East: Making of the Moderate Resistance Bloc Nuri Yeşilyurt and Mustafa Yetim

Introduction Since the formation of the modern state system in the broader Middle East, a regional polarization has continued to exist between the status quo powers and revisionist powers. Although leaders and members of both blocs have changed through decades, this bipolar structure has been a recurrent pattern in the history of the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. During the 2000s, and particularly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, this regional polarization mainly crystallized around

N. Yeşilyurt (*)  Faculty of Political Science, Department of International Relations, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] M. Yetim  Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Department of International Relations, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Turkey © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_5

131

132  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM

the Saudi Arabia-led status quo camp, which describes itself as the moderates, and the Iran-led revisionist camp, which describes itself as the resistance axis.1 Currently, the status quo bloc includes, among others, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Egypt, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The main features of these states are their pro-US foreign policy orientations, their mild attitudes toward Israel, and their conservative-elitist political structures. The revisionist bloc consists of ­ Iran, Syria, the Lebanese Hezbollah, some Iraqi Shiite factions, and the Palestinian Islamic resistance movement, Hamas (see Table 14.1). The main features of these actors are their anti-US foreign policy orientations, their denial of the existence of Israel, and their populist–authoritarian political structures. The collapse of central authority (i.e., Saddam’s regime) in Iraq and the growing anger among the Arab public caused by Israeli atrocities in Palestine considerably increased the revisionist bloc’s power and credibility throughout the 2000s. Since the beginning of the 2010s, however, substantial shifts have occurred in the power structure in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. Political instability, caused by popular uprisings in critical regional powers, such as Egypt, Syria, and Yemen, created a vast power vacuum in the region and posed serious challenges to both the status quo and the revisionist blocs. Meanwhile, a new alliance is in the making between Turkey and Qatar, which is attempting to take advantage of this vacuum to create an autonomous sphere of influence for itself

1 For a reflective and insightful discussion on the preexisting and the emergent camps in the region and different conceptualizations for current regional polarization see Erik Mohns and André Bank, “Syrian Revolt Fallout: End of the Resistance Axis?” Middle East Policy 9, no. 3 (2012): 25–27, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4967.2012.00545.x; Birol Başkan, Turkey and Qatar in the Tangled Geopolitics of the Middle East (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 1–4; Saud Al Tamamy, “GCC Membership Expansion: Possibilities and Obstacles,” in Gulf Cooperation Council’s Challenges and Prospects (Al Jazeera Center for Studies, 2014), 73–75, http://studies.aljazeera.net/mritems/ Documents/2015/3/31/2015331131534662734Gulf%20Cooperation.pdf; Crystal A. Ennis and Bessma Momani, “Shaping the Middle East in the Midst of the Arab Uprisings: Turkish and Saudi Foreign Policy Strategies,” Third World Quarterly 34, no. 6 (2013): 1127–30, https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.802503; and Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, “The United States, Iran and the Middle East’s New ‘Cold War,’” The International Spectator 45, no. 1 (2010): 75, https://doi. org/10.1080/03932721003661624.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

133

in the region.2 Moving from this observation, the focus of this chapter is to make a careful analysis of this emerging alliance between Turkey and Qatar and its implication for the regional order in the Middle East. Specifically, the chapter addresses whether Turkey and Qatar are forming a third bloc in the Middle East—one that is positioned between the Saudi-led status quo bloc and the Iranian-led revisionist bloc.3 The chapter starts with a brief analysis of the regional power structure in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East since the 1940s, and more specifically, the consolidation of the status quo and the revisionist blocs in the region during the 2000s. The second section then focuses on the critical domestic and foreign policy transformations that Qatar and Turkey underwent following the change in political power in both countries in 1995 and 2002, respectively. The remarkable similarity between soft-power-oriented policies adopted by Ankara and Doha and their positioning of themselves between the status quo and the revisionist blocs is particularly emphasized in the second section. The last section examines the growing rapprochement between Turkey and Qatar since the 2011 Arab Uprisings. In this sense, it underlines common policy responses to ongoing uprisings and deepening bilateral ties between both countries, along with their implications for the current power structure in the region. Overall, the argument is presented that, since the 2010s, the Middle East regional system resembles a tripolar structure. The growing Turkish/ Qatari alliance and its alignment with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in various Arab countries have resulted in the formation of a third bloc in 2 There is a growing literature on the analysis of the burgeoning alliance between Turkey and Qatar. See William Armstrong, “Interview: Birol Başkan on Turkey and Qatar’s Alliance in the Tangled Middle East,” Hurriyet Daily News, June 24, 2017, http://www. hurriyetdailynews.com/interview-birol-baskan-on-turkey-and-qatars-alliance-in-the-tangled-middle-east-114696; Ufuk Ulutaş and Burhanettin Duran, “Traditional Rivalry or Regional Design in the Middle East?” Insight Turkey 20, no. 2 (Spring 2018): 81–105. 3 For a similar discussion see Özgür Pala and Bülent Aras, “Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in the Turkish and Qatari Foreign Policy on the Arab Spring,” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 17, no. 3 (2015): 287, https://doi.org/10.1080 /19448953.2015.1063274; Phillip O. Amour calls this emergent bloc the “elected reformist” camp in Philipp O. Amour, “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018), 9–10.

134  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM

the Middle East, what we call the moderate resistance bloc. The emergence of this third bloc has substantially affected the regional balance of powers and now poses certain challenges to the two preexisting regional blocs. Although their ambitious and revisionist foreign policy agenda witnessed a setback in 2013–2014, Turkey and Qatar still hold their ground in the middle of the two preexisting blocs and pursue their alternative regional strategy.

Power Structure in the Middle East The division between revisionist and status quo powers dates back to the emergence of the modern Middle East, although the leading actors within each bloc have changed over time. In the 1940s, for instance, the Kingdoms of Egypt and the KSA were aligned against the expansionist aspirations of the Hashemite Kingdoms of Iraq and Jordan.4 After the Free Officers Revolution in 1952, Egypt, under the rule of Gamal Abdel Nasser, constituted a serious revisionist threat to Arab monarchies. This threat culminated when Syria, under the influence of the nationalist Baath Party, joined Egypt to form the United Arab Republic in 1958. The Hashemite Kingdoms in Iraq and Jordan responded to this threat by forming the United Arab Federation, yet this union did not survive even a year due to the collapse of the Iraqi monarchy with a coup d’état in July 1958. The United Arab Republic followed suit three years later, and disagreements arose between the republics of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq; however, they continued to form a revisionist threat against the remaining Arab monarchies until the late 1960s. The ideological and political struggle between the nationalist–revolutionary (revisionist) Arab republics and the conservative (status quo) Arab monarchies throughout the 1950s and 1960s gave rise to the so-called Arab Cold War.5 This regional struggle was deeply connected to the global Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, both of which generally supported competing blocs in the broader Middle East.6 4 Alan Taylor, The Arab Balance of Power (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1982), 24–26. 5 Malcom Kerr, The Arab Cold War 1958–1967: A Study of Ideology in Politics, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1967). 6 William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton, A History of the Middle East (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2009), 323.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

135

The Arab–Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973 overshadowed interArab rivalries for a short while. However, when Egypt, under the rule of Anwar Sadat, signed a separate peace with Israel at Camp David in 1978, this move resulted in Egypt’s isolation from the Arab world and Iraq’s rise to a leadership role to fill the power vacuum left by Egypt.7 In the post-Camp David order, a new split took place in the Arab world between the Iraqi–Saudi–Jordanian axis on the one hand, and the Syrian– Libyan axis on the other.8 The main development that fed this split was the revolution in Iran and its repercussions in the Arab world. Once the strongest pillar of the status quo camp, Iran emerged as a new revisionist actor in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East following the (Shiite) Islamic Revolution, which overthrew the Pahlavi monarchy in 1979. The Iranian revolution consolidated the alliance between Iraq and the Gulf monarchies, most of which were essentially Sunni regimes with Shia populations. When these tensions eventually led to a long and bloody war between Iraq and Iran in 1980, all status quo regional actors, including the Gulf monarchies, Jordan, and Egypt, actively supported Baghdad, while Syria and Libya openly sided with revisionist Iran.9 During the 1990s, Iraq’s sudden transformation into an aggressive revisionist actor with its invasion of Kuwait in 1990 led to another split in the Arab world. From that moment on, neutralization of the imminent threat stemming from Iraq became top priority for the Gulf States. When the US-led coalition forces initiated a military campaign to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the remaining Gulf monarchies, along with Syria and Egypt, actively supported it. Conversely, some Arab actors, including Jordan, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and Libya opted for an inter-Arab solution and opposed any foreign intervention to the region.10 Another important development during the 1990s was Israel’s changing regional status in the broader Middle East. In the aftermath of the Gulf War, the US-led Middle East Peace Process resulted in the 1993 Oslo Accords (between Israel and the PLO), and the 1994 Wadi Araba Agreement (between Israel and Jordan). As a 7 Taylor,

The Arab Balance of Power, 78–80. 81–92. 9 Peter Mansfield and Nicolas Pelham, A History of the Middle East (New York: Penguin Books, 2013), 93. 10 Cleveland and Bunton, A History of the Middle East, 481; Mansfield and Pelham, A History of the Middle East, 326. 8 Taylor,

136  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM

result, Israel gained more room for political maneuvering in the Middle East. The mentioned state and non-state actors became affiliated with the conservative (status quo) bloc. During the 2000s, after the Baath regime in Iraq was toppled with the US-led invasion in 2003, Iran took advantage of the political instability and power vacuum in war-torn Iraq by forging ties with the leading Shiite groups in the country. As Iran’s influence over political actors in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine increased substantially after the Iraq War, Tehran gradually became the backbone of the revisionist bloc against the US-backed Middle East regional order.11 Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, among others, are often cited as resistance actors in the broader Middle East, implying their resistance to the US–Israeli domination in the region (see Chapters 4 and 9).12 As Iranian revisionism gained more ground following the Iraq War in 2003, the KSA emerged as the leading status quo power in the broader Middle East. In fact, owing to regime security concerns, Riyadh has always adopted a firm stance against any kind of revisionist and revolutionary forces in its vicinity and continuously supported other status quo actors, thanks to its huge oil wealth.13 Similarly, during the 2000s, Saudi Arabia sought to close the ranks among Sunni states in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East against what it perceived as the rising Shiite Crescent led by Iran.14 Saudi Arabia and its current allies (the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO, among others) are often cited as

11 Anoushiravan Ehteshami, “The Foreign Policy of Iran,” in The Foreign Policies of Middle East States, ed. Raymond A. Hinnebusch and Anoushiravan Ehteshami (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2002), 283–99; F. Gregory Gause, “Revolution and Threat Perception: Iran and the Middle East,” International Politics 52, no. 5 (2015): 637–45, https://doi. org/10.1057/ip.2015.27. 12 Philipp O. Amour, “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement Within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives,” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 623, https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.384773. 13 M. Evren Tok, Jason J. McSparren, and Michael Olender, “The Perpetuation of Regime Security in Gulf Cooperation Council States: A Multi‐Lens Approach,” Digest of Middle East Studies 26, no. 1 (2017): 150–69, https://doi.org/10.1111/dome.12105. 14 This term was first used by King Abdullah II of Jordan in 2004. See Robin Wright and Peter Baker, “Iraq, Jordan See Threat to Election from Iran,” Washington Post, December 8, 2004, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43980-2004Dec7.html.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

137

the moderate actors in the Middle East, mainly due to their pro-Western policies and benign attitudes toward Israel.15 At this point, it is also important to emphasize that the general distinctions between resistance and moderate blocs are extensive in regard to their divergent positions and approaches toward the Western-imposed and US–Israeli-dominated regional order in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. These blocs launch different strategies in order to weaken the rival bloc (revisionist strategy) and to eliminate possible challenges toward themselves (status quo strategy). Therefore, one should not be confused with Iran’s pro-status quo position (protection of the Assad regime by all means) and Saudi Arabia’s somewhat pro-revisionist stance (overthrow of the Assad regime) within Syria, as these policies are just the reflections of regional bloc calculations. Current confrontation and polarization in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East between revisionist and status quo blocs for the regional hegemony can also be considered as a rivalry between different versions of Islamism, since both blocs extensively use Islamism in their rhetoric (see Chapters 2 and 3). Some scholars and politicians even tend to identify this rivalry as a sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni forces.16 Yet, this is not entirely true, considering the status quo bloc’s hostile policies toward the leading non-state Sunni organization, namely the MB, and the revisionist bloc’s friendly relations with Hamas, which is an affiliate of MB.17 Consequently, recognition of any actor as an enemy or a friend by either bloc is not necessarily related to its sectarian identity but to its position toward the regional order. Turkey and Qatar’s position in this regional constellation was closer to the status quo bloc throughout the second half of the twentieth century. As a NATO member, Turkey upheld a Middle East policy generally in accordance with that of the United States. The only exception to this accord was the 1960–1980 period, when Ankara started to act more 15 Amour,

“Hamas-PLO/Fatah Within the Regional Order in the Middle East,” 623. the resurfacing of sectarianism in the Middle East following the Arab Uprisings see Raymond Hinnebusch, “The Sectarian Revolution in the Middle East,” Global Trends and Regional Issues 4, no. 1 (2016): 120–52. 17 Matthew Hedges and Giorgio Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood: What Does Future Hold?” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 129–53; Rola Al-Husseini, “Hezbollah and the Axis of Refusal: Hamas, Iran and Syria,” Third World Quarterly 31, no. 5 (2010): 809–910, https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2010.502695. 16 On

138  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM

autonomously in the region due to changes both in Turkish politics and in the international system.18 Qatar only gained independence from the British in 1971. Afterward, its foreign policy was generally in line with that of Saudi Arabia, at least until the mid-1990s.19 During the 2000s, however, a serious transformation was observable in the foreign policies of both countries. Throughout the 2000s, Ankara and Doha invested extensively in soft power and positioned themselves between the status quo and revisionist blocs. In this context, Turkey and Qatar developed trade and investment relations with the whole region, focused on name branding and public relations and carried out proactive diplomacy, while acting as mediators in many regional conflicts. Consequently, in this era, Turkey and Qatar came to the fore by instituting amicable relations with both the status quo and revisionist camps, without being a part of either. In order to understand how this was possible, and why Turkey and Qatar did so, one must focus on major domestic transformations that both countries had undergone since the turn of the century.

Domestic and Foreign Policy Transformation in Qatar and Turkey Qatar is a small state with a tiny population in the Persian Gulf. Its coming to the forefront of regional politics took place during the reign of Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (1995–2013), who deposed his father, Sheikh Khalifa bin Hamad al-Thani, in a bloodless coup in 1995.20 In fact, following the Gulf War, Hamad had already been the de facto ruler of the country in many areas.21 Hence, the 1995 coup

18 Melek Fırat and Ömer Kürkçüoğlu, “Orta Doğu’yla İlişkiler (Relations with the Middle East),” in Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt I: 1919–1980 (Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume I: 1919–1980), ed. Baskın Oran (İstanbul: İletişim, 2009), 784. 19 David B. Roberts, “Understanding Qatar’s Foreign Policy Objectives,” Mediterranean Politics 17, no. 2 (July 2012): 234, https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2012.695123. 20 A graduate of the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, Hamad became commander-in-chief of the Qatari Armed Forces in 1975 and was appointed the Defense Minister and Heir Apparent in 1977. “Sheikh Ḥamad Ibn Khalīfah Āl Thānī,” in Britannica Academic, May 1, 2018, https://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/ Sheikh-%E1%B8%A4amad-ibn-Khal%C4%ABfah-%C4%80l-Th%C4%81n%C4%AB/475728. 21 “Sheikh Ḥamad Ibn Khalīfah Āl Thānī.”

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

139

made him the de jure ruler as well. Under the rule of Sheikh Hamad, Qatar drew the attention of the region and the world by embarking on an ambitious program of political reform, economic liberalization, and development. First, in 1996, in a move to enhance press freedom, the new Emir established the Al Jazeera news channel, which broadcasts controversial news and discussions on various topics in Arabic. Two years later, he abolished the Ministry of Information, which hitherto had acted as an organ of press censorship. More importantly, in 1999, elections for municipal councils were held for the first time in the history of Qatar, and women were allowed both to vote and to stand. Furthermore, a new constitution was adopted in 2003, which stipulates the formation of an advisory council with two-thirds of its members elected. On the economic side, Hamad encouraged privatization of state assets, successfully returned to the state billions of dollars that were taken out by Sheikh Khalifa after the coup, and invested in liquefied natural gas (LNG) production, which eventually became the main source of Qatar’s wealth.22 Sheikh Hamad also took steps in the educational and cultural development of Qatar by establishing the Qatar Foundation in 1995.23 The main rationale behind these courageous reform efforts of Sheikh Hamad was to gain support from both the younger generation of Qataris and the West in his vision for greater autonomy from the KSA, the most powerful state among the Gulf monarchies.24 Predictably, Hamad’s coup was not well received by the neighboring Gulf monarchies, especially the KSA, because of his courageous and contrarian foreign policy style, which contrasted with Sheikh Khalifa’s Saudi-oriented and passive approach. Following the Gulf War, dur­ ing Hamad’s de facto rule of the country, Qatar had mended fences with Iran and Iraq, and confronted Riyadh in a border dispute.25 Furthermore, Hamad’s relatively young age, brave personality, and 22 Andrew Rathmel and Kirsten Schulze, “Political Reform in the Gulf: The Case of Qatar,” Middle Eastern Studies 36, no. 4 (October 2000): 53–55; Allen J. Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2012), 106; and “Sheikh Ḥamad Ibn Khalīfah Āl Thānī.” 23 “About Qatar Foundation,” Qatar Foundation, May 26, 2018, https://www.qf.org. qa/about. 24 Rathmel and Schulze, “Political Reform in the Gulf,” 60. 25 “Prince Deposes Father in Qatar Palace Coup,” Deseret News, June 27, 1995, https:// www.deseret.com/1995/6/27/19179334/prince-deposes-father-in-qatar-palace-coup.

140  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM

reformist tendencies seriously irked other Gulf monarchs, who feared sharing the same fate as Sheikh Khalifa.26 Largely for these reasons, the KSA, the UAE, and Bahrain acknowledged Khalifa’s claims to the Qatari throne and even allegedly supported a number of coup attempts by him against Hamad in the following years.27 This experience eventually caused a prolonged tension between Qatar and its Gulf neighbors. The US approach toward Hamad’s grasp on power was somewhat different, as Washington was quite pleased to see the emergence of a strong ally in Qatar.28 During the Gulf War, Hamad had won the trust of the United States and proved his military skills as the commander-in-chief of the Qatari Armed Forces, which helped the coalition troops defeat an Iraqi assault on the Saudi town of Khafji. In 1992, Qatar and the United States signed a cooperative defense agreement, which allowed, among other things, USA military access to Qatari military facilities and prepositioning of USA military equipment in Qatar.29 Hence, in 1995, the US administration quickly recognized Hamad as the new Emir, after receiving assurances over his ties with Iraq and Iran.30 Unlike Qatar, Turkey can be described as a regional great power in the broader Middle East.31 At the turn of the century, critical developments were taking place in Turkish domestic politics, which eventually transformed Turkey’s policy toward the region in a similar line with Qatar. A temporary halt of the terror attacks of the Kurdistan Worker Party (PKK) following the capture of its leader in 199932 and the 26 Douglas Jehl, “Young Turk of the Gulf: Emir of Qatar,” The New York Times, July 10, 1997, https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/10/world/young-turk-of-the-gulf-emir-ofqatar.html. 27 Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History, 117–20; “Life Sentences for Qatari Coup Plotters,” BBC News, February 29, 2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_ east/660887.stm. 28 Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History, 107. 29 Kenneth Katzman, “Qatar: Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy,” CRS Report (Congressional Research Service, 2018), 14–15, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/ R44533.pdf. 30 Patrick Cockburn, “Emir of Qatar Deposed by His Son,” June 8, 1995, https://www. independent.co.uk/news/world/emir-of-qatar-deposed-by-his-son-1588698.html. 31 William M. Hale, Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774 (New York, NY: Routledge, 2013), 1–2. 32 PKK is an armed separatist movement which was formed in 1978, and intensified its terror attacks against Turkish officials and civilians especially in the 1990s.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

141

economic crisis of 2001 prepared the Turkish political scene for critical transformations that began with the early elections of 2002. The newly established Justice and Development Party (AKP) was victorious in the parliamentary elections and formed a single-party government33 Upon taking power, AKP leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan enthusiastically embraced liberalism, globalization, and capitalism, and he positioned himself against ­military-bureaucratic elites who were strictly resisting the transformation of Turkey in accordance with neoliberal globalization.34 During this period, Turkey experienced a visible economic growth and stability as well, which can be observed in high growth rates, rising GDP per capita, and reduced poverty.35 Throughout the 2000s, the AKP consolidated its power by winning consecutive elections and referendums and by curbing the influence of the military on politics. Gradually, AKP rule was equated with economic growth and political stability for a large segment of the population. All these transformations in domestic politics greatly ameliorated Turkey’s image in the Middle East. In the 2000s, Arab observers often watched political and economic developments in Turkey with great interest and admiration.36 AKP officials, in return, often underlined the common Ottoman past and/or Islamic identity in defense of a rapprochement with the region.37 Moreover, the AKP saw the Middle East as a fertile export market and investment source for the growing Turkish economy. As Qatar and Turkey were experiencing these critical transformations at the domestic level, their foreign policies also started to change. Along with Emir Hamad, the other main figure behind the formulation of the new Qatari foreign policy was Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber 33 AKP leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was an ex-mayor of İstanbul, and former member of Milli Görüş (National Outlook) movement. 34 İlhan Uzgel, “AKP: Neoliberal Dönüşmün Yeni Aktörü (AKP: The New Actor of Neoliberal Transformation),” in AKP Kitabı: Bir Dönüşümün Bilançosu (AKP Book: Balance Sheet of a Transformation), ed. Bülent Duru and İlhan Uzgel (Ankara: Phoenix, 2009), 24–31. 35 Seyfettin Gürsel, “Ekonomi (Economy),” in Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt III: 2001–2012 (Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume III 2001–2012), ed. Baskın Oran (İstanbul: İletişim, 2013), 54–58. 36 Zerrin Torun, “The Debate on ‘Turkey as a Role Model’ (1990–2011),” Avrasya Etüdleri 49, no. 1 (2016): 16–19. 37 See Ahmet Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu (Strategic Depth: Turkey’s International Position) (Istanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2008), 323–53.

142  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM

al Thani (HBJ), who served as foreign minister (1992–2013) and prime minister (2007–2013).38 On the Turkish side, the main architect of foreign policy was Ahmet Davutoğlu, who served as the chief advisor to the prime minister (2002–2009), foreign minister (2009–2014), and prime minister (2014–2016), in sequence.39 Under the guidance of HBJ and Davutoğlu, remarkably similar changes took place in the foreign policy orientations and tools adopted by Doha and Ankara, which eventually positioned the two countries as major soft powers in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. These soft-power-infused transformations in the two countries’ foreign policies can be summarized as three points: First, both Turkey and Qatar extensively used economic tools in their foreign policies during the 2000s. The total volume of Turkey’s foreign trade increased more than threefold between 2000 and 2010.40 In this respect, Ankara signed free trade agreements, formed business councils, and organized business forums with countries in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East throughout the 2000s.41 As a result, Turkish exports to the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East increased substantially, along with these regions’ shares in total Turkish exports in the same period.42 The total volume of Turkish construction companies’ projects abroad exceeded 10 billion USD in 2005 and remained over 20 billion USD between 2006 and 2016. The Gulf Region and the broader Middle 38 Sam Bollier, “Can Qatar Replace Its Renaissance Man?” Al Jazeera English, June 26, 2013, https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/06/201362613431469150. html. 39 “Portre: Ahmet Davutoğlu.,” Al Jazeera Türk, May 5, 2016, http://www.aljazeera. com.tr/portre/portre-ahmet-davutoglu. 40 Gürsel, “Ekonomi (Economy),” 66–67. 41 For the full list of countries with which Turkey signed a Free Trade Agreement see “Yürürlükte Bulunan STA’lar (FTA’s in Force),” Turkish Ministry of Economy, accessed May 27, 2018, https://www.ekonomi.gov.tr/portal/faces/home/disIliskiler/ SerbestTic/SerbestTic-YururlukteBulunanSTA; For more information about business councils and forums between Turkey and Middle Eastern countries, see “Türkiye – Ortadoğu ve Körfez İş Konseyleri (Turkey—Middle East and Gulf Business Councils),” Foreign Economic Relations Council, accessed May 27, 2018, https://www.deik.org.tr/ turkiye-ortadogu-ve-korfez-is-konseyleri. 42 Main Turkish export commodities to the region were iron–steel, electrical and mechanical machines, motor vehicles. This information is edited from “Coğrafi Ülke Grubu ve Fasıllara Göre Dış Ticaret (Foreign Trade with Regards to Geographical Country Groups and Sections)” (Turkish Statistical Institute), accessed May 27, 2018, https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/ disticaretapp/disticaret.zul?param1=5¶m2=21&sitcrev=0&isicrev=0&sayac=5809.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

143

East comprised more than 40% of all the projects that were undertaken by Turkish construction companies abroad.43 Consequently, Turkey started to be considered as a trading state in its neighborhood.44 On the Qatari side, the main driver of economic diplomacy was the country’s huge natural gas reserves, the third largest on earth. As the largest LNG exporter on earth since 2006, Qatar dominates the global LNG market.45 Furthermore, since 2009, Qatar has been one of the top five natural gas producing countries in the world.46 Doha operationalized its huge income from LNG exports by establishing a sovereign wealth fund in 2005 under the presidency of HBJ: Qatar Investment Authority (QIA). Though still smaller than other Gulf sovereign wealth funds, QIA makes critical investments across the world and the broader Middle East, and has thus become one of the main pillars of Qatari soft power in the region.47 Second, both Turkey and Qatar invested heavily in public diplomacy and name branding during this period. Humanitarian aid and development assistance are an important component of public diplomacy for both countries. The main Turkish actors in these fields are the Turkish Corporation and Development Agency (TIKA), the Disaster 43 “Yurtdışı Müteahhitlik Hizmetleri Genel Notu (General Notes on Contracting Services Abroad),” Turkish Ministry of Economy, accessed May 27, 2018, https:// www.ekonomi.gov.tr/portal/content/conn/UCM/path/Contribution%20Folders/ web/Hizmet%20Ticareti/Sekt%c3%b6rler%20ve%20Destek%20Programlar%c4%b1/02. Yu r t d % c 4 % b 1 % c 5 % 9 f % c 4 % b 1 % 2 0 M % c 3 % b c t e a h h i t l i k % 2 0 v e % 2 0 Te k n i k % 2 0 M%c3%bc%c5%9favirlik%28YDMH%29/Genel%20M%c3%bcteahhitlik%20Notu%20 02.05.2018.docx?lve. 44 Kemal Kirişçi, “The Transformation of Turkish Foreign Policy: The Rise of the Trading State,” New Perspectives on Turkey 40 (2009): 29–57. 45 Justin Dargin, “Qatar’s Natural Gas: The ­Foreign-Policy Driver,” Middle East Policy 14, no. 3 (2007): 137–41, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4967.2007.00318.x; “World LNG Report,” IGU World LNG Report (International Gas Union (IGU), 2017), 9, https://www. igu.org/sites/default/files/103419-World_IGU_Report_no%20crops.pdf. 46 “Global Energy Statistical Yearbook 2017: Natural Gas Production,” May 27, 2018, https://yearbook.enerdata.net/natural-gas/world-natural-gas-production-statistics.html. 47 “Top 81 Largest Sovereign Wealth Fund Rankings by Total Assets,” SWFI Institute, May 27, 2018, https://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/sovereign-wealth-fund; “Revealed: Qatar Investment Authority’s Investments across the World,” Arabian Business, May 17, 2017, http://www.arabianbusiness.com/revealed-qatar-investment-authority-s-investmentsacross-world-674254.html; For more information on Qatari and other Gulf investments in the Middle East see Adam Hanieh, Capitalism and Class in the Gulf Arab States, 2015, 149–64.

144  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM

and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), and the Turkish Red Crescent. Turkey’s official international aid increased from 85 million USD in 2003 to 2.5 billion USD in 2012. More than 25% of TIKA’s spending was directed toward the broader Middle East during the same period (See Chapter 6).48 In cultural diplomacy, Turkey sought to expand its influence in the world by establishing the Yunus Emre Institute in 2009, which aims to promote Turkey, its cultural heritage, language, culture, and art.49 Turkish Airlines has also become an important tool of name branding and public diplomacy in Turkish foreign policy. It expanded considerably in the 2000s and began flying to almost all major Middle Eastern countries. As of 2012, it was the world’s largest company in terms of the number of countries served.50 As for Qatar, the Qatar Fund for Development (est. 2002) and Qatar Red Crescent are the main agencies for Qatari international aid, which reached 1.3 billion dollars in 2013. The main recipients were Syria, Morocco, Palestine, Egypt, and Yemen.51 Similar to Turkey, in the 2000s, Qatar concentrated on branding the country by inviting major US universities to its Education City, establishing world-class museums (such as the Museum of Islamic Art), organizing cultural festivals (such as the Qatar Cultural Festival), hosting international conferences and sporting events (such as the Organization of Islamic Countries summit in 2003, World Trade Organization trade negotiations in 2006, the 2006 Asian Games, and the 2011 Asian Football Cup), expanding the Al Jazeera news channel network, and developing its national airline

48 Cemalettin Haşimi, “Turkey’s Humanitarian Diplomacy and Development Cooperation,” Insight Turkey 16, no. 1 (Winter 2014): 135–37. 49 The first Yunus Emre Turkish Cultural Centers in the Middle East were opened in Cairo and Damascus in 2010. Muharrem Ekşi, Kamu Diplomasisi ve Ak Parti Dönemi Türk Dış Politikası (Public diplomacy and foreign policy of JDP Period) (Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi, 2014). 50 “THY’ye ‘En Çok Ülkeye Uçan Havayolu’ Unvanı (Turkish Airlines Receives ‘Largest Airline by Number of Countries Served’ Title),” Sabah, October 3, 2012, https://www. sabah.com.tr/ekonomi/2012/10/03/thyye-en-cok-ulkeye-ucan-havayolu-unvani; and Orçun Selçuk, “Turkish Airlines as a Soft Power Tool in the Context of Turkish Foreign Policy” (MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, 2012). 51 “Qatar’s Development Co-Operation,” O.E.C.D., May 27, 2018, http://www.oecd. org/dac/stats/qatars-development-co-operation.htm.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

145

carrier, Qatar Airways.52 Other important Qatari initiatives include hosting the latest round of trade negotiations (The Doha Round) among the members of the World Trade Organization,53 and its successful bid to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup Finals.54 Due to such initiatives, Qatar has substantially developed its public recognition at regional and global levels. Third, both Qatar and Turkey have run a proactive diplomacy policy in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East during the 2000s. They started this process by resolving prolonged disputes with their neighbors. In this sense, there was a striking similarity between Davutoğlu’s zero problems with neighbors’ policy and Emir Hamad’s efforts to resolve territorial disputes with Saudi Arabia over border demarcation and with Bahrain over the Hawar Islands.55 So, upon resolving the most salient disputes with their neighbors, both countries concentrated on mediation and peace-brokering efforts in order to establish a niche for themselves in the contentious political structure in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. Throughout the 2000s, Qatar mediated between Libya and the West (2003, 2007), Chad and Sudan (2008), Hamas and Fatah (2006), Lebanese factions (2008), Iran and the UAE (2001), the Yemeni government and the Houthis (2007), the Sudanese government and Darfur rebels (2009), and Morocco and Algeria (2004).56 In the same period, Turkey acted as mediator and/or facilitator in an effort to end conflicts between Afghanistan and Pakistan (2007), Syria and the West (2005), Israel and Syria (2007), Syria and Iraq (2009), Syria and Lebanon (2008), Iran and the West (2009–2010), Lebanese

52 J.E. Peterson, “Qatar and the World: Branding for a Micro-State,” Middle East Journal 60, no. 4 (Autumn 2006): 732–48. 53 “The Doha Round,” World Trade Organization, May 5, 2019, https://www.wto.org/ english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm. 54 Jamie Jackson, “Qatar Wins 2022 World Cup Bid,” The Guardian, December 2, 2010, https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/dec/02/qatar-win-2022-world-cup-bid. 55 Özgür Pala, “The Evolution of the Turkish–Qatari Relations from 2002 to 2013: Convergence of Policies, Identities and Interests” (MA thesis, Qatar University, 2012), 60; Qatar signed border demarcation agreement with Saudi Arabia in 1999, and a 2001 ruling of International Court of Justice finalized dispute over Hawar Islands. See Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History, 117–19. 56 Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History, 112–13; Mehran Kamrava, “Mediation and Qatari Foreign Policy,” Middle East Journal 65, no. 4 (Autumn 2011): 539–56.

146  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM

factions (2008), and Iraqi factions (2005–2006).57 Furthermore, the two countries pursued similar policies toward the Palestinian issue, the Lebanese quagmire, and the Iranian nuclear crisis, and they mediated jointly during the presidential crisis in Lebanon (2008).58 As an indicator of Turkey’s and Qatar’s efforts to be more actively involved in the resolution of regional crises, they both assumed non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council during the 2006–2007 and 2009–2010 periods, respectively. As part of these mediation efforts and proactive diplomacy, Ankara and Doha sought to keep communication channels open with all state and non-state actors in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East from both the status quo and the revisionist blocs. Thus, on the one hand, they built friendly relationships with key resistance non-state and state actors such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.59 On the other, they kept alive political and economic relations with the main moderate actors, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Furthermore, both Turkey and Qatar continued their strategic alliance with the United States throughout the 2000s. The two countries host probably the most critical US Air Bases in the Middle East (İncirlik and Al Udeid); these bases play an important role in US-led military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.60 57 “Uyuşmazlıkların Çözümü ve Arabuluculuk (Conflict Resolution and Mediation),” Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accessed May 27, 2018, http://www.mfa.gov.tr/ uyusmazliklarin-cozumu-ve-arabuluculuk.tr.mfa; Bülent Aras, “Turkey’s Mediation and Friends of Mediation Initiative,” SAM Papers (Ankara: Center for strategic research (SAM), December 2012), http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SAM_Papers_No.4Dec12.pdf. 58 Pala, “The Evolution of the Turkish–Qatari Relations,” 61–69. 59 Anrew F. Cooper and Besma Momani, “Qatar and Expanded Contours of Small State Diplomacy,” The International Spectator 46, no. 3 (September 2011): 120–25, https:// doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2011.576181; Nuri Yeşilyurt, “Orta Doğu’yla İlişkiler (Relations with the Middle East),” in Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt III: 2001–2012 (Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume III: 2001–2012), ed. Baskın Oran (İstanbul: İletişim, 2013), 416–17, 431–431, 451–60; In addition, Qatar built relationships with important figures from both moderate and even some extremist Sunni Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Libya Islamist Combatant Group. See Lina Khatib, “Qatar’s Foreign Policy: The Limits of Pragmatism,” International Affairs 89, no. 2 (2013): 145–50, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12025; Hedges and Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood,” 145–50. 60 İlhan Uzgel, “ABD’yle İlişkiler (Relations with the USA),” in Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt III: 2001–2012 (Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume III: 2001–2012), ed. Baskın Oran (İstanbul: İletişim, 2013), 275; Cooper and Momani, “Qatar and Expanded Contours,” 123.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

147

More importantly, at least until 2009, both Ankara and Doha kept their dialogue channels open with Israel, the key US ally in the region.61 In sum, as a result of these connections and activities, Turkey and Qatar established themselves as the most effective peace brokers in the broader Middle East during the 2000s. This proactive diplomacy in the Middle East was generally welcomed by the United States. By the mid-2000s, Washington had begun to acknowledge that Ankara’s and Doha’s active diplomacy in the Middle East actually served its interests by contributing to the peace and stability of the region, by creating a back channel for the US government to communicate with extremist/hostile actors inside and outside the revisionist bloc, and by facilitating these actors’ moderation and articulation to the global system.62 This diplomacy was also in accordance with the US-led broader Middle East Initiative, which aimed at fostering economic and political liberalization in the region.63 Turkish/Qatari relations and activism in the region entered into a new phase in the wake of the Arab Spring first movement, which brought about not only prospects but also new challenges for both countries.

The Rise of the Moderate Resistance Bloc Since the Arab Uprisings The burgeoning Turkish/Qatari alliance since the Arab Uprisings does have a significant impact on the power structure in the Middle East. Moving from this assumption, this section respectively analyzes the formation of a Turkey- and Qatar-led third bloc (the moderate resistance bloc) in the Middle East during the initial periods of the Arab Uprisings, the major setbacks this bloc faced in 2013–2014, its consolidation under

61 Yeşilyurt, “Orta Doğu’yla İlişkiler (Relations with the Middle East),” 438–51; Cooper and Momani, “Qatar and Expanded Contours,” 118–19. 62 Uzgel, “ABD’yle İlişkiler (Relations with the USA),” 264–69; Nuri Yeşilyurt and Atay Akdevelioğlu, “AKP Döneminde Türkiye’nin Ortadoğu Politikası (Turkey’s Middle East Policy during the JDP Period),” in AKP Kitabı: Bir Dönüşümün Bilançosu (JDP Book: Balance Sheet of a Transformation), ed. İlhan Uzgel and Bülent Duru (Ankara, 2009), 381–409; Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History, 124, 128, 134. 63 Jeremy M. Sharp, “The Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative: An Overview,” Washington, DC, February 15, 2005, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/ RS22053.pdf.

148  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM

external pressure since 2014, and the alternative strategy of this bloc, along with its regional implications.

Formative Years of the Turkish/Qatari-Led Bloc (2002–2013) Turkish/Qatari rapprochement can be traced back to the early 2000s. As discussed in the previous section, in the wake of US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Qatar and Turkey attempted to fill the regional power vacuum through the use of soft-power tools (2001–2011).64 In this context, the advent of the Arab Uprisings in the early 2010s brought about serious challenges to the soft-power-oriented policies of the two countries. Ankara and Doha’s regional policies faced the first major challenge during the initial period of the Arab Uprisings (2011–2013), during which they had two options. They would either maintain their previous stance, which mostly prioritized friendly relations with existing regimes, or they would lend their support to popular demonstrations at the expense of the ruling regimes. After initial reluctance, Turkey and Qatar adopted the second strategy and, accordingly, supported popular uprisings in, among others, Tunisia and Egypt against authoritarian regimes in the name of democracy and human rights.65 The two countries faced even more serious challenges in Libya and Syria, where peaceful demonstrations quickly turned into bloody civil wars. Although Turkey’s initial opposition to any foreign intervention in Libya created a dissonance with Qatar, which had been very interventionist from

64 Başkan, Turkey and Qatar in the Tangled Geopolitics, 33–81; Pala, “The Evolution of the Turkish–Qatari Relations.” 65 Even Turkey defined the emergence of new bloc under the leadership of Turkey and Egypt as “an axis of democracy” which is not against any country: Anthony Shadid, “Turkey Predicts Alliance with Egypt as Regional Anchors,” The New York Times, September 18, 2011, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/world/middleeast/ turkey-predicts-partnership-with-egypt-as-regional-anchors.html; Mustafa Yetim and Bilal Hamade, “The Impact of the ‘New’ Zero Problems Policy and the Arab Spring on the Relations between Turkey and Lebanese Factions,” Insight Turkey 16, no. 2 (2014): 69–72; and Mustafa Yetim, “State-Led Change in Qatar in the Wake of Arab Spring: Monarchical Country, Democratic Stance?” Contemporary Review of the Middle East 1, no. 4 (2014): 392–400, https://doi.org/10.1177/2347798914564847.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

149

the beginning, in the end, both countries became part of the NATO-led military campaign that toppled Qaddafi.66 In the Syrian crisis, Turkey used diplomatic channels to encourage the Assad regime to initiate necessary reforms, but once these efforts proved unsuccessful in August 2011, Ankara became a strong backer of political and military opposition in Syria.67 Likewise, Doha differed from most Arab regimes by closing its embassy in Damascus at an earlier stage (July 2011), and by becoming the first Arab state to call for foreign military intervention in Syria (January 2012).68 Chapter 7 in this book further explores Qatar’s policy regarding the Syrian crisis. The newly adopted pro-revolution stance of Ankara and Doha, however, hardly meant unconditional and unwavering support for all civil demonstrations in the Arab world. Considering Turkey’s, and especially Qatar’s, hesitant and silent position toward the Bahraini regime’s violent repression of Shia-led peaceful demonstrations in 2011, this conditionality becomes only more obvious.69 In this way, during the Bahrain demonstrations, Ankara and Doha refrained from unsettling the Saudiled status quo camp. Turkey and Qatar’s parallel regional posture in the early phase of the Arab Uprisings was the first and the most important indication of the emergence of a Qatari–Turkish bloc in the broader Middle East. More importantly, during this period, Ankara and Doha distinguished 66 Clifford Krauss, “For Qatar, Libyan Intervention May Be a Turning Point,” New York Times, April 3, 2011, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/world/middleeast/04qatar. html; “Erdoğan: Türkiye Libya’da arabulucu olabilir (Erdoğan: Turkey Can Act as a Mediator in Libya),” NTV, accessed March 29, 2011, https://www.ntv.com.tr/dunya/erdogan-turkiye-libyada-arabulucu-olabilir; and “Nato Operations in Libya: Data Journalism Breaks Down Which Country Does What,” The Guardian, May 22, 2011, https://www.theguardian.com/ news/datablog/2011/may/22/nato-libya-data-journalism-operations-country. 67 “6 Saatlik Kritik Görüşmeden Ilk Detaylar (First Details of the 6 Hours-Long Critical Meting),” Hürriyet, August 9, 2011, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/6-saatlik-kritik-gorusmeden-ilk-detaylar-18446872; Liam Stack, “In Slap at Syria, Turkey Shelters Anti-Assad Fighters,” New York Times, October 27, 2011, https://www.nytimes. com/2011/10/28/world/europe/turkey-is-sheltering-antigovernment-syrian-militia.html. 68 Ian Black, “Qatar breaks Arab Ranks over Syria,” The Guardian, July 21, 2011, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/21/qatar-syria-ian-black; Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, “Qatar and the Arab Spring: Policy Drivers and Regional Implications,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 24, 2014, https://carnegieendowment. org/2014/09/24/qatar-and-arab-spring-policy-drivers-and-regional-implications-pub-56723. 69 Ennis and Momani, “Shaping the Middle East,” 1135–37.

150  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM

themselves from the two preexisting regional blocs by becoming the main sponsors of the leading Islamist opposition movement in the Arab world: the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Indeed, both Turkey and Qatar established intimate relations with Ennahda in Tunisia, the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Syria, the Justice and Construction Party (JCP) in Libya, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) in Egypt, and Hamas in Palestine, all of which are MB affiliates (see Table 14.1).70 The electoral victories of Ennahda in 2011 and FJP in 2012 resulted in the formation of MB-led governments in Tunisia and Egypt, and the rise of Turkish and Qatari influence in these countries.71 Developing relations among these countries during the initial period of the Arab Uprisings strengthened the idea that a third bloc was forming in the Middle East.72

70 F. Gregory Gause, “What the Qatar Crisis Shows about the Middle East,” in The Qatar Crisis (Washington, DC: The Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS), 2017), 10–12, https://pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_ Qatar-Crisis.pdf; HAMAS started to keep the resistance camp at arm’s length first by moving its headquarters from Syria to Qatar, and second, by declaring a new charter in May 2017. Hamas’s partial shift from revisionist bloc may strengthen the sectarian nature of the revisionist bloc since all the remaining actors in this bloc are Shiite. See “Hamas Accepts Palestinian State with 1967 Borders,” Al Jazeera English, May 2, 2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-1967-borders-170501114309725.html; Beverley Milton‐Edwards, “Hamas and the Arab Spring: Strategic Shifts?” Middle East Policy 20, no. 3 (2013): 64–70, https://doi.org/10.1111/ mepo.12033; and Mohns and Bank, “Syrian Revolt Fallout,” 25–35. 71 Turkey’s rising influence in the broader Middle East was recognized both by regional and international observers. See Mehmet Akif Kireççi, ed., Arap Baharı ve Türkiye Modeli Tartışmaları (Arab Spring and Turkey: Debates on Turkish Model) (Ankara: ASEM, 2014); Paul Kubicek, “Debating the Merits of the ‘Turkish Model’ for Democratization in the Middle East,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018), 145–70. 72 Amour, “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics,” 9; Philipp O. Amour, “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East: A Strategic Assessment,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 299–308, https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1185696.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

151

Setbacks to the Moderate Resistance Bloc (2013–2014) The July 2013 military coup of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi against the MB-led government of Mohamed Morsi in Egypt was the most serious challenge against consolidation of the moderate resistance bloc.73 By supporting the Sisi-led coup, the status quo bloc clearly demonstrated that it is not only against the Iranian-led Shia Crescent, but it is equally against the formation of an Ikhwan Crescent in the Middle East.74 Thanks to its location, population, and military strength, Egypt has always been a principal regional great power. It is also the center and birthplace of the MB, which is currently defined by the status quo bloc as the gravest threat to regional stability and peace.75 Thus, the successful ouster of the MB-led government in Egypt caused serious restraints on Turkey and Qatar’s MB-oriented regional policy. After the fall of Morsi, Egypt’s slide toward the status quo camp under the Sisi administration constituted an important setback for the moderate resistance bloc’s MB-oriented regional policy. Meanwhile, the Ennahdaled government in Tunisia failed to provide stability in the country, and stepped down in January 2014. Moreover, it lost the following parliamentary elections to its secularist rival.76 Overall, the failure of MB-led governments to survive in Egypt and Tunisia seriously restrained the scope and power of the moderate resistance bloc in regional politics. In other parts of the region, the Arab Uprisings entered into a second phase as conflicts in Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Iraq intensified and resulted in the effective disintegration of these countries. In this chaotic atmosphere, extremist armed movements, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and other Al-Qaeda affiliates, prevailed, while the power and influence of the MB affiliates considerably declined. 73 See Philipp O. Amour, “Editor’s Note: The End of the Arab Spring?” ed. Philipp O. Amour, The Arab Spring: Comparative Perspectives and Regional Implications, Special issue, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations 12, no. 3 (Fall 2013): I–IV. 74 Jeffrey Goldberg, “The Modern King in the Arab Spring,” The Atlantic, 2013, 13–15, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/monarch-in-the-middle/309270. 75 Hedges and Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood,” 129–53. 76 Carlotta Gall, “Tunisia’s Premier Resigns, Formally Ending His Party’s Rule,” The New York Times, January 9, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/world/ middleeast/tunisias-leader-resigns.html; Eileen Byrne, “Tunisia’s Islamist Party Ennahda Accepts Defeat in Elections,” The Guardian, October 27, 2014, https://www.theguardian. com/world/2014/oct/27/tunisia-islamist-ennahda-accept-defeat-elections.

152  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM

In face of these existential threats, Turkey and Qatar mostly left their previous soft-power-oriented policies aside (i.e., zero problems with neighbors, hedging), and became more involved in the Syrian and Libyan civil wars by lending both political and military support to their proxies, though with little hope of a supreme outcome.77

The Moderate Resistance Bloc: Consolidation Under Pressure Within the context of these setbacks, Qatar’s new Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, faced intense pressure from the Saudis and their allies in March 2014 to change Qatar’s foreign policy orientation.78 Yet, this pressure did not dissuade Ankara and Doha from intensifying bilateral military, political, and economic relations. In December 2014, the two countries signed important agreements that formed a High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council, deepened military cooperation, and allowed Turkey to build a military base in Qatar.79 As an indication of the mutual trust between the two leaders, Sheikh Tamim was the first leader to call Turkish president Erdoğan and express his support during the failed coup attempt on July 15, 2016.80 The resurgence of Saudi-led pressures against Qatar in June 2017 further intensified the Turkish/Qatari alliance in many senses. Ankara immediately backed Doha and relieved the economic and humanitarian costs of the Saudi-led blockade. Even more importantly, Turkey strengthened its 77 Jonathan Schanzer, “Turkey’s Secret Proxy War in Libya?” Text, The National Interest, March 17, 2015, https://nationalinterest.org/feature/turkeys-secret-proxy-warlibya-12430; Giorgio Cafiero and Daniel Wagner, “Turkey and Qatar: Close Allies, Sharing a Doomed Syria Policy,” The Huffington Post, October 11, 2015, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/giorgio-cafiero/turkey-and-qatar-close-al_b_8512336.html. 78 Ian Black, “Arab States Withdraw Ambassadors from Qatar in Protest at Interference,” The Guardian, March 5, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/ arab-states-qatar-withdraw-ambassadors-protest. 79 Serkan Demirtaş, “İşte Katar Ile Askeri Anlaşmanın Detayları (The Details of the Military Agreement with Qatar),” Hürriyet, June 9, 2015, www.hurriyet.com.tr/ dunya/29234032.asp; The two countries had signed military cooperation agreement firstly in 2007. See also Pala, “The Evolution of the Turkish–Qatari Relations,” 48. 80 Mohammed Osman, “Emir Was First Leader to Call Erdogan: Qatar Envoy,” The Peninsula, July 18, 2016, https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/qatar/387615/ emir-was-first-leader-to-call-erdogan-qatar-envoy.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

153

military base in Qatar to deter any possible invasion of Qatar. These steps greatly helped solidification of the alliance between Ankara and Doha.81 Moreover, in 2017, the trade volume between the two countries reached 679 million USD, up from 132 million USD in 2005.82 The 2017 Qatar crisis (explored in Chapter 2) clearly demonstrated that the Saudi-led status quo bloc is still worried about Ankara and Doha’s growing alliance and their continuing ties with the MB-affiliated groups throughout the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. Hence, the status quo bloc’s activities remain the major challenge against the consolidation and expansion of the moderate resistance bloc. Nevertheless, Turkey and Qatar seem able to hold their ground against these pressures and pursue their alternative regional strategy. It is now time to shed some light on this alternative strategy and its implications for the regional power structure.

Alternative Strategy and Its Implications for the Moderate Resistance Bloc The authors of this chapter regard the emerging Turkey–Qatar-led bloc as a major power constellation in the regional system of the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. It was named as the moderate resistance bloc since it carries both revisionist and status quo preferences at the same time.83 In contrast to the revisionist bloc, the moderate resistance bloc hardly positions itself as anti-Western and anti-Israel. To the contrary, it maintains security partnerships with the United States, and, despite all difficulties, amicable relations with Israel, just like the status 81 Marc Lynch, “The GCC Crisis in Perspective,” in The Qatar Crisis (Washington, DC: The Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS), 2017), 3–5, https://pomeps. org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf; Marc Lynch, “Three Big Lessons of the Qatar Crisis,” in The Qatar Crisis (Washington, DC: The Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS), 2017), 14–17, https://pomeps.org/ wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf. 82 “Ülkelere Göre Dış Ticaret (Foreign Trade with Regards to Countries),” Turkish Statistical Institute, accessed May 27, 2018, https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/disticaretapp/disticaret.zul?param1=4¶m2=0&sitcrev=0&isicrev=0&sayac=5808. 83 This is also reflected in Turkey’s multilateral engagement policy. This concept was originally developed to explain Turkey’s regional position during Arab Uprisings, but it can be also used as a general concept to understand the moderate resistance bloc’s regional activism. See Ulutaş and Duran, “Traditional Rivalry or Regional Design,” 93–96.

154  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM

quo bloc. Yet, unlike the status quo bloc, the moderate resistance bloc does not refrain from criticizing US policies toward regional issues such as the Syrian civil war or from directly condemning Israeli aggressions toward the Palestinians and Lebanon. Furthermore, in opposition to the status quo bloc, Qatar and Turkey never ignored Iran’s critical role in the region,84 and they built strong relations with emerging global powers, such as Russia, China, and India. So, in a sense, the moderate resistance bloc seems to be much more pragmatic and flexible in its foreign policy formulation than are the other two blocs. This was most obvious when Turkey and Iran were congruent in supporting Qatar against the Saudi-led blockade in 2017, despite the deep conflicts among themselves regarding the future of Syria.85 Turkey’s collaboration with Iran and Russia during the ongoing Astana process is another indication of the pragmatic nature and balanced position of the moderate resistance bloc.86 The Turkey–Qatar-led third bloc’s relations with the Iranian-led revisionist bloc were also fluctuating. The relations between these two blocs were seriously strained, mainly due to their divergent policies toward the Syrian crisis. While Iran regarded the possible fall of the Assad regime as an existential threat to the maintenance of the revisionist bloc/resistance axis, Ankara and Doha fully supported the opposition groups like SNC 84 Armstrong, “Interview: Birol Başkan”; Mohns and Bank, “Syrian Revolt Fallout,” 33; and Seth J. Frantzman, “Turkey’s P ­ ower-Play in Qatar Leads to Warmer Relations with Iran,” The Jerusalem Post, July 1, 2017, https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/ Turkeys-power-play-in-Qatar-leads-to-warmer-relations-with-Iran-498468. 85 “How Turkey Stood by Qatar amid the Gulf Crisis,” Al Jazeera English, October 14, 2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/turkey-stood-qatar-gulf-crisis-171114135404142.html; Saeed Al-Haj, “Analysis: The Implications of the Qatar– Turkey Alliance,” Al Jazeera English, June 18, 2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/ indepth/features/2017/06/implications-qatar-turkey-alliance-170618110726262.html. 86 This collaboration between Turkey and Iran is being severely criticized by status quo camp members such that Turkey was allegedly described as a “triangle of evil” with Iran and Islamist groups by KSA’s MbS. See “Saudi Prince Says Turkey Part of ‘Triangle of Evil’: Egyptian Media,” Reuters, March 7, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-turkey/saudi-prince-says-turkey-part-of-triangle-of-evil-egyptian-media-idUSKCN1GJ1WW; W. Robert Pearson, “Saudi–Turkey Ties Take a Turn for the Worse,” Middle East Institute, March 8, 2018, http://www.mei.edu/content/article/ saudi-turkey-ties-take-turn-worse; and “Iran, Turkey, Qatar Increasing Threat to Arab Region: Sisi,” Egypt Independent, April 17, 2018, https://www.egyptindependent.com/ iran-turkey-qatar-increasing-threat-to-arab-region-sisi/.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

155

and FSA.87 Furthermore, Iran has occasionally leveled severe criticisms against Turkey’s ongoing military activities and operations in Syria. It seems that Turkey’s gradual shift to ­hard-power-oriented strategies in the Middle East and its growing military presence in Iraq and Syria seriously concerns the Iranian regime as well. In addition, Turkey’s and Qatar’s growing relations with Hamas and their harsh reactions to Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians pose a challenge to Iran’s image of being the most prominent champion of the Palestinian cause. In other words, the emergence of the moderate resistance is not in the best strategic interests of the status quo bloc nor for the revisionist bloc. In a nutshell, there seems to be an emergent third bloc in the Middle East that acts as a balancing player between the other two blocs. In this sense, both Ankara and Doha declared vocal support for Saudi-led military initiatives, such as Operation Decisive Storm in Yemen, and participated in the Islamic Military Counterterrorism Alliance in 2015 to limit increasing Iranian influence over the region.88 Yet, at the same time, they leveled harsh criticisms against the 2013 military coup in Egypt, along with the revisionist camp,89 and have cooperated with it in the Syrian crisis under the framework of Astana Process since 2017.

Conclusion The Middle East is no longer a bipolar regional system. As a result of the emerging Turkish/Qatari alliance and their sponsorship of MB affiliates in the region, the regional system in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East was transformed into a tripolar regional system during the initial years of the Arab Uprisings. Despite the setbacks of 2013–2014, Qatar and Turkey went further in deepening bilateral relations and sticking to their alternative regional strategy mentioned above, which can 87 Galip Dalay, “Is There Really a Turkey–Iran Rapprochement?” Al Jazeera English, September 13, 2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/09/turkeyiran-rapprochement-170907101356869.html. 88 “Turkey Supports Saudi Mission in Yemen, Says Iran Must Withdraw,” France 24, March 27, 2015, http://www.france24.com/en/20150326-turkey-support-saudi-yemen-erdogan-interview-france-24; Mohammed Al Qalisi, “Qatar Loses Its First Soldier in Yemen,” The National, November 12, 2015, https://www.thenational.ae/world/ qatar-loses-its-first-soldier-in-yemen-1.47850. 89 “World Reaction to the Ousting of Egypt’s Mohammed Morsi,” BBC News, July 4, 2013, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23175379.

156  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM

best be described as moderate resistance. Currently, the moderate resistance bloc adopts a pragmatic approach in its global and regional engagements and attempts to play a balancing act between the revisionist and status quo blocs in order to prevent domination of either one over the region. If not inhibited by future domestic and international transformations, the moderate resistance bloc seems set to continue its institutionalization and consolidation over time. However, it seems that as long as MB-affiliated movements remain weak and isolated throughout the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East, the moderate resistance bloc will have little chance of expansion beyond the borders of Qatar and Turkey and other non-state actors.

Bibliography Al-Haj, Saeed. “Analysis: The Implications of the Qatar–Turkey Alliance.” Al Jazeera English, June 18, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/06/implications-qatar-turkey-alliance-170618110726262.html. Al-Husseini, Rola. “Hezbollah and the Axis of Refusal: Hamas, Iran and Syria.” Third World Quarterly 31, no. 5 (2010): 809–910. https://doi.org/10.1080 /01436597.2010.502695. Al Jazeera English. “Hamas Accepts Palestinian State with 1967 Borders,” May 2, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-1967-borders-170501114309725.html. ———. “How Turkey Stood by Qatar amid the Gulf Crisis,” October 14, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/turkey-stood-qatar-gulf-crisis171114135404142.html. Al Jazeera Türk. “Portre: Ahmet Davutoğlu,” May 5, 2016. http://www.aljazeera.com.tr/portre/portre-ahmet-davutoglu. Al Qalisi, Mohammed. “Qatar Loses Its First Soldier in Yemen.” The National, November 12, 2015. https://www.thenational.ae/world/qatar-loses-its-firstsoldier-in-yemen-1.47850. Al Tamamy, Saud. “GCC Membership Expansion: Possibilities and Obstacles.” In Gulf Cooperation Council’s Challenges and Prospects, 70–77. Al Jazeera Center for Studies, 2014. http://studies.aljazeera.net/mritems/ Documents/2015/3/31/2015331131534662734Gulf%20Cooperation.pdf. Amour, Philipp O. “Editor’s Note: The End of the Arab Spring?” Edited by Philipp O. Amour. The Arab Spring: Comparative Perspectives and Regional Implications, Special issue, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations 12, no. 3 (Fall 2013): I–IV.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

157

———. “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement Within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives.” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31. https://doi.org/10.18506/ anemon.384773. ———. “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East: A Strategic Assessment.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353 0194.2016.1185696. ———. “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction.” In The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 1–21. St. James’s Studies in World Affairs. Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018. Arabian Business. “Revealed: Qatar Investment Authority’s Investments across the World,” May 17, 2017. http://www.arabianbusiness.com/revealed-qatar-investment-authority-s-investments-across-world-674254.html. Aras, Bülent. “Turkey’s Mediation and Friends of Mediation Initiative.” SAM Papers. Ankara: Center for Strategic Research (SAM), December 2012. http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SAM_Papers_No.4Dec12.pdf. Armstrong, William. “Interview: Birol Başkan on Turkey and Qatar’s Alliance in the Tangled Middle East.” Hurriyet Daily News, June 24, 2017. http://www. hurriyetdailynews.com/interview-birol-baskan-on-turkey-and-qatars-alliancein-the-tangled-middle-east-114696. Başkan, Birol. Turkey and Qatar in the Tangled Geopolitics of the Middle East. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. BBC News. “Life Sentences for Qatari Coup Plotters,” February 29, 2000. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/660887.stm. ———. “World Reaction to the Ousting of Egypt’s Mohammed Morsi,” July 4, 2013. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23175379. Black, Ian. “Arab States Withdraw Ambassadors from Qatar in Protest at Interference.” The Guardian, March 5, 2014. https://www.theguardian. com/world/2014/mar/05/arab-states-qatar-withdraw-ambassadors-protest. ———. “Qatar Breaks Arab Ranks over Syria.” The Guardian, July 21, 2011. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/21/qatar-syria-ian-black. Bollier, Sam. “Can Qatar Replace Its Renaissance Man?” Al Jazeera English, June 26, 2013. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/06/ 201362613431469150.html. Byrne, Eileen. “Tunisia’s Islamist Party Ennahda Accepts Defeat in Elections.” The Guardian, October 27, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ oct/27/tunisia-islamist-ennahda-accept-defeat-elections.

158  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM Cafiero, Giorgio, and Daniel Wagner. “Turkey and Qatar: Close Allies, Sharing a Doomed Syria Policy.” The Huffington Post, October 11, 2015. https://www. huffingtonpost.com/giorgio-cafiero/turkey-and-qatar-close-al_b_8512336. html. Cleveland, William L., and Martin Bunton. A History of the Middle East. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2009. Cockburn, Patrick. “Emir of Qatar Deposed by His Son,” June 8, 1995. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/emir-of-qatar-deposed-by-hisson-1588698.html. “Coğrafi Ülke Grubu ve Fasıllara Göre Dış Ticaret (Foreign Trade with Regards to Geographical Country Groups and Sections).” Turkish Statistical Institute. Accessed May 27, 2018. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/disticaretapp/disticaret. zul?param1=5¶m2=21&sitcrev=0&isicrev=0&sayac=5809. Cooper, Anrew F., and Besma Momani. “Qatar and Expanded Contours of Small State Diplomacy.” The International Spectator 46, no. 3 (September 2011): 113–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2011.576181. Dalay, Galip. “Is There Really a Turkey–Iran Rapprochement?” Al Jazeera English, September 13, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/09/turkey-iran-rapprochement-170907101356869.html. Dargin, Justin. “Qatar’s Natural Gas: The Foreign-Policy Driver.” Middle East Policy 14, no. 3 (2007): 136–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1475-4967.2007.00318.x. Davutoğlu, Ahmet. Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu (Strategic Depth: Turkey’s International Position). Istanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2008. Demirtaş, Serkan. “İşte Katar Ile Askeri Anlaşmanın Detayları (The Details of the Military Agreement with Qatar).” Hürriyet, June 9, 2015. www.hurriyet.com. tr/dunya/29234032.asp. Deseret News. “Prince Deposes Father in Qatar Palace Coup,” June 27, 1995. https://www.deseret.com/1995/6/27/19179334/prince-deposes-fatherin-qatar-palace-coup. Egypt Independent. “Iran, Turkey, Qatar Increasing Threat to Arab Region: Sisi,” April 17, 2018. https://www.egyptindependent.com/iran-turkey-qatarincreasing-threat-to-arab-region-sisi/. Ehteshami, Anoushiravan. “The Foreign Policy of Iran.” In The Foreign Policies of Middle East States, edited by Raymond A. Hinnebusch and Anoushiravan Ehteshami, 283–311. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2002. Ekşi, Muharrem. Kamu Diplomasisi ve Ak Parti Dönemi Türk Dış Politikası (Public diplomacy and foreign policy of JDP Period). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi, 2014. Ennis, Crystal A., and Bessma Momani. “Shaping the Middle East in the Midst of the Arab Uprisings: Turkish and Saudi Foreign Policy Strategies.” Third World Quarterly 34, no. 6 (2013): 1127–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/014 36597.2013.802503.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

159

Fırat, Melek, and Ömer Kürkçüoğlu. “Orta Doğu’yla İlişkiler (Relations with the Middle East).” In Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt I: 1919–1980 (Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume I: 1919–1980), edited by Baskın Oran, 784–96. İstanbul: İletişim, 2009. Foreign Economic Relations Council. “Türkiye – Ortadoğu ve Körfez İş Konseyleri (Turkey—Middle East and Gulf Business Councils).” Accessed May 27, 2018. https://www.deik.org.tr/turkiye-ortadogu-ve-korfez-is-konseyleri. France24. “Turkey Supports Saudi Mission in Yemen, Says Iran Must Withdraw,” March 27, 2015. http://www.france24.com/en/20150326-turkey-supportsaudi-yemen-erdogan-interview-france-24. Frantzman, Seth J. “Turkey’s Power-Play in Qatar Leads to Warmer Relations with Iran.” The Jerusalem Post, July 1, 2017. https://www.jpost.com/ArabIsraeli-Conflict/Turkeys-power-play-in-Qatar-leads-to-warmer-relations-withIran-498468. Fromherz, Allen J. Qatar: A Modern History. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2012. Gall, Carlotta. “Tunisia’s Premier Resigns, Formally Ending His Party’s Rule.” The New York Times, January 9, 2014. https://www.nytimes. com/2014/01/10/world/middleeast/tunisias-leader-resigns.html. Gause, F. Gregory. “Revolution and Threat Perception: Iran and the Middle East.” International Politics 52, no. 5 (2015): 637–45. https://doi.org/10.1057/ ip.2015.27. ———. “What the Qatar Crisis Shows about the Middle East.” In The Qatar Crisis, 10–12. Washington, DC: The Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS), 2017. https://pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf. “Global Energy Statistical Yearbook 2017: Natural Gas Production,” May 27, 2018. https://yearbook.enerdata.net/natural-gas/world-natural-gas-production-statistics.html. Goldberg, Jeffrey. “The Modern King in the Arab Spring.” The Atlantic, 2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/ monarch-in-the-middle/309270. Gürsel, Seyfettin. “Ekonomi (Economy).” In Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt III: 2001– 2012 (Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume III 2001–2012), edited by Baskın Oran, 52–70. İstanbul: İletişim, 2013. Hale, William M. Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. Hanieh, Adam. Capitalism and Class in the Gulf Arab States. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Haşimi, Cemalettin. “Turkey’s Humanitarian Diplomacy and Development Cooperation.” Insight Turkey 16, no. 1 (Winter 2014): 127–45.

160  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM Hedges, Matthew, and Giorgio Cafiero. “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood: What Does Future Hold?” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 129–53. Hinnebusch, Raymond. “The Sectarian Revolution in the Middle East.” Global Trends and Regional Issues 4, no. 1 (2016): 120–52. Hürriyet. “6 Saatlik Kritik Görüşmeden Ilk Detaylar (First Details of the 6 Hours-Long Critical Meting),” August 9, 2011. http://www.hurriyet.com. tr/gundem/6-saatlik-kritik-gorusmeden-ilk-detaylar-18446872. Jackson, Jamie. “Qatar Wins 2022 World Cup Bid.” The Guardian, December 2, 2010. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/dec/02/qatar-win2022-world-cup-bid. Jehl, Douglas. “Young Turk of the Gulf: Emir of Qatar.” The New York Times, July 10, 1997. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/10/world/young-turkof-the-gulf-emir-of-qatar.html. Kamrava, Mehran. “Mediation and Qatari Foreign Policy.” Middle East Journal 65, no. 4 (Autumn 2011): 539–56. Katzman, Kenneth. “Qatar: Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy.” CRS Report. Congressional Research Service, 2018. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/ mideast/R44533.pdf. Kerr, Malcom. The Arab Cold War 1958–1967: A Study of Ideology in Politics. 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1967. Khatib, Lina. “Qatar’s Foreign Policy: The Limits of Pragmatism.” International Affairs 89, no. 2 (2013): 417–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12025. Kireççi, Mehmet Akif, ed. Arap Baharı ve Türkiye Modeli Tartışmaları (Arab Spring and Turkey: Debates on Turkish Model). Ankara: ASEM, 2014. Kirişçi, Kemal. “The Transformation of Turkish Foreign Policy: The Rise of the Trading State.” New Perspectives on Turkey 40 (2009): 29–57. Krauss, Clifford. “For Qatar, Libyan Intervention May Be a Turning Point.” New York Times, April 3, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/ world/middleeast/04qatar.html. Kubicek, Paul. “Debating the Merits of the ‘Turkish Model’ for Democratization in the Middle East.” In The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 145–70. St. James’s Studies in World Affairs. Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018. Leverett, Flynt, and Hillary Mann Leverett. “The United States, Iran and the Middle East’s New ‘Cold War.’” The International Spectator 45, no. 1 (2010): 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932721003661624. Lynch, Marc. “The GCC Crisis in Perspective.” In The Qatar Crisis, 3–5. Washington, DC: The Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS), 2017. https://pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_ GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf.

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

161

———. “Three Big Lessons of the Qatar Crisis.” In The Qatar Crisis, 14–17. Washington, DC: The Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS), 2017. https://pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_ Qatar-Crisis.pdf. Mansfield, Peter, and Nicolas Pelham. A History of the Middle East. New York: Penguin Books, 2013. Milton‐Edwards, Beverley. “Hamas and the Arab Spring: Strategic Shifts?” Middle East Policy 20, no. 3 (2013): 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/mepo.12033. Mohns, Erik, and André Bank. “Syrian Revolt Fallout: End of the Resistance Axis?” Middle East Policy 9, no. 3 (2012): 25–35. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1475-4967.2012.00545.x. “Nato Operations in Libya: Data Journalism Breaks Down Which Country Does What.” The Guardian, May 22, 2011. https://www.theguardian.com/news/ datablog/2011/may/22/nato-libya-data-journalism-operations-country. NTV. “Erdoğan: Türkiye Libya’da arabulucu olabilir (Erdoğan: Turkey Can Act as a Mediator in Libya).” Accessed March 29, 2011. https://www.ntv.com. tr/dunya/erdogan-turkiye-libyada-arabulucu-olabilir. O.E.C.D. “Qatar’s Development Co-Operation,” May 27, 2018. http://www. oecd.org/dac/stats/qatars-development-co-operation.htm. Osman, Mohammed. “Emir Was First Leader to Call Erdogan: Qatar Envoy.” The Peninsula, July 18, 2016. https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/ qatar/387615/emir-was-first-leader-to-call-erdogan-qatar-envoy. Pala, Özgür. “The Evolution of the Turkish–Qatari Relations from 2002 to 2013: Convergence of Policies, Identities and Interests.” MA thesis, Qatar University, 2012. Pala, Özgür, and Bülent Aras. “Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in the Turkish and Qatari Foreign Policy on the Arab Spring.” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 17, no. 3 (2015): 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/1944 8953.2015.1063274. Pearson, W. Robert. “Saudi–Turkey Ties Take a Turn for the Worse.” Middle East Institute, March 8, 2018. http://www.mei.edu/content/article/ saudi-turkey-ties-take-turn-worse. Peterson, J.E. “Qatar and the World: Branding for a Micro-State.” Middle East Journal 60, no. 4 (Autumn 2006): 732–48. Qatar Foundation. “About Qatar Foundation,” May 26, 2018. https://www. qf.org.qa/about. Rathmel, Andrew, and Kirsten Schulze. “Political Reform in the Gulf: The Case of Qatar.” Middle Eastern Studies 36, no. 4 (October 2000): 47–62. Reuters. “Saudi Prince Says Turkey Part of ‘Triangle of Evil’: Egyptian Media,” March 7, 2018. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-turkey/saudiprince-says-turkey-part-of-triangle-of-evil-egyptian-media-idUSKCN1GJ1WW.

162  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM Roberts, David B. “Understanding Qatar’s Foreign Policy Objectives.” Mediterranean Politics 17, no. 2 (July 2012): 233–39. https://doi.org/10.1 080/13629395.2012.695123. Schanzer, Jonathan. “Turkey’s Secret Proxy War in Libya?” Text. The National Interest, March 17, 2015. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ turkeys-secret-proxy-war-libya-12430. Selçuk, Orçun. “Turkish Airlines as a Soft Power Tool in the Context of Turkish Foreign Policy.” MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, 2012. Shadid, Anthony. “Turkey Predicts Alliance with Egypt as Regional Anchors.” The New York Times, September 18, 2011. https://www. nytimes.com/2011/09/19/world/middleeast/turkey-predicts-partnership-with-egypt-as-regional-anchors.html. Sharp, Jeremy M. “The Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative: An Overview.” Washington, DC, February 15, 2005. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/ mideast/RS22053.pdf. “Sheikh Ḥamad Ibn Khalīfah Āl Thānī.” In Britannica Academic, May 1, 2018. https://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/Sheikh-%E1%B8%A4amadibn-Khal%C4%ABfah-%C4%80l-Th%C4%81n%C4%AB/475728. Stack, Liam. “In Slap at Syria, Turkey Shelters Anti-Assad Fighters.” New York Times, October 27, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/world/ europe/turkey-is-sheltering-antigovernment-syrian-militia.html. SWFI Institute. “Top 81 Largest Sovereign Wealth Fund Rankings by Total Assets,” May 27, 2018. https://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/ sovereign-wealth-fund. Taylor, Alan. The Arab Balance of Power. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1982. “THY’ye ‘En Çok Ülkeye Uçan Havayolu’ Unvanı (Turkish Airlines Receives ‘Largest Airline by Number of Countries Served’ Title).” Sabah, October 3, 2012. https://www.sabah.com.tr/ekonomi/2012/10/03/ thyye-en-cok-ulkeye-ucan-havayolu-unvani. Tok, M. Evren, Jason J. McSparren, and Michael Olender. “The Perpetuation of Regime Security in Gulf Cooperation Council States: A Multi‐Lens Approach.” Digest of Middle East Studies 26, no. 1 (2017): 150–69. https:// doi.org/10.1111/dome.12105. Torun, Zerrin. “The Debate on ‘Turkey as a Role Model’ (1990–2011).” Avrasya Etüdleri 49, no. 1 (2016): 7–32. Turkish Ministry of Economy. “Yurtdışı Müteahhitlik Hizmetleri Genel Notu (General Notes on Contracting Services Abroad).” Accessed May 27, 2018. https://www.ekonomi.gov.tr/portal/content/ conn/UCM/path/Contribution%20Folders/web/Hizmet%20 Ticareti/Sekt%c3%b6rler%20ve%20Destek%20Programlar%c4%b1/02. Yurtd%c4%b1%c5%9f%c4%b1%20M%c3%bcteahhitlik%20ve%20Teknik%20

5  EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 

163

M%c3%bc%c5%9favirlik%28YDMH%29/Genel%20M%c3%bcteahhitlik%20 Notu%2002.05.2018.docx?lve. ———. “Yürürlükte Bulunan STA’lar (FTA’s in Force).” Accessed May 27, 2018. https://www.ekonomi.gov.tr/portal/faces/home/disIliskiler/ SerbestTic/SerbestTic-YururlukteBulunanSTA. Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Uyuşmazlıkların Çözümü ve Arabuluculuk (Conflict Resolution and Mediation).” Accessed May 27, 2018. http://www. mfa.gov.tr/uyusmazliklarin-cozumu-ve-arabuluculuk.tr.mfa. Turkish Statistical Institute. “Ülkelere Göre Dış Ticaret (Foreign Trade with Regards to Countries).” Accessed May 27, 2018. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/disticaretapp/disticaret.zul?param1=4¶m2=0&sitcrev=0&isicrev=0&sayac=5808. Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates. “Qatar and the Arab Spring: Policy Drivers and Regional Implications.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 24, 2014. https://carnegieendowment.org/2014/09/24/ qatar-and-arab-spring-policy-drivers-and-regional-implications-pub-56723. Ulutaş, Ufuk, and Burhanettin Duran. “Traditional Rivalry or Regional Design in the Middle East?” Insight Turkey 20, no. 2 (Spring 2018): 81–105. Uzgel, İlhan. “ABD’yle İlişkiler (Relations with the USA).” In Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt III: 2001–2012 (Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume III: ­2001-2012), edited by Baskın Oran, 246–336. İstanbul: İletişim, 2013. ———. “AKP: Neoliberal Dönüşmün Yeni Aktörü (AKP: The New Actor of Neoliberal Transformation).” In AKP Kitabı: Bir Dönüşümün Bilançosu (AKP Book: Balance Sheet of a Transformation), edited by Bülent Duru and İlhan Uzgel, 11–39. Ankara: Phoenix, 2009. “World LNG Report.” IGU World LNG Report. International Gas Union (IGU), 2017. https://www.igu.org/sites/default/files/103419-World_ IGU_Report_no%20crops.pdf. World Trade Organization. “The Doha Round,” May 5, 2019. https://www. wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm. Wright, Robin, and Peter Baker. “Iraq, Jordan See Threat to Election from Iran.” Washington Post, December 8, 2004. www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/articles/A43980-2004Dec7.html. Yeşilyurt, Nuri. “Orta Doğu’yla İlişkiler (Relations with the Middle East).” In Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt III: 2001–2012 (Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume III: 2001–2012), edited by Baskın Oran, 401–52. İstanbul: İletişim, 2013. Yeşilyurt, Nuri, and Atay Akdevelioğlu. “AKP Döneminde Türkiye’nin Ortadoğu Politikası (Turkey’s Middle East Policy during the JDP Period).” In AKP Kitabı: Bir Dönüşümün Bilançosu (JDP Book: Balance Sheet of a Transformation), edited by İlhan Uzgel and Bülent Duru, 381–409. Ankara: Phoenix, 2009.

164  N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM Yetim, Mustafa. “State-Led Change in Qatar in the Wake of Arab Spring: Monarchical Country, Democratic Stance?” Contemporary Review of the Middle East 1, no. 4 (2014): 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347798914564847. Yetim, Mustafa, and Bilal Hamade. “The Impact of the ‘New’ Zero Problems Policy and the Arab Spring on the Relations between Turkey and Lebanese Factions.” Insight Turkey 16, no. 2 (2014): 69–77.

PART II

State Actors and Non–state Militant Actors in the Regional System

CHAPTER 6

Expanding the Turkish Bid for Regional Control in the Somali Regional Security Complexes Stephanie Carver

Introduction The arrival of then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the Somali capital in August 2011 signaled a watershed moment in the relationship between Mogadishu and Ankara. Not only did Erdoğan set a new model for engagement with the Federal Republic of Somalia (hereafter, Somalia) by becoming the first state leader to venture into the war-torn country from outside the Horn of Africa region1; it has also been interpreted as a sign of Turkey’s intention to become a leading player in the Horn of Africa region, among other dimensions, through engaging in areas of security provision, economic support, extensive aid programs, and emergency humanitarian assistance. 1 The

Horn of Africa includes countries of Djibouti, Eretria, Ethiopia, and Somalia; broader definitions include as well part of or all of Sudan, Uganda and Kenya. The author of this article follows the later category.

S. Carver (*)  Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_6

167

168  S. CARVER

Turkish engagement with the Somali government provided a new model of engagement between the two countries. In order to dispel the criticism leveled against other donor states as overly bureaucratic and “invisible” to the Somali community by operating from Nairobi or bunkered in compounds around strategic sites,2 Ankara created its own Turkish model of engagement in Somalia. Drawing on soft power, the Turkish model of engagement in Somalia has been intentionally designed to be the opposite; that is, it is visible and responsive in providing different dimensions of assistance to the East African state. The result has been a model of engagement that is characterized by what Ankara has deemed a humanistic approach in responding to humanitarian threats and includes a much-prized visible, onsite presence in the Somali state. This framework and language underpin Turkey’s engagement within the region and colors Turkey’s involvement with numerous regional security regimes operating within Somalia. While Turkey has previously held positions within regional security regimes, including the African Union (AU), the East African Community (EAC), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Ankara has increasingly prioritized unilateral engagement within the region to bypass the bureaucratic red tape that retards speed and efficiency.3 This chapter presents the argument that Ankara’s multifaceted ­engagement within the Horn region security complex could suggest that Turkey is well-positioned to become a key regional player with impacts on the configurations of power within the region of the Horn of Africa. Indeed, Turkey’s Somali agenda has sparked claims from international analysts of Turkey’s changing status from a Regional Power4 or even

2 Onur Sazak and Auveen Elizabeth Woods, “Thinking Outside the Compound: Turkey’s Approach to Peacebuilding in Somalia,” in Rising Powers and Peacebuilding: Breaking the Mold? ed. Charles Nyuykonge and Siphamandla Zondi (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 167– 89; Mahad Wasuge, “Turkey’s Assistance Model in Somalia: Achieving Much with Little” (Mogadishu: Heritage Institute for Policy Studies, 2016), http://www.heritageinstitute. org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Turkeys-Assistance-Model-in-Somalia-AchievingMuch-With-Little1-1.pdf. 3 Sazak and Woods, “Thinking Outside the Compound,” 174–75. 4 Dimitar Bechev, “Turkey’s Rise as a Regional Power,” European View 10, no. 2 (2011): 173–74, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12290-011-0184-0.

6  EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 

169

“aspiring Great Power.”5 While much of the literature gets bogged down in debating the validity of categorizing Turkish power, what remains ­overlooked is an assessment of Turkish soft power within the confines of the Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) and an assessment of the ability of the RSCT to adequately address Turkish behavior in the Horn of Africa regional security complex as a bid for greater regional influence. Interpreting the shift in power dynamics within the Horn region has, to date, only received limited attention, while even less research has considered how the Turkish model of engagement has affected the regional security complexes. This chapter seeks to address this research deficit by asking: To what extent has Turkey’s soft power tactics in Somalia enabled Turkey to cultivate greater power and influence in the Horn of Africa region? Specifically, this chapter will consider Ankara’s engagement within Somalia and some of the key strategies used to build influence within the Horn of Africa regional security complex and the principal security actors operating within the Somali state, including the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), IGAD, EAC, and the OIC as a snapshot of Turkish involvement in Somalia and the different methods that Turkey uses to pursue greater regional influence in the Horn of Africa. To this end, the chapter is divided as follows: the subsequent section will outline the theoretical framing for the chapter, which specifically draws on Buzan and Waever’s seminal work on RSCT to conceptualize regional security complexes. From there, the second section provides a brief background of Turkish involvement in the Somali state, considering the regional security complexes at work in the Horn of Africa and specifically Somalia. The third section considers whether and by what methods Turkey can seek to influence the security complexes that exist in the Somali region, presenting a snapshot of Turkish engagement with RSC by first considering the soft power strategies of visibility and a humanitarian framing to Turkish activity within Somalia, before focusing on the alliances with various security actors. The final section summarizes the points raised in the chapter and presents some closing remarks.

5 André Barrinha, “The Ambitious Insulator: Revisiting Turkey’s Position in Regional Security Complex Theory,” Mediterranean Politics 19, no. 2 (2014): 165, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13629395.2013.799353.

170  S. CARVER

Framing the Argument: Regional Security Complex Theory The Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) presents a framework for interpreting the power distribution within the international system. The theory draws on themes of regional security and security regimes to provide a measure for assessing the behavior of a state depending on its power capabilities. Within this framework, regions are areas where a “distinct and significant subsystem of security relations exists among a set of states whose fate is that they have been locked into geographical proximity with each other.”6 Scholars of RSCT contend that these regions are an important level for analysis within security discourses, as they are situated between the national and international. Pioneered by the works of Barry Buzan and Ole Waever in 1983, and then revised in 1998 and 2003, the RSCT is premised on two interrelated points. The first is that threats to a state’s national security can be transmitted across shorter distances with greater ease than across longer spaces, leaving the immediate regional environment at greater risk than those states further afield. The second is that the patterns of security regimes will likely develop a regional character, as states cluster together to navigate these threats. Regional clusters, or Regional Security Complexes (RSC), are considered by Buzan and Waever to be a “a set of units whose major processes of securitization, desecuritization, or both are so interlinked that their security problems cannot reasonably be analyzed or resolved apart from one another.”7 These complexes address sources of insecurity from across the spectrum of human interaction, including economic, political, military, societal, and environmental.8 As noted above, the RSCT provides a means of examining power distributions within international relations. The benefit afforded by the RSCT is that, as a theoretical device, it can offer a more detailed analysis of regions than could be afforded by considering just the geographic 6 Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), 188. 7 Barry Buzan and Ole Waever, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 44. 8 Mesfin Berouk, “The Horn of Africa Security Complex,” in Regional Security in the ­Post-Cold War Horn of Africa, ed. Roba D. Sharamo and Berouk Mesfin, ISS Monograph Series 178 (Halfway House: Institute for Security Studies, 2011), 3.

