“I Do Wish We Could Switch Places For a Few Months So You Could See Things From My Point of View.”
A Matter letter series between Foreign Affairs deputy managing editor Justin Vogt and managing editor of NOW Hanin Ghaddar
Dear Justin,
Thank you for your remarkable response. All your questions are extremely relevant and significant to our discussion, and I am glad I have a chance to clarify a few points and elaborate on others.
I do wish we could switch places for a few months so you could see things from my point of view. I think that our divergent views about American intentions and about the proper U.S. role in the Middle East stems mainly from the fact that we experience it differently, and therefore our expectations are poles apart.
On the issue of ISIS and Islam, what I wanted to highlight here is that ISIS does not do anything that is not permitted by Islam. I am not saying that all Islam is ISIS. The text is very confusing and subject to different interpretations. In fact, there are contradictory passages in the Quran, and these depend on the context — time and place — of when a certain passage was written. For example, passages that were written in Mecca are more moderate and called for Islam as a religion of peace, while the ones written after Mohammad entered Madina and became a ruler were more violent and called for use of force to make people join Islam. With our political context and the rise of sectarian rhetoric and conflict, violent groups tend to reference and rely on the violent passages of Medina while moderate groups look elsewhere in the Quran.
It is not easy to draw a clear picture of Islam because in my opinion, there are two types of Islam if you want to rely on the text, its interpretations, or Hadith. ISIS is not a natural growth of Islam. I did not say that. ISIS is one interpretation, and yes they are just a few, but they are the most dangerous few. It only takes a very small group of violent terrorists who are ready to blow themselves up to change policies and start wars. Look at what happened in France after the Paris bombings.
What I was trying to say is that Islam is not necessarily ISIS, but ISIS is Islamic.
But again, as I said in my first letter, to stop young men from joining ISIS, you need to provide them with a valid alternative, so that this form of Islam does not become their only credible and attractive choice. One of these alternatives is to highlight the narrative of those presenting an alternative interpretation of the Quran; that is, more moderate religious figures who are not empowered enough today to counter the extremist narrative and interpretation.
Another way is to stop empowering autocratic and military regimes, which alienate citizens and turn them into extremists.
You ask the right question here. How do we do that? How to weaken religious, media and educational institutions which promote radical Islam? It is not an easy job, and yes the governments might look like repressing freedom of speech. But there is a clear distinction between stopping and weakening. Again, creating an alternative is vital. A lot of these young men in Lebanon’s Tripoli, Akkar and Bekaa, go to these mosques and schools and listen to media that embodies sectarian rhetoric, because they do not have an alternative. All media in Lebanon — mainly TV — is either sectarian or politicized. All mosques are the same. As for schools, you either send your children to very expensive private schools, or to useless public schools. If you want them to get a good education without paying ridiculous amounts of money, they will probably end up in a school supported by a religious or political institution. An alternative here is to increase funding for public schools, and for independent and credible media. Eventually, institutions that promote violent rhetoric will no longer be the only alternative. These are just a few examples, but this is a long-term strategy that requires detailed planning.
On Syria, you say that if ISIS and Assad both manage to survive and overcome the other groups vying for control in Syria, those two forces will come into direct conflict. I tend to disagree here. The deals between Assad’s regime and ISIS, and the way Assad’s barrel bombs seem to miraculously avoid falling over ISIS-controlled areas in Syria, among other signs, tell me that Assad is ready to accept ISIS as reality as long they don’t threaten each other’s viable and strategic regions. Assad has been seriously weakened and will be happy to leave the ISIS fight to the West, and will probably be happy to control whatever part of Syria they let him control.
In any case, it’s Russia — and Iran to a lesser extent — that is calling the shots on Syria now. Assad will follow their lead. This brings us to your next question: How can we get rid of Assad without a war scenario? This is a very good question and I wish I have a clear and simple answer to it. Unfortunately, Assad remaining in power is bad for Syria and the region. It will only escalate the sectarian tension. But removing him by force could lead to a serious confrontation between Russia and Iran on one hand, and Saudi and Turkey on another.
