by Eric Martin
This post at Arabic Media Shack is an interesting follow up to a previous piece on this site discussing the evolution (and, in many instances, lack therof) of relations between Iran and al-Qaeda. The author of the Arabic Media Shack post translates and paraphrases a recently released tape from al-Qaeda's number 2 (or 1?), Ayman al-Zawahiri:
The tape’s heavy focus on Iran and its allies (Hezbollah) represents a new pattern in Al-Qaeda rhetoric. In the years following 9/11, AQ took great care to avoid conflict with Iran, for many reasons, but the most prominent being a sense that there were common interests that could be built upon, such as confrontation with the US and Israel. In addition, Iran formed a critical crossing point for AQ leaders fleeing the Afghan war to different locations, although Iran did extradite several AQ figures back to their home countries and key figures, such as Sayf al-Adel and Bin Laden’s son are still imprisoned there.
Then as the Iraq war started, there was a dispute between the pragmatic rhetoric of the AQ central leadership (especially Zawahiri) and AQ in Iraq (especially Zarqawi and Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi). Initially, AQC wanted to avoid confrontation with Iran, whereas the AQ in Iraq were fighting an open war with Iran. But now the AQC position vis a vis Iran has changed dramatically and this is most evident in Zawahiri’s response to close to 90 questions posed to him a few months ago.
...now Zawahiri is focused on Iran, but the basis of his criticism is political and not religious or sectarian. His big issue with Iran is their inconsistent positions towards Arab and Islamic causes. On one hand, Iran basically legitimizes the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, even calling Resistance there Harem (religously illegitimate)...At the same time it turns around and supports the Resistance in Palestine and Lebanon. Zawahiri points to Iran’s political opportunism as one reason that it can’t be considered a reliable partner against the US. But there is another reason that explains AQ’s strategic change and this is the rise of Hezbollah since 2006, whose performance against Israel has given it widespread popularity in the media and on the Arab street- something very worrying to AQ. AQ sees the rise of sectarian tensions in the region as something the Salafi Jihadist movement can exploit to tap recruits. But this is all complicated by Hezbollah’s widespread popularity.
The author also flags another interesting development in terms of Sunni-Shiite relations, this time some increasingly hostile rhetoric from a leading Egyptian Sunni scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi:
Attracting surprisingly little attention in the Western press, last week Yusuf Al-Qaradawi went on a long anti-Shia rant in an interview with Al-Masr Al-Youm, saying they were clearly trying to invade Sunni society with their ideas. Asked by his Egyptian interview “which is the greater danger- Shias or Wahabis?” Qaradawi said Wahabis don’t respect the opinions of anyone but themselves, then railed against the Shia:
“unfortunately there are Shia in Egypt. They tried for dozens of years unsuccessfully to recruit one Shia, from the time of Salah Ad Deen until recently….”
But notice his explanation for why this might be occurring:
He says “we the Ulema didn’t immunize (or left our society vulnerable to the penetration) because we always said avoid fitna in order to keep the Muslims united.”
Basically what he is saying here by this last quote: “we the noble Sunni clerics took the higher road and said to the rank and file, “lets stay united to avoid fitna.” As a result our people let their gaurds down, and the sneaky Shias took advantage to recruit/ spread their ideas.” [italics in original]
The Iranian regime and al-Qaeda each subscribe to strongly held religious beliefs that create an inherent conflict between the two. They are rivals in the competition for Muslim hearts and minds, with different visions for the Muslim world's desired end-state and differing approaches to achieve same. Despite this fundamental tension, the existence of a powerful common enemy operating in the region (the United States) has led each to proceed with a certain level of caution in terms of antagonizing the other.
Nevertheless, the attempt to maintain at least a facade of neutrality is straining as the mutually exclusive objectives and goals have come into starker conflict. This public face of indifference was always going to be hard to maintain and in many instances has been rendered meaningless, however, as the anti-Shiite current running through the al-Qaeda jihadist community is as virulent as it is potent. That zealotry is almost impossible to keep at bay - as exemplified by Zarqawi's refusal to heed bin Laden and Zawahiri's initial calls to forego anti-Shiite violence in Iraq.
