by Ramin Mazaheri
Russia’s economic output in 1921 – following World War One and then four years of (International) Civil War – was slashed by a mind-boggling 80% as compared to 1913.
The Russian Civil War was truly international because there were 14 foreign armies operating on Russian soil after 1917: The Germans occupied 25% of Russia’s former territory, the British took oil fields around Baku and furnished 1 million guns to help supply the anti-socialist counter-revolution, the Japanese settled in Siberia, the Americans, Canadians and Australians were all there, etc.
This combination of appalling destruction and foreign meddling should sound familiar to those following Syria.
And yet it took the new Soviet nation only until 1928 – just 7 years – to reach the economic output of 1913.
What is interesting here is not is how they achieved that – the pros or cons of socialism, Lenin, Trotsky, the Russian character, whatever – but the simple fact that not only is war profitable but the rebuilding is also.
Syrians can take heart in this reality, amid the ongoing effort to expel terrorists from their borders: Things will get better quickly when peace is restored and meddling, belligerent foreigners are ejected.
It’s a pleasant, and important, idea to contemplate: What will a rebuilding and rebuilt Syria will look like? What form of society will the Syrian people choose in order to move forward?
Experiencing war, as 20th century history proves, politically radicalizes the populace in the direction towards socialism and away from feudalism/capitalism.
Therefore, we can assume that the Syrian people – when sovereignty is restored – will intensely demand modern Muslim democracy. It seems very unlikely that the Assad government will stop this “radicalization” towards more democracy as they will no longer be concerned about losing their power.
Did you may find that statement surprising? The reasoning is simple: Assad and his colleagues have made their bones, and won over 2-3 generations (at least) by beating off the horrid invaders. If they give the Syrian people a postwar program they believe in and accept, they will be supported for decades despite any Western efforts to discredit and topple them. This is exactly how it played out in Iran, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.
Assad won’t be the obstacle, so let’s be clear on the only way the Syrian people are NOT allowed to choose their own postwar model: If the Syrian state loses its sovereignty and is dismembered.
Obviously, this is what Israel wants (Golan Heights), but the entire West as well as Israel doesn’t want a unified Syria; they are obviously content to see Libya dismembered and Iraq on the way to dismemberment via an independent Kurdistan and the instigation of a hitherto-unknown “modern Sunni-Shia divide”.
However, let’s put aside all those possibilities which indicate failure and discuss the future of a peaceful, sovereign Syria.
Surely, Syrians will reject the Western model
It’s not as if Syria is going to join the European Union…nor would they want to, after seeing the EU does to its weaker countries like Greece.
It seems insane for Syria to install what France imposed on Lebanon after stripping it from Syria: the so-called “confessional model”, where ethnicity and religion informally and formally prohibit everything from intermarriage to holding certain government posts. It is no exaggeration to call this both racial- and religion-based model “Confessional Apartheid”. This historically-unnatural, imperialist, outdated model is also allegedly secular.
However, even if this lie has been institutionalized as much as possible, it is as big a lie as the “separate but equal” facilities for Whites and Blacks in the post-Civil War United States.
This Confessional Apartheid has led to such disunity that Lebanon has not been able to prevent longtime Israeli occupation, achieve social unity, nor prevent rapacious billionaire capitalists like the Hariri clan from selling their country off to Western corporations.
That is not going to be the Syrian way. LOL, we are envisioning them winning, after all!
What form of government should Syria have?
Firstly, it is certainly not for me – being not your typical Western journalist – to decide for the Syrian people if Syria’s future leader should be Assad or not. Regardless of leadership, Syria does have a chance to start anew so I suggest they look at history for examples.
Many who know Iran say that the French Revolution’s genius was political, the Russian Revolution’s genius was economic, and that the Iran Revolution’s genius was moral. The specific genius of the Iranian Revolution appears to be that it allows religion to play an active role in government.
This is a radical concept, but it certainly has worked for Iran despite all efforts to sabotage this model. Whether or not it reaches the impact of the former two revolutions remains to be seen, but Syria could be the first to adopt many of its tenets and thus be a springboard for many others to follow.
Certainly, the utter lack of morality in the pro-capitalist Western governments is apparent to all, non-Muslims included. Aping Western democracy in 2017 is a recipe for a legal spy state which works to protect its bankers and shareholders.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that having a Catholic priest being Italy’s Trade Minister, for example, would necessarily be a negative thing. In fact, were he a good priest, I would assume it would be a positive development. This is not the common view in the West, but the only question should be: would the average Syrian voter choose such an arrangement?
I’d say: very likely. At the very least, modern Muslim democracy seems to necessarily mean that voters should have the right to choose.
But that is another question which I cannot answer for Syria, and which they have to answer for themselves: How much influence will religion have in the actual governing of Syria?
