Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Edited by
Philipp O. Amour
The Regional Order in the Gulf Region
and the Middle East
Philipp O. Amour
Editor
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To my beloved children Adam and Ilias. Your growth provides
me a constant source of fulfillment, joy, and pride.
I love you to the moon and back.
Preface
The contemporary politics of the Gulf Region and the Middle East has been
one of uprisings and counter-uprisings; of civil wars and proxy wars; and of
deliberate and destabilizing ideational and strategic crises. This ever-growing
and complex set of regional dynamics since the first Arab Spring movement
is not routine politics; rather, it is a formative condition for an altered or a
novel regional order.
This book thematically provides a detailed analysis of this unfolding
regional order. The analysis takes place in relation to the regional level
of analysis at the interplay of a combination of a cluster of factors that
include the distribution of power dynamics, ideational factors, and
domestic influences. This cluster of factors involves internal and e xternal
dimensions that have shaped and continue to shape current regional
responsive dynamics. The book explores the following topics:
• Major security alliances in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle
East
• Regional great powers such as the KSA, the UAE, Iran, Turkey,
Qatar, and Israel
• The most vigorous non-state militant players on the ground, such
as the Islamic State, Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, Hezbollah,
and the Houthi movement
• Global powers, such as Russia
• National narratives and transnational causes that shape regional
polarization
vii
viii PREFACE
ix
x CONTENTS
Index 435
Notes on Contributors
xiii
xiv NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
the post-Cold War era. His major fields of study include Foreign Policy
in the Soviet Union and Russia. He has been published in various jour-
nals and edited books and teaches Diplomatic History, International
Relations, and Turkish Foreign Policy in the Department of Political
Science, Pamukkale University.
Hanlie Booysen is a Lecturer in Religious Studies at Victoria University
of Wellington, New Zealand. Dr. Booysen’s main research interest is the
relationship between Islam and politics. Her Ph.D. thesis explained the
moderate platform of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (SMB). In her
former career, Dr. Booysen served as a diplomat to Jordan (1993–1997),
acted as Chargé d’affaires to Palestine (2000–2003), and was Deputy
Head of Mission in Syria (2009–2012).
Stephanie Carver is a Ph.D. candidate and researcher at Monash
University, Australia. She is researching armed non-state actors in the
Horn of Africa. Her Ph.D. topic considers the role of maritime pirates in
state formation within Somalia. Ms. Carver has worked with the United
Nations in Nairobi and Kenya. She holds a B.A. (Hons) and a Master of
International Relations from Monash University.
Julius Dihstelhoff (Dr. des.) is a Research Fellow in the Department
of Near and Middle Eastern Politics at the Center for Near and Middle
Eastern Studies (CNMS) at Philipps-University Marburg, Germany.
He is an Academic Coordinator for the international joint project
“Merian Centre for Advanced Studies in the Maghreb (MECAM)”,
funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF),
based in Tunis (Tunisia). His research consisted of projects supported by
the German Foreign Ministry between 2012 and 2015 that analyzed the
role of various Islamist parties in the ongoing transformation processes
in the MENA region. His areas of research interest include the interre-
lated transformational processes in the MENA region since 2010/2011
(especially Tunisia), the role of Political Islam in these processes, and
German–Arab relations.
Zana Gulmohamad has a Ph.D. in International Politics from the
University of Sheffield, UK. He is a Teaching Associate in the Politics
and International Relations Department at the University of Sheffield.
Dr. Zana has published in think tank and research institute journals, such
as Combating Terrorism Center/CTC Sentinel at West Point. Dr. Zana’s
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xv
(Routledge, 2017). She has translated articles and books related to Syria
from Arabic to Spanish, the most recent of which is Yassin Al-Haj Saleh’s
The Impossible Revolution.
Ana Belén Soage holds a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern Studies. She has
studied and worked in several Western European and Arab countries and
is fluent in Spanish, English, Arabic, and French. She is currently based
in Madrid, where she teaches at the EAE Business School. Dr. Soage has
published articles, book reviews, and book chapters on issues related to
Political Islam, both in the Muslim world and in the West, and to inter-
national relations with a focus on the Middle East. In addition, she is a
member of the editorial board of the academic journals Politics, Religion
& Ideology, and Religion Compass.
Pınar Uz Hançarlı received her Ph.D. from the Department of Political
Science, Pamukkale University, where she works as a Research Assistant.
She graduated from the Middle East Technical University in the
Department of International Relations. She was awarded a Jean Monnet
Scholarship for 2009–2010 term at the University of Nottingham, where
she completed her M.A. degree in the School of Politics.
Nuri Yeşilyurt is an Assistant Professor at the Department of
International Relations of Ankara University, Faculty of Political Science.
He received his B.A. degree from Ankara University in 2004 and M.Phil.
degree from the University of Cambridge in 2005. He completed
his Ph.D. in 2013 at Ankara University with the thesis titled “Regime
Security and Small State in the Middle East: The Case of Jordan.” Dr.
Yeşilyurt’s publications are mainly focused on Turkish–Arab relations,
and Middle Eastern politics.
Mustafa Yetim is an Assistant Professor at Eskişehir Osmangazi
University. He finished his undergraduate studies in 2009 at Karadeniz
Technical University and then received his Master’s degree in 2011 from
Sakarya University. His Master’s thesis was about “Turkey’s Middle East
Policy between 2002 and 2010: Turkey’s changing perception in the
Middle East”. He completed his Ph.D. in 2016 at Ankara University
with the thesis entitled “Hezbollah Within the Middle East and
Lebanon: Neo-Weberian Perspective”. He has published book chapters,
articles, commentaries, and analysis on topics related to Turkish foreign
policy in the Middle East.
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xvii
xix
xx ABBREVIATIONS
xxiii
CHAPTER 1
Philipp O. Amour
P. O. Amour (*)
Department of International Relations, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey
e-mail: dr@philipp-amour.ch
URL: http://www.philipp-amour.ch
1 This outline draws on Elias Götz and Neil MacFarlane, “Russia’s Role in World Politics:
Power, Ideas, and Domestic Influences,” International Politics 56, no. 6 (December
2019): 713–25, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-018-0162-0.
2 To mention some exceptions: Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde, Security:
A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2013); Barry Buzan and
Ole Waever, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003). However, the theoretical framework used in this book
is (aside from one exception, Chapter 6) independent from these references.
1 INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 3
Moreover, few scholars have examined the regional system in terms of the
interplay between material power dynamics, immaterial power dynamics
(ideas, narratives, and causes), and domestic influences.
Indeed, the state level and the international level are interconnected
with one another and with the regional dynamics, so they deliver valu-
able insights for understanding regional dynamics. Regional powers and
global powers still have a dominant say in the broader Middle East, as
different chapters in this book demonstrate. Yet, a major aim of the book
is to demonstrate that combining different clusters of factors in rela-
tion to the regional level of analysis delivers a more encompassing and
comprehensive explanation for regional politics and dynamics. These are
intertwined, and so their separation into one or a subset of clusters/fac-
tors does not deliver an adequate and reasonable explanation.
As a contribution to the profusion of excellent scholarship on the
Gulf Region and the broader Middle East, a factorial approach is
taken that includes material clusters and immaterial clusters of factors,
while paying attention to the region as a level of analysis in itself and by
itself. Note that this approach engages internal and external dynamics,
as illustrated below. As the final section in this chapter will demonstrate,
the respective authors accord distinct weights to the various systemic
units and clusters of factors and combine them in different ways in their
chapters.
The book is intended to serve as a text for university-level classes on
Middle East Studies and IR in the broader Middle East and as a general ref-
erence text for practitioners interested in the Gulf Region and the broader
Middle East. It highlights recent developments in a regional context.
Notably, regional dynamics across the broader Middle East provide
students of IR and Middle East Studies, as well as practitioners, with
cases and topics covering fascinating lines of inquiry of regional dynamics
and international politics in both their empirical and theoretical dimen-
sions. These lines of inquiry include regional combinations of state and
non-state actors, and forms of regional relations; regional powers and the
scope and extent of foreign and security policy behavior; the increasing
significance of non-state militant actors and ecological factors; and the
involvement of global great powers; in addition to what the author calls
“ideational balancing” (ideological jostling for power). The various chap-
ters of the book are also useful for social scientists who are interested in
hypotheses and gathering knowledge for theory building of regional sys-
tems, as well as alliance formation and deformation. The objective of this
4 P. O. AMOUR
3 Jillian Schwedler and Deborah J. Gerner, Understanding the Contemporary Middle East
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United
Arab Emirates (UAE), Yemen, and Iran (a non-Arab country). Six of
these countries (excluding Iran, Iraq, and Yemen) form the Cooperation
Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC). Since 2014/2015, the
Gulf Region has become the power center of regional dynamics, as
explored in different parts of this book. The third subregion is North
Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia) and the Horn of
Africa countries of Comoros Islands, Djibouti, Mauritania, Somalia, and
the republic of Sudan, also known as sub-Saharan countries.4
While this list contains exclusively countries, the book explicitly
acknowledges the significance (for regional dynamics) of non-state mili-
tant actors that operate within and across national boundaries.
While bearing in mind that the term is contested, in this book, we
consider the term Middle East to contain the part of the world in which
Islam emerged (Gulf Region) and spread to neighboring subregions in
which the great Islamic empires came to the fore. Contemporary regional
events have proven once more the connectivity of the different subregions
in the broader Middle East. I include North Africa and the sub-Saharan
countries listed above in the Middle East, due to their impact within the
region, despite their geographic distance from its initial power center.
During the first Arab Spring movement (2010–2013) the Jasmine revolu-
tion in Tunisia spread to other subregions and initiated a redistribution of
power on the broader regional level. This movement demonstrates how
a national demand for revolutionary change in Tunisia spread to other
countries to become a transnational cause with region-wide implications.
The second Arab Spring movement (2018–2020) in Sudan and Algeria
demonstrated how changes in domestic leaderships can affect regional
alliances and rivalry in the Horn of Africa (see Chapters 6 and 14).
It is worth mentioning that the revolutionary drive currently brewing in
Iraq and Lebanon is part of the second Arab Spring movement. The rev-
olutionary spread of ideas is also evident in this second wave of the Arab
Spring.