6  EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 

171

groupings of these regional states. Instead, the theory delves deeper; that is, it prioritizes groupings of states that can act to influence the security concerns of fellow member states rather than just focusing on geographical representations of regionalism.9 It is therefore possible to consider which actors dominate the security terrain and are positioned over the other members of the complex.10 Through analysis of these patterns of interdependence, the RSCT affords the researcher a lens through which to examine the power distributions within a security environment. While the RSCT might provide a lens to perceive the power dynamics at work within the region, it is necessary to consider the varied capacity of the actors, including Super Powers, Great Powers, and Regional Powers, who operate within the RSC. Especially relevant to this chapter is the consideration of the actors that are geographically situated beyond the RSC but still exert some influence over security dynamics within the RSC. In ending this section, it is worth pointing out that the RSCT used in this chapter is in harmony with the general theoretical framework introduced in Chapters 1 and 14 of this book. The following subsection will seek to unpack the types of actors within an RSC.

The Actors Engaging in the Regional Security Complex Theory Within the international system, actors hold various capabilities depending on their ability to cultivate power. The RSCT introduces the regional level of analysis between the local and global and differentiates the actors that operate at each level according to the capabilities and capacity of the state. Within the literature on RSCT, capacity is still largely understood in terms of military and economic strength, the former being the foundation of the state’s capacity for power and influence within the region, while the latter is often a means of power through leverage.11 Power is structured hierarchically. Superpowers occupy the top of the power chain and tend to possess and exercise an assortment of varied and 9 Derrick Frazier and Robert Stewart-Ingersoll, “Regional Powers and Security: A Framework for Understanding Order Within Regional Security Complexes,” European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 4 (2010): 733, https://doi. org/10.1177/1354066109359847. 10 Frazier and Stewart-Ingersoll, 733. 11 Frazier and Stewart-Ingersoll, 738.

172  S. CARVER

broad-spectrum military, economic, and political capabilities and economic resilience to enable the pursuit of these capacities. The reach of these capabilities (i.e., power projection) extends across the entire international system and enable superpowers to overcome geographic challenges.12 In other words, the territorial limits do little to restrict the reach of these superpowers, which can and do engage in RSC beyond their geography. Superpowers tend to become “active players in processes of securitization and desecuritization in all, or nearly all, of the regions in the system, whether as threats, guarantors, allies, or interveners.”13 Superpowers are aware of their supreme power capabilities; external actors recognize such supreme rank either in oral pronunciations or behaviors. Of importance here is the idea that superpower status rests on the recognition of other actors of the superpower’s might. The projection by the state of its own superiority is a critical tool to ensure that recognition, and the superpower will reassert and reinforce its dominance over the international order with this recognition. The recognition of other actors provides a sense of legitimacy to the superpower and enables it to shape and direct the production of norms within the international system. Great Powers, as the second category, hold many of the same capabilities as the Super Power states, but to a lesser degree. Actors who hold Great Power status occupy the second tier and have less material and economic capacity than do superpowers, but they retain the capacity to operate beyond their regions. The source of their power, however, resides in the way other actors engage with them. Buzan and Waever consider Great Powers to be engaged in a matrix of other relations with other actors on the grounds of strategic consideration about the current and foreseeable balance of power.14 Exercising power in an RSC is vital for Great Powers, because these regions are where states can refine and hone their projection of power and influence. At the lowest rung in the international community are Regional Powers. These actors have the capability to exercise a substantial reach within the region in which they are located, but they lack the capacity to be a global consideration. Thus, the difference between the actors is simply the extent to which they hold power capabilities and

12 Buzan

and Waever, Regions and Powers, 34, 46. and Waever, 34. 14 Buzan and Waever, 35. 13 Buzan

6  EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 

173

to which they can exercise that power. Within this structure of Super, Great, and Regional Powers, it is worth considering how Turkey should be understood within the RSCT.

Turkey in the Regional Security Complex Theory Turkey, according to Buzan and Waever, is situated on the periphery of two RSCs, the Middle East RSC and the European RSC. Pinning down Turkey within the RSCT is difficult, and, arguably, Buzan and Waever struggled too. Turkey is noted as a Regional Power in some respects, but Turkey is also what these authors term an insulator state.15 A state adopts the role of insulator when that state is in multiple RSCs in a particular geographical location that effectively back onto one another. However, although Turkey touches multiple RSCs, Buzan and Waever place it within the Middle East RSC. An insulator is also perceived as “relatively passive” within the RSC.16 Its recent ascendancy within the international community indicates that Turkey may be attempting to shed the label of insulator, with Ankara becoming increasingly active on the international stage.17 Buzan and Waever suggest that while Turkey may not be resigned to its position as insulator and is seeking greater power status, it is unlikely to be able to compel a reordering within the international order.18 The Turkish position within the RSCT has gathered increasing attention from the international community, not least as a result of its engagements within Somalia, Syria, and Iraq. While Turkey is described by former US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, as an “emerging global power”19 this ­sentiment is not shared by analysts, with Ąžuolas Bagdonas contending that Turkey is still some way off from achieving great power status. Bagdonas notes that Turkey is described as a series of positions of power, ranging from an actual or proposed regional Great Power to an essential middle power that would possess the capacity to exert considerable influence over the region or to a regional hegemon, or better yet, a Great Power. While Bagdonas refutes these claims, he concurs that the 15 Buzan

and Waever, Regions and Powers. and Waever, 392. 17 Barrinha, “The Ambitious Insulator,” 165. 18 Buzan and Waever, Regions and Powers, 394. 19 Barrinha, “The Ambitious Insulator,” 165. 16 Buzan

174  S. CARVER

international community has widely accepted Ankara as a rising power within the region.20 In light of these statements, perhaps Turkey could be considered, at most, a Regional Power. Yet, Ankara, like other states, remains active in RSCs beyond its own geographical locale. As Super Powers and Great Powers demonstrate, actors beyond the RSC can play a role in influencing the dynamics within the complex. The role of extra-regional actors has sharpened under increasing academic focus. According to Buzan and Weaver’s theory, the role of extra-regional actors would need to progress from Regional Power to Great Power and on, in upward ascendency of power capabilities. In this understanding, the power status of the state is tied to the material capacity of the state. Yet, Turkey remains an active participant in RSCs (in their definition) beyond the Middle East RSC. Indeed, Ankara appears to diversify its interests in other RSCs, like the Horn of Africa, precisely because it is in the position to obtain both the material and immaterial capabilities to do so as a way of empowering its role in the Middle East RSC. Turkey, it would seem, presents a challenge to the RSCT in its ability to act beyond the RSC it is situated within. Theorists have questioned whether the underlying assumption of material capacity determining power might be problematic. For example, Andre Barrinha suggests that this theoretical line limits the RSC theory’s assessment of Turkey’s recent ascendency within the international system: According to RSCT, in order for Turkey to progress through the power status tiers, it would have to expand its security relations with the RSCs on its borders, moving from a peripheral security role in either the European Security Complex or the Middle East Security Complex that Turkey currently plays.21 Fraizer and Stewart-Ingersoll also contend that security orders are influenced by more than just the material capacity of the state, instead adopting a structure–agency understanding of how extra-regional actors might operate within the security complex, arguing convincingly that “focusing on the behavior provides a clearer picture of how a security order is shaped in the context of structure, not simply because of it.”22

20 Ąžuolas Bagdonas, “Turkey as a Great Power? Back to Reality,” Turkish Studies 16, no. 3 (2015): 310, https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2015.1069712. 21 Barrinha, “The Ambitious Insulator,” 166. 22 Frazier and Stewart-Ingersoll, “Regional Powers and Security,” 734.

6  EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 

175

What this section has sought to illustrate is that Turkey ­ occupies an ambiguous position within the RSCT. Within this framework, ­extra-regional actors, such as Turkey, might seek to influence the security dynamics in the RSC through a variety of means, including through normative channels such as soft power and the use of security regimes. In the following section, the RSCT is applied to the Horn of Africa to further understand how Turkey can seek to influence the security dynamics at work around the Horn security complex.

Regional Security Complexes in the Horn of Africa The Horn of Africa extends from the northeast tip of the African continent, covering Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Somalia, but the political discussion of the region often includes Eritrea, Uganda, and Kenya. As a region, relations with Yemen, Libya, and, increasingly, the UAE and Qatar connect the region to the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East region, thereby affecting power balances within the Horn. By contrast, Turkey is not directly connected to the Horn of Africa Security Complex. The Horn of Africa region is characterized by security threats that have emerged from weak statehood. Within weak states, domestic factors for one state very much become regional concerns for other states. These threats at the domestic level, such as mass refugee movements, famine, or civil conflict, for example, tend to spring over into the regional level. While Buzan and Waever describe these events as “chains of discrete events rather than coordinated patterns of alliance and rivalry,”23 this perspective, as Mesfin Berouk notes, ignores the extent to which regional actors engage within these conflicts, seeking to disrupt peace negotiations or support insurgencies, as indeed is the case within Somalia.24 Weak statehood within the region has afforded space to a variety of diverse actors, ranging from IGOs and NGOs to regional security groups, civil society groups, and superpowers, all of whom are also active and engage with the Horn of Africa to varying degrees in peacekeeping operations.

23 Buzan

and Waever, Regions and Powers, 232. “The Horn of Africa Security Complex,” 22–23.

24 Berouk,

176  S. CARVER

Within the Horn region, Somalia represents one of the principal security threats. The collapse of the state in 1991 left a complex and convoluted legacy and has opened the space up to a multitude of different threats, actors, and security regimes, all of which contribute to the (in) security dynamics within the Horn region. The following subsection considers some of the most pressing threats to security in Somalia and the Horn of Africa security complex.

Sources of Insecurity in Somalia Few states have generated more security concerns to the Horn of Africa than Somalia. Most of these threats take the form of transnational threats that have resulted from a fragile and precarious political situation in the aftermath of the breakdown of the Somali government. Transnational threats of Islamic extremist violence and environmental factors associated with the combination of state collapse have produce security concerns that threaten to destabilize the broader Horn region. Political turmoil had plagued much of the latter stages of Said Barre’s dictatorial regime, escalating with the outbreak of the civil war in 1988 and the subsequent collapse of the Somali state in 1991. This set in motion a chain reaction of other impacts that gave rise to new security dynamics. For nearly two decades, Somalia symbolized a classic case study of the failed state.25 The state collapse in 1991 saw the continuation of the protracted civil war between warlord factions over territorial control. The weak state power has brought a multitude of sources of insecurity to the Somali region. Consecutive Somali governments have been piloted by weak administrations and face nearly two decades of state collapse to recover from and rebuild. More recently, the lack of government control over the extended region has become deeply problematic and impacts on its capacity to operate effectively. The institutionally weak Transitional Federal Government of Somalia suffered from successive weak leaderships that struggled to control a deeply divided government.26 25 Robert I. Rotberg, “Failed States in a World of Terror,” Foreign Affairs 81, no. 4 (August 2002): 127–40, https://doi.org/10.2307/20033245. 26 “Somalia: The Transitional Government on Life Support,” Africa (International Crisis Group, February 21, 2011), https://www.crisisgroup.org/file/1427/ download?token=IoVogvxK.

6  EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 

177

Constant discord between Mogadishu and the autonomous and semi-autonomous regions of Somaliland and Puntland, respectively, has curtailed the state government’s ability to foster cohesion and to extend Mogadishu’s reach. Allegations of corruption have been rampant within the Transitional Federal Government. Poor record-keeping, a nepotistic culture around hiring, and vague internal procedures have provided a fertile breeding ground for widespread corruption.27 Drought and famine have caused a widespread humanitarian crisis, which escalated in 2011 with long-lasting ramifications. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that more than 2.6 million Somalis are internally displaced throughout Somalia, more than 1 million within the last year alone.28 Political dissolution has continued to challenge the East African state. The emergence of the group around Al-Shabab (The Youth) has been the most pressing terror threat to the Horn region since 2006. The group is the product of the splintering of the Al-Itihaad Al-Islamiyah group—an Islamist group with ties to Al Qaeda—which emerged publicly in the twilight of the Union of Islamic Courts movement and grew more powerful after the demise of the Courts. The Union of Islamic Courts initially held promise of stability and security, particularly around the southern and central regions of Somalia.29 Peace was short-lived, as tension with Ethiopia mounted, culminating in the deployment of Ethiopian troops in 2006–2009. Al-Shabab’s operations within Somali have been sporadic, with attacks on key sites within Somalia and in neighboring states. The growing international networks are deeply troubling for the region; for example, Kenya has sustained multiple attacks from the Somali terror group. More recent attacks have included the February 2016 plane bombing, moments after take-off, and Al-Shabab,

27 “Somalia:

The Transitional Government on Life Support.” Humanitarian Situation,” Somalia Humanitarian Situation Report (UNICEF, July 1, 2018), https://www.unicef.org/appeals/files/UNICEF_Somalia_ Humanitarian_Situation_Report_July_2018.pdf. 29 Andreas Bruvik Westberg, “Bloodshed and Breaking Wave: The First Outbreak of Somali Piracy,” Scientia Militaria: South African Journal of Military Studies 43, no. 2 (2015): 24, https://doi.org/10.5787/43-1-1107. 28 “Somalia

178  S. CARVER

despite not claiming the attack, is likely responsible for the October 2017 Mogadishu attack that claimed more than 300 casualties.30 The recent spate of attacks underscores the ferocity of the group and the danger the group poses to the region. Regional control by Al-Shabab has fluctuated in accordance with extra-regional actors’ engagement with Somalia, in particular Ethiopian and AMISOM troops, and has ranged from extensive control of the southern regions of Somalia and Mogadishu to withdrawing to regions further afield. Threats to security inspired by weak state control, including poverty, population movement, humanitarian crises, and terrorism, can escape from the Somali state due to the systemic and extensive shadow economies, the porous borders, and corruption that threaten the security and stability of the states in the broader Horn region. State instability, prolonged conflict, and regional famines have left a large swathe of the Somali population vulnerable and have subsequently fed into mass movements of refugees, economic migration, and displaced people throughout the Horn. Regional dynamics, including the instability in Yemen and Libya, have seen many Somalis seeking to leave, but many more also return home to Somalia. According to the monitoring bodies, Somalia remains a popular area of transit for mixed migration groups but, more recently, it has also become a popular destination for people returning from Yemen.31 The uncontrolled movement of people within the region is cause for concern for regional states, especially as the numbers of people on the move escalate. The following section will consider how Turkey has sought to engage within the Somali state and how the actions that occur within Somalia benefit the broader Horn of Africa RSC.

30 “Managing the Disruptive Aftermath of Somalia’s Worse Terror Attack,” Crisis Group Africa Briefing (International Crisis Group, October 20, 2017), 1, https://www.crisisgroup.org/file/5344/download?token=RBb-IYpJ. 31 “Mixed Migration Monthly Summary: January 2018 East Africa and Yemen” (Danish Refugee Council, January 2018), https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ RMMS%20Mixed%20Migration%20Monthly%20Summary%20January%202018.pdf.

6  EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 

179

Turkish Engagement with Somalia Ankara’s recent foray into relations with the African continent stemmed from Turkey’s policy regarding the Africa initiative in 1998, where widespread poverty and food insecurity dominated Ankara’s agenda.32 Seven years later, in 2005, Turkey again stepped up its focus on Africa under the governance of the AKP.33 With the AKP at the helm, 2005 was heralded as the Year of Africa, which entailed the ramping up of strategic, economic, and social engagement with the African continent.34 Turkey sought to deepen its political ties with the African continent more broadly by opening new embassies and engaging in multilateral regimes, including partnership status with the African Union. Ankara increased its diplomatic presence, with embassy numbers growing from 12 in the mid-2000s to 34 in 2013, and by strategic engagement with the continent through multilateral dialogue with key regional and international organizations operating in Africa.35 Ankara–Mogadishu relations take place within the wider context of Turkey’s strategic and much-publicized humanistic foreign policy.36 This foreign policy outlines a new guiding framework that would enable Turkey to take a more active role in the international order through a soft power approach. This humanitarian positioning essentially “reimagines Turkey as a proactive player that shapes the region.”37 This so-called reimagining is done from a position of humanitarian values, whereby Ankara has claimed to promote an ethical foreign policy that prioritizes 32 Mehmet Ozkan and Serhat Orakci, “Viewpoint: Turkey as a ‘Political’ Actor in Africa—An Assessment of Turkish Involvement in Somalia,” Journal of Eastern African Studies 9, no. 2 (June 2015): 344, https://doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2015.1042629. 33 Jason Stearns and Gizem Sucuoglu, “Turkey in Somalia: Shifting Paradigm of Aid,” 24, SAIIA Research Report (South African Institute of International Affairs, November 21, 2016), 18, https://saiia.org.za/research/turkey-in-somalia-shifting-paradigms-of-aid/. 34 Pınar Akpınar, “Turkey’s Peacebuilding in Somalia: The Limits of Humanitarian Diplomacy,” Turkish Studies 14, no. 4 (2013): 739, https://doi.org/10.1080/1468384 9.2013.863448. 35 Akpınar, “Turkey’s Peacebuilding in Somalia.” 36 See in particular Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Turkey’s Humanitarian Diplomacy: Objectives, Challenges and Prospects,” Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity 41, no. 6 (2013): 865–70, https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2013.857299. 37 Soner Cagaptay, “Defining Turkish Power: Turkey as a Rising Power Embedded in the Western International System,” Turkish Studies 14, no. 4 (2013): 801, https://doi.org/10 .1080/14683849.2013.861110.

180  S. CARVER

humanistic and moral conscience in its engagement in the international community. Irrespective of whether these aims have transferred into practice, the framework of humanitarian diplomacy provides Turkey with a new tool to conduct its relations. The model of diplomacy that results is a multifaceted model that has, at its core, the strategic attempt by Ankara to portray itself first and foremost, as a humanitarian actor.38 The foreign minister Ahmet Davutoğlu contends that, to his mind, Turkey needs to strike a delicate balance between the need to exercise conscience and power. In doing so, he neatly articulates Ankara’s goal of greater state power through growing soft power, noting that “In this equation, if a state has conscience but no power, it shows weakness. If it has power but no conscience, it becomes a tyranny. Our idea is for Turkey to be a compassionate and powerful state.”39 To an extent, Ankara’s actions have matched this principle of compassion with an increased official aid to the continent from US$3.8 million in 2004 to approximately $250 million in 2012.40 In addition, Erdoğan’s initial trip to Somalia during the 2011 famine resulted in state and NGO fundraising that collected approximately US$300 million for relief work.41 This framework places responsibilities on the Turkish state to operate as a proactive peace diplomat. Davutoğlu also envisions the Turkish role as “providing security and stability not only for itself, but also for its neighboring regions. Turkey should guarantee its own security and stability by taking on a more active, constructive role to provide order, stability, and security in its environs.”42 This orientation has enabled Ankara to generate greater regional and extra-regional engagement with regions like the Horn of Africa. In a classic example of securitization of development, stabilizing the Horn will, in turn, securitize Turkey. According to Fraizer and Stewart-Ingersoll, power distributions within an RSC are determined by more than merely the material and economic capacity of a state, and Turkey appears to provide support for this perspective by choosing to deploy an arsenal of soft power tools within the RSC rather than using economic and military might in Ankara’s engagement with the Horn RSC. Instead, Turkey incorporates ideals such as 38 Cagaptay,

737; Akpınar, “Turkey’s Peacebuilding in Somalia.” “Turkey’s Humanitarian Diplomacy,” 866. 40 Ozkan and Orakci, “Viewpoint: Turkey as a ‘Political’ Actor in Africa,” 344. 41 Ozkan and Orakci, 347. 42 Cited in Cagaptay, “Defining Turkish Power,” 801–2. 39 Davutoğlu,

6  EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 

181

norms and humanitarianism to build rapport within Somalia through its “Humanitarian diplomacy.” These efforts provide Ankara with a method of exerting an influence on the broader Horn RSC by seeking to address some of the sources of insecurity in Somalia. Turkey’s opening up of Somalia has served economically and politically for Ankara as well. In addition to establishing economic relations and solid market access and building Turkish hard power and physical presence in the Horn of Africa, Ankara’s approach and behavior have led to global recognition that Ankara is a key player in the region. Somalia might provide a “litmus test” for Ankara to assess its capacity, but it also presents a platform for Turkey to project its growing power.43 Turkey’s carefully constructed humanitarian approach to engaging with Somalia has seen the flourishing of new entrepreneurial ventures that have benefitted both Turkey and Somalia. The reconstruction of infrastructure and the expansion of roads and transport, including Turkish Airline flights, the Mogadishu airport, a new seaport, and the implementation of the Turkey–Somalia Trade and Investment Forum serve to make Turkey an attractive partner for Somalia.44 Yet, more importantly for Ankara’s future designs, this market serves as an entrance into other African markets.45 The combination of this holistic approach of humanitarianism, extensive aid, and market growth make Turkey an attractive partner within the region and provide an extended basis for its material and immaterial projection capabilities. The result of these careful strategies affords Turkey considerable power within Somalia and the wider Horn region. The following section will build on the framework outlined in this section and focus on Ankara’s use of soft power as a tool to influence the Horn RSC and extend Ankara’s projection of power.

Turkey’s Engagement with Somalia and the Horn RSC The previous section outlined Ankara’s use of humanitarianism as the guiding principle behind how Turkey has engaged in Somalia. Drawing on soft power tactics, by engaging with the East African state through 43 Stearns and Sucuoglu, “Turkey in Somalia,” 20; Sazak and Woods, “Thinking Outside the Compound,” 172. 44 Stearns and Sucuoglu, “Turkey in Somalia,” 19. 45 Sazak and Woods, “Thinking Outside the Compound,” 173.

182  S. CARVER

humanitarian assistance and opening space for entrepreneurial growth between Somalia and Turkey, Ankara has sought to leverage greater influence within the region and beyond. The following section delves into greater detail on how Ankara has developed an identity as a proactive actor within Somalia, implementing strategies that underscore the visibility of the Turkish state within Somalia. These strategies are designed to build Ankara’s profile within Somalia and to demonstrate Ankara’s capacity as a regional key player. In addition to highlighting the visibility of Turkish activity within the state, including mediation roles and humanitarianism as a means of developing rapport with the community and Mogadishu government, the following section also considers how Ankara has sought to build power within Somalia through collaboration with a variety of different regional security actors. As a participant with a series of different regional security actors operating with Somalia, Turkey develops an identity as a security provider through its agency to direct the focus of the security regime itself. For this strategy to be successful, Ankara relies on its much-prized speed and efficacy to drive how Ankara engages with Somalia. In other cases, Ankara has used spaces where Turkey can already wield reverent power.

Turkey as a Visible Extra-Regional Actor in Somalia Recent years have witnessed a growth in business and free-trade agreements between Ankara and Mogadishu. While still only accounting for a small percentage of Turkey’s overall trade, growth is noticeable in foreign investment, and Turkish business enterprises of small and medium size have increased particularly in relation to information and communications technology.46 Ankara’s capacity for humanitarian assistance has expanded as well, as more than 20 Turkish agencies now operate within Somalia, including the key Turkish agencies like the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA), the Turkish Red Crescent, and the Directorate of Religious Affairs.47 Turkish agencies have been involved 46 David Shinn, “Turkey’s Engagement in ­ Sub-Saharan Africa: Shifting Alliances and Strategic Diversification,” Africa Programme Research Paper (Chatham House, September 2015), 2, https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/20150909TurkeySubSaharanAfricaShinn.pdf. 47 Serhat Oracki, David Shinn, and Jason Mosley, “Turkey and the Horn of Africa: Emerging Interests and Relations,” Chatham House, June 28, 2012, 2, https://www. chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Africa/280612summary.pdf.

6  EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 

183

in the managing of health services, with TIKA responsible for m ­ anaging one of the largest hospitals within Somalia. The Turkish agency, the Humanitarian Relief Foundation, has also been involved in the development of an orphanage complex, to mention some examples.48 Yet, Ankara’s inclusion of commercial and humanitarian assistance to Somalia is broadcast in a very public manner. The engagement with Somalia has been visible not only to Somalia—who have seen Turkish activists and expats working among the Somali community rather than bunkered down in compounds or in Nairobi—but it is visible to the international community as well. This strategy has been carefully constructed by Ankara as a means of building a very public profile within Somalia. This visible presence is critical to Ankara’s bids to build power and influence within the region. Early examples involve Erdoğan’s 2011 trip to Mogadishu during the widespread famine. This trip was an exceptionally visible engagement, involving Erdoğan’s wife and family and capturing international attention at the very public rebuttal of the safety situation of state leaders traveling to Somalia, but it also redirected attention to the plight of Somalia. The symbolic nature of the visit was again underscored by Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, who noted in a news report that the visit to Somalia, and to Mogadishu specifically, was to challenge the idea that travel to Somalia was too dangerous and should hence be avoided.49 What was exceptional about this visit was not only that Erdoğan was the first non-regional statesman to visit in nearly twenty years, but also the indication to the rest of the world that Turkey was active within Somalia and keen to make Ankara’s mark on the East African state. Davutoğlu in effect challenged the international community in his final statement in the report, stating, “We came – many others can come.”50 Erdoğan himself used the publicity afforded by his trip to Somalia to champion the case of Somalia. Addressing the UN General Assembly in 2011, Erdoğan reiterated the severity of Somalia’s systemic insecurity and famine and chastised the international community’s lack of action

48 Shinn,

“Turkey’s Engagement in Sub-Saharan Africa,” 9. Famine: Turkish PM Erdogan Visits Mogadishu,” August 19, 2011, https:// www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14588960. 50 Cited in “Somalia Famine.” 49 “Somalia

184  S. CARVER

and compassion toward the East African state.51 Similarly, Erdoğan held a joint press conference with then-Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson, in connection with 6th High-Level Partnership Forum on Somalia in 2016, and took the opportunity to underscore the role that Turkey has played in assisting the Somali state in recovering after the famine in 2011, while also indicating that Ankara’s model of relief has received credit.52 This type of statement had a dual benefit: it bolstered domestic support for Turkey’s Somali involvement and it also served as a reminder of Turkish power in the region. A second strategy that Turkey has used to ensure that its involvement within Somalia remains visible to the wider international community is its role as a peace mediator. Peacekeeping operations and mediation ventures have sought to cultivate a new role for Turkey as a peace mediator. This role has seen senior Turkish advisors meet with Al-Shabab operatives in 2012. Initially, the channels of communication between Turkey and the insurgent group were established to discuss the security of Turkish humanitarian workers in the Somali state, but the role has developed into facilitating space for dialogue between the federal government and Al-Shabab.53 Mediation provides another layer to the carefully constructed identity as a soft power that Turkey is establishing within Somalia, as mediation has been vital for Ankara to justify its role in the political landscape of a region that has been defined by conflict. Moreover, the role of peace mediator indicates to the rest of the international community that Turkey has the capacity to act more broadly as leader in conflict resolution and state reconstruction, and it demonstrates this in a notoriously difficult political context of Somalia.54 Stepping into the role of diplomatic

51 Recep Tayyip Erdogan, “The Tears of Somalia,” Foreign Policy, October 10, 2011, https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/10/the-tears-of-somalia/. 52 Sazak and Woods, “Thinking Outside the Compound,” 172. 53 “Turkey Acting as a Go-between with al-Shabaab, Mogadishu,” Hurriyet Daily News, March 8, 2012, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-acting-as-go-between-withal-shabaab-mogadishu-15516; “Turkey Mediating Talks with Al-Shabaab to Bring Peace,” April 19, 2012, https://hiiraan.com/news4/2012/apr/23700/turkey_mediating_talks_ with_al_shabaab_to_bring_peace.aspx. 54 Stearns and Sucuoglu, “Turkey in Somalia,” 20; See also Akpınar, “Turkey’s Peacebuilding in Somalia,” 740.

6  EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 

185

mediator, Turkey hosted the eighth round of talks between the Federal Somali government and the Somaliland authorities in March 2015, as the two authorities tackled issues of maritime security, including piracy and illegal fishing, among other issues.55 By remaining visible within the region, Ankara engages directly with the RSC by beginning to address some of the sources of conflict that destabilize the region. Attempting to mediate between Al-Shabab and the Mogadishu government provided Ankara the needed opening to directly impact the security conditions within the RSC through attempts to mitigate or at least manage the threat to the Horn region by the insurgents. Projecting a visible image in Somalia also builds recognition of Ankara’s influence within the region. Buzan and Waever indicate that an essential part of the construction of Regional, Great, and Super Power status is the reflected recognition from the rest of the international community of that power capacity. Yet, according to their categorization, Turkey is neither a Super nor a Great power, and yet it still operates by exactly adopting these sorts of tactics. According to the RSCT, this behavior would be unexpected from a Regional Power, who would be expected to lack the material or economic might to enable these changes within an external RSC. Regardless, Turkey has managed to achieve precisely this. Ankara has continued to demonstrate its capacity in the Somali state through a variety of different engagements, but in its attempts to become a “voice” for the African state in the UN General Assembly and other international platforms, Ankara reiterates very publicly that it is engaging with the beleaguered Somali state and that Ankara has the capacity to address these problems. Turkish engagement within Somalia through soft power tactics would appear to run counter to what the RSCT would predict, and this presents a challenge to this theory more broadly.

Ankara’s Alliances with Regional Security Actors In addition to remaining visible within the Somali political landscape, Ankara has leveraged influence through the strategic involvement with regional and extra-regional security actors who are operational within

55 Shinn,

“Turkey’s Engagement in Sub-Saharan Africa,” 9.

186  S. CARVER

Somalia. Within the Horn RSC, Turkey is just one of many Regional, Great, and Super Power actors who have varied interests in the security complex of the Horn of Africa. Early attempts to resolve the Somali conflict drew on regional and international actors who sought alliances with the various regional and local actors in an effort to rebuild and stabilize the Somali state in the early 1990s through the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) I and II and the Unified Task Force (UNITAF) in an effort to provide humanitarian relief and peacekeeping in the civil conflict that engulfed the state. The practice of building alliances between external actors with local and regional actors continues and has proven a useful method for Turkey to bolster its power and influence within the region. How Turkey exerts this influence and the extent to which Ankara can gather traction with these regional actors as an extra-regional actor is unpacked in the following paragraphs regarding the most prominent regional security actors, including the EAC, IGAD, the OIC, and the AMISOM. Ankara’s collaborations with IGAD and EAC engagements have proved useful in bolstering Turkish visibility and in fostering greater legitimacy within the region. From within the RSCs, Turkey’s projection of power has remained relatively constrained by the immobility of the security complexes, who remain a global entity and are thus unwieldly within the Horn. Instead, Ankara’s involvement serves to act as a demonstration of the extensive engagement that Turkey has within the region. Erdoğan’s regular travel to EAC countries serves to reiterate this connection.56 The value of visibility within the region is less informative when considered in isolation. Considered collectively, however, the engagement with these economic security regimes paints a picture of Turkish involvement as a “thick” network that spans across a variety of different security dynamics. Individually, by contrast, these RSCs afford the Turkish state very limited space to test Ankara’s power and influence over the RSCs. Ankara adopted a different strategy within the OIC in an attempt to indicate the ascendancy of Turkey within the international community and as a dominant player within the Horn of Africa RSC. Mimicking the role of Great and Super Powers with RSCs, Ankara demonstrated

56 Mücahid Durmaz, “Turkey Seeks Deeper Relations with Africa,” May 27, 2016, https:// www.trtworld.com/in-depth/turkey-seeks-broad-based-relations-with-africa-114268.

6  EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 

187

the capacity to provide a steering role in the organization’s engagement within the Somali state. As a participant in the OIC, Turkey was able to focus the attention of the IGO toward Somalia’s plight in the 2011 famine. In response to the worsening drought situation, which threatened to spread throughout the region, Turkey requested an emergency meeting to address the deteriorating conditions.57 Five days later, Ankara convened an emergency summit of the OIC Executive Committee and foreign ministers from more than 40 countries.58 The summit, held in Istanbul, was a great success for Turkey and the Horn region and generated two key outcomes. The summit laid the foundations for the Somali Trust Fund, which was to be created by the 38th Council of Foreign Ministers in an attempt to remedy the impacts of the famine.59 The fundraising orchestrated by the OIC and member states provided US$350 million pledged toward famine relief, with the promise from the representatives to increase this figure to half a billion.60 The other critical development from the summit was the implementation of a regional task force, piloted by Kazakhstan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, and the General Secretariat, with the intent to monitor the humanitarian conditions in the Horn of Africa region.61 For Turkey, the implementation of this task force gave the state space to demonstrate its efficacy as a regional player through its rapid mobilization of funds, which were estimated to be around half of the $350 million committed from the summit toward the restoration of Somalia.62 The proactive stance of the state vis-à-vis the deterioration of the humanitarian situation resulting from the 2011 famine within the 57 Mehmet Ozkan, “The Turkish Way of Doing Development Aid? An Analysis from the Somali Laboratory,” in South-South Cooperation beyond the Myths: Rising Donors New Aid Practices? ed. Isaline Bergamaschi, Phoebe Moore, and Arlene B. Tickne (London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 65. 58 Erdogan, “The Tears of Somalia.” 59 “Final Communique: Emergency Ministerial-Level Meeting of the OIC Executive Committee on Somalia Convened in Istanbul on Wednesday 17/08/2011,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, August 2011, http://www.mfa.gov.tr/data/ENFORMASYON/OIC%20 Final%20Communiqu%C3%A9%20Somalia.PDF. 60 Erdogan, “The Tears of Somalia.” 61 “Final Communique.” 62 Eva Svoboda et  al., “Islamic Humanitarianism?” HGP Working Paper (London: Humanitarian Policy Group, February 2015), https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/ files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9457.pdf.

188  S. CARVER

regions and the speed of this delivery enabled the Turkish state to take an active role in influencing the engagement of the OIC within the Horn region. By its quick and effective management of the Somali humanitarian crisis, Ankara was able to “take the reins” on crisis management. Turkey was able to exercise its leadership role and to test its ability to shape the RSC through advocating and making the Horn a priority for the OIC. Turkey was able to assert itself as a champion of the Horn region and of Somalia by drawing international focus, but it also built on this position by mobilizing donors in aid of the state. By doing so, Ankara has branded Turkey with a transnational identity of a humanist Regional (Great) Power for segments of people in the broader Middle East or as a Pan-Islamic State for others; all of which have fostered the image of Turkey in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East and increased its popularity and legitimacy among peoples and political elites across the different security blocs mentioned in this book. The Turkey–AMISOM relations present a fascinating Petri dish of the various influences and impacts that are at work on the security complex. Financially, Turkey is a contributor to the purses of AMISOM, contributing more than US$2 million dollars to strengthening the organization.63 In addition to financial aid, Turkey has, in the past, also provided mentor support through private security providers and training for Somali security.64 Overtures had been made by Ankara to take a more proactive and steering role in the training of Somali National Army (SNA). Those efforts, however, have been met with resistance from other larger donors to AMISOM, including Ethiopia, the European Union (EU), and the United States (US).65 The financial backing of these actors to AMISOM purses dwarfs that of Ankara.66 The rejection of Turkey’s 2013 proposal to implement a training program with the SNA was perhaps to be expected, since there could be little incentive for these actors to willingly see their influence over the provision of security within the state eroded by a growing Turkish influence. Instead, the financial backing of 63 Abdurrahim Siradag, “Turkish–Somali Relations: Changing State Identity and Foreign Policy,” Sarajevo Journal of Social Sciences Inquiry 2, no. 2 (2016): 102, https://doi. org/10.21533/isjss.v2i2.86. 64 Akpınar, “Turkey’s Peacebuilding in Somalia,” 746–47. 65 Wasuge, “Turkey’s Assistance Model in Somalia,” 19. 66 Ahmet Yukleyen and Mohammed Zulkarnian, “Turkey’s Foreign Policy in Somalia,” Journal of Caspian Affairs 1, no. 2 (2015): 111.

6  EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 

189

the EU and US locked Turkey into a position wherein its power would be unlikely to present a challenge to Ethiopia or the US. This outcome suggests that while Turkey has the ability to engage with tools of soft power, such as a humanitarian aid, and to be a proactive extra-regional actor within Somalia, there are still limits on the extent to which Ankara can influence some of the actors within the RSC. By extension, this limits the ability that Ankara has to shape the security dynamics within the Horn RSC. Unable to engage in the provision of security directly through AMISOM by putting its mark on the provision of training of SNA troops, Ankara opted to engage in the security sector bilaterally. In late 2017, Turkey opened its largest overseas military base, covering about four square kilometers in Mogadishu, with the intent of using the base to train 10,000 Somali soldiers.67 Turkey has poured resources into the state, contributing approximately $50m on the base alone. The base is a strategic step for Turkey, designed to underscore Turkish long-term commitment to the security of the Horn region in particular (with the Turkish chief of General Staff Hulusi Akar’s statements at the opening ceremony: “The government of Turkey and its army will provide all the needed support to our brothers in Somalia”) and the broader Middle East in general.68 The attempt to alter the dynamics within the RSC has been deemed for Ankara to gain a foothold in the region, alongside the attempts of the covert US bases (which are largely unacknowledged by the US government but that include the Balidogle airfield near the Somali capital), UAE base outside Mogadishu, and plans to add a second base outside of Somaliland in the northwest of the state.69 Ankara’s opening of the base is part of the intra-regional power competition in Africa’s Horn. While these military bases promote prospects for the

67 “Turkey Sets Up Largest Overseas Army Base in Somalia: Ankara Move Is Part of Efforts to Increase Foothold in the Horn of Africa,” Al Jazeera, October 1, 2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/turkey-sets-largest-overseas-army-basesomalia-171001073820818.html; Abdirahman Hussein and Orhan Coskun, “Turkey Opens Military Base in Mogadishu to Train Somali Soldiers,” Reuters, September 30, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-somalia-turkey-military/ turkey-opens-military-base-in-mogadishu-to-train-somali-soldiers-idUSKCN1C50JH. 68 Cited in “Turkey Sets Up Largest Overseas Army Base.” 69 “Turkey Sets Up Largest Overseas Army Base.”

190  S. CARVER

involved actors; they also pit the competition between the rival actors and create risks for the Horn RSC. The opening of the military base in Mogadishu in 2017 is not a coincidence. In the same year, Ankara signed the Suakin agreement with Khartoum to restore and run the port in Sudan’s Suakin Island. These ports give Turkey direct access to the Red Sea. Ankara’s military base in Doha is its third military grip approximating Africa and the Gulf Region. Ankara’s expansion of power comes with the dissatisfaction of the KSA and the UAE (as well as Egypt) for attempting to expand its area of influence in the Horn of Africa region by opening military bases and naval docks. The upset of Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir in 2019, has changed for the mentioned actors the allies in the subregion and will most likely have implications in this regard on their expansion of power.70

Conclusion This chapter examined the extent to which Turkey’s soft power strategies of visibility and collaborative efforts in Somalia have enabled Ankara to cultivate a greater degree of power and influence within Somalia and the Horn RSC. The evidence indicates that Turkey has become an active participant within Somalia and the Horn RSC. The chapter has also demonstrated the challenges the case of Turkey presents to Buzan and Waever’s RSCT. Rather than seek a linear progression from a Regional Power to a Great Power, as the RSCT would expect, Turkey’s strategies of visibility and humanitarianism provide a challenge to the theory and demonstrate that Regional Powers can also act in external RSCs. Ankara’s ability to affect the security terrain in which the RSCs operate has afforded Turkey the ability to demonstrate its influence on the region. This engagement forces a reaction from other actors and security regimes. For example, Turkey’s decision to operate on the ground in Somalia rather than from an external neighboring state has enabled Turkey to disrupt or alter the dominant modus operandi in addressing Somalia. Similarly, the widespread and expansive engagement with

70 Merve Şebnem Oruç, “Who Is Disturbed by Turkey’s Presence on Sudan’s Suakin Island?” Daily Sabah, May 14, 2019, https://www.dailysabah.com/columns/mervesebnem-oruc/2019/05/10/who-is-disturbed-by-turkeys-presence-on-sudans-suakin-island.

6  EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 

191

Somalia through NGOs, businesses, and markets has also demonstrated a new shift in the security terrain in terms of how actors engage with Somali conditions. Similarly, where Ankara has perhaps lacked the economic and military might to exert a direct influence on the security conditions within Somalia—as the main source of insecurity to the Horn of Africa RSC— Ankara has been able to leverage greater influence by collaborating with a series of prominent regional security actors, including AMISOM, IGAD, and the EAC, as well as through the OIC to increase the latter’s engagement with Somalia. While Ankara did face resistance from a global Great Power in its attempts to reshape its role in training the SNA, it was able to operate unilaterally with the construction of the military base in Mogadishu, thereby demonstrating that Ankara also has the capacity to contribute toward stabilizing the security conditions in Somalia—and the Horn RSC, by extension. These strategies serve to demonstrate that Ankara could be fostering new behaviors that do, indeed, present a challenge to the RSCT. While the focus of this chapter was Ankara’s soft power in Somalia, it has demonstrated that Ankara’s foreign policy in Somalia (and the Horn of Africa) has implications in dimensions beyond the economic support, extensive aid programs, and humanitarian assistance mentioned earlier. Ankara’s foreign policy in the Horn of Africa has a fourfold rationale: First, it is meant to place Turkey within a constellation of other competing powers in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East (e.g., the UAE) seeking to influence the Red Sea security sector. Second, it puts Turkey in the position to leverage its power might in the subregions of the Gulf Region and Sub-Sahara. Third, Ankara is in the position to guarantee, if needed, alliance assurance for its allies in the different subregions of the broader Middle East (e.g., in the Gulf Region, and North Africa). Fourth, Turkey benefits from novel opportunities of economic growth in Africa, including in the Horn of Africa. Ankara’s brand is unique in the sense that it can pursue its power policy objectives in the Horn of Africa within Ankara’s humanitarian diplomacy, contrary to other rival actors in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East.

192  S. CARVER

Bibliography Akpınar, Pınar. “Turkey’s Peacebuilding in Somalia: The Limits of Humanitarian Diplomacy.” Turkish Studies 14, no. 4 (2013): 735–57. https://doi.org/10.1 080/14683849.2013.863448. Al Jazeera. “Turkey Sets Up Largest Overseas Army Base in Somalia: Ankara Move Is Part of Efforts to Increase Foothold in the Horn of Africa,” October 1, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/turkey-sets-largest-overseas-army-base-somalia-171001073820818.html. Bagdonas, Ąžuolas. “Turkey as a Great Power? Back to Reality.” Turkish Studies 16, no. 3 (2015): 310–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2015.1069 712. Barrinha, André. “The Ambitious Insulator: Revisiting Turkey’s Position in Regional Security Complex Theory.” Mediterranean Politics 19, no. 2 (2014): 165–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2013.799353. Bechev, Dimitar. “Turkey’s Rise as a Regional Power.” European View 10, no. 2 (2011): 173–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12290-011-0184-0. Berouk, Mesfin. “The Horn of Africa Security Complex.” In Regional Security in the Post-Cold War Horn of Africa, edited by Roba D. Sharamo and Berouk Mesfin, 1–30. ISS Monograph Series 178. Halfway House: Institute for Security Studies, 2011. Buzan, Barry. People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991. Buzan, Barry, and Ole Waever. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Cagaptay, Soner. “Defining Turkish Power: Turkey as a Rising Power Embedded in the Western International System.” Turkish Studies 14, no. 4 (2013): 797– 811. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2013.861110. Davutoğlu, Ahmet. “Turkey’s Humanitarian Diplomacy: Objectives, Challenges and Prospects.” Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity 41, no. 6 (2013): 865–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2 013.857299. Durmaz, Mücahid. “Turkey Seeks Deeper Relations with Africa,” May 27, 2016. https://www.trtworld.com/in-depth/turkey-seeks-broad-based-relationswith-africa-114268. Erdogan, Recep Tayyip. “The Tears of Somalia.” Foreign Policy, October 10, 2011. https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/10/the-tears-of-somalia/. Frazier, Derrick, and Robert Stewart-Ingersoll. “Regional Powers and Security: A Framework for Understanding Order Within Regional Security Complexes.” European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 4 (2010): 731–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109359847.

6  EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 

193

Hussein, Abdirahman, and Orhan Coskun. “Turkey Opens Military Base in Mogadishu to Train Somali Soldiers.” Reuters, September 30, 2017. https:// www.reuters.com/article/us-somalia-turkey-military/turkey-opens-military-base-in-mogadishu-to-train-somali-soldiers-idUSKCN1C50JH. “Managing the Disruptive Aftermath of Somalia’s Worse Terror Attack.” Crisis Group Africa Briefing. International Crisis Group, October 20, 2017. https://www.crisisgroup.org/file/5344/download?token=RBb-IYpJ. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Final Communique: Emergency Ministerial-Level Meeting of the OIC Executive Committee on Somalia Convened in Istanbul on Wednesday 17/08/2011,” August 2011. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/data/ ENFORMASYON/OIC%20Final%20Communiqu%C3%A9%20Somalia.PDF. “Mixed Migration Monthly Summary: January 2018 East Africa and Yemen.” Danish Refugee Council, January 2018. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/RMMS%20Mixed%20Migration%20Monthly%20 Summary%20January%202018.pdf. Oracki, Serhat, David Shinn, and Jason Mosley. “Turkey and the Horn of Africa: Emerging Interests and Relations.” Chatham House, June 28, 2012. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/ Africa/280612summary.pdf. Oruç, Merve Şebnem. “Who Is Disturbed by Turkey’s Presence on Sudan’s Suakin Island?” Daily Sabah, May 14, 2019. https://www.dailysabah.com/ columns/merve-sebnem-oruc/2019/05/10/who-is-disturbed-by-turkeyspresence-on-sudans-suakin-island. Ozkan, Mehmet. “The Turkish Way of Doing Development Aid? An Analysis from the Somali Laboratory.” In South-South Cooperation beyond the Myths: Rising Donors New Aid Practices? edited by Isaline Bergamaschi, Phoebe Moore, and Arlene B. Tickne, 59–78. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. Ozkan, Mehmet, and Serhat Orakci. “Viewpoint: Turkey as a ‘Political’ Actor in Africa—An Assessment of Turkish Involvement in Somalia.” Journal of Eastern African Studies 9, no. 2 (June 2015): 343–52. https://doi.org/10.1 080/17531055.2015.1042629. Rotberg, Robert I. “Failed States in a World of Terror.” Foreign Affairs 81, no. 4 (August 2002): 127–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/20033245. Sazak, Onur, and Auveen Elizabeth Woods. “Thinking Outside the Compound: Turkey’s Approach to Peacebuilding in Somalia.” In Rising Powers and Peacebuilding: Breacking the Mold? edited by Charles Nyuykonge and Siphamandla Zondi, 167–89. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. Shinn, David. “Turkey’s Engagement in Sub-Saharan Africa: Shifting Alliances and Strategic Diversification.” Africa Programme Research Paper. Chatham House, September 2015. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/ field/field_document/20150909TurkeySubSaharanAfricaShinn.pdf.

194  S. CARVER Siradag, Abdurrahim. “Turkish–Somali Relations: Changing State Identity and Foreign Policy.” Sarajevo Journal of Social Sciences Inquiry 2, no. 2 (2016): 89–106. https://doi.org/10.21533/isjss.v2i2.86. “Somalia Famine: Turkish PM Erdogan Visits Mogadishu,” August 19, 2011. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14588960. “Somalia Humanitarian Situation.” Somalia Humanitarian Situation Report. UNICEF, July 1, 2018. https://www.unicef.org/appeals/files/UNICEF_ Somalia_Humanitarian_Situation_Report_July_2018.pdf. “Somalia: The Transitional Government on Life Support.” Africa: International Crisis Group, February 21, 2011. https://www.crisisgroup.org/file/1427/ download?token=IoVogvxK. Stearns, Jason, and Gizem Sucuoglu. “Turkey in Somalia: Shifting Paradigm of Aid.” 24. SAIIA Research Report. South African Institute of International Affairs, November 21, 2016. https://saiia.org.za/research/turkey-in-somaliashifting-paradigms-of-aid/. Svoboda, Eva, Steven A. Zyck, Daud Osman, and Abdirashid Hashi. “Islamic Humanitarianism?” HGP Working Paper. London: Humanitarian Policy Group, February 2015. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9457.pdf. “Turkey Acting as a Go-between with al-Shabaab, Mogadishu.” Hurriyet Daily News, March 8, 2012. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-actingas-go-between-with-al-shabaab-mogadishu-15516. “Turkey Mediating Talks with Al-Shabaab to Bring Peace,” April 19, 2012. https://hiiraan.com/news4/2012/apr/23700/turkey_mediating_talks_ with_al_shabaab_to_bring_peace.aspx. Wasuge, Mahad. “Turkey’s Assistance Model in Somalia: Achieving Much with Little.” Mogadishu: Heritage Institute for Policy Studies, 2016. http://www. heritageinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Turkeys-AssistanceModel-in-Somalia-Achieving-Much-With-Little1-1.pdf. Westberg, Andreas Bruvik. “Bloodshed and Breaking Wave: The First Outbreak of Somali Piracy.” Scientia Militaria: South African Journal of Military Studies 43, no. 2 (2015): 1–38. https://doi.org/10.5787/43-1-1107. Yukleyen, Ahmet, and Mohammed Zulkarnian. “Turkey’s Foreign Policy in Somalia.” Journal of Caspian Affairs 1, no. 2 (2015): 97–120.

CHAPTER 7

Qatar’s Calculated Gamble on the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood Hanlie Booysen

Introduction In the wake of the Arab uprisings, Qatar took significant foreign policy risks in supporting Islamists,1 including the moderate Islamist Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (SMB).2 This position is in contrast with Doha’s habitual foreign policy stance of hedging its bets, i.e., to pursue opposing positions in order to reduce risk.3 For example, Qatar hosts 1 Lina

Khatib, “Qatar and the Recalibration of Power in the Gulf” (Carnegie Middle East Center, September 2014), 4–7, https://carnegieendowment.org/files/qatar_recalibration.pdf; Lina Khatib, “Qatar’s Foreign Policy: The Limits of Pragmatism,” International Affairs 89, no. 2 (March 1, 2013): 417–31, https://doi.org/10.1111/14682346.12025; David B. Roberts, “Qatar and the UAE: Exploring Divergent Responses to the Arab Spring,” The Middle East Journal 71, no. 4 (Autumn 2017): 558, https://doi. org/10.3751/71.4.12. 2 For the purposes of this chapter, ‘moderate Islamist’ denotes an ideological commitment by Islamists to n ­ on-violent political change and parliamentary democracy. 3 See Mehran Kamrava, Qatar: Small State, Big Politics (New York: Cornell University Press, 2013), 74.

H. Booysen (*)  Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_7

195

196  H. BOOYSEN

the biggest number of United States (US) military personnel in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East,4 while it also maintains cordial relations with Iran. Qatar further hosted an Israeli trade office for more than a decade and then hosted the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas.5 In the first two years of the Arab uprisings, however, hedging became superfluous. This chapter will argue that Doha’s commitment to the SMB’s struggle against the Syrian Ba’th regime was not precarious, but pragmatic and based on Qatar’s constructed identity and the political environment. In doing so, the chapter will show that an individual brand of Qatari Wahhabism, and a mutually beneficial relationship with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (EMB), predisposed Qatar to view the 2010/11 Arab uprisings as an opportunity to enhance its influence in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East Region. In using the Syrian uprising as a case study, I demonstrate further how and why other actors in the regional system supported Qatar’s stance on the Syrian conflict and why countries like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) changed their policy notion and behavior over time. The next two sections will demonstrate that Qatar’s state identity, rationale of gaining independency in Gulf politics from bigger states, and geopolitical calculations moved Doha to pursue an independent stance on the SMB.6

Qatar: Independence from Bigger States In the formation of the Qatari state, the al-Thani ruling family sought to balance sovereignty and security in a context in which regional great powers competed to assert their authority in the Gulf Region. Al-Saud of Riyadh, the ruling al-Khalifa family in Bahrain, Colonial Britain, and

4 Brad Lendon, “Qatar Hosts Largest US Military Base in Mideast,” CNN, June 6, 2017, https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/05/middleeast/qatar-us-largest-base-in-mideast/ index.html. 5 Qatar hosted an Israeli trade office from 1996 to 2009, and Hamas relocated from Damascus to Doha in response to the Syrian conflict in 2011/12. For more on Qatar and Israel, see Uzi Rabi, “Qatar’s Relations with Israel: Challenging Arab and Gulf Norms,” The Middle East Journal 63, no. 3 (Summer 2009): 443–59. 6 See Raymond Hinnebusch, The International Politics of the Middle East, 2nd ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015), 108–9.

7  QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 

197

the Ottoman Empire, at different times, all threatened Qatar’s sovereignty. In the late 1700s and 1800s, Al-Saud made regular incursions into Qatar and Bahrain.7 At the time, the ruling al-Khalifa family in Bahrain exercised de facto control over Qatar. However, Muhammad bin Thani (1788–1878), the first al-Thani ruler of Qatar, undermined al-Khalifa’s threat of control by signing an agreement with Britain in 1868.8 Though the agreement was mainly to secure Britain’s shipping routes between Basra and Bombay, it ended ­al-Khalifa’s claim by recognizing Qatar as a sovereign entity.9 The 1868 agreement with Britain also fueled the Ottoman Empire’s fear that Britain had territorial ambitions in the Gulf. When a split occurred in al-Thani family between father and son (a trend that has repeated itself three more times in recent history), the Ottoman Empire utilized the opportunity to establish a presence in Qatar in 1872.10 As Muhammad bin Thani did not recognize the Ottoman authority, his son, Sheikh Jassim bin Muhammad al-Thani (1824–1913), became the regional governor.11 This division in authority did not create conflict between father and son, as might be expected, but it paradoxically allowed al-Thani to keep the demands of both the British and the Ottoman Empire in check.12 In the twentieth century, Saudi–Wahhabi expansionism replaced the Ottoman threat of domination.13 In 1902, Sheikh Jassim, who has

7 Allen

James Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History (Washington, DC: I.B. Tauris, 2012), 58. Battaloğlu, Political Reforms in Qatar: From Authoritarianism Top Political Grey Zone (Berlin, Germany: Gerlach Press, 2018), 18. 9 Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History, 55. 10 Fromherz, 58–59. 11 Qatari tribes shifted from the Maliki to the Hanbali school of law under the influence of Wahahbism during the rule of Sheikh Jasim. See Andrew Hammond, “Qatar’s Leadership Transition: Like Father, Like Son,” Policy Brief (European Council on foreign relations (ecfr.eu), February 11, 2014), 4, https://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/ ECFR95_QATAR_BRIEF_AW.pdf. 12 Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History, 59. 13 The formation of the Saudi state was based on an alliance in 1744 between the fighting power of Muhammad bin Saud and the religious call of Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab. See Stephane Lacroix and George Holoch, Awakening Islam: The Politics of Religious Dissent in Contemporary Saudi Arabia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011), 8. 8 Cihat

198  H. BOOYSEN

already converted to Wahhabism, countered British hegemony by establishing a friendship with the Third Saudi State.14 However, a few years later, in 1916, his son Sheikh Abdullah bin Jassim al-Thani signed a treaty with the British government, now to protect Qatar against Saudi expansionism.15 After Britain left in 1971, Qatar again pursued security through its relationship with the KSA. Although Qatar maintained its territorial sovereignty, it followed Saudi Arabia’s lead in international relations. The relationship with the KSA was not, however, without tension, as demonstrated by the KSA’s obstruction of Qatar’s plans to export gas to Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the early 1990s. The border skirmishes between the KSA and Qatar in 1992 and 1994 are a second example. The bloodless coup in 1995, in which Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani replaced his father, signaled a break in the Qatari–Saudi relationship and the beginning of a different path for Qatar in domestic and foreign policy.16 At present, the United States acts as the key international guarantor of Qatar’s security, based on the value of Al-Udeid Air Base that hosts the headquarters of US central command infrastructure. This alliance with the United States allows Doha significant leeway to steer its foreign policy free from the KSA’s influence. However, since March 2014, a diplomatic crisis has existed between Qatar, on the one hand, and the Gulf trio (the KSA, the UAE, and Bahrain) plus Egypt on the other, due to, inter alia, Doha’s foreign policy behaviors in the wake of the Arab uprisings. This crisis escalated in June 2017, as the KSA, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt broke off diplomatic relations and banned all flights to and from Qatar. The KSA further closed the border with Qatar, which is Qatar’s only land border. When President Trump endorsed the Saudi-led isolation of Qatar on Twitter, Qatar’s security guarantee seemed to be in danger.17 14 J.E. Peterson, “Britain and Formation of Gulf States: The Case of Qatar and Shaykh Jassim Bin Muhammad,” in Jassim Bin Mohammed Bin Thani—The Day of Solidarity, Loyalty and Honor, ed. Jamal Mahmud Hajar et  al. (Qatar: GEM Advertising & Publications, 2008), 67. 15 Birol Baskan and Steven Wright, “Seeds of Change: Comparing State–Religion Relations in Qatar and Saudi Arabia,” Arab Studies Quarterly 33, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 107. 16 David B. Roberts, “Understanding Qatar’s Foreign Policy Objectives,” Mediterranean Politics 17, no. 2 (2012): 234–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2012.695123. 17 Mark Lynch, “How Trump’s Alignment with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates Is Inflaming the Middle East” (Project on Middle East Political Science, October 2017), 33, https://pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_QatarCrisis.pdf.

7  QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 

199

In the meantime, however, the United States has taken a more nuanced position and the United States–Qatari alliance endures intra-Gulf conflict. The miscalculated blockade has not forced Qatar to capitulate to the trio’s demands, which include ending any contact with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and closing down the Al Jazeera media network (see Chapters 1 and 2). By contrast, Qatar has strengthened its bilateral relations with Turkey18 and Iran,19 while its agricultural sector’s Made in Qatar brand resonates with a heightened Qatari nationalism.20 Thus, Qatar has historically aimed to pursue a balance between security and autonomy from the control of bigger states in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. In managing this challenge, Qatar initially played the Ottoman Empire and Britain off against each other, and subsequently Britain and Saudi Arabia. At present, Qatar is pursuing its foreign policy independent of Saudi Arabia’s political line because of its alliance with the USA and with Turkey, its regional great power backer.

Qatar and Independence from the KSA: Wahhabism and the MB Geopolitically, Qatar is a founding member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), established in 1981. The GCC is characterized by two key features: ideational politics and the leadership of the KSA. The formation of the GCC was based on ideational politics, which was intended to serve stability rather than integration.21 This section will show that Qatar constructed a politically weak religious sector to fend off encroachment by Saudi Arabia.

18 Robert Mogielnicki, “The New Economics of Qatar–Turkey Relations,” Middle East Institute, August 30, 2018, https://www.mei.edu/publications/neweconomics-qatar-turkey-relations. 19 Mohammed Sergie, “Embattled Qatar Is Rich Enough to Get by for Another 100 Years,” Bloomberg Businessweek, June 6, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/ articles/2018-06-06/a-year-later-iran-is-the-big-winner-of-the-qatar-embargo. 20 “A Renewed Sense of Nationalism Takes Root in Qatar Reflections,” Stratfor Worldview, December 29, 2017, https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/renewed-sensenationalism-takes-root-qatar. 21 See Linda Berger, “The Gulf Cooperation Council between Unity and Discord towards the Arab Uprisings,” Sicherheit Und Frieden (S + F)/Security and Peace 32, no. 4 (2014): 260.

200  H. BOOYSEN

Islam has been a key component of popular legitimacy for the Muslim-majority nation-states in the post-Colonial era.22 This is clear in the GCC states, where governments invest vast amounts to demonstrate their Islamic commitment.23 An example is the magnificent Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab Mosque in the Qatari capital Doha, which can accommodate 30,000 of the faithful for prayer. In the KSA, Wahhabism, an austere “theological-juridical tradition,”24 was a fundamental component in the formation of the Saudi state. Today, the KSA is still seen as personifying Wahhabi Islam. Most of Qatar’s inhabitants follow the same Wahhabi tradition as Saudi Arabia.25 Moreover, al-Thani family comes from the same tribal group (the Bani Tamim) as Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab.26 However, as a result of Qatar’s commitment to autonomy from Saudi Arabia, the religious sectors in Qatar and the KSA differ markedly, as we will see next. Driven by their commitment to remain free of Saudi Arabia’s control, the al-Thani rulers steered clear of using Wahhabism to legitimize their rule. Had they not done so, the much smaller Qatari religious sector would easily have been consumed by the religious sector in Saudi Arabia.27 Thus, in order to avoid this scenario, al-Thanis, on the one hand, contained Qatar’s religious sector, and on the other, they staffed Qatari religious institutions with members of the MB. In contrast to Saudi Arabia, the ulama or religious scholars in Qatar do not have a role in decision-making, nor are they institutionalized. Qatar does not have a Grand Mufti, as opposed to Saudi Arabia, where the Grand Mufti heads the Council of Senior Ulama. Qatar’s leading 22 Jocelyne Cesari, “Disciplining Religion: The Role of the State and Its Consequences on Democracy,” Journal of Religious and Political Practice 2, no. 2 (2016): 139–42, https://doi.org/10.1080/20566093.2016.1181365. 23 Courtney Freer, “Rentier Islamism in the Absence of Elections: The Political Role of Muslim Brotherhood Affiliates in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 49, no. 3 (August 2017): 483, https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0020743817000344. 24 Lacroix and Holoch, Awakening Islam, 10. 25 Ahmed Abdelkareem Saif, “Deconstructing before Building: Perspectives on Democracy in Qatar,” in Reform in the Middle East Oil Monarchies, ed. Anoushiravan Ehteshami and Steven Wright (Reading, UK: Ithaca Press, 2012), 18. 26 David B. Roberts, “Qatar and the Brotherhood,” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 56, no. 4 (2014): 25, https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2014.941557. 27 Roberts, 26.

7  QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 

201

‘alim or religious scholar is Egyptian-born Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, whose influence on the state is personal rather than formal. In fact, most of Qatar’s ulama are non-nationals, which implies a certain political vulnerability in comparison to an indigenous class of ulama. Moreover, and in contrast to the KSA, the emerging class of indigenous ulama consist of a large number of females.28 In comparison to Saudi Arabia, Qatar’s ulama therefore do not have any significant influence on political decision-making. Qatar and the KSA also differ markedly in their respective relationships with the MB. Both countries offered members of the EMB safety against persecution by Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s, and they hosted members of the SMB who fled Hafez al-Assad’s security state in the 1970s and 1980s. Initially, the KSA and the EMB were united against Nasser’s secular nationalism, and while the Saudi state offered the EMB safety, members of the EMB gave back to the Saudi state by staffing various ministries, especially the judiciary and education.29 However, the EMB also contributed to the development of the Islamic Awakening or Sahwa al-Islamiyah, a Saudi Islamist movement.30 At first, the Sahwa, the members of the EMB, and the Saudi state coexisted amicably, but this relationship took a turn with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. In response to Saudi Arabia’s decision to allow the United States to deploy its military forces in the Kingdom, the Sahwa criticized Riyadh’s relations with Washington and initiated a domestic campaign in support of political reforms in the Kingdom.31 By 1995, the Saudi state had crushed the Sahwa’s uprising. However, a deep resentment toward the MB has remained,32 as reflected in the Minister of Interior’s assessment in 2002 that the MB is the “source of all evils in the Kingdom.”33 The Saudi state’s relations with the Sahwa improved subsequently, only to reach another crisis when, in the context 28 Roberts,

25; Baskan and Wright, “Seeds of Change,” 97–100. Hedges and Giorgio Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood: What Does the Future Hold?” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 131. 30 Stéphane Lacroix, “Saudi Arabia’s Muslim Brotherhood Predicament,” POMEPS Briefings (Project on Middle East Political Science, October 2017), https://pomeps.org/ wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf. 31 Hedges and Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood,” 132–33. 32 Lacroix, “Saudi Arabia’s Muslim Brotherhood Predicament,” 51. 33 Hedges and Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood,” 133. 29 Matthew

202  H. BOOYSEN

of the Arab uprisings, the Sahwa once again challenged the monarchy’s authority.34 Today, the Saudi state views the MB as an existential threat and a terrorist organization. Similar to Saudi Arabia, Qatar offered members of the EMB protection in the 1950s and 1960s to escape persecution by the Nasser government.35 A symbiotic relationship developed, which is best represented by Egyptian born Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s relationship with Qatar’s rulers.36 Similar to other members of the EMB in Qatar, Qaradawi has contributed to the education sector, and in the field of media. His first role was Director of the Education Ministry’s Institute of Islamic Instruction.37 In 1977, he founded the Sharia Faculty at Qatar University, and subsequently became its first Dean.38 The pinnacle of Qaradawi’s influence, however, was in the media and came in the context of Qatar’s soft power, as projected by the Al Jazeera television channel. Qaradawi’s popular talk show Sharia and Life (al-shari’a wa al-hayat) had a global audience of up to 35 million on an almost weekly basis.39 Furthermore, in contrast to the Sahwa’s challenge to the Saudi government in 1990 and again in 2011, the MB in Qatar freely disbanded in 1999,40 and therefore posed no threat to Qatar in the context of the 2010/11 Arab uprisings. In this section, we have seen that the al-Thani rulers, from early on, had to trade off a need for security with an ambition for autonomy from bigger powers in the Gulf Region. A commitment to gain autonomy from the KSA in domestic politics and regional affairs resulted in 34 Lacroix,

“Saudi Arabia’s Muslim Brotherhood Predicament,” 52. Haykel, “Saudi Arabia and Qatar in a Time of Revolution” (Center for Strategic & International Studies, February 19, 2013), https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/ s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/130219_Haykel_SaudiQatar_GulfAnalysis.pdf. 36 Qaradawi accepted Qatari citizenship in 1969. 37 David H. Warren, “Qatari Support for the Muslim Brotherhood Is More Than Just Realpolitik, It Has a Long, Personal History,” MAYDAN: Politics & Society, July 12, 2017, https://www.themaydan.com/2017/07/qatari-support-muslim-brotherhood-justrealpolitik-long-personal-history/. 38 David B. Roberts, “Qatar, the Ikhwan, and Transnational Relations in the Gulf,” POMEPS Briefings (Project on Middle East Political Science, October 2017), https:// pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf. 39 David H. Warren, “The ‘Ulamā’ and the Arab Uprisings 2011–13: Considering Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the ‘Global Mufti,’ between the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Legal Tradition, and Qatari Foreign Policy,” New Middle Eastern Studies 4 (2014): 7. 40 Hedges and Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood,” 149. 35 Bernard

7  QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 

203

a politically weak religious sector and a strategic relationship with the EMB. This, in turn, led to an individual brand of Qatari Wahhabism that is very different from the way Wahhabism finds expression in the KSA. This predisposed Qatar to view the Syrian uprising as an opportunity to enhance its regional influence.

The Case of Syria: Qatar’s Policy and the Syrian Uprising This section will argue that Qatar’s political environment supported its stance on the Syrian conflict. It will build this argument in three steps. First, it will show that regime change in Libya prevented the same scenario in Syria. Then, it will demonstrate that Qatar, being oblivious to the consequences of the Libyan reality until August 2013, pursued regime change in Syria with the support of many actors in the international community. Third, it will show Qatar’s support for the SMB as pragmatic, based on the SMB’s capacity to mobilize the opposition in exile and on the Western powers’ acceptance of the SMB, though only for a limited period. Qatar viewed the 2010/11 Arab uprisings as a catalyst to replace autocratic systems with pluralist political systems in the broader Middle East, but not in the Gulf Region. Then-Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani articulated Qatar’s expectations by telling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in early 2011, that developments in Tunisia had made political change inevitable.41 The former Qatari Emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, and the then Crown Prince (Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani) also counselled Bashar al-Assad, at the time a close friend, to compromise politically. Thus, Qatar embraced the political transitions in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011, and saw a role for itself in supporting similar political transitions in Libya and Syria. However, before we continue our discussion of Qatar’s engagement with the Syrian uprising, we need to consider the implications of regime change in Libya on political change in Syria, which was unforeseen by both Qatar and other regional powers and international allies.

41 Hamid bin Jaber al-Thani was Qatar’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister at the start of the Arab uprisings. He vacated the two ministerial positions when the former Emir ­abdicated in June 2013.

204  H. BOOYSEN

Regime Change in Libya, but Not in Syria UNSC Resolution 1973, of March 17, 2011, facilitated regime change in Libya, but became the Syrian uprising’s Achilles heel. In order to protect civilians against the Libyan government’s use of force, UNSC Resolution 1973 authorized “all necessary measures,”42 which in this instance translated as foreign military intervention. Two days later, NATO started its air attack against Qaddafi’s forces in Benghazi. The NATO-led military campaign did not cease after the feared attack against civilians in Benghazi was foiled, but continued until October 2011, when Qaddafi was captured and killed.43 In retrospect, resolution 1973 therefore was unprecedented to legalize a foreign military intervention in Libya, which in turn facilitated the end of the Qaddafi regime. In Syria, the Russian veto in the UNSC prevented a repeat of the Libyan scenario. Between October 2011 and October 2019, Russia vetoed 14 UNSC Resolutions on Syria,44 based on a sentiment that regime change in Syria, as witnessed in Libya, should be foiled (see Chapter 12). On October 4, 2011, when Russia vetoed the first draft resolution on Syria,45 the Russian Ambassador to the UN said: “The situation in Syria cannot be considered in the Council separately from the Libyan experience.” In a similar vein, the South African Ambassador explained that (non-permanent member) South Africa abstained due to the abuse of UNSC resolutions, the “implementation [of which in Libya] has gone far beyond the mandate of what was intended.”46 Thus, in a manner that rendered the UNSC impotent on Syria, Russia vetoed any resolution with the potential of allowing foreign military intervention in the Syrian conflict. 42 “UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011)” (United Nations, March 17, 2011), https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7b65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7d/Libya%20S%20RES%201973.pdf. 43 Shahram Akbarzadeh and Arif Saba, “UN Paralysis over Syria: The Responsibility to Protect or Regime Change?” International Politics 56, no. 4 (August 2019): 536–50, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-018-0149-x. 44 “Security Council Veto List (in Reverse Chronological Order),” United Nations, accessed September 3, 2019, http://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick. 45 The draft resolution was sponsored by France, Britain, Germany, Portugal, and Northern Ireland. 46 “UN Security Council 6627th Meeting” (United Nations, October 4, 2011), http:// www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.6627.

7  QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 

205

Qatar and Regime Change in Syria In the previous section, we have seen that regime change in Libya, ­paradoxically, halted the domino effect created by the Arab uprisings and thus prevented the removal of Bashar al-Assad through foreign military intervention. However, Qatar, an active proponent of regime change in Libya and a sponsor of the Syrian political opposition, was not considering this as a probable scenario at the time.47 For the purposes of this argument, we will accept that Qatar (and many in the Syrian opposition) expected the United States and its Western allies to effect regime change in Syria, as had occurred in Libya. This scenario was viewed as possible up until August 2013, when the Syrian government allegedly used chemical weapons against civilians in the Ghouta neighborhood of Damascus. When the United States agreed to Russia’s plan to eliminate the Syrian state’s chemical stockpile, as opposed to punitive action,48 it was clear that Syria most likely would not follow the Libyan scenario. The UNSC’s unanimous support for the Russian plan further served to enhance Bashar al-Assad’s legitimacy.49 The West, or the P3 (France, United Kingdom, and the United States), needed Arab partners in the military campaign against Libya, due to the disastrous consequences of the US-led invasion of Iraq. Qatar and the UAE served this need in a symbolic manner when the two states joined the NATO-led campaign. However, the role of the Arab League in legitimizing the NATO campaign was important, as evident in an opinion piece penned by the then presidents of the P3 (Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama) in the New York Times, in April 2011. While numb to the African Union’s attempts to reach a negotiated solution to the Libyan crisis,50 the three presidents wrote

47 Christopher Phillips, “Eyes Bigger Than Stomachs: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in Syria,” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 38–40, https://doi.org/10.1111/ mepo.12250. 48 Ralf Trapp, “Elimination of the Chemical Weapons Stockpile of Syria,” Journal of Conflict and Security Law 19, no. 1 (April 2014): 9, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/kru002. 49 See “UN Security Council Resolution 2118 (2013)” (United Nations, September 2013), http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2118(2013). 50 Alex De Waal, “African Roles in the Libyan Conflict of 2011,” International Affairs 89, no. 2 (March 2013): 369, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12022.

206  H. BOOYSEN

that the international community was “obliged to act,” based on the Arab League’s call for action.51 As president of the Arab League, Qatar was well placed to influence its regional policy toward the 2010/11 Arab uprisings.52 On February 22, 2011, Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani secured Libya’s suspension from the Arab League,53 which, on March 12, 2011, called for the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya to provide civilians safety from aerial attacks by the Libyan military.54 Both these demands were included in UNSC Resolution 1973. This decisive action contrasts with the Arab League’s rather uneventful track record, based on the principle of non-intervention in member states’ domestic affairs.55 In November 2011, Qatar managed Syria’s suspension from the Arab League. A month later, the Arab League decided to send a monitoring team to Syria in an attempt to de-escalate the conflict.56 In January 2012, the Qatari Prime Minister told the Security Council that the Arab League had been unsuccessful in its efforts to end the violence, because the Syrian government, under the leadership of Bashar al-Assad, had no interest in curbing the violence.57 He explained that the Arab League sought the Security Council’s support for a political roadmap that would see Bashar al-Assad handing power to a deputy and the formation of a unity government, after which parliamentary

51 Barack Obama, David Cameron, and Nicolas Sarkozy, “Libya’s Pathway to Peace,” New York Times, April 14, 2011, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15iht-edlibya15.html. 52 Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, “Qatar and the Arab Spring: Policy Drivers and Regional Implications” (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2014), 3, https://carnegieendowment.org/files/qatar_arab_spring.pdf. 53 Daniel F. Wajner and Arie M. Kacowicz, “The Quest for Regional Legitimation: Analyzing the Arab League’s Legitimizing Role in the Arab Spring,” Regional & Federal Studies 28, no. 4 (2018): 16, https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2018.1451846. 54 Waal, “African Roles in the Libyan Conflict of 2011,” 376. 55 Wajner and Kacowicz, “The Quest for Regional Legitimation,” 16. 56 Phillips, “Eyes Bigger Than Stomachs,” 38. 57 “Security Council Debates Situation in Syria,” UN News, January 31, 2012, https:// news.un.org/en/story/2012/01/401882-security-council-debates-situation-syria.

7  QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 

207

and presidential elections would be held.58 A change of the Ba’th regime was most likely the objective. Many actors in the international community, including the regional system, supported the Arab League’s engagement with the Syrian uprising. On February 4, 2012, 13 members of the UNSC, including non-permanent members of South Africa and India,59 voted for a draft resolution that backed the Arab League plan of January 22, 2012.60 India found it necessary to justify its endorsement by saying that the draft resolution “rules out any measures under Article 42 of the Charter [that would allow regime change] and calls for a serious political dialogue (…) under the auspices of the League of Arab States.” However, the draft resolution did not pass, because Russia and China vetoed the resolution as being biased.61 Next, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted the Arab League’s draft resolution of February 16, 2012 with 137 votes in favor, 12 against, and 17 abstentions.62 Other than condemning the Syrian authorities’ abuse of human rights, the UNGA Resolution supported the League of Arab States’ January 22, 2012 decision to facilitate “a Syrianled political transition to a democratic, plural political system.”63 Though the UNGA resolution did not have the ability to sanction the Syrian government, it demonstrated the international community’s overwhelming support for the Arab League’s position on Syria. In a further show of 58 “Arabs Agree New Syria Plan, Urge U.N. Support,” Reuters, January 22, 2012, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-initiative/arabs-agree-new-syria-planurge-u-n-support-idUSTRE80L0WL20120122. 59 India and South Africa are members of the Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) grouping, and both shared in the Russian interpretation that UNSC 1973 was misused in aid of regime change in Libya. 60 “Syria: Ban Voices Deep Regret after Security Council Fails to Agree on Resolution,” UN News, February 4, 2012, https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/02/402402-syriaban-voices-deep-regret-after-security-council-fails-agree-resolution. 61 “UN Security Council 6711th Meeting” (United Nations, February 4, 2012), 9, http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.6711. 62 “General Assembly Demands Syria Halt Violence Without Delay,” UN News, February 16, 2012, https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/02/403592general-assembly-demands-syria-halt-violence-without-delay. 63 “General Assembly Adopts Resolution Strongly Condemning ‘Widespread and Systematic’ Human Rights Violations by Syrian Authorities,” United Nations, February 16, 2012, https://www.un.org/press/en/2012/ga11207.doc.htm.

208  H. BOOYSEN

support for the Arab League’s stance on Syria, the UN and the Arab League appointed a Joint Special Envoy for the Syrian crisis on February 23, 2012.64

Qatar, the SMB, and the SNC This section will show that Qatar’s support for the SMB in the wake of the Syrian uprising was pragmatic, based on the SMB’s capacity to mobilize the Syrian opposition in exile, and the West’s support for the Syrian National Council (SNC). Like moderate Islamists in Tunisia and Egypt, the SMB showed itself to be the most capable opposition group to challenge the government in the wake of the Syrian uprising. Based on its historical opposition to the Ba’th one-party state,65 the SMB had an organizational capacity in 2011 that the protest movement and the secularist opposition lacked. For example, the SMB played a leading role in establishing the Syrian National Council (SNC) in Istanbul on October 2, 2011, with funding from Qatar.66 The SNC was modelled on the W ­ estern-backed National Transitional Council (NTC) in Libya, which acted as a transition government in 2011 and steered Libya to elections in ­mid-2012.67 Initially, the SNC’s political authority was recognized from within Syria and by the international community.68 Following France’s lead, seventy countries at the so-called 64 “Kofi Annan Appointed Joint Special Envoy of United Nations, League of Arab States on Syrian Crisis,” United Nations, February 23, 2012, https://www.un.org/press/ en/2012/sgsm14124.doc.htm. 65 See Umar F. Abd-Allah, The Islamic Struggle in Syria (Berkeley: Mizan Press, 1983); Raphael Lefevre, Ashes of Hama: The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria (London: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers Ltd., 2013); Joshua Teitelbaum, “The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, 1945–1958: Founding, Social Origins, Ideology,” Middle East Journal 65, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 213–33, https://doi.org/10.3751/65.2.12; and Joshua Teitelbaum, “The Muslim Brotherhood and the ‘Struggle for Syria’, 1947–1958 between Accommodation and Ideology,” Middle Eastern Studies 40, no. 3 (May 2004): 134–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/002632004200 0213492. 66 Roula Khalaf and Abigail Fielding-Smith, “How Qatar Seized Control of the Syrian Revolution,” Financial Times Magazine, May 17, 2013. 67 “Popular Protest in North Africa and the Middle East (V): Making Sense of Libya,” Middle East/North Africa Report (Cairo/Brussels, 6: International Crisis Group, June 6, 2011), 24–26. 68 Adam Baczko, Gilles Dorronsoro, and Arthur Quesnay, Civil War in Syria: Mobilization and Competing Social Orders (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 135.

7  QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 

209

Friends of Syria Summit in April 2012 endorsed the SNC as “a legitimate representative” of the Syrian people, and “the main opposition interlocutor with the international community.”69 However, in time, the SMB and, by extension, Qatar’s influence in the Syrian political opposition was challenged.70 First, the United States and its allies pressured Qatar to broaden the SNC, based on a proposal from a respected member of the secularist opposition, Riad Seif.71 In November 2012, the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces (NC) replaced the SNC as the international community’s main interlocutor in the Syrian opposition. Initially, the SMB succeeded to maintain significant influence in the NC, based on its relationship with Mustafa Sabbagh, who enjoyed close relations with the Qatari government, and was appointed as the NC’s Secretary-General.72 Qatar’s persistent influence was further marked by its funding of the NC’s budget.73 However, in mid-2013, the United States had become concerned about some aspects of the Qatari government’s support for the Syrian opposition. At the same time, Saudi Arabia took on a more public role in its support for the secularist armed opposition, namely, the Free Syrian Army (FSA).74 The subsequent restructuring of the NC witnessed the incorporation of approximately 25 new individuals, the majority of whom were secularists, and sponsored by Saudi Arabia.75 This restructuring of the political opposition’s primary institution in favor of Saudi Arabia, curbed both Qatar and the SMB’s influence in the Syrian conflict. This dynamic between Qatar and the KSA and their proactive behavior outward is yet another example for the increasing importance of the Gulf Region for the broader Middle East. 69 Elizabeth O’Bagy, “Syria’s Political Opposition,” Middle East Security Report (Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of War (ISW), April 2012), 9, http://www.scpss. org/libs/spaw/uploads/files/Reports/Syrias_Political_Opposition.pdf. 70 In an interview in June 2015, a member of the SMB executive alleged that the SNC’s reversal of fortune in 2012 was primarily due to the enduring Western suspicion of Islamists. 71 Khalaf and Fielding-Smith, “How Qatar Seized Control of the Syrian Revolution.” 72 Baczko, Dorronsoro, and Quesnay, Civil War in Syria, 137. 73 Khalaf and Fielding-Smith, “How Qatar Seized Control of the Syrian Revolution.” 74 International Crisis Group, “Anything but Politics: The State of Syria’s Political Opposition,” Middle East Report (Beirut/Damascus/Brussels: International Crisis Group, October 17, 2013), 22, https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/146%20Anything%20 But%20Politics%20-%20The%20State%20of%20Syrias%20Political%20Opposition.pdf. 75 Interview conducted with a member of the SMB executive in June 2015.

210  H. BOOYSEN

In this section, we have seen that the Qatari government acted as a rational political actor, which optimized an opportunity to enhance its regional influence by supporting a client that had mobilizational capacity, and was at least tolerated, if not supported, by principal actors in the region and the West. This scenario rests on Qatar’s perspective that the Arab uprisings were a catalyst to do away with autocratic political systems, but not monarchies in the Gulf Region. We saw how the Russian veto in the UNSC prevented regime change in Syria, as it occurred in Libya. But in 2011 and up until August 2013, this was not a fait accompli, yet, and Qatar’s support for regime change in Syria enjoyed the support of many in the broader Middle East and in the international community. Furthermore, we have seen in Syria that the SMB’s capacity to mobilize the opposition (in exile) at the onset of the Syrian uprising distinguished the Brotherhood from the protest movement, and the secularist opposition. Qatar’s support for the SNC was also initially in line with that of the West, as represented by the so-called Friends of the Syrian people group that legitimized the SNC with its recognition thereof. Doha’s foreign policy with Syria was also primarily in line with Turkey, both of which supported the regime changes in Tunisia and Egypt and the replacement by ideationally and ideologically ­similar-minded actors.

Conclusion This chapter has investigated the notion that Qatar has taken significant foreign policy risks by supporting the SMB in the wake of the Arab uprisings. Not so, given the 2011—August 2013 political environment and based on its constructed identity and soft power capacity, Qatar’s support for the SMB was pragmatic. The decision-makers in Doha regarded the 2010/11 Arab uprisings as a strategic opportunity to form novel regional alliances in the broader Middle East and, as such, to balance against regional great powers in the Gulf Region. Qatar also came closer to Turkey, as both promoted the rise of a novel bloc, which included the countries-in-transition, toward democracy (see Table 14.1). The first part demonstrated that Qatar’s rulers have historically pursued a balance between sovereignty and security. At present, the military presence of both the United States and Turkey in Qatar ensures the country’s security and allows al-Thani rulers to pursue a foreign policy independent from the KSA, the UAE, and Bahrain. The chapter also demonstrated that, primarily, in order to shield the country from Saudi

7  QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 

211

Arabia’s domination, Qatar has developed a politically weak religious sector and a strategic relationship with the EMB, which in turn has led to an individual brand of Qatari Wahhabism. This constructed identity and these geopolitical calculations predisposed Qatar to view the Arab uprisings as an opportunity to enhance its regional influence. In the second part, the chapter shows that Qatar reasonably supported a political transition in Syria due to regional and international support for Qatar’s stance on the Syrian conflict. Doha’s position toward a shift in the leadership was in harmony with that of the Arab League (including the KSA), Turkey, and the wider international community. Qatar’s support for the SMB was warranted by the SMB’s capacity to mobilize the Syrian opposition in exile and the so-called Friends of the Syrian People’s legitimization of the SNC. The Arab uprisings have failed as a regional phenomenon.76 Apart from Tunisia, the uprisings, including the uprising in Syria, have not delivered the much-anticipated political transitions. Though this has checked Qatar’s regional influence, Doha (along with Turkey) has succeeded in maintaining a foreign policy in support of moderate Islamism and against the assault thereon by the KSA, the UAE, and Egypt.

