By J.E. Dyer
Mohammed Morsi’s call for holy war in Syria spooked the Egyptian military, and it alarmed the Saudis too. I suspect it even played a role in the decision of Qatar’s new emir to depose his father (long a supporter of Morsi and promoter of Islamist influence in the Arab Spring nations) at the end of June. The new Sheikh Tamim has moved quickly to shift some of his father’s key policies, and we are likely to see more solidarity between Qatar and Saudi Arabia in the coming weeks – but with the Saudis now edging into the lead.
As Qatar’s profile changes, there will be a significant shift in the dynamics of Islamism, one of whose best-organized factions (Qaradawi and his International Union of Muslim Scholars) has had a reliable source of funding and tacit national support from the oil-rich emirate. There will be blowback within Qatar, of course; the new emir will have to tack and trim to discourage the kind of protests and terror attacks that now routinely menace neighboring countries like Iraq, Bahrain, and Jordan. As Turkey’s Islamist minister to the EU, Egemen Bagis, warns us, Islamism is here to stay. (Bagis is the Turkish minister who threatened Angela Merkel in June with an “inauspicious end” and “severe retaliation,” if a resumption of Turkey’s EU negotiations were blocked because of the Erdogan government’s recent response to protesters.)
But as the drama unfolds, factions will bob upward and downward – and that appears to be what is happening with the Syria problem this weekend. For now, Morsi is out, as a rallying leader for Islamists in Syria; Qatar, a key backer of Syrian factions, has backed out of her incipient partnership with Morsi; the U.S., as ever under our current president, is simply inert; and the Saudis are now left with the major influence over the organized rebels – at least the ones not overtly affiliated with al-Qaeda.
This explains the decision of the Syrian Opposition Coalition (SOC) on Saturday to choose as its new head a Saudi-backed candidate, Ahmad al-Jarba. The Saudis have been putting a lot into Syria, meeting with rebel representatives for the first time in May 2013 and increasing their sponsorship even beyond the level of Qatar’s. A week ago, the Saudis made an urgent appeal to members of the EU to arm the rebels. Riyadh’s growing role, and the rapid timeline since Morsi’s ouster, suggest that the SOC election on Saturday was shaped at least in part by Saudi advice.
With the threat of the Morsi faction beaten back for the moment, and the Russia-U.S. talks initiative going nowhere, the Saudis and at least some of the rebel coalition probably see an opportunity in the current situation. The opportunity is likely to be fleeting, especially considering the presence of the newly formed al-Qaeda group in Syria, “Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham,” or ISIS, which is trying to take over rebel-held territory in northern Syria, leaving a trail of bodies and severed heads in its wake. Repackaging the SOC with Saudi-backed leadership will be reassuring (and perhaps unifying) to at least some Syrians, at a time when rebel leaders – reeling from recent gains by Assad’s forces – see windows closing on what could be big payoffs.
We must not mistake any of these developments for a certain guide to the eventual outcome, in Syria or even in Egypt. But they do follow a predictable pattern. Aspiring regional leaders are jockeying for influence.
If I had to outline what I think the Saudis are doing, I would put it this way: they were energized to urgent action by Morsi’s holy war speech on the 15th, and probably by the unwholesome specter of U.S. support to it implied by the Sheikh Abdullah bin-Bayyah White House visit two days before, which resulted in Obama’s promise of arms for the Syrian rebels. That visit got much more press in Arabic media than it did in the West. The Saudis are anxious to prevent a takeover of Syria by Muslim Brotherhood-backed salafists, who hate the Saudi regime.
Indeed, the Saudis’ influence, either direct or indirect, may have been a key factor in inducing the new emir to take over in Qatar. The change of leadership there has, virtually overnight, neutralized Qatar as a factor in Syria and Egypt.