While we employ this definition of the Middle East in the various
chapters in this book, the authors of the respective chapters are aware that
not all countries are involved at the same level and to the same extent in
4 Schwedler and Gerner, 2. At the time of writing this chapter, South Sudan was not
the regional system across the broader Middle East. The authors are also
aware of the different existing definitions of the term Middle East.
Definitions of the term Middle East vary depending on the political,
strategic, and geographic standpoint of the scholars and politicians con-
cerned. For instance, not all scholars include North Africa or all of the
sub-Saharan countries mentioned above in their definition of “Middle
East.”5 This geographic ambiguity leads some scholars to use the term
Middle East and North Africa (MENA), to mark North Africa as a
distinct area.6
Middle East scholars tend to agree on the inclusion of most Arab
countries as part of the broader Middle East due to their sociocultural
and political commonalities; they also include Iran, Israel, and Turkey in
their definition, for particular reasons. Iran and Turkey, states linked by
trade and regional events, are politically and economically interdepend-
ent with other states in the region.7 Most of the states mentioned are
included in a regional system with Israel, with various forms of mutual
cooperation (e.g., specific Arab States having peace treaties with Israel,
Iran–Israel relations before 1979, or Israeli–Turkish relations); growing
rapprochement of Arab states toward Israel since the first Arab Spring
movement; or mutual rivalry, enmity, and violent conflict, bearing in
mind the Arab–Israeli wars.
The term Middle East is a relic of the colonial period. It was origi-
nally used in elite circles, by military planners, scholars, and the media
in the early twentieth century, before it circulated and spread from the
West (i.e., it is a term conjuring up part of the world in which the culture
of western Europe is outweighed) to the rest of the world, including
the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East itself.8 The term became
widely circulated after WWI, and conjures up a strategic region; a part
5 Michele Penner Angrist, ed., Politics & Society in the Contemporary Middle East
(Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2010), 1, for instance, includes North Africa in his defini-
tion but not all Sub-Saharan countries.
6 For instance: David E. Long, Bernard Reich, and Mark J. Gasiorowski, eds., The
Government and Politics of the Middle East and North Africa, 6th ed. (Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 2011).
7 Bruce M. Russett, International Regions and the International System (Chicago: Rand
9 Eliezer Chammou, “Near or Middle East? Choice of Name,” MELA Notes, no. 37
Visit Networks and the Middle Eastern Case,” International Journal of Middle East Studies
13, no. 2 (May 1981): 213–35, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743800055306.
12 See e.g., F. Gregory Gause, “Systemic Approaches to Middle East International
World Politics, Contemporary Issues in the Middle East (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University
Press, 1986), 41–42.
16 James Piscatori and R. K. Ramazani, “The Middle East,” in Comparative Regional
Systems: West and East Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Developing Countries,
ed. Werner J. Feld (New York; Oxford: Pergamon, 1980), 296.
10 P. O. AMOUR
systemic units.17 State actors and non-state militant actors create and
form a regional system or a subsystem; however, this creation oscillates
back and forth and molds systemic units as well.
There are costs and benefits to having bigness (i.e., power in its natu-
ral, tangible, and intangible forms described in the next subsection) and
there is a strong temptation to gather still more power. In an author-
itarian regional system, such as the broader Middle East, even with
power one cannot be completely secure; therefore, regional great pow-
ers attempt to build alliances (i.e., subsystems) with other states and
non-state militant actors in order to balance other regional great powers.
Regional great powers learn to manage their authority within their pole,
and they expect less powerful actors to submit across their subsystem.
Less powerful states and non-state militant actors are usually bullied into
submission in one way or another. The distribution of power within a
subsystem encourages a less powerful systemic actor to follow the more
powerful actor or to balance vis-à-vis (e.g., to get on the bandwagon
with) a regional great power, to protect itself from the arbitrariness of a
higher power.
The next section reflects on the concept of power projection capabil-
ities that shape the way state and non-state militant actors can translate
their influence in and across the regional system.
Longman, 2012).
20 Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public
Affairs, 2004).
Table 1.1 Statistical data on sources of power for countries in the Gulf Region and broader Middle East
Country Land area Total population Urban popula- GDP per capita Literacy rate, Armed forces Military
(km2) 2018 2018 tion (% of total) current US$ adult total (% personnel, total expenditure
2018 2018 of people ages 15 2017 (current USD)
and above)
Source World Bank.org; World Development Indicators. Data for literacy rate and military expenditure are from different years
1 INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER …
13
14 P. O. AMOUR
21 Joseph S. Nye, The Future of Power (New York: Public Affairs, 2012).
16 P. O. AMOUR
The following outline shows that not all contributors deliver the same
level of intertwined interpretation of the interrelation of material power
factors, ideational factors, and domestic influences. Thus, this book is
best seen as a contribution to the interplay of a combination of a clus-
ter of factors on the regional system in the Gulf Region and the broader
Middle East rather than a definitive analysis. We hope it will kindle fruit-
ful research into the interplay of factorial clusters at the regional level of
analysis that shape and form regional dynamics.
Part I of this book deals with the regional system in general; it exam-
ines the evolution and policies of the major subsystems in the broader
Middle East, in addition to their ideational set and transnational affairs.
It starts with Dihstelhoff and Lohse’s chapter (Political Islam as an
Ordering Factor? The Reconfiguration of the Regional Order in the
Middle East Since the Arab Spring). The authors analyze two oppos-
ing regional alliances in terms of their ideational positions and norma-
tive beliefs toward the movements of Political Islam since 2010. They
demonstrate that regional great powers in the Gulf Region and the
broader Middle East have colliding normative beliefs regarding the rise
of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as either a systemic opportunity (e.g.,
Turkey and Qatar) or a security threat (e.g., the KSA and the UAE).
The pro-Muslim-Brotherhood bloc is ideationally similar to the Arab
Spring revolutionary forces and thus regarded the first Arab Spring
movement and the rise of the MB to states’ leadership as a systemic
opportunity. Qatar understood the emergence of Political Islam as a stra-
tegic possibility to gain different allies in the region in order to become
independent from neighboring powers. Turkey, too, saw in the regional
dynamics an opportunity to ally itself with Tunisia, Egypt, and other
revolutionary leaderships promoted by the first Arab Spring movement.
Neither Turkey nor Qatar regard the MB as a threat. The MB branch in
Qatar officially dissolved itself in the 1990s and still lacks a branch there
despite the political mobilization of the Arab Spring. Turkey, a non-Arab
state with a long tradition of political activism, saw no threat in the
emergence of the MB. Surviving under authoritarian rule, the MB across
the broader region felt ideologically and empirically somewhat attracted
to the Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP) that had won legis-
lative elections and was regarded as a ruling model for good governance
and for the conformity of Islam and democracy in the region.
This pro-Muslim-Brotherhood bloc has stood in opposition to the
anti-Muslim-Brotherhood bloc led by the KSA and UAE, as well as
1 INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 17
Egypt, since the 2013 Egyptian coup d’état. The KSA/UAE-led power
bloc regards the MB and its ideological affiliates as a threat to their
domestic hold on power and to their regional might. They were likely
also concerned that the new unfolding subsystem (i.e., the pro-MB bloc)
in the region would result in an integration of Iran or a closer connec-
tion with the Iran-led conservative-resistance subsystem (explored in
Chapter 4). For the anti-Muslim-Brotherhood bloc, the similar ideologi-
cal roots of Sunni Political Islam represented in the MB and Shi’ Political
Islam in the Islamic revolution would make alliance building of both
power blocs more likely.
Besides ideological explanations, the authors in Chapter 2 point to
geopolitical pressures and domestic influences regarding threat percep-
tions within the anti-MB bloc. Dihstelhoff and Lohse argue that not
all principal states have the same threat perception urgency toward the
MB, Iran, and the Islamic State (IS). According to the authors, the KSA
appears to prioritize the threat of Iran and IS, while UAE and Egypt
seem to have set their security priorities on the MB. The authors explain
that this difference in prioritization is due to the geostrategic threats
of Iran and IS against the KSA, while domestic influences appear to be
more prevalent in the case of Egypt and UAE. The pro-MB bloc wit-
nessed setbacks after the military coup in Egypt in July 2013 and in
Sudan in April 2019. Tunisia also reestablished its ties with the anti-MB
bloc. So far, Turkey and Qatar have stuck to their commitment to back
up movements of Political Islam.
Chapter 3 (Gulfization of the Middle East Security Complex) is written
by Amr Yossef, who underlines the distribution of power dynamics, inter-
nal/external pressures, and subregional ideational preferences. Amr Yossef
marks in his chapter a systemic shift of the regional system in terms of its
power center. The Levant had been the heart of the regional system in the
broader Middle East due to its politicizing and mobilizing transnational
cross-border causes; however, subregional concerns and actions in and ema-
nating from the Gulf Region outward since 2014 have shifted the center of
the regional system to the Gulf. While the Arab–Israeli conflict dominated
regional affairs after 1948, Gulf affairs have gained increasing importance
since 2011. Moreover, a perceived US abandonment of Gulf affairs during
the Obama administration has pushed the KSA/UAE-led subsystem to pur-
sue a proactive and assertive foreign policy and project its power capabilities
through the region (e.g., in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon, among others).
18 P. O. AMOUR
This new policy approach has been underlined by volatile security and
ideational threats from the IS, MB, and Iran. The rise of the novel power
bloc led by Turkey and Qatar (discussed in Chapter 5) has most likely
contributed to a shift in the policy attitudes and actions of the KSA and
UAE. The ascension of King Salman to the throne of Saudi Arabia, as
an example of domestic influences, along with his current crown prince,
have most likely contributed to this alteration in regional policy.
Chapter 4 (The Conservative-Resistance Camp: The Axis of
Resistance) by Ana Belén Soage pays attention to the Iran-led subsys-
tem encompassing Syria, Hezbollah, and non-state militant actors (such
as the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas], the Palestinian
Islamic Jihad [PIJ], the pro-Iranian militias in Iraq, and, likely, the
Houthi movement in Yemen). Like the authors of previous chapters
in this book, Soage argues that strategic calculations (e.g., a common
enemy), and specific ideational/ideological underpinnings bind these
state and non-state militant actors together. The Iran–Iraq Gulf War, civil
war in Lebanon, and the Palestinian Intifadas are examples of binding
and unifying events among principal actors in this subsystem. Note that
these regional events correspond to transnational causes, so they increase
the public support and legitimacy of these subsystemic actors among
foreign audiences and elites across the Gulf Region and broader Middle
East. Soage demonstrates how the Syrian Civil War has altered this trans-
national brand of the long-seated regional subsystems and how it has
provided different systemic actors with opportunities to improve their
guerrilla and militant capabilities. Moreover, the chapter delivers com-
plementary insights to previous chapters regarding ideological/doctrinal
roots of Shiite Political Islam and Sunni Political Islam.
