Ikhwanweb :: The Muslim Brotherhood Official English Website

Tue109 2018

Last update19:14 PM GMT

Back to Homepage
Font Size : 12 point 14 point 16 point 18 point
:: Issues > Eye on IOF
The Middle East’s titanic battle
The Middle East is in a new era, very different from the politics and strategic situation we have been used to for so long.
Monday, August 20,2007 08:55
by BARRY RUBIN

For 55 years the region has lived under Arab nationalist dominance. Every Arab regime, except perhaps Sudan, is Arab nationalist, governed by that basic system and world view.

Of course, these regimes have governed badly, not keeping pledges to unite the Arab world, minimize Western influence, destroy Israel or bring rapid social and economic progress. Still, they know how to stay in power.

Remember that the last real regime change from within an Arab state happened 37 years ago, when Hafez Assad seized power in Syria. Since then, surprisingly little has changed in Arab ideology, political structure, economic organization or society.

It has also been 28 years since Iran"s Islamist revolution took power in 1979. Since then - though not solely because of that event - Islamism has been on the upsurge. Certainly, it also suffered setbacks and almost three decades later was unable to seize power anywhere, at least until Hamas"s recent triumph in Gaza.

WHAT HAS happened now, however, is that radical Islamism has reached a critical mass. It poses serious challenges to Arab nationalism as the leading opposition in every Arabic-speaking country. Islamism plays a key role in governing Iraq; Hamas defeated Fatah on the Palestinian front; and Hizbullah is close to gaining at least equal power in Lebanon.

For years, probably decades, to come, the Middle East will be shaken by a titanic battle for control between Arab nationalism and Islamism.

This struggle, and certainly not the Arab-Israel conflict, is the central theme and underlying factor in every regional issue.

This is so for several reasons. One is that the Islamist cause is now promoted by an alliance including two regimes, Iran and Syria, as well as Hamas and Hizbullah, which both rule territory. Syria"s government, technically "secular" and ruled by an Alawite minority, behaves like an Islamist one, especially in its foreign policy, so as to keep loyal its Sunni Muslim majority.

It is folly to think that this HISH alliance (Hamas-Iran-Syria-Hizbullah) can be split. After all, the parties have common aims and ideologies, their cooperation is so mutually beneficial - and, last but not least, they think they are winning.

Historically, there were two barriers to Iran"s trying to become the Middle East"s leading power: the Persian-Arab and Shi"ite-Sunni divides. How could Persian, Shi"ite Iran appeal to Arabs who mostly were Sunni? The HISH alliance solves that problem. Three of the four members are Arab, and Hamas is Sunni, as is the majority of Syrians. If one adds Iraq"s Sunni Arab insurgency, that breakthrough becomes even clearer.

Nor does this exhaust the Islamist forces working today to seize state power throughout the region. Al-Qaida is a factor, mostly in Iraq - where it cooperates closely with Syria - and Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida is far more a threat in terms of terrorism, however, than in a strategic sense. Since it has only one tactic, flexibility, in comparison to other Islamists, al-Qaida is unlikely to take over any countries.

A third Islamist set of groups are Muslim Brotherhood movements. While Hamas arises from the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, its Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian counterparts do not particularly like Iran or Shi"ites. Still, they are also trying to transform Arab nationalist states into Islamist states. Even if they use elections in pursuing this objective, the goal remains the same.

The Middle East is in a new era, very different from the politics and strategic situation we have been used to for so long.

For 55 years the region has lived under Arab nationalist dominance. Every Arab regime, except perhaps Sudan, is Arab nationalist, governed by that basic system and world view.

Of course, these regimes have governed badly, not keeping pledges to unite the Arab world, minimize Western influence, destroy Israel or bring rapid social and economic progress. Still, they know how to stay in power.

Remember that the last real regime change from within an Arab state happened 37 years ago, when Hafez Assad seized power in Syria. Since then, surprisingly little has changed in Arab ideology, political structure, economic organization or society.

It has also been 28 years since Iran"s Islamist revolution took power in 1979. Since then - though not solely because of that event - Islamism has been on the upsurge. Certainly, it also suffered setbacks and almost three decades later was unable to seize power anywhere, at least until Hamas"s recent triumph in Gaza.

WHAT HAS happened now, however, is that radical Islamism has reached a critical mass. It poses serious challenges to Arab nationalism as the leading opposition in every Arabic-speaking country. Islamism plays a key role in governing Iraq; Hamas defeated Fatah on the Palestinian front; and Hizbullah is close to gaining at least equal power in Lebanon.

For years, probably decades, to come, the Middle East will be shaken by a titanic battle for control between Arab nationalism and Islamism.

This struggle, and certainly not the Arab-Israel conflict, is the central theme and underlying factor in every regional issue.

This is so for several reasons. One is that the Islamist cause is now promoted by an alliance including two regimes, Iran and Syria, as well as Hamas and Hizbullah, which both rule territory. Syria"s government, technically "secular" and ruled by an Alawite minority, behaves like an Islamist one, especially in its foreign policy, so as to keep loyal its Sunni Muslim majority.

It is folly to think that this HISH alliance (Hamas-Iran-Syria-Hizbullah) can be split. After all, the parties have common aims and ideologies, their cooperation is so mutually beneficial - and, last but not least, they think they are winning.

Historically, there were two barriers to Iran"s trying to become the Middle East"s leading power: the Persian-Arab and Shi"ite-Sunni divides. How could Persian, Shi"ite Iran appeal to Arabs who mostly were Sunni? The HISH alliance solves that problem. Three of the four members are Arab, and Hamas is Sunni, as is the majority of Syrians. If one adds Iraq"s Sunni Arab insurgency, that breakthrough becomes even clearer.

Nor does this exhaust the Islamist forces working today to seize state power throughout the region. Al-Qaida is a factor, mostly in Iraq - where it cooperates closely with Syria - and Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida is far more a threat in terms of terrorism, however, than in a strategic sense. Since it has only one tactic, flexibility, in comparison to other Islamists, al-Qaida is unlikely to take over any countries.

A third Islamist set of groups are Muslim Brotherhood movements. While Hamas arises from the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, its Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian counterparts do not particularly like Iran or Shi"ites. Still, they are also trying to transform Arab nationalist states into Islamist states. Even if they use elections in pursuing this objective, the goal remains the same.


Posted in Eye on IOF  
Print
Related Articles
Seething Anger in a Broken Middle East
Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in the Middle East: The Case of Saudi Arabia
Our second biggest mistake in the Middle East
The New Middle East By Richard N. Haass
Bush’s crusade to bring democracy to the Middle East is resulting in strengthening militant Islam
Bush’s dream of democratic Middle East