Mullahs, I remind the reader, have no official status in Iran: they gain power because they are elected or because they achieve cultural status. In 2013, for example, our current president Hassan Rouhani was elected for his first term despite being the only cleric among the eight first-round candidates!
Religion – and this is indeed a revolutionary notion – was obviously not viewed by the Iranian people as a hindrance to democracy, modernity or prosperity.
A modern, victorious Syrian state will necessarily resemble Iran
Many will accuse me of cultural chauvinism with that claim, but I am aware of my possible bias: please listen to the case and you will see I am imagining what the Syrian people want, not what I want.
Perhaps Syrians will choose to remain with the current Ba’athist Party – it is the “Arab Socialist Ba’ath party” (although never billed as such in Western media), so at least they reject ethnic/state divisions and capitalism.
But the Western-based, secular, Ba’athist model clearly did not work superbly in Syria, most notably in fighting imperialism. A revival of Ba’athism seems like a step backwards, which does not mean it cannot work, but it may not be enough to the post-war Syrian people, who are emboldened by their war struggle.
If Ba’athism is out, what model should they choose? Well, Syria is 90% Muslim – Islam is important to the locals.
The idea that Islamic traditions in law – which began with Prophet Muhammed and have been regularly altered and updated until the present day – should be excluded is anathema to the average Muslim, and quite fairly. If Syrians vote willingly for English Shariah (Common Law), Roman Shariah (Civil Law), Hindu Shariah (Dharma Law) or some other foreign set of traditions…I would be quite surprised.
By putting it in these quite accurate linguistic terms, let’s just assume Shariah (Islamic Law) is the basis of modern Syria’s government and we can move on with our lives, hmmmm? The hardcore Atheists excluded, of course.
Putting Shariah into modern democratic form is not unique to Iran, of course, but Iran does have currently the best working model: Voter participation rates, growth in human development, number of foreign army bases they host – Iran is near the top or at the top in all of these desirable categories, globally.
Therefore, having a non-secular government based on existing religious and historical traditions, and combined with modern democracy…would essentially be a repeat of what Iran has done. It is not at all unrealistic to predict that Syrians may, like Iran, want to see religion become a major motivating political force…while still retaining inter-ethnic unity, socialism and anti-capitalism as fundamental tenets, of course.
How else would Syria resemble Iran?
Culturally, it seems impossible for a modern, rebuilt Syria to not impose some controls on the press, but far more than Iran does. Syria has millions of refugees, and the hard-core anti-Assad/pro-Western of them will be effective 5th columnists. This is not an indictment of Syrian refugees whatsoever – it is a simple fact that some of them would work to undermine the victorious government just as they did prior to 2011.
Of course, the foreign press, who suffered no privation during the Syrian War and heartlessly egged it on, will rabble-rouse constantly against any restrictions, which would mainly target their media billionaires/corporations as well as their lack of monopolies in the lucrative reconstruction effort.
The new Syria will certainly be anti-imperialist – this is another similarity with Iran. Both will continue to oppose the Zionist project. And by opposing foreign occupation and oppression that leads to…
The new Syria will certainly be anti-capitalist. Yet another similarity it would have with the Iranian model.
One may call a Muslim nation capitalist, but they are certainly less capitalist than the Western variant. Perhaps this is because Islam is appears far more inherently anti-capitalist than Christianity, or maybe it’s due to the modern Muslim’s world experience with imperialism?
What’s certain is that only by a loss – only by turning Syria into a “modern” Western plaything like Lebanon – will Syria become more capitalist than its previous socialist Ba’athist state.
Syria will be subjected to a Western blockade even if it does win – like all independent nations – therefore it will need a model to operate as a siege economy. Iran’s “resistance economy” fits that bill as well.
Iran’s assistance may be the only way a peaceful Syria remains that way
Victorious-but-weakened Syria will need allies to avoid closed-border bloodshed, but who else is there in the region but Iran?
Turkey, given their assistance to Daesh forces, will be despised for a decade or more, and certainly as long as Erdogan is in power. The Persian Gulf monarchies are opposed to modern Muslim democracy. An alliance with Israel would prove that democracy has lost in Syria. The Egypt-Syria alliance of the bygone United Arab Republic of 1958-61 is absolutely impossible given the anti-democratic ousting of Morsi.
The EU will never openly ally with any pro-Assad government except for in business deals, as that’s capitalism. Russia will obviously be an ally, but on a regional level it seems only Iran can have Syria’s back.
Just as the walking-dead Soviet Revolution in 1920 was permanently impaired by the German failure to provide revolutionary material assistance, Syria risks enormous challenges by relying totally on itself. Yes, Iran has succeeded despite this, but Iran benefits from far greater distance from imperialist powers and far greater oil wealth.