Bibliography Abd-Allah, Umar F. The Islamic Struggle in Syria. Berkeley: Mizan Press, 1983. Akbarzadeh, Shahram, and Arif Saba. “UN Paralysis over Syria: The Responsibility to Protect or Regime Change?” International Politics 56, no. 4 (August 2019): 536–50. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-018-0149-x. Amour, Philipp O. “The Arab Spring Movement: The Failed Revolution: Preliminary Theoretical and Empirical Deliberation.” In The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 199–224. St. James’s Studies in World Affairs. Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018. Baczko, Adam, Gilles Dorronsoro, and Arthur Quesnay. Civil War in Syria: Mobilization and Competing Social Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. 76 See Philipp O. Amour, “The Arab Spring Movement: The Failed Revolution. Preliminary Theoretical and Empirical Deliberation,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018), 199–224.

212  H. BOOYSEN Baskan, Birol, and Steven Wright. “Seeds of Change: Comparing State–Religion Relations in Qatar and Saudi Arabia.” Arab Studies Quarterly 33, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 96–111. Battaloğlu, Cihat. Political Reforms in Qatar: From Authoritarianism Top Political Grey Zone. Berlin, Germany: Gerlach Press, 2018. Berger, Linda. “The Gulf Cooperation Council between Unity and Discord towards the Arab Uprisings.” Sicherheit Und Frieden (S+F)/Security and Peace 32, no. 4 (2014): 260–64. Cesari, Jocelyne. “Disciplining Religion: The Role of the State and Its Consequences on Democracy.” Journal of Religious and Political Practice 2, no. 2 (2016): 135–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/20566093.2016.1181365. De Waal, Alex. “African Roles in the Libyan Conflict of 2011.” International Affairs 89, no. 2 (March 2013): 365–79. https://doi. org/10.1111/1468-2346.12022. Freer, Courtney. “Rentier Islamism in the Absence of Elections: The Political Role of Muslim Brotherhood Affiliates in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 49, no. 3 (August 2017): 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743817000344. Fromherz, Allen James. Qatar: A Modern History. Washington, DC: I.B. Tauris, 2012. Group, International Crisis. “Anything but Politics: The State of Syria’s Political Opposition.” Middle East Report. Beirut/Damascus/Brussels: International Crisis Group, October 17, 2013. https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront. net/146%20Anything%20But%20Politics%20-%20The%20State%20of%20 Syrias%20Political%20Opposition.pdf. Hammond, Andrew. “Qatar’s Leadership Transition: Like Father, Like Son.” Policy Brief. European Council on Foreign Relations (ecfr.eu), February 11, 2014. https://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR95_QATAR_BRIEF_AW.pdf. Haykel, Bernard. “Saudi Arabia and Qatar in a Time of Revolution.” Center for Strategic & International Studies, February 19, 2013. https://csis-prod. s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/130219_ Haykel_SaudiQatar_GulfAnalysis.pdf. Hedges, Matthew, and Giorgio Cafiero. “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood: What Does the Future Hold?” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 129–53. Hinnebusch, Raymond. The International Politics of the Middle East. 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015. Kamrava, Mehran. Qatar: Small State, Big Politics. New York: Cornell University Press, 2013. Khalaf, Roula, and Abigail Fielding-Smith. “How Qatar Seized Control of the Syrian Revolution.” Financial Times Magazine, May 17, 2013.

7  QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 

213

Khatib, Lina. “Qatar and the Recalibration of Power in the Gulf.” Carnegie Middle East Center, September 2014. https://carnegieendowment.org/files/qatar_ recalibration.pdf. ———. “Qatar’s Foreign Policy: The Limits of Pragmatism.” International Affairs 89, no. 2 (March 1, 2013): 417–31. https://doi. org/10.1111/1468-2346.12025. Lacroix, Stéphane. “Saudi Arabia’s Muslim Brotherhood Predicament.” POMEPS Briefings. Project on Middle East Political Science, October 2017. https://pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_ Qatar-Crisis.pdf. Lacroix, Stephane, and George Holoch. Awakening Islam: The Politics of Religious Dissent in Contemporary Saudi Arabia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011. Lefevre, Raphael. Ashes of Hama: The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. London: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers Ltd., 2013. Lendon, Brad. “Qatar Hosts Largest US Military Base in Mideast.” CNN, June 6, 2017. https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/05/middleeast/qatar-us-largestbase-in-mideast/index.html. Lynch, Mark. “How Trump’s Alignment with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates Is Inflaming the Middle East.” Project on Middle East Political Science, October 2017. https://pomeps.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf. Mogielnicki, Robert. “The New Economics of Qatar–Turkey Relations.” Middle East Institute, August 30, 2018. https://www.mei.edu/publications/ new-economics-qatar-turkey-relations. O’Bagy, Elizabeth. “Syria’s Political Opposition.” Middle East Security Report. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of War (ISW), April 2012. http://www.scpss.org/libs/spaw/uploads/files/Reports/Syrias_Political_ Opposition.pdf. Obama, Barack, David Cameron, and Nicolas Sarkozy. “Libya’s Pathway to Peace.” New York Times, April 14, 2011. https://www.nytimes. com/2011/04/15/opinion/15iht-edlibya15.html. Peterson, J.E. “Britain and Formation of Gulf States: The Case of Qatar and Shaykh Jassim bin Muhammad.” In Jassim Bin Mohammed Bin Thani—The Day of Solidarity, Loyalty and Honor, edited by Jamal Mahmud Hajar, Ahmad Zakaria Al-Shalaq, Yusuf Ibrahim Al-Abdallah, and Mohammed Hammam Fikri, 56–71. Qatar: GEM Advertising & Publications, 2008. Phillips, Christopher. “Eyes Bigger Than Stomachs: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in Syria.” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 36–47. https:// doi.org/10.1111/mepo.12250.

214  H. BOOYSEN “Popular Protest in North Africa and the Middle East (V): Making Sense of Libya.” Middle East/North Africa Report. Cairo/ Brussels, 6: International Crisis Group, June 6, 2011. Rabi, Uzi. “Qatar’s Relations with Israel: Challenging Arab and Gulf Norms.” The Middle East Journal 63, no. 3 (Summer 2009): 443–59. Reuters. “Arabs Agree New Syria Plan, Urge U.N. Support,” January 22, 2012. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-initiative/arabs-agree-newsyria-plan-urge-u-n-support-idUSTRE80L0WL20120122. Roberts, David B. “Qatar and the Brotherhood.” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 56, no. 4 (2014): 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.201 4.941557. ———. “Qatar and the UAE: Exploring Divergent Responses to the Arab Spring.” The Middle East Journal 71, no. 4 (Autumn 2017): 544–62. https://doi.org/10.3751/71.4.12. ———. “Qatar, the Ikhwan, and Transnational Relations in the Gulf.” POMEPS Briefings. Project on Middle East Political Science, October 2017. https:// pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf. ———. “Understanding Qatar’s Foreign Policy Objectives.” Mediterranean Politics 17, no. 2 (2012): 233–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.20 12.695123. Saif, Ahmed Abdelkareem. “Deconstructing before Building: Perspectives on Democracy in Qatar.” In Reform in the Middle East Oil Monarchies, edited by Anoushiravan Ehteshami and Steven Wright, 103–28. Reading, UK: Ithaca Press, 2012. Sergie, Mohammed. “Embattled Qatar Is Rich Enough to Get by for Another 100 Years.” Bloomberg Businessweek, June 6, 2018. https://www.bloomberg. com/news/articles/2018-06-06/a-year-later-iran-is-the-big-winner-of-theqatar-embargo. Stratfor Worldview. “A Renewed Sense of Nationalism Takes Root in Qatar Reflections,” December 29, 2017. https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/ renewed-sense-nationalism-takes-root-qatar. Teitelbaum, Joshua. “The Muslim Brotherhood and the ‘Struggle for Syria’, 1947–1958 between Accommodation and Ideology.” Middle Eastern Studies 40, no. 3 (May 2004): 134–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/0026320042000 213492. ———. “The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, 1945–1958: Founding, Social Origins, Ideology.” Middle East Journal 65, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 213–33. https://doi.org/10.3751/65.2.12. Trapp, Ralf. “Elimination of the Chemical Weapons Stockpile of Syria.” Journal of Conflict and Security Law 19, no. 1 (April 2014): 7–23. https://doi. org/10.1093/jcsl/kru002.

7  QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 

215

Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates. “Qatar and the Arab Spring: Policy Drivers and Regional Implications.” Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2014. https://carnegieendowment.org/files/qatar_arab_spring.pdf. United Nations. “General Assembly Adopts Resolution Strongly Condemning ‘Widespread and Systematic’ Human Rights Violations by Syrian Authorities,” February 16, 2012. https://www.un.org/press/en/2012/ga11207.doc.htm. ———. “Security Council Veto List (in Reverse Chronological Order).” Accessed September 3, 2019. http://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick. UN News. “General Assembly Demands Syria Halt Violence Without Delay,” February 16, 2012. https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/02/403592-general-assembly-demands-syria-halt-violence-without-delay. ———. “Security Council Debates Situation in Syria,” January 31, 2012. https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/01/401882-security-council-debates-situation-syria. ———. “Syria: Ban Voices Deep Regret after Security Council Fails to Agree on Resolution,” February 4, 2012. https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/02/402402-syria-ban-voices-deep-regret-after-security-councilfails-agree-resolution. “UN Security Council 6627th Meeting.” United Nations, October 4, 2011. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.6627. “UN Security Council 6711th Meeting.” United Nations, February 4, 2012. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.6711. “UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011).” United Nations, March 17, 2011. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7b65BFCF9B-6D274E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7d/Libya%20S%20RES%201973.pdf. “UN Security Council Resolution 2118 (2013).” United Nations, September 2013. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2118(2013). Wajner, Daniel F., and Arie M. Kacowicz. “The Quest for Regional Legitimation: Analyzing the Arab League’s Legitimizing Role in the Arab Spring.” Regional & Federal Studies 28, no. 4 (2018): 489–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13 597566.2018.1451846. Warren, David H. “Qatari Support for the Muslim Brotherhood Is More Than Just Realpolitik, It Has a Long, Personal History.” MAYDAN: Politics & Society, July 12, 2017. https://www.themaydan.com/2017/07/qatarisupport-muslim-brotherhood-just-realpolitik-long-personal-history/. ———. “The ‘Ulamā’ and the Arab Uprisings 2011–13: Considering Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the ‘Global Mufti,’ between the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Legal Tradition, and Qatari Foreign Policy.” New Middle Eastern Studies 4 (2014): 2–32.

CHAPTER 8

(Un)Limited Force: Regional Realignments, Israeli Operations, and the Security of Gaza Colter Louwerse

Introduction It is something of a misnomer to write about the security of the Gaza Strip because, in many ways, Gaza is defined by the near-total absence of security. In June 2017, Sara Roy, a Senior Research Scholar at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University, warned in the London Review of Books that “the now devastating impact of Gaza’s decade-long isolation from the rest of the world” as an intentional result of Israel’s blockade had meant that “an increasing number of people are reaching the limit of what they can endure.”1 For decades, Gaza has been a paradigm of human suffering. With almost 1.9 million residents packed into 365 square kilometers, it is one of the most densely populated regions on the planet.2 Seventy percent of its populace consists of refugees or the descendants 1 Sara

Roy, “If Israel Were Smart,” London Review of Books 39, no. 12 (June 15, 2017): 19–20. 2 “Palestine in Figures 2017. Ramallah: March 2018,” State of Palestine. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, March 2018, 8, http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Downloads/book2362.pdf.

C. Louwerse (*)  Institute of Arab Islamic Studies, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_8

217

218  C. LOUWERSE

of refugees, expelled from what is now Israel over the course of the 1947–1949 Arab–Israeli War.3 As many as 80% are dependent on humanitarian aid.4 Almost half are children under the age of 18.5 Discussion of Gaza’s security is even more complicated by the fact that virtually all the decisions influencing the freedom of its populace are determined outside of its geographical and political purview. While Gaza has, since the implementation of the Oslo I agreement in May 1994, been under the nominally autonomous governance of either the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) or Hamas since 2006,6 the Strip has also been thrust into the unique position of being occupied by a military power deployed outside of the territory under its control.7 Israel removed its settlements in Gaza in a process of strategic disengagement in 2005. Nevertheless, human rights organizations and international bodies almost universally maintain that Israel retains its legal obligations as a military occupier, as it continues to control Gaza’s borders, airspace, water, electricity, and people’s registry.8 That Israel no longer maintains a permanent military presence inside Gaza is widely regarded as legally irrelevant. “Modern technology now permits effective control from outside 3 “Where We Work: Gaza Strip,” UNRWA—United Nations Relief and Works Agency, January 1, 2018, https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/gaza-strip; For details on the 1948 expulsion, see Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2007). 4 “Report on UNCTAD Assistance to the Palestinian People: Developments in the Economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD], July 10, 2017), 6, https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal. nsf/22f431edb91c6f548525678a0051be1d/9ef3a17ccd1df05a852581790069fff8?OpenDocument. 5 “State of Palestine,” Humanitarian Situation Report (UNICEF, December 2017), 2, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/UNICEF%20State%20of%20 Palestine%20Humanitarian%20Situation%20Report%20-%20Year%20End%202017.pdf. 6 Sara Roy, Failing Peace: Gaza and the Palestinian–Israeli Conflict (London: Pluto Press, 2007), 79–101, 141. 7 John Dugard, “Debunking Israel’s Self-Defense Argument,” July 31, 2014, http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/gaza-israel-internationalpoliticsunicc.html; Norman G. Finkelstein, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom (Oakland: University of California Press, 2018), 269. 8 See e.g., “Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 Days of Death and Destruction,” MDE (Amnesty International, July 2, 2009), 80–81, https://www.amnesty.org/download/ Documents/48000/mde150152009en.pdf.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

219

the occupied territory,” former UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories John Dugard typically observes, and this is what Israel has established.9 Meanwhile, the Israeli blockade of Gaza—implemented in tangent with Egypt but condemned internationally and by human rights organizations as an illegal act constituting “collective punishment of a civilian population”—severely restricts freedom of movement, prevents Palestinians from accessing basic necessities, such as medical equipment, sanitation equipment, and construction materials, and has effectively crippled the Gazan economy.10 The grinding and monotonous insecurity wrought upon Gazans by the blockade is punctuated by regularized military assaults. Since Israel’s military withdrawal from ground positions within Gaza in September 2005, Gaza has been subjected to a total of seven Israeli Defense Force (IDF) “operations”: Operation Summer Rains (June–November 2006), Operation Autumn Cloud (November 2006), Operation Hot Winter (2008), Operation Cast Lead (2008–2009), Operation Returning Echo (2012), Operation Pillar of Defense (2012), and Operation Protective Edge (2014). In conjunction with the blockade, these Israeli assaults have pushed Gaza to the humanitarian brink. In recent years, United Nations organs have repeatedly warned that Gaza is on track to pass the threshold of unlivability by 2020.11 9 Dugard, “Debunking Israel’s Self-Defense Argument”; See also “Disengaged Occupiers: The Legal Status of Gaza” (Legal Center for Freedom of Movement [Gisha], January 2007), https://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications_english/Publications_and_Reports_ English/Disengaged_Occupiers_en.pdf; “Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” (United Nations Human Rights Council [UNHRC] 27th Session, September 25, 2009), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/ G09/158/66/PDF/G0915866.pdf?OpenElement. 10 “Israel: Gaza Blockade Must Be Completely Lifted,” Amnesty International, June 17, 2010, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2010/06/israel-levantar-completamente-bloqueo-gaza/; “Gaza: Donors, UN Should Press Israel on Blockade. Punitive Restrictions on Population Undermine Reconstruction,” Human Rights Watch, October 12, 2014, https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/12/gaza-donors-un-should-press-israelblockade; “Gaza Closure: Not Another Year!” International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), June 14, 2010, https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/update/ palestine-update-140610.htm; and “Gaza Closure Defined: Collective Punishment” (Legal center for Freedom of Movement [Gisha], December 2008), 27, 283, 404–5, https:// www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/GazaClosureDefinedEng.pdf. 11 “Report on UNCTAD Assistance to the Palestinian People: Developments in the Economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD], July 6, 2015), 11, https://unctad.org/en/ PublicationsLibrary/tdb62d3_en.pdf.

220  C. LOUWERSE

Living in what has been described as “the largest open air prison in the world,” Gazans have been almost entirely deprived of agency.12 Israeli policy is the ultimate determinant of the relative freedom of the Palestinian civilian population, and another Israeli operation poses the most tangible threat to Gaza’s fragile life-supporting systems. As such, rightward shifts in the makeup of the Israeli political echelon in the wake of 2014s Operation Protective Edge—with unprecedentedly hawkish figures at the helm of the Ministry of Defense and Department of Justice—appear at first glance as the preeminent threat to Gaza’s already precarious humanitarian condition.13 Israeli officials have repeatedly stated that the next round in Gaza is unavoidable, with Avigdor Lieberman taking the view that there are “no innocent people in the Gaza Strip,” and assuring Palestinians that the “next war on Israel, it will be their last” because Israel “will completely destroy them.”14 However, perhaps counterintuitively, recent power shifts in the regional and international system are a more significant determinant of the relative safety of the Gazan population than the extreme hawkishness of a right-wing Israeli government. This is because the primary determinants of the scope, scale, and brutality of Israel’s assaults on the people of Gaza have typically been external to the political and military decisions of the Israeli government. This chapter will argue that the most significant constraints on Israel’s regular attacks on Gaza are those placed upon it by regional actors and the international community. In the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East region, these restraints stem primarily from the relative levels of

12 French President Nicolas Sarkozy, quoted in Jean-Pierre Filiu, Gaza: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), xi, 341. 13 Mairav Zonszein, “Benjamin Netanyahu Just Formed the Most RightWing Government in Israeli History,” The Nation, May 25, 2016, https://www. thenation.com/ar ticle/benjamin-netanyahu-just-formed-the-most-right-wing -government-in-israeli-history/. 14 Jack Moore, “Israeli Foreign Minister Says Future Lebanon and Gaza Wars Are ‘Inevitable’,” Newsweek, February 2, 2015, https://www.newsweek.com/israeli-foreign-minister-warns-future-lebanon-and-gaza-wars-inevitable-303841; “‘No Innocent People in Gaza’ Says Israeli Defense Minister,” Middle East Eye, April 8, 2018, https:// www.middleeasteye.net/news/no-innocent-people-gaza-says-israeli-defence-minister.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

221

political opposition to Israeli raw behavior against its neighbors by powerful regional actors such as Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. These state actors, in turn, place pressure upon Israel’s chief military and diplomatic benefactor—the United States—to mitigate the IDF’s use of force. As such, determining the precise political alignment of these crucial state actors relative to Israel is essential to determining the relative freedom of the Gazan population from the humanitarian crisis. As this chapter will demonstrate, recent political realignments in the regional security system in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East, in conjunction with the recent switchover in the United States’ presidential administrations, have meant that if present trends continue, the Palestinians in Gaza will remain exceptionally vulnerable to the depredations inherent to unhindered and continued Israeli occupation, blockade, and assault. The first part of this chapter will compare the differentiated regional reactions to the 2012 and 2014 Israeli military operations in Gaza, in order to illustrate the crucial role regional alignments have had in both deterring and enabling Israeli assaults. The second part will analyze the effect post-2014 regional realignments have had upon Gaza’s precarious humanitarian condition. Finally, this chapter will conclude with a discussion of the potential impact current regional trajectories might have upon Gaza’s future humanitarian condition.

Operation Pillar of Defense versus Operation Protective Edge Comparative review of the last two Israeli military operations, Operation Pillar of Defense (2012) and Operation Protective Edge (2014), demonstrates the role of the unfolding region system and the international community in delineating the scope and scale of Israeli operations. The comparison is especially valuable given the very short amount of time (less than two years) that elapsed between the operations. Over that period, there were few changes in Israel’s military or political command structure, and the IDF’s modus operandi remained mostly consistent over the course of both operations. As one Israeli commentator put it, “Every two or three years, on average, we have a war, and it doesn’t matter who the prime minister and the defense minister are, or which parties they come

222  C. LOUWERSE

from.”15 Nevertheless, Operation Protective Edge wreaked magnitudes more destruction upon Gaza than did its 2012 predecessor. The comparative analysis of the operations conducted in the following sections illuminates regional political alignments as the independent variable limiting Israeli destruction in 2012 and facilitating it in 2014.16

Operation Pillar of Defense (2012) Situated between two Israeli operations characterized by four-digit casualty figures and billions of dollars in damage caused by “unlawful and wanton destruction” of Palestinian property,17 Operation Pillar of Defense is notable for the relative dearth of devastation it inflicted upon Gaza. Triggered by Israel’s assassination of Ahmed al-Jabari in Gaza,18 the operation lasted only eight days (November 14–21, 2012), with 174 Palestinians killed, including some 100 civilians (see Table 8.1). Four Israeli civilians and two soldiers were killed in the same period.19 15 Kob Niv, “Israel’s Next War Won’t Be Avigdor Lieberman’s Fault,” Haaretz, May 25, 2016,     https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-dont-worry-there-ll-be-another-war1.5387429. While there was a change in Defense Minister between the operations (Moshe Yaalon replaced Ehud Barak in March 2013), the Prime Minister (Benjamin Netanyahu), Chief of Staff (Benny Gantz), Air Force Commander (Amir Eshel), and Chief of Shin Bet (Yoram Coren), all carried over in the same roles. 16 See Philipp O. Amour, “ ­ Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives,” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 624, https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.384773. 17 “Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,” 202. 18 Aluf Benn, “Israel Killed Its Subcontractor in Gaza,” Haaretz, November 14, 2012, https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-death-of-israel-s-subcontractor-1.5198285; The primary impetus of the assassination was the prevention of a Palestinian ‘peace offensive’, as “hours before” he was assassinated al-Jabari “received the draft of a permanent truce agreement with Israel, which included mechanisms for maintaining the cease-fire in the case of a flare-up between Israel and the factions in the Gaza Strip.” Nir Hasson, “Israeli Peace Activist: Hamas Leader Jabari Killed amid Talks on Long-Term Truce,” Haaretz, November 15, 2012, https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-hamas-source-jabari-wanted-truce-1.5198436. 19 See also “Human Rights Violations during Operation Pillar of Defense (14–21 November 2012)” (B’tselem, May 2013), 29, https://www.btselem.org/download/201305_pillar_of_defense_operation_eng.pdf; The precise number of casualties is debated. For details on the discrepancies, see “Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Implementation of Human Rights Council Resolutions S-9/1 and S-12/1” (United Nations Human Rights Council [UNHRC], March 5, 2013), 4,

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

223

Table 8.1  Palestinian casualties and destruction during Pillar of Defense versus Protective Edge Pillar of Defense (2012) Duration (days) Palestinians killed Children killed Homes destroyed

8 174 33 382

Protective Edge (2014) 51 2220 551 18,000

Ratio 1:6 1:13 1:17 1:47

aFigures from “Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Implementation of Human Rights Council Resolutions S-9/1 and S-12/1,” 4, 6 bFigures from Fragmented Lives, 6; “Occupied Palestinian Territory: Gaza Emergency Situation Report,” Situation Report (OCHA, September 4, 2014), https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/default/ files/ocha_opt_sitrep_04_09_2014.pdf

It is furthermore notable that while Benjamin Netanyahu indicated midway through Pillar of Defense that the IDF was “prepared for a significant expansion of the operation,”20 he was shortly thereafter forced to reverse himself. Despite being dared to follow through by the Hamas leadership, the operation abruptly ended without an Israeli ground invasion materializing.21 As Defense Minister Ehud Barak had described Israel’s war aims in terms of delivering “a painful blow for Hamas” via “serious damage on the rocket-launching network,” the fact that rockets were still flying toward major Israeli cities up until a ceasefire agreement was signed further indicates that Tel Aviv failed to fully carry out its designs on Gaza.22 As such, the IDF’s conduct during the operation is

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/ Session22/A-HRC-22-35-Add-1_en.pdf. 20 Harriet Sherwood and Peter Beaumont, “Israel Ready to Expand Gaza Offensive, Says Binyamin Netanyahu,” The Guardian, November 18, 2012, https://www.theguardian. com/world/2012/nov/18/israel-ready-expand-gaza-offensive; Though the ground invasion never materialized, Israel did ramp up the scale of its attack toward the end; “80%” of Palestinian civilian casualties occurred “during the last four days of the campaign.” “Human Rights Violations,” 35. 21 Fares Akram, Judi Rudoren, and Alan Cowell, “Hamas Leader Dares Israel to Invade amid Gaza Airstrikes,” The New York Times, November 19, 2012, https://www.nytimes. com/2012/11/20/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-conflict.html?searchResultPosition=1. 22 “Israel and Hamas: Fire and Ceasefire in a New Middle East,” Middle East/North Africa (International Crisis Group, November 22, 2012), 2, https://d2071andvip0wj. cloudfront.net/133-israel-and-hamas-fire-and-ceasefire-in-a-new-middle-east.pdf.

224  C. LOUWERSE

best described as a “stalled juggernaut,”23 which appeared unable to turn the full force of its military machine against the Gaza Strip. The Israeli restraint that characterized Pillar of Defense had little to do with Hamas military prowess or Israeli moral scruples. Instead, it had to do with the regional political context of the operation. It was primarily the intervention of external actors, particularly Egypt, Turkey, and the United States, that limited the extent of the violence. The political configuration of the Israel–Palestine conflict has always been characterized by a massive power disparity—at its heart, the conflict consists of a regional nuclear power (i.e., Israel), backed unilaterally by the global superpower, acting to prevent the self-determination of a stateless and politically isolated population. While the Palestinian cause continues to maintain immense popular resonance across the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East, state-level support for Palestine rarely goes significantly beyond rhetoric. Since Egypt, the most militarily powerful Arab state in the region, signed a peace agreement with Israel in 1978, no Arab state has undertaken a large-scale military offensive against the IDF. Nevertheless, in 2012, regional developments had converged, if momentarily, to sufficiently deter the Israeli assault. The most notable of these developments occurred in Egypt and Turkey. The year 2011 bore witness to the Egyptian uprising, leading to the toppling of President Hosni Mubarak and the coming to power of the Hamas-sympathetic Muslim Brotherhood (MB) under Mohamed Morsi in June 2012 until July 2013.24 The Morsi administration largely tolerated the Gazan tunnel economy under the Egyptian border (the “principle economic engine, accounting for 80–90 percent of [Gaza’s] trade”) and took steps to increase movement through the Rafah crossing.25 Moreover, Turkey had moved toward strengthening its relationship with Hamas, after having cut off diplomatic ties with Israel in May 2010 as a result of the Mavi Marmara incident (during which Israeli

23 Finkelstein,

Gaza, 201. Supporters in Gaza Cheer Egypt’s Brotherhood Victory,” The Times of Israel, June 18, 2012, https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-supporters-ingaza-cheer-egypts-brotherhood-victory/. 25 Sara Roy, The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of d ­ e-Development, Expanded 3rd (Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 2016), xxxv, xxxviii. 24 “Hamas

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

225

soldiers attacked a humanitarian aid ship bound for Gaza in international waters, killing nine Turkish citizens).26 Qatar and Saudi Arabia similarly strengthened their ties with Hamas, with both states pledging to increase aid and investment in the beleaguered Gaza Strip.27 The collective result of the tolerance of the tunnel economy and provision of financial aid was vast (if remedial) economic growth. A building boom caused the GDP growth rate to rise to 23% in 2011, accompanied by a rapid fall in unemployment.28 Hamas’s political fortunes were undeniably waxing; as Gabi Siboni, the IDF colonel and political analyst at the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies, observed: “Hamas was riding on a high wave of popular support throughout the Arab World,” as “Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar competed with one another in their support for Hamas in an effort to increase their influence in the Sunni sphere.”29 As such, the initiation of Operation Pillar of Defense in late 2012 was met with harsh condemnation from these state actors. 26 A United Nations Human Rights Council report found that “The circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution” and that “there is clear evidence to support prosecutions” of Israeli soldiers for “crimes within the terms of article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention” including “Wilful killing,” “Torture or inhuman treatment,” and “Wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.” “Report of the International Fact-Finding Mission to Investigate Violations of International Law, Including International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law, Resulting from the Israeli Attacks on the Flotilla of Ships Carrying Humanitarian Assistance, A/HRC/15/21” (United Nations Human Rights Council. 15th Session, September 27, 2010), 37, 53–54, https://www2. ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf. 27 Jodi Rudoren, “Qatar’s Emir Visits Gaza, Pledging $400 Million to Hamas,” The New York Times, October 23, 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/world/middleeast/pledging-400-million-qatari-emir-makes-historic-visit-to-gaza-strip.html; “The Gaza Strip: A Building Boom,” The Economist, August 18, 2012, https://www.economist.com/ middle-east-and-africa/2012/08/18/a-building-boom; and Roy, The Gaza Strip, xxxix. 28 Roy, The Gaza Strip, xxxix–xl, xliii–xlvi. 29 Gabi Siboni, “Operations Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense, and Protective Edge: A Comparative Review,” in The Lessons of Operation Protective Edge, ed. Anat Kurzand and Shlomo Brom (Tel Aviv: The Institute for National Security Studies, 2014), 29; It was precisely this political realignment that Israel attempted to thwart. As the International Crisis Group concluded: “At the heart of Operation Pillar of Defense” was “an effort to demonstrate that Hamas’s newfound confidence was altogether premature and excessive and that, the Islamist awakening notwithstanding, changes in the new Middle East would not change much at all. Its goal, in other words, was to reaffirm the rules of the game that would govern the emerging Middle East.” “Israel and Hamas: Fire and Ceasefire in a New Middle East,” 8.

226  C. LOUWERSE

It was the forceful reaction of Turkey and Egypt, buttressed by other regional international actors, which deterred Israel from launching a ground invasion during Pillar of Defense. Mohamed Morsi labelled the attack “unacceptable,” and the MB-led Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) called for “swift Arab and international action to stop the massacres.”30 Similarly, Turkey’s foreign minister called for Israel “to put an immediate halt” to the assault and to end the “inhumane embargo on Gaza.”31 Both states elected to send their foreign ministers to Gaza, with Egypt also withdrawing its ambassador from Israel.32 The Arab League joined in the condemnation, sending a delegation to Gaza in a display of solidarity with the Palestinians affected by the bombardment.33 The message to Israel was clear: its neighbors had drawn a “red line” at a ground invasion, and Gaza would not be left “on its own” as Israel attacked.34 While the formal position of the United States stridently defended the Israeli resort to force in Gaza,35 reports indicated that the United States (likely in response to Egyptian and Turkish pressure) had advised Israel not to initiate a ground invasion and had successfully pressured Israel to accept the terms of an Egyptian proposed ceasefire.36

30 “International

Reaction to Gaza Violence,” Al Jazeera, November 15, 2012, https:// www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/20121114173652397372.html. 31 “FM Davutoğlu: Turkey Will Never Leave Gaza on Its Own,” Daily Sabah, November 21, 2012, https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/2012/11/21/fm-davutoglu-turkey-willnever-leave-gaza-on-its-own. 32 Raphael Ahren, “Protesting Israel’s Gaza Operation, Egypt Withdraws Ambassador from Tel Aviv,” The Times of Israel, November 14, 2012, https://www.timesofisrael.com/ protesting-israels-gaza-operation-egypt-to-withdraw-ambassador-from-tel-aviv/. 33 “Arab League Chief, Ministers to Visit Gaza on Tuesday,” Reuters, November 18, 2012, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-israel-gaza-ministers/arab-leaguechief-ministers-to-visit-gaza-on-tuesday-idUSBRE8AH0HD20121118. 34 “FM Davutoğlu: Turkey Will Never Leave Gaza on Its Own.” 35 “Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Shinawatra in a Joint Press Conference,” The White House President Barack Obama, November 18, 2012, https:// obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/18/remarks-presidentobama-and-prime-minister-shinawatra-joint-press-confer. 36 Matt Spetalnick, “Obama: ‘Preferable’ to Avoid Israeli Ground Invasion of Gaza,” Reuters, November 18, 2012, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia-obama-mideast/ obama-preferable-to-avoid-israeli-ground-invasion-of-gaza-idUSBRE8AH07Z20121118; Anne Gearan, “Fighting in Gaza Leaves U.S. in Difficult Position with Turkey, Egypt,” Washington Post, November 20, 2012, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

227

Other states normally supportive of Israeli actions also weighed in: the United Kingdom publicly informed Israel that “a ground invasion is much more difficult for the international community to sympathize with or support, including the United Kingdom.”37 Finally, regional and international opposition to Operation Pillar of Defense was buttressed by several other factors. The fear of another highly critical United Nations Fact-Finding Report like the Goldstone Report—which had done irreversible damage to the IDF’s self-cultivated purity of arms image after Operation Cast Lead (2008–2009)—combined with the existence of large numbers of media reporters in Gaza broadcasting first-hand accounts of the deleterious effects of the Israeli bombardment on the region and international community, acted as a final barrier to a ground invasion and persuaded Israel to end the operation prematurely.38 While Israel had initially sought to unilaterally impose its will upon Gaza, the mutual ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, negotiated under Egyptian auspices, was unamicable to that aim. Hamas won a small political victory in that the ceasefire agreement, as it effectively required Israel to implement Hamas’s long-standing goal of lifting the blockade: it demanded that Israel open “the crossings,” facilitate “the movement of people and transfer of goods,” and “refrain from restricting residents’ free movement.” While the ceasefire agreement also guaranteed

national-security/2012/11/19/873f3ab2-325e-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html; and Peter Baker and David D. Kirkpatrick, “Egyptian President and Obama Forge Link in Gaza Deal,” New York Times, November 21, 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/ world/middleeast/egypt-leader-and-obama-forge-link-in-gaza-deal.html. It is additionally likely that the Obama administration’s hesitancy to greenlight a ground invasion had to do with the close proximity of the operation to the 2012 United States election, with Obama disinclined to allow what would likely be widely construed as a U.S. backed Israeli massacre at the inception of his second term in office. 37 “Foreign Secretary Comments on Situation in Gaza and Southern Israel,” Foreign and Commonwealth Office, November 18, 2012, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ foreign-secretary-comments-on-situation-in-gaza-and-southern-israel. 38 Finkelstein, Gaza, 204–5; While it also condemned Palestinian armed groups for firing rockets into Israel, the Goldstone report gave rise to vociferous Israeli condemnation for its conclusion that Operation Cast Lead “was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever-increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.” “Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,” 408.

228  C. LOUWERSE

an end to the rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, Israel’s major demands— most notably those related to Hamas’s arms smuggling through the tunnels—were not included.39 Though crucial in limiting Operation Pillar of Defense, the extent to which Turkey, Egypt, and the Arab League were willing to take risks for Gaza should not be overstated. The MB in Egypt was in the process of attempting to consolidate its precarious control in the wake of the uprising and was thus careful to avoid any destabilization that might occur from jeopardizing Egypt’s peace agreement with Israel.40 More crucially, Egypt remained economically and politically beholden to Israel’s major ally, as it received an annual 1.3 billion dollars in military aid guarantees from the United States and was in the process of applying for a 4.8 billion dollar IMF loan,41 the success of which was highly dependent on American consent. Likewise, Turkey, a NATO member and a crucial United States ally in the region, was most likely keenly aware that the continuation of its warm relationship with Washington would at some point require a thaw in its icy deportment toward Israel.42 The following section covers how these factors, when compounded by major regional shifts, caused these states to significantly downgrade their support for Hamas after 2013, consequentially enabling Israel to embark on a far less restrained assault upon Gaza in 2014.

39 “Operation Pillar of Defense—Update No. 8,” The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, November 22, 2012, https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/ en/20433/; “Israel and Hamas: Fire and Ceasefire in a New Middle East,” 3. 40 “Israel and Hamas: Fire and Ceasefire in a New Middle East,” 13. 41 Steven Lee Meyers, “Despite Rights Concerns, U.S. Plans to Resume Egypt Aid,” New York Times, March 15, 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/world/middleeast/us-military-aid-to-egypt-to-resume-officials-say.html; Yasmine Saleh and Edmund Blair, “Egypt Agrees Deal for $4.8 Billion IMF Loan,” Reuters, November 20, 2012, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-imf-idUSBRE8AJ0LK20121120. 42 See Norman G. Finkelstein, “Israel’s Latest Assault on Gaza—What Really Happened” (New Left Project, January 10, 2013), http://normanfinkelstein.com/2013/01/10/ what-really-happened-in-gaza-by-norman-finkelstein/.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

229

Operation Protective Edge (2014) The period of regional political alignment in favor of Gaza was ­short-lived. Less than two years after Pillar of Defense was prematurely aborted, the political landscape had shifted to such a degree that Israel was able to commit its most extensive attack on Gaza since the beginning of its military occupation in 1967. The attack was triggered by an emerging Palestinian peace initiative. In June 2014, acting under the pretext of an attempted rescue of three teenage Israeli settlers kidnapped by a rogue Palestinian militant cell, Israel attempted to break apart a newly established unity government between Hamas and Fatah.43 The IDF launched Operation Brother’s Keeper in the West Bank, arresting hundreds of Hamas members and killing up to nine Palestinians.44 While Israel sought to provoke Hamas into rocket fire, Hamas held back until July 7 (other armed groups in Gaza did not), when the Israeli shelling of a tunnel within Gaza killed seven Hamas members.45 The next day, Operation Protective Edge went into effect. In sharp contrast with the short-lived Pillar of Defense, Protective Edge ran a full 51 days (July 8–August 26, 2014), resulting in the deaths of some 2220 Palestinians, including 551 children. A total of 71 Israelis 43 The unity government, without objection from Hamas, accepted the Quartet’s three long-standing preconditions for negotiations: “recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and respecting previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements.” As the respected journalist Rami Khouri pointed out at the time, “The Palestinian government’s adherence to the three principles related to its ties with Israel — with the agreement of all major political groups — may put new pressure on Israel to show if it, too, is committed to these three principles.” As even the United States had “wisely and reasonably said it would judge the Palestinian government on the basis of its policies,” Netanyahu—fearing international pressure to initiate good faith negotiations with the new government—sought to thwart its establishment by targeting Hamas. Rami Khouri, “The Palestinian Unity Government Will Shape Its Own Fate,” Harvard Kennedy School. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, June 4, 2014, 212–14, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/ palestinian-unity-government-will-shape-its-own-fate. 44 “Israel’s West Bank Crackdown,” Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU), June 27, 2014, https://imeu.org/article/israels-west-bank-crackdown. 45 Christa Case Bryant, “Ending détente, Hamas Takes Responsibility for Today’s Spike in Rocket Fire,” The Christian Science Monitor, July 7, 2014, https://www.csmonitor. com/World/Middle-East/2014/0707/Ending-detente-Hamas-takes-responsibility-fortoday-s-spike-in-rocket-fire; “Hamas Vows Revenge on Israel After Seven Members Die in Air Strike,” The Guardian, July 7, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ jul/07/hamas-vows-revenge-israel-seven-members-killed.

230  C. LOUWERSE

were killed in the same time period, six of them civilians, the rest soldiers.46 Indeed, Protective Edge inflicted upon Gaza over ten times the casualties and nearly fifty times the residential destruction of Pillar of Defense (see Table 8.1). The lack of restraints on the Israeli war juggernaut was primarily due to shifts in the regional security structure in favor of Israel and against Hamas.47 The International Crisis Group concluded in March 2014 that “since the November 2012 escalation […], Hamas’s fortunes [had] dramatically reversed”48 leaving Gaza in a “downward spiral of economic strain and regional isolation.”49 By June 2014, Hamas’s former benefactors, Egypt and Turkey, had effectively abandoned it, and it faced bitter antagonism from the Gulf states and even from the Arab League more generally. The most significant blow to Gaza’s security was the 2013 ouster of the MB in Egypt via a military coup. The new regime, led by Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the former Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, was exceptionally hostile toward the MB in Egypt and, by extension, Hamas in Gaza.50 Interrelatedly, in seeking to firmly reinstate Egypt as a reliable ally of American hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East,51 the al-Sisi government sought to court Israel. While the Morsi government had pressured Israel to adhere to the terms of the 2012 ceasefire and ease the blockade, the al-Sisi government did precisely the opposite, acting to exasperate the deleterious effects of the Israeli siege of Gaza.52 Seeking to re-cement control over the increasingly unstable Sinai Peninsula, Egypt 46 Fragmented Lives: Humanitarian Overview 2014 (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Occupied Palestinian Territory [OCHAOPT], 2015), 6, https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/default/files/Annual_Humanitarian_Overview_ 2014_English_final.pdf. 47 Amour,

“Hamas-PLO/Fatah within the Regional Order in the Middle East,” 626. Next Round in Gaza,” Middle East/North Africa (International Crisis Group, March 24, 2014), 9, https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/ eastern-mediterranean/israelpalestine/next-round-gaza. 49 “The Next Round in Gaza,” 8. 50 “The Next Round in Gaza,” 9. 51 The United States praised the new military regime’s crackdown on “terrorism” and released 575 million dollars in military aid to Egypt in the wake of the coup. “US Unlocks Military Aid to Egypt, Backing President Sisi,” BBC News, June 22, 2014, https://www. bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27961933. 52 “The Next Round in Gaza,” 5–6. 48 “The

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

231

closed off the primary corridor for the supply of fuel and construction materials essential for Gaza’s economic reconstruction by flooding the cross-border tunnels. It also drastically reduced Palestinian passage through the Rafah crossing.53 Cairo additionally banned the MB and Hamas in Egypt, and prevented a Hamas senior official from leaving the country.54 These policies toward the MB and Hamas, which Egypt justified under the pretext of maintaining internal security, were quickly adopted by the Gulf states, with Saudi Arabia also moving to ban the MB.55 Hamas was thus thrust into a position of unprecedented political isolation in the Middle East. Although Hamas attempted to retain Iran as a potential ally, it could not strengthen ties with that country without undermining its relationship with the Syrian MB and enfeebling the support it received from the majority of Sunni Muslims in the Middle East, including Palestinians. Having nowhere else to turn, Hamas’s rapprochement with its long time factional rival Fatah, and its subsequent decision to initiate a handover of control of the Gaza Strip to the PNA via a unity government in April 2014, was one of last resort.56 The breakdown of the established political and civil order in the wake of the Arab Spring, coupled with the descent into gratuitous violence in states across the broader Middle East region, also contributed to Gaza’s growing isolation. The novel Turkey–Qatar-led bloc witnessed a major setback in the aftermath of the coup in Egypt (see Chapter 5). In retrospect, the Hamas decision to leave the Iran-led bloc proved fatal for the movement. While the world had been riveted on the wars in Gaza in 2008–2009 and 2012, the plight of Palestinians under Israeli assault in 2014 now had to compete for regional and international attention 53 Given that “the construction sector accounted for more than 80 per cent of Gaza’s growth during the first quarter of 2013,” the flooding of the tunnels dealt a serious blow to Gaza’s economy and humanitarian situation. By September 2013 OCHA reported that travel through the Rafah border had decreased by 71%. “Occupied Palestinian Territory: The Humanitarian Impact of Reduced Access between Gaza and Egypt,” Situation Report (OCHA, September 23, 2013), https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/default/files/ocha_opt_ gaza_sitrep_2013_09_23_english.pdf; See also Roy, The Gaza Strip, xlii–xliii. 54 “The

Next Round in Gaza,” 9. Arabia Designates Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Group,” Reuters, March 7, 2014, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-security/saudi-arabia-designatesmuslim-brotherhood-terrorist-group-idUSBREA260SM20140307. 56 Nathan Thrall, “Hamas’ Chances,” London Review of Books, August 36, no. 16 (August 21, 2014). 55 “Saudi

232  C. LOUWERSE

with the horror of bloodbaths in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. While Turkey did not realign with Israel as openly as Egypt did, its preoccupation with the war in Syria left it largely disinterested in the fate of Gaza. In large part, as a result of the domestic impact of the refugee crisis, the European Union was also fixated on Syria. The result was a serious lack of deterrent upon the Israeli resort to force. Shortly after the hostilities began, Egypt surreptitiously aligned itself with Israel’s military objectives. In sharp contrast with the mutuality that characterized the Egyptian-negotiated ceasefire proposal in the wake of Operation Pillar of Defense, the ceasefire Egypt proposed on July 14, 2014 (just prior to the Israeli ground invasion) effectively demanded Hamas’s full capitulation to Israel’s demands. Whereas the 2012 ceasefire agreement had incorporated a written demand for the lifting of Israel’s illegal blockade, Cairo’s 2014 proposal now included a precondition that “the security situation [become] stable on the ground,” prior to the opening of the border crossings.57 The American political scientist Norman Finkelstein has noted that: “Insofar as Israel designated Hamas a terrorist organization, the security situation in Gaza could only stabilize when Hamas either was defeated or disarmed itself, in the absence of which the siege would continue.”58 Yet, Hamas’s rejection of the Egyptian proposal as tantamount to total “surrender” effectively handed Israel a pretext to escalate the hostilities to a ground invasion.59 Gaza’s plight was similarly exacerbated by the Arab League. The organization met only once over the entirety of the 51 day period and, when it did, it undermined Hamas’s bargaining position: the League voted to endorse the Egyptian ceasefire plan.60 The lack of meaningful regional opposition to Operation Protective Edge translated into completely unhindered United States support for the invasion. Throughout the operation, President Obama repeatedly declared that “Israel has the right to defend itself,” additionally moving to resupply Israel with munitions, while 57 “Towards a Lasting Ceasefire in Gaza,” Middle East/North Africa (International Crisis Group, October 23, 2014), 4–5, https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/ eastern-mediterranean/israelpalestine/toward-lasting-ceasefire-gaza; Finkelstein, Gaza, 214. 58 Finkelstein, Gaza, 214. 59 “Israel Accepts Egypt Proposal to End Gaza Conflict,” BBC News, July 15, 2014, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28305830; Finkelstein, Gaza, 214–15. 60 Itamar Sharon, “Israel Expected to Accept Arab-Backed Truce,” The Times of Israel, July 15, 2014, https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-expected-to-accept-arab-backed-truce/.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

233

ignoring the pleas of human rights organizations to limit the violence via an immediate arms embargo upon all parties to the conflict.61 As extensive as the Israeli use of force during Operation Protective Edge was, it was not totally without limitations. Events transpiring during the final day (August 3rd) of the Israeli ground invasion illustrate the crucial role of the international community, and in particular the United States, in limiting the extent of Israeli force. As Finkelstein has documented, Israel’s actions finally shocked the international community into action, when Israel repeatedly shelled United Nations schools that were doubling as shelters, resulting in extensive civilian casualties.62 On August 2nd Benjamin Netanyahu had proclaimed that the ground invasion would continue for “as much time as necessary” for Israel to accomplish its goal of exacting an “intolerable price” upon Hamas.63 Yet, on August 3rd, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, acting under immense pressure from within the United Nations, condemned the latest attack on a United Nations school as a “moral outrage and a criminal act.”64 Now isolated in its unconditional support for the Israeli assault, the United States finally changed its tune and condemned the attack as “disgraceful.”65 The withdrawal of unconditional White House support signaled 61 “Press

Conference by the President. The White House Office of the Press Secretary,” The White House President Barack Obama, August 1, 2014, https://obamawhitehouse. archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/01/press-conference-president; “Israel/Gaza: UN Must Impose Arms Embargo and Mandate an International Investigation as Civilian Death Toll Rises,” Amnesty International, July 11, 2014, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ news/2014/07/israelgaza-un-must-impose-arms-embargo-and-mandate-international-investigation-civilian-death-t/. 62 “Israel:

In-Depth Look at Gaza School Attacks,” Human Rights Watch, September 11, 2014, https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/11/israel-depth-look-gaza-school-attacks; “Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry Established Pursuant to Human Rights Council Resolution” (United Nations Human Rights Council [UNHRC]. 29th Session, June 24, 2015), 111–19, https://www.undocs.org/A/HRC/29/CRP.4. 63 Griff Witte and Sudarsan Raghaven, “Netanyahu Says Israeli Military ‘Will Take as Much Time as Necessary’ in Gaza,” The Washington Post, August 2, 2014, https://www. washingtonpost.com/world/hamas-says-missing-israeli-soldier-in-gaza-hadar-goldinis-likely-dead/2014/08/02/92562694-56cd-48c0-921b-b851fb2eca09_story.html; Finkelstein, Gaza, 229. 64 “Gaza:

Ban Condemns Latest Deadly Attack Near UN School as ‘Moral Outrage and Criminal Act’,” UN News, August 3, 2014, https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/ 08/474302-gaza-ban-condemns-latest-deadly-attack-near-un-school-moral-outrage-and; Finkelstein, Gaza, 228. 65 Donna Chiacu, “US Slams ‘Disgraceful Shelling’ of UN school in Gaza,” Haaretz, August 3, 2014, https://www.haaretz.com/u-s-slams-disgraceful-shelling-at-un-school-1.5257920; Finkelstein, Gaza, 229.

234  C. LOUWERSE

to Israel that the game was up. That same day, Netanyahu announced an end to the ground invasion.66 The operation continued for another three weeks via airstrikes, with Israel targeting civilian structures as a means of increasing its leverage during renewed ceasefire negotiations. Nevertheless, the end of the ground invasion was indicative of Israel’s fundamental reliance upon the goodwill of the United States for the continuation of its military assaults.67 As has been illustrated, regional realignments are the crucial variable limiting or facilitating the destructive capacity of the IDF in Gaza. Had the drastic regional political realignments between November 2012 and July 2014 occurred just a couple of years earlier, the scope and scale of Operation Pillar of Defense may have mirrored the vastly more cataclysmic Operation Protective Edge. As the next section will show, the augmentation and solidification of these new political relations to the present has continued to bode ill for the people of Gaza.

Regional Realignments 2014–2019 If Gaza was left politically isolated during Operation Protective Edge, recent trends toward Arab states’ normalization of relations with Israel have only enhanced this isolation. A significant number of the Gulf states have moved toward aligning themselves with Israeli policy in the region. The crucial background to these developments is a deepening rift and increasing rivalry between the progressively influential Iran-led, and the Saudi-led, blocs explored in the first section of this book. In the context of this regional bifurcation, Hamas is now viewed by many Sunni states as including the “wrong” kind of Islamists, and it has been recast as an Iranian proxy, with many Arab League members now more likely to savor another Hamas military defeat than to oppose an Israeli assault. Moreover, the two powers that acted to mitigate Israel’s depredations in 2012 are unlikely to do so again. As the following section will demonstrate, since Protective Edge, both Egypt and Turkey have continued to strengthen their ties with Israel at the expense of Gaza. 66 Amos Harel, “After Israel’s Unilateral Withdrawal from Gaza, What’s Next?” Haaretz, August 3, 2014, https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-after-the-unilateral-withdrawal-whatsnext-1.5257875. 67 “Nothing Is Immune: Israel’s Destruction of Landmark Buildings in Gaza,” MDE (Amnesty International, December 9, 2014), https://www.amnesty.org/download/ Documents/MDE1500292014ENGLISH.PDF.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

235

Egypt and Turkey Egyptian policy toward Gaza has continued along its post-2013 trajectory, with the al-Sisi regime continuing to strengthen ties with Israel. In late 2014, acting in part upon the request of Israel but against protests from human rights organizations, Egypt continued to flood Gaza’s tunnels, additionally seeking to create a buffer zone between itself and Gaza via mass eviction of civilians and the capricious destruction of hundreds of homes along the Rafah border.68 Egypt has come to view Hamas almost entirely as an extension of the MB and a severe national security threat. During the height of ISIS expansion in 2015, Cairo repeatedly accused Hamas of arming and facilitating Salafi jihadists in the Sinai Peninsula, a charge for which it produced little evidence, and which Hamas categorically denied.69 As the International Crisis Group concluded in August 2015, “Egypt is only more hostile toward Hamas and would not oppose an Israeli war against it, even one aimed at toppling the movement and reoccupying Gaza.” Cairo has enforced the blockade of Gaza even more stringently than has Israel.70 By February 2016, Israeli officials proclaimed that the security cooperation between Israel and Egypt was “better than ever.”71 Israeli–Egyptian economic cooperation has been “better than ever” as well; for example, in September 2018, the two states concluded a “landmark” 15 billion dollar deal for 68 “Steinitz: ‘Egypt Floods Hamas Tunnels, in Part Due to Israel’s Request’,” The Jerusalem Post, February 6, 2016, https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Steinitz-Egyptfloods-Hamas-tunnels-in-part-due-to-Israels-request-444040; “Egypt: End Wave of Home Demolitions, Forced Evictions in Sinai amid Media Blackout,” Amnesty International, November 27, 2014, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/11/egypt-endwave-home-demolitions-forced-evictions-sinai-amid-media-blackout/. 69 “No Exit? Gaza & Israel between Wars,” Middle East/North Africa (International Crisis Group, August 26, 2015), https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/162-no-exitgaza-israel-between-wars.pdf. 70 Some within the Egyptian security establishment have occasionally threatened to topple Hamas itself. As one senior Egyptian official put it: “Gaza is next […] We cannot get liberated from the terrorism of the Brotherhood in Egypt without ending it in Gaza, which lies on our borders.” “No Exit? Gaza & Israel between Wars.” 71 Yossi Melman, “Security Establishment Furious with Minister After Making EgyptIsrael Cooperation Public,” Jerusalem Post, February 6, 2016, https://www.jpost.com/ Israel-News/Security-establishment-furious-with-minister-after-making-Egypt-Israelcooperation-public-444063.

236  C. LOUWERSE

Israel to export natural gas to Egypt.72 As one International Crisis Group analyst concluded in late 2017: “Egyptian–Israeli relations are today at their highest level in history.”73 Meanwhile, Turkey, despite previously being one of the major benefactors of Hamas and estranged since 2010 from Israel after IDF forces killed Turkish citizens during the Mavi Marmara incident, has renewed diplomatic ties with Israel as of June 2016. The Turkish–Israeli reconciliation agreement was in large part driven by a desire for the construction of a mutually beneficial gas pipeline that passed from Israel through Turkey and to Europe. It also involved a Turkish pledge to clamp down on Hamas: “[T]he Turkish government has committed that Hamas will not carry out any terrorist or military activity against Israel from Turkish territory.”74 Israeli concessions to Turkey regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza were minimal. As Israeli officials “categorically rejected” lifting the blockade on Gaza, this initial Turkish demand was subsequently dropped and replaced by a token gesture of allowing Turkey to fund infrastructure projects in Gaza. Nevertheless, in the two years since the Turkish–Israeli agreement was signed, living conditions for Gazans have only continued their precipitous decline.75 Turkish–Israeli relations have not become a bed of roses overnight and have remained strained over conflicting geopolitical objectives in Syria. Moreover, Ankara has occasionally led the charge in vocally condemning American–Israeli violations of international law at the expense of the Palestinians, most notably in regarding Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and in response to Israel’s April 2018 killing of Gazan protesters along the Israeli border. However, Ankara has shown little indication 72 Ari Rabinovitch and Tova Cohen, “Pipeline Deal Brings Export of Israeli Gas to Egypt within Sight,” Reuters, September 27, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-egypt-gas/pipeline-deal-brings-export-of-israeli-gas-to-egypt-within-sight-idUSKCN1M710F. 73 Quoted in Zena Tahhan, “Egypt-Israel Relations ‘at Highest Level’ in History,” Al Jazeera, September 20, 2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/11/ egypt-israel-relations-highest-level-history-161107083926863.html. 74 “Israel-Turkey Gas Pipeline Could Be Ready in Four Years—Company,” Reuters, March 2, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/israel-energy/israel-turkey-gas-pipelinecould-be-ready-in-four-years-company-idUSL5N1GF3ZO; Barak Ravid, “Israel, Turkey Reach Understandings on Hamas,” Haaretz, June 26, 2016, https://www.haaretz.com/ israel-news/.premium-israel-turkey-reach-understandings-on-hamas-1.5401406. 75 See e.g., “Report on UNCTAD Assistance to the Palestinian People,” 5–6.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

237

that it is willing to translate words into action.76 In the final geopolitical and economic calculus, the tangible benefits to the Turkish national interest that accrued from its rapprochement with Israel have outweighed any latent sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar Perhaps the most significant geopolitical realignment affecting Gaza since Protective Edge has been the development of a Sunni, Saudi-led, de facto alliance with Israel. The new Saudi–Israeli relationship is essentially a marriage of convenience, held together by the strategic overlap of a perceived Iranian threat to both states. In 2018, IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot noted that there was “complete agreement between [Israel] and Saudi Arabia” regarding a need for a “large, comprehensive strategic plan to stop the Iranian threat.”77 Indeed, Saudi Arabia outstrips even the United States in its opposition to the Iranian government, as leaked diplomatic cables have revealed that Israel and Saudi Arabia have coordinated to escalate diplomatic pressure against Iran and its allies.78 The relationship between the two states, once covert, has become increasingly overt (if still unofficial) in recent years.79 In November 2017, the Saudi newspaper Elaph unprecedentedly gave an interview to Israeli Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot—marking “the first time any senior Israel Defense Forces officer, let alone the chief of staff,

76 Bethan McKernan, “Recep Tayyip Erdogan: US Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital Makes It a Partner in Bloodshed,” The Independent, December 11, 2017, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/recep-tayyip-erdogan-us-jerusalem-israel-capital-partner-bloodshed-donald-trump-turkey-president-a8103096. html; Noa Landau, “Erdogan Hits Back: Netanyahu Is a ‘Terrorist’ and Israel Is a ‘Terror State,’” Haaretz, April 1, 2018, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/ erdogan-hits-back-netanyahu-is-a-terrorist-israel-a-terror-state-1.5963819. 77 Anna Ahronheim, “IDF Chief of Staff Eisenkot Met with Saudi Counterpart,” The Jerusalem Post, October 17, 2018, https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/ Report-IDF-Chief-of-Staff-Eisenkot-met-with-Saudi-counterpart-569585. 78 Jonathon Cook, “Israel Instructs Diplomats to Support Saudis,” Al Jazeera, November 10, 2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/israel-instructs-diplomats-support-saudis-cable-171110134749905.html. 79 Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, “Palestinians Sidelined in S ­audi-Emirati Rapprochement with Israel,” Journal of Palestine Studies 47, no. 4 (2018): 83–85, https://doi. org/10.1525/jps.2018.47.4.79.

238  C. LOUWERSE

has been interviewed by a media organization in Saudi Arabia.” Eisenkot announced that Israel was now prepared to engage in intelligence sharing with “the moderate Arab nations” and commented that, in certain areas, “there is complete agreement between us and Saudi Arabia.”80 In December, it was revealed that the Saudi’s were playing a crucial role in attempting to foist the Trump administration’s “peace proposal”— projected to be unamicable to the interests of all Palestinians—upon the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah.81 In March 2018, Saudi Arabia decided to let commercial flights to Israel pass through its airspace for the first time.82 In September 2018, Saudi Arabia announced that it had purchased Israel’s Iron Dome Defense system via American mediation. Concomitantly, even Saudi Arabia’s nominal support for the Palestinians has foundered: “[T]he Palestinian issue is not at the top of the Saudi government’s agenda,” explained Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in March 2018. “There are much more urgent and more important issues to deal with, such as Iran.”83 This severing of regional support for Hamas has transformed into one of the pillars of Saudi foreign policy since 2014, a project that reached a pinnacle during the GCC crisis with Qatar over the summer of 2017. Prior to the crisis, Qatar had maintained close ties with the MB in Egypt, additionally seeking to position itself alongside Turkey and Iran as one of

80 Amos Harel, “Israeli Military Chief Gives Unprecedented Interview to Saudi Media: ‘Ready to Share Intel on Iran’,” Haaretz, November 17, 2017, https://www.haaretz. com/israel-news/idf-chief-gives-unprecedented-interview-to-saudi-media-1.5466066; Moshe Yaalon and Leehe Friedman, “Israel and the Arab States: A Historic Opportunity to Normalize Relations?” Foreign Affairs, January 26, 2018, https://www.foreignaffairs. com/articles/israel/2018-01-26/israel-and-arab-states. 81 Samia Nakhoul, Stephen Kalin, and Suleiman Al-Khalidi, “Despite Furor Over Jerusalem Move, Saudis Seen on Board with U.S. Peace Efforts,” Reuters, December 8, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-israel-saudi-insight/despite-furorover-jerusalem-move-saudis-seen-on-board-with-u-s-peace-efforts-idUSKBN1E22GR. 82 Gabriela Davidovich-Weisberg, “Netanyahu Suggests ‘Huge’ Developments Could Follow Direct Flights to Israel over Saudi Arabia,” Haaretz, March 25, 2018, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-says-huge-implications-afterflights-over-saudi-arabia-1.5938962. 83 Quoted in “Palestinians Must Make Peace or Shut Up, Saudi Crown Prince Said to Tell US Jews,” The Times of Israel, April 29, 2018, https://www.timesofisrael.com/ palestinians-must-make-peace-or-shut-up-saudi-crown-prince-said-to-tell-us-jews/.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

239

“the main paymasters and policymakers” of Hamas in Gaza.84 Combined with Qatar’s continued relations with Iran, this policy rankled other GCC members. In the wake of the Arab Spring, the GCC had come to view the differentiated notion of Political Islamism of the MB to that implemented in the Gulf as a threat to the status quo in the region.85 While Qatar has managed to circumvent the GCC-imposed blockade due to its strategic alliances with Turkey and the United States, it has nevertheless been compelled to abandon its close relationship with Hamas. As the Palestinian lawyer and scholar Mouin Rabbani concludes in his review of the crisis: “Israel appears to be a beneficiary as well. A restrained Qatar that reduces support to Hamas is a welcome gain, but more importantly, Tel Aviv has been able to further consolidate its budding relationship with other Gulf states.”86 Silent over the course of Protective Edge, economically and diplomatically closer to Israel than ever before, and participating in the infliction of a humanitarian disaster of their own in Yemen, the KSA and its Gulf allies are increasingly unlikely to concretely challenge Israeli depredations against the people of Gaza.

A Larger Trend The geopolitical realignments of the major players Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are indicative of a larger trend toward a lack of concern for Gaza. Even the recent record of the parties supposedly closest to Hamas underwhelms. In 2012, Qatar had pledged 400 million dollars in reconstruction funds to Gaza. However, only six years later, as the generators that keep afloat Gaza’s barely functioning hospital and sanitation systems began to shut down for lack of fuel in February of 2018, Qatar offered a

84 Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “Qatar’s Friends-with-Everyone Approach Rankles Some of Its Persian Gulf Neighbors,” The Washington Post, October 4, 2014, http://www. washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/qatars-friends-with-everyone-approachrankles-some-of-its-persian-gulf-neighbors/2014/10/04/b89977f8-4a7b-11e4-b72ed60a9229cc10_story.html; Brian Murphy, “Why Wealthy Qatar Keeps the Money Flowing to Gaza,” The Washington Post, August 3, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/03/why-wealthy-qatar-keeps-the-moneyflowing-to-gaza/. 85 Mouin Rabbani, “Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf Cooperation Council Crisis,” Jadaliyya, June 22, 2017, https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/34390. 86 Rabbani.

240  C. LOUWERSE

mere 9 million dollars to temporarily stave off the crisis.87 The pittance offered to Gaza during the crisis is exemplary of an overall trend of aid cuts to the Strip. As Sara Roy has noted, although a full 3.5 billion dollars was pledged for the reconstruction of Gaza after Protective Edge, only slightly over a third (35%) of that amount has been distributed. Roy furthermore points to both the unwillingness of both the regional and international communities to challenge the political framework of “Israeli occupation, assault, and blockade” as the root cause underlying the symptomatic impediments to Gazan reconstruction put up by Israel.88 Even the Palestinian National Authority, which is vocally sympathetic to the plight of Gaza but nevertheless in practice coordinates its efforts to undermine Hamas with Israel, has now taken steps to exacerbate the Israeli blockade of Gaza.89 In June 2017, the PNA refused to relinquish funds necessary for paying for Gaza’s electricity bills, thereby allowing Israel to cut Gaza’s electricity supply from 8 h down to 4 h per day.90 It further attempted to pressure Hamas into ceding control of the Gaza Strip by cutting salaries to thousands of civil servants in Gaza and by temporarily suspending crucial medical shipments.91 With even fellow 87 An additional 2 million dollars was pledged by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). “UAE, Qatar Donate Funds to Stave Off Gaza Health Crisis,” Ynetnews.com, February 9, 2018, https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5102687,00.html. 88 Roy, The Gaza Strip, 406. 89 Barak Ravid, “Fatah Asked Israel to Help Attack Hamas during Gaza Coup, WikiLeaks Cable Shows,” Haaretz, December 20, 2010, https://www.haaretz.com/middle-eastnews/palestinians/fatah-asked-israel-to-help-attack-hamas-during-gaza-coup-1.5096109; David Rose, “The Gaza Bombshell,” Vanity Fair, March 3, 2008, https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/04/gaza200804; and Jared Malsin, “Whither Goldstone? Did the PA Kill the UN’s Gaza Report?” Foreign Policy, October 27, 2010, https://foreignpolicy. com/2010/10/27/whither-goldstone-did-the-pa-kill-the-uns-gaza-report/. 90 Barak Ravid and Amos Harel, “Israeli Cabinet Decides to Reduce Gaza Electricity Supply at Palestinian President’s Request,” Haaretz, June 12, 2017, https://www.haaretz. com/israel-news/.premium-israel-to-reduce-gaza-electricity-supply-at-palestinian-president-s-request-1.5483120; Amira Hass, “Palestinians Also to Blame for Gaza Electricity Crisis,” Haaretz, June 26, 2017, https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/.premium-palestinians-also-to-blame-for-gaza-electricity-crisis-1.5488522. 91 “Thousands Protest Palestinian Authority Pay Cut in Gaza,” Al Jazeera, April 8, 2017,   https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/thousands-protest-palestinian-authority-pay-cut-gaza-170408125050217.html; “PA Cuts Off Medical Supplies to Gaza,” Middle East Monitor, May 10, 2017, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/ 20170510-pa-cuts-off-medical-supplies-to-gaza/.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

241

Palestinian factions openly rooting for Hamas’s demise, the regional ­isolation of Gaza is unprecedented in the Strip’s history.

The Trump Administration The bleak projection of Gaza’s future security is intensified when considering the 2016 United States presidential election. While the defining features of Donald Trump’s foreign policy positions during his electoral campaign were incongruousness and unpredictability, in the wake of his election, a few remarkably consistent policy threads became readily apparent. Perhaps most notably, over the course of its first year in power, the Trump administration has demonstrated itself to be one of the most pro-Israel in American history.92 More than any preceding president, Donald Trump has stacked his administration with individuals with views on the Israel–Palestine conflict as hardline as Netanyahu’s. Trump’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, does not view Israeli settlements in the West Bank as an obstacle to peace (let alone illegal under international law) and his first ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, “made the Israeli cause a personal hobbyhorse,” while the family of his Middle East advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner has donated tens of thousands of dollars to organizations operating in settlements in the occupied West Bank.93 The attendant consequence of the Trump administration’s uncritical orientation toward Israel is that the American threshold of tolerance for Israeli-caused Palestinian deaths in Gaza has reached new heights. While the collective outrage of the international community may have compelled the Obama administration to finally condemn Israel’s 92 For more details, as well as some qualifications, see Colter Louwerse and Ron Dart, “Donald Trump and the Christian Zionist Lobby: Letter from Canada,” Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies 16, no. 2 (November 2017): 240–42, https://doi.org/10.3366/ hlps.2017.0167. 93 “Trump Taps David Friedman as U.S. Ambassador to Israel,” Haaretz, December 16, 2016, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/trump-taps-david-friedman-as-u-s-ambassadorto-israel-1.5474698; Adrian Hennigan, “What Does Nikki Haley Have to Say about Israel?” Haaretz, March 8, 2018, https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-whatdoes-nikki-haley-have-to-say-about-israel-1.5887006; and Judy Maltz, “Exploitable? Jared Kushner’s Business Interests in Israel Revealed in Full,” Haaretz, February 28, 2018, https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-jared-kushner-s-business-interests-inisrael-revealed-in-full-1.5865165.

242  C. LOUWERSE

depredations against Gaza during Operation Protective Edge, the Trump administration has already distinguished itself by its willingness to act unilaterally in open defiance of the international community, especially in relation to the Israel–Palestine conflict. Its strident defense of its decision to both recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the American embassy there, despite overwhelming international condemnation, is demonstrative of this.94 While the United States has, for decades, consistently stood outside the international consensus on controversies involving the Israel– Palestine conflict,95 the Trump administration’s uniquely high level of contempt for international opinion, combined with its notably uncritical support for Israeli violations of international law, bodes poorly for the future security of Gaza. Provided Israel continues to calibrate its policies to minimize damage to core American foreign policy interests, the United States cannot be relied upon to significantly limit the extent of Israeli violations of Gazan human and civil rights, nor to pressure Israel to alleviate Gaza’s crushing humanitarian crisis.

The (Few) Limits that Remain Even now, an Israeli assault on Gaza would not be without limits, and at least two factors currently deter another large-scale “operation.” First, another assault is likely to push Gaza into a total humanitarian catastrophe, a scenario in which the international community—no matter its current disinterest in the fate of the Palestinians of Gaza—would be forced, via public pressure, to act against violations of international law. United 94 Mark Landler, “Trump Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital and Orders U.S. Embassy to Move,” The New York Times, December 6, 2017, https://www.nytimes. com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-israel-capital.html; A UNGA resolution repudiated the Jerusalem move by affirming the occupied status of East Jerusalem by an overwhelming vote of 163-6 (11 abstaining). “Permanent Sovereignty of the Palestinian People in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab Population in the Occupied Syrian Golan over Their Natural Resources,” United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). 72nd Session (United Nations General Assembly [UNGA], December 20, 2017), https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/72/240. 95 For the intransigent American diplomatic record see e.g., Rashid Khalidi, Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East (Boston: Beacon Press, 2013); Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians (New York: South End Press, 1983), 1–89, 441–70.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

243

Nations officials first warned in 2012 that if “present trends continue,” Gaza will be “unlivable by 2020.” Since then, their prognosis has only worsened.96 At the time of this writing, the humanitarian situation has appeared to have reached a tipping point, and while the Israeli political establishment remains in denial, high-level Israeli military officials have begun sounding the alarm about rapidly deteriorating living conditions in the Strip.97 With 96% of Gaza’s drinking water unfit to drink, the medical system undergoing complete collapse, and the populace already subject to chronic electricity shortages, the destruction attendant upon another Protective Edge style operation would consign to oblivion the fragile systems already struggling (and failing) to keep Gaza functional.98 As noted above, previous Israeli assaults have been timed to thwart Palestinian peace offensives and to prevent Hamas from gaining enough power to challenge the diplomatic, economic, or military status quo. Yet now, with Hamas confronted with survival challenges and many in Gaza clinging to “naked existence,” Israel has Gaza right where it wants it. For the moment, another bombardment hardly appears (from a strategic point of view) necessary.99 96 See “Gaza: Ten Years Later” (United Nations Country Team in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, July 2017), https://unsco.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/ gaza_10_years_later_-_11_july_2017.pdf; “Gaza Conditions ‘Unlivable’ 10 Years into Siege: UN,” July 12, 2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/living-conditions-worsen-10-year-gaza-siege-170712045047448.html. 97 Jonathon Lis, “‘There’s No Humanitarian Crisis’ in Gaza, Israeli Defense Minister Says, Contradicting Army Chief,” Haaretz, February 5, 2018, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/lieberman-contradicts-idf-there-s-no-humanitarian-crisis-in-gaza-1.5790605; Yaniv Kubovich and Jack Khoury, “Israeli Military Chief Warns: Gaza on Verge of Collapse, Brings Both Sides Closer to War in 2018,” Haaretz, February 5, 2018, https://www.haaretz. com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-military-chief-gaza-on-verge-of-collapse-bringing-warcloser-1.5788886; and Yaniv Kubovich, “Israeli Defense Officials Warn Politicians: Trump’s Cuts to Palestinians Could Harm Israel’s Security,” Haaretz, January 28, 2018, https:// www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-trump-s-cuts-to-palestinians-could-harm-israel-ssecurity-idf-warns-1.5768092; It is likely that military officials’ concerns stem from practical considerations, as they fear that in the increasingly likely case that epidemic water borne disease breaks out, it might spread to Israel. Shira Efron et al., “The Public Health Impacts of Gaza’s Water Crisis: Analysis and Policy Options” (RAND Corporation, 2018), 41–46, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2515.html. 98 “Treading Water: The Worsening Water Crisis and the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism,” OXFAM Briefing Paper (OXFAM, March 2017), 5, https://www-cdn.oxfam. org/s3fs-public/bp-treading-water-gaza-reconstruction-mechanism-220317-en.pdf. 99 Roy, “If Israel Were Smart”; Roy, The Gaza Strip, 397.

244  C. LOUWERSE

Second, the IDF’s attention is currently focused on the country’s border with Lebanon and Syria, where it is struggling to prevent Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed militias from establishing a military presence within Southern Syria. Thus far, the IDF has been unable to prevent Hezbollah from acquiring long-range weapons (despite carrying out over 100 airstrikes in Syria since 2017).100 Until receiving assurances from Russia in July 2018 that Iranian-backed militias would withdraw from the vicinity of the Israeli border, the IDF was also unable to prevent them from setting up military infrastructure in its unilaterally declared 40 km buffer zone in southern Syria.101 Israeli threats and actions directed at Lebanon and Syria have routinely escalated, with the specter of a second round of the 2006 Lebanon war continuing to loom. This has diminished any motive for Israel to redirect the attention of its military away from the Hezbollah challenge and toward another operation in Gaza. This preoccupation with Southern Syria and Lebanon may not, however, deter Israel for long. If Israel feels that the situation in Syria has eroded its self-branded deterrence capacity, it may turn its military loose in Gaza so as to allegedly restore deterrence by reinstating the Arab world’s dread of it, as it did during Operation Cast Lead in 2008–2009.102 As Israeli officials informed the International Crisis Group in 2009: “A key lesson [Israeli Defense Minister Ehud] Barak drew from the 2006 Lebanon War is the crucial importance of who is seen as victor and who as loser.”103 Israel had evidently come out as a “loser” during the 2006 Lebanon War, as it failed to accomplish its goal of eliminating Hezbollah’s military capacities in Southern Lebanon.104 As such, in waging a war it

100 “Israel, Hezbollah and Iran: Preventing Another War in Syria,” Middle East/North Africa (International Crisis Group, February 8, 2018), 6, 26, https://d2071andvip0wj. cloudfront.net/182-israel-hizbollah-and-iran-preventing-another-war-in-syria_0.pdf. 101 Jack Khoury, “Iranian Forces Pulling Back from Israel Border, Says Russia,” Haaretz, August 1, 2018, https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/iranian-forces-withdrawto-a-distance-of-85-km-from-golan-heights-1.6337360. 102 Norman G. Finkelstein, Method and Madness: The Hidden Story of Israel’s Assaults on Gaza (New York: OR Books, 2014), 11, 14–18. 103 “Ending the War in Gaza,” Middle East/North Africa (International Crisis Group, January 5, 2009), 18, https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/b26-ending-the-war-in-gaza. pdf. 104 Ze’ev Maoz, Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security and Foreign Policy (Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2009), 623.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

245

was guaranteed to win in Gaza in 2008–2009, Israel had sought to erase “the memory of 2006.”105 Given that Israeli military officials today do not anticipate a successful end to another escalation of hostilities with Hezbollah, the possibility remains that Gaza will once again be repurposed into an IDF punching bag in the future.106 Gaza’s security options are few, and its political leadership has struggled to adjust to the new regional framework. The near-total abandonment of Gaza by the conservative–moderate bloc (see Table 14.1) has forced Hamas to reposition itself on the Iranian side of the regional divide, a move that has only further estranged it from the United States and the Arab League, while also playing into Israel’s attempts to portray its conflict with Hamas as part of a larger proxy war against the alleged existential threat posed by Iran.107 Desperate to alleviate Gaza’s dire economic straits, Hamas has also been compelled to capitulate to Egypt. In 2017, it distanced itself from the MB, relinquished formal control of the Rafah crossing to the PNA, and agreed to crack down on Islamist groups infiltrating the Sinai from Gaza.108 The one political strategy that shows promise, but which Hamas seems reluctant to pursue given its formal commitment to armed struggle, has been that of mass nonviolent resistance. Despite their regional abandonment, the people of Gaza (and the Palestinian cause, more generally) benefit from a mobilized international solidarity movement and from formal, if ineffective, international support for crucial humanitarian and political

105 “Ending

the War in Gaza,” 18; Finkelstein, Method and Madness, 9–29. one Israeli defense official mentioned, the Israel “cannot handle” over “100,000 missiles fired at it… Residential towers in Tel Aviv will be toppled with many casualties. I doubt Israeli society today knows how to handle that.” “Israel, Hezbollah and Iran,” 5–6, 6n23. 107 “Hamas Deputy Leader Says to Continue Iran Ties, Armed Fight,” Reuters, October 22, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-hamas-iran/hamas-deputy-leader-says-to-continue-iran-ties-armed-fight-idUSKBN1CR0MP; Prior to Hamas’s reconciliation with Iran in 2017, Iranian–Hamas relations had been strained over Syria. “No Exit? Gaza & Israel between Wars,” 36n184. 108 In contrast with previous Hamas policy documents, Hamas’s relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood went unmentioned in its 2017 political document. “A Document of General Principles and Policies,” The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), 2017, https:// hamas.ps/en/post/678/a-document-of-general-principles-and-policies; Lin Noueihed and Nidal al-Mughrabi, “Seeking to Secure Sinai, Egypt Builds Closer Ties with Hamas,” Reuters, February 21, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-egypt-sinai/ seeking-to-secure-sinai-egypt-builds-closer-ties-with-hamas-idUSKBN16010C. 106 As

246  C. LOUWERSE

goals, foremost among them being the lifting of the blockade. The mass protests (since 2018) along the Gaza border in support of the Palestinian right of return are indicative of the strategic potential of nonviolence in wresting tangible victories from the Israeli government. The image— condemned by both human rights organizations and the international media—of unarmed demonstrators and journalists being gunned down by IDF sniper fire on account of their demand for elementary human rights, has evoked international indignation at the plight of the Gazan people.109 Viewed in conjunction with the Tel Aviv’s political and military echelon’s attitude that “there are no innocent people in the Gaza Strip,” the predominantly one-sided violence threatens to irrevocably tarnish Israel’s depiction of itself as a benign and liberal occupier. As of this writing, the people of Gaza have been unable to concretize the Great March of Return into political or humanitarian gain. Yet, if that mass popular mobilization were to be sustained, publicized, and directed at an end internationally perceived as legally and morally legitimate, the people of Gaza might still be able to shake off their imposed isolation and finally compel the regional and international community to enforce limits on Tel Aviv’s use of unilateral force in the Gaza Strip. Short of either this or an unexpected shift in the makeup of the regional security structure, the security of Gaza is likely to remain as susceptible to Tel Aviv depredations as ever before.

109 “Israel:

Gaza Killings Unlawful, Calculated. Officials Green-Light Shooting of Unarmed Demonstrators,” Human Rights Watch, April 3, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/ news/2018/04/03/israel-gaza-killings-unlawful-calculated; “Israel: Apparent War Crimes in Gaza: Accountability Needed for Officials Who Authorized Lethal Force,” Human Rights Watch, June 13, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/13/israel-apparentwar-crimes-gaza; “If the Heart Not Be Callous: On the Unlawful Shooting of Unarmed Demonstrators in Gaza” (B’tselem, April 6, 2018), https://www.btselem.org/sites/default/ files/publications/201804_if_the_heart_be_not_callous_eng.pdf; “Six Months on: Gaza’s Great March of Return,” Amnesty International, October 2018, https://www.amnesty. org/en/latest/campaigns/2018/10/gaza-great-march-of-return/; and “Israel Courts Catastrophe in Gaza Protests,” The New York Times, April 2, 2018, https://www.nytimes. com/2018/04/02/opinion/gaza-protests-israel-hamas.html.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

247

Bibliography Ahren, Raphael. “Protesting Israel’s Gaza Operation, Egypt Withdraws Ambassador from Tel Aviv.” The Times of Israel, November 14, 2012. https://www.timesofisrael.com/protesting-israels-gaza-operation-egypt-towithdraw-ambassador-from-tel-aviv/. Ahronheim, Anna. “IDF Chief of Staff Eisenkot Met with Saudi Counterpart.” The Jerusalem Post, October 17, 2018. https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/ Report-IDF-Chief-of-Staff-Eisenkot-met-with-Saudi-counterpart-569585. Akram, Fares, Judi Rudoren, and Alan Cowell. “Hamas Leader Dares Israel to Invade amid Gaza Airstrikes.” The New York Times, November 19, 2012. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/middleeast/israel-gazaconflict.html?searchResultPosition=1. Al Jazeera. “International Reaction to Gaza Violence,” November 15, 2012. https:// www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/20121114173652397372. html. ———. “Thousands Protest Palestinian Authority Pay Cut in Gaza,” April 8, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/thousands-protest-palestinian-authority-pay-cut-gaza-170408125050217.html. Amnesty International. “Egypt: End Wave of Home Demolitions, Forced Evictions in Sinai amid Media Blackout,” November 27, 2014. https://www. amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/11/egypt-end-wave-home-demolitionsforced-evictions-sinai-amid-media-blackout/. ———. “Israel: Gaza Blockade Must Be Completely Lifted,” June 17, 2010. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2010/06/israel-levantarcompletamente-bloqueo-gaza/. ———. “Israel/Gaza: UN Must Impose Arms Embargo and Mandate an International Investigation as Civilian Death Toll Rises,” July 11, 2014. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/07/israelgaza-un-mustimpose-arms-embargo-and-mandate-international-investigation-civilian-death-t/. ———. “Six Months on: Gaza’s Great March of Return,” October 2018. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2018/10/gaza-greatmarch-of-return/. Amour, Philipp O. “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives.” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31. https://doi. org/10.18506/anemon.384773. Baker, Peter, and David D. Kirkpatrick. “Egyptian President and Obama Forge Link in Gaza Deal.” New York Times, November 21, 2012. https://www. nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/egypt-leader-and-obamaforge-link-in-gaza-deal.html.

