And Why Not? They Even Look the Same*

by Eric Martin

This should be unremarkable news:

Al Qaeda has issued a video marking the September 11 attacks, in which deputy group leader Ayman al-Zawahri accuses Iran of taking part in a Western "Crusader" war against Islam, Al Jazeera television said on Monday. [...]

In a segment on the video aired by al Jazeera, Zawahri attacked Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, questioning the Islamic Republic's anti-Western stand.

"The (leader of Iran) collaborates with the Americans in occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and recognizes the puppet regimes in both countries, while he warns of death and destruction to anyone who touches an inch of Iranian soil," Zawahri said.

Al Qaeda, a militant Sunni Islamist group, often criticizes predominantly Shi'ite Iran, which has good relations with Afghanistan's anti-Taliban leaders and Iraq's Shi'ite-led government.

I say this should be unremarkable because al-Qaeda and Iran have visions of the world that are in direct conflict.  al-Qaeda, for example, wants to incite the overthrow of regimes led by apostate leaders throughout the Muslim world (which, to them, includes portions of Spain and Asia that were previously under Muslim rule).  al-Qaeda's definition of apostasy in this regard amounts to the failure to adhere to a strict interpretation of Sunni Islam (the Salafi interpretation).  This made the relatively secular Saddam Hussein a prime target of al-Qaeda.  Considering that Iran is a Shiite theocracy (not just insufficiently "pious" in the Sunni-Salafist sense, but not Sunni at all!), one can extrapolate the regard for which al-Qaeda holds Iran's leaders (and citizens).

But one doesn't need to extrapolate alone.  The Taliban in Afghanistan was the closest modern day example of the al-Qaeda ideal of piety in terms of ruling regime. The Taliban were, predictably, hostile toward Iran and brutally repressive of the Shiite minority in Afghanistan.  Iran, in turn, cooperated closely with the US during the early stages of the US-led Afghan campaign in order to aid in the ouster of the Taliban.   

Despite this backstory, Thoreau at Unqualified Offerings caught one pundit treating the Reuters story linked above as some harbinger of a fragmentation within the ranks of a monolithic "Islamofascist" front (a splintering brought about by the US invasion of Iraq, naturally).  As if al-Qaeda and Iran were longtime allies that had begun turning on each other due to the guile of the Bush administration.   

At the risk of stating the obvious (it passes for wisdom these days), it is absolutely essential that we take the time to differentiate between factions, groups, nations, ethnicities and religious sects in our attempt to implement sound and effective counterterrorism policy.   Enough to recognize that Iran and al-Qaeda, while perhaps willing to cooperate in some limited way in certain discrete contexts (possibly), are adversaries that should not be lumped together.

While it's understandable that some pundits might not be entirely familiar with the basic al-Qaeda/Iran animosity, it is much less forgivable that John McCain, the supposed foreign policy "master," can't seem to keep these two distinct groups separate.  Repeatedly.

(*post title borrowed from last sentence of this Ledeen screed)

Comments

[hilzoy]

"some harbinger of a fragmentation within the ranks of a monolithic "Islamofascist" front"

Hahahaha. A mere 1370-some odd years late, he finally notices!

[liberal japonicus]

It kills me that Moynihan pops up in the comments of that post you link to. Given enough time, he would probably find himself arguing that we support AQ in order to undercut Iran. Or at least cite these strains as evidence that we are winning.

What happened to all those folks who gave us all of the information about sects and factions in order to convince us that we were fighting the Islamic world? I'd like a better word than cherry picking that gets at the badness and stupidity of it.

[Loneoak]

Yeah, but you missed the central connection between Iran and al Qaeda: both will cowed by Bush's Codpiece of Mission Accomplishment. That's all that matters, not this namby-pamby multiculturalism.

[Jeff]

As if al-Qaeda and Iran were longtime allies that had begun turning on each other due to the guile of the Bush administration.

I watched a bit of Obama's interview with O'Reilly (if any host treated McCain with the disrespect Bill gives Obama, the internets would explode!) and he tires to make this very point: We are opposed to both al-Qaeda and Iran, but any attempt to treat them as one and the same is doomed to failure.