Besides proving an ideological framework – not a mere carbon copy – for Syria’s future, Iran is seemingly the only regional ally possible for newly-peaceful Syria.
The wealth and capabilities of Iranian industry would work wonders to revive Syrian economic output to prewar levels. If Iran remains revolutionary in character – which it does – Iran will not be trying to plunder and dominate but to simply share the wealth of reconstruction in a mutually-beneficial fashion.
Syria following the Iranian model – like Iraq, Afghanistan and others – could be unstoppable
Syria may be, for all the reasons I’ve listed, the first convert to what we can refer to as Islamic Socialism.
I have already decisively proven the socialist character of Iran, which is “revolutionary socialism + Islam”.
If the US were not massively present in Iraq and Afghanistan both of these nations would have probably already been won over to Iranian Islamic Socialism. The cultural ties and interchanges between the three countries are enormous, and the other two would likely follow and resemble the one that is functioning at a high level.
So, in many ways it would be historically fitting for Syria to be won over to Iranian Islamic Socialism first: Aiding Syria would prove Iran’s bonafides as being truly revolutionary in character, i.e. not putting its national interests first, as Syria is not a neighbor.
A rebuilt Syria could be the first major step in a true shift in the Muslim world, one that goes beyond just independence from imperial meddling, though that remains the necessary first step for all regional nations except Iran and Turkey (and Syria). The two of Syria and Iran could, one hopes, inspire locals to kick the Americans out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Two becomes three, three becomes four, and in this way the Middle East could be reborn – seems like the path of a true “Arab Spring”.
The notion that “two cannot become three” because of a Sunni-Shia divide is something only non-Muslims would seriously consider. I cannot stress enough what imperialist claptrap that is.
Revolutionary socialism + religion has global appeal
Syria being the first adopter would start to prove that the Iranian Revolution must be on par with the French and Russian Revolutions.
Is morality in government such a scary notion? Were the Indian silver miners of 16th century Peru hurt more by Christianity or capitalism? Which was the real scourge should be obvious – capitalism.
Religion and government have been intertwined in human history for…always, after all: the idea of secularity could easily be an aberration; something which was tried but failed. Isn’t that exactly what we say about communism?
Is there any doubt that such a formula already has an appeal in Latin America? Chinese Confucianism – ancestor worship with a genuine metaphysical cosmology – is only classified as not a religion out of ignorance and misunderstanding.
Syria adopting the Iranian model would mean they have joined a revolution, but that decision is obviously between their leadership and their people.
However, it is not a starry-eyed dream to say that the exportation of the Iranian Revolution – retrofit to local democratic desires, of course – could lead to independence and prosperity on a scale not seen in the Muslim world for more than two centuries.
And this is exactly why the Arab monarchies, Israel and the West fear Iran so much: it works, it’s logical and it’s increased democracy.
The alternatives to the Iranian model in the Muslim world – certainly, none are currently working as well. But with Russian and Iranian assistance against the international invaders, such a revolution is tantalizingly possible.
What’s clear from 1917 Russia and elsewhere is that achieving peace with foreign invaders is never enough – Syria needs a modern framework to prevent endless civil strife.
A Syria which uses Iranian Islamic Socialism as its framework means working with a proven winner. It would be a sure step towards guaranteeing national sovereignty and an exciting step towards creating a new, better modernity for the Syrian people.
And isn’t that what The People around the world want for Syria?
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.
Forgot to add a link to this previous article of mine:
Iran: Socialism’s ignored success story
/iran-socialisms-ignored-success-story/
And I forgot to add that postwar Europe turned to the Left as well. Unfortunately they have turned to the right, especially since the Great Recession began….
Ramin Mazaheri states:
“A modern, victorious Syrian state will necessarily resemble Iran”
Iran being engaged in the Syrian war for almost 6 years, having thousands of operatives all over that country and supplying significant amounts of weapons to SAA and Hezbollah (bombs, rockets, assault rifles, missiles, ammunition, logistics, etc), hasn’t been able to destroy or neutralize the Assad’s regime opponents (ISIS, SDF, Daesh, etc).
And the core reason is very simple: Iran is unwilling to go into a full war mode in Syria, thus victory is a goal impossible to achieve.