248  C. LOUWERSE BBC News. “Israel Accepts Egypt Proposal to End Gaza Conflict,” July 15, 2014. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28305830. ———. “US Unlocks Military Aid to Egypt, Backing President Sisi,” June 22, 2014. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27961933. Benn, Aluf. “Israel Killed Its Subcontractor in Gaza.” Haaretz, November 14, 2012. https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-death-of-israel-s-subcontractor1.5198285. Bryant, Christa Case. “Ending détente, Hamas Takes Responsibility for Today’s Spike in Rocket Fire.” The Christian Science Monitor, July 7, 2014. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0707/Endingdetente-Hamas-takes-responsibility-for-today-s-spike-in-rocket-fire. Chandrasekaran, Rajiv. “Qatar’s Friends-with-Everyone Approach Rankles Some of Its Persian Gulf Neighbors.” The Washington Post, October 4, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/qatars-friendswith- e v e r y one -a p p r o a c h -ra n k l es-so m e-o f -i ts-pe rsi a n-gul f -ne i ghbors/2014/10/04/b89977f8-4a7b-11e4-b72e-d60a9229cc10_story.html. Chiacu, Donna. “US Slams ‘Disgraceful Shelling’ of UN School in Gaza.” Haaretz, August 3, 2014. https://www.haaretz.com/u-s-slams-disgracefulshelling-at-un-school-1.5257920. Chomsky, Noam. The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians. New York: South End Press, 1983. Cook, Jonathon. “Israel Instructs Diplomats to Support Saudis.” Al Jazeera, November 10, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/israel-instructs-diplomats-support-saudis-cable-171110134749905.html. Davidovich-Weisberg, Gabriela. “Netanyahu Suggests ‘Huge’ Developments Could Follow Direct Flights to Israel Over Saudi Arabia.” Haaretz, March 25, 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-says-huge-implicationsafter-flights-over-saudi-arabia-1.5938962. “Disengaged Occupiers: The Legal Status of Gaza.” Legal Center for Freedom of Movement (Gisha), January 2007. https://www.gisha.org/ UserFiles/File/publications_english/Publications_and_Reports_English/ Disengaged_Occupiers_en.pdf. Dugard, John. “Debunking Israel’s Self-Defense Argument,” July 31, 2014. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/gaza-israel-internationalpoliticsunicc.html. Efron, Shira, Jordan R. Fischbach, Ilana Blum, Rouslan I. Karimov, and Melinda Moore. “The Public Health Impacts of Gaza’s Water Crisis: Analysis and Policy Options.” RAND Corporation, 2018. https://www.rand.org/pubs/ research_reports/RR2515.html. “Ending the War in Gaza.” Middle East/North Africa. International Crisis Group, January 5, 2009. https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/b26-ending-the-war-in-gaza.pdf.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

249

Filiu, Jean-Pierre. Gaza: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Finkelstein, Norman G. Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom. Oakland: University of California Press, 2018. ———. “Israel’s Latest Assault on Gaza—What Really Happened.” New Left Project, January 10, 2013. http://normanfinkelstein.com/2013/01/10/ what-really-happened-in-gaza-by-norman-finkelstein/. ———. Method and Madness: The Hidden Story of Israel’s Assaults on Gaza. New York: OR Books, 2014. “FM Davutoğlu: Turkey Will Never Leave Gaza on Its Own.” Daily Sabah, November 21, 2012. https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/2012/11/21/ fm-davutoglu-turkey-will-never-leave-gaza-on-its-own. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. “Foreign Secretary Comments on Situation in Gaza and Southern Israel,” November 18, 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-comments-on-situation-in-gaza-and-southern-israel. Fragmented Lives: Humanitarian Overview 2014. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Occupied Palestinian Territory (OCHAOPT), 2015. https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/default/files/Annual_ Humanitarian_Overview_2014_English_final.pdf. “Gaza Closure Defined: Collective Punishment.” Legal Center for Freedom of Movement (Gisha), December 2008. https://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/ File/publications/GazaClosureDefinedEng.pdf. “Gaza Conditions ‘Unlivable’ 10 Years into Siege: UN,” July 12, 2017. https:// www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/living-conditions-worsen-10-year-gazasiege-170712045047448.html. “Gaza: Ten Years Later.” United Nations Country Team in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, July 2017. https://unsco.unmissions.org/sites/default/ files/gaza_10_years_later_-_11_july_2017.pdf. Gearan, Anne. “Fighting in Gaza Leaves U.S. in Difficult Position with Turkey, Egypt.” Washington Post, November 20, 2012. https:// www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2012/11/19/ 873f3ab2-325e-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html. “Hamas Vows Revenge on Israel After Seven Members Die in Air Strike.” The Guardian, July 7, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/07/ hamas-vows-revenge-israel-seven-members-killed. Harel, Amos. “After Israel’s Unilateral Withdrawal from Gaza, What’s Next?” Haaretz, August 3, 2014. https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-after-theunilateral-withdrawal-whats-next-1.5257875. ———. “Israeli Military Chief Gives Unprecedented Interview to Saudi Media: ‘Ready to Share Intel on Iran’.” Haaretz, November 17, 2017. https:// www.haaretz.com/israel-news/idf-chief-gives-unprecedented-interviewto-saudi-media-1.5466066.

250  C. LOUWERSE Hass, Amira. “Palestinians Also to Blame for Gaza Electricity Crisis.” Haaretz, June 26, 2017. https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/. premium-palestinians-also-to-blame-for-gaza-electricity-crisis-1.5488522. Hasson, Nir. “Israeli Peace Activist: Hamas Leader Jabari Killed amid Talks on Long-Term Truce.” Haaretz, November 15, 2012. https://www.haaretz. com/.premium-hamas-source-jabari-wanted-truce-1.5198436. Hennigan, Adrian. “What Does Nikki Haley Have to Say about Israel?” Haaretz, March 8, 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-what-doesnikki-haley-have-to-say-about-israel-1.5887006. “Human Rights Violations during Operation Pillar of Defense (14–21 November 2012).” B’tselem, May 2013. https://www.btselem.org/download/201305_pillar_of_defense_operation_eng.pdf. Human Rights Watch. “Gaza: Donors, UN Should Press Israel on Blockade. Punitive Restrictions on Population Undermine Reconstruction,” October 12, 2014. https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/12/gaza-donors-un-shouldpress-israel-blockade. ———. “Israel: Apparent War Crimes in Gaza: Accountability Needed for Officials Who Authorized Lethal Force,” June 13, 2018. https://www.hrw. org/news/2018/06/13/israel-apparent-war-crimes-gaza. ———. “Israel: Gaza Killings Unlawful, Calculated. Officials Green-Light Shooting of Unarmed Demonstrators,” April 3, 2018. https://www.hrw. org/news/2018/04/03/israel-gaza-killings-unlawful-calculated. ———. “Israel: In-Depth Look at Gaza School Attacks,” September 11, 2014. https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/11/israel-depth-look-gaza-schoolattacks. “If the Heart Not Be Callous: On the Unlawful Shooting of Unarmed Demonstrators in Gaza.” B’tselem, April 6, 2018. https://www.btselem.org/ sites/default/files/publications/201804_if_the_heart_be_not_callous_eng. pdf. Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU). “Israel’s West Bank Crackdown,” June 27, 2014. https://imeu.org/article/israels-west-bankcrackdown. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). “Gaza Closure: Not Another Year!” June 14, 2010. https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/update/palestine-update-140610.htm. “Israel and Hamas: Fire and Ceasefire in a New Middle East.” Middle East/ North Africa. International Crisis Group, November 22, 2012. https:// d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/133-israel-and-hamas-fire-and-ceasefire-in-anew-middle-east.pdf. “Israel Courts Catastrophe in Gaza Protests.” The New York Times, April 2, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/opinion/gaza-protests-israel-hamas.html.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

251

“Israel, Hezbollah and Iran: Preventing Another War in Syria.” Middle East/ North Africa. International Crisis Group, February 8, 2018. https:// d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/182-israel-hizbollah-and-iran-preventing-another-war-in-syria_0.pdf. Khalidi, Rashid. Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East. Boston: Beacon Press, 2013. Khouri, Rami. “The Palestinian Unity Government Will Shape Its Own Fate.” Harvard Kennedy School. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, June 4, 2014. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/palestinian-unitygovernment-will-shape-its-own-fate. Khoury, Jack. “Iranian Forces Pulling Back from Israel Border, Says Russia.” Haaretz, August 1, 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/middle-eastnews/iran/iranian-forces-withdraw-to-a-distance-of-85-km-from-golanheights-1.6337360. Kubovich, Yaniv. “Israeli Defense Officials Warn Politicians: Trump’s Cuts to Palestinians Could Harm Israel’s Security.” Haaretz, January 28, 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-trump-s-cuts-to-palestinians-could-harm-israel-s-security-idf-warns-1.5768092. Kubovich, Yaniv, and Jack Khoury. “Israeli Military Chief Warns: Gaza on Verge of Collapse, Brings Both Sides Closer to War in 2018.” Haaretz, February 5, 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-military-chiefgaza-on-verge-of-collapse-bringing-war-closer-1.5788886. Landau, Noa. “Erdogan Hits Back: Netanyahu Is a ‘Terrorist’ and Israel Is a ‘Terror State’.” Haaretz, April 1, 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/ israel-news/erdogan-hits-back-netanyahu-is-a-terrorist-israel-a-terror-state-1.5963819. Landler, Mark. “Trump Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital and Orders U.S. Embassy to Move.” The New York Times, December 6, 2017. https://www. nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-israel-capital.html. Lis, Jonathon. “‘There’s No Humanitarian Crisis’ in Gaza, Israeli Defense Minister Says, Contradicting Army Chief.” Haaretz, February 5, 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/lieberman-contradicts-idf-theres-no-humanitarian-crisis-in-gaza-1.5790605. Louwerse, Colter, and Ron Dart. “Donald Trump and the Christian Zionist Lobby: Letter from Canada.” Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies 16, no. 2 (November 2017): 237–43. https://doi.org/10.3366/ hlps.2017.0167. Malsin, Jared. “Whither Goldstone? Did the PA Kill the UN’s Gaza Report?’” Foreign Policy, October 27, 2010. https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/10/27/ whither-goldstone-did-the-pa-kill-the-uns-gaza-report/.

252  C. LOUWERSE Maltz, Judy. “Exploitable? Jared Kushner’s Business Interests in Israel Revealed in Full.” Haaretz, February 28, 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/ us-news/.premium-jared-kushner-s-business-interests-in-israel-revealed-infull-1.5865165. Maoz, Ze’ev. Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security and Foreign Policy. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2009. McKernan, Bethan. “Recep Tayyip Erdogan: US Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital Makes It a Partner in Bloodshed.” The Independent, December 11, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/recep-tayyip-erdogan-us-jerusalem-israel-capital-partner-bloodshed-donald-trump-turkey-president-a8103096.html. Melman, Yossi. “Security Establishment Furious with Minister After Making Egypt-Israel Cooperation Public.” Jerusalem Post, February 6, 2016. https:// www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Security-establishment-furious-with-ministerafter-making-Egypt-Israel-cooperation-public-444063. Meyers, Steven Lee. “Despite Rights Concerns, U.S. Plans to Resume Egypt Aid.” New York Times, March 15, 2012. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/ world/middleeast/us-military-aid-to-egypt-to-resume-officials-say.html. Middle East Eye. “‘No Innocent People in Gaza’ Says Israeli Defense Minister,” April 8, 2018. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/no-innocent-peoplegaza-says-israeli-defence-minister. Middle East Monitor. “PA Cuts Off Medical Supplies to Gaza,” May 10, 2017. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170510-pa-cuts-off-medicalsupplies-to-gaza/. Moore, Jack. “Israeli Foreign Minister Says Future Lebanon and Gaza Wars Are ‘Inevitable’.” Newsweek, February 2, 2015. https://www.newsweek. com/israeli-foreign-minister-warns-future-lebanon-and-gaza-wars-inevitable-303841. Morris, Benny. The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Murphy, Brian. “Why Wealthy Qatar Keeps the Money Flowing to Gaza.” The Washington Post, August 3, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost. com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/03/why-wealthy-qatar-keeps-themoney-flowing-to-gaza/. Nakhoul, Samia, Stephen Kalin, and Suleiman Al-Khalidi. “Despite Furor Over Jerusalem Move, Saudis Seen on Board with U.S. Peace Efforts.” Reuters, December 8, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-israel-saudi-insight/despite-furor-over-jerusalem-move-saudis-seen-on-boardwith-u-s-peace-efforts-idUSKBN1E22GR. Niv, Kob. “Israel’s Next War Won’t Be Avigdor Lieberman’s Fault.” Haaretz, May 25, 2016. https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-dont-worrythere-ll-be-another-war-1.5387429.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

253

“No Exit? Gaza & Israel between Wars.” Middle East/North Africa. International Crisis Group, August 26, 2015. https://d2071andvip0wj. cloudfront.net/162-no-exit-gaza-israel-between-wars.pdf. “Nothing Is Immune: Israel’s Destruction of Landmark Buildings in Gaza.” MDE. Amnesty International, December 9, 2014. https://www.amnesty. org/download/Documents/MDE1500292014ENGLISH.PDF. Noueihed, Lin, and Nidal al-Mughrabi. “Seeking to Secure Sinai, Egypt Builds Closer Ties with Hamas.” Reuters, February 21, 2017. https://www.reuters. com/article/us-palestinians-egypt-sinai/seeking-to-secure-sinai-egypt-buildscloser-ties-with-hamas-idUSKBN16010C. “Occupied Palestinian Territory: Gaza Emergency Situation Report.” Situation Report. OCHA, September 4, 2014. https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/ default/files/ocha_opt_sitrep_04_09_2014.pdf. “Occupied Palestinian Territory: The Humanitarian Impact of Reduced Access between Gaza and Egypt.” Situation Report. OCHA, September 23, 2013. https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/default/files/ocha_opt_gaza_sitrep_ 2013_09_23_english.pdf. “Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 Days of Death and Destruction.” MDE. Amnesty International, July 2, 2009. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ 48000/mde150152009en.pdf. Pappé, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2007. “Permanent Sovereignty of the Palestinian People in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab Population in the Occupied Syrian Golan over Their Natural Resources.” United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). 72nd Session. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), December 20, 2017. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/72/240. Rabbani, Mouin. “Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf Cooperation Council Crisis.” Jadaliyya, June 22, 2017. https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/34390. Rabinovitch, Ari, and Tova Cohen. “Pipeline Deal Brings Export of Israeli Gas to Egypt within Sight.” Reuters, September 27, 2018. https://www.reuters. com/article/us-israel-egypt-gas/pipeline-deal-brings-export-of-israeli-gas-toegypt-within-sight-idUSKCN1M710F. Ravid, Barak. “Fatah Asked Israel to Help Attack Hamas during Gaza Coup, WikiLeaks Cable Shows.” Haaretz, December 20, 2010. https://www. haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/fatah-asked-israel-to-helpattack-hamas-during-gaza-coup-1.5096109. ———. “Israel, Turkey Reach Understandings on Hamas.” Haaretz, June 26, 2016. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-turkey-reachunderstandings-on-hamas-1.5401406. Ravid, Barak, and Amos Harel. “Israeli Cabinet Decides to Reduce Gaza Electricity Supply at Palestinian President’s Request.” Haaretz, June 12, 2017.

254  C. LOUWERSE https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-to-reduce-gaza-electricity-supply-at-palestinian-president-s-request-1.5483120. “Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry Established Pursuant to Human Rights Council Resolution.” United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 29th Session, June 24, 2015. https:// www.undocs.org/A/HRC/29/CRP.4. “Report of the International Fact-Finding Mission to Investigate Violations of International Law, Including International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law, Resulting from the Israeli Attacks on the Flotilla of Ships Carrying Humanitarian Assistance, A/HRC/15/21.” United Nations Human Rights Council. 15th Session, September 27, 2010. https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf. “Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.” United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) 27th Session, September 25, 2009. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/ 158/66/PDF/G0915866.pdf?OpenElement. “Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Implementation of Human Rights Council Resolutions S-9/1 and S-12/1.” United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), March 5, 2013. https:// www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/ Session22/A-HRC-22-35-Add-1_en.pdf. “Report on UNCTAD Assistance to the Palestinian People: Developments in the Economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), July 6, 2015. https://unctad.org/ en/PublicationsLibrary/tdb62d3_en.pdf. “Report on UNCTAD Assistance to the Palestinian People: Developments in the Economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), July 10, 2017. https://unispal. un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/22f431edb91c6f548525678a0051be1d/9ef3a17ccd1df05a852581790069fff8?OpenDocument. Reuters. “Arab League Chief, Ministers to Visit Gaza on Tuesday,” November 18, 2012. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-israel-gaza-ministers/arab-league-chief-ministers-to-visit-gaza-on-tuesday-idUSBRE8AH0HD20121118. ———. “Hamas Deputy Leader Says to Continue Iran Ties, Armed Fight,” October 22, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-hamas-iran/hamas-deputy-leader-says-to-continue-iran-ties-armed-fightidUSKBN1CR0MP. ———. “Israel-Turkey Gas Pipeline Could Be Ready in Four Years—Company,” March 2, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/israel-energy/israel-turkey-gas-pipeline-could-be-ready-in-four-years-company-idUSL5N1GF3ZO.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

255

———. “Saudi Arabia Designates Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Group,” March 7, 2014. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-security/saudi-arabia-designates-muslim-brotherhood-terrorist-group-idUSBREA260SM20140307. Rose, David. “The Gaza Bombshell.” Vanity Fair, March 3, 2008. https://www. vanityfair.com/news/2008/04/gaza200804. Roy, Sara. Failing Peace: Gaza and the Palestinian–Israeli Conflict. London: Pluto Press, 2007. ———. “If Israel Were Smart.” London Review of Books 39, no. 12 (June 15, 2017): 19–20. ———. The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of de-Development. Expanded 3rd. Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 2016. Rudoren, Jodi. “Qatar’s Emir Visits Gaza, Pledging $400 Million to Hamas.” The New York Times, October 23, 2012. https://www.nytimes. com/2012/10/24/world/middleeast/pledging-400-million-qatari-emirmakes-historic-visit-to-gaza-strip.html. Saleh, Yasmine, and Edmund Blair. “Egypt Agrees Deal for $4.8 Billion IMF Loan.” Reuters, November 20, 2012. https://www.reuters.com/article/ us-egypt-imf-idUSBRE8AJ0LK20121120. Sharon, Itamar. “Israel Expected to Accept Arab-Backed Truce.” The Times of Israel, July 15, 2014. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-expected-toaccept-arab-backed-truce/. Sherwood, Harriet, and Peter Beaumont. “Israel Ready to Expand Gaza Offensive, Says Binyamin Netanyahu.” The Guardian, November 18, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/18/israel-ready-expandgaza-offensive. Siboni, Gabi. “Operations Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense, and Protective Edge: A Comparative Review.” In The Lessons of Operation Protective Edge, edited by Anat Kurzand and Shlomo Brom, 27–36. Tel Aviv: The Institute for National Security Studies, 2014. Spetalnick, Matt. “Obama: ‘Preferable’ to Avoid Israeli Ground Invasion of Gaza.” Reuters, November 18, 2012. https://www.reuters.com/article/ us-asia-obama-mideast/obama-preferable-to-avoid-israeli-ground-invasion-of-gaza-idUSBRE8AH07Z20121118. “State of Palestine.” Humanitarian Situation Report. UNICEF, December 2017. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/UNICEF%20 State%20of%20Palestine%20Humanitarian%20Situation%20Report%20-%20 Year%20End%202017.pdf. State of Palestine. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. “Palestine in Figures 2017. Ramallah: March 2018,” March 2018. http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/ Downloads/book2362.pdf.

256  C. LOUWERSE “Steinitz: ‘Egypt Floods Hamas Tunnels, in Part Due to Israel’s Request’.” The Jerusalem Post, February 6, 2016. https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/ Steinitz-Egypt-floods-Hamas-tunnels-in-part-due-to-Israels-request-444040. Tahhan, Zena. “Egypt-Israel Relations ‘at Highest Level’ in History.” Al Jazeera, September 20, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/11/ egypt-israel-relations-highest-level-history-161107083926863.html. “The Gaza Strip: A Building Boom.” The Economist, August 18, 2012. https:// www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2012/08/18/a-building-boom. The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). “A Document of General Principles and Policies,” 2017. https://hamas.ps/en/post/678/a-document-ofgeneral-principles-and-policies. The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. “Operation Pillar of Defense—Update No. 8,” November 22, 2012. https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/20433/. “The Next Round in Gaza.” Middle East/North Africa. International Crisis Group, March 24, 2014. https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/ eastern-mediterranean/israelpalestine/next-round-gaza. The Times of Israel. “Hamas Supporters in Gaza Cheer Egypt’s Brotherhood Victory,” June 18, 2012. https://www.timesofisrael.com/ hamas-supporters-in-gaza-cheer-egypts-brotherhood-victory/. ———. “Palestinians Must Make Peace or Shut Up, Saudi Crown Prince Said to Tell US Jews,” April 29, 2018. https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestiniansmust-make-peace-or-shut-up-saudi-crown-prince-said-to-tell-us-jews/. The White House President Barack Obama. “Press Conference by the President. The White House Office of the Press Secretary,” August 1, 2014. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/01/ press-conference-president. ———. “Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Shinawatra in a Joint Press Conference,” November 18, 2012. https://obamawhitehouse. archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/18/remarks-president-obama-andprime-minister-shinawatra-joint-press-confer. Thrall, Nathan. “Hamas’ Chances.” London Review of Books, August 36, no. 16 (August 21, 2014). “Towards a Lasting Ceasefire in Gaza.” Middle East/North Africa. International Crisis Group, October 23, 2014. https://www.crisisgroup. org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/israelpalestine/ toward-lasting-ceasefire-gaza. “Treading Water: The Worsening Water Crisis and the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism.” OXFAM Briefing Paper. OXFAM, March 2017. https://wwwcdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/bp-treading-water-gaza-reconstruction-mechanism-220317-en.pdf.

8  (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 

257

“Trump Taps David Friedman as U.S. Ambassador to Israel.” Haaretz, December 16, 2016. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/trump-taps-david-friedmanas-u-s-ambassador-to-israel-1.5474698. Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates. “Palestinians Sidelined in Saudi-Emirati Rapprochement with Israel.” Journal of Palestine Studies 47, no. 4 (2018): 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1525/jps.2018.47.4.79. UN News. “Gaza: Ban Condemns Latest Deadly Attack Near UN School as ‘Moral Outrage and Criminal Act’,” August 3, 2014. https://news.un.org/ en/story/2014/08/474302-gaza-ban-condemns-latest-deadly-attack-nearun-school-moral-outrage-and. UNRWA—United Nations Relief and Works Agency. “Where We Work: Gaza Strip,” January 1, 2018. https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/gaza-strip. Witte, Griff, and Sudarsan Raghaven. “Netanyahu Says Israeli Military ‘Will Take as Much Time as Necessary’ in Gaza.” The Washington Post, August 2, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hamas-says-missing-israeli-soldierin-gaza-hadar-goldin-is-likely-dead/2014/08/02/92562694-56cd-48c0921b-b851fb2eca09_story.html. Yaalon, Moshe, and Leehe Friedman. “Israel and the Arab States: A Historic Opportunity to Normalize Relations?” Foreign Affairs, January 26, 2018. https:// www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/israel/2018-01-26/israel-and-arab-states. Ynetnews.com. “UAE, Qatar Donate Funds to Stave Off Gaza Health Crisis,” February 9, 2018. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles /0,7340,L-5102687,00.html. Zonszein, Mairav. “Benjamin Netanyahu Just Formed the Most Right-Wing Government in Israeli History.” The Nation, May 25, 2016. https://www. thenation.com/article/benjamin-netanyahu-just-formed-the-most-right-wing -government-in-israeli-history/.

CHAPTER 9

The Evolution of Iraq’s Hashd al-Sha’abi (Popular Mobilization Forces) Zana Gulmohamad

Introduction The Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) is an umbrella term for non-monolithic majority Shi’ militias with divergent orientations, particularly between pro-Iran and Iraqi-first Shi’ militias. For example, major pro-Iran militias, such as Badr and Asaib Ahl al-Haq, have closer ties to Iran, whereas the populist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his militias reject interference from Iran and the West. Therefore, the pro-Iran militias within the PMF are allied within the Iranian axis (al-Mihwar al-Irani) or the axis of resistance (Mihwar al-Muqawama) explored in the first section of this book. This axis includes four principal state and ­non-state actors: Iran, pro-Iran Iraqi Shi’ militias, Syria, and the Lebanese Hezbollah. They are the most powerful Shi’ and Shi’-leaning actors in the region and form a land bridge between the four countries to the Israeli–Lebanese border at Golan Heights. The Iran-led axis balances ­vis-a-vis the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and its regional allies in the region, including Israel. Furthermore, Iran’s support for Shi’ movements

Z. Gulmohamad (*)  University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_9

259

260  Z. GULMOHAMAD

elsewhere in the region, such as in Bahrain, is also part of Iran’s strategy to push back against its regional rivals. The seeds of Iraqi Shi’ militias were planted more than a decade ago and have since taken root and proliferated. They have grown to become a well-equipped social–political movement and part of the Iraqi state, which shapes Iraq’s polity and security. Iraqi Shi’ militias pursue the narrow interests of their leaders and sponsors–interests that are colored by various versions of Islamic Shi’ religious doctrines in order to legitimize their behavior. For just over three years, the PMF played a considerable role in combating the Islamic State (IS), as the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) were unable to defend and retake national territory. The PMF’s success in cooperation with the ISF against IS prevented Baghdad’s fall. However, the Shi’ militias have been a destabilizing factor in Iraq and the wider region, as a considerable number of them have committed human rights violations and have ideological and political ambitions and a de facto presence.1 Iraq’s Shi’ militias are actively involved in the rapid and fluid shifts in Iraq’s political and security scene. Militias in Iraq’s modern state have been present since the time of the country’s monarchy. In the 1930s, King Faisal I had concerns about armed tribes, and confrontations arose between the latter and government forces.2 In 1933, the 100,000 rifles of the armed tribes exceeded the 15,000 of the government forces.3 However, the flow of oil revenues, particularly since the early 1940s, gave the Iraqi government the ability to equip and expand their armed forces, thereby suppressing the anti-government militias.4 The Ba’ath regime and Saddam Hussein were arming loyal ­state-backed militias, namely, Jaish al-Sha’bi (the 6th People’s Army), before and during the Iraq–Iran War. The People’s Army was poorly

1 “Iraq: Militias Abuses Mar Fight against ISIS. Tikrit Homes Destroyed, Residents Abducted,” Human Rights Watch, September 20, 2015, https://www.hrw.org/ news/2015/09/20/iraq-militia-abuses-mar-fight-against-isis. 2 Mohammad Tarbush, The Role of the Military in Politics: A Case Study of Iraq to 1941 (New York: Routledge, 2016), 16. 3 Omar Al-Nidawi and Michael Knights, “Militias in Iraq’s Security Forces: Historical Context and U.S Options,” February 22, 2018, http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/ policy-analysis/view/militias-in-iraqs-security-forces-historical-context-and-u.s.-options. 4 Al-Nidawi and Knights; Atif A. Kubursi, “Oil and the Iraqi Economy,” Arab Studies Quarterly 10, no. 3 (Summer 1988): 283–98.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

261

trained, yet its number gradually exceeded that of the Iraqi Army (IA). Post-1991, Saddam’s regime created state-backed militias, such as Fedayeen Saddam (Saddam’s Men of Sacrifice) numbering 30,000 to 40,000. This small yet ruthless militia answered directly to Saddam’s son, Uday.5 Many in the IA resented these militias.6 The state-backed militias were the regime’s tools for suppression and security. In contrast to Saddam’s era, the militias post-Saddam are more complex and have divergent and occasionally colliding interests and loyalties, as the next sections attempt to explore. This chapter provides a survey on the structure and categorization of the PMF, their military and operational capabilities, their supporters and loyalties, and the different goals between the militias, including their political ambitions. It looks at their ideological and political orientations and their ties domestically (in Iraq) as well as regionally (the broader Middle East). It comes to the conclusion that: (1) A number of pro-Iran Shi’ militias have been deeply seated in Iraq for decades; however, the rise of the IS provided the context for prominent Shi’ commanders, figures, and militias to shape Iraq’s security and military apparatus in a way that is molding Iraq’s polity and interfering in its policy-making process; (2) Pro-Iran militias have consolidated the militia presence in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, and by their attitude and behavior, they have extended Iran’s influence in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East.

The Creation of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) In Arabic, the factions or militias of the PMF are called Fasail Hashd al-Sha’abi and Haiat al-Hashd al-Sha’abi. Nonetheless, various nicknames and titles resemble certain identities and trends; for example, the term Milishiyat al-Shi’ia (Shi’ militias) has a pejorative connotation equivalent to mobs, gangs, and unofficial armed groups that do not

5 Sharon Otterman, “Iraq: What Is the Fedayeen Saddam?,” Council on Foreign Relations, February 3, 2005, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/iraq-what-fedayeensaddam. 6 Kamal Adeeb, A Summary of Iraq’s History from the Iraqi Revolt in 1920 to the American Wars, Resistance, Liberation and Creation of the Second Republic (Beirut: Dar al-Farabi, 2013), 118.

262  Z. GULMOHAMAD

adhere to the rule of law. In this chapter, the term “militias” is used to represent the PMF’s factions without any negative or contemptuous implications. Amid the rise of IS, the meltdown of ISF, the fall of a third of Iraq to the IS, and the threat to Baghdad, the Grand Ayatollah al-Sayyid Ali Husseini al-Sistani, Iraq’s highest religious reference (Marjia al-Diniah al-A’lia), issued a religious edict regarding the duty of jihad. This was called the fatwa Wajib Jihad al-Kafai, and it triggered the birth of the PMF. The fatwa, read by his spokesperson Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalai on June 13, 2014, called upon “all able-bodied Iraqis to defend the country and to volunteer in the security forces,” and it declared the war against IS as a sacred defense (Difa’ Muqadas).7 Former Prime Minister (PM) Nouri al-Maliki is a PMF founder, alongside a unanimous backing of the Council of Ministers.8 Two days after the fatwa, Falih al-Fayyadh, the federal government’s national security advisor, announced the creation of Haiat Modiriat al-Hashd al-Sha’abi, a committee for the directorate of the PMF. In every Shi’-dominated governorate, masses of Shi’s responded to the al-Sistani’s fatwa. The PMF offices, many of which were affiliated to or controlled by the militias, organized and equipped the recruits. Close to a million volunteers were registered.9 Currently, the number of militias is estimated at 67. Half of these were preexisting militias and had operated before Ayatollah ­al-Sistani’s fatwa. Some had even targeted the US-led coalition during Iraq’s occupation. Just over half have ideological and logistical links and are loyal to

7 “The Statement of Iraq’s Religious Marjiyya Ayatollah al-Sistani on Jihad al-Kafai (In Arabic),” Al-Hashd.net, June 13, 2014, http://al-hashed.net/2016/12/26/%D9%81%D 8%AA%D9%88%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%A7 %D9%84%D9%83%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A-13-6-2014/; BBC News (Arabic), “Iraq: Religious Leadership Announces al-Jihad (In Arabic),” YouTube, June 13, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGeoCNVQlgg. 8 Zana K. Gulmohamad, “Iraq’s Shi’ Militias: Helping or Hindering the Fight against Islamic State?,” The Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Monitor XIV, no. 9 (April 29, 2016): 5–7. 9 “Maliki Orders the Formation of the Directorate of Hashd Al-Sha’abi to Manage the Flow (In Arabic),” Qanat al-Alam, June 15, 2014, http://www.alalam.ir/ news/1603017/; Zana K. Gulmohamad, “A Short Profile of Iraq’s Shi’a Militias,” Terrorism Monitor: In-Depth Analysis of the War on Terror 13, no. 8 (April 17, 2015): 3–6.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

263

the Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei and the regime, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF).10 Iraqi officials indicated that the PMF fighters total around 110,000–122,000, and the federal government in Baghdad is responsible for their salaries.11 For example, in 2017, the government paid the PMF 1.63 billion US dollars.12 This chapter categorizes the PMF militias according to their loyalties and sponsors. Previously, the author (in 2015 and 2016) and other experts divided the militias into three camps: pro-Iran militias, ­pro-al-Sistani or Hawza militias, and pro-Sadr and al-Hakim militias.13 However, this chapter presents two camps of militias, based on their current religious loyalties and areas of sponsorship. The first group of militias are the pro-Iran Hashd al-Walai (in Arabic, al-Walai means loyal and refers to the loyalty to Khamenei). This camp adheres to and/or favors Khomeini’s version of governance and political system: the doctrine of Vilayat-i Faqih (governance of the jurist). The second group includes loyalties and sponsors that are based in Iraq, with various doctrines and political factions affiliated with al-Hawza and al-Sistani’s institutions, with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), or with the Shi’ populist figure Muqtada’s al-Sadr and his movement. This second camp’s command structure has been close to the PM’s office since al-Abadi’s appointment, yet they are incoherent and their cooperation depends on battlefield dynamics. By contrast, the first camp operates under the auspices of Iran, particularly the IRGC, and is close to al-Maliki. All militias argue that they are Iraqi nationalist ones. Many militias claim that they represent the Iraqi people, are social–political

10 Jack Watling, “The Shi’ Militias of Iraq,” The Atlantic, December 22, 2016, https:// www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/Shi’-militias-iraq-isis/510938/. 11 Nicholas A. Heras, “Iraq’s Fifth Column: Iran’s Proxy Network” (MEI Policy Paper, Middle East Institute, October 2, 2017), https://www.mei.edu/sites/default/files/publications/PP2_Heras_IraqCT_0.pdf. 12 Renad Mansour, “More Than Militias: Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces Are Here to Stay,” War on the Rocks, April 3, 2018, https://warontherocks.com/2018/04/ more-than-militias-iraqs-popular-mobilization-forces-are-here-to-stay/. 13 Mustafa Habib, “Divided Loyalties: Iraq’s Controversial Shiite Militias Fight among Themselves,” Niqash: briefings from inside and across Iraq, June 30, 2015, http://www. niqash.org/en/articles/politics/5033/Iraq; Gulmohamad, “Iraq’s Shi’ Militias,” 5–7; and Gulmohamad, “A Short Profile of Iraq’s Shi’a Militias,” 3–6.

264  Z. GULMOHAMAD

movements, and have inherited Shi’ religious legacies.14 All Shi’ militias possess and portray Shi’ Islamist narratives using various doctrines, while trying to project the image of an Iraqi nationalist identity. Each camp has its own interpretation and brand of Iraqi nationalism. For instance, proIran militias adopt the Shi’ transnationalism linked to Iran’s Khomeini, whereas many emphasize patriotism to gain legitimacy among all Iraqis in their fight against IS.15 These transnational narratives pose a challenge to the state and other non-Shi’ Iraqi communities who may have a ­different sense of Iraqi identity. Since 2014, the controversial legal status of the PMF has faced criticism from a number of Iraqi politicians and lawmakers, particularly the Arab Sunnis and Kurds, over the PMF’s resources and the plans to turn it into part of the state security structure.16 Initially, former PM al-Maliki signed an official decree in 2014 to form the commission of PMF. Critics alleged, however, that the decree violated article 9, paragraph B of the Iraqi constitution, which clearly prohibits the formation of militias outside the framework of the armed forces.17 In an attempt to fix this legal issue, former PM al-Abadi approved (in February 2016) an official government Executive Order 91, which underlined that the PMF would be an independent military body, part of ISF, and attached to the PM. In November 2016, the Iraqi Council of Representatives (ICR) passed a law known as Qanoon Haiat Hashd al-Sha’abi, which officially institutionalized and accorded full legal status to the PMF as part of the ISF to report directly to the PM. The law was supported by 208 out of a total of 327 members of parliament (MPs), but rejected by many Arab Sunnis.18 14 Ranj Alaaldin, “Containing Shiite Militias: The Battle for Stability in Iraq,” Policy Briefing (Brookings Doha Center, December 12, 2017), https://www.brookings.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2017/12/shiite_militias_iraq_english.pdf. 15 Dylan O’Driscoll and Dave van Zoonen, “The Hashd Al-Shaabi and Iraq: Subnationalism and the State” (Middle East Research Institute, March 2017), http:// www.meri-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PMF-Report-0.2.pdf. 16 “Sunnis and Kurds Oppose Hashd Law Passed by Iraqi Parliament,” Basnews, November 11, 2016, http://www.basnews.com/index.php/en/news/iraq/314015. 17 Renad Mansour and Faleh A. Jabar, “The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s Future” (Carnegie Middle East Center, April 28, 2017), http://carnegie-mec. org/2017/04/28/popular-mobilization-forces-and-iraq-s-future-pub-68810. 18 “The Law of Hashd Al-Sha’abi (In Arabic),” Ministry of Justice, November 26, 2016, https://www.moj.gov.iq/view.2899/.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

265

On March 8, 2018, former PM al-Abadi issued a decree to integrate the PMF into Iraq’s traditional armed forces (al-Quwwat ­al-Musalaha al-Iraqiya) through a process that would officially fall under Iraq’s Ministry of Defense or Ministry of Interior.19 The PMF’s leaders rejected the decree and instead offered their own proposal to be an independent security apparatus, separate from the aforementioned ministries. As of now, the PMF remains independent and enjoys legal status; it is under the National Security Council, which answers to the PM. Apparently, the PMF leaders are not interested in integrating or assimilating into the traditional ISF, as their current status gives them more power and independence.20 Officially, the PMF, at the time of this writing, is under the command of PM Adel Abdul Mahdi, who is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Until August 2018, the Chairman of the PMF was Falih al-Fayyadh, who was also Iraq’s National Security Advisor. He was initially appointed by Nouri al-Maliki and was also close to al-Abadi. Fayyadh was a member of Iraq’s major ruling Islamic Dawah Party before he created his own political platform, the Ataa Movement. One of Fayyadh’s key goals was to promote and support the rights of the PMF fighters.21 Fayyadh was sacked by PM al-Abadi on the grounds that he was interfering in politics because he split from al-Abadi’s Nasir alliance in the process of formulating the government.22 The Deputy Chairman of the PMF is currently Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who has strong and historical ties with the IRGC-QF that go back to the mid-1980s.23 Ostensibly, the PMF is officially controlled by the government and state; however, the pro-Iran militias have a considerable degree of 19 “The Prime Minister and the Commander in Chief Haider Al-Abadi Issues Regulations for Hashd al-Sha’abi (In Arabic),” Iraq’s Prime Minister’s Office, March 8, 2018, http:// pmo.iq/press2018/8-3-201803.htm. 20 Mansour, “More Than Militias.” 21 “Fayyadh Announces Creating Ataa Movement (In Arabic),” Iraqi News Network, November 25, 2017, http://aliraqnews.com/‫ضايفلا‬-‫نلعي‬-‫نع‬-‫سيسأت‬-‫ءاطعةكرح‬. 22 “The New Arab. Iraq PM Sacks Paramilitary Chief Who Joined Rival Pro-Iranian Bloc,” The New Arab, August 31, 2018, https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/ news/2018/8/31/iraq-pm-sacks-paramilitary-chief-who-joined-pro-iranian-bloc. 23 Amir Toumaj, “Death of a General: What Shaban Nasiri Reveals about Iran’s Secretive Quds Force,” War on the Rocks, March 23, 2018, https://warontherocks. com/2018/03/death-of-a-general-what-shaban-nasiri-reveals-about-irans-secretive-qodsforce/.

266  Z. GULMOHAMAD

autonomy and their de facto behavior emerges from various internal and external stakeholders, and partisan and ideological drivers. The PMF’s bodies are responsive to the directives of an executive commission, the Shura Council (Majlis Shura al-Muqawama al-Islamiyyia), which is a key part of the PMF, is led by al-Muhandis and Hadi al-Amiri, and includes 10 other key militia leaders from the aforementioned Iraqi and pro-Iran camps. The purpose of the executive committee is to administer and conduct day-to-day tasks without going back to the PM for permission.24 The PMF has created directories (Mudiriyat al-Hashd al-Sha’abi) for specialized sectors or matters, such as directorates for overseeing the planning and execution of military operations, intelligence, media, medical matters, operations, and military engineering. The PMF has regional committees, called offices of the PMF committee (Makatib Hai’at Hashd al-Sha’abi), which are smaller and less powerful components than the central administration and supervise provisional-level administrative matters. Regional committees are present in many Iraqi governorates, including Anbar, Babil, Basra, Dhi Qar, Diwaniyah, Diyala, Karbala, Kirkuk, Maysan, Muthanna, Salah al-Din, Najaf, Nineveh, and Wasit. Regional committees are responsible for the affairs of each province and are dependent on the executive committee of the PMF for resources.25 Al-Muhandis is the key figure in the PMF who shapes the operational, administrative, and financial dynamics. The majority of the PMF websites and social media platforms praise al-Muhandis, al-Amiri, and the spokesperson Ahmad al-Asadi, who are the key commanders of the pro-Iran militias. They appear to be the most admired leaders, rather than the Chairman Falih al-Fayyadh. This promotion of its leaders indicates that the pro-Iran camp has shaped the PMF’s orientations and trajectories.26 24 “Hashd Al-Sha’abi in Iraqi, It’s Creation and Future (In Arabic)” (Rawabet Center For Research and Strategic Studies, August 28, 2018), http://rawabetcenter.com/ archives/31326. 25 Jessa Rose Dury-Agri, Omer Kassim, and Patrik Martin, “Iraq’s Security Forces and Popular Mobilization Forces: Orders of Battle” (Institute for the Study of War, December 2017), http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Iraq%20-%20ISF%20 PMF%20Orders%20of%20Battle_0_0.pdf. 26 James Garrison, “Popular Mobilization Messaging,” (ICCT Research Paper, The Hague: International Centre for Counter-Terrorism [ICCT], April 2017), https://icct. nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ICCT-Garrison-Popular-Mobilization-MessagingApril-2017-1.pdf.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

267

The administrative structure has paved the way for the pro-Iran and Iraq first militias to conduct more efficient joint operations.27 Nevertheless, despite the cooperation between the different militias, rivalry exists between them due to their different ideologies, partisanship, and external ties.28 The PMF’s chairman and other commanders state that the PMF is under the PM’s power. However, the public statements of many pro-Iran militia leaders, as well as the behavior and forces within the PMF, contradict the PM’s general domestic policy and foreign policy. One example is the presence of PMF Shi’ militias in Syria and their operational activities on the side of the Assad regime. The following sections explore the most powerful pro-Iran Shi’ militias, the minority and micro-minority militias (affiliated to both Iraqi and Iranian camps), then the non-pro-Iran Shi’ militias.

Iraqi Pro-Iran Shi’ Militias This part analyzes the Iraqi pro-Iran militias that follow Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei and that closely coordinate and take instructions from Iran’s key security apparatus, particularly the IRGC. Iran has been the key contributor in founding, funding, and logistically supporting and developing these pro-Iran militias.

Badr Organization (Formerly Known as Badr Brigade) Badr is the oldest current operative Shi’ armed group. It was created in 1982 in Iran during the Iran–Iraq War with Badr Brigades or Corps (Failaq Badr) and was an armed wing for ISCI (then known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI). Badr was initially composed of Iraqi Shi’ defectors, Iraqi prisoners of war, and refugees or individuals who joined SCIRI. Iran offered those who were Shi’ or who would convert to Shiism to fight against Saddam’s regime

27 ­ Dury-Agri, Kassim, and Martin, “Iraq’s Security Forces and Popular Mobilization Forces.” 28 Gulmohamad, “Iraq’s Shi’ Militias,” 5–7; Bashdar Ismaeel, “Dominance of Militias May Haunt Baghdad. Kurdish Peshmerga Fighters Take Part in a Military Exercise,” The New Arab, November 2, 2017, https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/ comment/2017/11/2/dominance-of-militias-may-haunt-baghdad.

268  Z. GULMOHAMAD

within Badr.29 Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim (1939–2003) was an Iraqi religious cleric, political intellectual, and former leader of SCIRI and its paramilitary wing Badr, who was assassinated in 2003 in Najaf. The spiritual leader of SCIRI went to Iran in 1980 and had close ties with and followed Ayatollah Khomeini’s doctrine of Vilayat-i Faqih, although he had slightly different interpretations of some details of its jurist council selection and qualities.30 Badr had historical links to the IRGC-QF and was funded and equipped by Iran and trained by Iranian officers who were part of the IRGC-QF.31 One figure who was a key architect of its military model was General Shaban Nasiri, the founding father of the Guards Corps who was killed in the west of Mosul in 2017 while advising Iraqi Shi’ militias.32 Since 2004, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a former ISCI and Badr leader, has intended to integrate Badr into the ISF and turn it into a political and civil organization.33 In practice, these intentions have been emboldened. During the sectarian violence between 2006 and 2008, Badr was involved in targeting senior Sunni clerics.34 Although the schism between Badr and ISCI has grown since 2009 after the death of ISCI leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, Badr officially defected from ISCI in 2012 to form a political faction with its preexisting armed militias. It is led by Hadi al-Amiri, who is its General Secretary, and has changed its name to the Badr Organization of Reconstruction and Development.35 Hadi al-Amiri is a veteran combatant who left Iraq in the 1980s and 29 Miran Hussein, Sectarianism and Shi’ Militias and Political Armed Groups in Iraq (In Arabic) (Cairo: Dar al-Maktab al-Arabi llma’arf, 2015), 70; “Badr Corps,” Global Security, November 24, 2014, https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/badr.htm. 30 Robert Cleave, “Conceptions of Authority in Iraqi Shi’ism Baqir al-Hakim, Ha’iri and Sistani on Ijtihad, Taqlid and Marja’iyya,” Theory, Culture and Society 24, no. 2 (2007): 59–78, https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276407074996. 31 Anthony H. Cordesman and Emma R. Davies, Iraq’s Insurgency and the Road to Civil Conflict (London; Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2007), 38–39. 32 Toumaj, “Death of a General.” 33 Cordesman and Davies, Iraq’s Insurgency and the Road to Civil Conflict, 38; “Interview with Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim,” Frontline, April 17, 2017, https://www.pbs.org/ wgbh/pages/frontline/gangsofiraq/interviews/hakim.html. 34 Cordesman and Davies, Iraq’s Insurgency and the Road to Civil Conflict, 38–39. 35 Phillip Smyth, “Should Iraq’s ISCI Forces Really Be Considered ‘Good Militias’?,” Policy Watch (The Washington Institute, August 17, 2016), http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/should-iraqs-isci-forces-really-be-considered-good-militias.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

269

joined Badr; he was appointed military commander of Badr Corps in the 1990s. Post-2003, al-Amiri became increasingly prominent in Iraq and played a role in reconsolidating ties between Badr and Iran after the split from ISCI. This has enabled Badr to formulate its objectives and interests without ISCI, and Badr has since become closer to Iran.36 In 2005, al-Amiri entered politics and was elected as an ICR member. In 2010, al-Maliki appointed al-Amiri Minister of Transportation. Another prominent Badr commander who assumed office is Baqir Jabr al-Zubeidi; he occupied several ministerial posts, including Housing and Reconstruction in the Iraqi transnational government, Minister of Interior (2005–2006), and Finance Minister (2006–2010). The Interior Ministry has been dominated by Badr commanders, including Mohammad al-Ghabban (2014–2016) and Qassim al-Araji (2016– 2018). These governmental positions have provided Badr with resources, power, and influence in policymaking, particularly in security affairs. Badr began as an instrument to expand Iranian interests with compatible revolutionary tendencies. Post-2003, the involvement of the Badr organization in Iraqi politics and the resources they enjoyed from their network within the Iraqi state structure empowered them in many dimensions. Publicly, they became less extreme in their rhetoric; they have conservative Iraqi nationalist tendencies but are close to Tehran. Al-Amiri has ambitions to shape policy and, as an Iraqi official, he has interacted with Western actors and powers that traditionally he likely would not have had relations with. For example, when al-Amiri was Minister of Transportation, he accompanied former PM al-Maliki on a visit to the White House in 2011.37 Al-Amiri has given interviews with various media outlets (for example, France 24) and has met with Western diplomats to show a diplomatic face for a long-standing Shi’ commander whose background is littered with anti-Western rhetoric.38 36 Guido Steinberg, “The Badr Organization: Iran’s Most Important Instrument in Iraq,” SWP Comments (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik—German Institute for International and Security Affairs, July 26, 2017), https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/ contents/products/comments/2017C26_sbg.pdf. 37 Glenn Kessler, “An Iranian ‘Terrorist’ in the White House?,” Washington Post, December 20, 2011, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/an-iranian-terrorist-in-the-white-house/2011/12/19/gIQA6t2K5O_blog.html. 38 “Iraqi Militia Leader ‘Meets British Ambassador,’” The New Arab, October 4, 2016, https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2016/10/4/iraqi-militia-leader-meetsbritish-ambassador.

270  Z. GULMOHAMAD

However, on multiple occasions, al-Amiri has clearly requested the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.39 The Badr organization is considered the largest and best-equipped Shi’ militia; it has heavy military hardware, including Russian and US tanks, armored Humvees, and artillery, as well as military technology capabilities that include a remote weapon station, drones, and communication and surveillance capabilities.40 Although no concrete estimates are available of their manpower, it stood at approximately 15,000 in 2004.41 Recently, independent sources have claimed that Badr has around 20,000 fighters, while Badr declared it has 50,000.42 As the oldest active militia, they are able to show a somewhat pragmatic attitude in their engagement with other Iraqi actors, and they have access to state resources, as mentioned above, as they are spread throughout the Iraqi security establishment. The Badr organization has become the most important component of the PMF and they have played a key role in heading the Shi’ militias in the fight against IS. Al-Amiri led a military operation to defeat the IS in many battles, such as for Jurf al-Sakhar (Rocky Bank) in October 2014. The once Sunni-dominated town, seized in June 2014 by the IS, is south of Baghdad in the Babil Governorate, and Shi’ fighters have renamed it Jurf Al-Nasr (Bank of Victory).43 Badr’s access to state resources and its taking control of areas (parts of Diyala Governorate and Salah al-Din Governorate) from IS have made it an even more powerful organization 39 Ahmad Majidyar, “Iran-Backed Badr Organization Calls on US Troops to Leave Iraq” (Middle East Institute, November 30, 2017), http://www.mei.edu/content/io/ iran-backed-badr-organization-call-us-troops-leave-iraq. 40 Ned Park, Babak Dehganpishheh, and Isabel Coles, “How Iran’s Military Chiefs Operate in Iraq,” February 24, 2015, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-committee-specialrepor/special-report-how-irans-military-chiefs-operate-in-iraq-idUSKBN0LS0VD20150224; Austin Bodetti, “Iraqi Militias Got Hold of American Tanks,” The New Arab, accessed September 7, 2019, https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/ indepth/2017/9/4/how-iraqi-militias-got-hold-of-american-tanks. 41 Nadejda K. Marinova, Ask What You Can Do for Your (New) Country: How Host States Use Diasporas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 247. 42 Steinberg, “The Badr Organization”; Michael Knights, “Iraq’s Popular Demobilisation” (The Washington Institute, February 26, 2016), http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/iraqs-popular-demobilisation. 43 Mustafa Habib, “Security or Demographics: Why Babel Province Has a Ghost Town, Niqash,” Niqash: briefings from inside and across Iraq, August 30, 2017, http://www. niqash.org/en/articles/security/5725/.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

271

politically and militarily. Before PM al-Maliki left office, he made al-Amiri security commander of Diyala (al-Amiri’s hometown). In practice, al-Amiri was commissioned by al-Maliki to operate as a field commander wherever needed.44 Iran has played a role in strengthening pro-Iran militias, including Badr, particularly through Qasem Soleimani, the Major General and Commander of IRGC-QF. Al-Amiri and Soleimani have appeared together in media coverage of the Iraqi battlefields and operational rooms against IS. Badr had a major role in liberating Mosul from IS, in coordination with the Iraqi Army, by cutting the city’s supply lines to Syria.45 Badr also led the Shi’ militias in the mixed (Shi’ and Sunni) town of Tal Afar west of Mosul. After taking control of the town, Badr infiltrated and took control of its local government authorities.46 Badr forces and its control of the Interior Ministry provided leverage in many battles, as federal police forces participated. For example, Abu Dargham al-Maturi is a Badr commander and commander of Iraq’s 6th federal police division in western Mosul.47 This illustrates Badr’s influence not only in the PMF but also in conventional parts of the ISF. During the Syrian civil war, Badr sent groups of fighters to Syria to fight alongside the Syrian regime as part of the Badr military wing in Syria, also known as the Forces of the Martyr Muhammad Baqir Al-Sadr.48 Badr followers have utilized social media as part of their propaganda war to circulate information about their casualties (martyrs) in Syria. Zealous propaganda slogans also show great admiration for the 44 Kirk Sowell, “Badr at the Forefront of Iraq’s Shi’ Militias,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, August 13, 2015, https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/61016; Kirk Sowell, “Inside Iraqi Politics,” Uticensis Risk Services 111 (July 20, 2015), http://www. insideiraqipolitics.com/Files/Inside%20Iraq%20No111.pdf. 45 Emily Anagnostos, “The Campaign for Mosul: March 17–29, 2017” (Institute for the Study of War, March 17, 2017), http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ campaign-mosul-march-17-29-2017. 46 Frauke Maas and Erica Gaston, “Iraq after ISIL: Tal Afar City,” Iraq after ISIL (Global Public Policy Institute [GPPi], August 21, 2017), http://www.gppi.net/publications/ iraq-after-isil-tal-afar-city/. 47 Anagnostos, “The Campaign for Mosul.” 48 “New War, Old Faces,” The Syrian Observer, May 19, 2014, https://syrianobserver. com/EN/features/32830/new_war_old_faces.html; “Badr Organization,” Jihad Intel presented by Middle East Forum, accessed September 7, 2019, http://jihadintel.meforum. org/group/85/badr-organization.

272  Z. GULMOHAMAD

Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei. Badr claims that around 1500 men defend the Shi’ Shrine of Sayeda Zeinab in the Damascus suburbs.49 Badr and other pro-Iran militias, such as Iraq’s Kata’ib Hezbollah and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, have also helped the minority Shi’ in Syria, especially those who follow Twelver Shiism, to set up local Shi’ militias; these include, for example, the Imam al-Hijjah Regiment (Fawj al-Imam al-Hijjah) in two villages (Nubl and Zahra) in Rif Hallab near Aleppo.50 In the context of Iraq’s 2018 parliamentary elections, Badr formed the Conquest Alliance (Tahalf al-Fatah al-Mubin) with other Iraqi pro-Iran militias and a few so-called “independent” traditional Shi’ ­ Islamic and non-Shi’ (Shabak) parties headed by al-Amiri. The Al-Fatah Alliance has become the second largest party on the list and, as a coalition of several parties and wings of militias, won 48 seats. Badr alone maintained 22 seats. The electoral list number is 109 and contains 18 factions that include but are not limited to: Asaib Ahl al-Haq (AAH) and its political affiliation al-Sadiqoun, the Islamic Taliyah Party led by Ali al-Yasseri and affiliated with the Khorasani Companies, and Kata’ib Jund al-Imam and its political wing the Islamic Movement of Iraq led by Ahmad ­al-Asadi, who is also the spokesperson of the PMF. Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq joined the list and later withdrew, citing US leverage and presence in Iraq. The alliance also contains traditional Shi’ factions, such as ISCI led by Human Hamoudi.51 On September 3, 2018, al-Fatah, along with several winners of the Iraqi parliamentary elections,—namely, Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law Coalition and Falih al-Fayyadh who splintered from the Nasser alliance 49 “Badr’s Armed Wing in Syria, Labaik Ya Zainab (In Arabic),” Youtube, March 27, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVMFOE1FzrM. 50 Phillip Smyth, “How Iran Is Building Its Syrian Hezbollah” (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, March 8, 2016), http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/ policy-analysis/view/how-iran-is-building-its-syrian-hezbollah. 51 Amir Toumaj and Romany Shaker, “Iranian Backed Iraqi Militias Firm Coalition Ahead of Parliamentary Elections,” FDD’s Long War Journal, January 25, 2018, https:// www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2018/01/iranian-backed-iraqi-militias-form-coalition-ahead-of-parliamentary-elections.php; “Fatah Coalition Headed by Al-A’meri Receives Number 109 (In Arabic),” Baghdad Today, February 20, 2018, http://baghdadtoday. news/ar/news/35759/‫†فلاحت‬-‫†حتفلا‬-‫†ةماعزب‬-‫†يرماعلا‬-‫†لصحي‬-‫†ىلع‬-‫†لسلستلا‬109-‫†نمض‬-‫†مئاوقلا‬-‫†ةكراشملا‬-‫في‬-‫†تاباختنالا‬-‫ ;ةلبقملا‬and “Kataib Hezbollah Will Not Participate in the Election (In Arabic),” Al-Hayat News, March 2, 2018, https://allhayat. net/?p=14102.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

273

(Haider Al-Abadi’s alliance) and other smaller factionsformed the al-Binna bloc. This bloc is closer to Iran than the other major blocs. Al-Binna played a role in negotiating with other political factions and blocs to select the speaker, the president, and the PM. Since Iraq’s latest parliamentary election, Badr and its leader Hadi al-Amiri have played key roles in the public and political spaces; hence, they have influence on a network of resources across state bodies. There are two major Shi’ blocs: al-Binna and Tahalf al-islah w ali’mar, a major bloc championed by Saairon (Alliance Toward Reform–Forward) led by Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Abadi and Itilaf al-Nasr (Victory Alliance) are in Tahalf’s bloc, which is less close to Iran. The following part discusses the second largest and most powerful pro-Iran Iraqi Shi’ militia within the PMF.

Asaib Ahl al-Haq (The League of the Righteous) AAH is the second most powerful pro-Iran Shi’ militia currently led by Qais al-Khazali and is the second most powerful faction in the Fatah alliance. AAH split from Muqtada al-Sadr’s Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) in 2006 because of Iran’s interventions to weaken Muqtada and al-Khazali’s aspirations for power. Al-Khazali was a student of Muqtada’s father and disagreed with Muqtada al-Sadr’s decision to end the military operations against US coalition forces.52 Former PM al-Maliki backed AAH, as they were staunch rivals of Muqtada al-Sadr; for example, he allowed AAH a military parade in June 2012, partly to show the power of the rising militia and to celebrate the US troops’ withdrawal.53 AAH targeted US-led coalition troops before and after Al-Khazali’s defection from Muqtada al-Sadr. For example, on January 20, 2007, AAH attacked Karbala provisional headquarters and killed five US soldiers, and in May 2007, members of the AAH stormed the Ministry of Finance and killed four British hostages.54 52 Sam Wyer, “The Resurgence of Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq,” Middle East Security Report (Institute for the Study of War [ISW], December 2012), http://www.understandingwar. org/sites/default/files/ResurgenceofAAH.pdf. 53 Kirk H. Sowell, “The Rise of Iraq’s Militia State,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 23, 2015, http://carnegieendowment.org/sada/59888. 54 Michael Knights et al., “The Smart Way to Sanction Iranian Backed Militias in Iraq,” Policy Watch (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, September 17, 2018), https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-smart-way-to-sanctioniranian-backed-militias-in-iraq.

274  Z. GULMOHAMAD

Al-Khazali formed a political affiliation called The Honest ­(al-Sadeqoon), which had one seat in the ICR, but after the 2018 parliamentary election had increased this to 15 seats. AAH is part of the al-Fatah Alliance and runs as an anti-establishment party.55 AAH, the ninth largest party in the ICR, has grown in power and has become popular within some Shi’ communities for several reasons, such as the significant support it receives from the IRGC-QF, including funding, training, and logistical support. Moreover, AAH pursues a similar model to that of its partner and ally, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, in terms of attracting popular support from various communities, especially the disadvantaged, by setting up offices that provide social services, aid, and religious schools and by representing itself as the defenders of Shi’ communities during the war against IS. Since the departure of US troops in 2011, AAH has rebranded itself as an Iraqi nationalist political organization committed to Islamic resistance (in alliance with a cause of the resistance axis lead by Iran), and it portrays itself in an intellectual and spiritual manner. AAH adheres to Khomeini’s version of Vilayat-i Faqih and follows ayatollahs Hashemi Shahroudi and Kazem al-Haeri.56 AAH has set up its own scholarly institutions and publications and built up ties with al-Hawza members. For example, AAH’s institute Muasasat al-A’hd al-Sadiq is part of AAH’s resistance cultural directory al-Mu’awnea al-Thaqafia l­i-al-Muqamuama, which provides religious courses to students. According to their program, they favor neither a parliamentary system nor an ethnoreligious quota system based on political accord and a partnership agreement between various Iraqi political factions. AAH advocates for majority rule and presidency.57 These views put them at odds with Arab Sunni and Kurdish factions, who assert that the partnership agreement between 55 “Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq” (Stanford University—Center for International Security and Cooperation, March 24, 2017), http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgibin/groups/view/143; Renad Mansour and Christine Van den Toorn, “The 2018 Iraqi Federal Elections: A Population in Transition?,” LSE Middle East Centre Report (LSE Middle Easy Centre, July 2018), http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/89698/7/MEC_Iraqi-elections_ Report_2018.pdf. 56 Alireza Nader, “Iran’s Role in Iraq: Room for Cooperation?,” Rand Corporation— Perspective, 2015, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE151.html; Wyer, “The Resurgence of Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq.” 57 “The Official Website for Asaib Ahl Al-Haq (In Arabic),” June 2017, http://ahlualhaq.com/index.php/permalink/5229.html.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

275

various ethnic sectarian components in Iraq is necessary to avoid ­marginalization and conflict. AAH has played a key role in fighting IS with other militias in Hashd al-Sha’abi and with ISF around Baghdad, such as the Jurf al-Sakhar, Diyala, Salah al-Din, and Anbar governorates.58 PM al-Abadi, and particularly the US, have tried to limit AAH and other types of military involvement by pro-Iran militias in some of the Sunni-dominated areas, such as in Ramadi, Tikrit, and Mosul. Yet, the involvement of AAH continues. AAH admitted to appearing in Syria in 2014 and has been one of the leading Iraqi Shi’ militias operating alongside the Syrian regime and Lebanon’s Hezbollah in Syria.59 Its operations in Syria emerged in 2013 under its branch known as Liwa Kafeel Zainab; it was reported that their fighters have relatively good combatant skills.60 In December 2017, al-Khazali appeared on the Lebanon–Israel border area and showed solidarity with Hezbollah and Palestine against Israel.61 AAH supports Tehran’s transfers of weapons through Iraq and Damascus to Hezbollah.62 US President Trump has pursued an anti-Iranian regime policy in Iraq, and the congress bill, the Iranian Proxies Terrorist Sanction Act, places sanctions on Iraqi militias that are backed by Iran (AHH and Kata’ib Hezbollah [KH]). The bill was approved by the House of Representatives and in 2018 was introduced in the Senate.63 In response, AAH have called on the federal government in Baghdad to take action against US Congress, and their official statements have 58 Gulmohamad,

“A Short Profile of Iraq’s Shi’a Militias,” 3–6. A. Heras, “Iraqi Shi’a Militia Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq Expands Operations to Syria,” The Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Monitor 12, no. 10 (May 15, 2014): 4–5. 60 Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, “The Return of Iraqi Shi’i Militias to Syria,” Middle East Institute, March 16, 2015, https://www.mei.edu/publications/return-iraqi-shii-militias-syria; “Terrorist Groups in Syria” (House of Representatives—Committee on Foreign Affairs, November 20, 2013), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg85643/ pdf/CHRG-113hhrg85643.pdf. 61 Jonathan Spyer, “Who Is Qais Al-Khazali, and Why Should You Care?,” Middle East Forum, December 15, 2017, http://www.meforum.org/7104/who-is-qais-al-khazali. 62 Michael Pregent and Erica Hanichak, “Countering Iran Means Sanctioning Terrorist Militias,” The Hill, September 27, 2018, https://thehill.com/opinion/ international/408741-countering-iran-means-sanctioning-terrorist-militias. 63 ­ “S.3431-Iranian Proxies Terrorist Sanctions Act” (U.S. Congress, 2018, 2017), https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3431/text. 59 Nicholas

276  Z. GULMOHAMAD

promised revenge.64 Allegedly, in September 2018, AAH and KH launched rockets at the US embassy in Baghdad and the US consulate in Basra, while the White House has stated it will retaliate against Iran.65 AAH’s actions demonstrate their de facto autonomy from the federal government of Iraq and their interests and agenda that are an extension of Iran’s Khamenei. Badr and AAH are not the only pro-Iran militias.

Kata’ib Hezbollah KH (Brigades of Party of God or Hezbollah Brigades) is a pro-Iran Shi’ militia that operates mainly in Iraq but has a regional presence. Their leader and founding father, Jamal Jaafar Ibrahimi, known by his alias Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, is also the Deputy Chair of the PMF. KH emerged in 2007 with solid ties to and close coordination with the IRGC-QF and Qassem Soleimani, who has provided equipment and funding. Al-Muhandis was born in Basra in 1954, and started his political career as a member of the Islamic Dawa Party in the 1970s before fleeing to Iran in the 1980s. During exile, al-Muhandis became a key figure in the Badr Brigade and participated in regional clandestine activities. He also served as deputy to al-Amiri.66 Post-2003, al-Muhandi’s relationship with Iranian security circles developed and gained support for establishing KH.67 KH, like other pro-Iran Shi’ militias, is loyal to Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei and has adopted Vilayat-i Faqih.68

64 “Iraqi Shi’ Group Vows ‘Revenge’ after Fresh US Sanctions,” Press TV, June 2, 2018, https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/06/02/563624/Iraq-Shi’-Asaib-Ahl-Haq. 65 Kirshnadev Calamur, “Trump’s Latest Warning to Iran Didn’t Come Out of Nowhere,” The Atlantic, September 12, 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/ international/archive/2018/09/trump-warns-iran-Shi’-militia-iraq/569989/. 66 Dore Gold, The Rise of Nuclear Iran: How Tehran Defies the West (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2009). 67 Richard R. Brennan et  al., Ending the U.S. War in Iraq: The Final Transition, Operational Maneuver, and Disestablishment of United States Forces-Iraq (Santa Monica, CA: RAND National Defense Research Institute, 2013), https://www.rand.org/content/ dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR232/RAND_RR232.pdf. 68 “Kata’ib Hezbollah,” Jihad Intel presented by Middle East Forum, accessed September 7, 2019, http://jihadintel.meforum.org/group/84/kataib-hezbollah.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

277

KH gained notoriety by targeting the US-led coalition forces in Iraq with systematic attacks, guerrilla warfare, and explosives.69 In 2009, the US Treasury Department blacklisted al-Muhandis and KH for committing, directing, and supporting significant harm against its coalition and the ISF. Under Executive Order 13438, al-Muhandis and KH were designated as a terrorist and foreign terrorist organization, respectively. They were also listed by the US State Department under E.O. 13224 and in 2018 the US Congress introduced a sanction bill against them.70 KH has fought alongside other Shi’ militias against IS in numerous battles, including Jurf al-Sakhar near Baghdad, Amerli and Samarra in the Salah al-din governorate, and in areas and towns in Diyala, Anbar, and Nineveh Governorates.71 KH is an elite, well-trained, and wellequipped force. They have around 1000 core fighters, 10,000 mobilized fighters through its subsidiary militia Saraya al-Difaa al-Sha’abi, and 1000 to 3000 likely operating in Syria.72 KH in Iraq possesses Russian, Iranian, and even European light, medium, and some heavy weapons from Iraq’s military stockpile. Some reports indicate that KH, Badr, and AAH possess US military equipment, including M1 Abrams tanks and M113 armored personal carriers.73 69 Thomas Strouse, “Kata’ib Hezbollah and the Intricate Web of Iranian Military Involvement in Iraq,” The Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Monitor VIII, no. 9 (March 5, 2010): 3–4. 70 “Treasury Designates Individual, Entity Posing Threat to Stability in Iraq,” U.S. Department of the Treasury, July 2, 2009, https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/ press-releases/Pages/tg195.aspx; “Individuals and Entities Designated by the State Department under E.O. 13224,” US Department of State, 2019, https://www.state. gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/143210.htm. 71 Fergus Kelly, “Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah Will Enter Syria and Battle ISIS in al-Bukamal—Spokesperson,” The Defense Post, November 4, 2017, https://thedefensepost. com/2017/11/04/iraq-iran-kataib-hezbollah-isis-syria-al-bukamal/. 72 J. Matthew Mcinnis, “Iranian Deterrence Strategy and Use of Proxies” (American Enterprise Institute, November 29, 2016), https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/ doc/112916_McInnis_Testimony.pdf. 73 Chad Garland, “Iran-Backed Militias Obtained 9 US-Made Abrams Tanks in Iraq,” Military.com, February 19, 2018, https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/09/ iran-backed-militias-obtained-9-us-made-abrams-tanks-iraq-report.html; Caleb Weiss, “Iraqi Shi’ Militias Show US-Made Equipment on Road to Samarra,” The FDD’s Long War Journal, March 4, 2016, https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2016/03/ iraqi-Shi’-militias-show-us-made-equipment-on-road-to-samarra.php; and Amnesty International, “Iraq: End Irresponsible Arms Transfers Fuelling Militia War Crimes,”

278  Z. GULMOHAMAD

Since 2013, KH, like AAH, has operated in Syria alongside the Syrian regime. They were one of the first Iraqi Shi’ militias in Syria and contributed to creating Shi’ militias there, such as Liwa Abu Fadl al-Abbas (LAFA), the Kata’ib Hezbollah Syrian wing.74 KH’s military presence and operations in Syria agitated the US and Israel, as they created a corridor of influence from Iran to Iraq and then to Syria and Lebanon via their close ally, Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Israel’s airstrikes in Syria near the Iraqi border in June 2018 targeted KH and other Shi’ militias. Around 52 KH were killed, and this sent a message to Tehran that they have to leave Syria.75 KH’s regional activities include firing rockets at the KSA’s borders, training Bahraini Shi’ militants, known as Saraya al-Ashtar, and kidnapping Qatari citizens in order to pressure Doha.76 Al-Muhandis denies the presence of his and the PMF’s fighters in Yemen fighting alongside the Houthis. However, he stated there could be Iraqis in one capacity or another there, and he confirmed the relationship between the PMF and the Houthi movement.77 Apart from Badr, AAH, and KH, there are other pro-Iran militias.

Amnesty International, January 5, 2017, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ news/2017/01/iraq-end-irresponsible-arms-transfers-fuelling-militia-war-crimes/. 74 Matthew Levitt and Phillip Smyth, “Katiab Al-Imam Ali; Portrait of an Iraqi Shiite Militant Group Fighting ISIS” (The Washington Institute, January 5, 2015), http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/kataib-al-imam-aliportrait-of-an-iraqi-shiite-militant-group-fighting-isis. 75 Seth J. Frantzman, “Israel Struck Iranian Backed Shi’ Militia in Iraq with Russian Ok,” June 19, 2018, https://www.jpost.com/International/ Israel-struck-Iranian-backed-Shi’-militia-in-Iraq-with-Russian-approval-560360. 76 Michael Eisenstadt and Michael Knights, ­ “Mini-Hizballahs, Revolutionary Guard Knock-Offs, and the Future of Iran’s Militant Proxies in Iraq,” War on the Rocks, May 9, 2017, https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/mini-hizballahs-revolutionary-guardknock-offs-and-the-future-of-irans-militant-proxies-in-iraq/; David Andrew Weinberg, “Bahrain and Iran Expel Each Other’s Diplomats,” Policy Brief (Foundation for Defence and Democracy, October 5, 2015), http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/ david-weinberg-bahrain-and-iran-expel-each-others-diplomats/. 77 David Daoud, “PMF Deputy Commander Muhandis Details Hezbollah Ops in Iraq,” FDD’s Long War Journal, January 9, 2017, https://www.longwarjournal.org/ archives/2017/01/pmf-deputy-commander-muhandis-details-hezbollah-ops-in-iraq.php.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

279

Other Pro-Iran Militias Former PM al-Maliki officially permitted other pro-Iran Shi’ militias to operate against IS. These include: Kata’ib Jund al-Imam (led by Ahmed al-Asadi, a former spokesperson of the PMF and current spokesman of the Fatah Alliance); Kata’ib al-Imam Ali (its political wing is the Movement of Islamic Iraq, Harakat al-Iraq al-Islamiyah), which is led by Shebl al-Zaidi and closely linked to KH; Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba; and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada.78 The latter three and Saraya al-Khorasani have been active in Syria. Although they are splintered in Syria, they use the term Heydariyoun (followers of the lion, a reference to Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Muslim caliph) to refer to themselves collectively.79 The pro-Iran militias are fighting alongside Bashar Assad’s armed forces, Iranian advisors and elite fighters, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah against Arab Sunni-armed groups, including the Free Syrian Army, IS, and Saudi-led proxies in Syria. Iraqi Shi’ militias in Syria are bolstering the extension of Iran’s axis with the aim of leveraging the Assad regime against oppositional forces and proxy forces supported by KSA. Shi’ militias have played a leading role alongside the ISF to regain territory from IS. However, they faced some restraints in several key battles by the former PM Haider al-Abadi and the US-led coalition because of their links to Tehran, the IRGC-QF, the Iranian foreign intelligence agency, and the Iranian Supreme Leader.80 All pro-Iran militias have openly announced their rejection of the US-led coalition’s military involvement in Iraq; some have even declared their intention and willingness to attack US forces.81 There are clear indications that pro-Iran Iraqi militias are embracing Lebanon’s Hezbollah model. Besides their affinity and loyalty to

78 Mansour

and Jabar, “The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s Future.” Alfoneh, “Fractured Iraq Shi’ Militias in Syria,” The Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, August 22, 2018, https://agsiw.org/fractured-iraqi-Shi’-militias-in-syria/. 80 Jamal Ashtwee, “Iran’s Role in Mosul Operation Is Bigger Than of Iraq’s (In Arabic),” Al-Riyadh, March 25, 2016, http://www.alriyadh.com/1541320. 81 Ahmad Majidyar, “Hezbollah: We’re Ready to Fight American Troops in Iraq,” Middle East Institute, September 15, 2017, http://www.mei.edu/content/io/kata-ib-hezbollahwe-re-ready-fight-american-troops-iraq; “Iraqi Shi’ite Militias Pledge to Fight U.S. Forces if Deployed,” Reuters, December 1, 2015, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideastcrisis-usa-iraq/iraqi-shiite-militias-pledge-to-fight-u-s-forces-if-deployed-idUSKBN0TK5KQ20151201. 79 Ali

280  Z. GULMOHAMAD

Iran, Iraqi Shi’ militias have adopted Lebanon’s Hezbollah model as a social–political movement, providing services for poor Shi’ communities and becoming an economic, intellectual, and religious hub. Lebanon’s Hezbollah has tried to be relatively pragmatic in their interaction with other political components. For instance, they have tried to achieve a majority in the government and to moderate some of their objectives, while using force to influence politics.82 Likewise, the Iraqi pro-Iran militias are increasingly interfering in policymaking and attempting to challenge the moderate figures or those who oppose them in the government and in the political process. At the same time, they seek to cut deals or forge tactical relationships with non-Shi’ figures. The Iraqi militias have so far successfully mimicked Lebanon’s Hezbollah’s effectiveness in pursuing multiple goals.83 The following part examines Iraqi non-Shi’ ethnic and religious minority militias affiliated with and promoted by Shi’ militias that are part of the PMF.

The PMF’s Subsidiary Minority Groups There are minority militias affiliated with PMF factions, including Arab Sunni and micro-minorities (the term representing non-Shi’, Arab Sunni, or Kurd) such as Christian, Yazidi, Shabak, Turkmen, and Kurd (Shi’) militias. Segments of communities within these different ethnic–­religious group militias have been supported by the PMF and their militias for three main reasons. First, their inclusion depicts the PMF as desiring to cross-sectarian and ethnic lines and to represent the entirety of Iraq instead of only the Shi’ population. Second, they serve the PMF political and security interests for the foreseeable future. Third, they help to fill security vacuums in areas where Shi’ militias are thinner on the ground and or are less welcome by locals. The affiliated minority and ­micro-minority militias do not have any military or tactical power on the battlefield; therefore, they have been utilized as instruments to control specific areas and political tools to serve PMF interests. 82 Krista E. Weigand, “Reformation of a Terrorist Group: Hezbollah as a Lebanese Political Party,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 32, no. 8 (2008): 669–80, https://doi. org/10.1080/10576100903039320. 83 Daniel L. Byman and Bernard Gwertzman, “Hezbollah: Most Powerful Political Movement in Lebanon,” Council on Foreign Relations, May 29, 2008, https://www.cfr. org/interview/hezbollah-most-powerful-political-movement-lebanon.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

281

Other non-Shi’ subsidiary militias within the PMF are Hashd al-A’Shari or regional (al-Manatiqi) Arab Sunni tribesmen, who are lightly equipped and weakly sponsored by the PMF under the supervision of Chairman Falih al-Fayyadh. Most of the minority and ­micro-minority militias are not affiliated with pro-Iran Shi’ militias, such as Hashd al-A’Shari al-Anbari and the Lions of Nineveh forces in Rabia located in the west part of Mosul.84 However, a number have links with pro-Iran leaders and militias, such as Liwa Salah al-din that is close to al-Muhandis and Quwat al-Shahid Omayyat al-Jibara that is closely linked to Badr.85 Iraqi officials estimate that Hashd al-A’Shari totals around 30,000 and includes at least two dozen militias.86 The ArabSunni minority militias are officially linked to the PMF, as they control their areas in coordination with the Shi’ militias, while the latter are unable to control the large swathes of land that are inhabited by majority Arab Sunnis. Although a couple of Hashd al-A’Shari leaders are affiliated with the PMF, some disapprove of the PMF’s loyalty to Iran. Yet, as they do not have any alternatives, being within the structure of the PMF provides them with resources and official approval to operate. Arab Sunni tribal leaders have complained that their fighters, unlike the Shi’ militias, have not received salaries or have been poorly equipped and supported.87 84 Zana Gulmohamad, “Unseating the Caliphate: Contrasting the Challenges of Liberating Fallujah and Mosul,” CTC Sentinel 9, no. 10 (October 2016): 16–27. 85 Nour Samaha, “Iraq’s ‘Good Sunnis,’” Foreign Policy, November 16, 2016, http:// foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/iraqs-good-sunni/; Dury-Agri, Kassim, and Martin, “Iraq’s Security Forces and Popular Mobilization Forces.” 86 Saleh Ibrahim, “Iraq’s New Militias Law Could Make Sunni Tribes More Powerful (In Arabic),” An-Nahar, December 8, 2016, https://www.niqash.org/ar/articles/ politics/5421/. 87 Mahmoud Said, “Hashd Al-A’shari Its Creation, Aims and Future (In Arabic),” June 26, 2017, http://www.roayahnews.com/articles/2017/6/26/1188/; “After the Hopelessness from Baghdad.. Anbar Council: Hashd al-A’shari Calls the International Community for Support to Be Able to Fight Daesh (In Arabic),” Al-Sharq al-Awsat, September 17, 2015, https://aawsat.com/home/article/454486/%D8%A8% D8%B9%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A3%D8%B3-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%BA%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF-%C2%AB%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9 %86%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%C2%BB-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A 7%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%AD%D 8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A9-%C2%AB%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4%C2%BB? amp.

282  Z. GULMOHAMAD

The PMF’s micro-minority militias include Christian Chaldean, Syrian, and Assyrian militias, such as the Brigades of the Spirit of God Jesus Son of Mary (Kata’ib Rouh Allah Issa Ibn Miriam) that is part of the Imam Ali Battalion.88 The latter pro-Iran Shi’ militias promote Christian sub-armed militias allegedly to show that they are not against Christians or any other ethnic–religious groups. Kata’ib Babylon is officially supported by the PMF and has close ties with pro-Iran militias.89 Several Iraqi-Turkmen militias are linked and supported by Shi’ militias; these include the Turkmen Brigades that are affiliated with Badr, and Liwa al-Hussein, a majority Shi’-Turkmen and minority Yazidi militia.90 An example of a Shabak militia is Liwa Shabak/Qwuat Sahl Nineveh, which has a presence in the Nineveh plains, is linked to Badr, and operates under the patronage of the PMF.91 The Faily Kurd (Shi’) militias affiliated with Badr operate in Diyala.92 These militias are small, so they do not make strategic changes on the ground and do not represent their entire communities; rather, they control small areas, such as towns and villages in the Nineveh plains. The existence of various minority and ­micro-minority militias within the PMF and the Shi’ militia structure provides an artificial image that the PMF is a cross-ethnic–religious military umbrella that defends the entire country. The purpose of minority and ­micro-minority militias being part of the PMF is largely for self-defense against IS, as the PMF provides them with very limited support that includes training for some militias, whereas the IA was unable to offer protection. The next section discusses Iraqi Shi’ militias within the PMF structure that neither adhere to Tehran nor follow the Iranian Supreme Leader or Vilayat-i Faqih.

88 Gulmohamad,

“Iraq’s Shi’ Militias,” 3–6. “Unseating the Caliphate,” 16–27. 90 Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, “Hashd Brigades Number Index,” October 31, 2017, http://www.aymennjawad.org/2017/10/hashd-brigade-numbers-index. 91 Aaron Y. Zelin and Philipp Smyth, “Hiballah Cavalcade: Quat Sahl Ninawa: Iraq’s Shi’ Shabak Get Their Own Militia,” Jihadology, January 12, 2015, http://jihadology.net/ category/quwat-sahl-ninawa/. 92 Ahmad Umar, “Shi’ Kurds Volunteer in Hashd Al-Shaabi and Reject Peshmerga (In Arabic),” Arabi 21, February 16, 2015, https://arabi21.com/story/809839/‫≠ةعيش≠داركأ‬ ‫ةكرمشيبلا≠نوضفريو≠دشحلا≠ايشيليم≠†ب≠نوعوطتي‬. 89 Gulmohamad,

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

283

Iraqi Non-Khamenei Militias The following Shi’ militias are part of the PMF and are not united in doctrines, military command, or agenda. They do not adhere to Vilayat-i Faqih or answer to Khamenei or Iranian decision-making circles, in contrast to the first category of militias analyzed above. While these militias are formally under the umbrella of the PMF, they have their own leaderships that provides them with space to avoid or outmaneuver orders from Iran and pro-Iranian leaders. Notwithstanding their efforts for independence from Iran, there is a degree of coordination and some tactical contacts between the following Shi’ militias and Iran, and particularly between ISCI militias and Iran. Pro-Iran leaders within the PMF are attenuative and try to assimilate the following forces.

Saraya al-Salam (the Peace Brigades or Regiments) Saraya al-Salam (SS) is the armed wing of the pro-Muqtada al-Sadr political parties and answers to the Shi’ populist, politician, and cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The SS has no allegiance to Qum (Iran) or Najaf (Iraq).93 Muqtada al-Sadr is popular in many poor and neglected Shi’ communities and areas.94 Before SS, Muqtada al-Sadr’s movement organized the Army of the Mahdi (Jaish al-Mahdi: JAM) in 2003, which had logistical ties to Iran. JAM targeted the ISF, the US-led coalition and Arab Sunnis, and was defeated in 2004 and 2008 by al-Maliki’s government and the US forces, respectively. In 2008, Muqtada disbanded the militia but maintained a smaller militant group called the Promised Day Brigade (Liwa al-Youm al-Mawu’d).95 Muqtada and his Sadrist Movement (al-Tayyar al-Sadri) are populists; they have adopted Iraqi nationalist, anti-interference, and anti-foreign intervention slogans in Iraq and have been staunch and long-standing anti-American militants. Since Muqtada al-Sadr’s return from his self-exile to study in Iran 93 Mustafa Gurbuz, “The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s next Election,” Arab Center Washington, DC, September 6, 2017, http://arabcenterdc.org/policy_analyses/ the-popular-mobilization-forces-and-iraqs-next-elections/. 94 Charles Tripp, A History of Iraq, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 280. 95 Anthony H. Cordesman and Sam Khazai, Iraq in Crisis (Washington: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2014), 194, https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/ s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/140513_Cordesman_IraqInCrisis_Web.pdf.