[CharleyCarp]

This conflation is very common. My mom used to send me those circulating emails, back in 03-04, about how the "war" with AQ/Iraq/IslamoEvil started in 1979 in Teheran, and we just didn't know we were at war until 2001.

[spockamok]

This sectarian conflict has gone to brutal extremes -

This is something for Iran to ponder if its planning to get nuclear weapons. They could end up in a regional arms race. Just like the Sunni-Shia bloodfest of Baghdad or Karachi, just with nuclear weapons on top.

The US and Israel will have nukes no matter what Iran does. An Iranian nuclear weapon though could encourage more Sunni states (like Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies) currently involved in brutal proxy conflict with Iran, more incentive to go nuclear than otherwise. Iran has the next move, it doesn't have the last move.

[jeremy]

Great post. I've been trying really hard the last few years to get a better understanding of the different nations, factions, sects, groups, etc that crop up in intelligent middle-east foreign policy discussions, but I don't retain nearly as much as I'd like.

Does anyone have any recommendations of a book(s) that provides a good overview/history, or just a good place to start? I keep meaning to pick something up but the selection is obviously a bit overwhelming. Surprisingly (or maybe not) I got a pretty good, albeit shallow, Iranian history that's stuck with me from reading Persepolis a few months back.

[Tony P.]

There are differences and there are differences. I consider Republican Americans to be apostates with respect to the values and beliefs that make America worthwhile. But I would close ranks with them if some self-styled "Islamic" army under a leader who lumps us all together as "Christians" actually invaded American territory.

Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims may hate each other, but they hate "Crusaders" more. Even (or perhaps especially) Crusaders who can't tell them apart.

--TP

[thoreau]

Glad you liked the post.

To be fair to Moynihan, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that somebody in the Iranian Jihadi-Industrial Complex might give aid to Al Qaeda in some instance. Governments of all sorts have been known to aid militant groups fighting a common enemy (see: North, Ollie). It would not shock me if some Ali Noorth in the Iranian security apparatus decided to aid Al Qaeda on the downlow, for whatever reason. This is why I'm skeptical but not completely dismissive of reports that (insert government here) gives aid to militants adhering to (insert ideology at odds with previous government here).

However, the possibility of a Realpolitik collaboration between a theocratic regime and militants of a different sect does not signify some sort of Monolithic Islamofascist front. Nor does heated rhetoric from a fundamentalist indicate some new trend of a cracking front. The divides are ancient.

[thoreau]

EDIT: I guess Ollie North wasn't really aiding Iran against a "common" enemy, since Iran was fighting our "friend" Saddam Hussein, but he was working with them as part of a scheme to fight another enemy in Central America.

[Eric Martin]

Right thoreau.

I acknowledge the potential to work together in limited settings, noting:

Iran and al-Qaeda, while perhaps willing to cooperate in some limited way in certain discrete contexts (possibly), are adversaries that should not be lumped together.

[Eric Martin]

Jeremy,

Vali Nasr is good on all issues Shiite.

As for the goals of al-Qaeda, I'm a big fan of Marc Sageman and Olivier Roy. Gilles Kepel and Peter Bergen are good too.

Any books/papers/articles by those authors are good places to start.

[Tony P.]

Jeremy,

I learned a lot from The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr. But maybe I should put quotes around "learned", since I can't claim to have cross-checked his version of history with other authors.

One interesting thing: in a sense, the Shia are theologically more fundamentalist than the Sunni, in that the Shia hew to the Prophet's bloodline as the legitimate basis of leadership for Islam, whereas the Sunni uphold a more "democratic" view -- that the community of Muslims is (or at least, once was) entitled to select its Caliphs.

--TP

[hilzoy]

Tony P.: There are Sunnis who do not regard Shi'a as Muslims at all. In the versions I've encountered, this turns on the idea that they actually worship 'Ali.

[Tony P.]

Hilzoy, I bet there are, just as there are Greeks I know who reserve the term "christianos" for the Orthodox, presumably because they considered Catholics and Protestants to be schismatics and heretics:-)

--TP

[Leinad]

In the same way that some Protestants think Catholics worship the Pope, who is an agent of Satan, etc.