The facts posted before prove a great level of weakness and incompetence exhibited by the Islamic regime, thus the (Removed. Attacking the author violates the blog rules.MOD)
Hello Wilhem–I note your comment on the impressive level of assistance Iran has rendered to Syria. Let’s keep in mind that assistance & much-needed spiritual support to Syria has arrived from other directions, as I learned from this very interesting article “Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate Visits Syria” from the “Fort Russ” website dated July 4th. Along with photos of the patriarchs greeting Mr. Assad, the writer reported him as saying the Syrian people are managing to succeed in their war against the terrorists, in particular thanks to their steadfastness and strong determination of keeping Syria united, and protecting its demographic and religious diversity that has been defining Syria for centuries. Consider this: If Iran is unwilling to go into a “full war mode” in Syria (and no doubt there would be opposition to that inside of Iran) as well as twenty good reasons for it to not do so, it will ultimately be the good people of Syria who will determine that victory is a goal that is possible to achieve. Fair is fair; I would welcome a post from you that does two things— document specific actions by the Islamic regime that in your firm opinion demonstrate a “great level of weakness and incompetence” and secondly, list actions by the Islamic regime that (given the circumstances) exhibit a high level of wisdom and realism tempered by appropriate caution., considering Iran’s own financial situation & internal challenges. This could develop into a lengthy article!
Using tax payers money to bailout banks & subsidise bankers who overspeculated with fiat money is not exactly “turning to the right”.
Yes it is. Who but right wingers would protect the ultimate right wringers? Corporate/oligarch welfare is what rightwingery is all about in the real world.
Go ask Greek pensioners if they prefer Syriza’s left wing state pension (or whatever is left of it) or if they wish they had private pensions or maybe private savings instead of having paid taxes to the government for all those years.
https://www.rt.com/business/323653-greece-pensioners-protests-austerity/
Quote from article from a pensioner:
“They need to hear us. They should be ashamed of themselves, these parties on the left who are starving us. I worked for 50 years of my life and now we are going hungry. “
Reply to Ramin Mazaheri on July 06, 2017 · at 9:59 pm UTC
/the-future-of-postwar-syria-victory-looks-like-iranian-islamic-socialism/#comment-375236.
You say : «The Russian Civil War was truly international because there were 14 foreign armies operating on Russian soil after 1917: The Germans occupied 25% of Russia’s former territory, the British took oil fields around Baku and furnished 1 million guns to help supply the anti-socialist counter-revolution, the Japanese settled in Siberia, the Americans, Canadians and Australians were all there, etc. This combination of appalling destruction and foreign meddling should sound familiar to those following Syria. And yet it took the new Soviet nation only until 1928 – just 7 years – to reach the economic output of 1913 […] Many who know Iran say that the French Revolution’s genius was political, the Russian Revolution’s genius was economic, and that the Iran Revolution’s genius was moral».
Like all simplifications, this is a travesty of the truth regarding what happened both in France and Russia. There are however other reasons why I take issue with this eye-catching but nonetheless superficial comparison of Bolshevik Russia and Bashar Al-Assad’s Syria. You overlook some important historical data which obfuscates on precisely what has been going on geopolitically for a number of centuries.
Hopefully what follows will help to enlighten both yourself and your readers.
«Les juifs sont les premiers responsables dans le massacre des 30 millions de chrétiens en URSS entre 1917 et 1947 […] Pas compliqué :
tant que vou n’accuserez pas les juifs de leurs innombrables crimes, ce sont eux qui vous accuseront des leurs». Hervé Ryssen avril 2015
If you enjoy watching and listening to lively discussions and heated debates, the best thing is to invite Hervé Ryssen. For posting online the two messages above, the essayist was sentenced on 9 March 2016 by a Parisian lawcourt to two months in gaol. Echoing more or less what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was accused of writing, the polemicist suggests here that the Russian revolution was Russian only in name : adding that the 1917-1947 historic period corresponds with the application of a global aetheistical Jewish eschatology, ie a secular and a messianic view of human existence – involving an outsize levelling process – supposedly promoting ‘universal peace and brotherhood’, through the establishment of a new world order without frontiers. Sound familiar ?
In case you are wondering about the 30 million dead Russians (1917-1947) of which Hervé Ryssen speaks. The figure includes Holodomor victims and the war dead from the Great Patrotic War. You obviously speak and understand French. I enclose a link to Hervé Ryssen’s powerful documentary on this vexed sujbject :
Hervé Ryssen – Les juifs, le communisme, et la révolution russe de 1917 Feb 17, 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPjbO3GlkNg.
You should also maybe familiarise yourself with this first rate piece of research from Youssef Hindi. I’ve translated the publisher’s blurb for the benefit of English speaking members of the Saker Community :
«Anyone who wants to understand the present world situation must go back to the original sources of the flow of ideas underlying the great historical movements. Ideas that will drive action for these proactive minorities who make and break history. In this book, Youssef Hindi reveals the mystical, hitherto little documented, origins of Zionism and the doctrine programming the clash of civilizations. Ideologies that lead the peoples of the East and West, and ultimately the humanity as a whole, on essentially perilous paths. In the thirteenth century, we discover how the project of “repatriation” of the Jewish people to the Holy Land was born despite the prohibition enunciated by the Torah and the Talmud. We see here how this messianic dream took shape to be accomplished from the end of the nineteenth century in an atheistic ideology, political Zionism. Youssef Hindi is a writer and historian of messianic eschatology. Born in Morocco, he emigrated very young to France following a path that led him to develop a reflection on the necessary reconciliation of the North and the South shores of the Mediterranean. Two worlds whose destinies have always been intimately intertwined». Occident et Islam, Sources et genèse messianiques du sionisme De l’Europe médiévale au Choc des civilisations,
Youssef Hindi. Préface de J-M Vernochet Editions Sigest (2015) http://editions.sigest.net/page0001016d.html.