The Saudis might well suppose that they can make a new Syrian regime acceptable to Russia by making its leadership beholden to Riyadh. Moscow would be more willing to give up Assad for a new, non-radical regime – one that would protect Christians and host a Russian port – than to see the Muslim Brotherhood take over Syria. What the Saudis need to find is the ploy that can split Russia’s and Iran’s common interest in Syria. Russia would be willing, as Iran is not, to throw Assad and Hezbollah under the bus. An increase in repressive Islamism in Turkey could encourage Moscow to favor whatever option will keep Russia’s hand in Syria.
But the putatively “moderate,” Saudi-backed rebel coalition must be presented to Russia as a fait accompli. Russia won’t help in the creation of this alternative (especially not with Assad gaining territory back) – and the U.S. under Obama is no longer a responsible factor in the mix. So the Saudis went to the EU looking for partners in arming the rebels on Saudi terms.
There is definitely a ticking clock on any strategy to position the rebels to take over a “moderate” unity government. If Russia and the U.S. actually get talks started, the window could close on alternative options very quickly. What would begin is a circle dance around the talks, with the parties all reorienting themselves in relation to it. The Saudis, like anyone else, will calculate that the U.S. position will lose in the negotiations.
Events in Egypt, meanwhile – or even in Turkey or Iraq – could prejudice the outcome in Syria, in ways that will shift from one day to the next. Likewise, the al-Qaeda terrorists chasing the rebels in northern Syria represent an “X” factor, with the potential to change conditions rapidly.
How these dynamics will all play out is a good question. Morsi’s supporters will not go quietly in Egypt. (Besidesshooting up neighborhoods in Cairo, they are busy killing teenagers by flinging them from buildings, and issuing threats to blow up Egypt and set their Christian neighbors’ homes on fire.) The Egyptian military has the power to mop up the Islamists in a civil war – if it will fight to win, and if the Islamists themselves allow the fight to be framed in military terms. It is notoriously hard to meet those conditions in a civil war. If a period of protracted civil unrest drags on in Egypt, the nation will become a great prize, like Syria, over which the various factions of “World War IV” will fight.
From the radical Islamists’ perspective, they and their cause thrive in conditions of misery and social chaos. The Saudis come from a different perspective, one that takes a longer view of jihad against the West and the subjugation of Israel. In Egypt, they have elected to back the military as a moderating force. But that force will henceforth be under perpetual assault: responsible for, but by no means in control of, everything bad that happens in the country.
In Syria, the Saudis are making a bold play, one that, if successful, would present an alternative to the state-Islamist ideas modeled by Iran and Turkey. To the extent that Morsi is out and Qatar is neutralized, the Saudis are relatively empowered for their bid. But Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda are still there, and so is the Muslim Brotherhood, even without its charismatic favorite son in power in Egypt. It won’t have any trouble writing a new strategic narrative for Syria that doesn’t depend on Morsi or Egypt – assuming it chooses to.
Meanwhile, what would have seemed remarkable five years ago is barely worth comment now: the Saudis’ big move has been made against the direction of U.S. policy, in the secure knowledge that that won’t matter. The Pax Americana is over.
J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Daily Caller, The Jewish Press,and The Weekly Standard online. She also writes for the new blog Liberty Unyielding.
I want muslims to continue warring against each other indefinitely.
yamit82 Said:
I note that at the beginning of the video BB was at his right hand. I wasn’t really mocking because certainly it is more than doing nothing, which is what occurs now to advance jewish interests by the GOI. i think it was wasted on the MK, I think if it was used on those seeking to give away israel it will be more than what is done now by a useless govt. I also noted the despicable canard that Sharon uttered “Do you want to remain forever in Nablus,…” but he did not ask if they wanted their children to die at the hands of the descendants of those teaching their children to kill jews and call them apes and pigs. I think it is insane to consider any peace until they stop teaching their children to kill and hate jews. I would not want my children to coexist peacefully next to those frankenstein monsters. Every time an Israeli meets a pal without demanding an immediate end to the incitement he endangers the children of israel. I find it odd that Jews find it acceptable to negotiate with such despicable vermin. Nothing good can come from those who destroy their own children. By observing their children you can see their evil.
bernard ross Said:
Understand both Redline with this article I posted a few times because I believe it that important. https://www.israpundit.org/archives/56218/comment-page-1#comment-282539
Re: Silverstein? https://www.israpundit.org/archives/56294#more-56294
@ bernard ross:
Be careful what you mock.