284  Z. GULMOHAMAD

(which lasted two to three years), he has pursued an anti-Iranian rhetoric, which has been toned down since he came first in Iraq’s 2018 parliamentary elections with 54 seats for the Sairoon coalition.96 Historically, the al-Sadr family has emphasized Iraqi nationalism, Arabism, and tribalism as defining attributes for the Iraqi Shi’. Muqtada al-Sadr’s unpredictable attitude and populism is blended with Iraqi nationalism and Shi’ Islamism.97 Muqtada has continued to carry on his father Ayatollah Mohammad Sadiq al-Sadr’s movement and doctrine of Shi’ activism, and, like his father, he believes in an articulate and outspoken approach al-Hawza al-Natiqa, where clerics can be involved in politics and governance. Muqtada al-Sadr’s followers emerged under the name of the Group of the Second Sadr (Jama’at al-Sadr al-Thani) and were later renamed Sadr Trend.98 Although SS is supposed to be part of the PMF and played a role in combating IS, it has its own de facto structure and command and has been reluctant to completely integrate with the PMF, partly due to its pro-Iran domination. SS is composed of divisions, brigades, and battalions. The most powerful military unit within SS is the Rapid Intervention Brigade (Quwat al-Tadakhul al-Sari’) that possesses tanks, Humvees, and medium and heavy firepower.99 The exact number of those in SS is unknown; however, SS claims that, according to their registration, they have more than 100,000 men. Nonetheless, they are unable to equip a considerable number of those men due to a lack of resources and logistics. Some of their military equipment is from the Iraqi government, and most of their resources are domestically generated.100 96 O’Driscoll

and van Zoonen, “The Hashd Al-Shaabi and Iraq.” Lukitz, “The Shi‘is in Post-Saddam Iraq: A Common Political Front, but Different Tactics?,” in Post-Saddam Iraq: New Realities, Old Identities, Changing Patterns, ed. Amnon Cohen and Noga Efrati (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2011), 66. 98 Ibrahim Al-Marashi, “Iraq,” in Guide to Islamist Movements, ed. Barry M Rubin (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2010), 266. 99 Caleb Weiss, “Peace Brigades Parades ‘Rapid Intervention Brigade’ in Samarra,” FDD’s Long War Journal, May 26, 2017, https://www.longwarjournal.org/ archives/2017/05/peace-brigades-parades-rapid-intervention-brigade-in-samarra.php; Dury-Agri, Kassim, and Martin, “Iraq’s Security Forces and Popular Mobilization Forces.” 100 Gulmohamad, “A Short Profile of Iraq’s Shi’a Militias,” 3–6; Mansour and Jabar, “The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s Future”; “Iraqi Cleric Sadr Scales Back His Militia,” Reuters, June 28, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-election-sadr/ iraqi-cleric-sadr-scales-back-his-militia-idUSKBN1JO2O4. 97 Liora

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

285

The SS political party propaganda and activities have become an important element as a source of leverage in provincial and parliamentary elections.101 SS, alongside other militias, have a presence in the south, such as in Basra and Karbala. Through the PMF, SS has cautiously coordinated with other militias, such as during military operations in Samarra and Shirqat.102 However, SS has occasionally clashed with pro-Iran militias, namely, Badr and AAH. The official magazine of SS is Rusul and its website portrays Muqtada in military uniform as a fighter and applauds the role of the IA and SS without admiring the PMF. This illustrates the schism between the PMF’s pro-Iran militias and SS’s de facto hierarchy that answers to Muqtada.103 Before and during the military campaign against IS, Muqtada announced several times that US forces are not welcome in Iraq and will be targeted.104 This and other militia threats, however, did not deter the US. Muqtada’s position toward Syria has fluctuated; he did not support the flow of Iraqi fighters to Shi’ jihad in Syria, despite some SS members fighting alongside other Iraqi Shi’ militias in Syria.105 Muqtada’s political and military agenda are complementary and, similar to pro-Iran militias, he seeks to shape Iraq’s policymaking from inside and outside the government. However, the differences are that he does not adhere to Iranian security circles and he projects an Iraqi first policy. In June 2018, Muqtada announced the scaling back or reduction of his SS militias’ presence, while indicating their continued presence in Baghdad and the holy sites, including Karbala and Samara. This illustrates likely his

101 Dury-Agri, Kassim, and Martin, “Iraq’s Security Forces and Popular Mobilization Forces.” 102 “Al-Muhandis Discusses with Saraya al-Salam Leadership the Preparation for Mosul Operation (In Arabic),” Al-Hashd.net, September 28, 2016, http://al-hashed. net/2016/09/28/‫جاحلا‬-‫سدنهملا‬-‫ثحبي‬-‫عم‬-‫ةدايق‬-‫ايارس‬-‫لسلا‬. 103 “The Official Facebook Page for Saraya Salam. The Military Media of Peace Brigades Saraya Salam,” April 4, 2018, https://www.facebook.com/ ‫مالعالا‬-‫يبرحلا‬-‫ايارس‬-‫مالسلا‬-381095892084387. 104 Bill Roggio, “US Troops ‘Are a Target for Us,’ Iraq’s Muqtada al Sadr Says,” FDD’s Long War Journal, July 18, 2016, https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2016/07/ us-troops-are-a-target-for-us-iraqs-muqtada-al-sadr-says.php. 105 Phillip Smyth, “The Shiite Jihad in Syria and Its Regional Effects,” Policy Focus (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2015), https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/ uploads/Documents/pubs/PolicyFocus138-v3.pdf.

286  Z. GULMOHAMAD

tendencies to strengthen Baghdad without complete disarmament of his loyal forces, as the latter could be quickly mobilized should he become weakened or under political pressure.

Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq’s Brigades The ISCI includes three main militias: Liwa Saraya A’shuwra, Liwa al-Muntadhir, and Saraya Ansar al-A’qeeda.106 These militias are loyal to ­ various leaders within ISCI. The militias have debated on taking sides since ISCI’s former leader, Sayyid Ammar al-Hakim, split from ISCI and created his own political party: the National wisdom movement (Tayyar al-Hikma al-Watani). After internal debate, Liwa Saraya A’shuwra, led by Kathem al-Jabri, and Saraya Ansar al-A’qeeda, led by Jalal al-Din Ali al-Saghir, remained with ISCI.107 Ammar al-Hakim, the former leader of ISCI is from the al-Hakim family—one of the most highly regarded Shi’ clerical families in Iraq that founded SCIRI (now ISCI). SCIRI was established in Iran as an umbrella for Shi’ resistance. It received assistance and funding from Iran and had close ties with Khomeini. Nonetheless, post-2003, they distanced themselves from Iran’s doctrine but maintained their affinity with Iranian leadership. Ammar, the former leader of ISCI, formed a political party, the National Wisdom Movement, in July 2017 because of friction with senior ISCI members; this was partially because he took relatively independent and progressive actions without consulting them or asking for consent. Post-2003, ISCI has taken a pragmatic approach by working with Western powers and maintaining historical ties and a friendly relationship with Iran’s leadership and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. ISCI’s current militias neither follow Iran’s doctrine nor answer to the PMF’s pro-Iran command; yet they collaborate on military operations with al-Sistani, al-Sadr, and pro-Iran militias within the PMF framework. Post-2003, ISCI experienced periods of losing key figures and factions, including Badr and Ammar al-Hakim. Consequently, these have weakened their impact on political and operational levels. This is one of the reasons that explain their alliance with the pro-Iran militias’ coalition of ­ al-Fatah, which is headed by ISCI’s former armed wing and leader al-Amiri in Iraq’s 2018 parliamentary elections. Due to the fragmentation within 106 Gulmohamad,

“A Short Profile of Iraq’s Shi’a Militias,” 5–7. Ashuwra Fighters Free to Follow Hakim or ISCI (In Arabic),” KM Media, July 31, 2017, https://www.knoozmedia.com/241905/‫ايارس‬-‫ءاروشاع‬-‫ريخت‬-‫اهيلتاقم‬-‫نيب‬-‫تلالا‬/. 107 “Saraya

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

287

ISCI’s leadership, the militias have been increasingly moving closer to pro-Iran Shi’ militias’ command and Iran’s leadership. The next militia emerged after Sistani’s fatwa and closely follows Najaf’s leadership, led by al-Sistani and not by Tehran and Qum in Iran.

Hashd al-Sistani This cluster of militias has several monikers, such as Hashd ­al-Sistani, which means the crowd that follows al-Sistani, and pro-Hawza, which refers to the Shi’ seminary in Najaf, where prominent Shi’ scholars are based and Shi’ students are trained for religious purposes. Hashd alSistani volunteers joined militias after Ayatollah a­l-al-Sistani’s fatwa in 2014, before which most of the aforementioned militias existed. Hashd al-Sistani or Hawza militias do not have political ambitions, answer to Najaf’s religious establishment led by al-Sistani, and are linked to pro-Sistani institutions, including A’tabat al-A’basya, A’taba al-Alawiyya al-Muqadasa, A’taba al-Hussaniya al-Muqadasa, and Saraya al-A’taba al-Hussaniya.108 In addition to these four militias that relate to and hold similar names, there are other pro-Sistani militias, such as Al-Abbas fighting division (Furqat al-Abbaas al-Qitaliya -FAQ), Liwa Ali Akbar, and Liwa Ansar al-Marjia.109 These forces are an integral part of the PMF and have close ties to the ISF and its command. The most highly skilled militia within this category is FAQ, which has an intelligence section and operates drones. They have just over 7000 active fighters and between 35,000 and 40,000 reserve members.110 Pro-Sistani volunteers reflect the vision of the moderate Marjia (religious reference) and, to a great extent, are aligned with the Iraqi state and not with any Iranian doctrines or politics. After the territorial defeat of the IS in Iraq, Hawza militias, such as FAQ, have been engaged in social and cultural activities; for example, setting up conferences to call 108 Gulmohamad,

“A Short Profile of Iraq’s Shi’a Militias,” 5–7. 5–7; “Liwa Ansar Al-Marja’iyya,” Jihad Intel presented by Middle East Forum, accessed September 7, 2019, http://jihadintel.meforum.org/group/206/ liwa-ansar-al-marjaiyya. 110 Michael Knights and Malik Hamdi, “The Al-Abbas Combat Division Model: Reducing Iranian Influence in Iraq’s Security Forces,” Policy Analysis (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, August 22, 2017), http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/ policy-analysis/view/the-al-abbas-combat-division-model. 109 Gulmohamad,

288  Z. GULMOHAMAD

on the government to provide services to disadvantaged families and those who lost individuals in the war against IS.111 Pro-Sistani militias refuse to meet or take advice directly from Iranian advisors unless in the presence of an Iraqi official,112 but they do coordinate with pro-Iran militias through the PMF in order to conduct operations against IS.113 Pro-al-Sadr and pro-ISCI militias enjoy friendly relations with p ­ro-Sistani militias.114 There are some tensions on the administrative and logistical levels between pro-Sistani volunteers and the PMF’s Deputy Chairman al-Muhandis. For example, the latter did not pay the entire salary of the FAQ, forcing some of them to resign. The FAQ Commander Maytham al-Zaidi was told by ­al-Muhandis that because his fighters did not obey al-Muhandis, he should find the salaries elsewhere. Eventually, al-Sistani’s foundations filled the financial gap.115 Although they coordinate on the battlefield, there is a clear schism between the pro-Iran and pro-Sistani militias. Another dynamic of the differences is that Ayatollah al-Sistani is not supporting the PMF and militia leaders’ involvement in politics or participation in the Iraqi elections or allowing the use of the PMF’s resources and popularity for election purposes.116 For instance, al-Fatah’s speaker stated, “although we don’t rely on the PMF’s military apparatus, we rely on their reputation in regard to the election.”117 Eventually, in order to color their involvement 111 “Al-A’taba al-A’Basiya al-Muqadasa. Qiadat Furqat al-A’bass Convene at Their Periodic Meeting with Their Representatives from the Governorates (In Arabic),” March 31, 2018, http://www.alabbas.iq/view.php?act=news&id=445. 112 Alaaldin, “Containing Shiite Militias.” 113 O’Driscoll and van Zoonen, “The Hashd Al-Shaabi and Iraq.” 114 Alaaldin, “Containing Shiite Militias.” 115 Mustafa Habib, “Formerly Armed Angels? The Controversial Iraqi Militia That Now Prefers Social Work to Politics,” Niqash: briefings from inside and across Iraq, accessed September 6, 2019, http://www.niqash.org/en/articles/security/5873/The–­­ Controversial-Iraqi-Militia-That-Now-Prefers-Social-Work-To-Politics.htm. 116 Bilge Nesibe Kotan, “Why Ayatollah Sistani Opposes Hashd al Shaabi to Run for Iraqi Elections?,” TRT World, December 15, 2017, https://www.trtworld.com/mea/ why-ayatollah-sistani-opposes-hashd-al-shaabi-to-run-for-iraqi-elections--13337; Usama Al-Sistani Mahdi, “Weapons Should Be under the State’s Monopoly and Distance Hashd from the Elections (In Arabic),” Elaph, November 30, 2017, http://elaph.com/Web/ News/2017/11/1179192.html. 117 “Al-Asadi to al-Mayadeen: American Threats Will Destabilize the Region (In Arabic),” Al-Mayadeen, April 12, 2018, http://www.almayadeen.net/news/ politics/870898/.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

289

in politics, the PMF leaders will need to publicly shed their military uniforms and militia affiliations to participate in the elections. However, behind closed doors, it is business as usual.

Conclusion The rise of Hashd al-Sha’abi filled a security vacuum and demonstrated the support for Shi’ communities in Iraq who, due to the IS, felt humiliated, threatened, besieged, and defenseless.118 However, the ascendance of the PMF has also served as a political platform for the Shi’ factions and militias to flex their muscle, politically and ideologically, as well as to promote their various agendas. After more than three years of military operations in Iraq, the country’s territories have recovered, partly due to the PMF’s forces. However, human rights violations against Arab Sunnis and minority groups by PMF militias include extrajudicial killings, torture, abduction, arson, and the looting of civilian and public property.119 This has significantly undermined PMF’s credibility as a force to maintain security and stability. Due to the schism among the PMF groups and the interference and influence of Iranians, especially the IRGC-QF, two hierarchies of command exist: informal and formal.120 Informal command applies to the pro-Iran militias that answer to Khamenei and Iran’s security circles, including Qasem Soleimani through Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. The latter leads the pro-Iran Shi’ militias, and while he does not have a close relationship with Muqtada al-Sadr’s or al-Sistani’s militias, he has a friendly relationship with ISCI. The formal command applies to non-pro-Iran militias that answer to Iraq’s armed forces’ Commander-in-Chief (the PM) through Falih al-Fayyadh, the Chairman of the PMF, and their militia leaders and political wing elites.

118 Hassan Abbas, “The Myth and Reality of Iraq’s al-Hashd al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilization Forces): A Way Forward” (Amman Office: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), September 2017), http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/amman/13689.pdf. 119 “Iraq: Ban Abusive Militias from Mosul Operation. Unpunished Killings, Torture Put Civilians in Harm’s Way,” Human Rights Watch, July 31, 2016, https://www.hrw.org/ news/2016/07/31/iraq-ban-abusive-militias-mosul-operation. 120 Dury-Agri, Kassim, and Martin, “Iraq’s Security Forces and Popular Mobilization Forces.”

290  Z. GULMOHAMAD

Although the pro-Iran militia leaders, including al-Muhandis, would deny this, in practice it is an ongoing process and it is evident that their loyalty is to their sponsor: Iran. Some of the non-pro-Iran militias have no choice but to coordinate and collaborate with pro-Iran militias, partly due to their limited materials, as the pro-Iran militias have extensive resources and Iranian support. Pro-Iran militias, unlike pro-Sistani militias, actively interfere in Iraqi policymaking, including foreign affairs. The Shi’ house (al-Bayt al-Shi’’y) is fragmented, and this was evident in the 2018 Iraqi parliamentary elections. The militias’ and their leaders’ interests and goals are not limited to resources and the battlefield. The pro-Iran militias are becoming increasingly represented in al-Fatah or conquest alliance that is led by Badr and al-Amiri and represented the second largest coalition in 2018 elections. Muqtada al-Sadr is the winner and the kingmaker of the 2018 election, and his Sairoon coalition includes Sadr’s new Integrity Party and the Iraqi Communist Party, a rare coalition where Muqtada al-Sadr seeks to depict a non-sectarian agenda. Two key figures from the Dawa Party have formed rival coalitions: Former PM al-Abadi’s Victory Coalition (Itilaf al-Nasr) came third with 42 seats, and former PM al-Maliki’s State of Law Coalition (SLC) (Dawlat al-Qanoon) gained 25 seats. ­Post-election, alliances are forged, and deals are cut between rivals. After the 2018 elections, Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Abadi, al-Hakim, and other nonShi’ parties and coalitions formed a bloc that is portrayed as non-Iran leaning, whereas al-Fatah and al-Maliki’s SLC, Falih al-Fayyadh, and other parties formed the al-Binna bloc, which is closely linked to Iran. In the process of formulating the government, there is a competition to appoint key loyalist figures in central and powerful positions, which leads to a fragile government. The recent US policy toward Iran, including its withdrawal from the nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), adding more sanctions, and designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization, would most likely further polarize Iraqi factions, including the PMF militias. Pro-Iran militias might employ more confrontational behavior with moderate Iraqi actors, consequently leading to further political instability. However, the pro-Iran militia domination could face resistance from Iraqi political and civil societies who do not welcome Iran’s interference and influence in Iraq via the militias. The militias’ sectarian politics and nature remains a challenge to Iraq’s weak state institutions and for the country’s fragile security and

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

291

the reconciliation efforts between communities. Therefore, reducing the PMF’s influence and avoiding the return of another version of IS will require strengthening of the national state institutions, fighting corruption and nepotism, focusing on providing services to citizens; and strengthening the traditional armed forces, thereby avoiding any opportunity for the PMF’s militias to fill the security vacuum. As this chapter has demonstrated, the PMF’s militias are not monolithic in terms of ideology, loyalties, and goals; their actions have been shaped by various visions and there are clear differences and tensions between them. Pro-Iran militias have become an essential instrument for Tehran to expand its leverage and influence and to execute its agenda, not just in Iraq but in the Gulf Region (e.g., Bahrain, Yemen) and the broader Middle East (e.g., Syria, Lebanon). The pro-Iran Iraqi militias push back against the KSA/UAE-led bloc (see Table 14.1) in favor of Iran.

Bibliography Abbas, Hassan. “The Myth and Reality of Iraq’s al-Hashd al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilization Forces): A Way Forward.” Amman Office: ­Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), September 2017. http://library.fes.de/pdffiles/bueros/amman/13689.pdf. Adeeb, Kamal. A Summary of Iraq’s History from the Iraqi Revolt in 1920 to the American Wars, Resistance, Liberation and Creation of the Second Republic. Beirut: Dar al-Farabi, 2013. Alaaldin, Ranj. “Containing Shiite Militias: The Battle for Stability in Iraq.” Policy Briefing. Brookings Doha Center, December 12, 2017. https://www. brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/shiite_militias_iraq_english. pdf. “Al-A’taba al-A’Basiya al-Muqadasa. Qiadat Furqat al-A’bass Convene at Their Periodic Meeting with Their Representatives from the Governorates (In Arabic).” March 31, 2018. http://www.alabbas.iq/view. php?act=news&id=445. Alfoneh, Ali. “Fractured Iraq Shia Militias in Syria.” The Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, August 22, 2018. https://agsiw.org/ fractured-iraqi-shia-militias-in-syria/. Al-Hashd.net. “Al-Muhandis Discusses with Saraya al-Salam Leadership the Preparation for Mosul Operation (In Arabic).” September 28, 2016. http:// al-hashed.net/2016/09/28/‫جاحل‬-‫سدنهملا‬-‫ثحبي‬-‫عم‬-‫ةدايق‬-‫ايارس‬-‫لسلا‬.

292  Z. GULMOHAMAD ———. “The Statement of Iraq’s Religious Marjiyya Ayatollah al-Sistani on Jihad al-Kafai (In Arabic).” June 13, 2014. http://al-hashed.net/2016/12/26/% D9%81%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%87%D 8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9 %8A-13-6-2014/. Al-Hayat news. “Kataib Hezbollah Will Not Participate in the Election (In Arabic).” March 2, 2018. https://allhayat.net/?p=14102. Al-Marashi, Ibrahim. “Iraq.” In Guide to Islamist Movements, edited by Barry M. Rubin, 263–82. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2010. Al-Mayadeen. “Al-Asadi to al-Mayadeen: American Threats Will Destabilize the Region (In Arabic).” April 12, 2018. http://www.almayadeen.net/news/ politics/870898/. Al-Nidawi, Omar, and Michael Knights. “Militias in Iraq’s Security Forces: Historical Context and U.S Options.” February 22, 2018. http://www. washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/militias-in-iraqs-securityforces-historical-context-and-u.s.-options. Al-Sharq al-Awsat. “After the Hopelessness from Baghdad … Anbar Council: Hashd al-A’shari Calls the International Community for Support to Be Able to Fight Daesh (In Arabic).” September 17, 2015. https:// aawsat.com/home/ar ticle/454486/%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A3%D8%B3-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%BA%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF-%C2%AB%D8%A7 %D9%84%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%C2%BB%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84% D9%85%D8%AC%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84% D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A9-%C2%AB%D8%AF%D 8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4%C2%BB?amp. Amnesty International. “Iraq: End Irresponsible Arms Transfers Fuelling Militia War Crimes.” Amnesty International, January 5, 2017. https:// www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/01/iraq-end-irresponsiblearms-transfers-fuelling-militia-war-crimes/. Anagnostos, Emily. “The Campaign for Mosul: March 17–29, 2017.” Institute for the Study of War, March 17, 2017. http://www.understandingwar.org/ backgrounder/campaign-mosul-march-17-29-2017. “Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq.” Stanford University—Center for International Security and Cooperation, March 24, 2017. http://web.stanford.edu/group/ mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/143. Ashtwee, Jamal. “Iran’s Role in Mosul Operation Is Bigger Than of Iraq’s (In Arabic).” Al-Riyadh, March 25, 2016. http://www.alriyadh.com/1541320.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

293

Baghdad Today. “Fatah Coalition Headed by Al-A’meri Receives Number 109 (In Arabic).” February 20, 2018. http://baghdadtoday.news/ar/ news/35759/‫†فلاحت‬-‫†حتفلا‬-‫†ةماعزب‬-‫†يرماعلا‬-‫†لصحي‬-‫†ىلع‬-‫†لسلستلا‬109-‫†نمض‬-‫†مئاوقلا‬-‫†ةكراشملا‬-‫في‬-‫†تاباختنالا‬-‫ةلبقملا‬. Basnews. “Sunnis and Kurds Oppose Hashd Law Passed by Iraqi Parliament.” November 11, 2016. http://www.basnews.com/index.php/en/news/ iraq/314015. BBC News (Arabic). “Iraq: Religious Leadership Announces al-Jihad (In Arabic).” YouTube, June 13, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=nGeoCNVQlgg. Bodetti, Austin. “Iraqi Militias Got Hold of American Tanks.” The New Arab. Accessed September 7, 2019. https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/ indepth/2017/9/4/how-iraqi-militias-got-hold-of-american-tanks. Brennan, Richard R., Charles P. Ries, Larry Hanauer, Ben Connable, Terrence K. Kelly, Michael J. McNerney, Stephanie Young, Jason Campbel, and K. Scott McMahon. Ending the U.S. War in Iraq: The Final Transition, Operational Maneuver, and Disestablishment of United States Forces-Iraq. Santa Monica, CA: RAND National Defense Research Institute, 2013. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/ RR232/RAND_RR232.pdf. Byman, Daniel L., and Bernard Gwertzman. “Hezbollah: Most Powerful Political Movement in Lebanon.” Council on Foreign Relations, May 29, 2008. https://www.cfr.org/interview/hezbollah-most-powerful-politicalmovement-lebanon. Calamur, Kirshnadev. “Trump’s Latest Warning to Iran Didn’t Come Out of Nowhere.” The Atlantic, September 12, 2018. https://www. theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/09/trump-warns-iranshia-militia-iraq/569989/. Cleave, Robert. “Conceptions of Authority in Iraqi Shi’ism Baqir al-Hakim, Ha’iri and Sistani on Ijtihad, Taqlid and Marja’iyya.” Theory, Culture and Society 24, no. 2 (2007): 59–78. https://doi. org/10.1177/0263276407074996. Cordesman, Anthony H., and Emma R. Davies. Iraq’s Insurgency and the Road to Civil Conflict. London and Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2007. Cordesman, Anthony H., and Sam Khazai. Iraq in Crisis. Washington: Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington, 2014). https://csisprod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/140513_ Cordesman_IraqInCrisis_Web.pdf. Daoud, David. “PMF Deputy Commander Muhandis Details Hezbollah Ops in Iraq.” FDD’s Long War Journal, January 9, 2017. https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2017/01/pmf-deputy-commander-muhandis-details-hezbollah-ops-in-iraq.php.

294  Z. GULMOHAMAD Dury-Agri, Jessa Rose, Omer Kassim, and Patrik Martin. “Iraq’s Security Forces and Popular Mobilization Forces: Orders of Battle.” Institute for the Study of War, December 2017. http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/ files/Iraq%20-%20ISF%20PMF%20Orders%20of%20Battle_0_0.pdf. Eisenstadt, Michael, and Michael Knights. “Mini-Hizballahs, Revolutionary Guard Knock-Offs, and the Future of Iran’s Militant Proxies in Iraq.” War on the Rocks, May 9, 2017. https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/mini-hizballahs-revolutionary-guard-knock-offs-and-the-future-of-irans-militant-proxies-in-iraq/. Frantzman, Seth J. “Israel Struck Iranian Backed Shia Militia in Iraq with Russian Ok.” June 19, 2018. https://www.jpost.com/International/Israelstruck-Iranian-backed-Shia-militia-in-Iraq-with-Russian-approval-560360. Frontline. “Interview with Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim.” April 17, 2017. https:// www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gangsofiraq/interviews/hakim.html. Garland, Chad. “Iran-Backed Militias Obtained 9 US-Made Abrams Tanks in Iraq.” Military.com, February 19, 2018. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/09/iran-backed-militias-obtained-9-us-made-abramstanks-iraq-report.html. Garrison, James. “Popular Mobilization Messaging.” ICCT Research Paper. The Hague: International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), April 2017. https://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ICCT-Garrison-PopularMobilization-Messaging-April-2017-1.pdf. Global Security. “Badr Corps.” November 24, 2014. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/badr.htm. Gold, Dore. The Rise of Nuclear Iran: How Tehran Defies the West. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2009. Gulmohamad, Zana. “Unseating the Caliphate: Contrasting the Challenges of Liberating Fallujah and Mosul.” CTC Sentinel 9, no. 10 (October 2016): 16–27. Gulmohamad, Zana K. “A Short Profile of Iraq’s Shi’a Militias.” Terrorism Monitor: In-Depth Analysis of the War on Terror 13, no. 8 (April 17, 2015): 3–6. ———. “Iraq’s Shia Militias: Helping or Hindering the Fight against Islamic State?” The Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Monitor XIV, no. 9 (April 29, 2016): 5–6. Gurbuz, Mustafa. “The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s Next Election.” Arab Center Washington, DC, September 6, 2017. http://arabcenterdc.org/ policy_analyses/the-popular-mobilization-forces-and-iraqs-next-elections/. Habib, Mustafa. “Divided Loyalties: Iraq’s Controversial Shiite Militias Fight among Themselves.” Niqash: briefings from inside and across Iraq, June 30, 2015. http://www.niqash.org/en/articles/politics/5033/Iraq.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

295

———. “Security or Demographics: Why Babel Province Has a Ghost Town, Niqash.” Niqash: briefings from inside and across Iraq, August 30, 2017. http://www.niqash.org/en/articles/security/5725/. ———. “Formerly Armed Angels? The Controversial Iraqi Militia That Now Prefers Social Work to Politics.” Niqash: briefings from inside and across Iraq. Accessed September 6, 2019. http://www.niqash.org/en/articles/security/5873/The–­­Controversial-Iraqi-Militia-That-Now-Prefers-Social-WorkTo-Politics.htm. Heras, Nicholas A. “Iraqi Shi’a Militia Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq Expands Operations to Syria.” The Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Monitor 12, no. 10 (May 15, 2014): 4–5. ———. “Iraq’s Fifth Column: Iran’s Proxy Network.” MEI Policy Paper. Middle East Institute, October 2, 2017. https://www.mei.edu/sites/default/files/ publications/PP2_Heras_IraqCT_0.pdf. Human Rights Watch. “Iraq: Ban Abusive Militias from Mosul Operation. Unpunished Killings, Torture Put Civilians in Harm’s Way.” July 31, 2016. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/31/ iraq-ban-abusive-militias-mosul-operation. ———. “Iraq: Militias Abuses Mar Fight against ISIS. Tikrit Homes Destroyed, Residents Abducted.” September 20, 2015. https://www.hrw.org/ news/2015/09/20/iraq-militia-abuses-mar-fight-against-isis. Hussein, Miran. Sectarianism and Shia Militias and Political Armed Groups in Iraq (In Arabic). Cairo: Dar al-Maktab al-Arabi llma’arf, 2015. Ibrahim, Saleh. “Iraq’s New Militias Law Could Make Sunni Tribes More Powerful (In Arabic).” An-Nahar, December 8, 2016. https://www.niqash. org/ar/articles/politics/5421/. Iraqi News Network. “Fayyadh Announces Creating Ataa Movement (In Arabic).” November 25, 2017. http://aliraqnews.com/ ‫ضايفلا‬-‫نلعي‬-‫نع‬-‫سيسأت‬-‫ءاطعةكرح‬. Iraq’s Prime Minister’s Office. “The Prime Minister and the Commander in Chief Haider Al-Abadi Issues Regulations for Hashd al-Sha’abi (In Arabic).” March 8, 2018. http://pmo.iq/press2018/8-3-201803.htm. Ismaeel, Bashdar. “Dominance of Militias May Haunt Baghdad. Kurdish Peshmerga Fighters Take Part in a Military Exercise.” The New Arab, November 2, 2017. https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2017/11/2/dominance-ofmilitias-may-haunt-baghdad. Jawad al-Tamimi, Aymenn. “Hashd Brigades Number Index.” October 31, 2017. http://www.aymennjawad.org/2017/10/hashd-brigade-numbersindex. ———. “The Return of Iraqi Shi’i Militias to Syria.” Middle East Institute, March 16, 2015. https://www.mei.edu/publications/return-iraqishii-militias-syria.

296  Z. GULMOHAMAD Jihad Intel presented by Middle East Forum. “Badr Organization.” Accessed September 7, 2019. http://jihadintel.meforum.org/group/85/badrorganization. ———. “Kata’ib Hezbollah.” Accessed September 7, 2019. http://jihadintel. meforum.org/group/84/kataib-hezbollah. ———. “Liwa Ansar Al-Marja’iyya.” Accessed September 7, 2019. http://jihadintel.meforum.org/group/206/liwa-ansar-al-marjaiyya. Kelly, Fergus. “Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah Will Enter Syria and Battle ISIS in al-Bukamal—Spokesperson.” The Defense Post, November 4, 2017. https://thedefensepost.com/2017/11/04/iraq-iran-kataib-hezbollah-isissyria-al-bukamal/. Kessler, Glenn. “An Iranian ‘Terrorist’ in the White House?” Washington Post, December 20, 2011. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ fact-checker/post/an-iranian-terrorist-in-the-white-house/2011/12/19/ gIQA6t2K5O_blog.html. KM Media. “Saraya Ashuwra Fighters Free to Follow Hakim or ISCI (In Arabic).” July 31, 2017. https://www.knoozmedia.com/ 241905/‫ايارس‬-‫ءاروشاع‬-‫ريخت‬-‫اهيلتاقم‬-‫نيب‬-‫تلالا‬/. Knights, Michael. “Iraq’s Popular Demobilisation.” The Washington Institute, February 26, 2016. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/ view/iraqs-popular-demobilisation. Knights, Michael, and Malik Hamdi. “The Al-Abbas Combat Division Model: Reducing Iranian Influence in Iraq’s Security Forces.” Policy Analysis. The Washington Institute For Near East Policy, August 22, 2017. http:// www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-al-abbas-combatdivision-model. Knights, Michael, Barbara A. Leaf, Matthew Levitt, and Phillip Smyth. “The Smart Way to Sanction Iranian Backed Militias in Iraq.” Policy Watch. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, September 17, 2018. https:// www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-smart-way-tosanction-iranian-backed-militias-in-iraq. Kotan, Bilge Nesibe. “Why Ayatollah Sistani Opposes Hashd al Shaabi to Run for Iraqi Elections?” TRT World, December 15, 2017. https://www.trtworld.com/mea/why-ayatollah-sistani-opposes-hashd-al-shaabi-to-run-foriraqi-elections–13337. Kubursi, Atif A. “Oil and the Iraqi Economy.” Arab Studies Quarterly 10, no. 3 (Summer 1988): 283–98. Levitt, Matthew, and Phillip Smyth. “Katiab Al-Imam Ali; Portrait of an Iraqi Shiite Militant Group Fighting ISIS.” The Washington Institute, January 5, 2015. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/kataib-al-imam-aliportrait-of-an-iraqi-shiite-militant-group-fighting-isis.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

297

Lukitz, Liora. “The Shi‘is in Post-Saddam Iraq: A Common Political Front, but Different Tactics?” In Post-Saddam Iraq: New Realities, Old Identities, Changing Patterns, edited by Amnon Cohen and Noga Efrati, 53–103. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2011. Maas, Frauke, and Erica Gaston. “Iraq after ISIL: Tal Afar City.” Iraq after ISIL. Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi), August 21, 2017. http://www.gppi. net/publications/iraq-after-isil-tal-afar-city/. Mahdi, Usama Al-Sistani. “Weapons Should Be under the State’s Monopoly and Distance Hashd from the Elections (In Arabic).” Elaph, November 30, 2017. http://elaph.com/Web/News/2017/11/1179192.html. Majidyar, Ahmad. “Hezbollah: We’re Ready to Fight American Troops in Iraq.” Middle East Institute, September 15, 2017. http://www.mei.edu/content/ io/kata-ib-hezbollah-we-re-ready-fight-american-troops-iraq. ———. “Iran-Backed Badr Organization Calls on US Troops to Leave Iraq.” Middle East Institute, November 30, 2017. http://www.mei.edu/content/ io/iran-backed-badr-organization-call-us-troops-leave-iraq. Mansour, Renad. “More Than Militias: Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces Are Here to Stay.” War on the Rocks, April 3, 2018. https://warontherocks. com/2018/04/more-than-militias-iraqs-popular-mobilization-forces-arehere-to-stay/. Mansour, Renad, and Christine Van den Toorn. “The 2018 Iraqi Federal Elections: A Population in Transition?” LSE Middle East Centre Report. LSE Middle Easy Centre, July 2018. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/89698/7/MEC_ Iraqi-elections_Report_2018.pdf. Mansour, Renad, and Faleh A. Jabar. “The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s Future.” Carnegie Middle East Center, April 28, 2017. http:// carnegie-mec.org/2017/04/28/popular-mobilization-forces-andiraq-s-future-pub-68810. Marinova, Nadejda K. Ask What You Can Do for Your (New) Country: How Host States Use Diasporas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Mcinnis, J. Matthew. “Iranian Deterrence Strategy and Use of Proxies.” American Enterprise Institute, November 29, 2016. https://www.foreign. senate.gov/imo/media/doc/112916_McInnis_Testimony.pdf. Ministry of Justice. “The Law of Hashd Al-Sha’abi (In Arabic).” November 26, 2016. https://www.moj.gov.iq/view.2899/. Nader, Alireza. “Iran’s Role in Iraq: Room for Cooperation?” Rand Corporation—Perspective, 2015. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/ PE151.html. The New Arab. “Iraqi Militia Leader ‘Meets British Ambassador,’” October 4, 2016. https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2016/10/4/iraqi-militia-leader-meetsbritish-ambassador.

298  Z. GULMOHAMAD ———. “The New Arab. Iraq PM Sacks Paramilitary Chief Who Joined Rival pro-Iranian Bloc.” August 31, 2018. https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2018/8/31/iraq-pm-sacks-paramilitar ychief-who-joined-pro-iranian-bloc. O’Driscoll, Dylan, and Dave van Zoonen. “The Hashd Al-Shaabi and Iraq: Subnationalism and the State.” Middle East research institute, March 2017. http://www.meri-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ PMF-Report-0.2.pdf. “The Official Facebook Page for Saraya Salam. The Military Media of Peace Brigades Saraya Salam.” April 4, 2018. https://www.facebook.com/ ‫مالعالا‬-‫يبرحلا‬-‫ايارس‬-‫مالسلا‬-381095892084387. “The Official Website for Asaib Ahl Al-Haq (In Arabic).” June 2017. http:// ahlualhaq.com/index.php/permalink/5229.html. Otterman, Sharon. “Iraq: What Is the Fedayeen Saddam?” Council on Foreign Relations, February 3, 2005. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ iraq-what-fedayeen-saddam. Park, Ned, Babak Dehganpishheh, and Isabel Coles. “How Iran’s Military Chiefs Operate in Iraq.” February 24, 2015. https://www.reuters.com/article/ us-mideast-crisis-committee-specialrepor/special-report-how-irans-militarychiefs-operate-in-iraq-idUSKBN0LS0VD20150224. Pregent, Michael, and Erica Hanichak. “Countering Iran Means Sanctioning Terrorist Militias.” The Hill, September 27, 2018. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/408741-countering-iran-means-sanctioning-terrorist-militias. Press TV. “Iraqi Shia Group Vows ‘Revenge’ after Fresh US Sanctions.” June 2, 2018. https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/06/02/563624/Iraq-ShiaAsaib-Ahl-Haq. Qanat al-Alam. “Maliki Orders the Formation of the Directorate of Hashd Al-Sha’abi to Manage the Flow (In Arabic).” June 15, 2014. http://www. alalam.ir/news/1603017/. Rawabet Center For Research and Strategic Studies. “Hashd Al-Sha’abi in Iraqi, It’s Creation and Future (In Arabic).” August 28, 2018. http://rawabetcenter.com/archives/31326. Roggio, Bill. “US Troops ‘Are a Target for Us,’ Iraq’s Muqtada al Sadr Says.” FDD’s Long War Journal, July 18, 2016. https://www.longwarjournal.org/ archives/2016/07/us-troops-are-a-target-for-us-iraqs-muqtada-al-sadr-says. php. Reuters. “Iraqi Cleric Sadr Scales Back His Militia.” June 28, 2018. https:// www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-election-sadr/iraqi-cleric-sadr-scalesback-his-militia-idUSKBN1JO2O4. ———. “Iraqi Shi’ite Militias Pledge to Fight U.S. Forces if Deployed.” December 1, 2015. https://www.reuters.com/article/

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

299

us-mideast-crisis-usa-iraq/iraqi-shiite-militias-pledge-to-fight-u-s-forces-if-deployed-idUSKBN0TK5KQ20151201. “S.3431-Iranian Proxies Terrorist Sanctions Act.” U.S. Congress, 2018 2017. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3431/text. Said, Mahmoud. “Hashd Al-A’shari Its Creation, Aims and Future (In Arabic).” June 26, 2017. http://www.roayahnews.com/articles/2017/6/26/1188/. Samaha, Nour. “Iraq’s ‘Good Sunnis.’” Foreign Policy, November 16, 2016. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/iraqs-good-sunni/. Smyth, Phillip. “How Iran Is Building Its Syrian Hezbollah.” The Washington Institute For Near East Policy, March 8, 2016. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-iran-is-building-its-syrian-hezbollah. ———. “Should Iraq’s ISCI Forces Really Be Considered ‘Good Militias’?” Policy Watch. The Washington Institute, August 17, 2016. http:// www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/should-iraqs-isciforces-really-be-considered-good-militias. ———. “The Shiite Jihad in Syria and Its Regional Effects.” Policy Focus. The Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 2015. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/PolicyFocus138-v3.pdf. Sowell, Kirk. “Badr at the Forefront of Iraq’s Shia Militias.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, August 13, 2015. https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/61016. ———. “Inside Iraqi Politics.” Uticensis Risk Services 111 (July 20, 2015). http://www.insideiraqipolitics.com/Files/Inside%20Iraq%20No111.pdf. Sowell, Kirk H. “The Rise of Iraq’s Militia State.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 23, 2015. http://carnegieendowment.org/ sada/59888. Spyer, Jonathan. “Who Is Qais Al-Khazali, and Why Should You Care?” Middle East Forum, December 15, 2017. http://www.meforum.org/7104/ who-is-qais-al-khazali. Steinberg, Guido. “The Badr Organization: Iran’s Most Important Instrument in Iraq.” SWP Comments. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik—German Institute for International and Security Affairs, July 26, 2017. https://www. swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2017C26_sbg.pdf. Strouse, Thomas. “Kata’ib Hezbollah and the Intricate Web of Iranian Military Involvement in Iraq.” The Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Monitor VIII, no. 9 (March 5, 2010): 3–4. The Syrian Observer. “New War, Old Faces.” May 19, 2014. https://syrianobserver.com/EN/features/32830/new_war_old_faces.html. Tarbush, Mohammad. The Role of the Military in Politics: A Case Study of Iraq to 1941. New York: Routledge, 2016.

300  Z. GULMOHAMAD “Terrorist Groups in Syria.” House of Representatives—Committee on Foreign Affairs, November 20, 2013. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG113hhrg85643/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg85643.pdf. Toumaj, Amir. “Death of a General: What Shaban Nasiri Reveals about Iran’s Secretive Quds Force.” War on the Rocks, March 23, 2018. https:// warontherocks.com/2018/03/death-of-a-general-what-shaban-nasiri-revealsabout-irans-secretive-qods-force/. Toumaj, Amir, and Romany Shaker. “Iranian Backed Iraqi Militias Firm Coalition Ahead of Parliamentary Elections.” FDD’s Long War Journal, January 25, 2018. https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2018/01/ iranian-backed-iraqi-militias-form-coalition-ahead-of-parliamentary-elections. php. Tripp, Charles. A History of Iraq. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Umar, Ahmad. “Shia Kurds Volunteer in Hashd Al-Shaabi and Reject Peshmerga (In Arabic).” Arabi 21, February 16, 2015. https://arabi21.com/ story/809839/ ‫يبلا≠نوضفريو≠دشحلا≠ايشيليم≠†ب≠نوعوطتي≠ةعيش≠داركأ‬ ‫ةكرمش‬. US Department of State. “Individuals and Entities Designated by the State Department under E.O. 13224.” 2019. https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/ other/des/143210.htm. U.S. Department of the Treasury. “Treasury Designates Individual, Entity Posing Threat to Stability in Iraq.” July 2, 2009. https://www.treasury.gov/ press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg195.aspx. Watling, Jack. “The Shia Militias of Iraq.” The Atlantic, December 22, 2016. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/shia-militiasiraq-isis/510938/. Weigand, Krista E. “Reformation of a Terrorist Group: Hezbollah as a Lebanese Political Party.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 32, no. 8 (2008): 669–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10576100903039320. Weinberg, David Andrew. “Bahrain and Iran Expel Each Other’s Diplomats.” Policy Brief. Foundation for defence and democracy, October 5, 2015. http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/ david-weinberg-bahrain-and-iran-expel-each-others-diplomats/. Weiss, Caleb. “Iraqi Shia Militias Show US-Made Equipment on Road to Samarra.” The FDD’s Long War Journal, March 4, 2016. https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2016/03/iraqi-shia-militias-show-us-made-equipment-on-road-to-samarra.php. ———. “Peace Brigades Parades ‘Rapid Intervention Brigade’ in Samarra.” FDD’s Long War Journal, May 26, 2017. https://www.longwarjournal.org/ archives/2017/05/peace-brigades-parades-rapid-intervention-brigade-in-samarra.php.

9  THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 

301

Wyer, Sam. “The Resurgence of Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq.” Middle East Security Report. Institute for the Study of War (ISW), December 2012. http://www. understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/ResurgenceofAAH.pdf. Youtube. “Badr’s Armed Wing in Syria, Labaik Ya Zainab (In Arabic).” March 27, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVMFOE1FzrM. Zelin, Aaron Y., and Philipp Smyth. “Hiballah Cavalcade: Quat Sahl Ninawa: Iraq’s Shia Shabak Get Their Own Militia.” Jihadology, January 12, 2015. http://jihadology.net/category/quwat-sahl-ninawa/.

CHAPTER 10

Between the PYD and the Islamic State: The Complex Role of Non-state Actors in Syria Naomí Ramírez Díaz

Introduction The popular uprising in Syria in 2011 against the rule of Bashar ­al-Assad began as a popular, cross-sectarian, leaderless, and non-violent movement for freedom and dignity, where sectors of the population with very different ethnic and religious backgrounds played key roles. At a later stage, however, the civil movement against the regime turned into a military conflict in the form of a civil war and into a regional proxy war as a result of the interference of regional and international state and ­non-state actors of different types. These overlapping levels of confrontation made the political, social, and military scenario much more complex: Syria ended up divided into different spheres of influence, dominated by warlords and militias. Among those major actors who managed, at some point, to bring wide-scale areas under their control, two non-state actors acquired

N. Ramírez Díaz (*)  Arabic and Islamic Studies, Independent Researcher, Madrid, Spain © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_10

303

304  N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ

special relevance in the years between 2014 and 2017, which confirmed the hypothesis that violent non-state actors had grown in importance on the ground and, despite their present retreat, could still have an impact on the future development in the broader Middle East.1 One of these actors is the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), with its armed wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), a main component of the then US-supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Another is the n ­ ow-defunct self-declared Islamic Caliphate/Islamic State (IS), which we will refer to as Daesh (an Arabic acronym used by the local population for Al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi-l-Iraqi wa-l-Sham, the IS in Iraq and Syria or the Levant). Although their origins, background, and human resources are very different, the PYD-YPG and Daesh shared some characteristics regarding policies and rhetoric that are worth highlighting. For instance, both ­non-state actors have usually been included in the loose concept of opposition to the Assad regime, even though their relationship with Damascus has been very ambivalent, to say the least. In addition, both resorted to a chauvinist rhetoric in their claims to authority (parallel to that of the sectarian militias fighting on the side of the Assad regime), which alienated the local populations and contradicted the basic principles of the uprising that, ironically, had paved the way for their promotion. This has been especially significant in the city of Raqqa, the first regional capital freed from the Assad regime control. Both groups managed to take over it at different times and used it as a scenario to display their muscle. By controlling large portions of land and establishing some form of government, both Daesh and the PYD-YPG gave shape to state-like entities with different governmental and law-enforcing bodies. It is in this sense that, throughout the text, I will try to show how important ­non-state actors became at some point in the Syrian conflict and how they challenged the authority of both the Syrian regime and the main political opposition body, namely the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces (NC). This chapter presents the argument that Daesh and the PYD, despite their differences and apparently antagonistic ethos, managed to take advantage of the victimization narrative in order to achieve their main aim: the establishment of an autonomous state-like entity. To illustrate 1 Özden Zeynep Oktav, Emel Parlar dal, and Ali Murat Kurşun, eds., Violent Non-State Actors and the Syrian Civil War: The ISIS and YPG Cases (London: Springer International Publishing, 2018), 1.

10  BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 

305

this, I start by analyzing the factors that led to the rise of these two non-state actors, their differences and similarities, and the actors ­ supporting them.

Non-state Actors with State-Like Characteristics Defining what non-state actors are is problematic, but there is wide consensus regarding the fact that groups belonging to civil society, such as NGOs, political parties, or cultural associations, fit into this category. This is because none of them are either states per se or actors whose actions fall within the framework of state institutions.2 As such, any characteristic that suggests otherwise will automatically put their ascription at stake. Both Daesh and the PYD made advances toward some form of para-state.3 In the case of Daesh, its strategy is widely believed to have been inspired by Abu Bakr al-Naji’s The Administration of Savagery, whose first step is the infiltration into a territory where the central government’s authority is weak in order to establish sleeper cells in charge of ­collecting information. After that, the brains behind this operation must set up administration and dawa offices, until they are able to earn the local population’s approval and take over the local administration.4 The explanation behind this is the fact that Daesh’ cadres are usually foreigners and

2 Daphné Josselin and William Wallace, “Non-State Actors in World Politics: A Framework,” in Non-State Actors in World Politics, ed. Daphné Josselin and William Wallace (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 1–20; Andrew Clapham, “Non-State Actors,” in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding: A Lexicon, ed. Vincent Chetail (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 200–212. 3 Stephen M. Walt, “ISIS as Revolutionary State: New Twist on an Old Story,” Foreign Affairs, December 2015, 42; Mehmet Gurses, “Transnational Ethnic Kin and Civil War Outcomes,” Political Research Quarterly 68, no. 1 (March 2015): 142–53, https://doi. org/10.1177/1065912914554042; and Ekaterina A. Stepanova, Terrorism in Asymmetric Conflict: Ideological and Structural Aspects (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 39–40. 4 Abu Bakr Al-Naji, “Idarat Al-Tawahhush (in Arabic),” accessed September 6, 2019, https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/20/207DE0C1094BC68A7061 C96629DD5C1A_adara_twahsh.pdf. According to Al-Arabiya Institute for Studies, this author’s real identity is Muhammad Khalil al-Hakaymah, author of several books and pamphlets on jihad.

306  N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ

not local elements, as was the case in Syria.5 In the case of the YPG and PYD, since they operated (at least in the early stages of the uprising) in Kurdish majority regions or areas densely populated by Kurds, they did not need to resort to what Akın Ünver calls “pre-territorialisation” methods to earn people’s approval.6 Nevertheless, they did offer Arabs and other minority sectors of the population some governmental positions,7 in an attempt to show how committed to pluralism they were.8 Back to Daesh, during the “post-territorialisation” stage, the group’s modus operandi was based on taking over the administration and establishing a system deeply rooted in an extreme interpretation of religion preserved by means of the strict enforcement of religious rules.9 This could only be achieved from a position of confrontation with society, which was also the cornerstone of its relationship with Kurdish areas, where the local authorities focused on the creation of safe zones far from extremist interpretations of religion and governed autonomously. This contrasted with Daesh’s preference for centralization, inherited from the strong centralized policies of the Iraqi State under Saddam Hussein, where they learned the ropes of state-building and consolidation. These differences notwithstanding, in both cases, we were dealing with actors that challenged traditional definitions of non-state actors by creating state-like entities and advancing toward some form of autonomy: a formal State in the case of Daesh, and a widely autonomous self-government in the case of the PYD. Moreover, because Daesh and the PYD had more or less similar aspirations at the time when they had a strong presence in the north and north-eastern areas of Syria, they were somehow interdependent in the 5 Yassin al-Haj Saleh, “Tabaqat Daesh (in Arabic),” Al-Jumhuriya, February 12, 2016, https://www.aljumhuriya.net/ar/content/%D8%B7%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA-% D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4. 6 Akın Ünver, “Contested Geographies: How ISIS and YPG Rule ‘No-Go’ Areas in Northern Syria,” in Violent Non-State Actors and the Syrian Civil War: The ISIS and YPG Cases, ed. Özden Zeynep Oktav, Emel Parlar Dal, and Ali Murat Kurşun (London: Springer International Publishing, 2018), 40. 7 For example, in March 2016, Mansour Salloum, original co-president of Tell Abyad, was elected to lead the Rojava Constituent Assembly. 8 Ghadi Sary, “Kurdish Self-Governance in Syria: Survival and Ambition,” Research Paper (London: Chatham House, September 2016), 13, https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/ default/files/publications/research/2016-09-15-kurdish-self-governance-syria-sary_0.pdf. 9 Ünver, “Contested Geographies,” 40.

10  BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 

307

sense that their projects were incompatible and that there was a zero-sum confrontation between them: their state-like projects could not coexist, but in order to push for their particular goals, they needed the other as an alter-ego justifying each other’s presence and actions. Therefore, even though their relationship appeared to be strictly confrontational, as suggested by their in-fighting in northern Syria, it was up to a certain extent relatively symbiotic. In the following section, I will address the Kurdish case and its background and origins in a heterogeneous country like Syria, in order to understand its role as a non-state actor.

The Origins of the Syrian Kurdish Question Although the so-called Kurdish question has had an impact in recent Syrian history, it is not a particular Syrian issue, but a broader regional one, which affects Turkey, Iran, and Iraq as well, since those are the countries where the territory claimed by Kurdish nationalists as h ­ istorical Kurdistan is located, even if Kurdish populations are far from monolithic.10 Nevertheless, it is in Turkey and Iraq that it has received more attention until recent times, mainly due to its implications in a potential redefinition of Middle Eastern frontiers. In this sense, we cannot tackle this topic without referring to a broader regional context. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the drawing of the c­ urrent boundaries in the broader Middle East, based in theory on ethnic and linguistic factors, among other things, disregarded the Kurdish peoples in the region, who ended up divided into four separate states. While Turkey got the largest proportion of Kurds, Syria not only got the smallest, but its Kurdish population also did not occupy a continuum of land.11 In fact, according to William G. Elphinston, apart from some long-established thousands of Kurds in Damascus, the Kurdish presence in Syria was almost entirely the result of an arbitrary decision. In 1925, the Aleppo– Baghdad railway was chosen as the frontier between Turkey and Syria, de

10 Rostom Mahmoud, “Al-Inqisam Wa Masirat al Taharrur Fi l Wijdan al Kurdi al Mu’asir (in Arabic),” Al-Jumhuriya, January 20, 2016, https://www.aljumhuriya.net/ar/34490. 11 Yassin Al Haj Saleh, Al-thawra al-mustahila: al-thawra, al-harb al-ahliya wa al-harb al-amma fi Suriya (in Arabic) (Beirut: Al-mu’assasa al-arabiya li-l-dirasat wa-l-nashr, 2017), 271–86.

308  N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ

facto dividing some Kurdish areas between the two countries.12 After the establishment of the French Mandate in Syria, however, this country became a favorite safe haven for Kurdish refugees coming from Turkey,13 adding fuel to the version later used by the successive Syrian governments to deprive its Kurdish citizens of their rights. After the French withdrawal from Syria in 1946, the Kurdish ­minority seemed to adapt reasonably well to the new conditions14; but, in an atmosphere of mounting pan-Arab exaltation, its presence was regarded as non-desirable.15 In the early 1960s, the state deprived thousands of Kurds of their Syrian nationality on the grounds that they or their parents had been refugees from Turkey during the French Mandate.16 As a result, Syria’s Kurdish population joined forces to resist the impositions of the Baathist State from 1963 on. Since the second half of the twentieth century, two main c­urrents developed among Kurdish societies in the region. One of them was nationalist and believed in the right of Kurds to achieve their goal of an independent country. The other one, classified as democratic, claimed that the very essence of the Kurdish question was rooted in the economic, political, and sectarian complexities in the countries that Kurdistan was divided into, which meant that Kurds could not achieve any of their aspirations in those countries where the state was a mere instrument in the hands of the authoritarian governing elite. In other words, “the Kurdish wound is nothing else than part of the largest wound of the peoples of those countries.”17

12 Willian Graham Elphinston, “The Kurdish Question,” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs) 22, no. 1 (1946): 100, https://doi.org/10.2307/3017874. 13 Elphinston, 100. 14 Cecil J. Edmonds, “Kurdish Nationalism,” Journal of Contemporary History 6, no. 1 (1971): 103; Elphinston, “The Kurdish Question,” 100–103. 15 A few years after most Arab countries achieved their Independence from the French and the English metropolis, the regimes that came to power had a nationalist character, reinforced by Nasser’s rising star and experiences like the United Arab Republic between Syria and Egypt, which lasted between 1958 and 1961. 16 Edmonds, “Kurdish Nationalism,” 103 This was the result of a tricky census carried out in 1962, which deprived a large number of Kurdish citizens from their nationality. As a result, they became either ajanib (foreigners) or maktumeen (non-existent, concealed), without rights. 17 Kevin Mazur and Kheder Khaddour, “The Struggle for Syria’s Regions,” Middle East Report, no. 269 (Winter 2013): 5.

10  BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 

309

In Syria, the Assad regime (consolidated between 1970 and 1971) did nothing to improve the situation. For instance, it developed a plan known as the Arab belt, which guided the relocation of Arab tribes affected by the flooding of their lands after the creation of the Tabqa Dam to areas of the Jazira in order to prevent Kurds from establishing contact with their counterparts in other countries. In addition, Kurdish villages were renamed with Arab names and fertile private lands in the region were turned into public property. Finally, Kurdish cultural displays and the teaching of their language became legal offences. On the political side, Hafez al-Assad used Kurds in Turkey against the Turkish state to gain leverage in certain issues, such as water supplies and other regional matters.18 Syrian Kurdish parties (as opposed to vocal and independent activists) were largely disregarded by the regime, a situation that paradoxically granted them wider action margins than those of other Syrian political currents, within an environment of violent political suppression.19 However, if a specific actor was no longer useful, it would disappear. For instance, some Turkish Kurds (e.g., members of the PKK) previously used by Syria against Turkey were forced out by the Syrian regime after the 1999 Adana agreement between Damascus and Ankara. The PKK responded in 2003 with the establishment of the PYD as its political branch in Syria.20 The regime found the perfect timing to remind Kurds who called the shots in the country in 2004, in the aftermath of a football match, when clashes broke out between the Kurdish and Arab supporters of the two competing teams. The Kurds saw this clash as an opportunity to press for their rights, and violent repression by the regime ensued. In contrast to this case of lack of solidarity between Arabs and Kurds, it is worth mentioning that the traditional political (Arab) opposition in Syria, including the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (SMB),21 have called

18 Naomí Ramírez Díaz and Imanol Ortega Expósito, “Relaciones sirio-turcas: la ­ fallida política exterior de Turquía para Oriente Medio,” Revista de historia actual 3, no. 2 (2016): 311–50. 19 Saleh, Al-thawra al-mustahila: al-thawra, al-harb al-ahliya wa al-harb al-amma fi Suriya (in Arabic), 216–17. 20 “Syria’s Kurds: A Struggle within a Struggle,” Middle East & North Africa (Brussels: International crisis group, January 22, 2013), 12, https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront. net/syrias-kurds-a-struggle-within-a-struggle.pdf. 21 Al-Qadiyya al-Kurdiyya: Ru’yat Jama’at al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin Fi Suriya (in Arabic) (London, 2005).

310  N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ

at different times for the recognition of Kurdish rights. This is always within the framework of Syria’s territorial integrity and not as a separate entity, a premise they have held onto until today.22 The following section will address the impact of all the above on the Syrian uprising, as these events were very much related to the questions of territorial unity and federalism.

How the Syrian Uprising Transformed the Kurdish Plight in Syria Against this background, it is interesting to review the role of Kurds in the Syrian uprising and how it has transformed their demands and their relationship with other social groups. Apart from the negative experiences regarding popular mobilizations, the Kurdish parties themselves were another factor that discouraged demonstrations. The Kurdish leaders feared that the revolution would fail and, more importantly, that young people would create a political movement that might compete with the traditional parties. Many of these parties still considered the option of negotiating with the regime, as explained by eyewitnesses to the situation.23 Therefore, independent activists in some places (e.g., in Amouda) organized demonstrations without political party approval, and many of them, in fact, decided to leave those parties for what they perceived was an implicit opposition to their cause. Following the above-mentioned democratic current, the Kurds, and especially those living in mixed areas like the above-mentioned Amouda, took to the streets chanting for freedom.24 However, different factors would eventually lead to a progressive distancing between Arabs and Kurds in the country, such as the regime’s policy of supporting some 22 Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Mithaq Watani ­ Li-Mu’ajahat Taqsim Suriya (Istanbul, 2017). 23 “Syria’s Kurds,” 9. 24 In an early study of the situation in Syria in 2011, a Kurdish interviewee explained the following: “Kurds started demonstrating quite early because they wanted to prove to the Arabs that they are not separatist and that this country is a country for all, and that all Syrians, be they Kurds, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Assyrians or whatever, are one body, one flesh, in a united Syria.” In Naomí Ramírez Díaz, “The Syrian Revolution through the Eyes of the Demonstrators,” Working Paper (Toledo International Center for Peace (CITpax), 2011), 15.

10  BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 

311

regions to the detriment of others.25 In addition, some Kurdish party interests, namely the creation of a state-like autonomous region, became another obstacle to mutual collaboration. The PYD was not a solo actor: the Kurdish National Council (KNC) had done exactly the same. The KNC was a set of Kurdish parties established in October 2011 to challenge the PYD’s grip on power and acted under the orbit of Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani. Therefore, what people witnessed in the areas under the influence of either faction were milder anti-regime slogans “No to the Baath and no to foreign intervention.”26 This second half of the slogan is especially interesting, bearing in mind that both were highly influenced by Kurds in neighboring countries, which apparently they did not perceive as foreign intervention due to the transnational nature of the Kurdish cause. Kurdish parties hoped to achieve greater autonomy and power upon the regime’s withdrawal, without directly confronting it. Similarly, the regime had placed its bet on dividing Syrians, and so, it had tried to reach out to the different minorities in the country. For instance, the regime’s spokesperson, Bouthaina Shaaban, promised in the wake of March 2011, to study the cases of some 300,000 Kurds in order to grant them their nationality, a right they had been deprived of since 1962.27 Moreover, the regime tried to establish contacts with the representatives of the Kurdish community, who declined the offer—albeit, with some hesitation.28 Following this same path of action, as the uprising gathered momentum in 2011, the regime issued a law on decentralization (Decree 107), 25 “Syria’s

Kurds,” 17–18. Kurds,” 11. 27 This news piece sums up all the points and delivers similar numbers, among others, by Amnesty International: Dahi Hassan, “Syrian Kurds in the Hope to Regain Their Citizenship,” BBC News (Arabic), January 27, 2011, https://www.bbc.com/ arabic/middleeast/2011/04/110401_syria_kurds. 28 Interestingly, Jalal Talabani urged the Kurds not to conflate the fight for their legitimate rights with the dream of a Great Kurdistan: “This is a regime that has repressed you for 40 years, you tell me? Then why is it only now that you wish to rise? Listen carefully, you as Syrian Kurds have rights within the Syrian state that you need to fight for, you must go back now and work on getting them, but you must not confuse that with our dream of greater Kurdistan.” On the contrary, Masoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish Region in northern Iraq, “strongly backed the Syrian opposition, in alliance with Turkey.” See Sary, “Kurdish Self-Governance in Syria,” 7–8. 26 “Syria’s

312  N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ

which some understood as the basis for future negotiations for the official recognition of Rojava. As if following on this track, on July 18, 2012, the regime unilaterally withdrew from the Afrin and Kobane regions and part of the Jazira. As a result, the PYD remained de facto in charge of those areas, without either a real agreement or a fight. This, however, was not the case in Qamishli and other areas, where Syria’s oil is ­produced. According to eyewitnesses, police presence was very much reduced following the withdrawal from the other regions, but the regime maintained a presence and kept control over the airport and oil operations. Therefore, a tacit agreement over how to administer the region most likely had been drafted, as well as a pact of no aggression. This was the only possible explanation for the fact that, while activists in other Syrian cities, like Daraa, faced live fire, Qamishli or Amouda witnessed the arrest of demonstrators who raised national demands, whereas the protests advancing Kurdish national demands prompted almost no reaction from the authorities.29 As a result, the PYD became the strongman in Syria’s “ungoverned space,”30 but always within the scope of reach of Damascus. As straightforwardly explained by a Syrian official, the following statement summarizes this peculiar symbiosis: “The Kurds go off track every once in a while, before sooner or later requiring our support. At that point, they are often ready to give Damascus what it’s been waiting for.”31 In 2013, the PYD established its control over three autonomous regions in Syria in pursuit of “freedom, justice, dignity, and democracy” and proclaimed “a new social contract, based upon mutual and peaceful coexistence and understanding between all strands of society.” According to this Charter of the Social Contract, everyone would have the right

29 Mazur

and Khaddour, “The Struggle for Syria’s Regions,” 6–7. to the US Department of State, an “ungoverned space” is a place where the state or the central government is unable or unwilling to extend control, effectively govern, or influence the local population, and where a provincial, local, tribal, or autonomous government does not fully or effectively govern, due to inadequate governance capacity, insufficient political will, gaps in legitimacy, the presence of conflict, or restrictive norms of behaviour. Many times, like in this case, there is some form of symbiosis between the non-State actors and the State and, the former can provide local security, and garbage disposal, whereas a state can still be providing electricity. 31 Sary, “Kurdish Self-Governance in Syria,” 16. 30 According

10  BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 

313

to freedom of opinion and expression.32 Nevertheless, the document included the following provision: “Freedom of expression and freedom of information may be restricted, having regard to the security of the Autonomous Regions.” That was indeed what the YPG, a police-like body in charge of “security” in the areas under the PYD’s influence, had been doing for several months: systematically suppressing anti-regime protests. When Kurdish groups unilaterally declared the establishment in Rojava—under the name “Northern Syria”—of a federal system within Syria in March 2016, the government was unshaken. It limited its reaction to the issuance of a statement condemning any political move that threatened the integrity of Syrian territory.33 In fact, critics of this unilateral move have accused it of simply replacing Assad’s poster with that of Öcalan’s—something replicated in Raqqa after taking it away from Daesh (who had replaced Assad’s portrait with its characteristic black flag) in 2017, thereby illustrating that the struggle against Assad’s dictatorship had taken a back seat. Fighting for an autonomous state-like entity had become the priority.

Kurdish Parties’ Ambivalent Relationship with the Formal Arab Opposition Syrian post-independence governments, in general, enforced ambiguous policies with regards to Kurds in Syria and their inclusion in governmental bodies. Therefore, Kurds (especially those coming from the north-eastern areas of the country) tended to distrust the central government. Even if at various points, since Bashar al-Assad’s advent to power in 2000, the opposition has claimed to support Kurdish rights, once the 2011 uprising had begun, differences emerged. The first problem came with the creation of the precedent of the NC, the Syrian National Council (SNC), and its closeness to Turkey: in February 2012, armed PYD supporters attacked KNC demonstrators in Afrin, while yelling, among other things: “Supporters of Erdoğan and Barzani have

32 “Charter of the Social Contract. Self-Rule in Rojava,” January 29, 2014, https://peaceinkurdistancampaign.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/english-version_sc_revised-060314. pdf. 33 Sary, “Kurdish ­Self-Governance in Syria,” 17.

314  N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ

no business here.”34 However the resurrection of Arab national sentiments and the reinforcement of Islam as a binding factor were what definitely troubled the relationship between the SNC (originally set up and based in Istanbul, and allegedly dominated by the SMB as alluded in Chapter 7) and the Kurds. As a result, the PYD decided to join the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change (NCB), an alternative instance to the SNC.35 This reaction only added fuel to the popular idea that the PYD was no real opposition. For members of the SNC, the Damascus-based National Coordination Body was too soft with the regime and even had displayed readiness for dialogue, a categorical “no” for the Coalition. Divergences could only increase, and in 2012, when international powers pushed for the formation of the NC, the KNC members joined the talks in Qatar, whereas the PYD was not invited. According to official accounts, Kurdish delegates put forward four conditions, among which was that Kurdish rights be included in the constitution. The Coalition’s thenleader, Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib, explained that any demands affecting the constitution would only be discussed after the regime was ousted.36 Apparently, that was not enough for the Kurdish representatives. The wide gap between Arabs and Kurds was reflected yet again during the 2017–2018 Astana conferences, where the PYD was excluded. Moreover, the PYD’s anti-Islamist rhetoric has fueled the support of Leftist groups worldwide, which still understand the situation in Syria as a confrontation between the ideal of secularism and self-managed regions and the backwardness of strict and barbaric interpretations of religion represented by Daesh. The following section explains in more depth how this has contributed to their goal of building their own state-like entity.

The Left’s Support for the PYD and Its Model Abdullah Öcalan, the PKK imprisoned founding father and leader, is considered a symbol among certain sectors of the Left worldwide for various reasons, most importantly the fact that he rejects the idea of nation-states, supports gender equality, and promotes self-organization

34 “Syria’s

Kurds,” 32. Kurds,” 37. Yet again, the rejection of foreign intervention is problematic here. 36 “Syria’s Kurds,” 40. 35 “Syria’s

10  BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 

315

of independent, yet collaborative cantons, to challenge the traditional centralist states in the broader Middle East, which, in his view, follow a similar logic to that of theologically inspired states: “The nation-state has allocated a number of attributes which serve to replace older religiously rooted attributes like: nation, fatherland, national flag, national anthem, and many others.”37 In order to achieve enduring peace with Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, he suggested overcoming the divisive idea of nation states, which promote a single and monolithic culture and population, instead of praising diversity. Following his logic, the PYD has been calling for the loose concept of democratic autonomy and, in fact, since December 2011, when the People’s Council of Western Kurdistan was established as a “stand-in elected local assembly designed to provide social services,”38 its proponents and supporters have insisted that it was an ideal form of democracy because it is decentralized, participation is more direct, and it promotes full gender equality (in fact, the Women’s Protection Units, YPJ, have been widely advertised).39 It is this imaginary state that has brought volunteers from all over the world to fight alongside the Kurdish YPG militias against the threat of Daesh.40 Solidarity has gone beyond expectation, and other nationalist and secessionist plights over the planet have expressed their uncritical support for the Rojava project. Lack of criticism has prompted many groups to turn a blind eye on the fact that the USA provided the SDF, mostly composed of the YPG, with military support, which they took advantage of to control certain areas. The successful 2014 Kobane battle was the key factor that allowed the Kurds to increase their influence. Against the logic of bipolar and binary understanding of the situation in Syria, whereby there would be two separate camps—the regime, supported by Russia and other allies, and Islamists and “terrorists,” supported by the USA and, more broadly, 37 Abdullah Öcalan, Democratic Confederalism (London: Transmedia Publishing Limited, 2011), 11. 38 “Syria’s Kurds,” 13, 19. 39 This is a good way of showing their alterity with Daesh, where women’s role remains behind the scenes, and they are viewed as devoted mothers and wives. 40 Some of the alleged brigades inspired by the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War are the International Freedom Battalion (Tabûra Azadî ya Înternasyonal‎) and the Lions of Rojava. The first claim to be fighting both against Daesh and Assad, whereas the second focus on Daesh.

316  N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ

NATO countries—these advances against Daesh positions were made possible by the US military support, even if, paradoxically, the USA represents the opposite side of the spectrum of what is understood as the Rojava ideal. Moreover, its support for the Kurds went in detriment of Turkey, a NATO member and long-term ally of the USA, with a clear interest in having a say in Syria’s future. More paradoxical, and complicating matters even more, the SDF alliance with the USA was considered their main strength point and yet the PYD also established a positive relationship with the Russians. It was Russian air support that allowed the PYD to take over, among other areas, Tel Rifat and the military Menneg airport. In the words of Doruk Ergun, the PYD, in its plight for international recognition and legitimacy, presented a rare case of a violent non-state actor that “managed to cooperate with both Russia and the United States at the same time” in its quest for its own state-like entity.41 However, due to the fact that Turkey needed to look for new allies after feeling abandoned by the USA, the Kurdish alliance with Russia began to collapse when Ankara decided to move closer to the Russian orbit to deal with the situation in Syria.42 The Astana conferences were a good example of that. From the preceding paragraphs, we can conclude that the Kurdish plight in Syria is not new but dates back a century ago. This explains the deeply rooted nationalist sentiments of some Kurdish parties, such as the PYD, and sectors of society and their distrust toward neighboring populations. The conflict in Syria presented an opportunity for Kurds to get their rights back, but various factors undermined the potential collaboration between them and the Arab majority in the country. Therefore, some parties decided to follow their own path and, in their quest for more independence, managed to attract solidarity from different areas of the world with their discourse of self-administration, freedom, and 41 Doruk Ergun, “External Actors and VNSAs: An Analysis of the United States, Russia, ISIS, and PYD/YPG,” in Violent Non-State Actors and the Syrian Civil War: The ISIS and YPG Cases, ed. Özden Zeynep Oktav, Emel Parlar Dal, and Ali Murat Kurşun (London: Springer International Publishing, 2018), 149–72. 42 Fadel al-Homsi, “Hal Yatahaqqaq Al-Hulm al-Kurdi Fi Suria? (in Arabic),” Al-Jumhuriya, February 1, 2017, https://www.aljumhuriya.net/ar/content/%D9%87% D9%84-%D9%8A%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9% 84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%9F.

10  BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 

317

equality, as opposed to retrograde visions of society represented by Daesh and Islamist militias with authority over some areas of the country. In this sense, this non-state actor made advances toward the creation of de facto independent cantons, which lacked some of the characteristics of a real state but which did have an administration, law-enforcement bodies, ministerial departments, and very rudimentary and scarce service provisions in a context of power vacuum. Therefore, the PYD ­carried out its activity outside the framework of the central state but tried to replicate its own state institutions. Does this evolution have anything in common with that of Daesh? The following sections will address the Daesh phenomenon.

How a Peaceful Uprising Brought Daesh into the Scene Saying that no one could have predicted that a peaceful uprising in Syria would turn into a bloodbath falls within the category of wishful (yet partially inevitable) thinking, and the author of these lines did not escape that trend. Bearing in mind past episodes in Syrian history—the most infamous of which is the Hama massacre in 1982, when entire neighborhoods were reduced to ashes by the Syrian artillery in its aim to crack down the armed insurgency of the Fighting Vanguard (FV)—the regime could easily resort to disproportionate violence, and that is exactly what it did. Although arms were scarce in opposition circles during the first months of the 2011 Syrian uprising, the regime did not hesitate in responding with live fire to the protests, causing the death toll to rise exponentially. It was just a matter of time for the people to look for means of self-defense. As time went by, the armed confrontation between ill-prepared combatants of the FSA and the regime’s heavy artillery created situations of insecurity and instability—and instability is, by definition, the natural environment where radical movements can evolve at a faster pace, especially when they already have a long trajectory of organization, pseudo-governance, and lofty aspirations.43 The following sections will try to explain how Daesh expanded and how it adopted state-like characteristics.

43 Al-Naji, “Idarat Al-Tawahhush (in Arabic)” explains in his book the ways in which the Umma needs to be ruled as a pre-step to the full establishment of an IS.

318  N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ

The Roots of Hate The history of what came to be known as the IS, or Daesh, dates back a few decades ago to the foundation of Jama’at al-Tawhid wa-l-Jihad in 1999 in Afghanistan and its ensuing expansion and transformation into different groups, such as Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 and the IS in Iraq, just to list a few.44 This evolution depicts very clearly the transformation from what was meant to be a base (qa’ida in Arabic) into the more ambitious achievement of a state-like entity in July 2014 in Mosul, after Daesh had conquered large swaths of land in Syria and Iraq. Daesh matched the global aspirations of Bin Laden, but also merged the original base logic of Al-Qaeda with a centralized state mindset explicitly avoided by Al-Qaeda’s founding father.45 Therefore, the IS could be considered somehow the unwanted son of Al-Qaeda and yet its most talented heir until today. Every lesson it had learnt from Iraq was put into practice in Syria and eventually d ­ eveloped in better ways. Taking advantage of the strategies developed by ex-Iraqi Baathists, Daesh was ready for expansion: Bilad al-Sham (which roughly corresponds to the historical territory of Great Syria) seemed to be the right place.46 Therefore, although Daesh was formally established in 2013, its history in Syria dates back to 2011, when Al-Baghdadi dispatched representatives to the country to meet the newly formed Jabhat al Nusra (it would be announced on January 23, 2012), to tackle operational collaboration across the Iraqi-Syrian border.47 A couple of months later, Abu Mohamed al-Adnani, Daesh’s spokesman at the time, announced the unification of Jabhat al-Nusra and the IS in Iraq in what came to be known as The IS in Iraq and Syria (Al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi-l-Iraq wa-l-Sham). This unilateral decision was rejected by Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, Jabhat al-Nusra’s leader, the day after. Al-Qaeda’s leader, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, intervened to support 44 Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, A Theory of ISIS: Political Violence and the Global Order (London: Pluto Press, 2018), 90; See also Michael Weiss and Hassan Hassan, ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror (London: Regan Arts, 2015). 45 Ould Mohamedou, A Theory of ISIS, 89. 46 Dabiq, a small town in northern Syria, is, according to Prophetic tradition, the place where the final battle between Islam and disbelief will take place. In fact, Daesh named its now defunct magazine after this town. Nevertheless, its control over the town did not last long and it eventually retreated. 47 Ould Mohamedou, A Theory of ISIS, 97.

10  BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 

319

Jolani and declared that the entity still known as IS in Iraq would stay in Iraq, whereas Al-Nusra would remain in Syria. However, Daesh had already set foot in Syria and various factors facilitated its expansion.

Factors That Facilitated Daesh’s Emergence as a Relevant Non-state Actor As we said earlier, calling Daesh a non-state actor seems contradictory with the very nature of a movement that established a para-state in northeastern Syria and large areas of Iraq, including the city of Mosul in its heyday. In order to become powerful enough to fulfil its wish to become a state, before Ramadan 2014, the group battled and managed to defeat a coalition known as Jaysh al-Mujahidin in the area around Aleppo, as well as the Supreme Military Command of the Free Syrian Army. After that, it established control of key areas in ­north-eastern Syria, the most infamous of which was the city of Raqqa.48 After that, its expansion seemed to be unstoppable, and Raqqa would not be taken away from Daesh until late 2017, when the flags of the so-called IS were replaced by pictures of Öcalan set up by the PYD-YPG under the umbrella of the SDF. Their zero-sum confrontation had reached a new level. However, what prompted Daesh’s advances and development into a state-like entity in the first place? To begin with, Assad’s history of veiled collaboration with jihadi groups is not new, and in fact dates back at least to the years of con­ frontation with the FV.49 More recently, but already before 2011, Assad used Salafi groups to destabilize neighboring countries and imprisoned them whenever he wanted as a way to present himself as the bulwark against terrorism.50 Nevertheless, this had an important side effect: by enabling them to establish contacts in prison, they ended up dominating the armed scene after being released.51 However, even if there are 48 Ould

Mohamedou, 98. Ramírez Díaz, The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria: The Democratic Option of Islamism, 1 (London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2018), 49–75. 50 Fidaa Itani, Al-Jihadiyun Fi Lubnan: Min Quwat al-Fajr Ila Fath al-Islam (in Arabic) (Beirut: Dar al-Saqi, 2008). 51 The story of the three “friends of Sednaya,” featuring prominent Islamist brigades’ leaders explains how Assad resorted to Salafi jihadis in Syrian prisons to make his prophecy a selffulfilled one. Basel al-Junaidy, “Qissat ‘Asdiqa Sednaya al-Thalatha’: Aqwa Thalathat Rijal Fi Suriya al-Yawm! (in Arabic),” Al-Jumhuriya, October 16, 2013, https://www.aljumhuriya. net/ar/19328. 49 Naomí

320  N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ

several testimonies of this connivance, Assad’s director of general intelligence, Ali Mamlouk, provided the most detailed account: “In principle, we don’t attack or kill them immediately. Instead, we embed ourselves in them and only at the opportune moment do we move.”52 Looking back to the origins of Daesh—where Saddam Hussein’s ex-officials played a prominent role by providing the strategy, while the fighters added the religious component—these claims are not surprising at all. In fact, various testimonies from Daesh’s ex-captives suggest that their connivance was even more explicit.53 This long history of shared operations and the fact that a global terrorist threat would be very useful for Assad to back the hypothesis that he was the only alternative in Syria, explains why, when Daesh appeared, almost nothing was done to stop its expansion before the International Coalition began its activity in 2014.54 In addition, having Daesh meant that someone else was doing the dirty job of cracking down on the popular opposition that had escaped the regime’s control.55 As a matter of fact, some of the areas bombed from the air were residential areas and not, for instance, the provincial governorate, which Daesh had claimed as its headquarters. After the regime’s withdrawal from Raqqa (the first provincial ­capital that escaped Assad’s grip) on March 4, 2013, the local council took control of the city, albeit with some difficulties, exploited by Daesh to achieve power gradually by carrying out some reforms, such as the opening of an office in April 2014 for residents in Raqqa to address their complaints.56 That was a very smart move since people were complaining that many alleged members of the FSA, as well as members of the local councils, were not behaving as expected. Daesh was careful not to fall into practices such as theft or intimidation in the beginning to avoid being rejected by the local population. 52 Weiss

and Hassan, ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, 112–13. G. Prieto and Javier Espinosa, La Semilla Del Odio: De La Invasión de Irak al Surgimiento Del ISIS (Madrid: Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial España, 2017), 417, 472–73. 54 al-Haj Saleh, “Tabaqat Daesh (in Arabic).” 55 Loubna Mrie, “Where Are the Syrians Kidnapped by ISIS?,” The Nation, March 9, 2018, https://www.thenation.com/article/where-are-the-syrians-kidnapped-by-isis/. 56 Aymeen Al-Tamimi, “The Evolution in Islamic State Administration,” Perspectives on Terrorism 9, no. 4 (2015), http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/ view/447/html. 53 Mónica

10  BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 

321

This office, in conjunction with the dawa bureau, functioned both as a means of social outreach and as a tool to gather intelligence on Daesh rivals.57 Therefore, Daesh’s strategy in Syria was a step-by-step process to try to avoid a coordinated backlash from Syrian rebels similar to the Sahwa movement in Iraq. It had to win over people’s hearts to avoid being driven away.58 Daesh’s modus operandi reaped its fruits in the beginning. However, when Daesh showed its real face and its aspirations, people began to criticize its sectarian tone and militias refused to work with it.59 The stroke that broke the camel’s back was Daesh’s assassination in early 2014 of Abu Rayan, a widely respected figure from one of the most prominent factions at the time that could present a challenge to Daesh’ expansion: Ahrar al-Sham. This, in addition to a simultaneous attack on the popular rebel town of Kafranbel, in Idleb province, inaugurated a period of infighting across north-eastern Syria between Daesh and other factions (including Al-Nusra). However, this only strengthened Daesh, which began to establish local administration and law-enforcement bodies in the territories it controlled.60 What seemed to be just another greedy faction wanting to impose its norms turned out to be a new form of authoritarianism, where dissent was severely punished: Bashar al-Assad and Daesh seemed to be two sides of the same coin. Other Islamist and jihadi factions did not have the strength to challenge its power, another factor that led to its upsurge. Syria is known for the moderation of its Islamist discourse.61 Despite the precedent of the FV in the seventies and eighties, which was difficult to swallow for many Islamist actors such as the SMB themselves (of whom the FV was an offshoot), and the Syrian background of an important jihadi ideologue, Mustapha Setmariam or Abu Mus’ab al-Suri, those 57 Al-Tamimi,

411. usually praised Sahwa in Iraq was not a mere insurrection against the so-called IS in Iraq: many of its integrants were former members of jihadi groups in the country who had opted for a full aesthetic shift. Prieto and Espinosa, La Semilla DePrieto and Espinosa, La Semilla Del Odio, 411. 59 Naomí Ramírez Díaz, “Against All Odds: Defining a Revolutionary Identity in Syria,” in Mediated Identities and New Journalism in the Arab World, ed. Azi Douai and Mohamed Ben Moussa (London: Palgrave, 2016), 83–99; Ünver, “Contested Geographies,” 40. 60 Al-Tamimi, “The Evolution in Islamic State Administration.” 61 Weiss and Hassan, ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, 162. 58 The

322  N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ

were the exception more than the rule. The history of the SMB themselves and their hesitation in the early months of the uprising (in order not to play a detrimental role, in case the regime decided to use their participation or support as some proof of Islamist identification) shows how Syria was probably the least fertile ground for this kind of ­ideology in the region.62 Nevertheless, the regime’s constant allegations and its portrayal of the uprising as an existential threat for minorities added fuel to latent sectarian tensions, and certain groups did not hesitate to capitalize on that. This was a new version of Iraq’s descent into the sectarian hell. Daesh knew how to manage that. Syrian jihadis, like original Al-Nusra members, were more hesitant in the beginning to show their true colors: this made Daesh more appealing to those seeking immediate revenge. It is in this sense that Syrian writer Yassin al-Haj Saleh stated that groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Jund al-Aqsa, or Jaysh al-Islam might be against Daesh politically but could still share its doctrinal and ideological model. This meant it was difficult for them to oppose Daesh even when it attacked them.63 In other words, since Daesh promoted what it deemed the ideal Islamic society and state, some groups struggled to detach from their ideological grip—another factor that allowed Daesh to pursue its goal of creating and maintaining a state-like entity. This is not to say that those groups have not confronted Daesh, but they have only done so when Daesh has severely threatened their interests, as it was the case with Abu Rayyan. In any case, it was Daesh that most foreign jihadis joined, since its propaganda and effective operations matched their pan-Sunni victimization narrative and were therefore especially appealing, as we shall see in the following paragraph. Certainly, the uprising never deemed it necessary to resort to sensationalist propaganda to convince anyone or earn their support, since they believed in the noble character of their plight for freedom. However, just like the Kurds received the support of Leftist groups and activists due to the ideology they spread and their narrative of victimization, Daesh received the support of individuals who identified with a group claiming to fight for Islam and represent Sunni Muslims,64 especially those who

62 See

Ramírez Díaz, The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Saleh, “Tabaqat Daesh (in Arabic).” 64 Even if Sunni Muslims in Syria are the least cohesive social sector. 63 al-Haj

10  BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 

323

were willing to discover what their role in life was. By claiming to be fighting the regime, Daesh’s capacity to attract supporters was, in reality, similar to that of mobilized rebel transnational groups based on kinship, whose comparative advantage is usually larger when extracting concessions from the government.65 In this case, Daesh already had certain concessions when the regime allowed it to expand and establish a paraState with its infamous capital in Raqqa. However, its transnational scope allowed Daesh to reap extra benefits: fighters from all over the world joined its ranks. In fact, even some Kurds (usually considered secular in their understanding of religion) felt its appeal. The reason behind this, according to Hussain Jummo, an analyst of Kurdish politics, is that—just as it was the case after Saddam Hussein’s Halabja massacre, when many Kurdish families were left impoverished and were mostly assisted by Salafileaning charities sponsored by individuals in the Gulf—in Syria, some Kurds from Aleppo and Hasaka explained that they joined Daesh because of the organization’s pan-Sunni, rather than pan-Arab, philosophy.66 That is, faced with the choice between pan-Arabism and p ­ an-Sunnism, they more likely preferred the devil they did not know to the devil they knew. This is a very important point when assessing the strength of Daesh alliances with local tribes, where kinship was even more determinant than religion (even if both are intertwined). As a matter of fact, Daesh’s tribal strategy had some limitations, mainly the fact that it was still regarded as a temporary governing force, with whom an alliance was established out of convenience or brute necessity, calculating that its rule would not last forever.67 That is, its state-like aspirations did not deceive local actors. Therefore, even though the pan-Sunni narrative was appealing, its magnetism was much weaker in tribal areas. In general, it appealed more to disaffected recruits, and that explains its success outside the Middle East region among those who feel displaced. Moreover, Daesh’s difficult-to-trace sources of income helped attract more adepts on the battleground.68 65 Gurses,

“Transnational Ethnic Kin and Civil War Outcomes,” 143. and Hassan, ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, 158. 67 Weiss and Hassan, ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror. 68 “The Financing of the ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS),” In-Depth Analysis (European Parliament, September 2017), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ etudes/IDAN/2017/603835/EXPO_IDA(2017)603835_EN.pdf. 66 Weiss

324  N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ

In sum, Daesh exploited the regime’s crackdown on civilians, especially in Sunni areas, to attract supporters. These included recruits even among the Kurdish population, who preferred a Muslim reference to an Arab one. This was beneficial both to the PYD’s aspirations, since they found an alter ego to justify its campaigns in northern Syria, and to the regime’s discourse, which explicitly indicated that its rule was the only possible shield for minorities against violent interpretations of religion. Meanwhile, Daesh kept conquering large swaths of land by means of initial social penetration and, later, traditional warfare with superior techniques to those of its opponents, mostly the Syrian rebel militias. In this sense, Daesh was a non-state actor with state-like aspirations.