Here’s an insightful article by Winston Churchill :
Zionism versus Bolshevism : A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People. By The Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.
Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, Pg. 5 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_versus_Bolshevism.
If you doubt the extent of the influence of the Jewish mafia, in addition to AIPAC, B’nai B’rith et al., get an eyeful of this :
Chabad-Lubavitch, a network of more than 3,600 institutions that provide religious, social and humanitarian needs in over 1,000 cities, spanning more than 80 countries and all 50 American states.[9] [10][11][12][13][14][15] Chabad institutions provide outreach to unaffiliated Jews. In 2005 the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs reported that up to one million Jews attend Chabad services at least once a year. In 2013, Chabad forecasted that their Chanukah activities would reach up to 8,000,000 Jews in 80 countries worldwide.[23] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad.
Eustace Mullins ~ The Rothschilds & The Two World Wars Published on May 25, 2012
Eustace Mullins with Jeff Rense, December 26, 2007 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmgJE8hrL1Y.
Benjamin Freedman’s contribution is invaluable :
How the Zionists brought the USA into WW1 and WW2 and more… Honorable Jewish Man Speaks the Truth
This is a speech given by Benjamin Freedman, a Patriotic American Jew, who did the most honorable and brave thing
anyone could ever do……tell the truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPlLl5WAqJg Published on Sep 19, 2014.
Jeff Rense & Eustace Mullins – Power Of The Rothschild Bankers Published on Sep 18, 2015 Please visit http://www.rense.com/ for updates and information you will never see on Fox News! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KDWltkWdOw.
Here’s Lloyd Craig Blankfein’s (born 1954) two penny worth. He’s CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs :
Blankfein Says He’s Just Doing ‘God’s Work’ By Dealbook November 9, 2009
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/goldman-chief-says-he-is-just-doing-gods-work/?_r=0.
Goldman Sachs’ Blankfein on Banking: ‘Doing God’s Work’ Matt Philips November 9, 2009
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2009/11/09/goldman-sachs-blankfein-on-banking-doing-gods-work/.
Another piece of the puzzle regarding the roots of today’s mayhem
Long before the Hitler government began restricting the rights of the German Jews, the leaders of the worldwide Jewish community formally declared war on the “New Germany” at a time when the U.S. government and even the Jewish leaders in Germany were urging caution in dealing with the new Hitler regime. The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany The Economic Boycott of 1933
https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html.
Finally if you ask yourself why The Oceania Saker has simply vanished into thin air, one possible answer may be a detailed appraisal of what’s really going on – a glimpse of which is just visible in this title :
Yahwism ? The Death Cult At The Heart Of The Judeosphere And The Global Terror Trade By Paul Matthews April 19, 2017 http://www.vineyardsaker.co.nz/2017/04/19/yahwism-the-cult-at-the-heart-of-the-judeosphere-and-the-global-terror-trade-by-paul-matthews/.
As is said in conclusion to the above article : «Hopefully Vladimir knows how to keep his Chief Rabbi on a short leash». I look forward to reading this contribution and your response to my observations on this website.
Now we will get to find out who is really calling the shots in Syria; below is the latest headline at Haaretz:
Israel Tells U.S. It Doesn’t Want Russia Enforcing Safe Zones in Southern Syria
The audacity of this illegal entity called Israel is endless.
US envoys were summoned and told that Zion will not have Russians patrolling its illegal borders.
Now we will have to see how the lackeys in Washington react, because we know they’ve allowed the Zionists so much power, it now easier to go to war with Russia, thatbit is to defy Zion.
I think we all know how israel’s colonies will respond, S-400;
“Yessum, massa, anything you want we gonna git fur ya.”
“Mullahs, I remind the reader, have no official status in Iran: they gain power because they are elected or because they achieve cultural status.”
And someone should remind the author, journalist of Presstv!, of the system government named Vilayat-e Faqih in Iran:
” is represented not only in the Supreme Leader, who must be a cleric, but in other leading bodies, particularly the Assembly of Experts whose members must be clerics, the Council of Guardians, half of whom must be clerics, and the courts.”
(Removed. Attacking people is a violation of the blog rules.MOD)
Perhaps that sentence could have been written more clearly – what I meant to say was that every mullah does not have an official status on role in the government in the sense that every mullah is not comparable to a “Communist Party official”.