I really believe that it could have been done before the Russians entered the game, or even a few years ago. Now the U.S. has lost its chance to make Assad’s departure a precondition for negotiations. You can at least continue to insist that he must go eventually, and as soon as possible. It is very important to keep pushing and not settle for the transitional solution set by Moscow. Assad will never make any concessions to the government unless he is forced to. Only Moscow and Tehran at this point can force him, and they will not if the U.S. keeps accepting their conditions and imaginary cease-fire agreements in Syria. The U.S. should at least show Putin that he cannot go on doing whatever he likes without repercussions on Russia’s relation with the U.S.
I am curious here to this statement in your letter: “I suspect you’ll object to that idea partly because it would involve cooperation, rather than confrontation, with Iran.” Why would you say that? I already said that I am anti-war in any part in the region, including with Iran. Yes, I do not agree with that idea, not because it involves cooperation, but because it gives Assad, Russia and Iran a free hand to take over whatever is left of Syria and destroy the opposition. Hezbollah will come back to Lebanon victorious, which will allow them to control whatever is left of Lebanon, and take over. I do not want to see this happening to my country. That’s all.
I am all for cooperation, but the problem is that everyone else is confrontational and they are allowed to be. Meanwhile, people like me, civil society groups, secular individuals who believe in peace, are all hopeless and jaded, because we feel we do not exist anymore. We are no more relevant to anybody in this crazy sectarian war. Assad staying in power will escalate sectarian rhetoric and the secular and liberal individuals both in Syria and Lebanon will lose any possibility to change.
Back to our discussion, I would like to go to your inquiry about the Iran Deal and the alternative. First, this region is all about conspiracy theories and how people perceive things through media and propaganda machines. Facts and information are not the basis of knowledge and public awareness, and this is the fault of our autocratic governments, sectarian conflict, and poor levels of education. Therefore, when I say that it is seen as if the U.S. has allied with Shiite Iran against the Sunnis, I mean that this is how it is how people see it. I know it is not an alliance, but there are things that could have been done differently in order to reassure the majority of the people in the region.
One, there was no proper communication vis-à-vis the Iran deal. People here are not concerned with the deal itself as much as they are concerned with its repercussions on the region. All the U.S. communicated was that there are tools and measures in place and in action to stop Iran’s terrorist activities in the region, despite the Iran Deal. But so far, we haven’t really seen examples of how these tools and measures are used in Syria, where Iran is most active. Communicating with the people in the region after the deal is essential and it hasn’t happened. Showing how these tools work is vital. We’re still waiting.
And no, and American-led war against Iran is not the only alternative. In my opinion, the deal is probably a good deal in itself. I don’t think it should have been avoided. However, there are two main issues around it that need to be communicated and dealt with: One, Iran’s nuclear program, and the whole Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, i.e., Hezbollah, were only tools to get Iran to the real objective; that is, regional hegemony. Iran wanted to be number one regional power and both the Iran deal and “Resistance” against Israel were means to reach this end. Two, I understand that any pressure on Iran on Syria during the talks, or even serious military assistance to the rebels, could have hampered the negotiations to reach a deal. But the deal has been signed. What’s stopping the U.S. from aiding the rebels now? Why not create safe zones in northern and southern Syria now? These can be humanitarian corridors, not necessarily for military purposes, but they will be very helpful to the refugees at least.
Again, the problem here is not the American absence from the Middle East because as you illustrated, the U.S. is present. The issue is that there is no U.S. strategy for the region, starting from Syria. It’s like the U.S. is not interested, doesn’t really care, and is no more willing to be involved, even when the most atrocious crimes against humanity are committed on a daily basis and have been for the past four years.
It is a matter of strategy, and it is moral issue as well. Does the U.S. want to be seen — when this is all over — as an influential and capable country that was unwilling to stop genocide and support a just cause? It is not an easy job and there is no clear answer to what the U.S. can actually do in Syria. There are many small steps: More assistance to the rebels, creating safe zones, maybe no-fly zones, diplomatic pressure on Russia and Iran… But at the end, it is a matter of a strategy and political will. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Being here during these dark times makes you feel helpless and you tend to cling more to promises and words of hope. So when you hear promises, redlines, a definitive statements from the president of the most powerful country in the world, you take them more seriously than they really are. Eventually, your disappointment when they fall is bigger. Again, I wish we could switch places for a while. Maybe I’d be able to see that the U.S. policy in the Middle East is strategic after all.
Best,
Hanin
Photograph via Getty Images.