Chapter 5 (Emergence of the Turkish/Qatari Alliance in the Middle
East: Making of the Moderate-Resistance Bloc) introduces the rise of
the most recent regional subsystem led by Turkey and Qatar, including
transition countries that are or have been run by political parties with
Islamist inheritance that entered government because of the changes
brought about by the first Arab Spring movement.22 Nuri Yeşilyurt
22 See more in this regard Philipp O. Amour, “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics,
and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction,” in The Middle East
Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab
Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington, DC:
Academica Press, 2018), 1–21.
1 INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 19
and Mustafa Yetim argue that while this Turkish–Qatari alliance has
suffered setbacks since 2013/2014, it still stands and conducts dif-
ferent regional policies in comparison to the other long-established
KSA/UAE-led and Iran-led subsystems. Yeşilyurt and Yetim call the
third subsystem a “moderate-resistance” bloc; hence, they believe it fea-
tures a set of ideas and normative beliefs, as well as foreign policy orien-
tations and behaviors that intersect both these long-settled subsystems
at various points. This is likely one reason, among others, why the long-
established subsystems are cautious toward the new Turkey/Qatar led
alliance. The various security alliances in the broader Middle East are
listed in Table 14.1 in Chapter 14.
Part II of this book covers specific state actors (Turkey, Qatar, and
Israel) and non-state militant actors (Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces
[PMF], Syria’s Democratic Union Party [PYD], and the Islamic State).
The respective chapters illuminate how these state and non-state actors
have attempted to assert their regional position and to counter rivals
with the help of hard power and soft power strategies that included
military actions, military base expansion, developmental and organiza-
tional actions, and ideological projection. The cases here are illustrative
for state and non-state militant actors in the region, but are not exhaus-
tive. While the ideational position, policy attitudes, and systemic place
of important countries (e.g., the KSA) and non-state militant actors
(e.g., Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi movement) are explored in
Part I of this book, some countries, like Egypt and UAE, require further
attention.23
Chapters 6 and 7 deal with Turkey and Qatar, respectively. Both
chapters demonstrate how complex regional dynamics since 2011 have
moved both countries to abandon their foreign policies of zero problems
with neighbors and strategic policy hedging.
Chapter 6 (Expanding the Turkish Bid for Regional Control in the
Somali Regional Security Complexes) explores Turkey’s humanitarian
23 The role of Egypt in the interstate system in the Middle East is largely explored. See
e.g., Mustafa El-Labbad, “Egypt: A ‘Regional Reference’ in the Middle East,” in Regional
Powers in the Middle East: New Constellations after the Arab Revolts, ed. Henner Fürtig,
2014, 81–99; For UAE see e.g., Rosa Vane, “Employing Militarization as a Means of
Maintaining the ‘Ruling Bargain’: The Case of the United Arab Emirates,” in The Middle
East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the
Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington, DC:
Academica Press, 2018), 225–83.
20 P. O. AMOUR
factors interweave to influence and form the policies of the relevant sys-
temic state actors and non-state militant actors.
Part III of the book deals with Russia and ecological factors. Great
powers (e.g., France, the UK, Soviet Union/Russia, and the USA) have
intimately influenced and continue to influence the development of the
regional system and its actors’ sets of ideas, ideologies, and normative
beliefs, as well as policy choices and strategic behaviors for factors relat-
ing to their dependence on natural resources (e.g., gas, oil), interests in
geopolitics (of the Middle East as a major junction of trade routes such
as the Bab Al-Mandeb, Gulf of Aqaba, the Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz,
and Suez Canal) and balance of power politics. As industrial states con-
tinue their development (and preeminence in related affairs), energy
resources are one of their most crucial assets.
Controlling the supply of energy resources and guaranteeing this sup-
ply at affordable prices are elementary for the continuity of these states’
supreme power and wealth. The external presence of major global pow-
ers in the Gulf Region and broader Middle East finds its articulation in
the form of soft power projective programs and cooperative monetary
relief, security, intelligence, economic cooperation, and engagement, in
addition to military intervention.
This part of the book includes chapters on Russia and on environ-
mental factors. Various chapters in this book address the impact of the
USA on regional politics; however, no chapter focuses exclusively on the
USA’s role in the region.24
Efe Can Gürcan’s analysis in Chapter 11 (Domestic and External
Factors in the Syrian Conflict: Toward a Multicausal Explanation)
explores the underlying issues of the Syrian uprising and the subsequent
civil war. Gürcan demonstrates how failed political-economic policies and
inadequate environmental policies contributed to the Syrian uprising and
how these domestic factors made the Syrian regime more vulnerable to
external interference motivated by geopolitical energy security and the
24 For the USA see e.g., Shahram Akbarzadeh and Kylie Baxter, Middle East Politics and
International Relations: Crisis Zone (London; New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis
Group, 2018), 117–64; Raymond Hinnebusch, The International Politics of the Middle
East, 2nd ed. (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2015), 225–71; and Flynt
Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, “The United States, Iran and the Middle East’s New
‘Cold War,’” The International Spectator 45, no. 1 (March 2010): 75–87, https://doi.
org/10.1080/03932721003661624.
1 INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 23
Bibliography
Akbarzadeh, Shahram, and Kylie Baxter. Middle East Politics and International
Relations: Crisis Zone. London; New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis
Group, 2018.
Amour, Philipp O. “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional
Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction.” In The Middle East
Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries
since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 1–21. St. James’s Studies
in World Affairs. Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018.
Angrist, Michele Penner, ed. Politics & Society in the Contemporary Middle East.
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2010.
Borthwick, Bruce. Comparative Politics of the Middle East: An Introduction.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980.
Buzan, Barry, and Ole Waever. Regions and Powers: The Structure of
International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Buzan, Barry, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde. Security: A New Framework for
Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2013.
Cantore, Louise J., and Steven L. Spiegel. The International Politics of Regions: A
Comparative Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970.
Chammou, Eliezer. “Near or Middle East? Choice of Name.” MELA Notes,
no. 37 (Winter 1986): 6–8.
El-Labbad, Mustafa. “Egypt: A ‘Regional Reference’ in the Middle East.” In
Regional Powers in the Middle East: New Constellations after the Arab Revolts,
edited by Henner Fürtig, 81–99. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.
Gause, F. Gregory. “Systemic Approaches to Middle East International
Relations.” International Studies Review 1, no. 1 (June 1999): 11–31.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00139.
Götz, Elias, and Neil MacFarlane. “Russia’s Role in World Politics: Power, Ideas,
and Domestic Influences.” International Politics 56, no. 6 (December 2019):
713–25. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-018-0162-0.
Hinnebusch, Raymond. The International Politics of the Middle East. 2nd ed.
Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2015.
Ismael, Tareq Y. International Relations of the Contemporary Middle East: A
Study in World Politics. Contemporary Issues in the Middle East. Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986.
Keddie, Nikki. “Is There a Middle East?” International Journal of Middle East
Studies 4, no. 3 (July 1973): 255–71.
Leverett, Flynt, and Hillary Mann Leverett. “The United States, Iran and the
Middle East’s New ‘Cold War.’” The International Spectator 45, no. 1 (March
2010): 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932721003661624.
1 INTRODUCTION: THE REGIONAL ORDER … 25
Long, David E., Bernard Reich, and Mark J. Gasiorowski, eds. The Government
and Politics of the Middle East and North Africa. 6th ed. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 2011.
Mingst, Karen A., and Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft. Essentials of International
Relations. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2014.
Nye, Joseph S. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York:
Public Affairs, 2004.
———. The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs, 2012.
Piscatori, James, and R. K. Ramazani. “The Middle East.” In Comparative
Regional Systems: West and East Europe, North America, the Middle East, and
Developing Countries, edited by Werner J. Feld, 274–99. New York; Oxford:
Pergamon, 1980.
Russett, Bruce M. International Regions and the International System. Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1967. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR05652.v1.
Schwedler, Jillian, and Deborah J. Gerner. Understanding the Contemporary
Middle East. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2008.
Smith, Steve. “Dialogue and the Reinforcement of Orthodoxy in International
Relations.” International Studies Review 5, no. 1 (March 2003): 141–43.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.501019_6.
Thompson, William R. “Delineating Regional Subsystems: Visit Networks
and the Middle Eastern Case.” International Journal of Middle East
Studies 13, no. 2 (May 1981): 213–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0020743800055306.
Vane, Rosa. “Employing Militarization as a Means of Maintaining the ‘Ruling
Bargain’: The Case of the United Arab Emirates.” In The Middle East
Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries
since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 225–83. St. James’s
Studies in World Affairs. Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018.
Viotti, Paul R., and Mark V. Kauppi. International Relations Theory. 5th ed.
Boston: Longman, 2012.
PART I
Introduction
The upheavals of 2010/11, which are known as the Arab Spring, caused
far-reaching reconfigurations not only on a national level, but also on a
regional level, in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. State
and non-state militant actors alike had to review their logic of action, as
they were confronted with new national and regional challenges. The
Gulf War of 2003 had already removed Iraq from the regional balance of
power equation, giving Iran, in particular, new opportunities to spread
its influence in neighboring Arab countries. In 2011, Syria’s and Egypt’s
roles in the Middle East were diminished because of national upheavals.
Today, Syria remains weakened regionally. Egypt still has an ability to
project both hard and soft power across the region; however, since 2013,
J. Dihstelhoff (*) · A. Lohse
Department of Near and Middle Eastern Politics, Centre for Near
and Middle Eastern Studies (CNMS), Marburg, Germany
e-mail: julius.dihstelhoff@uni-marburg.de
J. Dihstelhoff · A. Lohse
Institute of Political Science, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany
On this basis, we analyze the role of Political Islam for the formation of
new regional axes and compare the strategies deployed by the four men-
tioned states facing Political Islam. Depending on the developments in
the region, these different strategies contribute to processes of alliance
formation that have continued to shape the regional order since 2010.