Obviously, some government posts are reserved for clerics – that is common knowledge. As I wrote, this may be the genius of Iranian Revolution, and combining that with revolutionary socialism is certainly a revolutionary idea.
What is not common common knowledge is that the Supreme Leader’s power is democratically checked and balanced by non-clerical governmental forces: Iran is not dominated by the mullahs, contrary to claims from Israel and the West – it is a combination.
I see no reason why Syrians should be refused such a model if that is what the people choose, and I see no reason why non-Muslims should fear: Iran reserves Parliamentary seats for Jews, Christians, etc. and has the largest Jewish community in the Muslim world despite being anti-Zionist.
As I repeatedly wrote: It is up for the Syrians to decide. It seems unlikely they will not at least consider the Iranian framework, given their anti-capitalist similarities, alliances and history of imperialist meddling, as I tried to detail.
If Lebanon’s system is one of “confessional apartheid”, why isn’t Iran’s system of reserving Parliamentary seats for certain religious minorities also “confessional apartheid”?
I do concede that in Lebanon’s case the system was imposed by outsiders to keep the country divided, while in Iran’s case the “confessional apartheid” came from within and was designed by the dominant powers to give minorities a place in Parliament, I do not see a similar situation evolving in Syria.
As you said Assad “made his bones” defending his country from meddling imperialists using takfiris as foot soldiers, but didn’t the clerical establishment of Iran also make their bones in the Iranian revolution? Since the clerical establishment had political power and theological weight it was possible for the current resistance oriented system based on indigenous Iranian ideals to form. This would not happen in Syria as there is a split between religious and secular power.
Also, since in Iran the west tried to suppress religiously based opposition to the shah, that opposition was rightly seen as anti imperialist. In Syria the situation seems reversed, basing anything on religion (after Syria’s victory) would just play into the hands of Imperialists.
So the Iranian situation maybe unique and not applicable to Syria. Furthermore the idea of reserving seats for takfiris (and yes I know they are a tiny percentage of Syrian Sunnis) seems wrong. Note that Iran’s minorities don’t have the financial support of the G.C.C., or a theocidal (kill the Shia) outlook and could not infect the Iranian body politic as they are true minorities. My fear is that takfiris (though a small minority) could, with the support of the G.C.C. influence the majority (Sunni) in a way very detrimental to the future of Syria.
On another subject: war is ONLY profitable if you are an imperialist and succeed in taking the other guys stuff. Defensive wars (even if victorious) that leave a country in ruins are only profitable for your own war profiteers, whose interest is totally at odds with the people of the country. I find it difficult to reconcile your socialism and anti-imperialism with the claim that war and rebuilding are profitable.
All that being said — thanks for a thought provoking article.
Hi mothwhoflysbackwards – those are some good questions.
Re: Iran’s “confessionalism” – I think there’s a pretty big difference between Iran assuring that tiny minorities have a voice and Lebanon’s system. There are only 40-50,000 Jews and Assyrians, and 200k Armenians, in 75 million-strong Iran – without a constitutional guarantee, they might feel that they would never have a chance to be listened to. Also, granting Jews a seat is vital to prove that Iran is NOT anti-Semitic, but simply anti-Zionist.
Now, if Iran reserved their top government seats for people specifically of Kurdish, Azeri and Persian heritage…those are the major ethnic groups, along with a few others. Iran is not homogenous ethnically, after all – this is not Japan, or even close! But awarding posts based on ethnicities for the most numerous ethnicities – then Iran would be like Lebanon. However, that would be anti-modern racism, and Iran had a modern revolution which rejects these notions and embraces unity. Supreme Leader Khamenei is an Azeri, after all.
The leaders and ideas of the 1979 Revolution did “make their bones” by beating the Iraqi invader, but the bones-making here is from defence. The Kim family in North Korea did the same for beating off Japan and the US – they still have a huge base of support based on this mutual defense/suffering. Same with the anti-imperialist successes of Castro, China, etc. Regardless of ideology or links to clergy, it seems like if you defend your nation your people give you trust for many years.
Imposing modern Christian democracy has clearly brought disaster, not prosperity. Perhaps it’s because it was always married with capitalist imperialism. Modern Muslim democracy free of imperialism has only been tried in Iran – this is the only thing which is truly “unique” about Iran. Being Shia is far less a difference maker (there are Shia all over the region). I don’t think Muslim-based democracy can be avoided, nor is it for me to say it should be (I don’t know why so many others feel that THEY have the right to say that when they most likely don’t know Islam, any Muslims, or Muslim cultures), and I note that it has flourished in Iran for 4 decades.
Therefore a free democratic Syria will, I think, democratically choose to resemble Iran in many ways, as I have tried to detail. Again, not a carbon copy but a framework. It may pain Westerners that the Muslim world’s democracies don’t resemble their secular, Christian-based ones…but the whole idea is to break free of imperial Western control and give the people the power to run their own gov’t the way they see fit….