Conclusion From the above review of the emergence of two prominent non-state actors in Syria, we can draw some tentative conclusions. The first and foremost is the fact that the Syrian conflict gave a boost to the rise of non-state militant actors (to the two actors analyzed here, we must add other armed factions, political groupings, and civil society activists whose role has been engulfed by violence) as very prominent elements in Syria, at least during their years of expansion. In the case explored here, both actors played a crucial role in changing the conflict’s demarcation lines while also challenging the often-cited Sykes–Picot borders, even if the actual treaty that established today’s frontiers was that of Sèvres, in 1920. While the Kurdish PYD attempted to create an autonomous state-like region in Syria, the global terrorist threat of Daesh aimed at uniting the Islamic Umma under a single authority, thereby merging various states into the one and only “Islamic State” (in its heyday, it was able to blur the lines between Syria and Iraq). These conflicting projects led us to claim that both non-state actors had abandoned the “non-state” framework and tried, at different levels, to institutionalize their power within the framework of state-like entities. Due to the zero-sum confrontation on the ground, this pair proved to be especially interesting, representing confederalism versus centralism and secularism versus theocracy. This dichotomy also affected the way the world saw the non-state actors analyzed in this chapter: Daesh is undeniably a terrorist organization, but the view of the ­PYD-YPG (main component of the SDF) still held in different leftist circles is romantic, to say the least. Multiple reports by the same international Human Rights

10  BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 

325

organizations that have documented Daesh and Bashar al-Assad’s crimes described similar YPG’s abuses against the Arab population in the areas where they established their power.69 Raqqa is a good example, since the three above-mentioned actors ruled over the city at some point. According to those reports, ethnic cleansing (at different levels) was being carried out in Syria by the main actors with a strong presence in the country: Bashar al-Assad was targeting majoritarian Sunni areas, Daesh was doing the same against religious and ethnic minorities, and the Kurdish YPG militias were attacking Arab areas (and this provoked similarly despicable reactions from other opposition brigades in the Afrin area in early 2018). Therefore, as we stated in the beginning of this chapter, defining Daesh and the PYD as opposition to the Syrian regime is, in many ways, problematic, since they were more concerned with their state-like consolidation projects than with confronting Damascus’ grip on power. As a matter of fact, their direct clashes have been anecdotic, and very few in number, if compared to their clashes with the rest of the armed opposition. This obsession with conquest and domination was exemplified very clearly in the taking over of the city of Raqqa, first by Daesh and later by the YPG. Both groups claimed the city in the first place by changing the official images and flags to those of their leaders, as the first symbols representing their state-like entities. In conclusion, both actors were in some way each other’s raison d’être, since the existence of one somehow reinforced the existence of the other. Permanent collusion seemed to be the best way to preserve their relevance, although their aspirations to wider independence and power consolidation in state-like entities have not been fulfilled. Their role was very much reduced during 2019 and their prominence as non-state actors put at stake. With the gradual retrieval of control over Syria by 69 Fred Abraham and Lama Faki, “Under Kurdish Rule: Abuses in PYD-Run Enclaves in Syria” (Human Rights Watch, 2014), https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/ syria0614_kurds_ForUpload.pdf; “Syria: ‘We Had Nowhere to Go’—Forced Displacement and Demolitions in Northern Syria” (Amnesty International, October 13, 2015), https:// www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde24/2503/2015/en/; International, “Syria: ‘Left to Die under Siege’: War Crimes and Human Rights Abuses in Eastern Ghouta, Syria” (Amnesty International, August 12, 2015), https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ mde24/2079/2015/en/; and International, “Syria: Harrowing Torture, Summary Killings in Secret ISIS Detention Centers,” Amnesty International, December 19, 2013, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/12/syria-harrowing-torture-summarykillings-secret-isis-detention-centres/.

326  N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ

the Assad regime and its allies, it seems that those ambitions will remain unfulfilled. Yet, understanding the conditions that boosted their role in Syria remains interesting as long as the situation in the country remains as it is.

Bibliography Abraham, Fred, and Lama Faki. “Under Kurdish Rule: Abuses in PYD-Run Enclaves in Syria.” Human Rights Watch, 2014. https://www.hrw.org/sites/ default/files/reports/syria0614_kurds_ForUpload.pdf. Al-Naji, Abu Bakr. “Idarat Al-Tawahhush (in Arabic).” Accessed September 6, 2019. https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/20/207DE0C 1094BC68A7061C96629DD5C1A_adara_twahsh.pdf. Al-Qadiyya al-Kurdiyya: Ru’yat Jama’at al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin Fi Suriya (in Arabic). London, 2005. Al-Tamimi, Aymeen. “The Evolution in Islamic State Administration.” Perspectives on Terrorism 9, no. 4 (2015). http://www.terrorismanalysts. com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/447/html. “Charter of the Social Contract. Self-Rule in Rojava,” January 29, 2014. https://peaceinkurdistancampaign.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/english-version_sc_revised-060314.pdf. Clapham, Andrew. “Non-State Actors.” In Post-Conflict Peacebuilding: A Lexicon, edited by Vincent Chetail, 200–212. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Díaz, Naomí Ramírez. “Against All Odds: Defining a Revolutionary Identity in Syria.” In Mediated Identities and New Journalism in the Arab World, edited by Azi Douai and Mohamed Ben Moussa, 83–99. London: Palgrave, 2016. ———. “The Syrian Revolution through the Eyes of the Demonstrators.” Working Paper. Toledo International Center for Peace (CITpax), 2011. Edmonds, Cecil J. “Kurdish Nationalism.” Journal of Contemporary History 6, no. 1 (1971): 87–97 & 99–107. Elphinston, Willian Graham. “The Kurdish Question.” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs) 22, no. 1 (1946): 91–103. https:// doi.org/10.2307/3017874. Ergun, Doruk. “External Actors and VNSAs: An Analysis of the United States, Russia, ISIS, and PYD/YPG.” In Violent Non-State Actors and the Syrian Civil War: The ISIS and YPG Cases, edited by Özden Zeynep Oktav, Emel Parlar Dal, and Ali Murat Kurşun, 149–72. London: Springer International Publishing, 2018. Gurses, Mehmet. “Transnational Ethnic Kin and Civil War Outcomes.” Political Research Quarterly 68, no. 1 (March 2015): 142–53. https://doi. org/10.1177/1065912914554042.

10  BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 

327

Hassan, Dahi. “Syrian Kurds in the Hope to Regain Their Citizenship.” BBC News (Arabic), January 27, 2011. https://www.bbc.com/arabic/middleeast/ 2011/04/110401_syria_kurds. Homsi, Fadel al-. “Hal Yatahaqqaq Al-Hulm al-Kurdi Fi Suria? (in Arabic).” Al-Jumhuriya, February 1, 2017. https://www.aljumhuriya.net/ar/content/ %D9%87%D9%84-%D9%8A%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%82-%D8% A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1% D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8 %A7%D8%9F. International. “Syria: Harrowing Torture, Summary Killings in Secret ISIS Detention Centers.” Amnesty International, December 19, 2013. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/12/syria-harrowingtorture-summary-killings-secret-isis-detention-centres/. ———. “Syria: ‘Left to Die under Siege’: War Crimes and Human Rights Abuses in Eastern Ghouta, Syria.” Amnesty International, August 12, 2015. https:// www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde24/2079/2015/en/. Itani, Fidaa. Al-Jihadiyun Fi Lubnan: Min Quwat al-Fajr Ila Fath al-Islam (in Arabic). Beirut: Dar al-Saqi, 2008. Josselin, Daphné, and William Wallace. “Non-State Actors in World Politics: A Framework.” In Non-State Actors in World Politics, edited by Daphné Josselin and William Wallace, 1–20. New York: Palgrave, 2001. Junaidy, Basel al-. “Qissat ‘Asdiqa Sednaya al-Thalatha’: Aqwa Thalathat Rijal Fi Suriya al-Yawm! (in Arabic).” Al-Jumhuriya, October 16, 2013. https:// www.aljumhuriya.net/ar/19328. Mahmoud, Rostom. “Al-Inqisam Wa Masirat al Taharrur Fi l Wijdan al Kurdi al Mu’asir (in Arabic).” Al-Jumhuriya, January 20, 2016. https://www.aljumhuriya.net/ar/34490. Mazur, Kevin, and Kheder Khaddour. “The Struggle for Syria’s Regions.” Middle East Report, no. 269 (Winter 2013). Mrie, Loubna. “Where Are the Syrians Kidnapped by ISIS?” The Nation, March 9, 2018. https://www.thenation.com/article/where-are-the-syrianskidnapped-by-isis/. Öcalan, Abdullah. Democratic Confederalism. London: Transmedia Publishing Limited, 2011. Oktav, Özden Zeynep, Emel Parlar dal, and Ali Murat Kurşun, eds. Violent ­Non-State Actors and the Syrian Civil War: The ISIS and YPG Cases. London: Springer International Publishing, 2018. Ould Mohamedou, Mohammad-Mahmoud. A Theory of ISIS: Political Violence and the Global Order. London: Pluto Press, 2018. Prieto, Mónica G., and Javier Espinosa. La Semilla Del Odio: De La Invasión de Irak al Surgimiento Del ISIS. Madrid: Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial España, 2017.

328  N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ Ramírez Díaz, Naomí. The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria: The Democratic Option of Islamism. 1. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2018. Ramírez Díaz, Naomí, and Imanol Ortega Expósito. “Relaciones sirio-turcas: la fallida política exterior de Turquía para Oriente Medio.” Revista de historia actual 3, no. 2 (2016): 311–50. Saleh, Yassin Al Haj. Al-thawra al-mustahila: al-thawra, al-harb al-ahliya wa al-harb al-amma fi Suriya (in Arabic). Beirut: Al-mu’assasa al-arabiya li-l-dirasat wa-l-nashr, 2017. Saleh, Yassin al-Haj. “Tabaqat Daesh (in Arabic).” Al-Jumhuriya, February 12, 2016. https://www.aljumhuriya.net/ar/content/%D8%B7%D8%A8%D9%82 %D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4. Sary, Ghadi. “Kurdish Self-Governance in Syria: Survival and Ambition.” Research Paper. London: Chatham House, September 2016. https://www. chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2016-09-15kurdish-self-governance-syria-sary_0.pdf. Stepanova, Ekaterina A. Terrorism in Asymmetric Conflict: Ideological and Structural Aspects. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. “Syria: ‘We Had Nowhere to Go’—Forced Displacement and Demolitions in Northern Syria.” Amnesty International, October 13, 2015. https://www. amnesty.org/en/documents/mde24/2503/2015/en/. Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Mithaq Watani Li-Mu’ajahat Taqsim Suriya. Istanbul, 2017. “Syria’s Kurds: A Struggle within a Struggle.” Middle East & North Africa. Brussels: International crisis group, January 22, 2013. https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/syrias-kurds-a-struggle-within-a-struggle.pdf. “The Financing of the ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).” In-Depth Analysis. European Parliament, September 2017. http://www.europarl. europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/603835/EXPO_IDA(2017) 603835_EN.pdf. Ünver, Akın. “Contested Geographies: How ISIS and YPG Rule ‘No-Go’ Areas in Northern Syria.” In Violent Non-State Actors and the Syrian Civil War: The ISIS and YPG Cases, edited by Özden Zeynep Oktav, Emel Parlar Dal, and Ali Murat Kurşun, 35–51. London: Springer International Publishing, 2018. Walt, Stephen M. “ISIS as Revolutionary State: New Twist on an Old Story.” Foreign Affairs, December 2015, 42–51. Weiss, Michael, and Hassan Hassan. ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror. London: Regan Arts, 2015.

PART III

External Actors and Ecological Factors in the Regional System

CHAPTER 11

Domestic and External Factors in the Syrian Conflict: Toward a Multi-causal Explanation Efe Can Gürcan

Introduction The ongoing Syrian conflict since 2011 has triggered one of the worst humanitarian emergencies and the largest refugee crisis in the post-World War II era. The severity of this situation prompts observers to think about the underlying causes that have led to such a wide-scale ­conflict. From an International Relations (IR) perspective, one could grant primacy to regional and international factors associated with the role of geopolitics, proxy war, and foreign intervention. There is little doubt that these factors have greatly contributed to the regionalization and internationalization of Syrian conflict. Nevertheless, one point remains to be clarified: what are some of the major domestic factors that have rendered Syria vulnerable to these influences in the first place? With this question in mind, the present

E. C. Gürcan (*)  Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_11

331

332  E. C. GÜRCAN

chapter employs a multi-dimensional approach that combines the traditional IR approach with political economy and political ecology. By the traditional IR approach, I refer to the study of geopolitical factors leading to Syria’s ongoing conflict. Sunni sectarianism, Iranian activism, and Kurdish autonomism are among the most pronounced geocultural factors that have shaped the Syrian conflict, whereas geopolitical factors are perhaps most clearly identified with energy security, military alliances, and the foreign-policy imperatives of key countries involved in the region.1 In turn, what I call the domestic factors concern Syria’s politicoeconomic and politicoecological transitions since the 1970s. Particularly, they are related to the exhaustion of this country’s resource-based, or extractivist, development model and to neoliberal restructuring and environmental deregulation, all of which have converged to generate deep-rooted socioeconomic tensions, thereby paving the way for the Syrian conflict.2 The main methodological guideline used for the present chapter is process tracing. This method heavily relies on logical reasoning and evidence gathering. In process tracing, therefore, the research process is structured just as in detective work, which consists of piecing the clues together based on historically important landmarks or critical junctures, as well as the involved actors’ means, motives, preferences, perceptions, and opportunities to have committed the homicide in question.3 For example, critical junctures that have marked the historical development of Syria’s politicoecological crisis include the 1970 military coup that enabled the ascendancy of Hafez al-Assad’s moderate Ba’athism. The same goes for

1 Efe Can Gürcan, “Political Geography of Turkey’s Intervention in Syria: Underlying Causes and Consequences (2011–2016),” Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 11, no. 1 (2018): 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-10-2017-0329. 2 Efe Can Gürcan, “Extractivism, Neoliberalism, and the Environment: Revisiting the Syrian Conflict from an Ecological Justice Perspective,” Capitalism Nature Socialism 30, no. 3 (2018): 91–109, https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2018.1516794. 3 Andrew Bennett, “Process Tracing and Causal Inference,” in Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standard, ed. Henry E. Brady and David Collier, 2nd ed. (Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2010), 207–19; Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005); Pascal Vennesson, “Case Studies and Process Tracing: Theories and Practices,” in Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, ed. Della Porta Donatella and Michael Keating (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 223–39; and David Collier, “Understanding Process Tracing,” PS: Political Science and Politics 44, no. 4 (2011): 823–30, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429.

11  DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 

333

the nationalization of the petroleum sector in 1964 and the completion of the pipeline construction in 1968, which laid the foundations of Syrian extractivism. Another critical juncture is the initiation of economic liberalization in 1986, its acceleration in 2006, and the amplification of its negative impact with the m ­ ulti-season drought in the period 2006–2011. Likewise, Israel’s military interventionism in Syria and rivalry with Iran— along with its interests in the Golan Heights and the Levant basin—can be used to illustrate how process tracing would assess the involved actors’ means, motives, preferences, perceptions, and opportunities. Accordingly, this chapter is organized into two sections that address the major domestic and external factors in the emergence and spread of the Syrian conflict from 2011 to 2016, i.e., prior to Turkey’s strategic U-turn from uncompromising enmity toward Russia and Iran, symbolized in the 2016 Russian/Iranian/Turkish backed ceasefire.

Internal Factors: Extractivism, Neoliberalism, and the Environment What are the domestic factors that have played a major role in ­rendering Syria vulnerable to foreign intervention? My overall argument is that the failure of Syria’s Baathist development project constitutes an important root cause for Syria’s tragic destabilization, since it has created a favorable environment for foreign intervention and the exploitation of ethnoreligious differences by foreign powers.4 The development model pursued by contemporary Syria can be traced back to the 1970s, following the military coup that brought Hafez al-Assad to power. The Hafez al-Assad regime represented a moderate form of Ba’athism, which consists of a secularly oriented and socialistic form of Arab nationalism in Syria.5 While the emphasis on nationalization and agricultural reform was retained, the economic model of moderate Ba’athism developed a claim to a pluralistic economy based on partnership between the public and private sector. 4 Gürcan,

“Extractivism, Neoliberalism, and the Environment.” Richard Norton and Deanna J. Lampros-Norton, “Militant Protest and Political Violence under the Banner of Islam,” Armed Forces & Society 9, no. 1 (1982): 18, https:// doi.org/10.1177/0095327X8200900101; Alex J. Bellamy, Security Communities and Their Neighbours: Regional Fortresses or Global Integrators? (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 122. 5 Augustus

334  E. C. GÜRCAN

Hafez al-Assad’s Baathism failed in its attempt to create a competent industrial sector, mostly due to the hindrance of an excessive ­ reliance on oil revenues and other energy resources. This reliance was fueled by the oil price boom, especially in the 1970s. Instead of building and promoting a competent and diversified industrial sector, Syrian Baathism opted for an extractivist model and turned into an oil exporter regime following the nationalization of the petroleum sector in 1964 and the subsequent completion of the pipeline construction in 1968, which connected oil production of the Northeast region to the port of Tartous. Although Syria’s oil reserves were minor in comparison with other oil giants in the Arab world, the Baathist socialistic project was heavily financed by oil revenues. The excessive emphasis on the oil sector—and the increasing relevance of the natural gas sector since the 1980s—had hindered the development of a competent and diversified industrial sector. Consequently, much of the non-energy sector was only represented by the food production and processing sector.6 In 1998 alone, the oil and mineral sector contributed almost 70% of Syrian exports.7 According to the World Bank,8 oil rents accounted for over 20% of Syria’s GDP (gross domestic product) in 2004. Not surprisingly, therefore, Syria was among the countries with the highest rates of energy and agriculture subsidies in the Gulf Region and the Broader Middle East by 2000.9 Eventually, the depletion of Syrian oil reserves in the 1990s revealed the poor sustainability of this extractivist model. According to the US Energy Information Administration, Syria’s annual unrefined oil production declined from 582,000 barrels per day in 1996 to 368,000 barrels per day in 2009.10 Notably, Syria’s oil production has

6 Thomas Collelo, Syria: A Country Study (Washington: GPO, 1987); Shamel Azmeh, “Syria’s Passage to Conflict: The End of the ‘Developmental Rentier Fix’ and the Consolidation of New Elite Rule,” Politics & Society 44, no. 4 (2016): 499–523, https:// doi.org/10.1177/0032329216674002. 7 Azmeh, “Syria’s Passage to Conflict.” 8 “World Bank Open Data,” 2016, https://data.worldbank.org. 9 Azmeh, “Syria’s Passage to Conflict.” 10 “International Energy Statistics,” EIA beta, accessed September 8, 2019, https:// www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?c=4100000002000060000000 000000g000200000000000000001&vs=INTL.44-1-AFRC-QBTU.A&vo=0&v= H&end=2015.

11  DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 

335

also shown a considerable decline since the outbreak of the Arab Spring first movement, from 383,000 barrels in 2010 to 340,000 in 2011 and 23,000 in 2014. In the wake of the civil war in Syria, the Assad regime has been unable to generate sufficient oil revenue to ensure economic and political stability.11 Besides extractivism, another development that has marked the course of Syrian development is liberalization. Started in 1986, the early phase of liberalization (ta’addudiyya, or economic pluralism) had already eliminated certain subsidies, facilitated private investments, and allowed for a gradual liberalization of prices, trade, and foreign exchange. The new investment laws adopted in the 1990s were aimed at encouraging the private sector, including rewards such as tax holidays. This process gained momentum when Bashar al-Assad took power in 2000 with a promise of economic and political reform. The objective of building a social market economy was introduced at the Baath Party’s 10th Regional Congress in 2005. Syria then focused its efforts on attracting foreign direct investment (FDI), which mostly originated from Arab countries interested in speculative and non-productive sectors such as real estate, finance, and tourism, to the detriment of the productive sector and infrastructure investments. As part of the Five-Year Plan (2006–2010), Syria eliminated the state monopoly on imports; liberalized prices (including those for diesel, gas, gasoline, and electricity), deregulated the real estate market, licensed private banks, instituted the stock exchange, and consolidated the regulations in favor of the protection of private property.12 It is possible to argue that agriculture was hit the hardest by this economic restructuring, through the liberalization of agricultural prices and the elimination of subsidies on energy and agricultural inputs. In fact, the abolition of state farms had already begun in June 2000.13 Under the FiveYear Plan, the price of diesel increased by almost 280% with the cancellation of the subsidy on diesel in May 2008. Although the abolition of subsidies on diesel and fertilizers was beneficial for the environment, the failure of 11 “International

Energy Statistics.” S. Dahi and Yasser Munif, “Revolts in Syria: Tracking the Convergence between Authoritarianism and Neoliberalism,” Journal of Asian and African Studies 47, no. 4 (2012): 323–32, https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909611431682. 13 Myriam Ababsa, “Crise Agraire, Crise Foncière et Sécheresse En Syrie (2000–2011),” Maghreb—Machrek 1, no. 215 (2013): 101–22, https://doi.org/10.3917/machr.215.0101. 12 Omar

336  E. C. GÜRCAN

the regime to propose alternative policies that could alleviate agricultural producers’ hardships aggravated the politicoecological crisis by undermining producers’ access to agricultural inputs at favorable prices. Syria’s crisis eventually led to a rural exodus and massive migration to urban areas. In view of these developments, it is not surprising to observe that the first protests against the regime were triggered in Daraa, a city in the south of the country, known as an agricultural center and a strategic support base for the Syrian regime. Protests against the bankruptcy of new economic policies and corruption later spread to other rural centers like Homs, Idleb, and rural areas in Aleppo and Damascus.14 A cautionary note, however, is warranted. One should note that uprisings were also facilitated by the geographical features of these areas, which logistically facilitate foreign intervention out of the regime’s direct reach. For example, Daraa is a border town next to Jordan, a country known for its affiliation to the conservative–moderate (KSA/UAE-led) bloc and its pro-Western foreign policy. This may have allowed for the geographical access of ­anti-Assad foreign elements to Syria. In the final analysis, Daraa’s contribution to the emergence and spread of the Syrian conflict cannot be explained by a unicausal model that does not also consider how this town’s politicoeconomic grievances and geographical features combined to trigger the conflict. The destabilizing effects of extractivist and neoliberal policies have been amplified by major supra-seasonal droughts that are partly attributed to climate change. The cost of these droughts is beyond measure, considering that more than 46% of Syria’s population lived in rural areas and 15% of the workforce was employed in agriculture before the outbreak of the Syrian conflict.15 The 2006–2011 period was one of multi-season drought—the worst droughts in Syria’s modern history— and led to countless instances of crop and livestock devastation and the dislocation of Syrians.16 Of particular relevance in this regard is that 14 Azmeh, “Syria’s Passage to Conflict”; Francesca De Châtel, “The Role of Drought and Climate Change in the Syrian Uprising: Untangling the Triggers of the Revolution,” Middle Eastern Studies 50, no. 4 (2014): 521–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206. 2013.850076. 15 Nazih Richani, “The Political Economy and Complex Interdependency of the War System in Syria,” Civil Wars 18, no. 1 (2016): 45–68, https://doi.org/10.1080/136982 49.2016.1144495. 16 Peter H. Gleick, “Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria,” Weather, Climate, and Society 6, no. 1 (July 2014): 331–40, https://doi.org/10.1175/ WCAS-D-13-00059.1.

11  DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 

337

the most vulnerable areas—including the war-torn northeast Syria— are estimated to have lost three-quarters of their crops in the period 2006–2010. Herders’ livestock losses in northeast Syria were recorded as 85%.17 Overall, it is estimated that the drought—combined with policy failures and other related factors—had affected 60% of Syria’s agricultural land and killed 85% of livestock in the 2004–2008 period alone.18 According to UN estimates, by the end of 2011, two to three million people had been affected by drought, resulting in at least one million people falling into food insecurity and more than 1.5 million people being dislocated to urban areas.19 The northern and eastern regions have had to bear the largest share of the negative effects of droughts, the mismanagement of environmental problems, and their culmination in a deep politicoecological crisis. Worthy of emphasis here is that these regions constitute the center of the current military conflicts. Importantly, more than half of the population of the northeast depends on agriculture for livelihood. In fact, this area constitutes Syria’s agricultural powerhouse, which contributed 80% of the country’s cotton production and about 50–60% of the wheat production prior to the conflict.20 Although these regions provide strategic oil reserves for the Syrian economy, 58.1% of the national population living in poverty (according to 2004 data) is nonetheless concentrated in these regions. This part of the population is also characterized by low levels of health care and a high rate of illiteracy. Yet, the government seriously ignored the outbreak of this politicoecological crisis until the end of 2009 and that public media provided limited coverage on the progression of this crisis. What is even more serious perhaps is that migrants flooding into the southern urban areas received no significant public support. Instead, the

17 Christiane J. Fröhlich, “Climate Migrants as Protestors? Dispelling Misconceptions about Global Environmental Change in Pre-Revolutionary Syria,” Contemporary Levant 1, no. 1 (2016): 38–50, https://doi.org/10.1080/20581831.2016.1149355. 18 Richani, “The Political Economy and Complex Interdependency of the War System in Syria.” 19 Gleick, “Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria.” 20 Fabrice Balanche, “La Modernisation Des Systèmes d’irrigation Dans Le Nord-Est Syrien: La Bureaucratie Au Coeur de La Relation Eau et Pouvoir,” Méditerrané 8, no. 119 (2012): 59–72.

338  E. C. GÜRCAN

regime merely provided them with minor funding, food aid, and transportation assistance so that they could return to their regions.21 The Syrian crisis is also reflected in the Baathist regime’s unsuccessful planning and policy efforts, which find their sharpest expression in the overexploitation of underground water resources and environmental deregulation. In other words, Syria’s politicoecological crisis “is far from a ‘natural’ characteristic of the country’s limited resources and growing population,” since much of the problem “is attributable to the government’s promotion of the irrigated agriculture sector.” 22 As such, it is acknowledged that agricultural subsidies were directed toward industrial crops, such as cotton and wheat, which require extensive amounts of water.23 Moreover, the regime failed to carry out the modernization of its irrigation infrastructure with the aim of reducing water consumption and making agricultural production more efficient; this was attempted in 2005 but remained as a failed attempt.24 This is further evidenced in that 90% of water resources in the Muslim–Arab world, including Syria, is devoted to agriculture, while the world average is only 70%.25 Meanwhile, available estimates on Syria indicate that 50% of its irrigation depends on groundwater systems and that 78% of 21 De

Châtel, “The Role of Drought and Climate Change in the Syrian Uprising,” 525. Barnes, “Managing the Waters of Ba‘th Country: The Politics of Water Scarcity in Syria,” Geopolitics 14, no. 3 (2009): 515, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14650040802694117. 23 Eran Feitelson and Amit Tubi, “A Main Driver or an Intermediate Variable? Climate Change, Water and Security in the Middle East,” Global Environmental Change 44, no. 1 (May 2017): 39–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.001; David P. Forsythe, “Water and Politics in the Tigris–Euphrates Basin: Hope for Negative Learning?” in Water Security in the Middle East: Essays in Scientific and Social Cooperation, ed. Jean Axelrad Cahan (London: Anthem Press, 2017), 167–84, 978-1783085668; Gleick, “Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria”; and M. Salman and Wael Mualla, “The Utilization of Water Resources for Agriculture in Syria: Analysis of Current Situation and Future Challenges,” in International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, 30th Session (Fourth Centenary of the Foundation of the First Academy of Sciences: “Academia Lynceorum” by Federico Cesi and Pope Clemente VIII, Erice, Italy: World Scientific, 2004), 263–74, https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812702753_0031. 24 Fabrice Balanche, “Géographie de La Révolte Syrienne,” Outre-Terre 3, no. 29 (2011): 437–58. 25 Michel Gueldry, “Changement Climatique et Sécurité Agroalimentaire Dans Le Monde Arabe,” Politique Étrangère 3, no. 1 (2013): 161–74, https://doi.org/10.3917/ pe.133.0161. 22 Jessica

11  DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 

339

groundwater extraction is carried out in an unsustainable way, resulting in the over-pumping of water by wells.26 To finish with this section, it would be difficult to overemphasize the importance of politicoeconomic and politicoecological factors in the Syrian conflict. The evidence shows that one of the most important causes of the Syrian tragedy relates to the outbreak of a politicoecological crisis whose origins are to be found in the long-term consequences of Syria’s (a) oil-centered extractivist model of development adopted since the 1970s and its legacy reflected in the government’s failure to generate adequate livelihood; (b) neoliberal restructuring that has widened inequalities and bankrupted agriculture since 2000; and (c) e­ nvironment-blind policies that have neglected the severity of droughts, encouraged cultivation of water-intensive crops and the over-exploitation of water resources, and failed to address the modernization of the irrigation infrastructure. Chapter 13 in this book delivers further insights into the role of water shortage and management in the Syrian and Yemeni civil wars.

External Factors: Geopolitics and Ethnoreligious Conflict The arguments highlighting the role of ethnoreligious politics, geopolitics, and foreign intervention in the Syrian conflict are perhaps better known than Syria’s political ecology and political economy.27 First of all, the fragmented state of Syria’s ethnoreligious configuration is beyond question: 12% of the Syrian population belongs to the Alawi community, of which President Bashar al-Assad is a member; 64% of the population is part of the Sunni Arab community, while Christians, Kurds, and Druze represent 9, 10, and 3% of the Syrian population, respectively.28 Indeed, it is possible to attribute the fragmented state of Syria’s ethnoreligious politics to the legacy of Ottoman and French colonialism.29 Yet, the contemporary resurgence 26 Ababsa, “Crise Agraire, Crise Foncière et Sécheresse En Syrie (2000–2011)”; Gleick, “Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria.” 27 Gürcan, “Political Geography of Turkey’s Intervention in Syria.” 28 Christopher Phillips, “Sectarianism and Conflict in Syria,” Third World Quarterly 36, no. 2 (2015): 357–76, https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1015788. 29 Benjamin White, “The Nation-State Form and the Emergence of ‘Minorities’ in Syria,” Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 7, no. 1 (2007): 64–85, https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1754-9469.2007.tb00108.x; Omar Al-Ghazzi, “Syria,” in The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism, ed. John Stone et al. (Oxford, NJ: WileyBlackwell, 2016), 1–4.

340  E. C. GÜRCAN

of sectarian and ethnopolitical conflicts is due in large measure to US military intervention in Iraq, whereby Kurdish activists, among other groups, in addition to terrorists, gained ground in the entire region.30 Moreover, the influence of domestic factors on sectarianism also cannot be neglected. Sectarianism has fed on the extension of the Alawite presence and the control of Assad’s family members within the regime, despite the regime’s mobilization of significant support from Sunni merchants and the intermarriage of certain members of Assad’s family—including Bashar al-Assad himself—with members of Sunni families. Eventually, the Sunni resentment of the expansion of Alawite political elites has rendered the authoritarianism and corruption of the regime an aggravating factor for sectarianism.31 The implications of regional interventions for ethnoreligious conflicts are of an utmost importance for the diffusion of the Syrian conflict. For example, donations offered by foreign individuals and funding of the Arab Gulf states (see Chapter 7) to various Islamist factions have also played a crucial role in the emergence and spread of the Syrian conflict. These actors have mainly aimed at extending the regional Sunni hegemony and proactively opposed Iran’s increased activism in Syria and elsewhere.32 Rough calculations point to a spending of about $3 billion by Qatar in the 2012–2013 period and over $10 billion by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in the 2013–2015 period alone.33 Similar to the Arab Gulf states, Turkey has been contributing to the Syrian conflict by supporting Sunni sectarianism in order to motivate the pro-Turkish Sunni and jihadist opposition in Syria, with the aim of expanding Turkey’s sphere of influence (see Chapter 5).34 Turkey’s intervention in Syria has been extremely important in the course of the Syrian conflict until 2016.35 Its Syrian intervention entails a mix of

30 Phillips,

“Sectarianism and Conflict in Syria.” “Syria’s Passage to Conflict”; Phillips, “Sectarianism and Conflict in Syria.” 32 Hadi H. Jaafar and Eckart Woertz, “Agriculture as a Funding Source of ISIS: A GIS and Remote Sensing Analysis,” Food Policy 64, no. 1 (October 2016): 14–25, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.002; Richani, “The Political Economy and Complex Interdependency of the War System in Syria.” 33 Richani, “The Political Economy and Complex Interdependency of the War System in Syria,” 13. 34 Gürcan, “Political Geography of Turkey’s Intervention in Syria.” 35 Gürcan. 31 Azmeh,

11  DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 

341

direct and indirect methods, that is, c­ross-border military and intelligence operations, as well as cooperation with T ­ urkey-aligned opposition groups and jihadists in Syria. Following the outbreak of the Arab Spring and its hijacking by Islamist movements and global great powers’ military interventions, Turkey’s active foreign policy took on a more militarized form. Indeed, Turkey’s militaristic expansionism was also facilitated by other factors, such as the Kurdish awakening, the rise of the so-called Islamic State (IS), and the anti-government civil unrest that erupted on May 28, 2013.36 Besides geostrategic engagements, Turkey’s intervention was also driven by its energy ambitions. Due to excessive dependency on gas from Russia and Iran, Turkey aspires to diversify its energy sources and eventually become an energy hub that connects Eastern energy to Europe. However, Ankara regards Syria as a great rival that shares the same aspiration of becoming a regional energy hub.37

36 Bülent Aras, “Davutoğlu Era in Turkish Foreign Policy Revisited,” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 16, no. 4 (2014): 404–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2014. 938451; Bilgin Ayata, “Turkish Foreign Policy in a Changing Arab World: Rise and Fall of a Regional Actor?” Journal of European Integration 37, no. 1 (2014): 95–112, https://doi. org/10.1080/07036337.2014.975991; Efe Can Gürcan and Efe Peker, “A Class Analytic Approach to the Gezi Park Events: Challenging the ‘Middle Class’ Myth,” Capital & Class 39, no. 2 (June 2015): 321–43, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816815584015; Efe Can Gürcan and Efe Peker, “Turkey’s Gezi Park Demonstrations of Summer 2013: A Marxian Analysis of the Political Moment,” Socialism & Democracy 28, no. 1 (2014): 70–89, https://doi.org/1 0.1080/08854300.2013.869872; Efe Can Gürcan and Efe Peker, Challenging Neoliberalism at Turkey’s Gezi Park: From Private Discontent to Collective Class Action (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015); M. Sheharyar Khan, “The Transformation of Turkish Foreign Policy towards the Middle East,” Policy Perspectives 12, no. 1 (2015): 31–50, https://doi. org/10.13169/polipers.12.1.0031; Binnur Ozkececi-Taner, “Disintegration of the ‘Strategic Depth’ Doctrine and Turkey’s Troubles in the Middle East,” Contemporary Islam 11, no. 2 (July 2017): 201–14, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11562-017-0387-5; Ömer Taşpınar, “Turkey’s Strategic Vision and Syria,” The Washington Quarterly 35, no. 3 (2012): 127–40, https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2012.706519; and Mustafa Türkeş, “Decomposing Neo-Ottoman Hegemony,” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 18, no. 3 (2016): 191–216, https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2016.1176388. 37 Igor Delanoë, “The Syrian Crisis: A Challenge to the Black Sea Stability,” Policy Brief (Istanbul: Center for International and European Studies, Kadir Has University, February 2014), https://www.khas.edu.tr/cms/cies/dosyalar/files/CIESPolicyBrief02.pdf; Gareth M. Winrow, “The Anatomy of a Possible Pipeline: The Case of Turkey and Leviathan and Gas Politics in the Eastern Mediterranean,” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 18, no. 5 (2016): 431–47, https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2016.1196012.

342  E. C. GÜRCAN

Finally, Turkey’s Sunni sectarianism goes hand in hand with its Kurdish ethnopolitics. Turkey supported Sunni Kurds against the growing influence of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), which is accused by Turkey of being affiliated with the outlawed and T ­ urkey-based Kurdistan Worker Party (PKK).38 Turkish authorities fear that this situation could also further undermine Turkey’s hegemony in the Iraqi Kurdistan in the PKK’s favor and destabilize domestic politics in Turkey.39 The role of broader geopolitical factors in the transformation of the Syrian conflict into a proxy war also cannot be ignored.40 For example, Syria’s strategic position on energy routes and the discovery of abundant natural gas reserves in the eastern Mediterranean in 2010 have attracted regional players, such as Israel, Turkey, and Qatar, which have their own energy projects and counter Iran’s regional influence.41 The discovery 38 Michael M. Gunter, “The Kurdish Spring,” Third World Quarterly 34, no. 3 (2013): 451–53, https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.785339; “The Rising Costs of Turkey’s Syrian Quagmire,” Europe & Central Asia (International Crisis Group, 2014), 37, https://www.crisisgroup.org/file/1151/download?token=HV5pDXAW; “Turkey and Iran: Bitter Friends, Bosom Rivals,” Middle East & North Africa (International Crisis Group, December 13, 2016), 5, https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/ gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/iran/b051-turkey-and-iran-bitter-friends-bosom-rivals. 39 Emel Parlar Dal, “Impact of the Transnationalization of the Syrian Civil War on Turkey: Conflict Spillover Cases of Isis and Pyd-Ypg/Pkk,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29, no. 4 (2016): 1396–420, https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2016.1256 948; Gunter, “The Kurdish Spring”; Gallia Lindenstrauss and Oded Eran, “The Kurdish Awakening and the Implications for Israel,” Strategic Assessment 17, no. 1 (April 2014): 83–93; Alireza Nader et al., “Regional Implications of an Independent Kurdistan” (Rand Corporation—National Defense Research Institute, 2016), https://www.rand.org/ content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1400/RR1452/RAND_RR1452.pdf; Spyridon Plakoudas, “The Syrian Kurds and the Democratic Union Party: The Outsider in the Syrian War,” Mediterranean Quarterly 28, no. 1 (2017): 99–116, https://doi. org/10.1215/10474552-3882819; and Rod Thornton, “Problems with the Kurds as Proxies against Islamic State: Insights from the Siege of Kobane,” Small Wars & Insurgencies 26, no. 6 (2015): 865–85, https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2015.1095844. 40 Gürcan, “Political Geography of Turkey’s Intervention in Syria”; Gerardo Otero and Efe Can Gürcan, “The Arab Spring and the Syrian Refugee Crisis,” Monitor, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives 22, no. 5 (February 2016): 16–17. 41 Delanoë, “The Syrian Crisis: A Challenge to the Black Sea Stability”; F. William Engdahl, “The New Mediterranean Oil and Gas Bonanza (Part II: Rising Energy Tensions in the Aegean—Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Syria),” Global Research: Centre for Research on Globalization, January 27, 2013, https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-new-mediterranean-oil-and-gas-bonanza/29609; Pinar Ipek, “Oil and Intra-State Conflict in Iraq and Syria:

11  DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 

343

of large conventional gas reserves takes on a greater relevance to Syria’s strategic position as a center of attention in geopolitical conflict in light of the global integration of natural gas markets and a 25% increase in global gas consumption in the last decade, which seems to support the idea of a “Golden Age of Gas.”42 As part of Turkey’s energy aspirations, the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline was initiated in March 2015. Its successful construction would open up a gas corridor from Azerbaijan through Georgia and Turkey to Europe.43 This project, however, was interfered by the Iran– Iraq–Syria pipeline project.44 Interestingly enough, the Iran–Iraq–Syria pipeline project was accepted in 2010 and formally announced in 2011, right before the onset of the Syrian conflict.45 This project presented a direct competition to the Qatar–Turkey pipeline project. The Qatar– Turkey project was to connect Qatar’s natural gas to Turkey via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria. Syria rejected this project in 2009 to protect the interests of Russia, Syria’s main economic partner. As such, Syria’s rejection is likely one of the main reasons for Qatar’s active involvement in the Syrian conflict.46 Qatar does not conceal its ambition to become the world’s leading liquefied natural gas exporter.47 In other words, regional players’ intervention seeks to prevent Syria from engaging in energy cooperation with Iran and Russia and claiming the abundant energy resources in the Levantine basin. Regional

Sub-State Actors and Challenges for Turkey’s Energy Security,” Middle Eastern Studies 53, no. 3 (2017): 406–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2016.1265511; and Winrow, “The Anatomy of a Possible Pipeline,” 431–47. 42 Gavin Bridge and Michael Bradshaw, “Making a Global Gas Market: Territoriality and Production Networks in Liquefied Natural Gas,” Economic Geography 93, no. 3 (2017): 2–3, https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2017.1283212. 43 Sami Nader, “Natural Gas Resources May Be Backstory in Syria War,” Center for Geopolitical Analysis, October 11, 2013, http://icmu.nyc.gr/%20Natural-Gas-ResourcesMay-Be-Backstory-in-Syria-War. 44 Delanoë, “The Syrian Crisis: A Challenge to the Black Sea Stability.” 45 Nafeez Ahmed, “Syria Intervention Plan Fueled by Oil Interests, Not Chemical Weapon Concern,” The Guardian, August 30, 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ear th-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-warintervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines. 46 Nader, “Natural Gas Resources May Be Backstory in Syria War.” 47 Engdahl, “The New Mediterranean Oil and Gas Bonanza. Part II.”

344  E. C. GÜRCAN

players most likely resort to destabilization attempts in the case of failed deterrence. No less important regarding geopolitics is that Western powers had long been resentful of Syria’s foreign policy commitments and alliances. Syria had opposed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Prior to the invasion, Syria had defied US sanctions by receiving Iraqi oil, facilitated sales of arms to Iraq, and allowed the movement of thousands of Arab resistance fighters across the Iraqi border. After the invasion, certain fleeing Iraqi officials took refuge in Syria.48 These moves likely reflected Syria’s stance for the “Arab nationalist identity rather than a pure calculus of interest,” which displeased the United States and Europe by making Syria look like “the last remaining voice of Arab nationalism.”49 Furthermore, the US invasion of Iraq also consolidated Syria’s partnership with Iran against the United States.50 For Iran, whose participation has been crucial in the course of the Syrian conflict, sustained cooperation with the Assad regime offers guaranteed access to Lebanon and the rest of the Middle East, along with an opportunity to expand its regional Shiite influence and constrain Israel’s regional power.51 Iran’s presence in Syria is also related to its concerns about Assad’s possible departure, which could result in a Sunni government and, concomitantly, Iran’s regional isolation.52 Indeed, Hezbollah—which has been present since the very beginning of the Syrian conflict and associated with Iran’s proxy war—would greatly suffer from these outcomes. Finally, Syria is still home to the Russian naval facility in Tartous, which provides Russia’s sole access to the Mediterranean for commercial and military purposes.53 48 Raymond Hinnebusch, “Syrian Foreign Policy under Bashar Al-Asad,” Ortadoğu Etütleri 1, no. 1 (July 2009): 7–26. 49 Hinnebusch, 18–19. 50 Hinnebusch, 18–19. 51 Türkeş, “Decomposing Neo-Ottoman Hegemony”; Ziya Öniş, “Turkey and the Arab Revolutions: Boundaries of Regional Power Influence in a Turbulent Middle East,” Mediterranean Politics 19, no. 2 (2014): 203–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2 013.868392. 52 Barak Barfi, “The Real Reason Why Iran Backs Syria,” The National Interest, January 24, 2016, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-real-reason-why-iran-backs-syria-14999. 53 Sean Gordon, “Russian Resolve: Why Syria Matters to Putin,” The Globe and Mail, April 8, 2017, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/russian-resolve-why-syriamatters-to-putin/article34643406/.

11  DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 

345

Syria’s isolation from the West—as a key factor that has indirectly fueled the Syrian conflict in 2011—was not merely rooted in the Iraqi question, the Iran–Syrian alliance, and Russia’s involvement. In Syria’s eyes, Lebanon is seen as a natural sphere of influence that is crucial to Syria’s national security. It was known that Syrian opposition elements took refuge in Lebanon. Moreover, due to its geographical location, the Syrian regime cannot afford Lebanon to become an Israeli or Western outpost that could also constrain the reach of Arab nationalism. The Lebanon-based Shiite Hezbollah is of strategic importance for Syria in its efforts to constrain Israel’s regional power and consolidate its alliances with Iran. Moreover, the West was also troubled with the Syrian intervention in Lebanon in 2005, which resulted in sanctions being placed on Syria. Furthermore, Syria was blamed for the assassination of Lebanese ex-Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri, who was an important ally of the Saudi Arabia regime.54 Israel’s involvement in Syria is also worth addressing. Not only is Syria a strategic gate for Iran, which seeks regional hegemony as Israel’s archenemy, but Israel is also interested in dominating the gas and oil resources in the Golan Heights and the Levantine basin by undermining Syria’s national security.55

Conclusion The Syrian case is illustrative of how extractivist development strategies could inhibit industrialization and generate over-dependency on external markets. Certainly, neoliberal restructuring has done nothing but exacerbate these outcomes by harming Syria’s social fabric and intensifying the already-existing socioeconomic tensions. Furthermore, Syria’s mismanagement of environmental problems demonstrates that the environment is more than a mere development issue and that it also constitutes a national security issue. In the future, the case of Syria is hoped to encourage multidisciplinary research on the politicoeconomic and politicoecological foundations of national security. As far as the external factors of the Syrian conflict are concerned, the evidence suggests that the transformation of ethnoreligious tensions into 54 Phillips,

“Sectarianism and Conflict in Syria.” Murat Ağdemir, “Israel and the Gas Resources of the Levant Basin,” Ortadoğu Etütleri 6, no. 2 (2015): 136–54. 55 A.

346  E. C. GÜRCAN

a proxy war is strongly mediated by the regional policy imperatives of key countries involved in the Syrian conflict. Particularly, geopolitical factors—including energy security, military alliances, and foreign-policy commitments—seem to have served as strong incentives for the Syrian conflict. The centrality of geopolitical and geo-cultural factors in shaping the Syrian conflict calls attention to the region’s need for constituting strong regional cooperation mechanisms, which would prioritize key issues such as foreign interventionism, national sovereignty, military cooperation, and energy security. Eurasia and Latin America’s experience of regionalism—e.g., the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Collective Security Treaty Organization, Union of South American Nations, Bolivarian Alliance for Our America—could provide crucial hints in constraining the Western military aggression, while establishing stable institutionalized channels of political, economic, military, and cultural cooperation between Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Russia, among others. Considering the entire picture, the research agenda ahead is to explore how the new configuration of political geography—characterized by the unexpected resilience of the Syrian regime, the advance of Russia and Iran in Syria, and the current alienation of Turkey from the Western alliance—will affect the course of regional distribution of power.

Bibliography Ababsa, Myriam. “Crise Agraire, Crise Foncière et Sécheresse En Syrie (2000– 2011).” Maghreb—Machrek 1, no. 215 (2013): 101–22. https://doi.org/10. 3917/machr.215.0101. Ağdemir, A. Murat. “Israel and the Gas Resources of the Levant Basin.” Ortadoğu Etütleri 6, no. 2 (2015): 136–54. Ahmed, Nafeez. “Syria Intervention Plan Fueled by Oil Interests, Not Chemical Weapon Concern.” The Guardian, August 30, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemicalattack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines. Al-Ghazzi, Omar. “Syria.” In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism, edited by John Stone, Dennis M. Rutledge, Anthony D. Smith, Polly S. Rizova, and Xiaoshuo Hou, 1–4. Oxford, NJ: W ­ iley-Blackwell, 2016. Aras, Bülent. “Davutoğlu Era in Turkish Foreign Policy Revisited.” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 16, no. 4 (2014): 404–18. https://doi.org /10.1080/19448953.2014.938451.

11  DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 

347

Ayata, Bilgin. “Turkish Foreign Policy in a Changing Arab World: Rise and Fall of a Regional Actor?” Journal of European Integration 37, no. 1 (2014): 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2014.975991. Azmeh, Shamel. “Syria’s Passage to Conflict: The End of the ‘Developmental Rentier Fix’ and the Consolidation of New Elite Rule.” Politics & Society 44, no. 4 (2016): 499–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329216674002. Balanche, Fabrice. “Géographie de La Révolte Syrienne.” Outre-Terre 3, no. 29 (2011): 437–58. ———. “La Modernisation Des Systèmes d’irrigation Dans Le Nord-Est Syrien: La Bureaucratie Au Coeur de La Relation Eau et Pouvoir.” Méditerrané 8, no. 119 (2012): 59–72. Barfi, Barak. “The Real Reason Why Iran Backs Syria.” The National Interest, January 24, 2016. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-real-reason-whyiran-backs-syria-14999. Barnes, Jessica. “Managing the Waters of Ba‘th Country: The Politics of Water Scarcity in Syria.” Geopolitics 14, no. 3 (2009): 510–30. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14650040802694117. Bellamy, Alex J. Security Communities and Their Neighbours: Regional Fortresses or Global Integrators? New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Bennett, Andrew. “Process Tracing and Causal Inference.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standard, edited by Henry E. Brady and David Collier, 2nd ed., 207–19. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2010. Bridge, Gavin, and Michael Bradshaw. “Making a Global Gas Market: Territoriality and Production Networks in Liquefied Natural Gas.” Economic Geography 93, no. 3 (2017): 215–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2017.1283212. Collelo, Thomas. Syria: A Country Study. Washington: GPO, 1987. Collier, David. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44, no. 4 (2011): 823–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429. Dahi, Omar S., and Yasser Munif. “Revolts in Syria: Tracking the Convergence between Authoritarianism and Neoliberalism.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 47, no. 4 (2012): 323–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096 11431682. Dal, Emel Parlar. “Impact of the Transnationalization of the Syrian Civil War on Turkey: Conflict Spillover Cases of Isis and Pyd-Ypg/Pkk.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 29, no. 4 (2016): 1396–420. https://doi.org /10.1080/09557571.2016.1256948. De Châtel, Francesca. “The Role of Drought and Climate Change in the Syrian Uprising: Untangling the Triggers of the Revolution.” Middle Eastern Studies 50, no. 4 (2014): 521–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2013.850076. Delanoë, Igor. “The Syrian Crisis: A Challenge to the Black Sea Stability.” Policy Brief. Istanbul: Center for International and European Studies, Kadir Has University, February 2014. https://www.khas.edu.tr/cms/cies/dosyalar/ files/CIESPolicyBrief02.pdf.

348  E. C. GÜRCAN EIA beta. “International Energy Statistics.” Accessed September 8, 2019. https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?c=4100000 002000060000000000000g000200000000000000001&vs=INTL.44-1AFRC-QBTU.A&vo=0&v=H&end=2015. Engdahl, F. William. “The New Mediterranean Oil and Gas Bonanza (Part II: Rising Energy Tensions in the Aegean—Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Syria).” Global Research: Centre for Research on Globalization, January 27, 2013. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-new-mediterranean-oil-and-gasbonanza/29609. Feitelson, Eran, and Amit Tubi. “A Main Driver or an Intermediate Variable? Climate Change, Water and Security in the Middle East.” Global Environmental Change 44, no. 1 (May 2017): 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2017.03.001. Forsythe, David P. “Water and Politics in the Tigris–Euphrates Basin: Hope for Negative Learning?” In Water Security in the Middle East: Essays in Scientific and Social Cooperation, edited by Jean Axelrad Cahan, 167–84. London: Anthem Press, 2017. 978–1783085668. Fröhlich, Christiane J. “Climate Migrants as Protestors? Dispelling Misconceptions about Global Environmental Change in Pre-Revolutionary Syria.” Contemporary Levant 1, no. 1 (2016): 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 20581831.2016.1149355. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005. Gleick, Peter H. “Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria.” Weather, Climate, and Society 6, no. 1 (July 2014): 331–40. https://doi. org/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1. Gordon, Sean. “Russian Resolve: Why Syria Matters to Putin.” The Globe and Mail, April 8, 2017. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/russianresolve-why-syria-matters-to-putin/article34643406/. Gueldry, Michel. “Changement Climatique et Sécurité Agroalimentaire Dans Le Monde Arabe.” Politique Étrangère 3, no. 1 (2013): 161–74. https://doi. org/10.3917/pe.133.0161. Gunter, Michael M. “The Kurdish Spring.” Third World Quarterly 34, no. 3 (2013): 441–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.785339. Gürcan, Efe Can. “Extractivism, Neoliberalism, and the Environment: Revisiting the Syrian Conflict from an Ecological Justice Perspective.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 30, no. 3 (2018): 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752. 2018.1516794. ———. “Political Geography of Turkey’s Intervention in Syria: Underlying Causes and Consequences (2011–2016).” Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 11, no. 1 (2018): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR10-2017-0329.

11  DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 

349

Gürcan, Efe Can, and Efe Peker. “A Class Analytic Approach to the Gezi Park Events: Challenging the ‘Middle Class’ Myth.” Capital & Class 39, no. 2 (June 2015): 321–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816815584015. ———. Challenging Neoliberalism at Turkey’s Gezi Park: From Private Discontent to Collective Class Action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. ———. “Turkey’s Gezi Park Demonstrations of Summer 2013: A Marxian Analysis of the Political Moment.” Socialism & Democracy 28, no. 1 (2014): 70–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2013.869872. Hinnebusch, Raymond. “Syrian Foreign Policy under Bashar Al-Asad.” Ortadoğu Etütleri 1, no. 1 (July 2009): 7–26. Ipek, Pinar. “Oil and Intra-State Conflict in Iraq and Syria: Sub-State Actors and Challenges for Turkey’s Energy Security.” Middle Eastern Studies 53, no. 3 (2017): 406–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2016.1265511. Jaafar, Hadi H., and Eckart Woertz. “Agriculture as a Funding Source of ISIS: A GIS and Remote Sensing Analysis.” Food Policy 64, no. 1 (October 2016): 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.002. Khan, M. Sheharyar. “The Transformation of Turkish Foreign Policy towards the Middle East.” Policy Perspectives 12, no. 1 (2015): 31–50. https://doi. org/10.13169/polipers.12.1.0031. Lindenstrauss, Gallia, and Oded Eran. “The Kurdish Awakening and the Implications for Israel.” Strategic Assessment 17, no. 1 (April 2014): 83–93. Nader, Alireza, Larry Hanauer, Brenna Allen, and Ali G. Scotten. “Regional Implications of an Independent Kurdistan.” Rand Corporation—National Defense Research Institute, 2016. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1400/RR1452/RAND_RR1452.pdf. Nader, Sami. “Natural Gas Resources May Be Backstory in Syria War.” Center for Geopolitical Analysis, October 11, 2013. http://icmu.nyc.gr/%20 Natural-Gas-Resources-May-Be-Backstory-in-Syria-War. Norton, Augustus Richard, and Deanna J. Lampros-Norton. “Militant Protest and Political Violence under the Banner of Islam.” Armed Forces & Society 9, no. 1 (1982): 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X8200900101. Öniş, Ziya. “Turkey and the Arab Revolutions: Boundaries of Regional Power Influence in a Turbulent Middle East.” Mediterranean Politics 19, no. 2 (2014): 203–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2013.868392. Otero, Gerardo, and Efe Can Gürcan. “The Arab Spring and the Syrian Refugee Crisis.” Monitor, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives 22, no. 5 (February 2016): 16–17. Ozkececi-Taner, Binnur. “Disintegration of the ‘Strategic Depth’ Doctrine and Turkey’s Troubles in the Middle East.” Contemporary Islam 11, no. 2 (July 2017): 201–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11562-017-0387-5. Phillips, Christopher. “Sectarianism and Conflict in Syria.” Third World Quarterly 36, no. 2 (2015): 357–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597. 2015.1015788.

350  E. C. GÜRCAN Plakoudas, Spyridon. “The Syrian Kurds and the Democratic Union Party: The Outsider in the Syrian War.” Mediterranean Quarterly 28, no. 1 (2017): 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1215/10474552-3882819. Richani, Nazih. “The Political Economy and Complex Interdependency of the War System in Syria.” Civil Wars 18, no. 1 (2016): 45–68. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/13698249.2016.1144495. Salman, M., and Wael Mualla. “The Utilization of Water Resources for Agriculture in Syria: Analysis of Current Situation and Future Challenges.” In International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, 30th Session, 263– 74. Erice, Italy: World Scientific, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1142/ 9789812702753_0031. Taşpınar, Ömer. “Turkey’s Strategic Vision and Syria.” The Washington Quarterly 35, no. 3 (2012): 127–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X. 2012.706519. “The Rising Costs of Turkey’s Syrian Quagmire.” Europe & Central Asia. International Crisis Group, 2014. https://www.crisisgroup.org/file/1151/ download?token=HV5pDXAW. Thornton, Rod. “Problems with the Kurds as Proxies against Islamic State: Insights from the Siege of Kobane.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 26, no. 6 (2015): 865–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2015.1095844. Türkeş, Mustafa. “Decomposing Neo-Ottoman Hegemony.” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 18, no. 3 (2016): 191–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19448953.2016.1176388. “Turkey and Iran: Bitter Friends, Bosom Rivals.” Middle East & North Africa. International Crisis Group, December 13, 2016. https://www.crisisgroup. org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/iran/b051turkey-and-iran-bitter-friends-bosom-rivals. Vennesson, Pascal. “Case Studies and Process Tracing: Theories and Practices.” In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, edited by Della Porta Donatella and Michael Keating, 223–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. White, Benjamin. “The Nation-State Form and the Emergence of ‘Minorities’ in Syria.” Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 7, no. 1 (2007): 64–85. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9469.2007.tb00108.x. Winrow, Gareth M. “The Anatomy of a Possible Pipeline: The Case of Turkey and Leviathan and Gas Politics in the Eastern Mediterranean.” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 18, no. 5 (2016): 431–47. https://doi.org /10.1080/19448953.2016.1196012. “World Bank Open Data.” 2016. https://data.worldbank.org.

CHAPTER 12

Lending an “Old Friend” a Hand: Why Does Russia Back Syria? Umut Bekcan and Pınar Uz Hançarlı

Introduction On April 14, 2018, the United States of America (USA), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), and France initiated a military operation against the Assad regime in Syria in response to the claim of chemical weapons used in the East Ghouta district of Damascus. One government facility in Damascus and two others near Homs were tar­ geted, as these were believed to be involved in the use of chemical weapons.1 Russia condemned this operation harshly, with President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin arguing that the military operation launched by three Western powers had a destructive effect on the international system. Furthermore, he claimed that the actions of the USA served to deepen the humanitarian crisis by causing a new wave of refugees to flow 1 “Syria Airstrikes: US Warns It Is ‘Locked and Loaded’ If Assad Uses Chemical Weapons Again—Latest News,” Telegraph, April 14, 2018, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/2018/04/14/syria-airstrikes-donald-trump-set-make-announcement-military/.

U. Bekcan · P. Uz Hançarlı (*)  Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_12

351

352  U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI

from the Middle East. The president of the Defense Committee of the lower house of the Russian Parliament (State Duma), Aleksandr Sherin, meanwhile described this case as a “second Belgrade” and a declaration of war against a sovereign state.2 The official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Maria Zakharova, argued that the Syrian people, having first suffered the effects of the initial Arab Spring and then the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), now had their trauma compounded by the US smart bombs against a state fighting terrorism for years. In her view, the US’s former Secretary of State, having held up a bottle of supposed anthrax before the United Nations (UN) in order to defend the attack on Iraq 15 years prior, had produced another bottle as a pretext for attack. Rather than a bottle, she accused the USA of instead using the internet, photos, and videos broadcast in mainstream media to produce a pretext for military action.3 According to Moscow, the attack was essentially an illegal act of ­aggression, as there was no evidence in the hands of USA and its allies showing that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons. Syria, moreover, claimed that the aim of the attack was to prevent the investigation of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), as it coincided with their visit to research previous claims of chemical weapon usage in Douma.4 Leaving aside whether the US-led attack in Syria was right, legal, or legitimate, Moscow’s position had already been one of support for the Assad regime since the first outbreak of protests in March, 2011. Moscow has maintained this approach robustly and without hesitation. Moreover, on September 30, 2015, Russia entered the war upon the invitation of Damascus and helped the Syrian regime to establish its superiority in the Civil War. 2 Here, Sherin refers to NATO bombing of Belgrade as a violation of international law during 1999 Kosovo crisis. There was no authorization by a resolution of UN Security Council for this air operation of NATO. 3 Before the invasion of Iraq, Secretary of State of US, Colin Powell, claimed on 5 February 2003 that, there were moving biological weapons laboratories in Iraq in his UN General Assembly speech. In order to enhance his argument, he held a bottle of anthrax and showed it to the audiences. However, it was realized that this claim did not reflect the reality. Ve A.B.D. Suriye’ye Saldırdı ODATV, “Ve ABD Suriye’ye Saldırdı,” ODATV, April 14, 2018, https://odatv.com/ve-abd-suriyeye-saldirdi-14041838.html. 4 ODATV.

12  LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 

353

Syria has been an important ally for Russia since Soviet times. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union (USSR), relations between these two lost their dynamism for a couple of years. The second half of the 2000s saw a rekindling of joint activity. Unlike manifestations of the Arab Spring movement in other countries, Moscow had paid close attention to political and security developments in Syria since the Arab Spring first movement. Moscow’s decision to throw its air force behind the Assad regime was most likely made upon the calculation that the benefits would outweigh the accompanying risks in terms of its national agenda.5 The move represented Russia’s first military intervention outside of Soviet geography in the post-Cold War period. The last example was its Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan in 1979. Russian involvement in the Syrian civil war and its support for the Assad regime fell in line with the country’s power politics and economic interests that regards Russia as a reemerging international great power. As the Civil War has progressed, Moscow has tried to both balance the interventionism of the USA while legitimizing its own position within the context of international law. The factors for Russia’s backing Syria can be summarized as countering Western influence, anti-interventionism within the context of international law, and engaging in the struggle against radical Islamists. Russian opposition against Western interventionism and influence in Syria fall line with Moscow’s wish to be an important and powerful actor in an unfolding multipolar international system. Besides, with its nearly 20 million Muslim population, Moscow considers the struggle against fundamentalism as significant in terms of its national security and the security of central Asia (Shanghai Cooperation Organization region). The persistence of the Assad regime would keep mutual economic and military relations with Syria, which also marks a continuation of historical cooperation in the Russian national interest. Against this background, this chapter addresses the following questions: Why has Russia been so proactively involved in supporting the Assad regime? How did it come to disregard the risks of this support? This study begins with an analysis of Russia’s position toward the Arab Spring. It then elaborates on the Russian approach toward the Syrian civil war and explores the factors behind Moscow’s support for the Syrian regime. 5 Christopher Phillips, The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), 219.

354  U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI

The Arab Spring Through Russian Eyes Before moving on to examine Moscow’s pro-government stance in Syria, one ought to take account of Moscow’s approach to the Arab Spring uprisings in general. The international community was unprepared for the uprisings that began in Tunisia in December 2010 and which soon spread to Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen. At first, these uprisings did not generate a tangible difference in response from Moscow and Western countries. However, in time, Moscow developed a unique position, which, unlike that of the USA and France’s idealization of the Arab uprisings, involved endorsement of the demand of the Arab people for a better and more equitable life and rejection of foreign involvement in overturning the existing regimes. Instead, Moscow demanded the use of political dialogue in solving domestic issues.6 In March 2011, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed in an interview that nobody could have predicted the developments, and he described the timing as “expected surprise” (“ozhidayemaya neozhidannost”). The Uprising was expected, as these peoples were suffering from a flood of long-accumulated socioeconomic problems. However, the unknown was when or how popular anger would respond.7 The Arab Spring was a result of bribery, corruption, poverty, unemployment, authoritarianism, clan culture, and nepotism,8 and when the pressure of government on the business sector and of foreign policy dependent on the USA were added to these, political Islam weighed in with a response. In the beginning, like most countries, Russia was only a spectator of the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria.9 The Libya case, however, marked a significant shift for Russia. The USA and European countries intended to support the uprisings of dissidents

6 Naumkin Vitaly et al., Rossiya i Bolshoy Blizhniy Vostok (Moskva: Rossiya i Bolshoy Blizhniy Vostok, 2013), 23, https://russiancouncil.ru/common/upload/russia_middle_east.pdf. 7 “İntervyu Ministra İnostrannıh Del Rossii S.V. Lavrova Rukovoditelyu Avtorskoy Programmı ‘Aktualnıy Razgovor’ Telekompanii ‘3 Kanal’ V. Solovyevu, 13 Marta 2011 Goda,” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, March 13, 2011, http://www.mid.ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/ id/215526. 8 Aleksandr Ilinykh, “Arabskaya Vesna i Rossiyskaya Politika Na Arabskom Vostoke v Novıkh Usloviyakh,” İstoriko-Pedagogicheskiye Chteniya, no. 17 (2013): 103–4. 9 Vitaly et al., Rossiya i Bolshoy Blizhniy Vostok, 23–24.

12  LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 

355

against the Gaddafi regime. The UNSC decided to take all necessary measures, including the use of force, to impose a no-fly zone over Libya in order to protect civilians rebelling against Gaddafi (resolution number 1973).10 Less than 48 hours after the UNSC decision, NATO invaded Libya. This sat uneasily with Russia, as it seemed a unilateral conflict had been undertaken under the guise of humanitarian intervention, resulting in the murder of Gaddafi.11 Why Russia abstained rather than vetoing the decision has been disputed between commentators. While some suggest that Russia intended to prevent a civil war like that experienced in Yugoslavia, others interpreted Russia’s response as a fear that disorder in the region would raise oil prices, so abstaining was in the interests of Moscow.12 Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, Prime Minister at the time between 2008 and 2012, likened NATO’s Libya operation to a crusade and disagreed with then-President Medvedev for the first time, when the president argued that those types of comments were unacceptable and could lead to a clash of civilizations.13 In Moscow’s view, the NATO invasion paved the way for a war that would destroy the Gaddafi regime in the name of humanitarian protection. By October, Gaddafi was killed and his regime collapsed. In July 2012, Medvedev expressed regret, as he felt that Russia did not make sufficient use of its right to veto, stating that: “Russia made a tragic mistake. If we knew that resolution 1973 would be interpreted in this way, we would have instructed Russian officials at the UN differently.”14 With these words, he forwarded the view that Russia had been cheated by the West. 10 “The UN Security Council Resolution No 1973 (2011)” (United Nations Security Council, March 17, 2011), http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/ RES/1973(2011). 11 Vladimir Putin, “Putin, Vladimir ‘Rossiya i Menyayushiysya Mir’, RG, February 27, 2012 (Accessed on 9 August 2019),” R.G., February 27, 2012, https:// rg.ru/2012/02/27/putin-politika.html; For the English version of the same article see Vladimir Putin, “Russia and the Changing World,” RT, February 27, 2012, https://www. rt.com/politics/official-word/putin-russia-changing-world-263/. 12 “Pochemu Rossiya Vozderzhalas Ot Aviaudarov Po Livii?” Inosmi, March 19, 2011, http://www.inosmi.ru/africa/20110319/167498836.html. 13 “Medvedev Rejects Putin ‘Crusade’ Remark over Libya,” BBC News, March 21, 2011, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12810566. 14 Igor Latunskiy, “Liviyskaya Lovuşka Dlya Başara Asada,” Pravda, July 10, 2012, http://www.pravda.ru/world/asia/middleeast/10-07-2012/1121496-gafurov-0/.

356  U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI

Russia took an important lesson from what happened in Libya and did not wish to make the same mistake in Syria. The uprising against the Assad regime soon evolved into a civil war within a staggeringly short period of time. Western countries intended to follow the same course that was applied in Libya. Regarding internal chaos in Syria, pressure from the West on President Assad was compounded by sanctions against the country, which Russia considered unacceptable. In this sense, one can posit that Russia opposed military intervention in Syria as a direct result of Libya, in what can be interpreted as a matter of prestige. What happened in Libya showed Moscow that it could not trust NATO to restrain itself to the spirit of resolutions. In a way, Libya was considered a suitable confidence test. Furthermore, geographically, Libya was further placed than Georgia or Syria, so a confrontation with the USA may have been calculated as too risky in any case.15 Thus, Moscow’s support for the Syrian regime was also shaped by its experience in Libya, and Russia realized that it had to have clear position rather than abstention. From then on, Moscow started to show its consideration and opposition toward US/Western attempts to intervene in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East.

Balancing the West Russia clearly took up the mantle of the former USSR at its reestablishment in the beginning of 1990s. However, its political and economic influence became severely limited. In the 2000s, Putin’s leadership saw the reemergence of the Russian power with a renewed interest in involvement in international politics. During the Cold War, when it came to the broader Middle East, the objective of the USSR was to contain 15 As Lukyanov said $4 billion business agreement with Libya was not worth to challenge the US and Europe. In addition to these, if the conflicting approaches of Medvedev and Putin are taken into consideration, the reason for Russia’s abstention could be understandable. In his view, Medvedev has a liberal character of treating and solving issues on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, Putin is considerably more realist in character thinking the external environment determines the behavior of states. There is a system in which everything is connected to one another. If one part is affected, the results can also be seen in other pieces. It is for this reason he stands against the interventionist behavior of the West. Fedor Lukyanov, “Za Çto Rossiya Srazheyetsya v Sirii,” Global Affairs, August 10, 2012, http://www.globalaffairs.ru/print/redcol/ Za-chto-Rossiya-srazhaetsya-v-Sirii-15630.

12  LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 

357

Western interests in lieu of its own. Consequently, Russia has sought to moderate the interventionist tendencies enacted by the West in the region and in Syria, in particular. Russia has criticized NATO’s perceived role as world police, and even its existence in the post-Cold War period. NATO’s enlargement into Eastern Europe has therefore set Russian policy-makers on alert. Moreover, the involvement of NATO in the conflicts in the Balkans, in Kosovo in 1999 for instance, has been flagged up by Russia as going against NATO’s own founding principles.16 Moscow argues that the only valid mechanism for deciding on the use of force is the UN Charter, and that NATO and the European Union (EU) cannot replace the UN. In Putin’s mind, the fall of the Berlin Wall was a historic event that pertained to an enlargement strategy to the east, creating new dividing lines and walls.17 The color revolutions in Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004), and Kyrgyzstan (2005) enabled pro-Western governments to come to power in those countries, and Russia suspected the USA of having a role aimed at rolling back Russian influence. In response, in Georgia, Russia supported the breakaway of Abkhazia and South Ossetia against pro-Western Mihail Saakashvilli and launched a military operation against that country in 2008. Similarly, after the overthrow of the Yanukovych government in Ukraine in 2014, the West was considered responsible and the response came in the form of the annexation of Crimea. Then, the attitude of the Russian President was most likely to make Russia recognized as “a global superpower on equal footing with the USA, not subordinate as it had been in the 1990s and 2000s.” When it comes to broader Middle East, this effort for “co-equality” with the USA required being an ally of national governments in the region “as a legitimate and viable rival superpower.” Thus, the Russian presence in Syria helped Putin to end the diplomatic isolation attempted on Russia in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis.18 16 Christian Snyder, “Analysis: How a 1999 NATO Operation Turned Russia against the West,” The Pittnews, September 7, 2017, https://pittnews.com/article/121917/ opinions/analysis-1999-nato-operation-turned-russia-west/. 17 “Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy,” President of Russia, February 10, 2007, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/ transcripts/24034. 18 Dimitri Trenin, “Putin’s Syria Gambit Aims at Something Bigger Than Syria,” The Tablet, October 13, 2015, http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/194109/ putin-syria-trenin.

358  U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI

Putin’s understanding was that the unipolar model offered by the West was “not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world.” This model, mainly synonymous with US alignment, was based on crossing “its national borders in every way.” Russia was unhappy about the US’s impositions of “the economic, political, cultural, and educational policies.” Putin also criticized the West’s perception of democracy, as these impositions were realized under the name of democracy, while, according to Putin, the West was ignoring the basic principle of preserving the interests and opinions of the minority. Moreover, the basic principles of international law were another concern of Russia, as Putin forwarded the notion that “independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system,” i.e., the USA.19 In one interview in August 2013, Putin argued that Russia was against the West’s notion of democracy in Syria that ignores a fundamental cause for the violence there. Accepting the necessity for radical reform and underscoring Russia’s support for Syria was not unconditional, and Putin expressed his thought that the West was neglecting the history, tradition, and religion of the region and interfering in the name of democracy rather than for peace and stability.20 Except for the temporary good relations in the first half of the 1990s, Russia has always been against the expansionist policies of Western countries and has tried to balance policies of the Western bloc.

Russia’s Opposition to Interventionism In 2000, in his first presidential address, Putin argued that the sovereign rights of states were being violated by the West under the pretext of humanitarian intervention, and this stance has persisted throughout the course of his presidency.21 Accordingly, Putin posits that the UNSC should not have the right to interfere in foreign governments or support any possible attempt to overthrow them, directly or indirectly. In the post-Cold War period, the cases of intervention in Kosovo, Afghanistan,

19 “Speech

and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference.” Talks NSA, Syria, Iran, Drones in RT Interview (Full Video),” RT World News, June 12, 2013, https://www.rt.com/news/putin-rt-interview-full-577/. 21 Vladimir Putin, “Annual Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation,” President of Russia, July 8, 2000, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21480. 20 “Putin

12  LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 

359

Iraq, and Libya have threatened the international order, leaving Russia reluctant in its place on the UNSC.22 Moreover, Putin has also criticized the concept of the “Export of Democracy” attempted by Western powers and declared that Russia had no involvement in the domestic politics of its neighbors and other countries.23 The Syrian case was no exception to the Russian stance. When the crisis began in 2011, Russia began by calling for an end to bloodshed, followed by an announcement that this was an issue for Syrians to solve peacefully and politically. Later, Moscow called for the circumvention of foreign intervention.24 Therefore, the Moscow’s standpoint centered on supporting reform policies in Syria. Furthermore, Moscow vetoed the draft resolution of the UN Security Council several times, in order to reject sanctions being launched against Syria. As a result, it prevented a resolution that would increase tension and constitute a possible stepping stone toward forcible regime change.25 Events deteriorated, in the view of Foreign Minister Lavrov, in November 2011, with the suspension of Syria’s membership in the Arab League, since that removed the chance of regional negotiations being held in a transparent environment.26 Permanent Russian Representative of the UN, Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, vetoed the draft resolution in February 2012 that condemned the Syrian regime for violations of human rights on the basis that the resolution blamed one side, was unbalanced, and did not reflect the realities in Syria.27 Churkin’s 22 Samuel Charap, “Russia, Syria and the Doctrine of Intervention,” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 55, no. 1 (2013): 36, https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2013.767403. 23 “Putin: Promoting Democracy, a Vaccination against Orange Revolutions,” Voltaire Network, February 23, 2012, http://www.voltairenet.org/article172874.html. 24 Alexey Vasiliev, Russia’s Middle East Policy: From Lenin to Putin (London: Routledge, 2018), 463. 25 Column Lynch, “Russia, China Veto Syria Resolution at the United Nations,” The Washington Post, October 4, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-china-block-syria-resolution-at-un/2011/10/04/gIQArCFBML_story. html; By February 2017, Russia vetoed 7, China vetoed 6 times, “Syria War: Russia and China Veto Sanctions,” BBC News, February 28, 2017, https://www.bbc.com/news/ world-middle-east-39116854. 26 Ural Sharipov, “Bitva Za Siriyu,” Nauchno-Analiticheskiy Jurnal Obozrevatel 273, no. 10 (October 2012): 66. 27 “Russia and China Veto Resolution on Syria at UN,” BBC News, February 4, 2012, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-16890107.

360  U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI

statement confirmed Russian support for the ceasefire plan of UN Special Representative for Syria, Kofi Annan.28 Lavrov argued in defense of the core of this plan, which included “six principles” based on eliminating violence and initiating dialogue, in a process that would be led by Syria for the benefit of the Syrian people. The implementation of this plan, Lavrov believed, would establish a new order considering “the interests of all groups” in the country.29 However, despite Russian support, the plan did not succeed.30 In the meantime, Western countries paid little attention to the draft constitution accepted in Syria after a referendum on February 26, 2012.31 In his 2012 article titled “Rossiya i Menyayushiysya Mir/Russia and the Changing World,” Putin claimed that internal reconciliation in Syria needed the support of the international community, as the main Russian concern was to avoid an all-out civil war. It was on this basis, he claimed, that Russia was against the implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution, believing that its ambiguity would allow only one side of the domestic conflict to use violence: (…) considering the extremely negative, almost hysterical reaction to the Russian-Chinese veto, I would like to warn our Western colleagues against the temptation to resort to this simple, previously used tactic: if the UN Security Council approves of a given action, fine; if not, we will establish a coalition of the states concerned and strike anyway.

Putin also argued that Western interventions would neither lead to a peaceful settlement nor benefit international security. To prevent these types of 28 See also UN Security Council resolution no 2042 calling Syrian government to halt the use of heavy weapons within the context of the Annan Plan as it puts a framework for political process, a ceasefire and withdrawal of both forces. “Security Council Unanimously Adopts Resolution 2042 (2012), Authorizing Advance Team to Monitor Ceasefire in Syria,” United Nations, April 14, 2012, https://www.un.org/press/en/2012/sc10609. doc.htm This plan was considered a key solution in the region by Russia. 29 Sergei Lavrov, “On the Right Side of History,” Huffington Post, June 2012, http:// www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sergei-lavrov/russia-syria-on-the-right-side-of-history_b_1596400.html. 30 Paul Harris, “Syria Resolution Vetoed by Russia and China at United Nations,” February 4, 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/04/ assad-obama-resign-un-resolution. 31 The turnout for referendum was 57.4 and 89.4% of the voters said yes. Sharipov, “Bitva Za Siriyu,” 71.

12  LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 

361

interventions, Putin stated that Russia would always be ready to use its right to veto. What Russia was seeking in Syria was “a ­well-considered, balanced and cooperative approach” that would lead to the protection of civilians.32 Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov published an article in the Huffington Post in 2012, also underlining the fact that developments in Libya after the toppling of Gaddafi represented a possible outcome in Syria. This kind of regime change was not to the benefit of people ­living in the region, he stated, as it had to be left to the Syrian people to choose the leader and political system of their country. He added: “For us, the issue of who is in power in Syria is not the major one; it is important to put an end to civilian deaths and to start a political dialogue in a situation where the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the country will be respected by all external actors.”33 Moreover, Lavrov responded to a question posed at the Russia–EU Summit that December by emphasizing that the number one priority in Syria was the cessation of conflict and saving of lives; after that, parties overseen by UN observers could negotiate the situation.34 Another consideration of Moscow emanated from the potential for sectarian division in the wake of regime change in Syria spilling over into Lebanon, Jordan, and any of the countries that shared a Kurdish population with Syria. Moreover, the status quo along the Syria–Israel ­ border could be affected negatively. Attempts by the USA and EU to ­ affect the process in line with their interests were raising the risk of potential large-scale conflicts in which chemical weapons would also be used.35 Russia also opposed the draft resolution condemning joint operations launched by the Syrian army and Hezbollah in Al-Qusayr in June 2013, in line with its policy, by that point, of vetoing all kinds of UN Security Council draft resolutions on Syria regarding ceasefires.

32 Putin,

“Russia and the Changing World.” “On the Right Side of History.” 34 “Iz Otvetov Ministra İnostrannıh Del Rossii S.V. Lavrova Na Voprosı SMI Po Itogam Sammita Rossiya-ES v Bryussele (21 Dekabrya 2012 g.),” The Embassy of Russian Federation to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, December 24, 2012, https://www.rus.rusemb.org.uk/press/534. 35 Andrey Fedorchenko, “Blizhniy Vostok: Orientiry Rossiyskoy Vneshney Politiki,” January 3, 2013, https://mgimo.ru/about/news/experts/234357/. 33 Lavrov,

362  U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI

At this point, it would be misleading to discuss whether ­ chemical weapons were used by any party. US President Barack Obama, having formerly described the use of chemical weapons as a red line for American neutrality, argued in June 2013 that Syria had indeed used chemical weapons. Opposing this argument, in March 19, 2013, Russia prepared a report for the UN claiming that opponents of Assad used chemical weapons in an attack on Aleppo’s Khan Al Assal area.36 On 21 August, further use of chemical weapons led to mass killings in the East Ghouta area of Damascus. Inevitably, those against the regime were certain that the weapons were used by al-Assad, while supporters of the regime blamed the opposition. For instance, the line given by Syrian Minister of Information, Omran al-Zoubi, to deny government use of chemical weapons was supported by Lavrov, who described it as a means of breaking the deadlock by inviting American involvement.37 Meanwhile, the possibility of airstrikes became a talking point in the West. Since there was no acceptable alternative for the regime in Syria, the strike would not be aiming to overthrow al-Assad but to weaken the regime against its opponents. Typically, Russia was opposed to UN Security Council-sanctioned air strikes against Syria. As a diplomatic alternative, Moscow proposed the supervision of Assad regime’s chemical weapons by the UN. This resulted in Syria joining the Chemical Weapons Convention on October 14, 2013.38 Damascus was given until the end of 2014 to destroy its supplies. Syria’s signing of the Convention on Chemical Weapons and its moves to eliminate chemical weapons led to an understanding between Russia and the USA (and therefore the UN Security Council) that possibly averted a military intervention. Concerns shown by Western policy-makers for the likelihood of the capture of those types of weapons by radical religious organizations also played a role in conceding to Russia’s line. In accordance with the requirements of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the USA confirmed that Syrian

36 “Russia: Syrian Rebels Made, Used Sarin Nerve Gas,” CBSNEWS, July 9, 2013, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-syrian-rebels-made-used-sarin-nerve-gas/. 37 “Kimyasal Gazı Kim Kullandı?” Deutsche Welle Türkçe, August 26, 2013, http:// www.dw.com/tr/kimyasal-gaz%C4%B1-kim-kulland%C4%B1/a-17045913. 38 “Syria’s Accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention Enters into Force,” OPWC, October 14, 2013, https://www.opcw.org/news/article/syrias-accession-to-the-chemicalweapons-convention-enters-into-force/.

12  LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 

363

weapons were destroyed in August 2014. However, this was not an end point for this issue. In April 2018, the USA, UK, and France blamed the Syrian regime for using chemical weapons against the people in Douma. Meanwhile, the war raged on, as did accusations of the use of chemical weapons. As the conflict deepened still, so too did the involvement and the rising success of militias carrying an ideology that at once united the Syrian regime and Russia’s own domestic security concerns.