The empirical basis for our analysis lies in an evaluation of
various written documents, such as scientific analyses related to the chap-
ter’s topic and statements by foreign policy decision-makers of the four
regional powers, as well as interviews conducted with German foreign
policy officials and representatives of the MB during field research in
Germany, other European states, and several Arab countries since 2012.
CO: Rienner, 1997); Graham E. Fuller, The Future of Political Islam (New York: Palgrave
MacMillan, 2003); and Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1994).
2 Asef Bayat, Making Islam Democratic: Social Movements and the Post-Islamist Turn
4 John L. Esposito, Islam and Politics, 4th ed. (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press,
1998); Frédéric Volpi and Ewan Stein, “Islamism and the State after the Arab Uprisings:
Between People Power and State Power,” Democratization 22, no. 2 (2015): 276–93,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2015.1010811.
5 Quintan Wiktorowicz, “Anatomy of the Salafi Movement,” Studies in Conflict &
Party (JCP), in Algeria the Mouvement de la Société pur la Paix (MSP), in Jordan the
Islamic Action Front Party (IAFP), in Syria the National Party for Justice and the
Constitutions (Waad), in Iraq the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP), in Iraqi-Kurdistan the
Kurdistan Islamic Union (KIU), and in Kuwait the Constitutional Movement. In Yemen,
the Muslim Brotherhood participated in the creation of the Islah Party. In Palestine, the
local Muslim Brotherhood founded HAMAS as its arm of resistance.
7 Carrie R. Wickham, “The Path to Moderation: Strategy and Learning in the
Formation of Egypt’s Wasat Party,” Comparative Politics 36, no. 2 (2004), https://doi.
org/10.2307/4150143.
8 Carrie R. Wickham, The Muslim Brotherhood: Evolution of an Islamist Movement
Regulation of Religion,” in Islam in Europe: Diversity, Identity and Influence, ed. Effie
Fokas and Aziz Al-Azmeh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 125–48;
Johannes Grundmann, Islamische Internationalisten: Strukturen und Aktivitäten der
Muslimbruderschaft und der islamischen Weltliga. Aktuelle Debatte, vol. 2 (Wiesbaden:
Reichert, 2005).
12 Lorenzo Vidino, The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West (New York: Columbia
Reality?,” in The Muslim Brotherhood in Europe, ed. Bakker Baker and Roel Meijer (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 59.
34 J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE
14 Carrie Rosefsky Wickham, “Islamic Mobilization and Political Change: The Islamist
Trend in Egypt’s Professional Associations,” in Political Islam: Essays from Middle East
Report, ed. Joel Beinin and Joe Stork (London: Tauris, 1997), 120–35.
15 May Darwich, “Creating the Enemy, Constructing the Threat: The Diffusion of
Repression against the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East,” Democratization 24,
no. 7 (2017): 1289–306, https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2017.1307824; Philipp O.
Amour, “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab
Spring: An Introduction,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power
Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s
Studies in World Affairs (Washington: Academica Press, 2018), 1–21.
16 Alexey Khlebnikov, “The New Ideological Threat to the GCC: Implications for the
17 Khlebnikov; Linda Berger, “The Gulf Cooperation Council between Unity and
Discord towards the Arab Uprisings,” Sicherheit Und Frieden (S + F)/Security and Peace 32,
no. 4 (2014): 260–64.
18 Mehran Kamrava, Qatar: Small State, Big Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
2013), https://doi.org/10.7591/j.ctt32b4qs.
19 Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, “Qatar and the Arab Spring: Policy Drivers and Regional
21 Ahmed Hanafy, Interview in Doha by Julius Dihstelhoff, January 14, 2015; Birol
and Rapprochement within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since
2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives,” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus
Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31, https://doi.org/10.18506/
anemon.384773.
23 Senem Aydın-Düzgit, “The Seesaw Friendship between Turkey’s AKP and
U.S. Policy (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute and United States Army War
College Press, 2015), 12–22, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1000185.pdf.
25 Aydın-Düzgit, “The Seesaw Friendship between Turkey’s AKP and Egypt’s Muslim
Brotherhood.”
2 POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 37
transfer of the MB’s political activism, which combined a push for reform
and democratic means with an Islamic imperative, to their national
Islamic opposition movements.26 This was especially threatening to the
Wahhabi KSA, since the MB’s promotion of Wasatiyya-Islam in the
region could undermine the alleged religious supremacy of the Saudi
royal house over all Sunni Muslims.27 In addition, the political approach
of the MB of religiously based pluralistic republics challenged the state
concept of the hereditary monarchy from the Saudi point of view.28
Secondly, the KSA and the UAE feared a reorientation of Egyptian–
Iranian relations under President Mohamed Morsi, whereas they wanted
to continue isolating Iran.29 Morsi pursued a pragmatic foreign policy
approach with the stated goal of establishing diplomatic relations with
countries worldwide. As part of this, Morsi also improved diplomatic
relations with Iran and visited the country during a summit of the
Non-Aligned Movement in August 2012.30
Thirdly, the economic concepts of the MB posed a threat to the
architecture of rent-based authoritarian systems. This is due to the basic
attitude of the MB toward a participatory and productive economy of
a Keynesian nature that rejects state centrism. After all, questioning the
squandering of a rentier state’s rent-based income is closely linked to the
question of the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes in the Gulf Region.31
For these reasons, the KSA and the UAE, in particular, have pur-
sued a foreign policy directed strictly against the MB since 2010. In
view of these aspects, this alliance can be understood as an anti-Muslim
26 Lawrence Rubin, Islam in the Balance: Ideational Threats in Arab Politics (Stanford,
in Saudi Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy Analysis 12, no. 3 (2016): 469–88, https://doi.
org/10.1093/fpa/orw032.
28 Henner Fürtig and Annette Ranko, “Durch Die Arabische Welt Ein Riss: Im Nahen
GIGA Working Papers (Hamburg: German Institute for Global and Area Studies,
November 2013), 11–12, https://www.giga-hamburg.de/de/system/files/publications/
wp241_fuertig.pdf.
30 Dina Esfandiyari, “Iran and Egypt: A Complicated Tango?,” ISS, October 18, 2012,
https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/iran-and-egypt-complicated-tango.
31 Abdallah Djaballah, Shar’iyyat al-Amal as-Siyasi (Beirut: Dar Al-Maarifa, 2002).
38 J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE
Brotherhood axis, whose guiding theme seems to be above all the extinc-
tion of the transnational political presence of the MB and other move-
ments of Political Islam.
All in all, Political Islam has been a significant factor influencing
the formation of alliances in the Middle East during the Arab Spring.
Between 2010 and 2013, opposing regional axes that either supported
or fought Political Islam formed transnationally. In this context, regional
powers have ambivalent perceptions of Political Islam, either as a power
option or a threat.
‘Econometric’ Analysis,” The Journal of North African Studies 21, no. 3 (2015): 354–55,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13629387.2015.1124238.
34 Abdulmajeed Al-Buluwi, “Saudi, UAE Coordination Signals Differences with
35 “UAE Lists Muslim Brotherhood as Terrorist Group,” Reuters, November 15, 2014,
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-politics-brotherhood/uae-lists-mus-
lim-brotherhood-as-terrorist-group-idUSKCN0IZ0OM20141115; Heidi Reichinnek,
Julius Lübben, and Julius Dihstelhoff, “Die Terrorliste der Emirate: Zusammensetzung
und Ziele,” MENA direct (Marburg: Centrum für Nah- und Mittelost-Studien, Oktober
2015), https://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/es/2015/0018/pdf/MENAdirekt10.pdf.
36 Dania Koleilat Khatib, “Arab Gulf States Lobbying in the US in the Wake of the Arab
Uprisings,” in The Arab Gulf States and the West: Perception and Realities—Opportunities
and Perils, ed. Marwa M. Maziad and Dania K. Khatib (New York: Routledge, 2018),
27–46.
37 Reichinnek, Lübben, and Dihstelhoff, “Die Terrorliste der Emirate.”
38 David Rose, “Cameron and the Arab Sheiks’ Web of Influence That Infiltrated
Britain: The Shadowy Nexus of PM’s Cronies That Secretively Lobbied for Middle East
Paymasters,” Daily Mail, October 18, 2015, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti-
cle-3277345/Cameron-Arab-Sheiks-web-influence-infiltrated-Britain-shadowy-nexus-PM-
s-cronies-secretively-lobbied-Middle-East-paymasters.html.
39 Nigel Morris and Ian Johnston, “Muslim Brotherhood: Government Report
brotherhood-government-report-concludes-they-should-not-be-classified-as-a-terrorist-or-
ganisation-10109730.html.
40 Philipp O. Amour, “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the
Middle East: A Strategic Assessment,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 3
(July 3, 2017): 293–309, https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1185696; Amour,
“Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics,” 1–21.
41 Charles Lister, “Profiling the Islamic State,” 2014, https://www.brookings.edu/
43 Bruce Riedel, “Why Saudi Arabia Is Vulnerable to Islamic State,” Al-Monitor, accessed
46 “Yemen: Is Peace Possible?”; Jens Heibach, “Saudi Arabia‘s War in Yemen: No Exit
Iran nuclear deal, which was approved in July 2015, showed clearly to
the KSA that the USA was not a reliable partner in the Saudi’s strug-
gle with Iran. As Iran was going to further abandon its status as pariah
state in international politics, the perceived Iranian threat was growing
significantly.47 Against the background of these three developments, the
KSA perceived the MBs as less threatening compared to ISIS and Iran.
The change in Saudi perceptions of threat was further reinforced by
the death of King Abdullah in January 2015 and the subsequent ascen-
sion to the throne by his half-brother Salman. King Salman modified the
assessment of foreign policy objectives and the strategies for achieving
them. In addition to a gradual rapprochement with the MB, this also
included the unrestricted priority of combating the Iranian threat.48
The Saudi-led war in Yemen, which is part of the containment strategy
against Iran’s increasing influence in the region, is the clearest sign of
this change in the KSA strategy and a demonstration of the allocation of
the power center of the Middle East to the Gulf Region. In the context
of the growing threats by ISIS and Iran, the KSA lacks possible allies on
the ground. For this reason, selected MB movements and related organ-
izations in the broader Middle East, such as the Syrian MB, the Yemeni
Congregation for Reform (Islah Party), and the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP),
have become a strategic factor for the KSA in the fight against ISIS and
against Iran and Iranian allies in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria. Under these
premises, the KSA depends on cooperation with regional MB organiza-
tions, which have become the lesser of the three evils in the Saudis’ view.