Prior to the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, there have been rumors that the curse had been recited against him by right-wing extremists.
On the night of October 6, 1995, Avigdor Eskin, a member of the Gush Emunim (bloc of the faithful) recited the following maledictions of the Pulsa diNura:
Rabin was assassinated within the month.
For the believer, no evidence is needed. For the non-believer there will never be evidence enough.
If Sharon’s stroke (or Rabin’s assassination, for that matter) is/are the result of a curse, there is no way to determine if it derives from the forces of light or the forces of darkness. 😉
finally, some serious steps are being taken
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/169720#.UdtAMPmTjfU
this should do the trick.
yamit82 Said:
the only thing bothering me about the article is that the author silverstein appears to be condemning Israel. therefore, I wonder as to his reliability when he cites anonymous sources. it is of course beleivable
BTW thanks for the link on redline, it was very interesting.
I’m shocked! Shocked!
Silverstein (the author) talks about how these Russian armaments would jeopardize Israel’s ability to defend itself, then goes all soft and mushy and writes the above. He then goes on to say:
Either he’s confused or I am. What real difference does it make which part of of Israel’s military is used to do the job?
Explosive Cold War Trojan has lessons for Open Source exporters Software sabotage
@ bernard ross:
Act of War: Israel Attacks Syrian Weapons Depot Containing Advanced Russian Arms
Israeli forces attacked the site. The target were components of Russia’s SA-300 anti-aircraft missile system
Hezbollah to Iran: We can’t support Assad by ourselves, send more fighters
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=10543
keelie Said:
I was referring to the GCC members collaborating for years, that there are no recent developments suddenly arising regarding them. Qatar was not a deposition, the father put the son in place. Successful outcomes do not necessarily follow from a collaboration but in the case of egypt and syria the GCC have hedged all bets, including the army. the notion that AQ, salafis, MB saudi qatar are not in cooperation and in sync is false. There is no daylight between them that is not a concoction for the audience. In fact they don’t even bother with pretending.
totally disagree, qatar has been funding MB while saudi funding salafis, but it doesn’t matter because they are collaborating in a joint venture with the US.
who pays the piper runs the show. Saud coming out from the cover of the fig leaf provided by the FSA “democratic liberal forces” I have said for a long time that the situation was not spontaneous and that the notion of a revolution of democratic elements was manufactured and false. it was a GCC op from the beginning related to Iran.
where did this author get the notion that the saudis are not linked to the most radical jihadists? Is he aware of what the wahabbis are and how the KSA operates? the fact that saudi operates radical jihadi/salfi/AQ networks does not mean that they subscribe to the philosophy. the same with Qatar. They all get drunk, buy prostitutes and gambol in LOndon. Jihadism and the islamic network are their tools to operate the idiots.
@ bernard ross:
As much as anything can be in synch with this crowd…
We Westerners take great pride in being able to sift out and by some means select various parameters, come to a logical conclusion based on these parameters, then extrapolate (logically of course) in such a manner that a nice, neat outcome is forthcoming. All bets tend to be exclusively on this outcome.
There’s not the remotest possibility of being able to predict such an outcome. Better to fill the moat, pull up the drawbridge, lock things up very tightly, if it’s not too late (which I think it is), and keep quiet… Unfortunately Israel may not have this luxury…
Incorrect. The father was not deposed but has groomed his som for this takeover for years. the saudis and qatar have been in sync but playing different “factions” of the GCC sunni islamic network. Qatar runs MB while suaid runs slafi/AQ. all sunni jihdis come under the combined interests of the GCC. the GCC also works closely and directly with the Egyptian army. Note that the army went to the GCC for funds. Saudi “edges into the lead” because it has occupied too much limelight in the past and qatar has been the recent front. In the end all work for the GCC.
Any profile changes are just smoke and mirrors for the street. Everything has been in sync with saaudi, qatar, GCC for years.