The Jihadist Threat Russian Foreign Policy tried to adapt to the changing circumstances of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. It gave the image of readiness for cooperation with new governments in which political Islam was given a voice. In his article “Russia and the Changing World,” Putin expressed that Russia had always enjoyed good relations with envoys of moderate Islam, whose world view he posited was similar to that of Russia’s own Muslims, and he declared a readiness to develop mutual relations further. In addition, Putin underlined that Russia aimed to revive political and economic relations with the Arab world, not least with those experiencing internal transformation.39 In other words, Putin signaled a reaching out to those governments.40 Western countries appeared largely ignorant of the fact that many of the arms sent to support the Syrian opposition as the conflict expanded were, in many cases, sent to Jihadist organizations operating in Syria.41 However, Russia was strong in its condemnation of the chipping away of the secular order instilled by the Assad regime. This was something that could be expected from a state having a 14% Muslim population and fearing any possible victory of Islamic fundamentalists in Syria, as

39 Putin,

“Russia and the Changing World.” “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Press Release No: 1715-10-09-2013,” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, September 10, 2013, http://www.mid.ru/en/maps/ly/-/asset_publisher/wcPZCnhgb1aW/content/id/97270/pop_up?_101_INSTANCE_wcPZCnhgb1aW_viewMode=print&_101_ INSTANCE_wcPZCnhgb1aW_qrIndex=0; “Russia and Egypt in ‘Historic’ Talks’,” BBC News, November 14, 2013, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24936509. 41 Vitaly et al., Rossiya i Bolshoy Blizhniy Vostok, 18. 40 See

364  U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI

it could pave the ground for radicalization and violence within its own border.42 According to Lavrov: “Syria is a multi-confessional state: in addition to Sunni and Shia Muslims there are Alawites, Orthodox and other Christian confessions, Druzes, and Kurds. Over the last few decades of secular rule of the Ba’ath party, freedom of conscience has been practiced in Syria, and religious minorities fear that if the regime is broken down, this tradition may be interrupted.”43 The predominance of radical jihadist groups among the Syrian opposition was a major concern for Moscow regarding its domestic politics. Russia had to combat those groups in the Second Chechen War and was struggling with the same threat for its own and Central Asia’s security within the context of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which set the fight against separatism, radicalism, and terrorism as one of its founding goals. The existence of Russian radical Islamists among the Jihadists in Syria further disturbed Kremlin chiefs. Russian and Arabic graffiti on the walls of ruined houses around Damascus and Daraya, located in the southwest of the country, such as “Today Syria, tomorrow Russia” and “Chechens and Tatars, rise up!” and even “We will pray in your palace, Putin!” also heightened the Russian concerns and was most likely a reason for their intervention in Syria.44 Radical Islam’s coming to power deemed a concern for Russia, as it could be a sign of fundamentalism exceeding its bounds. It was interpreted as potentially provocative not only for places where Russian Muslims are most populous, but also in Krasnodar Krai in the North Caucasus and the cities on the European side. The official Russian position in Syria was to oppose other countries’ involvement in domestic issues of Syria via military, political, and intelligence/communication instruments.45 In an interview given by Putin in 2015, the President argued that it was the Islamic State and al-Nusra that Assad was fighting against, and 42 Phillips,

The Battle for Syria, 220. “On the Right Side of History.” 44 There were more than 200 fighters according to Maksim Kupinov, “Segodniya Siriya, Zavtra Rossiya,” June 14, 2013, http://www.segodnia.ru/content/123738. 45 It is possible to argue that anti-jihadist stance of Russia has been supported by the European Far Right. Øyvind Strømmen, “Assad’s Far-Right Europe Corps?” Hate Speech International Investigating Extremism, November 25, 2013, https://www.hate-speech. org/other-volunteers/. 43 Lavrov,

12  LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 

365

they were the ones controlling 60% of Syrian land. Upon the demand of the Syrian government, Russia provided military and technical aid for Assad’s struggle against these organizations.46 Because this struggle was similar to the one Putin had suppressed in Chechnya, Putin did not hesitate to back Assad in order to prevent the spread of the radical Islamist movement.47 In Moscow’s security understanding, Syria freed from the threat of fundamentalism would be a more convenient country for developing mutual economic and military relations. Russia’s image in the region was yet another consideration of its involvement in the Syrian conflict. In retrospect, it is unreasonable to argue that Moscow’s policy in the Syrian crisis led to a negative image in the region or worsened its relations with core state actors in the region.48 Evidently, Moscow’s support for the Assad regime is not vigorous enough for specific regional powers in Gulf Region and the broader Middle Eastern to stand clearly against Russia. The civil war in Syria soon began to morph along Sunni-Shia lines, with Iran and Hezbollah supporting the Assad regime, while Turkey, Qatar, and the KSA backed the opposition, as explained in different chapters in this book. Multi-confessional Iraq, already scared by inner conflict, aimed to balance the USA and Iran. Jordan and Lebanon were equally cool with the Russian role in Syria. Egypt, during the administration of Mohamed Morsi, had held a harsh attitude toward Damascus under the government brought in by its own popular demand; however, the coup d’état since 2013 had brought a normalization of relations. In other words, regional powers in the broader Middle East were divided in their attitudes toward the Assad regime, but the role of Russia in the region did not harm its relations with the KSA/UAE-led bloc. Yet, it most likely brought Russia and the Iran-led bloc closer together. Interestingly, Ankara’s balancing policy vis-à-vis the USA brought Turkey and Russia closer during this period. 46 “Putin Rasskazal, Zachem Rossiya Podderzhivaet Rezhim Asada v Sirii,” VZ, September 28, 2015, https://vz.ru/news/2015/9/28/769112.html. 47 Fiona Hill, “The Real Reason Putin Supports Assad,” Foreign Affairs, March 25, 2013, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/chechnya/2013-03-25/real-reason-putinsupports-assad. 48 For other insights see Mark Katz, “Siriya Dlya Rossii Kak Afganistan Dlya SSSR?” Global Affairs, September 5, 2012, http://www.globalaffairs.ru/print/number/Siriyadlya-Rossii-kak-Afganistan-dlya-SSSR-15655.

366  U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI

Economic and Military Interests During the Cold War, Syria was a staunch ally to the USSR. After the Suez crisis of 1956, the USSR and Syria developed particularly good relations in the face of Western expansionist policies in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. After the withdrawal of UK and France from the region, the aim of the USA was to become an influential player in containing communism, as outlined in the 1957 Eisenhower doctrine. The USSR, in turn, supported actions aimed at bolster­ ing countries against US encroachment by harnessing its own capacity to provide economic and military aid. This affinity was interpreted by the USA and Turkey, the US regional bulwark against the USSR, as a sign that Syria would soon become a satellite of the USSR. These two alliances came to the brink of war at the end of August 1957. After this crisis, the relationship between Syria and the USSR began to develop in every realm: politically, economically, and militarily. Hafez al-Assad’s leftist-inclined regime represented a strategic ­fortress beyond the Soviet bloc, nestled between Western allies Turkey and Israel. The year 1971 saw the establishment of the Tartous Soviet naval base, built as the result of an agreement between the USSR and Syria for procurement and renovation of Soviet submarines and surface vessels. As the main arms supplier of Syria, the USSR sent weapons bought by Damascus to Tartous. The docks of the base were used by the Soviet Fifth Mediterranean Squadron for loading fuel and supplies, but they could also dock nuclear submarines. Since the collapse of the USSR, the Tartous naval base has been used by the Russian navy as well, yet it was not as active as in the Soviet times. Tartous also had a geostrategic dimension. The 1936 Montreux Convention brought military restrictions to the Bosporus as the international shipping channel that allows direct access to the ­ Mediterranean from Russia and the Black Sea. After a 1982 amendment to the Convention, Turkey retained the right to close the Bosporus, at its discretion, both in peacetime and war. This decision increased the importance of the Tartous naval base as the only Russian military base in the Mediterranean. Russia has continued to use the base as a part of its

12  LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 

367

greater power aspiration and as an influencing factor for its diplomacy in the region.49 After the dissolution of the USSR, Russian interest in the Middle East decreased.50 This lack of interest had consequences for Syria. Having renounced socialism, the ideological affinity providing the impetus for bilateral relations disappeared. Another impetus for cooling of ties came with the collapse of the marriage of convenience that brought both countries together due to a shared interest in containing Western influence, as Russia sought means of rapprochement toward the West throughout the 1990s. As anti-Westernism returned to the agenda of both countries in the wake of the later invasion of Iraq, the grounds for a rekindling of the relationship were set. With Putin newly having taken office during this time, various cooperation agreements were signed between both nations, including the Double Taxation Treaty and Agreement for Cooperation in Tourism. Several Russian companies provide technical assistance for the construction of Syrian facilities, in addition to the supply of various equipment and materials. In 2001, Moscow and Damascus also signed a contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, which would help increase the exchange of commodities between the two countries.51 Following Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Moscow in 2005, relations began to thrive. An amount corresponding to 73% of the $13.5 billion in Syrian debt owed from the Soviet period was written off. Syria would pay off the rest of the debt in the following 10 years by commodities, not by payments.52

49 Ron Synovitz, “Why Is Access to Syria’s Port at Tartus so Important to Moscow?” June 19, 2012, https://www.rferl.org/a/explainer-why-is-access-/24619441.html; Assad was also satisfied with the presence of the base in the region. He was considering that Russia had to be expanded and more powerful in order to achieve regional stability. “Esad: Rusya, Suriye’de Büyük Bir Askeri Üs Kurabilir,” Sputniknews, March 26, 2015, https://tr.sputniknews.com/ortadogu/201503261014653529/. 50 “Russian Naval Base at Tartus/Tartous,” Global Security, accessed August 9, 2019, https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/syria/tartous.htm. 51 Walter Yeates, “Putin’s World: The Economic Ties between Russia and Syria,” Huffington Post, May 22, 2017, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/putins-worldthe-econmic-ties-between-russia-syria_us_5921c6a4e4b0b28a33f62d33. 52 Inozemtsev Vladislav, “Zachem Nam Siriya?” Vedomosti, December 24, 2012, https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2012/12/24/zachem_nam_siriya.

368  U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI

The Syrian Civil War reminded Russian companies of the loss they had suffered in the Iraq market after that invasion, and they did not want to be exposed to the same outcome in Syria.53 There were two significant motivations to support the Assad regime on the part of Russia: arms and energy. The arms trade is one of the key pillars of the economic relationship, worth $15.5 billion in 2015. It also balanced the negative effects of Russia’s own economic deficits.54 More broadly, Russian exporters felt that a regime change would cause loss of a market to the West, as not only Iraq, but Libya, were also important for Russia in this regard, once again, in terms of arms. While Gaddafi had imported over $2 billion worth of arms from Russia from 2005 to 2010, this number decreased after a new government came to power, as new contracts were signed with France. Therefore, Moscow’s policy behavior toward the Syrian conflict was motivated by economic interests to support the Assad regime in order to protect its weapons sales to Syria.55 Keeping Assad in power would also save Moscow’s receivables, as Syria has amassed at least $4 billion worth of debt in unpaid arms contracts since 2011.56 In turn, Syria, which has a $5 billion arms market with $20 billion worth of Russian investment, supported the latter’s military intervention in Georgia. In 2008, in an interview given to the Russian news agency Itar-Tass, Bashar al-Assad said that the approach

53 Russian’s commercial influence in Iraq became limited and the US gained a privileged position in obtaining the oil in Iraq. Before the war, Russia was an important trade partner of Iraq with its 40% share in Iraqi foreign trade. In 2002, within “oil-for-food” framework, an economic cooperation program had been prepared between these two countries. Overthrow of Saddam regime led to economic loss of Russia. Democracy did not come to Iraq, on the contrary, instability and the threat of fundamentalist terrorism increased in Iraq and in the region inherently. Radical groups became part of power relations. Alexei Podtserob, “Rossiya i Krizisnıye Situatsii Vokrug İraka: İstoriya i Sovremennost,” Vestnik MGİMO Universiteta 14, no. 5 (2010): 168; Eldar Kasayev, “Irak: İnvestitsionnıy Klimat i İnteresı Rossii,” İndeks Bezopasnosti 15, no. 1 (2009): 59–61; and Vagif Guseynov, “Blijniy Vostok: Neobhodimost Rossiyskogo Prisutstviya,” Rossiya i Musulmanskiy Mir, no. 4 (2008): 139. 54 Phillips, The Battle for Syria, 221. 55 Ken Ifesinachi and Adibe Raymond, “The United States and Russian Governments Involvement in the Syrian Crisis and the United Nations’ Kofi Annan Peace Process,” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5, no. 27 (December 2014): 1159, https://doi. org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n27p1154. 56 James O’Toole, “Billions at Stake as Russia Backs Syria,” CNN Money, February 10, 2012, http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/international/russia_syria.

12  LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 

369

of the USA and other Western countries toward Abkhazia and South Ossetia could be seen as an example of a double standard, and that since Russia inherited its peace-keeping mission in the Caucasus, Moscow’s intervention in Georgia was legitimate and justifiable.57 This economic and political affinity was an adequate motive for Russia to support the al-Assad regime and not to lose an important ally. When the civil war began in 2011, Syria was the second-largest arms importer from Russia, constituting 15% of total sales.58 In addition to these sales, the public use of Russian arms in Syria would serve as an advertisement method and help Moscow find potential customers elsewhere.59 In line with this argument, according to sources within the Russian government, a military presence in Syria could pave the ground for new contracts with Algeria, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Pakistan worth $6–7 billion.60 Given this environment of arms trading and close military relations, after the involvement of Russia in the Syrian civil war, the Khmeimin airbase was opened in Syria as a Russian facility, and, in January 2017, an agreement was signed by these two countries that gave the right to use of Khmeimin and Tartous as military bases for 49 years to Russia.61 Energy also plays an important role in Russia’s economic relations with Syria. Many Russian companies have been investing in Syrian oil and gas exploration and production activities. Nuclear energy is another issue, as, in 2010, Russian companies announced their intended involvement in Syria’s first nuclear power plant. In 2012, Gazprom took over oil and gas operations from a Croatian company previously active in Syria.62

57 Sergey Markedonov, “Pochemu Rossiya Zashishayet Siriyu Asada?” April 1, 2012, http://noev-kovcheg.ru/mag/2012-04/3092.html. 58 Ifesinachi and Raymond, “The United States and Russian Governments,” 1158. 59 Phillips, The Battle for Syria, 221. 60 Alec Luhn, “Russia’s Campaign in Syria Leads to Arms Sale Windfall,” The Guardian, March 29, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/29/ russias-campaign-in-syria-leads-to-arms-sale-windfall. 61 “Moscow Cements Deal with Damascus to Keep 49-Year Presence at Syrian Naval and Air Bases,” TASS—Russian News Agency, January 20, 2017, http://tass.com/ defense/926348. 62 Azoulas Bagdonas, “Russia’s Interests in the Syrian Conflict: Power, Prestige, and Profit,” European Journal of Economic and Political Studies 5, no. 2 (2012): 64.

370  U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI

In the following year, Syria signed an agreement with Russia regarding oil exploration in order to promote its economy and political stability.63

Conclusion Throughout the 1990s, Russia, as the successor of the defunct USSR, was forced to deal with the economic and political fallout of its one regime change. Vladimir Putin’s later coming to power marked the beginnings of a Russia reemerging domestically with more bids for power in the international system. Moscow became willing to engage head-to-head with Western countries. The most explicit example of this renewed power is undoubtedly the Syrian Civil War: Moscow’s position resists the unilateralism of the USA and other Western countries in affecting regime change as a means of shoring up interests. Moscow used its right to veto in the UNSC and consistently emphasized the principle of non-intervention in states’ affairs, with reference to the UN Charter. No doubt, on this occasion, the principle fell in line with Russia’s own interests. Moscow’s security stance is that regime change by foreign intervention and occupation may pave the ground for instability in the respective country, as beyond evident in Iraq, Yemen, and Libya. Moreover, fundamentalists are among the ones demanding the overthrow of the Syrian regime. In Moscow, policy-makers regard instability in the broader Middle East (which allows fundamentalist gains) a political threat for the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Russia.64 But neither are more immediate and temporal concerns far from view. Putin has aimed to deal with this threat beyond Russian territory. Russia has been on good terms with Syria since Soviet times and controls a military naval base, in addition to important economic and ­ military interests. Learning similar strategic lessons from the cases of Iraq and Libya, Russia has never wished to lose these privileges under any circumstances, least of all regime change. Therefore, according to Russian point of view, non-regime change and non-foreign interference like in Iraq and Libya are essential to maintain Russia’s strategic interests in Syria. Russian support for Syria needs to be seen within this framework, along with that of balancing the influence of Western encroachment that threatens both country’s interests. 63 “Syria Signs Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Deal with Russia,” RT, December 25, 2013, https://www.rt.com/business/syria-oil-gas-russia-795/. 64 “Syria Signs Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Deal with Russia.”

12  LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 

371

Bibliography Bagdonas, Azoulas. “Russia’s Interests in the Syrian Conflict: Power, Prestige, and Profit.” European Journal of Economic and Political Studies 5, no. 2 (2012): 55–77. BBC News. “Medvedev Rejects Putin ‘Crusade’ Remark over Libya,” March 21, 2011. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12810566. ———. “Russia and China Veto Resolution on Syria at UN,” February 4, 2012. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-16890107. ———. “Russia and Egypt in ‘Historic’ Talks’,” November 14, 2013. http:// www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24936509. ———. “Syria War: Russia and China Veto Sanctions,” February 28, 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39116854. CBSNEWS. “Russia: Syrian Rebels Made, Used Sarin Nerve Gas,” July 9, 2013. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-syrian-rebels-made-used-sarin-nerve-gas/. Charap, Samuel. “Russia, Syria and the Doctrine of Intervention.” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 55, no. 1 (2013): 35–41. https://doi.org/10.10 80/00396338.2013.767403. Deutsche Welle Türkçe. “Kimyasal Gazı Kim Kullandı?” August 26, 2013. http:// www.dw.com/tr/kimyasal-gaz%C4%B1-kim-kulland%C4%B1/a-17045913. Fedorchenko, Andrey. “Blizhniy Vostok: Orientiry Rossiyskoy Vneshney Politiki,” January 3, 2013. https://mgimo.ru/about/news/experts/234357/. Global Security. “Russian Naval Base at Tartus/Tartous.” Accessed August 9, 2019. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/syria/tartous.htm. Guseynov, Vagif. “Blijniy Vostok: Neobhodimost Rossiyskogo Prisutstviya.” Rossiya i Musulmanskiy Mir, no. 4 (2008): 138–43. Harris, Paul. “Syria Resolution Vetoed by Russia and China at United Nations,” February 4, 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/04/assadobama-resign-un-resolution. Hill, Fiona. “The Real Reason Putin Supports Assad.” Foreign Affairs, March 25, 2013. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/chechnya/2013-03-25/ real-reason-putin-supports-assad. Ifesinachi, Ken, and Adibe Raymond. “The United States and Russian Governments Involvement in the Syrian Crisis and the United Nations’ Kofi Annan Peace Process.” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5, no. 27 (December 2014): 1154–62. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n27p1154. Ilinykh, Aleksandr. “Arabskaya Vesna i Rossiyskaya Politika Na Arabskom Vostoke v Novıkh Usloviyakh.” İstoriko-Pedagogicheskiye Chteniya, no. 17 (2013): 101–8. Inosmi. “Pochemu Rossiya Vozderzhalas Ot Aviaudarov Po Livii?” March 19, 2011. http://www.inosmi.ru/africa/20110319/167498836.html. Kasayev, Eldar. “Irak: İnvestitsionnıy Klimat i İnteresı Rossii.” İndeks Bezopasnosti 15, no. 1 (2009): 59–74.

372  U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI Katz, Mark. “Siriya Dlya Rossii Kak Afganistan Dlya SSSR?” Global Affairs, September 5, 2012. http://www.globalaffairs.ru/print/number/Siriya-dlyaRossii-kak-Afganistan-dlya-SSSR-15655. Kupinov, Maksim. “Segodniya Siriya, Zavtra Rossiya,” June 14, 2013. http:// www.segodnia.ru/content/123738. Latunskiy, Igor. “Liviyskaya Lovuşka Dlya Başara Asada.” Pravda, July 10, 2012. http://www.pravda.ru/world/asia/middleeast/10-07-2012/1121496gafurov-0/. Lavrov, Sergei. “On the Right Side of History.” Huffington Post, June 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sergei-lavrov/russia-syria-on-the-rightside-of-history_b_1596400.html. Luhn, Alec. “Russia’s Campaign in Syria Leads to Arms Sale Windfall.” The Guardian, March 29, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ mar/29/russias-campaign-in-syria-leads-to-arms-sale-windfall. Lukyanov, Fedor. “Za Çto Rossiya Srazheyetsya v Sirii.” Global Affairs, August 10, 2012. http://www.globalaffairs.ru/print/redcol/Za-chto-Rossiyasrazhaetsya-v-Sirii-15630. Lynch, Column. “Russia, China Veto Syria Resolution at the United Nations.” The Washington Post, October 4, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-china-block-syria-resolution-at-un/2011/10/04/gIQArCFBML_story.html. Markedonov, Sergey. “Pochemu Rossiya Zashishayet Siriyu Asada?” April 1, 2012. http://noev-kovcheg.ru/mag/2012-04/3092.html. ODATV, Ve A.B.D. Suriye’ye Saldırdı. “Ve ABD Suriye’ye Saldırdı.” ODATV, April 14, 2018. https://odatv.com/ve-abd-suriyeye-saldirdi-14041838.html. OPWC. “Syria’s Accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention Enters into Force,” October 14, 2013. https://www.opcw.org/news/article/ syrias-accession-to-the-chemical-weapons-convention-enters-into-force/. O’Toole, James. “Billions at Stake as Russia Backs Syria.” CNN Money, February 10, 2012. http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/international/russia_ syria. Phillips, Christopher. The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016. Podtserob, Alexei. “Rossiya i Krizisnıye Situatsii Vokrug İraka: İstoriya i Sovremennost.” Vestnik MGİMO Universiteta 14, no. 5 (2010): 163–72. President of Russia. “Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy,” February 10, 2007. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/ transcripts/24034. Putin, Vladimir. “Annual Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.” President of Russia, July 8, 2000. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/ president/transcripts/21480.

12  LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 

373

———. “Putin, Vladimir ‘Rossiya i Menyayushiysya Mir’, RG, February 27, 2012 (Accessed on 9 August 2019).” RG, February 27, 2012. https:// rg.ru/2012/02/27/putin-politika.html. ———. “Russia and the Changing World.” RT, February 27, 2012. https:// www.rt.com/politics/official-word/putin-russia-changing-world-263/. RT. “Syria Signs Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Deal with Russia,” December 25, 2013. https://www.rt.com/business/syria-oil-gas-russia-795/. RT World News. “Putin Talks NSA, Syria, Iran, Drones in RT Interview (Full Video),” June 12, 2013. https://www.rt.com/news/putin-rtinterview-full-577/. Sharipov, Ural. “Bitva Za Siriyu.” Nauchno-Analiticheskiy Jurnal Obozrevatel 273, no. 10 (October 2012): 64–74. Snyder, Christian. “Analysis: How a 1999 NATO Operation Turned Russia against the West.” The Pittnews, September 7, 2017. https://pittnews.com/ article/121917/opinions/analysis-1999-nato-operation-turned-russia-west/. Sputniknews. “Esad: Rusya, Suriye’de Büyük Bir Askeri Üs Kurabilir,” March 26, 2015. https://tr.sputniknews.com/ortadogu/201503261014653529/. Strømmen, Øyvind. “Assad’s Far-Right Europe Corps?” Hate Speech International Investigating Extremism, November 25, 2013. https://www. hate-speech.org/other-volunteers/. Synovitz, Ron. “Why Is Access to Syria’s Port at Tartus so Important to Moscow?” June 19, 2012. https://www.rferl.org/a/explainer-why-is-access-/24619441.html. TASS—Russian News Agency. “Moscow Cements Deal with Damascus to Keep 49-Year Presence at Syrian Naval and Air Bases,” January 20, 2017. http:// tass.com/defense/926348. Telegraph. “Syria Airstrikes: US Warns It Is ‘Locked and Loaded’ If Assad Uses Chemical Weapons Again—Latest News,” April 14, 2018. https:// www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/14/syria-airstrikes-donald-trumpset-make-announcement-military/. The Embassy of Russian Federation to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. “Iz Otvetov Ministra İnostrannıh Del Rossii S.V. Lavrova Na Voprosı SMI Po Itogam Sammita Rossiya-ES v Bryussele (21 Dekabrya 2012 g.),” December 24, 2012. https://www.rus.rusemb.org. uk/press/534. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. “İntervyu Ministra İnostrannıh Del Rossii S.V. Lavrova Rukovoditelyu Avtorskoy Programmı ‘Aktualnıy Razgovor’ Telekompanii ‘3 Kanal’ V. Solovyevu, 13 Marta 2011 Goda,” March 13, 2011. http://www.mid.ru/foreign_policy/news/-/ asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/215526.

374  U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI ———. “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Press Release No: 1715-10-09-2013,” September 10, 2013. http://www.mid. ru/en/maps/ly/-/asset_publisher/wcPZCnhgb1aW/content/id/97270/ pop_up?_101_INSTANCE_wcPZCnhgb1aW_viewMode=print&_101_ INSTANCE_wcPZCnhgb1aW_qrIndex=0. “The UN Security Council Resolution No 1973 (2011).” United Nations Security Council, March 17, 2011. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc. asp?symbol=S/RES/1973(2011). Trenin, Dimitri. “Putin’s Syria Gambit Aims at Something Bigger than Syria.” The Tablet, October 13, 2015. http://www.tabletmag.com/ jewish-news-and-politics/194109/putin-syria-trenin. United Nations. “Security Council Unanimously Adopts Resolution 2042 (2012), Authorizing Advance Team to Monitor Ceasefire in Syria,” April 14, 2012. https://www.un.org/press/en/2012/sc10609.doc.htm. Vasiliev, Alexey. Russia’s Middle East Policy: From Lenin to Putin. London: Routledge, 2018. Vitaly, Naumkin, A. G. Aksenenok, İ. D. Zvyagelskaya, T. A. Karasova, V. A. Kuznetsov, V. V. Popov, M. A. Sapronova, P. V. Stegniy, A. O. Filonik, and P. V. Shlykov. Rossiya i Bolshoy Blizhniy Vostok. Moskva: Rossiya i Bolshoy Blizhniy Vostok, 2013. https://russiancouncil.ru/common/upload/russia_middle_east. pdf. Vladislav, Inozemtsev. “Zachem Nam Siriya?” Vedomosti, December 24, 2012. https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2012/12/24/zachem_nam_ siriya. Voltaire Network. “Putin: Promoting Democracy, a Vaccination against Orange Revolutions,” February 23, 2012. http://www.voltairenet.org/article172874. html. VZ. “Putin Rasskazal, Zachem Rossiya Podderzhivaet Rezhim Asada v Sirii,” September 28, 2015. https://vz.ru/news/2015/9/28/769112.html. Yeates, Walter. “Putin’s World: The Economic Ties between Russia and Syria.” Huffington Post, May 22, 2017. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ putins-world-the-econmic-ties-between-russia-syria_us_5921c6a4e4b0b28a33f62d33.

CHAPTER 13

Contribution of Water Scarcity and Sustainability Failures to Disintegration and Conflict in the Arab Region— The Case of Syria and Yemen Mohammad Al-Saidi

Introduction The Arab region is naturally characterized by an arid and semi-arid ­climate, making it among the most water-scarce regions of the world. Water policy failures arise from increasing scarcity, but they are also a consequence of a lack of organizational and institutional capacities to tackle them. While water, rather than oil, might be the most valuable future resource in this region, the state of water management and infrastructure is in bad shape in terms of overall performance, with imminent political and economic risks. This chapter presents the argument that past policy failures in tackling the sustainable use of key natural resources such as water have contributed to political crises, conflicts, and state disintegration across the region. It presents evidence supporting this thesis M. Al-Saidi (*)  Center for Sustainable Development, College of Arts and Sciences, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_13

375

376  M. AL-SAIDI

from Syria and Yemen, while it provides critical discussion of the growing body of literature linking conflicts to natural resource use and sustainability failures. Overall, the point is argued that the mere existence of resource scarcity (e.g., water scarcity) or increased variability (e.g., climate-induced droughts) does not drive conflicts, although these features can lead to heightened political instability. Moreover, the decades-long failure to address these environmental problems represents a genuine, long-term, and increasingly important contributor to conflicts and disintegration in the broader Middle East. In this sense, this chapter institutes a redefinition of the contribution of the “environmental factors” to conflicts and the nature of their “causation” mechanism. It indicates that the totality of unmanaged environmental problems and public policy failures, rather than singular environmental events, is what causes conflicts and significantly heightens the potential for disintegration of state systems. According to the World Bank’s 2007 Development Report, the region of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) suffers from three types of scarcity: a scarcity of physical resources, a scarcity of organizational capacity, and a scarcity of accountability for achieving sustainable outcomes. The first type includes the physical availability of water resources. The second type stems from public agencies that have overlapping and unclear functions or difficulties in coordinating different water uses or that play multiple roles as service provider, planner, and regulator. The third kind of scarcity refers to the lack of a sound institutional environment. In order to promote such an environment, it is necessary to demand accountability, transparency, and inclusiveness as well as to develop good governance mechanisms.1 Water governance failures have become more evident in the Arab region; however, physical water scarcity is also increasing due to economic, demographic, and climatic pressures. One way to analyze this type of scarcity is by examining the Water Stress Index (WSI)—an index based on the approximate minimum level of water required per capita to maintain an adequate quality of life in a moderately developed country in an arid zone. It was calculated by Falkenmark as about 100 liters 1 “Making the Most of Scarcity: Accountability for Better Water Management Results in the Middle East and North Africa” (Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2007), xxi–xxix, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTMNAREGTOPWATRES/Resources/Making_the_Most_of_Scarcity.pdf.

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

377

per day (36.5 cubic meters per year) as the minimum requirement per person for good health. Furthermore, based on experience from developing countries, roughly 5–20 times this amount is needed to satisfy the requirements of agriculture, industry, and energy production.2 It is important to mention that water consumption for agriculture is very high in arid areas and can reach more than 90% of total consumption in some Middle Eastern countries. Based on the WSI, countries with renewable freshwater availability above about 1700 cubic meters per capita annually suffer only occasional or local water problems. Below this threshold, however, countries will experience periodic or regular “water stress.” When freshwater availability falls below 1000 cubic meters per person annually, countries experience chronic “water scarcity,” as the lack of water begins to hamper economic development and human health and wellbeing. Those countries with annual renewable freshwater supplies below 500 cubic meters per person experience “absolute scarcity.” Using this simple index, all Arab countries, except for Iraq, fall under the 1700 cubic meter threshold and are hence under either water stress or water scarcity.3 The static perspective of the WSI does not account for population growth or a country’s capacity to adapt to increasing scarcity, which are important factors regarding the link between water scarcity and conflicts. Scholars have thus considered other indicators, such as future water stress under population growth, the ratio of annual water demand (withdrawals) to annual renewable water availability (supply), spatial variability in water resources within countries, or the total water supply originating from outside a country’s borders.4 Other measurements also include a country’s adaptive capacity through development of comprehensive “vulnerability” indices that consider availability, economic and institutional factors, and

2 Malin Falkenmark, “The Massive Water Scarcity Now Threatening Africa: Why Isn’t It Being Addressed?” AMBIO 18, no. 2 (1989): 112–18. 3 “Making the Most of Scarcity,” xxi–xxix. 4 See e.g., Peter H. Gleick, “Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security,” International Security 18, no. 1 (1993): 99–104, https://doi. org/10.2307/2539033; Peter H. Gleick, Elizabeth L. Chalecki, and Arlene Wong, “Measuring Water Well-Being: Water Indicators and Indices,” in The World’s Water, 2002– 2003: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources, ed. Peter H. Gleick (Washington: Island Press, 2002), 87–112.

378  M. AL-SAIDI

coping measures (such as water storage),5 or by dividing the WSI by the Human Development Index (HDI).6 For decades now, using these multidimensional measurements, Arab countries have featured among the countries with the scarcest water. Contemporary water stress indices, which use key elements of the earlier mentioned measurements, estimate that all Arab countries, except for Egypt, will already be in a state of “extremely high” water stress by the year 2040.7 Furthermore, the water-related vulnerability of Arab countries does not only arise from internal scarcity factors. For example, one external driver of vulnerability is the dependence on water resources originating outside a country’s territories. This is the case with Egypt, which depends on the Nile River for its water. This means for Egypt that 97% of its water originates from outside its borders. Other countries such as Syria, Sudan, Iraq, and Jordan, have varying degrees of dependence, at 79, 77, 66, and 36%, respectively. This dependence on external water sources has, in the past, been a source of transboundary water-sharing disputes among riparian nations in the Eastern Nile (Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia), the Jordan River (Israel and Jordan), or the Euphrates–Tigris River (Turkey, Syria, and Iraq). Although these disputes have not yet resulted in direct state conflicts, tensions are growing given the rise in national ambitions of upstream countries for river development, e.g., the increased river utilization in Ethiopia or Turkey. Overall, although water scarcity and vulnerability may be the obvious underlying problems, the incapability of Arab countries to adapt to these conditions is the real issue. This is true with regard to the failing capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate pressures on water resources.8

5 Paul Raskin, “Water Future: Assessment of Long-Range Patterns and Problems. Background Document to the Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of the World Report (WMO, 1997),” Stockholm Environment Institute, October 30, 2008, https://www.sei.org/publications/water-futures-assessment-long-range-patterns-problems-2. 6 Leif Ohlsson, “Environment Scarcity and Conflict: A Study of Malthusian Concerns” (Doctoral, University of Gothenburg, 1999), http://hdl.handle.net/2077/13417. 7 Tianyi Luo, Robert Young, and Paul Reig, “Aqueduct Projected Water Stress Country Rankings,” World Resources Institute, August 2015, https://www.wri.org/resources/ data-sets/aqueduct-projected-water-stress-country-rankings. 8 Jeannie Sowers, Avner Vengosh, and Erika Weinthal, “Climate Change, Water Resources, and the Politics of Adaptation in the Middle East and North Africa,” Climatic Change 104, no. 3–4 (February 2011): 599–627, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9835-4 .

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

379

The region can expect significant climatic pressures in the upcoming decades, in terms of reduced rainfall, temperature variability, sea-level rise, and the loss of agricultural production.9 Alongside water stress, these additional risks have caused c­ limate-induced migration movements10 and might cause more pressures in the future. Furthermore, there are emergent problems arising from increased integration between water use and the use of other resources, as the next section shows. However, these new challenges are not yet addressed in current policies, and while the impacts of these challenges are uncertain, they can increase resource insecurity in new groups of countries in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East.

Emergent Challenges from Resource-Use Integration Alongside scarcity and vulnerabilities in the water sector, water issues in the Arab region are becoming entwined with land- and ­energy-management issues. Traditionally, land and water issues are prominent and closely interlinked in the big agricultural societies of the Arab world. Agricultural cropping patterns and irrigation practices, for example, are usually two separate land management issues, but both have a huge impact on conservation and sustainability in the water sector. Equally important is the agricultural trade policy in these countries. With increasing water scarcity, reducing the internal water footprint in these countries can serve as a viable solution and a way out of scarcity. This is achievable through an increase in imports of water-intensive products. This issue of virtual water—the water footprint in agricultural trade—is often weighed against food supply security

9 For adaptation measures to climate-change risks in the Arab region see “Adaptation to a Changing Climate in the Arab Countries: A Case for Adaptation Governance and Leadership in Building Climate Resilience,” MENA Development Report (The World Bank, June 11, 2013), http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/740351468299700935/ pdf/Adaptation-to-a-changing-climate-in-the-Arab-countries-a-case-for-adaptationgovernance-and-leadership-in-building-climate-resilience.pdf; For risks and adaptation measures in the Arabian/Persian region, see Mohammad Al-Saidi and Nadir Ahmed Elagib, “Ecological Modernization and Responses for a Low-Carbon Future in the Gulf Cooperation Countries,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change (May 2018): e538, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.528. 10 Quentin Wodon et al., eds., Climate Change and Migration: Evidence from the Middle East and North Africa (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2014), http://documents. worldbank.org/curated/en/748271468278938347/pdf/893710PUB0978000Box385270B00PUBLIC0.pdf.

380  M. AL-SAIDI

constraints and other political considerations, such as the welfare of farmers nationally. However, after a long period of agricultural expansion, some Arab countries still have large internal agricultural water footprints, something that is contrary to the water scarcity situation in these countries. In addition to the above, water and energy management issues are also closely linked. On the one hand, energy policies have an influence on water use. For example, energy subsidies for diesel have contributed to the spread and affordability of water-development practices through (illegal) well-drilling. On the other hand, water is used for energy production across the Arab region, and this use will increase with new hydropower projects. However, this water use is not significant in the region. In the United States, for example, 45% of the water withdrawal is used for electricity production.11 By comparison, the electrical energy production system in the broader Middle East is less reliant on freshwater due to the availability of abundant fossil fuel resources.12 In the Arab region, the integration between water, energy, and land use is expected to increase, given the current socio-economic growth patterns. With increased reliance on water-intensive electricity and ­electricity-intensive water production, the water and energy infrastructures are going to become increasingly coupled.13 For example, increased temperature due to climate change is expected to increase the requirements for cooling in buildings. Cooling, which is already a higher energy-use s­ector, can also use significant amounts of water, especially with the advancement of the more energy-efficient (but water-intensive) district cooling systems.14 Furthermore, energy use for water production is increasing, 11 Ron Pate et al., “Overview of Energy-Water Interdependencies and the Emerging Energy Demands on Water Resources” (Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratorie, 2007), https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1267289. 12 Afreen Siddiqi and Laura Diaz Anadon, “The Water-Energy Nexus in the Middle East and North Africa,” Energy Policy 39, no. 8 (August 2011): 4529–40, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.023. 13 For patterns of increased integration in water and energy productions in the broader Middle East, see Amro M. Farid, William N. Lubega, and William W. Hickman, “Opportunities for Energy-Water Nexus Management in the Middle East & North Africa,” Elementa Science of the Anthropocene 4 (2016): 1–17, https://doi.org/10.12952/journal. elementa.000134. 14 Ben Richard Hughes, Hassam Nasarullah Chaudhry, and Saud Abdul Ghani, eds., “A Review of Sustainable Cooling Technologies in Buildings,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, no. 6 (August 2011): 3112–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.03.032.

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

381

whether due to the increasing costs of groundwater abstractions or to the reliance on alternative water sources, such as desalination. Increased water scarcity means that desalination has become a key future water supply source for many countries, even those that have traditionally been using surface or groundwater resources. Here, the total electricity demand for desalination in the MENA region will triple by 2030 compared with 2007 levels.15 Desalination provides a quick fix for domestic water supplies, but it makes this supply vulnerable to the security of a few large-scale plants. Another example of water–energy integration and accompanying problems is water reuse, which is also on the rise as an important option for the use of marginal water (i.e., water of lesser quality such as  wastewater, or water produced in the oil and gas industries) instead of fresh water for agriculture.16 This option can be expected to result in increased energy use, and it requires a greater level of technological sophistication. One way to solve this is by linking water reuse and production to the promotion of renewable energies, which can also benefit low-carbon development in the region. This coupling of water and energy systems through clean technologies and ecological innovations can already be witnessed in the case of the Gulf countries. In fact, decreasing the high consumption of energy and water, increasing energy efficiency, and developing renewable energies are on the political agenda for countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). In these countries, which have very high levels of water scarcity but are quite rich economically, the water and energy sectors are prime examples of ecological modernization and technology dependency.17 In the GCC region, through energy subsidies, water and energy services are provided at very low prices, often free of charge. These subsidies account for over 8.5% of the region’s GDP and 22% of the governments’

15 “Water Desalination Using Renewable Energy,” Technology Brief (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], March 2012), http://www.irena.org/-/media/ Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2015/IRENA-ETSAP-Tech-Brief-I12-WaterDesalination.pdf. 16 See J. Jed Brown, Probir Das, and Mohammad Al-Saidi, “Sustainable Agriculture in the Arabian/Persian Gulf Region Utilizing Marginal Water Resources: Making the Best of a Bad Situation,” Sustainability 10, no. 5 (April 2018): 1–16, https://doi.org/10.3390/ su10051364 . 17 Al-Saidi and Elagib, “Ecological Modernization and Responses for a Low-Carbon Future in the Gulf Cooperation Countries.”

382  M. AL-SAIDI

revenues.18 However, the availability of energy, together with the high dependency of food imports and a relatively high socio-economic stability, make the GCC region less vulnerable to current and future water supply problems than are the big agricultural countries in the broader Middle East.19 Yet, this is a short-term notion of water supply security that does not take into account the cost of energy and emissions, nor does it incorporate issues such as the risk of accidents or technological failures. Water supply security in the GCC is contrasted with large energy intensities in both the water and agricultural sectors20; and besides, large agricultural Arab countries, such as Egypt, Yemen, or Syria, might not have the economic means to adequately compensate for increasing water scarcity through reuse systems or desalination plants. To compound these issues, the rise of renewable energies poses another risk to freshwater supplies that requires careful consideration. For example, renewable energy use in agriculture (e.g., through solar irrigation systems) has resulted in the overuse of groundwater resources in the case of India.21 However, renewables can be combined with more sustainable food production systems. Some of the newer systems (e.g., greenhouses, vertical farming, aquaculture hydroponics, aquaponics, etc.) are less water-intensive but more energy-intensive than traditional farming. The transition toward these forms of sustainable agriculture requires significant investments and the abolition of market distortions or disincentives for water and energy savings. Until now, however, local

18 Joshua Meltzer, Nathan Hultman, and Claire Langley, “Low-Carbon Energy Transitions in Qatar and the Gulf Cooperation Council Region” (Brookings institute, February 2014), https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/low-carbon-energy-transitions-qatar-meltzer-hultman-full.pdf. 19 Mohammad Al-Saidi et al., “Water Resources Vulnerability Assessment of MENA Countries Considering Energy and Virtual Water Interactions,” Procedia Engineering 145 (2016): 900–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.117. 20 Mohammad Al-Saidi, Andres Jimenez, and Deniz Oezhan, “Assessment of Energy Use Patterns for Water and Food Production in the MENA Region,” in International Energy and Sustainability Conference (IESC) (Cologne, Germany, 2016), https://doi. org/10.1109/IESC.2016.7569506. 21 Nitin Bassi, “Solarizing Groundwater Irrigation in India: A Growing Debate,” International Journal of Water Resources Development 34, no. 1 (2017): 132–45, https:// doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2017.1329137.

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

383

agriculture in Arab countries has thrived on subsidized energy prices,22 and for the larger part, the absence of water pricing systems. Overall, countries in the broader Middle East have been producing more from a single resource, which negatively impacts resource availability and the quality of other resources used as input. This is increasingly becoming the case, with this trend being manifested in new production systems for water, energy, and food. The failures of these countries to decouple production systems of energy and food from increases in water use or the production of water from the use of fossil fuels will have tangible negative consequences. As will be discussed in the next section, water sector reform represents the centerpiece of these failures, with divisive water sustainability politics hindering any major progress.

The Public Policy Burden of Water Politics During the early 1990s, freshwater scarcity became obvious, and governments started to change their public policies in order to promote sustainable water management. This came after decades of politicizing water use for agricultural growth and development. Before water shortages became evident in the 1990s, state ideologies in many Arab countries had for decades revolved around the notion of water development rather than sustainable management. The lack of integrated and long-term planning of water resources meant that water-management decisions were made ad hoc and with no calculation of risks from demographic or economic factors. Only when the cost of water scarcity became evident through droughts and water shortages did the urgency of management reforms translate itself into water sector policy and legislation. Water-sector policymakers and donors started to promote the idea of sustainability in the management of water resources rather late in the day, i.e., only when Arab countries started to witness the impacts of the water development strategies of the 1960s to the 1970s. In fact, over the centuries, the history of public water policies in the Arab world accommodated

22 See e.g., Omar Saif, Toufic Mezher, and Hassan A. Arafat, “Water Security in the GCC Countries: Challenges and Opportunities,” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 4, no. 4 (December 2014): 329–46, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0178-8.

384  M. AL-SAIDI

concerns about both scarcity and development.23 According to the World Bank (2007), this history can be divided into three phases.24 The first phase evolved over the millennia when societies across the Middle East grew and developed their ways of coping with the variability and scarcity of water resources. These societies became prosperous and developed the most elaborate institutions and structures, which helped the region to harbor some of the world’s oldest and most accomplished civilizations. The second phase, which is described in this chapter as the “water resources development phase,” emerged only during the twentieth century, as population and economic growth drove governments to focus on securing water supplies and to expand services. Here, the state was actively involved in the collective development of water resources through massive development projects and by supporting farmers. In fact, the rivers in this region became the most heavily dammed in the world. Irrigation networks became extensive, and the low-cost drilling technology of the 1960s led to intensive tapping into aquifers by private citizens. The current, third phase, which this chapter describes as the “liberalized and sustainable resources management phase,” began in the early to mid-1990s. A series of policy changes to the management of water sources has been initiated since the mid-1990s. Several Arab countries started to reorganize their water and sanitation sectors by establishing separate ministries responsible for water planning, by adopting legislation such as water laws, and by institutionalizing water-sector strategies. Although the water resources development phase has been formally replaced by the contemporary phase of liberalized and sustainable water management, both ideologies are reflected in some of today’s public policies. Many Arab countries have moved to adopt the Dublin Principles of 1992, which promoted water as an economic good and introduced other principles of participatory management and the integration of water

23 For the history of agricultural policies in the Arab region, see “Making the Most of Scarcity,” xxi–xxix; Mohamed Bazza, “Overview of the History of Water Resources and Irrigation Management in the Near East Region,” Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 7, no. 1 (2007): 201–9, https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2007.023; Hussein A. Amery and Aaron T. Wolf, eds., Water in the Middle East: A Geography of Peace (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2000). 24 “Making

the Most of Scarcity,” xxi–xxix.

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

385

sector decisions.25 From these principles, the management paradigm of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) was developed and promoted for developing countries by donor organizations and scholars alike. IWRM was implemented in many Middle Eastern countries and has resulted in new, but sometimes quite weak, institutions. However, it has also generated resistance from agricultural actors and a high level of insecurity and institutional conflicts.26 Nonetheless, this integrated management paradigm introduced, for the first time, a promising solution for water overuse and quality deterioration. Although the holistic idea of IWRM is highly conceptual, it offered new political economic instruments for the region, e.g., adequate water pricing, decentralization of water management, commercialization of water utilities, management of the water demand side, and consolidation of water institutions. The importance of this ideology in advocating a coherent, balanced, and coordinated water policy should not be underestimated. The idea that one cannot talk of scarce water resources without mentioning wasteful demand patterns, or that one cannot manage urban water supply without linking it to agricultural and irrigation, was arguably not self-evident for practitioners in the water sectors in Arab countries. After decades of high population growth, urbanization, and agricultural expansion, Arab countries have just started to work out a solution to the threats concerning their water supplies. IWRM thus created many new institutional arrangements, as well as increased participation and cooperation, whether at the basin level or at least between national and international stakeholders. Overall, water policies, legislation, and strategies were easier to adopt than were reforms aimed at water pricing, private sector participation, regulation, and economic incentives. Still, even today, water prices in many countries are too low to accommodate the economic value of water

25 N. Vijay Jagannathan, Ahmed Shawky Mohamed, and Christopher J. Perry, “Introduction: Beyond WRM—Unbundling Water Management in MNA Countries,” in Water in the Arab World: Management Perspectives and Innovations, ed. N. Vijay Jagannathan, Ahmed Shawky Mohamed, and Alexander Kremer (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009), https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMENA/Resources/Water_Arab_ World_full.pdf. 26 See the overview provided in Mohammad Al-Saidi, “Conflicts and Security in Integrated Water Resources Management,” Environmental Science and Policy 73 (July 2017): 38–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.015.

386  M. AL-SAIDI

or to curb excessive consumption.27 At the same time, a minority of Arab countries have adequate regulatory instruments for the water sector.28 In many countries, enforcement of crucial aspects of sustainable water management, such as licensing and monitoring of groundwater wells, is still weak. A new generation of water managers across the Arab world has become increasingly aware of the rising scarcity and the integrated management approach to water policy, but policymakers are still either unable or unwilling to support a sustainable and integrated water policy. This is due to strong resistance to crucial reforms, such as decentralization of water institutions, establishment of adequate water pricing policies for the urban and agricultural sectors, or adoption of basin plans with adequate regulation and protection rules. Stakeholders from the agriculture- or energy-related sectors still advocate that their priorities should be promoted by the state, as their sectors are more worthy of development. They cite the economic contribution of their sectors, regardless of their water demand and use patterns. In addition, policies across the water, energy, and land sectors are rarely coherent. For example, promoting food security or local agriculture often comes at the cost of freshwater resources, while increasing access to cheap energy might lead to over-pumping of groundwater. While the Arab region has long relied on food imports to compensate for the countries’ internal water deficits,29 these imports are vulnerable to price volatility on the global

27 See for the case of water pricing in Yemen a review of the similar experience from (Arab) developing countries Mohammad Al-Saidi, “Urban Water Pricing in Yemen: A Comparison of Increasing Block Tariffs to Other Pricing Schemes,” Water International 42, no. 3 (2017): 308–23, https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2016.1269283. 28 See the survey of regulatory experiences in the Arab world in Esther Gerlach, “Regulatory Design and Practice in the MENA Region and beyond: A Review and Performance Monitoring Arrangements for Water Service Providers” (Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit [GIZ] GmbH, August 2010), http://www. water-impact-guidebook.net/fileadmin/0_guidebook/resources_exercises/A-Enabling_ Environment/7-Regulatory_Design_and_Practice-MENREM_Survey_Report.pdf. 29 Hassan Hakimian, “Water Scarcity and Food Imports: An Empirical Investigation of the ‘Virtual Water’ Hypothesis in the MENA Region,” Review of Middle East Economics and Finance 1, no. 1 (2003): 71–85.

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

387

food markets. In the past, this led policymakers to increase regulations for the protection of domestic food markets through subsidies and other market distortions.30 In turn, increasing local agriculture and water-intensive cropping patterns result in increased water use and, often, water over-abstraction. The recognition of the need to incorporate comprehensive water management policies to address these issues of pricing, footprints, demand management, or integration across sectors did not immediately translate into actions in terms of public policies. Instead, water scarcity-related and land-related problems continued and are increasingly linked to the eruption of armed conflicts, as in the cases of Syria and Yemen.

Water Scarcity as a Driver of Political Disintegration? The cases of Syria and Yemen show how sustainability failures are decades in the making and are strongly manifested in the water sector. Although scholarly debates center on the validity and magnitude of the contribution of water-related disasters to conflicts, particularly in Syria, they disguise the real problem of inadequate public policies to address water sustainability. These cases represent a common narrative in the broader Middle East region of depleted water resources resulting in economic and socio-political pressures, which some scholars link to specific conflicts. This represents a difficulty in linking environmental problems to multi-faceted conflicts. However, the Syrian and Yemeni cases show that consideration of the overall context of sustainability failures, particularly in the water sector, is essential to understand recent political disintegration.

The Case of Syria Syria has recently been much analyzed regarding the contribution of environmental factors to its current armed conflict, and particularly the role of drought and climate variability, as discussed in Chapter 11 in this book. In fact, the contribution of this recent drought might be a small 30 Elena Ianchovichina, Josef L. Loening, and Christina A. Wood, “How Vulnerable Are Arab Countries to Global Food Price Shocks?,” The Journal of Development Studies 50, no. 9 (2014): 1302–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2014.928698; Eckart Woertz et al., “Food Inflation in the GCC Countries” (Gulf Research Center, May 2008), https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/111316/food_inflation_3609.pdf.

388  M. AL-SAIDI

part of the puzzle of the long litany of bad water and land policies. A long time before the current conflict started, the growth and misallocation of vital natural resources, such as water, caused political tensions and environmental pressures. Syria’s groundwater resources, as well as its surface water resources, are both heavily exploited for agricultural, municipal, and industrial use. With precipitation that can reach up to 1400 mm in the mountainous areas, groundwater aquifers, and a system of 16 main rivers and tributaries (including six international rivers), Syria has historically had fewer water concerns than its southern Arab neighbors; nevertheless, Syria’s groundwater resources are currently overexploited. At the same time, with a 70% dependency ratio on the inflow of surface water arising from outside the country, this inflow is limited through (often-disputed) international agreements with upstream countries, particularly Turkey and the Lebanon.31 Overexploitation of groundwater resources in Syria has resulted from decades of public policies to expand irrigated agriculture and improve food security. Starting in the 1960s, the government developed agricultural plans and incentives, including price guarantees for certain crops, low-interest loans, subsidies for machinery and fertilizers, and heavily subsidized diesel prices (at times, 20% of the global market price).32 Barnes has analyzed how water scarcity in Syria has been brought about by governmental policies that promoted water-intensive agriculture. The ruling Ba’ath party, together with powerful agricultural unions, pursued a policy of self-sufficiency in main food products by expanding irrigated agriculture. Groundwater exploitation and overuse increased in many regions, resulting in the potential for water-use conflicts in certain “spatial and temporal spaces of scarcity.” Barnes advocated considering these internal politics of water scarcity when studying conflicts in the region, rather than focusing on international or inter-state wars.33 The case of agricultural policies in Syria is common in the Arab world and shows the dominant role of agriculture (around 88% of total water 31 “Syrian Arab Republic,” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2018, http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/SYR/. 32 Aden Aw-Hassan et  al., “The Impact of Food and Agricultural Policies on Groundwater Use in Syria,” Journal of Hydrology 513 (2014): 204–15, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.03.043. 33 Jessica Barnes, “Managing the Waters of Ba’th Country: The Politics of Water Scarcity in Syria,” Geopolitics 14, no. 3 (2009): 510–30, https://doi.org/10.1080/14650040802694117.

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

389

withdrawals in Syria) and the role of (unsustainable) water-development policies in producing scarcity. However, economic, demographic, and climatic pressures growth should not be neglected. In Syria, for example, between 1993 and 2003, total water withdrawals, as well as withdrawals for agriculture, increased by around 30%, while this rate was 39% for municipal and 89% for industrial water use.34 Together with mismanagement of agricultural water, pressures from rapidly rising demands from industries and populations, and increasing climatic variability, might lead to a “perfect storm” of instability in some areas. After water resources development became the paramount objective of water policies, Syria started, in the late 1990s, with the development of IWRM plans, including demand-management options.35 However, apart from the National Water Law of 2005, up until the start of the conflict in 2011, the water sector had undergone few reforms in terms of institutions, unbundling of functions, regulatory arrangements, or economic instruments. After the start of the civil war in 2011, some scholars sought more concrete links between this conflict and environmental factors. In particular, the recent drought in Syria (2006–2011) and its impact on crop failures, loss of livelihoods, and rural–urban migrations have been much publicized in media and academic literature. For example, Gleick laid out the argument how these climate variability factors, which can be interpreted as “early signs of climatic changes” in the region, resulted in population displacements and food insecurities. The latter might have fueled the recent conflict,36 but Gleick also alluded to the overall context of ineffective water policies and demographic factors which, together with climatic variability as well as non-environmental factors, should be considered in any explanation of the current conflict. In fact, this line of argument is important for contemporary conflict analyses in the region

34 “Syrian

Arab Republic.” the survey of IWRM reforms in the Arab countries in UN Water, “Status Report on Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency Plans. Prepared for the 16th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development” (UN Water, May 2008), http://www.unwater.org/publications/status-report-integrated-water-resourcemanagement-water-efficiency-plans-csd-16/. 36 Peter H. Gleick, “Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria,” Weather, Climate, and Society 6, no. 3 (July 2014): 331–40, https://doi.org/10.1175/ WCAS-D-13-00059.1. 35 See

390  M. AL-SAIDI

and should not be misinterpreted as defining a recent water event or a set of policies as causes of conflicts. Instead, it goes along with the aforementioned notion on how the politics of the water–energy nexus might have caused vulnerabilities and misallocations that arguably create additional instabilities in the region. Other scholars (notably Femia and Werrel, Kelly et al., and Werrell et al.)37 expressed the same notion as Gleick—that environmental factors, and specifically the climatic variable of drought, “contributed” to the current conflict. However, this assentation has been strongly refuted by Selby et al., who has provided evidence indicating that this drought might have not “led to” or triggered large migration, and therefore is not a significant factor in the uprising in Syria.38 This refutation ignited a fierce debate between the proponents of two theses, namely “drought as a (significant) contributing factors to the Syria’s uprising” vs. “no clear or reliable link between the drought and the uprising.”39 In fact, these two theses are not exactly opposite to each other. Drought could have been one of many important contributing factors, despite the difficulties of quantifying and identifying the entire causation mechanism. This debate has been quite valuable in generating data-based evidence, opinions, and counterarguments about the complex set of conflict drivers in the Syrian case. As the next underrepresented case of Yemen shows, several factors related to water and land-use issues might have a role to play in the 37 See Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell, “Syria: Climate Change, Drought and Social Unrest,” The Center for Climate and Security (CCS), February 29, 2012, https://climateandsecurity.org/2012/02/29/syria-climate-change-drought-and-social-unrest/; Colin P. Kelley et al., “Climate Change in the Fertile Crescent and Implications of the Recent Syrian Drought,” in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 112 (2015), 3241–46, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421533112; and Caitlin E. Werrell, Francesco Femia, and Troy Sternberg, “Did We See It Coming? State Fragility, Climate Vulnerability and the Uprisings in Syria and Egypt,” SAIS Review of International Affairs 35, no. 1 (Winter– Spring 2015): 29–46, https://doi.org/10.1353/sais.2015.000. 38 Jan Selby et  al., “Climate Change and the Syrian Civil War Revisited,” Political Geography 60 (September 2017): 232–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.05.007. 39 Peter H. Gleick, “Climate, Water, and Conflict: Commentary on Selby et al. 2017,” Political Geography 60 (September 2017): 248–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.06.009; Colin P. Kelley et al., “Commentary on the Syrian Case: Climate as a Contributing Factor,” Political Geography 60 (2017): 245–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. polgeo.2017.06.013; and Jan Selby et al., “Climate Change and the Syrian Civil War Revisited: A Rejoinder,” Political Geography 60 (September 2017): 253–55, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.08.001.

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

391

recent conflict, although the public policy failures in the water sector might be the key environmental issue driving instability and disintegration in Yemen.

The Case of Yemen Yemen suffers from a triple set of problems, namely water scarcity, economic underdevelopment, and state fragility. It has a largely desert climate, only around 2.8% of arable land, and water in Yemen is scarce. The annual precipitation is between 500 and 800 mm in the Western Highlands, and less than 50 mm on the coasts of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden in the South.40 Surface water is the most important water source in Yemen. It consists of seasonal spate-water and springs that recharge groundwater resources. Groundwater is especially important for Yemen’s agriculture. The expansion of agriculture has meant that deep groundwater aquifers are being used to cover an annual water deficit of around 900 MCM, leading to a decline in aquifers of about 1–7 meters annually.41 The water situation in Yemen reached crisis mode in 2014, even before the current armed conflict started. Aquifers are depleted at high rates (e.g., four times the natural recharge rate in the capital city of Sana’a), water quality is deteriorating, and the predominantly rural and peasant communities are experiencing more land and water conflicts.42 At the same time, alternatives such as desalination are difficult due to their high cost, and particularly pumping costs from coastal areas to the populated mountainous interior part of Yemen. There are multiple drivers of water scarcity in Yemen, including a rapid increase in population and, importantly, the uncontrolled and

40 Nicole Glass, “The Water Crisis in Yemen: Causes, Consequences and Solutions,” Global Majority E-Journal 1, no. 1 (June 2010): 17–30. 41 Qahtan Yehya A.M. Al-Asbahi, “Water Resources Information in Yemen,” in International Work Session on Water Statistics (Vienna: Intersecretariat Working Group on Environment Statistics [IWG-ENV], 2005), http://www.yemenwater.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/04/pap_wasess3a3yemen.pdf. 42 For an overview of the dire water scarcity situation in Yemen at the start of current conflict, see Matthew I. Weiss, “A Perfect Storm: The Causes and Consequences of Severe Water Scarcity, Institutional Breakdown and Conflict in Yemen,” Water International 40, no. 2 (2015): 251–72, https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2015.1004898.

392  M. AL-SAIDI

mismanaged growth of agriculture. Agriculture still accounts for 15% of the GDP and employs 75% of the rural workforce,43 while it accounts for around 90% of total water use.44 In fact, the expansion of agriculture was supported by governmental policies since the 1970s up until the water sector reforms of the 1990s. During this period, cheap loans for farmers, protected markets, low diesel prices, remittances from migrant workers (particularly in the GCC countries), and resource capture by powerful politicians and tribal leaders, fueled a significant agricultural expansion, resulting in decreased groundwater levels, increased conflicts, and emerging water shortages in cities.45 Groundwater depletion led to a rise in the cost of pumping and caused a deterioration in groundwater quality, including seawater intrusion in the coastal plain areas. Particularly problematic was the expansion of the growth of the mild stimulant Qat, which evolved to become the main agricultural product in the Highlands and the Eastern Plateau. Even by the 1980s, Qat had become an important source of revenue for the state, accounting for around one-third of the GDP.46 Today, Qat production consumes a large amount of groundwater and represents a major economic problem in terms of household expenditures, work productivity, and the demise of previously exported cash crops, such as coffee. Local conflicts in Yemen are dominated by water and land disputes. These conflicts arise from the interplay of tribal privileges, weak state structures, and private agriculture.47 Tribes exert control over surface resources in the form of springs, spates, and run-offs. For centuries, they successfully managed conflicts as they arose. However, with agricultural expansion and

43 Weiss. 44 Al-Asbahi,

“Water Resources Information in Yemen.” Ward et al., “Yemen’s Water Sector Reform Program—A Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA),” October 2007, http://www.yemenwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/PSIAEnglishFullReport.pdf. 46 Daniel Martin Varisco, “The Qat Factor in North Yemen’s Agricultural Development,” Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 9, no. 34 (March 1988): 11–14, https://doi. org/10.1525/cuag.1988.9.34.11. 47 Christopher Ward, Water Crisis in Yemen: Managing Extreme Water Scarcity in the Middle East (London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 2014); Gerhard Lichtenthäler, Political Ecology and the Role of Water: Environment, Society and Economy in Northern Yemen (Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2011). 45 Christopher

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

393

increasing scarcity, the control of privately owned groundwater wells for both agriculture and potable water use has resulted in ecological failures of the state and the new elites to replace the traditional conflict-resolution systems.48 In this complex governance system, the boundaries between private and public water suppliers are fluid. In the North of Yemen, where tribal structures still dominate life, traditional leaders and sheikhs sometimes hold public offices, while also acting as private agents supplying water for higher prices. Inequitable distribution of assets and political power based on state patronage systems encourages the disparity of water control. While local water conflicts in Yemen have become a serious concern, with around 2500 deaths annually, the c­onflict-resolution mechanisms are still fragmented between formal, traditional, and tribal laws.49 The contribution of water-related conflicts to the current civil war in Yemen is still poorly researched, probably due to a lack of access and the scarcity of reliable data. Arguably, however, the potential contribution of water as an intermediate variable in the current national-level conflict is multifaceted and requires more detailed analysis. One indication about this role can be mentioned here, though: the potential contribution of water issues to the rise of the Houthi movement in their home region. The Houthis represent a religious-political group that emerged in the late 1990s and originated from the Saada governorate (around 1 million people). As a rebel movement, they participated in several wars with the government during the 2000s and, after participating in the 2011 peaceful uprising, overthrew the government in 2014. In 2015, after the intervention of a coalition of Arab states led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to topple the Houthis and their allies (the former president Saleh), the current war ensued. The political underpinning of the Houthis is still heavily debated in political and academic discourses; e.g., it is considered a political proxy of Iran, a disenfranchised local movement, or a political instrument of the former president, among others. When studying the rise and appeal of the Houthi movement, the question must be posed regarding the extent to which water scarcity played a role. 48 See Scott Moore, “Parchedness, Politics and Power: The State Hydraulic in Yemen,” Political Ecology 18, no. 1 (2011): 38–50, https://doi.org/10.2458/v18i1.21705. 49 Patrick Huntjens et al., “The Political Economy of Water Management in Yemen: Conflict Analysis and Recommendation” (The Hague Institute for Global Justice, 2014), http://www.thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/WaterManagement-in-Yemen.pdf.

394  M. AL-SAIDI

One indication of the potential contribution of water scarcity is the tragic situation of the Saada groundwater basin. Over the centuries, this inter-mountain basin helped create one of Yemen’s most productive agricultural plains. Some scattered literature and data exist that support the thesis of a link between the decline of the Saada basin and political tensions in this region. Ward explained the factors that led to a significant increase in profitability and the expansion of agriculture in the region during the 1980s and 1990s: population growth in the basin (from 40,000 in 1975 to 180,000 in 1997), easing of cultivation restrictions, public policies (fruit import ban), changing cropping patterns (Qat cultivation), and tubewell-based irrigation.50 This expansion was also fueled by capital remittances from workers in neighboring Gulf countries. After around 1 million workers were expelled from the Gulf due to Yemen’s support of Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War. Some of these workers returned to the basin and invested heavily in agriculture. As a result, the water table declined sharply, resulting in bitter conflicts that spilled into political and religious strife in the region.51 Al-Sakkaf et al. have already reported an extensive decline in groundwater levels during the 1980s and 1990s, with significant escalation of the number of drilling wells (e.g., a doubling of the number of wells between 1984 and 1986).52 They predicted the exhaustion of this aquifer by 2032; however, in fact, between 1983 and 2001, groundwater extraction grew by 100%, from 45 to 90 million cubic meters, while recharge dropped by 30%, to 7 million cubic meters, resulting in the exhaustion of the active zone of the aquifer as early as 1998.53 There is currently no reliable way to attribute the potential impact of the decline in groundwater levels to the rise of Houthis, to the different

50 Christopher Ward, “Water Conflict in Yemen: The Case for Strengthening Local Resolution Mechanisms,” in Water in the Arab World: Management Perspectives and Innovations, ed. N. Vijay Jagannathan, Ahmed Shawky Mohamed, and Alexander Kremer (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009), 233–67, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/590691468052797602/pdf/495930WP0Water1Box341965B01PUBLIC1l.pdf. 51 Ward, 233–67. 52 Rafik A. Al-Sakkaf, Yangxiao Zhou, and Michael J. Hall, “A Strategy for Controlling Groundwater Depletion in the S’adah Plain, Yemen,” Water Resources Development 15, no. 3 (1999): 349–65, https://doi.org/10.1080/07900629948862. 53 Ben Smith, “NCAP Yemen: Results from Sadah Basin,” we Adapt, January 2012, https:// www.weadapt.org/knowledge-base/national-adaptation-planning/yemen-sadah-basin.

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

395

armed struggles in the region, or to the overall conflict. However, the evidence presented above gives some idea of the economic and social pressures around the time of the conflicts, and hence some important intermediate variables for the eruption of the conflict. Furthermore, the exact causation mechanism, whether it be the loss of livelihoods, migration movements, or former farmers joining rebels, can only be qualitatively correlated. In fact, it is doubtful that a direct mechanism can explain the current national conflict, since factors other than the decline in groundwater levels play a role. For example, Al-Weshali et al. provided survey data and anecdotal evidence from several groundwater basins, including Saada, showing that the reductions in diesel subsidies in the period after the 2011 uprising reduced crop yields by 40–60% in the surveyed regions and might have contributed to the post-2011 turmoil by invoking protests led by the Houthis.54 In fact, local or national conflicts associated with groundwater decline or phasing-out subsidies show how sustainability failures and bad water policies create misallocations and, in hindsight, fail to solve the problems caused due to path dependency and power interplays. Since the late 1990s, Yemen, with noticeable help from its donors, realized the paramount importance of reforming the water sector by introducing IWRM and curbing water abstractions. However, the adopted institutional reforms (a new water law, a well-licensing system, a water ministry, a national water resources agency, etc.) had a bias toward a reorganization of the urban sector55 and did not result in effective groundwater management and regulation.56

Conclusions: Water Conflicts, Policy Reforms, and Failures The cases of Yemen and Syria show that the current debate about water conflicts remains a controversial topic. In this context, it is useful in this section to differentiate the argument about water conflicts and expand it beyond the 54 Adel Al-Weshali et al., “Diesel Subsidies and Yemen Politics: Post-2011 Crises and Their Impact on Groundwater Use and Agriculture,” Water Alternatives 8, no. 2 (2015): 215–36. 55 See Mohammad Al-Saidi, “Institutional Reforms in the Urban Water Supply Sector of Yemen,” in Social Water Studies in the Arab Region: State of the Art and Perspectives, ed. Manar Fayyad et al. (Berlin, 2015), 75–91, https://www.sle-berlin.de/files/sle/publikationen/160118DigitalWaterBookFINAL.compressed.pdf. 56 See Weiss, “A Perfect Storm”; Ward, Water Crisis in Yemen.

396  M. AL-SAIDI

contribution of a specific environmental factor (e.g., water scarcity or climate change) or a specific event (e.g., drought in Syria, or subsidy reductions in Yemen). The contribution of these singular events is often scrutinized regarding the conclusiveness of presented evidence; e.g., did a historic drought or a decline in groundwater levels cause, lead to, or contribute to the Syrian or Yemeni conflict? In fact, it is common, and often constructive, in the study of water conflicts to question and criticize the magnitude and evidence of singular environmental problems causing conflicts. At the same time, some scholars go beyond this criticism to doubt the scientific merit of any non-conclusive evidence on environmental factors and conflicts or to question the legitimacy of the scientific method used if it is not perfectly quantifiable or falsifiable. This chapter presents the argument that the real problem lies in defining the nature of the environmental factors and the nature of the causation mechanism. On the one hand, methodologically well-developed and argued evidence of a single (natural resource) policy failure or a specific environmental event causing conflict is quite valuable and should not be discounted. These singular cases are numerous and are referred to in the pro and contra debates of the above-mentioned studies on water conflicts. On the other hand, evidence based on singular factors (drought, pricing reforms, etc.) leading to a specific causation (e.g., migration, regime change, etc.) is, by nature, restrictive and susceptible to legitimate criticism. For example, the impact of water scarcity on migration and conflicts might be overstated in the case of the Middle East in general,57 and in the particular case of the Syrian drought.58 For some scholars, inter-state water wars in the region seem far removed from the political and economic reality of the region.59 In fact, there is much merit in this observation, since water remains a marginal issue in the current state politics. Water issues are often dealt with locally, while rising water scarcity nationally is mostly

57 Jan Selby and Clemens Hoffmann, “Scarcity, Conflict, and Migration: A Comparative Analysis and Reappraisal. Environment and Planning,” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 30, no. 6 (2012): 997–1014, https://doi.org/10.1068/c11335j. 58 See Kelly et al., “Climate Change in the Fertile Crescent.” 59 Jan Selby, “The Geopolitics of Water in the Middle East: Fantasies and Realities,” Third World Quarterly 26, no. 2 (2005): 329–49, https://doi.org/10.1080/014365904 2000339146.

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

397

managed through technical and financial means (e.g., demand management, alternative resources, desalination, reuse, and harvesting infrastructure). Furthermore, water might not be a driver of conflict, but instead could be used ex post as a weapon of war, as is the case in Syria and Iraq.60 In fact, water remains very difficult to qualify as a major driver of national or interstate conflicts. The recent climate change-induced drought in Syria shows that water was an intermediate variable that is less important than the institutional and economic structures or the adapative capacity of a country.61 Overall, the value of studies linking conflicts to single environmental factors needs to be seen in the context of a debate about the significance of the environmental dimension as a whole in the current turmoil in the region. In fact, water conflict studies rarely claim to provide exclusive conflict explanations or claim importance over other factors, although they (often unintentionally) overstate evidence and, by the nature of such focus studies, introduce a bias toward one factor over others. At the same time, it is not possible to bring all possible conflict-causing factors to the same quantification and abstraction level. Case studies on water conflicts are still valuable for academic debates about the broad drivers behind the uprisings, conflicts, instability, and changes in the broader Middle East. These debates exist in other fields, where they have highlighted the contribution of inequality, social media, youth populations, and regional rivalry. Numerous studies on singular cases and issues were produced following the Arab Spring in 2011. However, none of these studies claim that a certain social media platform, a specific type of inequality, or a particular economic policy is the primary or major cause of conflicts. On the other hand, these studies with mixed approaches and tools have greatly enriched our understanding of the trajectories and causes of conflicts in the region. At the same time, the contribution of these broad drivers to uprisings and conflicts seem to be well received and acknowledged. The contribution of environmental factors to the current state of conflicts in the Arab region needs to be better appreciated as one important,

60 See Marcus DuBois King, “The Weaponization of Water in Syria and Iraq,” The Washington Quarterly 38, no. 4 (2015): 153–69, https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2015.1125835. 61 Eran Feitelson and Amit Tubi, “A Main Driver or an Intermediate Variable? Climate Change, Water and Security in the Middle East,” Global Environmental Change 44 (May 2017): 39–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.001.

398  M. AL-SAIDI

but broad, line of conflict drivers. The essence of this group of drivers lies in the policy failures to introduce sustainability and improve the adaptive capacity in a region plagued with natural scarcity and environmental risks. Evidence of these failures is omnipresent and goes beyond the water sector. More importantly, resources such as water, energy, and arable land have been managed with great recklessness, despite being the most valuable commodities in this arid region. The examples of sustainability failures in the Arab regions have been extensively discussed in the academic literature. These failures are tangible, given the omnipresent factors such as generous energy subsidies, water-intensive cropping patterns, underdeveloped capacities/infrastructure for resource use and recycling, structural/market barriers for the use of renewables, low land productivity or water-use efficiency, large ecological footprints, and raising of fossil fuel consumption for desalination. The cases of Yemen and Syria show how the failures of sustainability policies and water sector reforms is driving water scarcity and increasing the society’s vulnerability to conflicts, some of which are occurring on an unprecedented scale. When water policy reforms were introduced, they were largely water-sector driven and ineffective in curbing overuse in other sectors. Furthermore, these reforms often brought about institutional conflicts, which limited their success. In fact, water management institutions are not hollow organizations subject to a common set of reform pressures. They harbor interest-driven professionals who help construct the laws and create the regulations. The institutionalization process of water reforms can become an essentially political process, the outcome of which depends on the relative power of the actors who strive to steer this process. This is true for the implementation of water sustainability reforms in many Arab countries. IWRM has achieved a degree of awareness about the problem and the concept of its solution. It was unable to resolve the underlying conflict between, on the one hand, those water users who believe water should be developed to promote economic growth and welfare, and, on the other hand, water managers who advocate sustainable and efficient allocation of water resources in order to curb water conflicts and minimize growth risks. At the same time, it is difficult for IWRM, or any water management paradigm, to resolve conflicts between water-use sectors such as the agricultural and urban sectors, because those conflicts are not only ideologically based, but also have historical, socio-economic, and political dimensions. Until today, powerful interest groups (e.g., farmers) and

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

399

governmental agencies (e.g., irrigation and agricultural stakeholders) cite the intrinsic value of their sectors or their contributions to employment or food security in order to advocate remaining with the status quo of water resource “development” rather than “management.” One can still witness large-scale projects to “green the desert” using valuable groundwater resources (e.g., President’s Sisi “one million feddan” project in Egypt). Water-intensive crops, such as bananas or citrus, are also still grown despite increased water scarcity (e.g., in the Jordan Valley).62 Public policies regarding sustainable and integrated water management are therefore lagging behind the reality of increasing scarcity and rising costs of water supply. At the same time, water-sector reforms, or the issue of sustainability at large, have not been at the forefront of public policies in the Arab region. Arguably, these policies lacked a political commitment toward sustainability, but were instead oriented toward identifying whatever means would provide jobs and growth and supply infrastructure, while reducing poverty in the short term. Furthermore, past reforms in the water sectors have focused more on institutions and frameworks, and less on broadening the spectrum of participation, particularly by including new crucial societal groups, such as the private sector, citizens associations, and political parties.

Bibliography “Adaptation to a Changing Climate in the Arab Countries: A Case for Adaptation Governance and Leadership in Building Climate Resilience.” MENA Development Report. The World Bank, June 11, 2013. http:// documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/740351468299700935/pdf/ Adaptation-to-a-changing-climate-in-the-Arab-countries-a-case-foradaptation-governance-and-leadership-in-building-climate-resilience.pdf. Al-Asbahi, Qahtan Yehya A.M. “Water Resources Information in Yemen.” In International Work Session on Water Statistics. Vienna: Intersecretariat Working Group on Environment Statistics (IWG-ENV), 2005. http://www. yemenwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/pap_wasess3a3yemen.pdf.

62 See Khaldoon Abdalah Mourad, Hartmut Gaese, and Amer S. Jabarin, “Economic Value of Tree Fruit Production in Jordan Valley from a Virtual Water Perspective,” Water Resources Management 24, no. 10 (August 2010): 2021–34, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11269-009-9536-9.

400  M. AL-SAIDI Al-Saidi, Mohammad. “Conflicts and Security in Integrated Water Resources Management.” Environmental Science and Policy 73 (July 2017): 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.015. ———. “Institutional Reforms in the Urban Water Supply Sector of Yemen.” In Social Water Studies in the Arab Region: State of the Art and Perspectives, edited by Manar Fayyad, Serena Sandri, Matthias Weiter, and Dimitrios Ziko, 75–91. Berlin, 2015. https://www.sle-berlin.de/files/sle/publikationen/160118DigitalWaterBookFINAL.compressed.pdf. ———. “Urban Water Pricing in Yemen: A Comparison of Increasing Block Tariffs to Other Pricing Schemes.” Water International 42, no. 3 (2017): 308–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2016.1269283. Al-Saidi, Mohammad, Andres Jimenez, and Deniz Oezhan. “Assessment of Energy Use Patterns for Water and Food Production in the MENA Region.” In International Energy and Sustainability Conference (IESC). Cologne, Germany, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/IESC.2016.7569506. Al-Saidi, Mohammad, Diana Birnbaum, Renata Buriti, Elena Diek, Clara Hasselbring, Andres Jimenez, and Désirée Woinowski. “Water Resources Vulnerability Assessment of MENA Countries Considering Energy and Virtual Water Interactions.” Procedia Engineering 145 (2016): 900–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.117. Al-Saidi, Mohammad, and Nadir Ahmed Elagib. “Ecological Modernization and Responses for a Low-Carbon Future in the Gulf Cooperation Countries.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change (May 2018): e538. https:// doi.org/10.1002/wcc.528. Al-Sakkaf, Rafik A., Yangxiao Zhou, and Michael J. Hall. “A Strategy for Controlling Groundwater Depletion in the S’adah Plain, Yemen.” Water Resources Development 15, no. 3 (1999): 349–65. https://doi. org/10.1080/07900629948862. Al-Weshali, Adel, Omar Bamaga, Cecilia Borgia, Frank van Steenbergen, Nasser Al-Aulaqi, and Abdullah Babaqi. “Diesel Subsidies and Yemen Politics: Post-2011 Crises and Their Impact on Groundwater Use and Agriculture.” Water Alternatives 8, no. 2 (2015): 215–36. Amery, Hussein A., and Aaron T. Wolf, eds. Water in the Middle East: A Geography of Peace. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2000. Aw-Hassan, Aden, Fadel Rida, Roberto Telleria, and Adriana Bruggeman. “The Impact of Food and Agricultural Policies on Groundwater Use in Syria.” Journal of Hydrology 513 (2014): 204–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jhydrol.2014.03.043. Barnes, Jessica. “Managing the Waters of Ba’th Country: The Politics of Water Scarcity in Syria.” Geopolitics 14, no. 3 (2009): 510–30. https://doi. org/10.1080/14650040802694117.

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

401

Bassi, Nitin. “Solarizing Groundwater Irrigation in India: A Growing Debate.” International Journal of Water Resources Development 34, no. 1 (2017): 132– 45. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2017.1329137. Bazza, Mohamed. “Overview of the History of Water Resources and Irrigation Management in the Near East Region.” Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 7, no. 1 (2007): 201–9. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2007.023. Brown, J. Jed, Probir Das, and Mohammad Al-Saidi. “Sustainable Agriculture in the Arabian/Persian Gulf Region Utilizing Marginal Water Resources: Making the Best of a Bad Situation.” Sustainability 10, no. 5 (April 2018): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051364. Falkenmark, Malin. “The Massive Water Scarcity Now Threatening Africa: Why Isn’t It Being Addressed?” AMBIO 18, no. 2 (1989): 112–18. Farid, Amro M., William N. Lubega, and William W. Hickman. “Opportunities for Energy-Water Nexus Management in the Middle East & North Africa.” Elementa Science of the Anthropocene 4 (2016): 1–17. https://doi. org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000134. Feitelson, Eran, and Amit Tubi. “A Main Driver or an Intermediate Variable? Climate Change, Water and Security in the Middle East.” Global Environmental Change 44 (May 2017): 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2017.03.001. Femia, Francesco, and Caitlin Werrell. “Syria: Climate Change, Drought and Social Unrest.” The Center for Climate and Security (CCS), February 29, 2012. https://climateandsecurity.org/2012/02/29/syria-climate-change-droughtand-social-unrest/. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). “Syrian Arab Republic,” 2018. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/ SYR/. Gerlach, Esther. “Regulatory Design and Practice in the MENA Region and beyond: A Review and Performance Monitoring Arrangements for Water Service Providers.” Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, August 2010. http://www.water-impact-guidebook.net/ fileadmin/0_guidebook/resources_exercises/A-Enabling_Environment/7Regulatory_Design_and_Practice-MENREM_Survey_Report.pdf. Glass, Nicole. “The Water Crisis in Yemen: Causes, Consequences and Solutions.” Global Majority E-Journal 1, no. 1 (June 2010): 17–30. Gleick, Peter H. “Climate, Water, and Conflict: Commentary on Selby et al. 2017.” Political Geography 60 (September 2017): 248–50. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.06.009. ———. “Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security.” International Security 18, no. 1 (1993): 79–112. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2539033.

402  M. AL-SAIDI ———. “Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria.” Weather, Climate, and Society 6, no. 3 (July 2014): 331–40. https://doi.org/10.1175/ WCAS-D-13-00059.1. Gleick, Peter H., Elizabeth L. Chalecki, and Arlene Wong. “Measuring Water Well-Being: Water Indicators and Indices.” In The World’s Water, 2002–2003: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources, edited by Peter H. Gleick, 87–112. Washington: Island Press, 2002. Hakimian, Hassan. “Water Scarcity and Food Imports: An Empirical Investigation of the ‘Virtual Water’ Hypothesis in the MENA Region.” Review of Middle East Economics and Finance 1, no. 1 (2003): 71–85. Hughes, Ben Richard, Hassam Nasarullah Chaudhry, and Saud Abdul Ghani, eds. “A Review of Sustainable Cooling Technologies in Buildings.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, no. 6 (August 2011): 3112–20. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.03.032. Huntjens, Patrick, Rens de Man, Ting Zhang, Frank van Steenbergen, Cecilia Borgia, Jaap Evers, Marleen van Rijswick, Daphina Misiedjan, and Alberto Tjen A Kwoei. “The Political Economy of Water Management in Yemen: Conflict Analysis and Recommendation.” The Hague Institute for Global Justice, 2014. http://www.thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Water-Management-in-Yemen.pdf. Ianchovichina, Elena, Josef L. Loening, and Christina A. Wood. “How Vulnerable Are Arab Countries to Global Food Price Shocks?” The Journal of Development Studies 50, no. 9 (2014): 1302–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 0220388.2014.928698. Jagannathan, N. Vijay, Ahmed Shawky Mohamed, and Christopher J. Perry. “Introduction: Beyond WRM—Unbundling Water Management in MNA Countries.” In Water in the Arab World: Management Perspectives and Innovations, edited by N. Vijay Jagannathan, Ahmed Shawky Mohamed, and Alexander Kremer. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009. https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMENA/Resources/Water_Arab_World_full.pdf. Kelley, Colin P., Shahrzad Mohtadi, Mark A. Cane, Richard Seager, and Yochanan Kushnir. “Climate Change in the Fertile Crescent and Implications of the Recent Syrian Drought.” In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112: 3241–46, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421533112. ———. “Commentary on the Syrian Case: Climate as a Contributing Factor.” Political Geography 60 (2017): 245–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. polgeo.2017.06.013. King, Marcus DuBois. “The Weaponization of Water in Syria and Iraq.” The Washington Quarterly 38, no. 4 (2015): 153–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0163660X.2015.1125835. Lichtenthäler, Gerhard. Political Ecology and the Role of Water: Environment, Society and Economy in Northern Yemen. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2011.