Especially in Syria and Yemen, the KSA and the national MB branches
share common interests.49 This policy shift under the reign of King
Salman became clear as early as February 2015, when then-foreign min-
ister Saud al-Faisal said that Saudi rulers “don’t have any problem with
the Muslim Brotherhood” and only opposed a “small segment affiliated
What Does the Future Hold?,” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (2017): 134, https://doi.
org/10.1111/mepo.12256.
49 Matthias Sailer, “Changed Priorities in the Gulf: Saudi Arabia and the Emirates
Rethink Their Relationship with Egypt,” SWP Comments (Stiftung Wissenschaft undPoli-
tikGerman Institute for International and Security Affairs, January 2016), https://www.
swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2016C08_sil.pdf.
2 POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 43
with the group.”50 During the first months of his rule, King Salman
was visited by three leaders of Political Islam: Rachid al-Ghannouchi
(Ennahda, Tunisia), Abdul Majeed al-Zindani (Islah Party, Yemen), and
Hammam Saeed (Islamic Action Front Party, Jordan).51
This selective rapprochement to the MB, however, questioned the
close cooperation with the UAE and Egypt, especially as the KSA needed
the support of Qatar and Turkey—despite their support for actors of
Political Islam—in the KSA’s fight against current threats for strate-
gic networking. An example of this was the temporary Saudi–Turkish–
Qatari cooperation in the Syrian conflict, which encompassed mainly
logistical and financial support for groups of Syrian militias in anti-Syrian
regime coalitions.52 The common ground for the three countries was the
shared enmity toward Assad’s regime and/or the Lebanese Hezbollah.53
Table 14.1 lists the major actors among the different security alliances.
In contrast to the Saudi strategic shifts, the Egyptian Sissi regime and
the UAE continued to cooperate, based on a common anti-terror policy
with the aim of combating Political Islam transnationally. In this context,
the international promotion of threat perceptions (for example, through
the aforementioned terror lists) played a central role.54 Unlike the KSA,
the UAE and Egypt continued to center their strategic priorities around
Political Islam as a central threat.55 While for the Egyptian regime this is
simply a matter of eliminating the greatest domestic threat to regime sur-
vival, the UAE’s case is more complex. For one, the UAE is composed
of seven emirates, each with their own ruling families who often pursue
different interests. Even though Abu Dhabi clearly dominates the UAE’s
foreign and security policies, the Emirates’ ruling families are divided on
50 Cited in: Hedges and Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood,” 134–35.
51 Hussein Ibish, “Saudi Arabia’s New Sunni Alliance,” New York Times, July 31, 2015,
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/opinion/hussein-ibish-saudi-arabias-new-sun-
ni-alliance.html.
52 Sebastian Sons and Inken Wiese, “The Engagement of Arab Gulf States in Egypt and
Tunisia since 2011: Rationale and Impact,” DGAP Analyse (German Council on Foreign
Relations, October 2015), 29, https://dgap.org/en/article/getFullPDF/27232.
53 Christopher Phillips, “Eyes Bigger Than Stomachs: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar
55 Neil Patrick, “The UAE’s War Aims in Yemen,” October 24, 2017, http://carneg-
ieendowment.org/sada/73524.
44 J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE
56 “UAE and the Muslim Brotherhood: A Story of Rivalry and Hatred,” Middle
and UAE after the Arab Spring,” The International Spectator 52, no. 2 (2017): 37–53,
https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2017.1309101.
59 Samuel Ramani, “The Saudi-UAE Alliance Could Be Weaker Than It Appears,”
support the Islah Party, which belongs to the spectrum of party founda-
tions close to the MB. Even before 2010, the Saudis partially supported
the Islah Party in its fight against the central government. By contrast,
until late 2017, the UAE, first and foremost, wanted to prevent the Islah
Party from using the fight against the Houthis to its own advantage.61
Only after the killing of former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh in
December 2017, did the UAE realize that the Islah Party was the sole
potential ally left in Yemen. Therefore, even the UAE agreed to coop-
erate with the Islah Party, but only after forcing them to officially disen-
gage from the transnational MB movement.62
Furthermore, in the Syrian civil war, Saudi Arabia deviated from the
line of its allies. As one of the strongest opponents of the Iran-backed
Assad regime, the Saudi royal house found itself on the same side of
the conflict as the Syrian MB. Egypt, however, has taken a more neu-
tral approach toward the Syrian regime since 2016 at the latest, voting
in favor of both a French resolution condemning the regime’s attacks on
Aleppo as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council and a
much toned-down Russian resolution. This vote was heavily criticized by
the Saudi ambassador to the UN. Thus, while the KSA had a more prag-
matic attitude toward the actors of Political Islam as long as they were
useful allies facing Iran, the UAE and Egypt continue to prioritize the
suppression of Political Islam in the region.63
To the representatives of Political Islam and their allies, by contrast,
the effects of the formation of axes as they pertain to the phenomenon of
Political Islam continued to be central. Meanwhile, political pressures on
the actors of this axis increased significantly during this phase. Qatar and
Turkey continued to support actors of Political Islam—for example, by
condemning the Egyptian military coup and giving refuge to persecuted
Muslim Brothers and other representatives of Political Islam from Egypt,
Saudi Arabia, or the UAE.
61 Patrick,
“The UAE’s War Aims in Yemen.”
62 David B. Roberts, “UAE Embrace of Islah Marks Major Shift in Yemen,” AGSIW,
January 2, 2018, http://www.agsiw.org/uae-embrace-islah-marks-major-shift-yemen/.
63 “Egypt Votes for Rival UNSC Resolutions on Syria from Russia and France,”
64 Prasanta K. Pradhan, “Qatar Crisis and the Deepening Regional Faultlines,” Strategic
text of the second Qatar crisis. CNN, which originally obtained the documents, has pro-
vided copies of the original Arabic documents. “English Translation of the Agreements,”
accessed July 1, 2019, http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/07/10/translation.
of.agreementsupdated.pdf.
67 “Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain End Rift with Qatar, Return Ambassadors,”
68 Abdel Rahman Youssef, “Egypt: Qatar’s Suez Canal Bid,” Al-Akhbar, accessed
71 Harut Sassounian, “Why the UN Rejected Turkey’s Bid for a Security Council Seat?,”
73 “Bilateral Political Relations between Turkey and Saudi Arabia,” Republic of Turkey
74 Prasanta K. Pradhan, “Qatar Crisis and Challenges to GCC Unity,” Liberal Studies 2,
2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/arab-states-issue-list-demands-qatar-
crisis-170623022133024.html.
50 J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE
(the former Nusra Front), and Hezbollah (3rd demand). Qatar was
also expected to stop any kind of funding for individuals, groups, or
organizations that were designated as terrorists by the KSA, the UAE,
Egypt, Bahrain, the USA, or other countries; this list included the MB
(4th demand). In addition, Qatar had to repatriate all alleged terror-
ists to their countries of origin and to freeze their assets (5th demand);
to shut down Al Jazeera and its partner stations, which are seen as an
important voice of Political Islam (6th demand); to stop interfering in
the internal affairs of the other GCC states; and to cease granting Qatari
citizenship to wanted Saudi, Emirati, Bahraini, or Egyptian nation-
als; this primarily applied to members of the MB (7th demand). Qatar
was also expected to compensate for the loss of human lives and other
financial losses caused by the Qatari support of individuals, groups, and
organizations such as the MBs (8th demand); to reconcile Qatar’s mil-
itary, political, social, and economic policies with the other GCC states
and Arab countries; to suspend its support for the MB (9th demand); to
stop all contacts with political opposition in the KSA, the UAE, Egypt,
and Bahrain, including, in particular, the MB and to disclose all data on
prior contacts with those groups (10th demand); and, finally, to close all
news agencies funded directly or indirectly by Qatar, including Arabi21,
Rassd, Al Araby Al Jadeed, Mekameleen, and Middle East Eye, who were
accused either of complicity or providing too positive a coverage of the
MB (11th demand).77
Turkey tried to maintain a neutral profile during the first few days of
the crisis and to serve as a mediator between the factions. For example,
it called for a diplomatic agreement between the opponents and rhetori-
cally emphasized the Sunni connections among all participating states.78
However, Turkey began very soon to take a clear pro-Qatari position in
the dispute. To this end, the Turkish government sent urgently needed
food and other products to help Qatar through the boycott. Instead of
complying with the demand to withdraw the Turkish armed forces from
Qatar, Turkey even sent more military personnel to its Qatari base. The
establishment of a military base in Qatar had previously been agreed
upon in a 2014 agreement between Qatar and Turkey.79
Turkey’s relation with the KSA and the UAE had already been
strained after the coup attempt against the AKP government in 2016,
due to mixed reactions from both states. Referring to the UAE,
Erdoğan said: “We know very well who in the Gulf was happy when
the coup attempt took place in Turkey.”80 Against this background,
the Turkish President stressed on June 25 2017 that Turkey “will con-
tinue to provide every support in our power to Qatar.”81 Besides
Turkey, Iran was the only country located close to Qatar that had the
capability to help Qatar through the crisis by providing transporta-
tion links, food, and goods. All three countries signed agreements in
November 2017 to foster trade between them.82 This caused further
suspicion on behalf of the KSA and the UAE, resulting in public state-
ments by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that described Turkey
as part of a “triangle of evil,” together with Iran and Islamic extremist
groups.83
Overall, the Qatar crisis of 2017 has led to the resurfacing of the
regional axes described in the previous sections. Political Islam—as it
already did at the beginning of the Arab Spring—lies at the center of
the Qatar crisis and still has a high potential for mobilization. With
their thirteen demands to Qatar, the KSA and the UAE have again pos-
ited Political Islam as a main concern besides Iran in the formation of
regional axes. Consequently, Political Islam has been an important point
of reference for the foreign policies of the KSA, the UAE, Qatar, and
Turkey since 2017.