My favourite Zawahiri communique is the one where he gets pissed at the Iranians for trying to steal Al-Q's rightful dues by blaming the WTC attacks on Jews.

"Damn those sinister Zionist-Crusader-Partisans of Ali for stealing our credit with their ridiculous conspiracy theories!"

[Anne E]

And, of course, in 1998 the Taliban and Al Qaeda massacred eleven Iranian diplomats (along with huge numbers of Afghan Shia civilians) in the Afghan city of Mazari Sharif, apparently because they consider the Shia apostates worthy of death.

Tony P, I don't think that it's true that the Iranians hate us more. (Bear in mind that they have some cause to be angry with us- we overthrew their democratically elected governement in the 1950s and replaced it with an extremely repressive monarchy. Also, we shot down that Iranian civilian airliner.) Nonetheless, on 9/11 the crowds in many Muslim countries were openly rejoicing- but there was a huge candlelight vigil for the American dead in Teheran.

You can't assume that just because Sunni and Shia theologies are more similar than either is to (for example) Christianity, that the hostility isn't deep and real. For a parallel example, take the Northern Irish Catholic terrorists. Whom do they hate the most on the following list?

a. The Bahai
b. The LDS (Mormons)
c. Hindus
d. Presbyterians

Answer is (d)- they hate the group that is CLOSEST TO THEM IN THEOLOGY.

I'm maxing out contributing to Obama this year (and like Hilzoy, I can't afford to) largely because I'm dead sure McCain will refuse to negotiate in good faith with the Iranians and procede to bombing them- quite possibly (God forbid) with nuclear weapons. If President Obama offered the Iranians a security guaranty and entrance into the global economy in return for verifiable nuclear disarmament, I think there's a good chance the Iranians would take it.

[Leinad]

Anne E: one quibble - I think the answer to d) is more 'they hate the group CLOSEST TO THEM IN PROXIMITY'

Sunni and Shia share countries, as well as theologies, and the conflict stems in part from resource contests and the power structures in those countries - which are rarely Shia-friendly. Ditto NI, which has a whole bunch of fairly toxic political and ethnic legacies mixed in with plain old sectarianism.

[liberal japonicus]

I don't think that it's true that the Iranians hate us more.

Anecdote, a good friend of mine (who sadly passed away recently) had been trying to arrange a teaching workshop in Iran where a number of us would go to work with EFL teachers. Perhaps they knew that most teachers are deep down American haters, or they just wanted the propaganda, but the impression he got (and he had worked on doing this for about 2-3 years before he suddenly passed away from pancreatic cancer) was there was no ill feelings toward us. I get the same vibe when I do my work in Vietnam. I think that foreign hatred of the US is highly overestimated.

One has to imagine the kind of difference an actual commitment on the part of the US to nuclear disarmament or even land mines would do. Kim Jong Il may be growing cold even as we speak. Biden's line about how this is a cusp in history could not ring any truer.

[Tony P.]

Anne, if I gave the impression that I think "the Iranians hate us more" it was absolutely unintentional. I grew up playing "Greeks and Persians" with my grade-school classmates (because we had never heard of cowboys or Indians) but I assure you I have outgrown all that.

Or maybe I have regressed: I think children are born with purely human instincts in all nations; they have to be taught pride and prejudice.

In any case, I think you're right: Iranians as a people may be more rational than Americans as a people. I say this because Iranian leaders would have a hard time whipping their people into a fury against America absent actual past slights and realistic future threats. American leaders (some, anyway) seem to think Americans as a people are easier to manipulate than that.

--TP

[jeremy]

Eric & Tony, thanks for the info! Next stop, amazon.

[gravityhouse]

I'll second (third? fourth?) the suggestions to read the Shia Revival by Vali Nasr. I just finished reading it a few days ago. It does a great job of explaining the root of the Sunni/Shiite conflicts that go back to the very beginnings of Islam. It also details the great lengths to which various Sunni regimes went to rollback and contain the influence of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. It makes a very clear case for how mind numbingly stupid it is to lump all fundamentalist Islamic factions into a one big, happy family.

[redwood]

Iran, in turn, cooperated closely with the US during the early stages of the US-led Afghan campaign in order to aid in the ouster of the Taliban.