Thanks for the reply, and I did not know Khamenei is Azeri. Live and learn.
RM
Syrians are not Iranians. Best let Syrians work it out.
As usual, great article. I would add only this: post WW II, the OSS/CIA and friends laid the foundations for the EU, the EEC, as well as sponsoring the Gladio operations to make sure that any national sovereignty, freedom of political thought, was aborted. See “Circus Politicus” (Deloire and Dubois, ed Michel Albin) for the EU origins and VoltaireNet for the Gladio stuff. By the time of the 2008 recession, global finance had become so powerful it no longer had to hide its criminal intent. Propaganda, political Newspeak, has so distorted political discussion that speaking of Right or Left these days results in unnecessary binary thought, eliminates nuance and possible unlikely alliances. Dmitry Orlov (cluborlov) has a pretty good description of the differences to be found between nationalism, patriotism, and fascism,here: https://onceagain489.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/cognitive-dissonance-the-dilemma-of-the-left/. I’m going to post thoughts about this on my blog, onceagain489.wordpress.com, if you care to take a look.
So we are supposed to root for secular Syria to shed its — what the author calls, “western” — traditions and become an Islamic republic just because Iran says si, and since Ziostan the west and gulfies hate Iran, anything Iran says is good and we must follow it?
by that same token if Iran was successful in building a sultanate in Bosnia in the 1990s then it would have been an historic revolution on par with the French and russian revolutions like he says the same thing would be if Syria became like Iran?
There isn’t any disclaimer that this is his personal view, just that he’s the chief correspondent and one of the most important people in PressTv, publicly funded state run Iranian media, so is this a message to us all about Iran’s true intentions and why it sent so many martyrs to Syria?
To depose Assad and bring in an Islamist government? Another Mohammed morsi? What is this?
LOL, absolutely NOBODY considers me to be “one of the most important people in Press TV”! Are you trying to make my colleagues laugh, LOL?!
This is TOTALLY my personal view, and I am not at all a representative of “Iran’s true intentions”. This is a personal article written on a blog – it was not published on Press TV, after all. I assume all of these facts are clear to most readers and I kindly suggest not to overreact.
Even if it was published on Press TV – I am ONLY a journalist, not a diplomat. This article is meant to be a serious intellectual analysis intended to inform and spur serious discussion, like all serious editorials.
Morsi, of course was both democratically elected an undemocratically ousted in a military coup aided by the West. I never mentioned anything about deposing Assad?! I REPEATEDLY said the Syrian people must choose and I EXPLICITLY said the future of Assad is 100% up to them?!
Frankly, you have made a lot of wrong-headed assumptions and put words in mouth which cannot be found in my writing…. I hope I have cleared up some misunderstandings.
WTF- pre-invasion by UK backed wahhabi terror gangs, Syria was a modern secular autocracy. Why would it want to regress to a second world Islamic crap-hole like Iran.
Yes, of course Iran is a million times better than Saudi Arabia, but any positive number is bigger than zero- so what? Taken at its own merits, Iran is a million miles away from a suitable model for any civilised nation on this planet. Like ex-Soviet Russia, it has one political party with a myriad of false faces for the purpose of fake democratic ‘elections’. As with China, in Iran you have a ‘free vote’ so longer as you only want to vote for ‘party’ people.
Ah- but you say- Iran does not ‘persecute’ other religions like judaism and christianity. Wrong. Private low key worship of judaic religions is tolerated- but Islam is not just the state religion of Iran, like christianity is in the UK. Iran is an ‘islamic’ socienty’ where sick medieval teachings over-rule all modern thinking in every aspect of society. The answer to every question in Iran is “what is the will of Allah?” This was ***not*** the case in pre-invasion Syria, Iraq or Libya.
Freedom of Conscience- the greatest gift Britain gave to Humanity- does not mean the tyranny of the majority. Pre-invasion Syria was multi-cultural – a proud tradition that pre-dates the Roman Empire. Iran is the exact opposite- a nation where powerful middle-class types can create islands of ‘freedom’ for themselves (like the sheiks of Saudi Arabia), but ordinary working class people are ground down remourcelessly by the cleric system.
Iran in Syria is a (much) lesser evil helping keep out a much greater evil. But if a miracle happens (it won’t) and the Deep State plans for war with Iran don’t happen- then the people of a post war Syria will consider the Iranian model as the last thing they would ever want.
Socialism was popular in numerous Arab and Muslim countries.
1) Afghanistan had a communist government in the 1980s.
2) South Yemen was a Marxist Soviet style country up to 1991.
3) Iraq had and Syria still has a baathist government with an Arab socialist nationalist ideology.