79 Paul Cochrane, “Revealed: Secret Details of Turkey’s New Military Pact with
83 Oktav, 117–18.
52 J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE
Conclusions
The foreign policies of the four analyzed states (the KSA, the UAE,
Turkey, and Qatar), since the Arab Spring, have been influenced by their
positions toward Political Islam to varying degrees. The transnational
phenomenon of Political Islam affects the narratives of foreign policy
decision-makers and their decisions. The common goal of the various
foreign policy strategies of the four states continues to be securing and
expanding their own power on the national and regional levels. Qatar
and Turkey have been united by their perceptions of Political Islam as
a strategically important factor that is seen as a power option rather
than as a threat, based on its transnational leverage. Therefore, since the
Arab Spring movement, both states have allied with actors of Political
Islam in the Middle East. Although the KSA and the UAE undertook
wide-ranging attempts to defeat the Qatar–Turkey–MB axis (as seen, for
instance, in the Qatar crises of 2014 and since 2017), Political Islam still
forms a uniting scheme for the perception of regional conflict lines for
both states during the last few years.
By contrast, the influence of Political Islam on Emirati and Saudi
foreign policies must be seen separately. The analysis has shown that
although both states have been trying to do away with the threat posed
by Political Islam since the Arab Spring, the priority given to the fight
against Political Islam is constantly high only in the foreign policy of
the UAE. By comparison, the existing conflicts at the regional level—
such as the Saudi–Iranian conflict for hegemony in the Gulf Region,
the fight against ISIS, and the involvement in the civil wars in Yemen
and Syria—have overlapped Political Islam as a major threat in the KSA.
These differences in perceptions have led to temporary conflicts of inter-
est between the KSA und the UAE and have occasionally weakened their
regional course of action. However, even for the UAE pragmatic coop-
eration with Political Islam has become an option, at least in Yemen. All
in all, regional alliance-building processes are determined by, and are
chiefly causes of, the externalization of national conflicts. This implies
that Political Islam also impacts the reconfiguration of the regional order.
Since 2010, Political Islam has had different effects on
alliance-building processes and conflicts. This has affected the regional
balance of power and continues to do so. As a result, three phases can
be identified, based on how the individual powers interact with Political
Islam: Between 2010 and 2013, the four analyzed states formed two
2 POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 53
Bibliography
Aftandilian, Gregory. The New Arab Regional Order: Opportunities and
Challenges for U.S. Policy. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute and
United States Army War College Press, 2015. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/
fulltext/u2/1000185.pdf.
Al-Buluwi, Abdulmajeed. “Saudi, UAE Coordination Signals Differences
with Qatar,” May 26, 2014. https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/origi-
nals/2014/05/saudi-uae-joint-committee-regional-policy-libya-egypt.html.
54 J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE
Aliriza, Bulent, and Mehmet Uyanik. “The Qatar Crisis and Turkey: Trump and
Erdogan Diverge.” CSIS. Accessed November 30, 2018. https://www.csis.
org/analysis/qatar-crisis-and-turkey-trump-and-erdogan-diverge.
Al-Jazeera. “Arab States Issue 13 Demands to End Qatar-Gulf Crisis,” July 12,
2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/arab-states-issue-list-de-
mands-qatar-crisis-170623022133024.html.
AlSaud, Abdulmajeed. “The Iran-Saudi Conflict: The Saudi Perspective,”
February 18, 2016. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/iran-saudi-
conflict-saudi-perspective.
Aman, Ayah. “UAE Replaces Qatar as Egypt’s Partner on Suez Project.”
Al-Monitor. Accessed November 30, 2018. http://www.al-monitor.com/
pulse/originals/2013/11/egypt-suez-canal-uae-Katar.html.
Amour, Philipp O. “Editor’s Note: The End of the Arab Spring?” Edited by
Philipp O. Amour. The Arab Spring: Comparative Perspectives and Regional
Implications, Special issue, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International
Relations 12, no. 3 (Fall 2013): I–IV.
———. “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement within the
Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and
Neoclassical Realist Perspectives.” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan
University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31. https://doi.org/10.18506/
anemon.384773.
———. “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the
Middle East: A Strategic Assessment.” British Journal of Middle Eastern
Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353
0194.2016.1185696.
———. “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries
since the Arab Spring: An Introduction.” In The Middle East Reloaded:
Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the
Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 1–21. St. James’s Studies in World
Affairs. Washington: Academica Press, 2018.
Aydın-Düzgit, Senem. “The Seesaw Friendship between Turkey’s AKP and
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
July 24, 2014. http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/07/24/seesaw-friend-
ship-between-turkey-s-akp-and-egypt-s-muslim-brotherhood-pub-56243.
Bayat, Asef. Making Islam Democratic: Social Movements and the Post-Islamist
Turn. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007.
Beinin, Joel, and Joe Stork, eds. Political Islam: Essays from Middle East Report.
London: Tauris, 1997.
Berger, Linda. “The Gulf Cooperation Council between Unity and Discord
towards the Arab Uprisings.” Sicherheit Und Frieden (S + F)/ Security and
Peace 32, no. 4 (2014): 260–64.
2 POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 55
Cochrane, Paul. “Revealed: Secret Details of Turkey’s New Military Pact with
Qatar.” Middle East Eye, January 27, 2016. https://www.middleeasteye.net/
news/turkey-qatar-military-agreement-940298365.
Darwich, May. “Creating the Enemy, Constructing the Threat: The Diffusion
of Repression against the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East.”
Democratization 24, no. 7 (2017): 1289–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/13
510347.2017.1307824.
———. “The Ontological (in)Security of Similarity Wahhabism Versus Islamism
in Saudi Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy Analysis 12, no. 3 (2016): 469–88.
https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orw032.
Dihstelhoff, Julius, and Alexander Lohse. “Angst am Golf: Politischer Islam in
der Katar-Krise.” Zenith Magazin, July 28, 2017. https://magazin.zenith.
me/de/politik/politischer-islam-der-katar-krise.
———. “Dynamiken regionaler (Neu)Ordnung - Die Rolle des moderaten
Islamismus.” Marburg: Centrum für Nah- und Mittelost-Studien, June 2015.
https://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/es/2015/0011/pdf/MENAdirekt04.pdf.
Djaballah, Abdallah. Shar’iyyat al-Amal as-Siyasi. Beirut: Dar Al-Maarifa, 2002.
“English Translation of the Agreements.” Accessed July 1, 2019. http://i2.cdn.
turner.com/cnn/2017/images/07/10/translation.of.agreementsupdated.
pdf.
Esfandiyari, Dina. “Iran and Egypt: A Complicated Tango?” ISS, October 18,
2012. https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/iran-and-egypt-complicated-
tango.
Esposito, John L. Islam and Politics, 4th ed. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University
Press, 1998.
———, ed. Political Islam: Revolution, Radicalism, or Reform? Boulder, CO:
Rienner, 1997.
Freer, Courtney. Rentier Islamism: The Influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in
Gulf Monarchies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018.
Fuller, Graham E. The Future of Political Islam. New York: Palgrave MacMillan,
2003.
Fürtig, Henner. “Iran and the Arab Spring: Between Expectations and
Disillusion.” GIGA Working Papers, German Institute for Global and Area
Studies, Hamburg. November 2013. https://www.giga-hamburg.de/de/
system/files/publications/wp241_fuertig.pdf.
Fürtig, Henner, and Annette Ranko. “Durch Die Arabische Welt Ein Riss: Im
Nahen Und Mittleren Osten Verschieben Sich Die Gravitationszentren.”
Internationale Politik, no. 2 (2014): 8–14.
Grundmann, Johannes. Islamische Internationalisten: Strukturen und Aktivitäten
der Muslimbruderschaft und der islamischen Weltliga. Aktuelle Debatte. Vol. 2.
Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2005.
56 J. DIHSTELHOFF AND A. LOHSE
The Guardian. “Two Saudi Guards Killed in Suicide Attack on Iraq Border,”
January 5, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/05/
saudi-guards-killed-suicide-attack-iraq-border-isis.
Hanafy, Ahmed. Interview in Doha by Julius Dihstelhoff, January 14, 2015.
Hedges, Matthew, and Giorgio Cafiero. “The GCC and the Muslim
Brotherhood: What Does the Future Hold?” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1
(2017): 129–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/mepo.12256.
Heibach, Jens. “Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen: No Exit Strategy.” GIGA Focus
Middle East, May 2017. https://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/publication/
saudi-arabias-war-in-yemen-no-exit-strategy.
Ibish, Hussein. “Saudi Arabia’s New Sunni Alliance.” New York Times, July 31,
2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/01/opinion/hussein-ibish-sau-
di-arabias-new-sunni-alliance.html.
Kamrava, Mehran. Qatar: Small State, Big Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.7591/j.ctt32b4qs.
Khatib, Dania Koleilat. “Arab Gulf States Lobbying in the US in the Wake of
the Arab Uprisings.” In The Arab Gulf States and the West: Perception and
Realities—Opportunities and Perils, edited by Marwa M. Maziad and Dania
K. Khatib, 27–46. New York: Routledge, 2018.
Khlebnikov, Alexey. “The New Ideological Threat to the GCC: Implications
for the Qatari-Saudi Rivalry.” Strategic Assessment 17, no. 4 (2015). http://
www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/systemfiles/adkan17_4ENG_7_
Khlebnikov.pdf.
Kingsley, Patrick. “Turkey Throws Support behind Qatar in Rift among
Arab Nations.” New York Times, June 7, 2017. https://www.nytimes.
com/2017/06/07/world/europe/turkey-qatar-support.html.
Korotayev, Andrey, Leonid Issaev, and Alisa Shishkina. “Egyptian Coup of 2013:
An ‘Econometric’ Analysis.” The Journal of North African Studies 21, no. 3
(2015): 341–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629387.2015.1124238.
Lister, Charles. “Profiling the Islamic State,” 2014. https://www.brookings.
edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/en_web_lister.pdf.
Madamasr. “Egypt Votes for Rival UNSC Resolutions on Syria from Russia
and France,” October 9, 2016. https://madamasr.com/en/2016/10/09/
news/u/egypt-votes-for-rival-unsc-resolutions-on-syria-from-russia-and-
france.
Massignon, Bérengère. “Islam in the European Commission’s System of
Regulation of Religion.” In Islam in Europe: Diversity, Identity and Influence,
edited by Effie Fokas and Aziz Al-Azmeh, 125–148. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007.
McDowall, Angus, and Amena Bakr. “Three Gulf Arab States Recall Envoys in
Rift with Qatar.” Reuters, March 5, 2014. https://www.reuters.com/article/
us-gulf-qatar-ambassadors-idUSBREA2413N20140305.