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

403

Luo, Tianyi, Robert Young, and Paul Reig. “Aqueduct Projected Water Stress Country Rankings.” World Resources Institute, August 2015. https://www. wri.org/resources/data-sets/aqueduct-projected-water-stress-country-rankings. “Making the Most of Scarcity: Accountability for Better Water Management Results in the Middle East and North Africa.” Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2007. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMNAREGTOPWATRES/ Resources/Making_the_Most_of_Scarcity.pdf. Meltzer, Joshua, Nathan Hultman, and Claire Langley. “Low-Carbon Energy Transitions in Qatar and the Gulf Cooperation Council Region.” Brookings institute, February 2014. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/07/low-carbon-energy-transitions-qatar-meltzer-hultman-full.pdf. Moore, Scott. “Parchedness, Politics and Power: The State Hydraulic in Yemen.” Political Ecology 18, no. 1 (2011): 38–50. https://doi.org/10.2458/v18i1. 21705. Mourad, Khaldoon Abdalah, Hartmut Gaese, and Amer S. Jabarin. “Economic Value of Tree Fruit Production in Jordan Valley from a Virtual Water Perspective.” Water Resources Management 24, no. 10 (August 2010): 2021– 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9536-9. Ohlsson, Leif. “Environment Scarcity and Conflict: A Study of Malthusian Concerns.” Doctoral, University of Gothenburg, 1999. http://hdl.handle. net/2077/13417. Pate, Ron, Mike Hightower, Chris Cameron, and Wayne Einfeld. “Overview of Energy-Water Interdependencies and the Emerging Energy Demands on Water Resources.” Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratorie, 2007. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1267289. Raskin, Paul. “Water Future: Assessment of Long-Range Patterns and Problems. Background Document to the Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of the World Report (WMO, 1997).” Stockholm Environment Institute, October 30, 2008. https://www.sei.org/publications/ water-futures-assessment-long-range-patterns-problems-2. Saif, Omar, Toufic Mezher, and Hassan A. Arafat. “Water Security in the GCC Countries: Challenges and Opportunities.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 4, no. 4 (December 2014): 329–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13412-014-0178-8. Selby, Jan. “The Geopolitics of Water in the Middle East: Fantasies and Realities.” Third World Quarterly 26, no. 2 (2005): 329–49. https://doi.org /10.1080/0143659042000339146. Selby, Jan, and Clemens Hoffmann. “Scarcity, Conflict, and Migration: A Comparative Analysis and Reappraisal. Environment and Planning.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 30, no. 6 (2012): 997– 1014. https://doi.org/10.1068/c11335j.

404  M. AL-SAIDI Selby, Jan, Omar S. Dahi, Fröhlich Christiane, and Mike Hulme. “Climate Change and the Syrian Civil War Revisited: A Rejoinder.” Political Geography 60 (September 2017): 253–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.08.001. ———. “Climate Change and the Syrian Civil War Revisited.” Political Geography 60 (September 2017): 232–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. polgeo.2017.05.007. Siddiqi, Afreen, and Laura Diaz Anadon. “The Water-Energy Nexus in the Middle East and North Africa.” Energy Policy 39, no. 8 (August 2011): 4529–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.023. Smith, Ben. “NCAP Yemen: Results from Sadah Basin.” We Adapt, January 2012. https://www.weadapt.org/knowledge-base/national-adaptation-planning/ yemen-sadah-basin. Sowers, Jeannie, Avner Vengosh, and Erika Weinthal. “Climate Change, Water Resources, and the Politics of Adaptation in the Middle East and North Africa.” Climatic Change 104, no. 3–4 (February 2011): 599–627. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9835-4. “Status Report on Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency Plans. Prepared for the 16th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development.” UN Water, May 2008. http://www.unwater.org/ publications/status-report-integrated-water-resource-management-water-efficiency-plans-csd-16/. Varisco, Daniel Martin. “The Qat Factor in North Yemen’s Agricultural Development.” Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 9, no. 34 (March 1988): 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1525/cuag.1988.9.34.11. Ward, Christopher. “Water Conflict in Yemen: The Case for Strengthening Local Resolution Mechanisms.” In Water in the Arab World: Management Perspectives and Innovations, edited by N. Vijay Jagannathan, Ahmed Shawky Mohamed, and Alexander Kremer, 233–67. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/590691468052797602/ pdf/495930WP0Water1Box341965B01PUBLIC1l.pdf. ———. Water Crisis in Yemen: Managing Extreme Water Scarcity in the Middle East. London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 2014. Ward, Christopher, Sabine Beddies, Khaled Hariri, Souad Othman Yaffiei, Anwer Sahooly, and Barbara Gerhager. “Yemen’s Water Sector Reform Program—A Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA),” October 2007. http://www. yemenwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/PSIAEnglishFullReport. pdf. “Water Desalination Using Renewable Energy.” Technology Brief. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), March 2012. http://www.irena.org/-/ media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2015/IRENA-ETSAP-TechBrief-I12-Water-Desalination.pdf.

13  CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 

405

Weiss, Matthew I. “A Perfect Storm: The Causes and Consequences of Severe Water Scarcity, Institutional Breakdown and Conflict in Yemen.” Water International 40, no. 2 (2015): 251–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/025080 60.2015.1004898. Werrell, Caitlin E., Francesco Femia, and Troy Sternberg. “Did We See It Coming? State Fragility, Climate Vulnerability and the Uprisings in Syria and Egypt.” SAIS Review of International Affairs 35, no. 1 (Winter–Spring 2015): 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1353/sais.2015.000. Wodon, Quentin, Andrea Liverani, George Joseph, and Nathalie Bougnoux, eds. Climate Change and Migration: Evidence from the Middle East and North Africa. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2014. http://documents. worldbank.org/curated/en/748271468278938347/pdf/893710PUB0978000Box385270B00PUBLIC0.pdf. Woertz, Eckart, Samir Pradhan, Nermina Biberovi, and Christian Koch. “Food Inflation in the GCC Countries.” Gulf Research Center, May 2008. https:// www.files.ethz.ch/isn/111316/food_inflation_3609.pdf.

CHAPTER 14

Regional Rivalries and Security Alliances in the Gulf Region and the Middle East Philipp O. Amour  

In its three parts, this book has explored the regional system in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. The opening chapter introduced the concept of the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East as a distinct entity and as a regional system, thereby providing (together with this chapter) a theoretical framework for regional interactive politics. Part I of the book examined the major power subsystems across the broader Middle East and the implications of their intense power rivalry and ideational polarization on regional interactions in broad terms of their attitudes: conservative-moderate, conservative-resistance, ­moderate-resistance, and Israel-led attitudes, as illustrated in Table 14.1. The chapters in Part II showed the ways in which Turkey, Qatar, and Israel project specific patterns of political and ideational processes outward from their national borders in the form of engagement, rivalry, or alienation. Part III covered specific external actors (e.g., Russia) and ecological factors, illustrating their role in regional dynamics.

P. O. Amour (*)  Department of International Relations, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.philipp-amour.ch © The Author(s) 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4_14

407

Attitude toward Political Islam

Anti-MuslimBrotherhood

Case-dependent

Pro-MuslimBrotherhood

Anti-MuslimBrotherhood

Attitude toward Western states

(Conservative-) moderate

(Conservative-) resistance

Moderate-resistance

Moderate

Reform-minded

Reform-minded

Conservative(resistance)

Conservative(moderate)

Attitude regarding liberalism

Israel-led

Turkey/Qatar-led

Iran-led

Saudi/UAE-led

By leadership KSA, UAE, Egypt, Bahrain,Yemeni Islah Party, Iraqi Islamic Party, Haftar’s Libyan National Army Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad (Hamas 1991–2011), PMF, Houthi movement Turkey, Qatar, Tunisia (2011– 2014), Egypt (2012–2013), Libya’s Government of National Accord (GNA), Ennahda, SNC, FJP, FSA, JCP (Hamas 2012–2016) Approaching countries from the conservative- moderate power bloc

Major involved actors formal/ informal alliance

Table 14.1  Regional subsystems in the Gulf Region and broader Middle East

USA/Russia

Russia/USA

(Soviet Union)/Russia

USA

International backer

408  P. O. AMOUR

14  REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 

409

The chapter authors undertook a methodical approach, explicitly or implicitly, to examine their subject at the regional system level, looking at the interplay of a combination of cluster of factors: power dynamics, ideational factors, and domestic influences. As stated in the introductory chapter, the focus of this book is the period since the first Arab Spring movement; however, some authors also looked at earlier historical periods for deeper exploration. The following sections attempt to trace the regional system across the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East in relation to its order, by elaborating on some of the most important patterns of regional dynamics and political processes, as well as major ideas and transnational core causes. In addition to tracing the regional system in retrospect, this chapter delivers outlooks in prospect. However, due to the rapidity and fluidity of regional events, these outlooks are inconclusive, and developing crystal-clear scenarios is not possible.

The Regional Order in the Broader Middle East The regional order (or distribution of power) reflects the first dimension of a regional system. In abstraction, the regional order is the most important dimension for recognition of a regional system, as order presupposes the further two dimensions: a system’s regional dynamics and its major transnational causes. If a regional order does not exist, the other two dimensions cannot exist. At this point, it should be clear that this book distinguishes regional order from a regional system, where the former is a component of the latter. Part I of this book explored the major subsystems in the region. The conclusion is that since the creation of the inter-state system in the broader Middle East, the regional system has contained three principal subsystems. First is the conservative-moderate subsystem, which includes most Arab monarchies, such as the KSA, the UAE, Bahrain, and Jordan, among others. Egypt is among the republics allied with this subsystem (since the Mubarak era). The conservative-moderate subsystem includes the wealthier Middle Eastern countries that possess capabilities for power accumulation and increasing force projection capabilities. At the regional level, the KSA and the UAE are the key guarantors of this power subsystem. The USA is the international backer. The regime type (the majority are monarchies) and political conservativism toward the status quo across

410  P. O. AMOUR

the broader Middle East have formed the subsystem’s alignment choices in the broader Middle East. Second is the conservative-resistance subsystem, which includes most powerful Shi’ or Shi’a-leaning systemic actors, including Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, PMF, the Houthi movement, and Islamic Jihad (Sunni movement). Iran has been the key state in creating, backing, and logistically supporting these proactive and assertive non-state militant groups in the field. As with the previous power subsystem, the security dilemma dynamics, psychological factors, and ideational/ideological orientations account for this subsystem’s security and policy choices in the broader region. At present, Russia acts as the key international guarantor of this subsystem’s endurance and security. Both of these power subsystems, the KSA/UAE-led and the Iran-led, have long-established regional politics; they have created a predictable distribution of power in the region since the 1980s. The constellation of the regional system between them was, however, in retrospect, one of restraint rather than aggression. The third regional power subsystem is that formed by Israel, in alliance, at different times, with the Pahlavi dynasty, Turkey, and Kurdish groups.1 The USA has been the enthusiastic international supporter of this subsystem. Since the first Arab Spring movement, Israel and countries from the ­ conservative-moderate subsystem have moved closer together, not just ideationally but also in various forms of strategic collaboration. In the wake of their strategic involvement in the region, both great powers the USA and Russia (previously the Soviet Union) have not just exported weaponry and goods to their allies, but have also shared ideas, mindsets, and ideologies in the broader Middle East. This polarity of the regional order has been dominant in the ­twenty-first century. However, as Chapter 5 demonstrated, a further subsystem has arisen since the first Arab Spring movement and now challenges these long-established subsystems: this is the so-called ­ moderate-resistance subsystem that includes Turkey, Qatar, and other states such as Tunisia (2011–2014 & 2020), Egypt (2012–2013), and Libya’s Government of National Accord (GNA), as well as non-state militant actors, such as (in part) Hamas. This Turkey/Qatar-led power subsystem is approaching 1 See e.g., Ofra Bengio, “Surprising Ties between Israel and the Kurds,” Middle East Quarterly 21, no. 3 (Summer 2014): 1–12.

14  REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 

411

both the USA and Russia due to its diversified ideas, narratives, and transnational causes. This policy approach can be seen as a balancing act with leverage possibilities, while containing the potential for tension. Clearly, the US strategic relations toward the KSA/UAE-led subsystem are steadier and less fragile than those with Turkey. A similar argument can be made about Russia’s relationship toward Iran and Syria. The interrelationship of domestic influences, transnational causes, and geopolitical balancing can account for the units’ regional policy within the Turkey/Qatar-led subsystem. Close relations with Turkey seem to confirm Qatar’s balancing attempts vis-à-vis other regional powers in the Gulf Region and Turkey’s ideational attractiveness for the first Arab Spring revolutionary forces. This, in turn, is an advantage for Ankara, allowing it to boost its popularity across the broader Middle East and shape its brand as a role model. The narratives of being supporters of revolutionary shifts, tolerant of ethnic and confessional diversity, welcoming to migrants and asylum-seekers, and defender of Pan-Islamic and humanist values are ones that Turkey and Qatar both attempt to capitalize on in their interactions in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. When balancing calculations inwardly and outwardly, state actors and non-state militant actors in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East are influenced by ideological considerations, as well as their expectations and aspirations in relation to gaining more power. Against this background, the regional order and, as such, the regional system is becoming increasingly multipolar since the first Arab Spring movement. The foreign policy of regional great powers has steadily reiterated their drive to achieve and hold status in their relationship with regional rivals. Most chapters in this book conform to this notion of the multipolarity of the regional system in the broader Middle East according to formal/informal partnerships, in addition to foreign policy stances toward Western countries. Chapter 3, however, is an exception in that it suggests a bipolarity of the regional order encompassing two alignments: the status quo and the revisionist. The first of the two long-established subsystems mentioned above, the KSA/UAE-led one, is described as ‘conservative-moderate’. ‘Conservative’ describes the regime type as being opposed to liberalism and democratization and its preference for the maintenance of the status quo. The second word, ‘moderate’, refers to the subsystem’s benevolent policy attitudes and behaviors toward Western states, and the USA

412  P. O. AMOUR

in particular. The Iran-led system is labeled ‘conservative-resistance’ because of its robust attitudes and behaviors toward Western countries, and again toward the USA in particular. These descriptions date from the twentieth century. The description of the Turkey/Qatar-led subsystem, as ‘moderate-resistance’, appears to build on these associations by indicating that the subsystem is open toward liberalism and democratization while searching for independence from the global great powers including the USA. These three descriptions appear to describe the power subsystems in relation to their stance toward political development (state level) or toward Western powers, in particular the USA (international level). As Chapter 2 demonstrated, there is another way to describe these subsystems. For instance, the conservative-moderate subsystem can be described as anti-Muslim-Brotherhood, due to its ideological opposition to and outlawing of the MB, whereas the moderate-resistance subsystem can be described as a pro-Muslim-Brotherhood subsystem, for its backing and alliance formation with non-state actors or states run by characteristically Islamist political parties.2 Iran does not have a region-wide and coherent policy vis-à-vis movements of Political Islam; rather, its policy is case dependent. While it supports these movements in Lebanon and Yemen, it opposes similar groups in Syria. The logic behind Iran’s behaviors is less ideological; it is more oriented to what is in the best interests of Iran and its subsystem. Unlike the other descriptions, the MB description addresses a transnational political ideology, that of Islamism, which is, however, limited to the case of the MB and thus bears further analysis. While all these descriptions are useful when describing the different subsystems in general or from specific angles, none of them, I believe, describes the subsystems completely accurately. Table 14.1 lists the descriptions and distinct affiliations of the different subsystems. 2 Philipp O. Amour, “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington: Academica Press, 2018), 1–21; Philipp O. Amour, “The Arab Spring Movement: The Failed Revolution. Preliminary Theoretical and Empirical Deliberation,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington: Academica Press, 2018), 199–224.

14  REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 

413

What is the future for the regional order in broader Middle East? The continuity of this multipolar regional system depends on the preservation of the regional great powers’ status, per se, and on their ability to continue to provide their allies with strategic assurance. The endurance of the long-established subsystems seems secure in the foreseeable future. Regional great powers of Iran and the KSA/ UAE have succeeded in their strategic objectives of containing a degradation of their own subsystem and containing a strategic upgrade of their rival. However, it would be misleading to argue that there is a simple and unchanging relation between these two power subsystems. As far as the conservative-moderate subsystem is concerned, it has embarked on tackling the Turkey/Qatar-led subsystem through economic pressure (Turkey) and economic and political isolation (Qatar). Despite crucial tensions in the Gulf Region, there are few indications that the regional great powers or their international backers are interested in an all-out war in the region. State actors and non-state actors from different power subsystems seem aware of the material and immaterial costs of this type of massive and all-out war and thus appear to oppose it strategically. As Parts I and II of this book have demonstrated, the authoritarian leadership in the region lacks the willingness to escalate the Arab–Iranian rivalry (sometimes called the Gulf Cold War) into a direct ‘hot war’. However, while direct violent confrontations between the relevant regional great powers are unlikely in the foreseeable future, the conflict is likely to intensify in the form of proxy wars and destabilizing crises. There is a long history of cooperation and engagement within the two long-established subsystems, based largely on shared ideas and subsystemic causes, mutual regional geopolitical interests, and mutual rivals. Both of the long-established power subsystems are likely too big to fail and too rooted as regional configurations to be deconstructed from the arena of the state or regional level in the foreseeable future. As Parts II and III of this book have noted, units of a power subsystem will regard a regime shift in their own orbit as a precursor to their own downfall. This explains the interference of GCC-led forces in Bahrain against the local uprising in the context of the first Arab movement, or the military participation of Hezbollah and Iranian forces onsite in Syria to hinder an ouster of the Syrian regime. As the case of Syria demonstrates (Chapter 12), a regime whose survival is challenged tends to ask regional allies and the international patron to interfere in regional dynamics to

414  P. O. AMOUR

stop this process, thereby leading to the downsizing or fall of the whole power subsystem. While the possibility of a fall of a subsystem is low, it is not considered impossible. Disintegration may, of course, come from the outside and involve the international level. Nevertheless, a global power is unlikely to initiate an all-out war in the region under the current strategic constellation; hence, the USA and Russia stand on opposing sides of the regional subsystems. Both global great powers appear to oppose a direct confrontation. The constraints imposed on Iran and Hezbollah by the Trump administration may lead to the weakening of related subsystemic actors (with implications for domestic stability and the legitimacy of related actors) but they are unlikely to lead to a regime’s disintegration. In terms of the structure of the regional order, the USA and Russia do not seem to have shown any interest in changing the order of the regional system, per se. Whatever happens, the current regional dynamics make it certain that there will be further complications for the subsystems in the future. The Assad regime appears to be surviving the war due to the interference of, above all, Russian and foreign forces, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force (IRGC-QF), Hezbollah, and Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). This intervention, or survival, will come with a strategic price for the parties involved. The higher this price, the higher will be the possibility of a shift at the leadership level in Syria. It remains to be seen if this dynamic will initiate internal changes in Syria on the macro level, with ramifications for the Assad administration in the foreseeable future and the Baath party in the longer run. Currently, the KSA and the UAE are pulled together into an alliance in order to balance against a strong mutual peril: Iran. However, judging from their policies in Yemen and Libya, both countries seem to have different ambitions and distant regional objectives that have the potential to collide. It remains to be seen if these two countries will manage to pursue foreign policy along a mutual regional course, as happens currently, or if their ambitious drive for more power will split them in the distant future. A testing point, and perhaps a defining moment, of these KSA/ UAE relations will be if and when the crown princes in the KSA and the UAE become the new leaders of their countries, and to what extent they decide to pursue mutual regional policies. For the Turkey/Qatar-led subsystem, the challenges appear greater. This subsystem shows different qualities that may permit different

14  REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 

415

developments. Hence, Turkey subjects itself to regular elections, and its regime type permits a modification in the political elite that may decide to redefine regional foreign policy attitudes and behaviors, including alliance building and assurance, as well as power projection choices and patterns. A new political elite in Ankara might adopt one of several foreign policy options to either maintain the current subsystem with Qatar, disregard it and draw closer to the conservative-moderate subsystem, or eventually rearrange its diplomatic priorities and consider an alliance with the USA and Europe as it had prior to 2002. In conclusion, it appears unlikely that any one of the three l­ongestablished subsystems will disintegrate in the foreseeable future, while the novel Turkey/Qatar-led subsystem may further weaken, reform itself into a new constellation, or even lose regional might in the future. The second Arab Spring movement does not appear to have boosted the Turkey/ Qatar-led subsystem. These lines of argument explain, in part, Turkey’s orientation in the Horn of Africa and the Mediterranean becoming an increasingly important focus for Ankara’s foreign and security policy.

Systemic Units: State Actors and Non-State Militant Actors There is more to the regional order than the subsystems; it also depends on the state actors (including regional great powers) and non-state militant actors forming them and shaping their regional orientation and course of action. A regional order traditionally enables systemic actors with power projection arenas across the region. As different chapters in Parts I and II of this book have demonstrated, specific countries across the broader Middle East, including Egypt, Iran, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, hold regional great power status in terms of natural, tangible, and/or intangible sources of power (see Table 1.1 in Chapter 1: Introduction). These states have a large balancing capacity (for hot war and cold war) due to their size of territory, size of population and military and/or strong economies, increasing capacity for armament, and ideological/informational and communication output. Since the first Arab Spring movement, these regional great powers have played an increasingly proactive, assertive, and bellicose role in regional interactions, with ambitious foreign policy agendas to form and influence major developments on the regional stage.

416  P. O. AMOUR

Table 1.1 provides a basic statistical snapshot of countries in the Gulf Region and the Middle East. It does not include all countries included in the broader Middle East for the purpose of this book. In terms of geographic size, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, the KSA, and Libya are among the largest countries, while Bahrain and Qatar, by contrast, are among the smallest land territories. In terms of population size, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, and Turkey are the most populated countries, while Bahrain and Qatar are the least populous countries. The economies of Qatar, Israel, and the UAE have the highest rates of GDP per capita, while Yemen, Syria, and Egypt are among the region’s poorest countries. The ability of ­higher-income countries in the broader Middle East to generate revenue in order to buy weaponry, train soldiers, and build infrastructure is a further important power indicator. The literacy rate ranges from about 90% in the KSA, Qatar, Israel, Turkey, and the UAE to lows of 54% in Yemen and 44% in Iraq. Smaller states appear to have higher literacy rates than some of the larger ones, and this pool of educated human agency contributes to offset the supremacy of larger states in terms of size of territory and population. A look at the military expenditure demonstrates the big players in this regard. The KSA spent far more than any other country in this area. Iran, Israel, Turkey, and the UAE are among the countries that account for the region’s largest military expenditure. This high military budget projects the threat that a state leadership perceives and the amount of potential force it may be willing to use outwardly. The strength of the economy and the threat perception of the political elite influence the level of military expenditure. A constant increase in military expenditures in the broader Middle East since 2010 is demonstrated in Table 14.2. This tendency is likely to endure in the future. The statistical information in Tables 1.1, 14.1, and 14.2 demonstrates that countries in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East do not measure up equally in terms of size of population, size of territory, or finances. Generally, most Arab Gulf states are able to generate revenue in order to enlarge and develop their hard- and soft-power armament arsenal. Whereas Arab Gulf states depended on Egypt or Iraq for their deterrence capabilities (e.g., vis-à-vis Iran) during the twentieth century, countries in the Gulf Region (i.e., the KSA and the UAE) have increasingly developed their own power projection capabilities and have become independent of those two countries. The KSA and the UAE have invested

143

12.7

25

137

11.5

24.4

2010

24.8

15.8

147

2011

24.3

17.1

159

2012

25.8

19.9

174

2013

26.1

20.8

185

2014

22.5

21.2

n.a.

2015

21.5

21.6

n.a.

2016

21.7

21.1

n.a.

2017

19.3

19.9

n.a.

2018

18.4

22.2

n.a.

2019

Source Stockholm International Peace Research Insitute (For specifications of the figures see: “Military Expenditure by Region in Constant US Dollars, 1988–2018” [Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (sipri), 2019], https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Data%20for%20world%20 regions%20from%201988–2018%20%28pdf%29.pdf)

Levant and Gulf Region North Africa SubSaharan countries

2009

Table 14.2  Military expenditure in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East in US$ billion

14  REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 

417

418  P. O. AMOUR

much of their national wealth in defense to secure their military and strategic preparedness both inwardly and outwardly. Like the UAE, Turkey has also been increasingly merging its resources and creating military capabilities independent of those of the international great powers. Iran has apparently expanded its underground facilities. Qatar, a smaller power in some dimensions, is notably a soft power due to its mobilizing projection capabilities marked through Aljazeera satellite channels and its unique transnational brand. While this book does not include Egypt and Iraq in Part II (both used to play a more active role in the regional system during the twentieth century), some insights can be garnered about them. Egypt and Iraq are both declining powers, for several reasons. Primarily, the leaderships in Egypt and Iraq are currently focused on domestic challenges of regime security and economic development rather than on extending their economic and military capabilities across the region. Aware of the severe economic, financial, and security challenges they face domestically, the political elite in Egypt and Iraq currently have less ambition to project their military capabilities in foreign conflicts compared to their actions in the twentieth century. Second, neither country has the power supremacy it used to have in earlier stages vis-à-vis other regional countries, due to the power upgrade of Arab Gulf states as demonstrated in Table 14.2. A combination of the geopolitical, ideational, and normative beliefs mentioned in this book has emboldened the Gulf countries to adopt a more assertive and determined security and foreign policy agenda. Currently, the KSA and the UAE are attempting to bring in a new era in which Arab monarchies in the Gulf have the lead in regional politics across the broader Middle East. Since 2014/2015, regional power rivalry and ideational polarization have reached a critical stage for the conservative-moderate subsystem, marked by a major change in the security doctrine from a distant or active role in the regional system to a proactive, assertive, and bellicose one. This change in the security and foreign policy attitudes and behaviors of the KSA and the UAE is related to a combination of factors. First, external pressures emerged from the disengagement of the Obama administration and its perceived reluctance to become involved in Gulf and Middle Eastern affairs. This moved particular Gulf countries to engage themselves virtually and on the ground in regional affairs in political, economic, diplomatic, militant, or informational forms. The Iran nuclear deal, P5 + 1, and the rapprochement of Iran toward the West most likely created dissatisfaction in the KSA

14  REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 

419

and the UAE, thereby promoting their shift in regional course. Second, geopolitical imperatives arising from an expansion of the Islamic State (on the frontline for the KSA), Houthis (in Yemen), and Hezbollah (in Lebanon and Syria) intensified the perceived need for self-defense against a policy of Islamist/Shi’ encirclement. Third, the status ambitions of the KSA (following a shift in leadership) and other Gulf countries, such as the UAE, across the region are reinforced and influenced by security regime alarms and questions of national identity. Thus, a combination of these factors has emboldened the Gulf States, the KSA, and the UAE to pursue power in a more assertive and bellicose fashion, which in turn shapes not just their neighborhood policy but policies beyond their approximate sphere of influence, as noted below. One implication of these regional dynamics since 2014 has been a change in the power center of the regional system from the Levant (historically since 1948) to the Gulf Region, where principal regional great powers are located. There, major conflicts are currently rooted, attempts are made to push the systemic boundaries, and major military actions and ideational/informational balancing are embarked on in the Gulf Region inward or outward across other subsystems, thereby affecting the whole regional system. Thus, the Gulf Region is the center of gravity for regional economic, political, and military power. State actors are not the sole players in the region. The Arab Spring movements and subsequent power rivalry and ideological polarization have also served as catalysts and opportunities for emergence (e.g., IS and PMF, discussed in Chapters 9 and 10) or expansion (Hezbollah and the Houthi movement) of non-state militant actors. Among the regional great powers, Iran, above all, has demonstrated its strategic capacity in the formation, inclusion, and mobilization of non-state militant actors as indispensable tools (of the conservative-resistance subsystem) to increase its influence across the region, enlarge its advantage over other regional powers, and combat rival incursions. As demonstrated in the various discussions on Hezbollah and the PMF, non-state militant actors help regional great powers transcend any strategic implausibility and geographical confusion they may face across the broader Middle East. Indeed, bearing in mind their role and impact in the regional system, non-state militant actors have embarked on a strong push toward increasing hard and soft power capabilities and now display state-like qualities in their governance and foreign policy behavior.

420  P. O. AMOUR

Beside regional great powers and non-state militant actors, this book consider a further category. A ‘regional superpower’ within a regional system denotes a state that possesses nuclear capability, can project power across the wider region, and enjoys region-wide recognition of its superpower status. Superpower status and capabilities provide the ability to choose among different options. A regional superpower may persist on its own, with no formal alliance. During a systemic shake-up, the regional superpower may conduct a policy of wait and see, as long as its borders and existence are not threatened. It may support one subsystem to the detriment of another, as implied in Chapter 8. Across the broader Middle East, Israel is the sole regional superpower. As Chapters 11 and 12 noted, the regional order is not decoupled from the international system. In their relations with their international backers, systemic actors have responsibilities as well as advantages. This relationship is occasionally asymmetrical in that the systemic actor loses some of its independence in relation to the international backer, so that it has to apply policies that are not in keeping with its normal way of operating. The region’s power rivalry and ideational polarization have re-animated major alignments, with global great powers interfering ­ across the broader Middle East, as evident, for example, in Syria, where the USA and Russia face each other and their proxies in the region in the form of a return to Cold War hostilities. The interesting question is: How do regional dynamics and political processes affect the regional system?

Regional Dynamics and Political Processes Regional dynamics and political processes are the second dimension of the regional system that I use in this chapter to tie the arguments in the preceding chapters together. Patterns of cooperation and engagement, alienation, rivalry, polarization, conflict, and war help us to define the general characteristics of the regional system. These interactive relations take place in times of both balance and chaos in the regional system; however, they are likely to differ in scope and intensity. The regional system thrives on these regional dynamics and political processes, which occasionally surprise and inspire state and non-state actors, as the implications of the first and second Arab Spring movements or the emergence, expansion, and degradation of IS have demonstrated.

14  REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 

421

Dealing with regional interactive events, state and non-state actors put into play their hard power and soft power resources, partly through proxies, in order to support or withstand the strategic push across the regional system. The following assumptions do not attempt to cover all these patterns. In a regional system, state and non-state actors enjoy formal or informal cooperative collaboration with other higher or lower actors, as noted in the different chapters of this book. The states in the regional system cooperate or collaborate with one another to various extents and varying levels of enthusiasm. Non-cooperative collaborations, or the lack of visible/open diplomatic or economic interchanges, are also a matter of consideration in a regional system, as demonstrated by the case of Israel in Chapter 8. Obviously, as different chapters have demonstrated, the ­intra-subsystemic relations are characterized by strategic cooperation and engagement. The nature of these intra-subsystemic relations is related to the symmetry of power among the different actors, so a more powerful actor is less dependent on regional policy and a less powerful actor is more submissive to a higher authority within the subsystem.3 As with the regional order, it is rare for subsystems to be equal in power to one another. Hence, competition on material aspects and immaterial aspects (e.g., ideational, ideological, religious) is also a feature of a subsystem. The coherency of these intra-subsystemic relations is more likely to endure, whether in times of balance or chaos, if the different actors share similar ideas, ideologies, and subsystemic causes, if they have mutual strategic objectives and mutual rivals, and if the high-ranking decision makers (domestic influences) guarantee alliance assurance. By contrast, the relation between two power subsystems is most likely marked by power rivalry, ideational polarization, violent and non-violent conflict, and possibly war, depending on geo-cultural and geopolitical factors that go beyond the scope of this chapter. Most systemic units in the broader Middle East are authoritarian. Bearing in mind their dominant regime type and the on-going ­persistent regional rivalry and polarization, regional state actors and non-state 3 See Philipp O. Amour, “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives,” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31, https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.384773.

422  P. O. AMOUR

militant actors demonstrate an anarchical ‘self-help’ orientation, in which they look out for themselves and are egoist in their policy objectives. Hence it is not surprising that regional dynamics are so fluid and unpredictable. Moreover, taking into consideration the insights from Part III of this book, ecological factors and natural resources are also likely to foster further regional rivalry and inter-state conflicts in the future. One of the major assumptions of this chapter is that, as demonstrated in the preceding chapters, wide-scale region-shattering eruptions are associated with a cycle of micro and macro conflicts involving different state actors and non-state militant actors in a regional system. For almost every regional strategic action, there is an equal and opposite strategic response. In that type of strategic environment, state and non-state actors often recognize the urgency of the unfolding dynamics in different and colliding ways. Survival challenges of the systemic actors harden the conflictual and anarchic nature of the regional system in an unprecedented way. These dynamics result in a so-called win–lose (or z­ ero-sum) environment, in which the win of one regional player is the loss of another. In this zero-sum environment, the lust of regional great powers for conquest of the regional system will most likely dominate regional events. One implication of the current regional chaos (and, as such, the zerosum game) across the broader Middle East has been a horizontal proliferation of the numbers of regional state actors and non-state militant actors who possess weaponry, as well as a vertical proliferation characterized by the growth of already modern arsenals among regional actors.4 Islamic State is an example of the horizontal proliferation of weaponry, while Iran, Turkey, and the UAE, among others, are examples of the vertical proliferation mentioned earlier in this chapter that decreases their dependency on international allies. A second implication of this regional rivalry between regional great powers across the broader Middle East is an increase in power projection capabilities across the broader system. Indeed, major state actors and non-state militant actors have demonstrated their military power not just by design and equipment, but through foreign military engagements (or alliance assurance), as in the case of Egypt (e.g., in Libya), Iran (e.g., in Syria, Yemen and Lebanon), Israel (e.g., in Syria and Gaza Strip), 4 See Elizabeth G. Matthews and Rhonda L. Callaway, International Relations Theory: A Primer (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016), 16–21.

14  REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 

423

the KSA (e.g., in Bahrain and Yemen), Turkey (e.g., in Syria, Qatar and Libya), the UAE (e.g., Bahrain, Yemen and Libya), Hezbollah (e.g., Syria, Iraq), and PMF (e.g., Syria and possibly Yemen). Power projection operations of systemic actors in neighboring and distant countries, as the cases above demonstrate, aim not just at providing assurance to allies. They also attempt to either divert regional dynamics from their allegedly authentic course (potentially leading to alliance disintegration) to minimize the actor’s strategic misfortune, or to impact the interactive outcome (e.g., maintain the status quo) to increase the actor’s strategic fortune. Note that foreign involvements such as these are driven in part by regime security considerations (as a policy course for leaders to promote their legitimacy and to deflect from domestic challenges), in part by a drive for material power projection, and in part by ideational factors, including national narratives and transnational causes. In the context of their power politics, regional great powers have demonstrated their power projection capabilities beyond the power center of the Gulf Region (and the Levant) in an attempt to expand their military foothold in Africa, the Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Eastern Mediterranean. An example is the Horn of Africa. Since the second decade of this century, the Horn of Africa has become a theater for rivalry between the three regional subsystems (the KSA/UAE-led, Iran-led, and Turkey/Qatar-led subsystems). The UAE opened a military base in Eritrea in 2015 and is attempting to open a new one in Somaliland. As the Gulf Crisis in 2017 worsened relations between the parties involved, it boosted their efforts to gain material and immaterial influence in the Horn of Africa to diversify their economies, increase their military influence, and further attract ideationally foreign constituencies beyond their classical area of influence. The KSA also has plans to open military bases in the Horn of Africa region. Turkey opened a military base in Mogadishu in 2017 and is attempting to run the port on Sudan’s Suakin Island (2017 Suakin agreement with Khartoum). Regional great powers play out their competition in the Red Sea corridor, including the Horn of Africa, and in the Eastern Mediterranean. By doing so, regional great powers are attempting to influence regional dynamics within and beyond their direct regional security arena.5 5 See e.g., “Why Are Gulf Countries so Interested in the Horn of Africa?” The Economist, January 16, 2019, https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2019/01/16/ why-are-gulf-countries-so-interested-in-the-horn-of-africa.

424  P. O. AMOUR

Another assumption of this chapter is that wide-scale regionshattering eruptions have the effect of redefining intra-subsystemic relations. Subsystemic survival challenges may bring allies closer together and move fully formed partnerships forward, as demonstrated between the KSA and the UAE (conservative-moderate subsystem), Iran and Syria (conservative-resistance subsystem), or Turkey and Qatar ­(moderate-resistance subsystem). By contrast, however, systemic actors may consider their role in the emerging developments and decide to abandon l­ong-established ties, as evident in the case of Hamas breaking its allegiance with the Syrian regime in 2012 (and, as such, with Iran as well) and the aftermath of the formation of the Turkey/Qatar-led subsystem.6 In this win–lose environment, (unexpected) new alliances may emerge and in some cases then dissolve if events in the region do not give them time to develop gradually. The case of Egypt is an example of this, as the Morsi administration drew closer to the Turkey/Qatar-led subsystem before it was ousted by the military, which repositioned Egypt in the KSA/UAE-led subsystem once again. In sum, the outcomes of alliance building, endurance, or disintegration are established in retrospect, rather than when interactive regional events are unfolding. Until the new operational system is in place, the regional system is chaotic. During this period, systemic actors that the regional system had been invested in for decades assume different power qualities and ideological/tactical orientations. Thus, an analysis at the interplay of a combination of a cluster of factors that include the distribution of power dynamics, ideational factors, and domestic influences is required to establish the foreign policy options and behavior of state and non-state militant actors in terms of whether they maintain alliances or depart from them. As detailed in different parts in this book, the scope and extent of conflicts across the broader region have intensified since the second decade of the twenty-first century. What does the future hold for regional political patterns? Until the configuration of the unfolding regional system takes shape, it is likely that regional relations will be hardened and regional conflicts will proliferate significantly, leaving systemic actors with little choice but to draw closer to other systemic actors, unless they are strong enough to withstand the gravity of regional rivalry. In this polarized and polarizing win–loss environment, state and non-state militant 6 Robert M. Danin, “Hamas Breaks from Syria,” Council on Foreign Relations, accessed June 1, 2019, https://www.cfr.org/blog/hamas-breaks-syria.

14  REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 

425

actors can hardly (co-)exist in isolation from other systemic units, nor can they remain divorced from ideological and political regional contexts. Interactive regional events involve systemic actors and force them to act or react whether through choice, obligation, or pressure. This notion applies, above all, to the systemic units close to the regional power center and to the less wealthy systemic units that depend on external funding from regional great powers. The arenas of confrontations will continue to be cold wars, proxy hot wars, small conflicts, and destabilizing crises. It is most unlikely that direct raw confrontations between regional great powers will take place.

Ideas, Ideologies, National Narratives, and Transnational Causes Transnational causes underpin the regional order of a regional system. They serve as the foundation for regional ideational polarization and interrelated power rivalry. They animate regional politics and fuel regional dynamics and political processes to the level needed to evolve, consolidate, and reconstruct a regional order, or vice versa. As time goes on, transnational causes draw subsystemic actors closer and bind them together, or they move them apart. Indeed, the relation between transnational causes and the other two dimensions used to explain the regional system (the regional order; and regional dynamics and political processes) is a two-way relationship. Ideas, ideologies, normative beliefs, and transnational causes shape the deep characterization of a regional system as they bridge the micro level (domestic and foreign constituencies) to the macro level (regional order) with the help of political processes and regional dynamics. In terms of ideas and transnational causes, the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East is a heterogeneous entity. The existence of different power subsystems in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East reflects the divergence of ideas and political stances to such an extent that they lead to ideological and normative, as well as cause-related, polarization. Regional polarization represents the strain of a multipolar set of colliding ideas, political ideologies, national objectives, and partisan identities. A wide-scale region-shattering eruption boosts and appears to escalate regional polarization among and between the respective regional actors and subsystems. As time goes on, regional dynamics boil down to national narratives and cross-border transnational causes. State actors and non-state militant actors, aware of

426  P. O. AMOUR

this development, become determined to form and influence compelling national narratives and transnational causes that appeal to domestic and foreign constituencies, including the public, political parties, interest groups, and the elite. The political establishment attempts to unify its power subsystem in a common (subsystemic) cause. The regional order involves allies and rivals whose national narratives and perceptions/representations of regional dynamics differ from one another. A wide-scale region-shattering eruption will most likely increase the level of political disillusionment, panic, and deception and, as such, the power rivalry between and among state actors and non-state militant actors. This constellation mirrors the ideas and subsystemic causes of one power bloc versus the counter-ideas and counter-causes of its rival. In part, it reflects the collective concept of the enemy and provides useful bogeyman for the objective of public legitimacy and opinion mobilization. In this sense, regional subsystems require transnational causes not just to represent their national narratives and regional objectives and reach a public legitimacy among domestic and foreign constituencies, but also to delegitimize rivals across the region. Nevertheless, representing a transnational cause does not automatically turn a systemic unit into a regional great power. The regional great powers in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East are materially similar states, and yet they behave differently in the regional system due to their divergent ideologically constructed identities. The regional rivalry between the power poles is therefore between different ideas, ideologies, national narratives, and subsystemic causes. In this regard, above all, the KSA/UAE, on the one hand, and Iran and Hezbollah, on the other hand, have established themselves as arch-rivals since the first Arab Spring movement. In fact, mutual antipathies exist across all power subsystems. The regional great powers in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East are equipped with financial means to arm themselves with soft power infrastructure (communications and informational infrastructure) that projects their national narratives and regional causes beyond their borders and enables them to generate widespread political and reputational hostility toward their rivals. Soft power infrastructure directed at foreign audiences and elites has proven to be an important tool for power projection capabilities for proactive and assertive state actors and non-state militant actors across the Gulf Region and broader Middle East. Regime-monopolized soft power is used intentionally in national

14  REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 

427

and pan-national communication and informational infrastructure to glamorize the regime’s own leaders as heroes and their rivals as villains, to cast oneself (as a nation) as a victim and at the same time a defender of national objectives and (pan-Arab/pan-Islamic) regional causes ­vis-à-vis the regional villain. The most mentioned regional great powers in the broader Middle East perform important roles in the official bodies of Islamic and Arab countries (e.g., the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, GCC, Arab League), and this increases their capabilities to expand their areas of influence.7 Regional rivalry since the first Arab Spring movement has emerged on different occasions so that these intergovernmental organizations have failed to form viable regional governments or a viable regional collective organization with independent enforcement mechanisms that can be used to enforce conflict management and resolution in the region. Arab countries allegedly share specific ideas, ideologies, and ­normative beliefs, in addition to transnational causes, such as Arabism, the Palestine cause, the Zionist threat, and the Iran (or Shi’) threat. These causes drove the motor of regional dynamics and political processes during the twentieth century. Since the first Arab Spring movement, however, most of these transnational causes (including Arabism, the Palestine cause, and the Zionist threat) have lost their appeal due to the urgency of many other national narratives and domestic challenges across the region and due to the promotion of the higher causes, like the Iran/Shi’ threat and the MB threat, by specific countries in the region.8 Israel allegedly shares the Iran threat cause, the MB threat cause, and the opposition against political self-determination, with countries from the conservative-moderate subsystem. Both subsystems share a mutual aversion toward the conservative-resistance subsystem and ­moderate-resistance subsystem.9 7 Bahgat Korany and Ali E. Hillal Dessouki, eds., The Foreign Policies of Arab States (Cairo: Westview Press; American University in Cairo Press, 1984), 2. 8 See Philipp O. Amour, “Did a Palestine Spring Take Place? The Lost Decade in Palestine,” Turkish Journal of History 67, no. 1 (June 2018): 151–76, https://doi.org/10. 26650/TurkJHist.2018.384983. 9 See Philipp O. Amour, “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East: A Strategic Assessment,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 293–309, https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1185696.

428  P. O. AMOUR

Shi’-populated systemic actors allegedly share specific ideas, ideologies, and normative beliefs, as well as transnational causes (e.g., the KSA/ UAE-threat, Sunni/Wahhabi threat, the right to s­ elf-determination cause, and the right to self-resistance cause). As demonstrated in various chapters throughout this book, Iran and Syria have allied themselves with groups furthering national liberation and with those dominated by Shi’ members. Several transnational causes have been described in different chapters of this book. A perplexing realization for people in the Middle East is that the principal actors in this power bloc have opposed revolutionary undertakings during both Arab Spring movements in Syria and Lebanon (and in Iran) and have delegitimized their cause for political self-determination and for resistance as a ­counter-revolution and as a conspiracy of foreign powers, while supporting similar revolutionary aspirations in rival orbits. The Turkey/Qatar-led subsystem allegedly shares ideas, ideologies, and normative beliefs, as well as transnational causes, with both sides. It reveals revisionist aspirations and realist strategies; a stance that gives rise to opportunities and constraints at the same time. This equation makes this power subsystem more innovative and ideationally mobile across the other subsystems; however, it increases the potential for collision with other subsystemic causes should the respective regional great powers (i.e., Turkey and Qatar) become unable to adapt satisfactorily to shifting power settings and complex interplays in the region. If their realpolitik behavior overshadows their revolutionary idealism/pragmatism, it will frustrate their transnational supporters and delegitimize their deeds in the broader region. This remains a possible policy option should the cost of Turkey’s and Qatar’s regional policy (vis-à-vis the other subsystems) increase in the form of economic hardships or regional isolation, as mentioned above. The Iran, KSA, and UAE intensification in regional interactions (referred to by some scholars as Sunni-Shi’ rivalry), Qatar’s strategic and ideational balancing, and the Turkish soft power and hard power engagement in the region have become the most pronounced drivers for tackling systemic boundaries across the region. The existence of sections in the different subsystems with transnational causes that differ from those of the masses (for example groups that have a religious alliance with rivals of their own countries) increases polarization and has potential implications for domestic instability (e.g., in Iraq, Lebanon, or Bahrain). On the strategic front, regional state and non-state militant actors use

14  REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 

429

and instrumentalize minorities or sectarian fragments of the people in rival countries to put pressure on their rivals and gain leverage in transnational issues. Since the first Arab Spring movement, a soft power war of ideological balancing in terms of national narratives and subsystemic causes has been playing out across the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. In its wake, old established causes have lost importance (­Pan-Arabism/ Pan-Islamism) or credibility (e.g., resistance, self-determination, control of holy sites) among wide sections of people, in favor of new priorities (national, local) and causes (national particularism, sectarianism). At this point it is fair to say that all involved state actors and non-state militant actors have lost loyal followers and supporters, not just within their own orbit of influence but across the broader region. In other words, the regional chaos since the first Arab Spring movement has altered people’s ideas, ideologies, and normative beliefs regarding core issues and causes, such as whether or not the USA and Russia are regarded as indispensable external interlocutors, and regarding their military intervention in the region (pro versus con, legality versus illegality), their ideologies and forms of government (e.g., liberalism, democracy versus Islamization and caliphates), and transnational causes (e.g., Western threat, Zionist threat, Islamist threat, struggle, and self-determination). Each interface or confrontation between rival ideas, ideologies, and normative beliefs, as well as national narratives and subsystemic causes, presents a test of an elemental proposition. People in the broader Middle East remain puzzled by the set of ideas, ideologies, and causes that have polarized the region, either by being put into question or eradicated and replaced with new ones. The way people regard core issues and causes is not settled yet and is still fluid. For wider segments of the population, these unfolding aspects are barely lived and remain untested. Some people feel adrift, with their beliefs coming into question; others embark effortlessly upon new ones, while still others undergo a process of obliteration of their core belief system. Nevertheless, the current policies of the proactive, assertive, and ­bellicose state actors and non-state militant actors demonstrate that a shift in ideas, as well as ideologies and normative beliefs, seems to add up to a distinctive grand vision of the future that currently guides their security and foreign policy behavior across the Gulf Region and broader Middle East.

430  P. O. AMOUR

Two questions emerge in connection with this third dimension of analysis of the regional system: Does the alleged Shi’ threat and neo-Ottomanism challenge exist, above all, at the level projected by the conservative-moderate bloc and by Tel-Aviv across their orbits? And ­ does the KSA/UAE-led power bloc allegedly pose a threat to the Arab Spring uprisings and pursue a policy of strategic and ideological push vis-à-vis other power blocs to the level projected by their rivals? The answer to the first question is yes to the existence of the threat per se. Systemic units trigger a power rivalry and ideational polarization across the regional system to maintain their domestic regime and their regional might during wide-scale region-shattering eruptions. In this context, the existence of the threat becomes omnipresent, prevailing, and inevitable across the regional arena. However, the answer to the second question is negative. During an extended period of rivalry and polarization, as the Gulf Region and broader Middle East is currently witnessing, systemic units’ interests in the unfolding regional dynamics ahead of them are profound and ambiguous. In the wake of this regional power rivalry and ideational polarization, the worsening security situation makes constituencies and high-ranking decision makers feel more threatened. Thus, the decision-making process of systemic units likely becomes, in part more arrogant and presumptuous as a result of deception, (mis)perception, and framing. Moreover, the behavior of systemic units in this zero-sum environment becomes increasingly secretive, unpredictable, and harsh.10 Regional powers with projection capabilities subscribe to ideas, ideologies, national narratives, and subsystemic causes (all of which are underpinning threats) in their rhetoric and public discourses as a tool to represent and justify their own domestic politics and regional policies toward their allies and against their rivals at home and abroad. Misinterpretation and exaggeration of these ideas and transnational causes/threats are thus found across the broader Middle East, and this ‘misinterpretation’ is sometimes a deliberate policy choice. In other words, the level of the purported (relative) threat as represented by involved leaderships and their followers does not always coincide with 10 See e.g., Marijke Breuning, Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Introduction (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007); Derek Beach, Analyzing Foreign Policy (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/ analyzing-foreign-policy-derek-beach/?sf1=barcode&st1=9780230237391.

14  REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 

431

the effective (absolute) initial threat posed by their rivals across the regional system. Instead, the purported/assumed threat is the sum of the initial threat and the elite’s threat perception (of that initial threat). Compared to the former two dimensions alluded to earlier in this chapter (regional order as well as regional dynamics and political processes), the perceptual variables are more concerned with the third dimension: ideas and transnational causes. Thus, by contrast with the more measurable first two dimensions, transnational causes reflect estimated positions, as they are difficult to measure.

Sectarian Division Perceptual variables are predominant in the dimension of the regional system concerned with ideas and transnational causes. Fixed or objective realities are not regarded as such, but are only taken seriously if major segments of the people across the broader region perceive them as such. Regional powers have incorporated the Sunni/Wahhabi threat versus Shi’/Iranian threat, or Sunni/Wahhabi threat versus the neo-Ottomanism threat, and vice versa, into their mainstream dis­ course and across their areas of influence and beyond, thereby laying the groundwork for increasing sectarian conflicts in the future. Indeed, proactive, assertive, and bellicose state actors and non-state militant actors attribute a unique and distinct character to their national identity and religious orthodoxy—be it Sunni, Shi’, Wahhabi, Hanafi, or Maliki. These actors promote this identity in order to increase their power base. In most of these countries, the identity discourses project the notion of great power status, in association with the right of defense and offense vis-à-vis perceived villainous systemic actors, in addition to the control of frontline smaller states and failed states. The Qatar crisis and foreign interventions in Syria, Yemen, and Libya can be interpreted, in part, to this factor. One needs to bear in mind that the KSA and Iran claim to be the guardians of Sunni Islam and Shi’ Islam, respectively, as well as the protectors of various holy places. The origin of this position goes back to the primordial conflict between Sunnis and Shi’is and to colliding religious imperatives. Still, religious (sectarian) polarization does not occur solely between Sunni-oriented and Shi’-oriented systemic actors. Competition is also taking place within the Sunni orbit, involving religious higher orders in the KSA versus Egyptian Al-Azhar or in the Jordanian

432  P. O. AMOUR

Hashemites. Within the Shi’-dominated power bloc, Qum (Iran) and Najaf (Iraq) seem to unite and at the same time divide Shi’ followers and supporters for allegiance. Thus, I argue that there is a (perceived) sectarian conflict across the Gulf Region and broader Middle East, with all its biases, misinformation, and knowledge bent to this alleged reality. As a result, sectarianism is one way to explain the observed regional power rivalry and ideological polarization. Researchers should, however, not overemphasize the influence of sectarian division and conflict when attempting to understand regional interactive dynamics. The different chapters in this book present a more sophisticated notion of the extended regional rivalry and polarization, in which sectarianism reflects one aspect of the regional system. Currently, national legitimization; territorial disputes (e.g., between the UAE and Iran); safe access to geopolitical routes and natural resources, and power ambitions on all sides have nourished the sectarian conflict. This sectarian dynamic/competition is one that is most likely to endure in the future. Bearing in mind the earlier assumption that regional rivalry and conflict will increase, it is likely that the perceived sectarian conflict will harden across the region as well. Sectarian divisions and trans-sectarian causes will likely plant more seeds in the regional events and political processes and deliver strong fuel for oppositional activism and inter-state conflict in the future. My final assumption in this chapter is that region-shattering chaos most likely will not destroy the regional system, per se. Even when regional chaos seems to be settling down, it will still be bedeviled by contrasting ideas and transnational causes, and so the process will take a lot longer than observers would anticipate. This seemingly novel emergent regional system will most likely not be completely new, but will have elements of the earlier state. Historical analogies from other regional systems demonstrate that the ostensibly final stages of region-shattering chaos occasionally bring about a fundamentally novel regional system. This book has demonstrated that systemic state actors and non-state militant actors are struggling for survival or consolidation, or are bidding for more power. The book has also demonstrated that regional interactive events have not put an end to the regional system per se or to the continuity of the regional order. Region-shattering chaos will more likely put an end to the current operational system and lead to alterations in the structure of the

14  REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 

433

regional system (e.g., bipolar/multipolar), the composition of alliances, the distribution of power (e.g., downgrade or meteoric rise of power status), the modus operandi between and among state actors and non-state militant actors, and the obliteration of the core ideas, normative beliefs, and transnational causes. The more chaotic a regional system is, the more likely non-state militant actors are to challenge state boundaries and squander valuable resources. Foreign players are more likely to proactively enter the regional arena. The outcome of these developments is likely to be anything but predictable to the general observer. One of the certainties of systemic chaos is that it will leave anarchy in its wake. Thus, writing about future outlooks while the dynamics are immediate, fluid, and complex is only possible in installments. Regional appearances can be deceptive. The second Arab Spring movement (2018–2020) has demonstrated that the systemic chaos still prevails and the regional order is still unfolding. No balance has yet been achieved in the regional order or the regional system in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. Instead, the system is still moving toward that state. The interplay of the cluster of factors, the distribution of power dynamics; the role of the immaterial power of ideas (ideologies and normative beliefs, national narratives, and transnational causes); and domestic influences all contribute to a fuller and more encompassing understanding of the regional system in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East and how it is formed and disintegrated, shaped and influenced, and operated and manipulated. Factorial research encompassing different clusters is time consuming and demanding in terms of resources. This type of research requires methodological conformity and the establishment of theoretical and empirical correlations, as well as great care in defining terminology. If the various clusters of factors are not distinctly analyzed and connections between them are not adequately drawn then there is a good chance that the analysis will be wide in scope but superficial in depth. The author recommends the use of a combination of a cluster of factors in relation to the regional level of analysis in order to arrive at a fuller and more encompassing understanding of the Gulf Region and broader Middle East—an understanding that is more necessary now than ever.

434  P. O. AMOUR

Bibliography Amour, Philipp O. “Did a Palestine Spring Take Place? The Lost Decade in Palestine.” Turkish Journal of History 67, no. 1 (June 2018): 151–76. https://doi.org/10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.384983. ———. “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives.” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31. https://doi.org/10.18506/ anemon.384773. ———. “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East: A Strategic Assessment.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353 0194.2016.1185696. ———. “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction.” In The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 1–21. St. James’s Studies in World Affairs. Washington: Academica Press, 2018. ———. “The Arab Spring Movement: The Failed Revolution. Preliminary Theoretical and Empirical Deliberation.” In The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 199–224. St. James’s Studies in World Affairs. Washington: Academica Press, 2018. Beach, Derek. Analyzing Foreign Policy. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/analyzingforeign-policy-derek-beach/?sf1=barcode&st1=9780230237391. Bengio, Ofra. “Surprising Ties between Israel and the Kurds.” Middle East Quarterly 21, no. 3 (Summer 2014): 1–12. Breuning, Marijke. Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Danin, Robert M. “Hamas Breaks from Syria.” Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed June 1, 2019. https://www.cfr.org/blog/hamas-breaks-syria. Korany, Bahgat, and Ali E. Hillal Dessouki, eds. The Foreign Policies of Arab States. Cairo: Westview Press; American University in Cairo Press, 1984. Matthews, Elizabeth G., and Rhonda L. Callaway. International Relations Theory: A Primer. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016. “Military Expenditure by Region in Constant US Dollars, 1988–2018.” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (sipri), 2019. https://www. sipri.org/sites/default/files/Data%20for%20world%20regions%20from%20 1988–2018%20%28pdf%29.pdf. “Why Are Gulf Countries so Interested in the Horn of Africa?” The Economist, January 16, 2019. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2019/ 01/16/why-are-gulf-countries-so-interested-in-the-horn-of-africa.

Index

0-9 1999, 202 A Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, 151 Abdullah bin Jassim al-Thani, 198 Abdul Majeed al-Zindani, 43 Abkhazia, 357, 369 Abu Bakr al-Naji, 305 Abu-l-A‘la Maududi, 108 Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, 265, 276, 289 Abu Mus’ab al-Suri, 321 Abu Rayan, 321 Accountability, 376 Adana agreement, 309 Afghanistan, 145, 146, 148, 353, 358 Africa, 176, 179, 190, 191 African Union (AU), 168, 179 African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), 169, 178, 186, 188, 189, 191 Afrin, 312, 313, 325 Agreement, 197

Agricultural expansion, 380, 385, 392 Agricultural sectors, 382, 386 Agriculture, 334–339, 377, 381–383, 386–389, 391–394 Ahmad al-Asadi, 266, 272, 279 Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib, 314 Ahmed Yassin, 108, 109 Ahrar al-Sham, 321, 322 Airstrike, 362 Alawi/Alawis/Alawism, 104, 105, 339, 340 Al-Baghdadi, 40, 318 Aleksandr Sherin, 352 Aleppo, 272, 319, 323, 336, 362 Algeria, 5, 9, 13 Al-Hakim, 263, 286, 290 Ali Abdullah Saleh, 116, 117 Ali Akbar Salehi, 119 Alignments, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 75, 77, 79, 80, 84, 86–88 Ali Khamenei, 99, 102, 103, 115, 118, 119 Ali Shariati, 98, 108 Al-Islah, 70 Al-Itihaad Al-Islamiyah, 177

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 P. O. Amour (ed.), The Regional Order in the Gulf Region and the Middle East, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45465-4

435

436  Index Al Jazeera, 139, 144, 199, 202 Al-Khalifa, 196, 197 Alliance/Alliances, 2, 3, 5, 9–11, 14–20, 23, 30, 31, 33, 36–38, 41, 43, 49, 52 Al-Qaeda, 49 Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), 117 Al-Sahwa, 70 Al-Saud, 197 Al-Shabab, 177, 178, 184, 185 Al-Thani, 196, 197, 200, 202, 210 Al Udeid, 146, 198 Amal Movement, 111 Amouda, 310, 312 Ankara, 167–169, 173, 174, 179–191 Anti-Muslim-Brotherhood, 16, 17 Anwar al-Sadat, 106 April 2012, 209 Arabian Peninsula, 4 Arab-Israeli War, 108 Arab League, 205, 206 Arable land, 391, 398 Arab nationalism, 68–71, 73, 82 Arab nationalist camp, 68, 70 Arab Spring, 1, 4–6, 10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 29, 30, 34, 35, 38, 41, 51–53, 61–64, 70, 74, 76–81, 83, 88, 89 Arab Spring movement, 410, 411, 415, 419, 420, 426–429, 433 Arab unity, 108 Arab Uprisings, 133, 137, 147–151, 153, 155, 195, 196, 198, 202, 203, 205, 206, 210, 211 Armed Forces, 138, 140 Asaib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), 259, 272–278, 285 Assad regime, 41, 43, 45, 69, 78, 80, 87 Association of Militant Clergy, 102 Astana conferences, 314, 316

Ataa Movement, 265 Availability, 377, 380, 382, 383 Axis of moderation, 96 Axis of refusal, 97 Axis of resistance, 95–98, 100, 107, 114, 119, 121–123 Ayatollah Ali Sistani, 115, 262, 263, 286–289 Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri, 102 Ayatollah Khomeini, 71, 72, 99, 101, 102 Azerbaijan, 343 B Ba‘abda Declaration, 114 Baathism, 100, 105, 107, 122, 332–334 Baathist, 308, 318 Baathist Syria, 100, 106 Baath Party, 335 Ba’ath regime, 208, 260 Bab Al-Mandeb, 22 Badr, 259, 267–273, 276–278, 281, 282, 285, 286, 290 Badr Brigade, 115 Bahrain, 4, 13, 20 Balance, 414, 420, 421, 433 Balance against, 65 Baqir Jabr al-Zubeidi, 269 Bases, 189–191 Bashar al-Assad, 119, 203, 205, 206, 303, 313, 321, 325, 362, 367–369 Basij, 101, 103 Basra, 266, 276, 285 Benghazi, 204 Beqaa Valley, 111 Black Sea, 366 Bloc, 9, 16–20 Border, 198 Bosporus, 366

Index

Branch, 30, 32, 42, 44, 46, 48 Branding, 138, 143, 144 Britain, 196–199 C Cameron, 205 Camp David, 135 Capitalism, 141 Caucasus, 364, 369, 370 Cause/s, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 409, 411, 413, 421, 423, 425–433 Chaos, 420–422, 429, 432, 433 Chemical, 205 Chemical weapons, 205, 351, 352, 361–363 Christians, 339 Climate, 375, 378, 380, 391, 396 Climate change, 336 Climate variability, 387, 389 Cold war, 415, 420 Colonialism, 68, 70 Color revolution, 357 Communication, 182, 184 Comoros Islands, 5 Conservative-moderate, 407, 409– 413, 415, 418, 424, 427, 430 Conservative-resistance, 95, 407, 410, 412, 419, 424, 427 Constitution, 139 Corruption, 107, 110, 177, 178 Coup/s, 97, 105, 120, 198 Crimea, 357 D Dabiq, 318 Daesh, 304–306, 313–325 Dahlan, 36 Damascus, 205, 336, 351, 352, 362, 364–367

  437

Daraa, 312, 336 Daraya, 364 Davutoğlu, Ahmet, 141, 142 Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, 110 Democratic Union Party (PYD), 19, 21 Demographic, 376, 383, 389 Deterrence, 122 Devotees of Islam, 99 Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), 143 Disintegration, 375, 376, 387, 391 Disorder, 61, 62 Djibouti, 5, 167, 175 Doha, 195, 196, 198, 200, 210, 211 Douma, 352, 363 Drought, 333, 336, 337, 339, 376, 383, 387, 389, 390, 396, 397 Druze, 105, 112, 339 E East African Community (EAC), 168, 169, 186, 191 Ebrahim Raisi, 104 Economic growth, 384, 398 Egypt, 5, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20 Egyptian military, 38, 45, 47 Eisenhower Doctrine, 67, 68, 366 Elections, 207, 208 Elite, 415, 416, 418, 426, 431 Emir, 203 Energy, 334, 335, 341–343, 368, 369 Energy resources, 22, 23 Energy routes, 342 Energy security, 332, 346 Environment/Environmental, 22, 23, 170, 171 Environmental conflicts, 376, 396, 398 Environmental policies, 339

438  Index Envoy, 208 Eritrea, 167, 175 Eruptions, 422, 424, 430 Ethiopia, 167, 175, 177, 188, 189 Ethnopolitical, 340 Ethno-religious conflicts, 340 Eurasia, 346 Europe, 341, 343, 344 Exploration, 369 External, 345 External factors, 22 Extractivism, 333, 335 F Fada’iyan-e Islam, 99 Fadaiyun Islam (FI) party, 72 Failed state, 176 Falih al-Fayyadh, 262, 265, 266, 272, 281, 289, 290 Fatah Al-Sham, 49 Fatwa, 262, 287 February 2011, 206 Fedayeen Saddam, 261 Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, 33 Fertile Crescent, 4 Fifth Mediterranean Squadron, 366 Financial, 38, 43, 50 First Arab Spring movement, 409– 411, 415, 426, 427, 429 Foreign audience, 426 Foreign influence, 70 Foreign intervention, 331, 333, 336, 339 Foreign policy, 2, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, 195, 198, 199, 210, 211 Fossil fuel, 380, 383, 398 France, 22 Freshwater, 377, 380, 382, 383, 386 Fundamentalism, 353, 364, 365 Funds, 107, 110, 115

G Gaddafi, 355, 361, 368 Gas, 369 Gaza, 109, 110, 122, 217–223, 225–232, 234–237, 239–246 GCC crisis, 46 Geo-cultural factors, 332, 346 Geopolitical/Geopolitics, 331, 332, 339, 343, 344, 346 Georgia, 343, 356, 357, 368, 369 Ghannouchi, Rachid, 33, 43 Ghouta, 205, 351, 362 Globalization, 141 Golan Heights, 333, 345 Government, 304, 305, 308, 312, 313, 323 Great Power, 171–174, 185, 190, 191 Green Movement, 102, 103, 123 Guarantor, 198 Guardianship of the Jurist, 100, 101, 112 Gulf, 4, 17, 18, 22 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), 46, 47, 49, 50, 64, 65, 73, 75, 78–82, 88, 381, 382, 392 Gulfization, 62, 63, 76, 79, 81, 82, 88 Gulf of Aden, 391 Gulf of Aqaba, 22 Gulf Region, 1–8, 10, 13–18, 20–23, 62–64, 76, 82, 83, 85, 86, 89, 196, 199, 202, 203, 209, 210 Gulf sovereign wealth funds, 143 H Hadi al-Amiri, 266, 268, 273 Hafez al-Assad, 100, 105, 107, 111, 201, 332–334 Haider al-Abadi, 263–265, 273, 275, 279, 290 Hajj Amin al-Husseini, 104, 107 Hallab, 272

Index

Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, 203 Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, 138, 198, 203 Hama massacre, 317 Hamas, 96, 97, 100, 109, 110, 120, 218, 224, 225, 227–236, 238–241, 243, 245 Hammam Saeed, 43 Hasaka, 323 Hasan al-Banna, 98, 107, 108 Hashd al-Sha’abi, 261, 262, 264, 275, 289 Hawar Islands, 145 Hawza, 263, 287 Hedging, 35, 152, 195, 196 Hegemony, 95, 98, 115 Hezbollah, 96, 97, 100, 109–114, 116, 118–121 Hizbullah Brigades, 115 Homs, 336, 351 Horn of Africa, 167–169, 174–176, 178, 180, 181, 186, 187, 190, 191 Houthi movement, 116 Houthis, 41, 44, 45, 393–395 Humanitarian, 167–169, 179–184, 186, 187, 189, 191 Humanitarian crisis, 351 I Identity, 111, 116, 122 Idleb, 321, 336 Incirlik, 146 India, 207 Information, 182, 305, 313 Intention, 167 Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), 168, 169, 186, 191

  439

International order, 359 International Organization of the MB, 33 International politics, 356 International relations, 198 International system, 351, 353, 370 Intervention/Interventionism, 353, 355, 356, 358–362, 364, 368–370 Intifada, 97, 109, 110 Iran, 4–6, 10, 13, 17–19, 21, 95–98, 100–103, 106–108, 110, 111, 113–123, 259–261, 263, 264, 267–269, 271, 273–276, 278– 281, 283, 333, 340–346 Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, 343 Iran–Iraq War, 107, 109 Iran-led, 408, 410, 412, 423 Iraq, 4, 5, 13, 18, 21, 260–263, 265, 267–273, 275–280, 283–287, 289–291, 352, 359, 365, 367, 368, 370 Iraqi-first, 259 Islah Party, 32, 42–45 Islamic, 31, 32, 35, 37, 40, 51 Islamic Action Front Party (IAFP), 32, 43 Islamic Awakening, 118, 119 Islamic Centre, 108 Islamic Dawah Party, 265 Islamic discourses, 34 Islamic Jihad, 96, 100, 108, 111 Islamic Republic Party (IRP), 102 Islamic resistance, 121 Islamic Resistance Movement, 109 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), 101–104 Islamic State (IS), 17–19, 21, 260–262, 264, 270, 271, 274, 275, 277, 279, 282, 284, 285, 287–289, 291

440  Index Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), 30, 40–42, 44, 48, 49, 52, 53 Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), 115 Islamism, 122, 123, 137, 211 Islamist/s, 32, 35, 353, 364, 365 Islamist forces, 65, 80 Ismaelis, 105 Israel, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 217–230, 232–246, 333, 342, 344, 345 Israeli Defense Force (IDF), 219, 221, 223–225, 227, 229, 234, 236, 237, 244–246 Istanbul, 208 J Jabhat al-Nusra, 318, 322 Jaish al-Sha’bi (People’s Army), 260 Jalal Al-e Ahmad, 97 Jaysh al-Islam, 322 Jazira, 309, 312 Jihadists, 364 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), 41, 103, 104 Jordan, 4 Jund al-Aqsa, 322 June 2016, 236 K Kafranbel, 321 Karbala, 266, 273, 285 Kata’ib Hezbollah (KH) in Iraq, 272, 275–279 Kenya, 167, 175, 177 Khafji, 140 Khalifa Haftar, 36, 80 Khamenei, 263, 267, 272, 276, 283, 289

Khan Al Assal, 362 Khatami, Mohammad, 103 Khmeimin airbase, 369 Khomeini, 99 Khordad uprising, 99 King Abdullah, 110 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), 5, 10, 13, 16–20, 196, 198–203, 209–211 King Hussein, 110 Kobane, 312 Kobane battle, 315 Kosovo, 352, 357, 358 KSA/UAE-led, 410, 411, 423, 424, 430 Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), 304–306, 309, 311–317, 324, 325, 342 Kurdish National Council (KNC), 311, 313, 314 Kurdistan Worker Party (PKK), 140, 342 Kurds, 101, 306–311, 313–316, 322, 323, 339, 342 Kuwait, 5, 13 Kyrgyzstan, 357 L Land, 379, 380, 386, 388, 391, 392, 398 Latin America, 346 Lavrov, Sergey, 354, 359–362, 364 Lebanon, 4, 5, 17, 18, 95–97, 105, 107, 110–114, 120, 122 Legitimacy, 97, 100, 122 Levant, 4, 7, 17 Leverage, 309 Liberalism, 141 Liberalization, 333, 335 Libya, 5, 13, 354–356, 359, 361, 363, 368, 370

Index

Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA), 408 Libyan National Army (LNA), 408 Local conflict, 392 Location, 173 Logistical, 38, 43 M Madrid peace conference, 110 Mahdi, Adel Abdul, 265 The Mahdi Army, 115 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 102, 103, 119 March 2014, 34, 39, 46, 49 Maronite Christians, 111–113 Mauritania, 5 Mavi Marmara, 224, 236 Mediterranean, 23, 366 Medvedev, 355, 356 Menneg airport, 316 Middle East, 61–63, 65–67, 74, 76, 78, 79, 81–83, 85–89, 196, 199, 203, 209, 210 Military alliances, 332, 346 Military coup, 38, 45, 47 Military operation, 351, 357 Militias, 259–264, 267, 268, 272, 275, 280–283, 286, 287, 289–291 Milli Görüş, 141 Minister, 355, 362 Moderate-resistance, 155, 156, 407, 408, 410, 412, 424, 427 Mogadishu, 167, 177, 178, 181–183, 185, 189–191 Mohamed bin Salman (MBS), 73, 80, 82, 88, 89 Mohamed Morsi, 34, 36–38, 46–48, 151, 224, 226, 230 Mojtaba Mir-Louhi, 99 Montreux Convention, 366

  441

Morocco, 5, 13 Moscow, 352–357, 359, 361, 362, 364, 365, 367–370 Mosul, 268, 271, 275, 281 Movements, 30–35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 45, 52, 53 Mubarak, 35 Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, 108 Muhammad bin Thani, 197 Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, 108 Multinational Force in Lebanon (MNF), 111 Muqtada al-Sadr, 259, 273, 283, 284, 289, 290 Musa al-Sadr, 105, 111 Muslim Brotherhood (MB), 16–18, 20, 30–32, 34–40, 42–50, 52, 53 Mustafa Sabbagh, 209 Mustapha Setmariam, 321 N Najaf, 266, 268, 283, 287 Narratives, 411, 423, 425–427, 429, 430, 433 Nasrallah, Hasan, 114, 119 Nasser, Gamal Abdel, 134, 201, 202 National Coalition of Revolutionary Forces and the Opposition, 209, 304 National Coordination Body for Democratic Change (NCB), 314 National interests, 353 Nationalist, 32, 36 NATO, 204, 205, 316 Natural resource, 375, 376, 388, 396 Naval facility, 344 Navvab-e Safavi, 99 Neo-Principalists, 103 Nepotism, 107 Netanyahu, Benjamin, 223, 233 Nineteenth century, 86

442  Index No-fly zone, 206 Non-state militant actors, 1–5, 8–12, 15, 18–22, 324, 410, 411, 415, 419, 420, 422, 424–426, 428, 429, 431–433 North Africa, 5, 6 Northeast Syria, 337 North Korea, 95 North Syria, 307, 313, 324 Nouri al-Maliki, 262, 265, 272 November 2011, 206 Nuclear deal, 78, 79 Nusra Front, 50 O Obama, Barack, 205, 362 October 2011, 204, 208 Oil, 355, 368–370, 375, 381 Oman, 5 Omran al-Zoubi, 362 Operation Autumn Cloud, 219 Operation Brother’s Keeper, 229 Operation Cast Lead, 219, 227, 244 Operation Hot Winter, 219 Operation Pillar of Defense, 219, 221, 222, 225, 227, 228, 232, 234 Operation Protective Edge, 219–222, 229, 232–234, 242 Operation Returning Echo, 219 Operation Summer Rains, 219 Organizational capacity, 376 Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), 168, 169, 186–188, 191 Oslo, 218 Oslo Accords, 135 Ottoman Empire, 197, 199 P Palestine, 4, 7, 217, 224, 241, 242

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), 69, 73 Palestinian, 219–222, 224, 226, 227, 229, 231, 236–239, 241–243, 245, 246 Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), 97, 108–110 Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood (PMB), 108, 109 Palestinian National Authority (PNA), 73, 75, 79 Party of Justice and Development (PJD), 32, 34 People’s Protection Units (YPG), 304, 313, 315, 325 Physical resource, 376 Polisario Front, 81 Political disintegration, 387 Political Islam, 30–36, 38–40, 43, 45–53 political parties, 32, 34 Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, 110 Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), 19, 21, 115, 259–267, 270–273, 276, 278–291 Population growth, 377, 385, 394 Port, 47, 190, 423 Port of Tartous, 334 Postcolonial, 30, 32 Power, 2, 3, 5, 7–23, 218, 220, 224, 234, 241, 243 Power center, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 17 Power projection, 7, 11, 14, 15, 21, 415, 416, 422, 423, 426 Power relations, 30, 31 President, 198, 203, 205, 206 Production, 377, 379–383, 392 Pro-Iran militias, 259, 261, 263–267, 271, 272, 275, 276, 278–280, 282, 285, 286, 288–291 Pro-Muslim-Brotherhood, 16

Index

Proximity, 170 Proxy, 62, 69, 81, 85 Proxy war, 331, 342, 344, 346 Puntland, 177 Putin, 351, 355–360, 363–365, 367, 370 PYD-YPG, 304, 319, 324 Q Qaddafi, 64, 70, 78, 80, 204 Qais al-Khazali, 273 Qamishli, 312 Qasem Soleimani, 103, 271, 289 Qatar, 5, 13, 16–20, 132–134, 137–156, 195–203, 205, 206, 208–211, 340, 342, 343 Qatar crisis, 49, 51–53 Qatar Foundation, 139 Qatar Fund for Development, 144 Qatari MB, 35 Qatar Investment Authority (QIA), 143 Qatar University, 202 Quasi-state, 21 Quds Force, 101, 103, 104, 111, 121 Qum, 283, 287 R Radical, 353, 358, 362, 364, 365, 368 Rafah, 224, 231, 235, 245 Rafiq al-Hariri, 345 Rafsanjani, Akbar Hashemi, 99, 102 Ramadan, Said, 107 Raqqa, 304, 313, 319, 320, 323, 325 Rashid Rida, 108 Rational interests, 34 Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, 36, 48, 51, 141, 167 Red Sea, 391 Refah party, 74

  443

Reformist, 102, 103, 123 Reform-minded, 408 Refugees, 351 Regime, 351–356, 359, 361–366, 368–370 Regional developments, 34, 38, 40 Regional dynamics, 1–3, 5, 7–10, 15, 16, 19, 20 Regional great power, 411, 413, 415, 419, 420, 422, 423, 425–428 Regionalism, 346 Regional order, 2, 9, 10, 16, 30, 31, 52, 53 Regional power, 3, 23, 168, 171–174, 185, 190 Regional rivalry, 421, 422, 424, 426, 427, 432 Regional Security, 168, 170, 175, 182, 185, 186, 191 Regional Security Complex (RSC), 169–175, 178, 180, 185, 186, 188–190 Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT), 169–171, 173–175, 185, 190, 191 Regional superpower, 420 Regional system, 1–4, 6–12, 15–17, 21–23, 133, 153, 155 Relations, 196, 198, 199, 201, 209 Religion, 97, 98, 104, 123, 306, 314, 323, 324 Rentier state, 37 Resistance, 259, 274, 286, 290 Revolution/s, 63, 64, 67–70, 72, 77, 78, 83, 84, 86 Revolutionary Guard Corps, 81 Rhetoric, 304, 314 Risk, 46, 49 Rivalries, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 23 Riyadh, 201 Rojava, 312, 313, 315, 316 Rouhani, Hasan, 103, 104

444  Index Russia, 7, 22, 23, 333, 341, 343–346, 351–370 Russian, 353, 355–357, 359, 360, 364–370 S Saada governorate, 393 Saakashvilli, Mihail, 357 Saddam Hussein, 101, 114, 201, 261, 267 Salafi/Salafism, 32, 71, 235 Samarra, 277, 285 Sarkozy, 205 Saudi royal house, 37, 45 Sayyid Qutb, 71 Scarcity, 375–379, 383, 384, 386, 389, 393, 398, 399 Second Arab Spring movement, 415, 420, 433 Sectarian/Sectarianism, 332, 340, 342 Sectarian conflict, 137 Secular, 32, 33 Security, 2, 7, 9, 15–20, 22, 217, 221, 230–232, 235, 241, 242, 245, 246 Security and foreign policy, 3, 23 Security interdependency, 63, 64, 79 Seif, Riad, 209 Sèvres, 324 Shah, 99, 100, 106 Shanghai Cooperation Organization, 346, 353 Sharia, 202 Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al Thani (HBJ), 141, 143 Sheikh Jassim, 197 Sheikh Khalifa, 138–140 Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, 200 Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, 152

Shiism, 41 Shiite Crescent, 136 Shiite militias, 41 Shiite minority, 72, 77 Shiites, 40, 41 Shi’-leaning actors, 259 Shi’ militias, 259–261, 264, 267, 268, 270–273, 275–283, 285, 289 Shirqat, 285 Sinai Peninsula, 230, 235, 245 Sissi regime, 43, 46 Skirmishes, 198 Society of Militant Clerics, 102 Soft power, 168, 169, 175, 179–181, 184, 185, 189–191 Somalia, 5, 20, 167–169, 173, 175–178, 180–191 Somaliland, 177, 185, 189 Somali National Army (SNA), 188, 189, 191 South Africa, 204, 207 South Ossetia, 357, 369 State Duma, 352 Statehood, 175 Status quo alignment, 62, 63, 67–69, 73, 74, 76, 79, 82, 86–89 Status quo power, 64, 66, 68, 71, 76, 84, 88 Straits of Hormuz, 22 Suakin, 190 Sub-Saharan countries, 5, 6 Subsidies, 334, 335, 338 Subsystem, 2, 9–11, 16–19, 21, 407, 409–415, 418–421, 423–428 Sudan, 5, 9, 17 Suez Canal, 22 Suez crisis, 69, 366 Super Power, 171, 172, 174, 185, 186 Support, 33, 36, 38, 41, 43, 45–48, 50, 51, 53 Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, 115

Index

Supreme Leader, 99, 102 Sustainability, 376, 379, 383, 387, 395, 398, 399 Sykes-Picot, 324 Syria, 4, 9, 13, 17–23, 97, 100, 104– 108, 110, 112–115, 118, 119, 121–123, 259, 261, 267, 271, 272, 275, 277–279, 285, 291, 303, 304, 306–309, 312–325, 351–354, 356–370, 376, 378, 382, 387–390, 395–398 Syrian crisis, 149, 154, 155 Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), 304, 315, 316, 319, 324 Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (SMB), 42, 45, 195, 196, 201, 203, 208–211 Systemic change, 76 Systemic unit, 2–4, 8–11 T Tabqa Dam, 309 Tacit security regime (TSR), 66, 87 Taif Agreement, 112, 113 Takfiris, 120 Tal Afar, 271 Tartous, 23, 344 Tartous naval base, 366 Technologies, 381, 384 Tel Rifat, 316 Terror, 39, 43 Threat, 30, 35–38, 40–44, 47, 48, 52, 53 Tourism, 367 Trade, 196, 202 Trade policy, 379 Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline, 343 Transformation, 133, 135, 138, 141, 142, 156

  445

Transitional Federal Government of Somalia, 176 Transnational, 30, 33, 38, 43, 45, 52 Transnational identities, 64, 86, 87 Transparency, 376 Tribes, 260 Tripolar, 133, 155 Trump administration, 238, 241, 242 Tudeh Party, 97 Tunisia, 5, 9, 16, 17 Tunisian Ennahda, 30, 32, 34, 43 Tunnel, 224, 225, 228, 229, 231, 235 Turkey, 4, 6, 13, 16–20, 132–134, 137, 138, 140–156, 307–309, 313, 315, 316, 333, 340–343, 346 Turkey/Qatar-led, 408, 410–415, 423, 424, 428 Turkish Corporation and Development Agency (TIKA), 143, 182 The Turkish-Israeli reconciliation agreement, 236 Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP), 141 Twelver Shiism, 100, 116 Twentieth century, 1, 6, 15 Twenty-first century, 1, 7, 14 U Uday, 261 Uganda, 167, 175 Ukraine, 357 Ulama, 200, 201 Umma, 112 Underdevelopment, 391 Unemployment, 32, 107 UNGA Resolution, 207 United Arab Emirates (UAE), 5, 13, 16–19 United Arab Republic, 69, 134

446  Index United National Leadership of the Uprising (UNLU), 110 United Nations Security Council (UNSC), 204–207, 210, 355, 358, 359, 370 United States of America (USA), 22, 196, 198, 199, 201, 205, 209, 210, 351–354, 356–358, 361–363, 365, 366, 368, 370 Uprising, 83–85, 88, 89 Urban/Urbanization, 385, 386, 389, 395, 398 US President, 362 V Vilayat-i Faqih, 72, 263, 268, 274, 276, 282, 283 Vulnerability, 377–379, 390, 398 W Wadi Araba Agreement, 135 Wahhabi/Wahhabism, 37, 196, 198, 200, 203, 211 War, 102, 108, 112, 117, 121 Wasatiyya parties, 32, 37 Water, 23, 338, 339, 375–393, 395–398

Water management, 375, 383–387, 398, 399 Water scarcity, 376–383, 388, 391, 393, 394, 396, 398, 399 Water storage, 378 Water Stress Index (WSI), 376–378 Weapons, 107, 110, 112, 117, 122 West, 95, 96, 98, 102, 106, 109, 110, 118, 355–358, 362, 367, 368 Western influence, 68–70 White Revolution, 99 Y Yanukovych, 357 Yasser Arafat, 110, 112 Yemen, 5, 9, 13, 17, 18, 23, 97, 100, 114, 116–118, 376, 382, 387, 390–396, 398 Yom Kippur War, 122 Yunus Emre Institute, 144 Yusuf al-Qaradawi, 33, 108, 121, 201, 202 Z Zero problems with neighbors, 145 Zero-sum, 307, 319, 324, 422, 430