Interestingly, al-Qaeda argues that Iran is politically opportunistic in its opposition to the United States - choosing to work with the US when it's in Iran's interest. I don't think al-Qaeda's diagnosis is wildly off the mark. One would imagine that this possibility would provide an even greater incentive for the United States to at least probe the parameters of normalizing relations with Iran in order to forestall the potential for the two to be tempted to collaborate in the future. If the existence of a common enemy is the only force leading two natural adversaries that we want to keep separated to remain in a state of detente, perhaps it would be better to push them further apart.
As opposed to treating them as an undifferentiated "Islamofascist" front with a common purpose. Which is, you know, not true at all.
Bin Laden's son (one of many, I assume) is imprisoned in Iran? I'm surprised I haven't heard that before in rebuttals to the idea of the monolithic Islamofascist threat. Or at the very least as an administration claim that bin Laden's son lives in Iran.
Posted by: KCinDC | September 22, 2008 at 05:51 PM
You do hear this from time to time. Neocons like to claim that the house arrest is "soft" and not really an arrest at all, but a cover told to the US to prevent action.
Posted by: Eric Martin | September 22, 2008 at 06:13 PM
Yes, normalizing relations with Iran would be a sensible thing for the US to attempt. But first you will have to elect some sensible people.
Posted by: Kevin Donoghue | September 22, 2008 at 06:23 PM
So is it wrong for me to think of the Iraq War as a diversion for the current "i can Handz Bagz 'o Keash 2 Wallz Teat" fun policy?
Posted by: Ugh | September 22, 2008 at 09:09 PM
Comparisons with the Sino-Soviet split of the late 1950s come to mind here.
I've long thought that we the US are not as central an actor in Middle Eastern power politics as we like to flatter ourselves by thinking, and are being played by both sides in the Shia - Sunni rivalry.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | September 22, 2008 at 09:26 PM
I've long thought that we the US are not as central an actor in Middle Eastern power politics as we like to flatter ourselves by thinking, and are being played by both sides in the Shia - Sunni rivalry.
I think there's something to this, but I'm not sure the two sides are playing us against each other.
I'm not even sure that the distinction between Shia and Sunni is as relevant as the distinction between Arab and Persian, or any of the other many dimensions along which the Muslim world is fractured.
My take is that, from the Muslim point of view, we're just one of several big objects in the room that has to be worked around. Part of the political geography, but not much more than that.
Our interests are not their interests, but at the moment we're part of the landscape, so they deal with us one way or another, according how they think it will best serve their own goals.
On the whole, I think they'd rather we just went away.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | September 22, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Arab vs Persian ... Enjoy!
And that's a very good website BTW to learn about Iran.
Posted by: Molloy | September 22, 2008 at 11:20 PM
On a more serious note, though, something is brewing between Shi'i and Sunnis (both on the religious & the geopolitical levels), and Ayman al-Zawahiri just might be acting as nothing more than a Saudi agent. [Via Syria Comment]
Posted by: Molloy | September 23, 2008 at 12:19 AM
The Iranian regime and al-Qaeda each ascribe to strongly held religious beliefs that create an inherent conflict between the two. They are rivals in the competition for Muslim hearts and minds,
Not terribly so. Iran's aim at the Islamic hearts is political/diplomatic maneuvering; rather than ideological or religious.
The charge of Iran's political opportunism is not entirely untrue.
However, let's keep in mind WHO actually brought AQ to existence! May I say, CIA?
That AQ's turned focus on Iran assists CIA's wish for instability inside Iran. This is how:
Americans have probably given up hope that a velvet revolution will arise from the heart of Iran, by the Iranian people! The Iranian government has been running the state security very heavy handedly--this is one of those times that I don't mind being arrested as I arrive in Iran on suspicion of threatening NS :) ... because, well CIA is spending all that money that congress has allocated to messup-Iran will end up in the pockets of someone; and so they need to be vigilant.
So, the only way they can wreak havoc in Iran is to use AQ against Iran--because the MKO terrorists are heavily under watch!
This might also explain the expedited deportation of Afghan refugees from Iran. They are not taking any risk!
Right now, ironically, Iran is the safest and most stable spot in the region; and that doesn't please Americans (who don't like Iran's strength vis a vis Iraq), nor Russians (who don't like Iran's strength vis a vis the caucuses--where Iran and Russia has been in a pseudo cold-war over natural gas resources and delivery).