2 POLITICAL ISLAM AS AN ORDERING FACTOR … 57
Volpi, Frédéric, and Ewan Stein. “Islamism and the State after the Arab
Uprisings: Between People Power and State Power.” Democratization 22, no.
2 (2015): 276–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2015.1010811.
Walker, Joshua W. “Turkey’s Global Strategy: Introduction: The Sources
of Turkish Grand Strategy—‘Strategic Depth’ and ‘Zero- Problems’ in
Context.” LSE IDEAS. London: London School of Economics and
Political Science, 2011. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/43495/1/Turkey%27s%20
Global%20Strategy_introduction%28lsero%29.pdf.
Werenfels, Isabelle. “Vom Umgang mit Islamisten im Maghreb: Zwischen
Einbindung und Unterdrückung.” 39. SWP Studie. Berlin: Stiftung
Wissenschaft undPolitikGerman Institute for International and Security
Affairs, December 2005. https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/
products/studien/2005_S39_wrf_ks.pdf.
Wickham, Carrie Rosefsky. “Islamic Mobilization and Political Change: The
Islamist Trend in Egypt’s Professional Associations.” In Political Islam:
Essays from Middle East Report, edited by Joel Beinin and Joe Stork, 120–35.
London: Tauris, 1997.
———. The Muslim Brotherhood: Evolution of an Islamist Movement. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013.
———. “The Path to Moderation: Strategy and Learning in the Formation of
Egypt’s Wasat Party.” Comparative Politics 36, no. 2 (2004). https://doi.
org/10.2307/4150143.
Wiktorowicz, Quintan. “Anatomy of the Salafi Movement.” Studies
in Conflict & Terrorism 29, no. 3 (2006): 207–39. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10576100500497004.
“Yemen: Is Peace Possible?” Middle East Report. International Crisis Group,
February 9, 2016. https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/167-yemen-is-
peace-possible.pdf.
Youssef, Abdel Rahman. “Egypt: Qatar’s Suez Canal Bid.” Al-Akhbar. Accessed
November 30, 2018. https://english.al-akhbar.com/node/15207.
CHAPTER 3
Amr Yossef
Introduction
In public and academic debates, the post-Arab Spring Middle East is
being portrayed as a Hobbesian world of war of all against all—or, at
minimum, as a region of fluid coalitions characterized by constant
change and fragility.1 One author put it succinctly: “any version of the
region finding a workable balance of power is a mirage: the new order
is fundamentally one of disorder.”2 The resultant befuddlement as to
who is allied with whom in the region (e.g., Sunni vs. Shiite, Arabs vs.
Iranians, or autocrats vs. reformers), and on which issues, prompted the
1 Eduard Soler i Lecha, “Liquid Alliances in the Middle East,” Notes Internacionals
CIDOB (Barcelona Centre for International Affairs [CIDOB], March 2017), https://
www.cidob.org/en/publications/publication_series/notes_internacionals/n1_169/
liquid_alliances_in_the_middle_east.
2 Marc Lynch, “The New Arab Order: Power and Violence in Today’s Middle East,”
A. Yossef (*)
Cairo, Egypt
e-mail: amr.yossef@aucegypt.edu
3 See for e.g., “Enemies, Alliances and Animosity in the Middle East,” The Economist, January
7, 2016, https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/01/07/enemies-alliances-and-
animosity-in-the-middle-east.
4 This is by no means to say that Sunni and Shiite are just different labels for the same
phenomenon of Islamism international. It does imply, however, that despite their fierce
theological differences, Sunni and Shiite Islamists share the same values, establishing a
Sharia-based government, and the same foes, the West and its allies in the region.
3 GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 63
Gulfization are far-reaching. They range from having the Gulf issues gain
primacy in the region (over the Arab–Israeli conflict), endangering the
survival of the status quo alignment under the fragile leadership in the
Gulf, and particularly the Saudi leadership, to dictating the future strug-
gle in the Middle East as between two versions of Islamism.
My argument will proceed in five sections. Section one briefly dis-
cusses the understanding of the Arabian Gulf region as a distinct,
sub-regional security complex in the Middle East’s modern history.
Section two introduces a framework of analysis in the form of a bipolar
system—the status quo and revisionist alignments—and surveys its inter-
actions throughout. Section three demonstrates the fundamental shift in
the redistribution of power in the Middle East to the Gulf States follow-
ing the Arab Spring first movement, and how this shift has turned the
Gulf, in its internal dynamics, into the region’s center of gravity. Section
four draws comparatively on the European Revolutions of 1848. Section
five concludes the chapter.
5 Barry Buzan and Ole Waever, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International
Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 191–93; Keith Smith, “Realist
Foreign Policy Analysis with a Twist: The Persian Gulf Security Complex and the Rise and
Fall of Dual Containment,” Foreign Policy Analysis 12, no. 3 (July 2016): 320, https://
doi.org/10.1111/fpa.12084.
6 F. Gregory Gause, The International Relations of the Persian Gulf (Cambridge:
11 Malcolm H. Kerr, The Arab Cold War: Gamal Abd al-Nasir and His Rivals, 1958–
12 Morten Valbjørn and André Bank, “The New Arab Cold War: Rediscovering the Arab
Dimension of Middle East Regional Politics,” Review of International Studies 38, no. 1
(January 2012): 3–24, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210511000283.
13 Curtis Ryan, “The New Arab Cold War and the Struggle for Syria,” Middle East
Arab Uprising,” Middle East Policy 20, no. 2 (2013): 73–87, https://doi.org/10.1111/
mepo.12021.
66 A. YOSSEF
15 F. Gregory Gause, “Balancing What? Threat Perception and Alliance Choice in
Regimes: Israel and Its Neighbors, ed. Efraim Inbar (New York: State University of New
York Press, 1995), 129–30.
18 Clive Jones and Yoel Guzansky, “Israel’s Relations with the Gulf States: Toward the
Emergence of a Tacit Security Regime?” Contemporary Security Policy 38, no. 3 (2017):
398–419, https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2017.1292375.
19 The term “camp” is preferred here to the terms “regime” and “alliance” for it typifies
(1) the informal, non-contractual nature of relations within the group of states; and (2) the
incoherent nature, including competition and cooperation, of their dealings between each
other and vis-a-vis the other group of states.
20 Arnold Wolfers, “The Balance of Power in Theory and Practice,” Naval War College
Review 11, no. 5 (1959): 11–13; A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler, The War Ledger
(Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980), 19–20.
3 GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 67
21 Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 5th ed.
Back In,” International Security 19, no. 1 (Summer 1994): 105, https://doi.org/10.
2307/2539149.
23 David Zionts, “Revisionism and Its Variants: Understanding State Reactions to
Foreign Policy Failure,” Security Studies 15, no. 4 (October 2006): 633, https://doi.
org/10.1080/09636410601184611.
24 Walter Russell Mead, “The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the Revisionist
Britain’s withdrawal from the region in 1971, as in: Buzan and Waever, Regions and
Powers, 191.
26 The most committed to this alliance, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, along with the
United Kingdom, jointly established the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO), or
Baghdad Pact, in 1955.
68 A. YOSSEF
29 Kerr,
The Arab Cold War, 6–7.
30 Philipp
O. Amour, “Palestinian Politics in Transition: The Case of the October War,”
in The Yom Kippur War: Politics, Legacy, Diplomacy, ed. Asaf Siniver (Oxford; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2013), 137–54.
70 A. YOSSEF
and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, along with Qaddafi’s Libya, continued with
the Arab Nationalist Camp. However, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in
1990, on unionist grounds, had severely undermined the credibility of
Arab nationalism advocates.
Islamist Camp
For its advocates, Islamism rose against colonialism and foreign influ-
ence. It upholds the following values: a sense that modernization in Arab
society has meant a drifting away from Islamic moral values and a sense
that there has been surrender to foreign forces—atheist communism, the
Christian West, and Jewish Zionism—and that corruption and economic
injustice prevail in societies.31 The motto Islam is the Solution encom-
passes, internally, the establishment of Islamic states to restore the rule
of the Sharia, and, externally, Islamic unity that will contain Western
influence.
Historically, the first strand of the Islamist camp has been Sunni,
in the Arab world, manifested in the emergence of the Muslim
Brotherhood (MB) movement in Egypt in 1928. Involved in coexistence
and struggle with the Egyptian monarchy, the MB initially supported the
Free Officers’ 1952 revolution before turning against it, culminating in
the 1954 and 1965 crises, which were met with Nasser’s iron fist pol-
icy. Following the adage of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” the
KSA gave shelter in the late 1950s to the MB activists from Egypt, Syria,
Iraq, and elsewhere, as a tool to push against the Arab nationalists. Many
other Gulf states, upon gaining independence in 1971, followed suit, so
that MB became entrenched both in Arab Gulf societies and states and
were known as al-Sahwa in the KSA and al-Islah in Kuwait, the UAE,
and Bahrain.32 MB branches were also tolerated to a certain extent in
Jordan and Morocco. Even though it was strictly banned in the repub-
lics, the MB managed to maintain a socio-economic network, widening
its activities that were later to bear fruit in the Arab Spring events.
Note and Preliminary Findings,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 12, no. 4
(December 1980): 430.
32 James A. Bill, “Resurgent Islam in the Persian Gulf,” Foreign Affairs 63, no. 1 (1984):
110–11, https://doi.org/10.2307/20042088.
3 GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 71
In parallel, the KSA and other Arab Gulf states cultivated Wahhabi
Salafism that represents a radical interpretation of Islamic texts. For
Wahhabi scholars, though, faith is about order and a dread of anarchy,
where obedience to the rulers is given a religious sanction.33 The KSA
also pioneered the use of Wahhabism as a major tool to advance its
regional foreign policy interests—promoting its image as the center and
leader of Islam.34 This mobilization of religion started in the 1960s to
confront Arab nationalism/socialism and was then significantly expanded
to confront communism in the Mujahedeen struggle against the 1979
Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, in an alliance with the USA and its
regional allies: Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco. This policy reached its peak
in the 1980s onwards, by championing this extremist ideology world-
wide to outbid Khomeini’s Iran call for theocracy.35
This policy soon exploded for its inherent contradiction—that is, a
status-quo power sponsoring one revisionist camp, Islamism, to under-
mine another, Arab nationalism and its allies. It proved that the Arab
ruling elites, by supporting extremists, were strengthening the very
forces that are committed to their destruction.36 Under Sadat’s Egypt,
the short-lived tolerance of the MB and Salafism led to the emergence
of more extremist groups—whose members assassinated Sadat himself in
1981—all drawing on the teachings of the MB thinker Sayyid Qutb and
his disciple Abd al-Salam Faraj, who advocated violence against Muslim
rulers and governments viewed as un-abided by the Quran.37 As for the
KSA, the Mujahedeen veterans formed Al-Qaeda in 1988, establishing
the base for the proliferation of several branches, including the one tar-
geting Saudi rule, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which presented
33 Fouad Ajami, “America and the Arabs,” Foreign Affairs 80, no. 6 (November 2001):
6–7.