4) Egypt under Nasser was Arab socialist.
5) The Algerian regime had numerous socialist elements.
6) Libya under Gaddafi was Arab socialist and nationalist.
I guess it’s a desire of the author to see something similar to Iran come about in Syria, but I don’t think it’s possible
The backgrounds are very different, the education of the population is different, the people supporting the respective regimes is different.
For example, in Iran the opposition to the Shah was religious. People were looking for a solution to the clergy. As opposed to Syria, where the problem is the religious opposition. So people saw the Shah as a problem, here they see Islamists as a problem.
Then comes education. I have found Syrians, and the majority of them are Sunni, to be least bigoted of the Arabs. This is because of the secular education that they recieved on account of the Ba’ath party. Most of Iran at that time was religious, save the elite.
Then comes support base. The side of Assad represents the plurality of Syria, while the Islamists support a Sunni Islamic state. So it looks like a great taboo for people to want an Islamic state on part of the regime.
I met a Syrian refugee the other day, a Christian, and I showed her a video of Bashar visiting the family of a dead soldier along with his family, and she was happy and said that she had seen it, her father had sent it from Kuwait.
(On a side note, every time I see Assad a pain shoots through me, a kind of deep anguish and apprehension for his future. Like in a movie where you know something bad will happen, I fear that they will harm him.) Assad represents that small minority of Christians as well.
There is a lot more I can think of. Iran managed to pull off a religious State because of the network of ulema already present, the homogenous nature of the population, the will of its leaders and people, the extent of outside influence. For instance, maybe Iran would want an Islamic model in Syria, would Russia want it? Could Russia (the then Soviet union) have influenced Iran then. It’s argumentative, because short of an invasion, the them USSR could not have helped the tudeh party. But now in Syria, Russia has earned a say.
I read this exchange on Shia chat the other day.
Brave_Muslim_Soldier said:
“All you guys who are cursing Zia ul Haq’s Islamism,
What worng is there in ordering the broadcast of Azaan on TV and Radio ?? Is broadcatsing of the Azaan Haraam in Islam ??
Similarly , what wrong is there in forcing people to attend Friday Namaaz at Mosques ?? Even I used to force the Muslim guys in our college to attend Jumma Prayers at the Mosque , becoz there can be no greter sin than not reading Jumma Namaaz in a Jamaat.”
Reply: It is not in government’s domain to tell what public should believe and how they should act upon their religion. It is entirely upto the populace to make religious choices and act upon them according to the way understand their faith. The instances of broadcasting Azaan and forcing people to go to Friday Prayers are just two minor examples. In fact, the sordid nature of Islamism, of Zia’s Islamism in particular, had rested on bigotry against the Muslim and non-Muslim minorities.
Your “forcing” of others to attend Friday Prayer, obviously as a friend, is different from the government sanctioned coercion. If you physically force people as a self-appointed agent of Islam, then you are spreading fasaad fil arz.
Quote
“Similarly, what is wrong in Ehteram-e-Ramzan ?? FOR CHRISSAKES , IT IS A MERITABLE DEED !!!. There can be no greater merit than enforcing Roza on the Ahl-e-Watan. Don’t parents enforce Roza and Namaz on many unwilling children ??”
Reply: Muslims need to grow out of this parochial mindset that government is some kind of a fatherly authority and the public, its stupid, unknowing and etiquetteless children. This idea is the reminiscent of the days gone by. Sadly, it is exactly how the Islamists regimes and Islamists parties all around the world see their role in the government and the masses they want to rule.
If I don’t want to fast in the month of Ramzan, for one reason or the other, no one has the slightest of right to come to me and question me about this. This so-called Ramzan ordinance made life hell for non-Muslim minorities and the people who could not fast due to some illness or other reason. There are numerous incidents where the so-called thekedaars of Islam have used violence against restaurateurs running their establishments during day time and against people who were found to be consuming food in public. So much for the “ehtaram of Ramzan”
Quote
“Mard-e-Momin , Mard-e-Haq , Zia ul Haq , Zia ul Haq.”
Reply: You are making a mockery of the blood of hundreds of Shia killed by Zia and cronies.
This has further strengthened my views that a religious govt is not right. Putting one view or enforcing dogma is wrong.
I agree with ramin when he says a religious person, like a christian (I avoid using catholic because they’re are too much of a risk; I don’t trust Muslim clerics either) priest, would probably be better in public office, but I would not want him to rule on behalf of the church.
I guess a balance is needed. A delicate balance that gets destroyed easily when the man in charge swerves to either side, secular or religious. More often than not, even institutions fail to stem the tide.
A very stimulating article. Thank you for it.
I wonder how easy it may be for Iran to project itself through membership of the SCO. Herat, even Tajikistan to the NE are perhaps areas susceptible to being influenced by Iran.