Posted by: naj | September 23, 2008 at 09:28 AM
Molly, thanks! :)
Posted by: naj | September 23, 2008 at 09:30 AM
Why is it always so cold, on your side of the bed?
Posted by: theCoach | September 23, 2008 at 09:32 AM
Who would have thought that Joy Division would have something so cogent to say about Islamic fundamentalism?
Posted by: Scott Nance | September 23, 2008 at 05:16 PM
That's what I said Scott. But it's right there in the remix ;)
Posted by: Eric Martin | September 23, 2008 at 05:24 PM
"However, let's keep in mind WHO actually brought AQ to existence! May I say, CIA?"
Not really, no. Try "ISI." The U.S. supplied lots of money to Pakistan, along with Saudi Arabia, for the ISI to channel as they saw fit to Afghani jihadists. Not the CIA, which wasn't allowed, for the most part, any direct contact with the Afghans, let alone chosing which of them them would receive money, let alone organizing them.
Moreover, al Qaeda, per se, came into existence after the U.S. had ceased supplying money to Afghans at all. So, basically, no, you can't say that if you want to sound like you know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 23, 2008 at 06:31 PM
Moreover, al Qaeda, per se, came into existence after the U.S. had ceased supplying money to Afghans at all. So, basically, no, you can't say that if you want to sound like you know what you're talking about.
Unless, of course, he was talking about bloody precursors (and I really don't give a fvck if it is misspelted). In which case, yeah, he did know what he's talking about.
Posted by: Jeff | September 23, 2008 at 07:33 PM
But even then Jeff, the CIA did not bring al-Qaeda, or its precursors, into existence. Once active, the US government encouraged several factions of Afghan resistance fighters (funded and armed them). Some of the foreigners who joined the resistance later went on to form al-Qaeda.
But al-Qaeda's leadership was not formed then and there. For example, Zawahiri was an active radical during the 1970s. His outfit was behind the assassination of Sadat. He was imprisoned in Egypt and tortured mercilessly. Is it fair to say that we created Zawahiri? More likely, the Egyptian regime did in advertantly.
al-Qaeda created itself. It is true that while some of al-Qaeda's future-participants were involved in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, we likely provided some with the aforementioned aid. But via the ISI. And still, this does not equate to bringing al-Qaeda, or its precursors, into existence.
Posted by: Eric Martin | September 24, 2008 at 10:26 AM
"Unless, of course, he was talking about bloody precursors"
As I just got through explaining, they weren't created by the CIA. Any history you like can verify this. Try the book Eric has pushed, Legacy of Ashes, say, or try Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, or try Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower, or try Jason Burke, or Charlie Wilson's War, or whatever reputable source you like; don't take my word for it.
And then, yes, you'll actually know what you're talking about, which is that the CIA most certainly did not create al Qaeda.
And Ayman Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri was an eventual leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which also wasn't created by the CIA, and which was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, which also wasn't created by the CIA.
And, yes, it's helpful to know what one is talking about in discussing these, or any subjects, rather than just repeating silly-ass bumper-sticker slogans and myths.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 25, 2008 at 10:31 PM
"Unless, of course, he was talking about bloody precursors"
As I just got through explaining, they weren't created by the CIA. Any history you like can verify this. Try the book Eric has pushed, Legacy of Ashes, say, or try Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, or try Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower, or try Jason Burke, or [continued in Pt. II]
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 25, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Pt. II: Charlie Wilson's War, or whatever reputable source you like; don't take my word for it.
And then, yes, you'll actually know what you're talking about, which is that the CIA most certainly did not create al Qaeda.
And Ayman Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri was an eventual leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which also wasn't created by the CIA, and which was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, which also wasn't created by the CIA.
And, yes, it's helpful to know what one is talking about in discussing these, or any subjects, rather than just repeating silly-ass bumper-sticker slogans and myths.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 25, 2008 at 10:33 PM
"which is that the CIA most certainly did not create al Qaeda."
Neither did it create any of the Afghan resistance groups. They all formed themselves, and then were funded by the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, which was the sole outside group that had any significant contact with them, and which was the sole conduit for funding. Saudi Arabia and the U.S., the latter via the CIA, handed over vast sums of money to the ISI, but had almost no other contact with the Afghan resistance, let alone "creating" them. Again, see all of the above books I mentioned, and more, for details.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 25, 2008 at 10:40 PM