I'm not sure Condi wouldn't laugh saying you're chasing a red-herring in your point that the NeoCons have failed to assimilate the distinctions among the Sunnis and even between them and the shi'ites.

yes, I recall Iran offering assistance to us in the immediate after of 9/11. but the administration insulted them by ignoring them and effectively said try to stop us from doing what we want in your Eastern region.

It was the same indifference they showed with Cuba when Cuba said using the base would not pose an additional obstacle.

It's an important point because both Iran and Cuba were on the Neocon Hit List. Still are.

The reason the US did not significantly cooperate with Iran and Cuba is critical to know because it cuts to the greatest failure in this debacle, which is Condi's identifying the enemy, not as transnational Sunni terrorists, but as "terror" itself, thus allowing the NeoCons to target the hold-out allies of the former USSR, Iraq being at the top of the list.

Now had Iraq been successful, the theoretical door would have been open to knock down another government on the their hit list.

NeoCons don't give a rat ass about tribal differences. They think they can handle it. See Petreaus and the successful surge.

Our argument must be against the mission of global domination, not the stupid tactics.

[Anne E]

Leinad- I agree, and maybe you made my point better than I did. Religious disputes are virtually always about money, resources and power- if these allegedly religious folk listened to the teachings of their faith, they'd walk away from the fight.

Here's a "thought experiment". Suppose the state of Israel had a problem with the IRA. A smart Israeli might think "OK, the Brits are culturally Christian but anti-IRA, maybe they can help us. The Republic of Ireland is Catholic but REALLY doesn't want IRA thugs operating in Dublin, maybe they can help us. The Germans are post-Lutheran but have far-left terrorists cooperating with the IRA, maybe they can help us."

A Bush/McCain style Israeli would say "Those Catholics are the existential enemy! Let's declare war on Vatican City, Spain, Italy, all of South America, Monoco, and Boston for good measure!"

Basically I'm saying "learn what you can about your potential adversaries, and don't turn off your brain". The thinking John McCain is presently proclaiming would have prevented Nixon from going to China.

[Leinad]

Anne E: absolutely, it's been astonishing the degree to which in trying to rally the nation to face these challenges politicians have sought to increase public ignorance of the Middle East, Islamic world rather than elucidate. This, if anything works towards creating a Islamofascist alliance more than it combats it.

But hey, what does common sense have to do with politics?

[novakant]

I don't think that it's true that the Iranians hate us more.

The vast majority of Iranians doesn't hate you at all.

on 9/11 the crowds in many Muslim countries were openly rejoicing

This is false.

[ajay]

hilzoy: There are Sunnis who do not regard Shi'a as Muslims at all. In the versions I've encountered, this turns on the idea that they actually worship 'Ali.

This is arguably true of some Shia sects - the mystical Alevi and Bektashi of Syria and Cappadocia certainly regard Ali as more than human, and possessing some divine attributes. But they're regarded as a bit weird even by other Shia.

[magistra]

It's been astonishing the degree to which in trying to rally the nation to face these challenges politicians have sought to increase public ignorance of the Middle East, Islamic world rather than elucidate.

No, because the ignorance has been essential right from the start, in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with Al Qaeda, who were deeply opposed to him on theological grounds: the US government had to confuse the American people on that. They also encouraged existing American views of all 'Arabs' as essentially the same so as to make an attack by Saudi Arabian citizens justify 'retaliation' against Iraqis.

[Ugly Moe]

I thought al-Zawahri was supposed to be dead and that his execution justified some bombing of Pakistani civilians.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wopaki204594384jan20,0,929109.story?coll=ny-worldnews-toputility

I guess he is just another bad guy that failed to be captured in spite of tough talk by republicans.

[Hartmut]

Next station:
1. Osama will endorse Obama
2. Republicans will use that as proof that the uppity [n-word] is up to no good.
3. Many will fall for that, giving the presidency to the Son of Cain
4. Osama laughs until he drops unconscious because that is exactly what he intended.

[Hartmut]

Not to forget:
5. the Son of Cain bombs Iran
6. Osama has to be brought into emergency care because the laughter attacks are too much for his body.