34 F. Gregory Gause, “Saudi Arabia’s Regional Security Strategy,” in International
Politics of the Persian Gulf, ed. Mehran Kamrava (New York: Syracuse University Press,
2011), 169–83.
35 David Goldfischer, “The United States and Its Key Gulf Allies: A New Foundation for
a Troubled Partnership,” in The Small Gulf States: Foreign and Security Policies before and
after the Arab Spring, ed. Jean-Marc Rickli and Khalid S. Almezaini (London: Routledge,
2017), 69.
36 Bill, “Resurgent Islam in the Persian Gulf,” 123–24.
37 Danny Orbach, “Tyrannicide in Radical Islam: The Case of Sayyid Qutb and Abd
al-Salam Faraj,” Middle Eastern Studies 48, no. 6 (2012): 961–72, https://doi.org/10.10
80/00263206.2012.723629.
72 A. YOSSEF
Small Gulf States: Foreign and Security Policies before and after the Arab Spring, ed. Jean-
Marc Rickli and Khalid S. Almezaini (London: Routledge, 2017), 90–96.
41 Elie Kedouri, Politics in the Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 330.
42 Mehdi Khalaji, “Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Iran,” The Washington Institute,
43 Jeffrey Goldberg, “Saudi Crown Prince: Iran’s Supreme Leader ‘Makes Hitler Look
Israel) and revisionist ones back ending Israeli occupation of the Palestinian
and Syrian territories, though they differ significantly over which means,
peaceful or violent, to achieve that, as well as the legitimacy of Israel
per se.
As the status quo alignment was consolidating, the challenge to it
from the revisionist Islamist camp heightened. Three Islamist rises took
place since the mid-1990s and were reinforced in the next decade and
half, culminating in the key role the Islamists played since the Arab
Spring first movement.
The first rise was that of Iran. Following Iraq’s defeat in 1991 and
the crippling sanctions it suffered, Iran emerged as the most powerful
state in the Gulf.46 Moreover, the American-led invasion in 2003 not
only destroyed Iraq’s role as a regional power for long time to come, but
it also turned Iraq itself into a playing field for rivalries among regional
powers, including Iran, the KSA, Turkey, and Syria.47 Iran, however,
has been singled out as the main beneficiary. It gained a strategic ally
in the post-Saddam Iraq, thanks to the rise to power in Baghdad of
Shiite Islamist parties, many of whose leaders were in exile in Iran during
Saddam’s era.48 This alliance enabled Iran to establish a direct territorial
connection to supply its allies in Syria and Lebanon, escape international
sanctions, and support its economy by vast trade volumes with Iraq.49
The second rise was that of Islamist Turkey, following the electoral
victory of the Refah party in 1995, which was later replaced by the
empowered Justice and Development Party (AKP) under the leadership
of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in 2002. Shifting from the principle established
by Kemal Ataturk—that Turkey should limit its involvement in Middle
Eastern affairs—the AKP-led government has moved to spend Turkey’s
foreign policy energies, as well as its security focus, in this region.
Aspiring to a return to the centuries-long Ottoman rule of the Arab
world, the AKP “has promoted solidarity with Islamist, anti-Western
50 Soner Cagaptay, “Is Turkey Leaving the West,” Foreign Affairs, October 26, 2009,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/turkey/2009-10-26/turkey-leaving-west.
51 Andrew Rathmell and Kirsten Schulze, “Political Reform in the Gulf: The Case of
On the eve of the Arab Spring, the Islamist camp received a boost
from the administration of President Barack Obama, who denied support
to the status quo governments. Obama was convinced that the USA was
overstretched in the Middle East. In this view, “rightsizing the United
States’ footprint in the region meant not only reducing its material pres-
ence but also exercising restraint diplomatically, stepping back and chal-
lenging allies to take greater responsibility for their own security.”53 At
the same time, Obama apparently adopted the so-called engagement
leads to moderation theory. In this view, the inclusion of Islamists in
the political process would transform them from radical groups into
moderate forces, since their attempt to get the votes of large sectors of
society would necessarily mean the Islamists’ adoption of compromises
and ideas that are consistent with what the majority believes in.54 Here,
the Turkish experience was considered to be a crucial reference for suc-
cess. In essence, “Obama looked to Turkey, with its liberal, successful
economic model, to fill any power vacuum and serve as an example to
neighboring Muslim countries.”55
53 Marc Lynch, “Obama and the Middle East: Rightsizing the U.S. Role,” Foreign
Sunni Islamists had earlier celebrated the triumph of Khomeini’s overthrow of the Shah.
59 Marwa Maziad, “The Turkish Burden: The Cost of the Turkey-Qatar Alliance and
Hard Power Projection into Qatar’s Foreign Policy,” in The Arab Gulf States and The West:
Perceptions and Realities—Opportunities and Perils, ed. Dania Koleilat Khatib and Marwa
Maziad (London: Routledge, 2019), 114.
60 Md Muddassir Quamar, “The Turkish Military Base in Doha: A Step towards
Gaining ‘Strategic Depth’ in the Middle East?” Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses
Comment, September 26, 2017, https://idsa.in/idsacomments/the-turkish-military-base-
in-doha_mmquamar_260917.
78 A. YOSSEF
Second, the revolutionary wave came at a time when the Arab Gulf
status quo could not count on traditional allies’ support, as mentioned
above. In the pre-Arab Spring struggle against the revisionists, the Arab
Gulf could count on the support from other status quo regional powers
(Iran in the 1960s and Egypt from the 1980s onwards), but essentially
from the USA. Since the Arab Spring first movement, neither support
has been available. Iran has turned, since 1979, into the main rival, while
the revolution in Egypt itself caused a severe instability of the country.
Egypt’s instability caused an abrupt disturbance of the aforementioned
Arab regional order, which was based on the Egyptian–Saudi axis. Unlike
in the pre-Arab Spring times, the Egyptian government “is having diffi-
culty putting its own house in order, which prevents it from playing its
traditional regional and inter-Arab role.”61 Despite the declared Egyptian
commitment to the security of the Arab Gulf states as a “red line,” Egypt
proved ready only for limited military engagement outside its borders.
In the Arab coalition war in Yemen, Egypt participates only with naval
assets, with no boots on the ground.
Moreover, the KSA found the USA in retreat from engagement in the
Middle East: abandoning traditional allies, Mubarak and Ben-Ali, hesi-
tant to confront foes (leading from behind against the Qaddafi regime),
refrained from intervention against the Bashar al-Assad regime (even
after crossing the USA-defined red line of using chemical weapons), and
appeased the traditional enemy, Iran, with whom the Obama admin-
istration reached the nuclear deal in 2015. The USA–GCC summit at
Camp David that President Obama convened in May 2015 appears to
have had little effect. In short, the Saudi fear—understandable under
expanding Iranian influence in Syria and Iraq and the chaotic regional
situation—is that the House of Saud potentially might have to face a
similar fate, involving popular protests and evolving into a civil war with
Iranian-backed militias, all with USA reluctance to intervene for its allies.
Finally, the GCC, established in 1981 primarily to counter Iran’s
export of revolution and traditionally under Saudi dominance, is now
61 Gabriel Ben-Dor, “Overview: Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Face a Region in Flux,” in
Saudi Arabia, the Gulf and the New Regional Landscape, ed. Joshua Teitelbaum (Ramat
Gan: The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, 2017), 22, https://besacenter.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MSPS133.pdf.
3 GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 79
65 For the PLO, and Hamas, see e.g., Lisa Watanabe, “Gulf States’ Engagement in North
Africa: The Role of Foreign Aid,” in The Small Gulf States: Foreign and Security Policies
before and after the Arab Spring, ed. Jean-Marc Rickli and Khalid S. Almezaini (London:
Routledge, 2017), 175–77; Philipp O. Amour, “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and
Rapprochement within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010:
Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives,” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan
University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31, https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.384773.
66 Mehran Kamrava, “The Arab Spring and the Saudi-Led Counterrevolution,” Orbis 56,
Decisions” (The International Institute for Strategic Studies [IISS], December 2017), 1–7,
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/opeds/Eisenstadt20171219-
IISS-chapter.pdf.
69 Michael Rubin, “Why Is Iran Trying to Sabotage Morocco?” Washington Examiner,
2017, http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/07/19/Qatar-admits-that-it-is-
against-the-Arab-coalition-in-Yemen.html.
71 Buzan and Waever, Regions and Powers, 192–93.
82 A. YOSSEF
issue because the state and non-state actors in the region are preoccupied
with more urgent business; in turn, this provided Israel an opportunity
to improve its ties with the Arab members in the status quo alignment.72
Under the current circumstances, “no one wants to hear about this con-
flict, no one really believes it is solvable.”73
Second, the status quo alignment, being currently led by the KSA
and the UAE, is undergoing a critical stage. As noted earlier, the sta-
tus quo alignment in the Gulf subcomplex is not on the majority (three
of the GCC countries are either revisionist or neutral) and the rest of
the Arab status quo alignment members depend, to various degrees, on
political and financial support from the Gulf trio. As the support from
this thin body—the Gulf trio—is so vital for the survival of the status
quo as an alignment, its leadership is fragile. MBS has had to face inter-
nal challenges to his premature, rule-breaking rise to the Crown Prince
position. More importantly, he has thus far made a record of high-risk
policy choices (including the sudden initiation of deep socio-economic
changes and the arbitrary arrests of princes of the royal family, and most
recently the suspected murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi) that
raise doubts about his leadership’s responsibility and reliability, two char-
acteristics that are crucial for any alliance’s stability.
Finally, Gulfization could bring more violent religious extremism than
before in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East. At a time when
the appeal of secular Arab nationalism has declined, the Gulf subcom-
plex states and non-state actors—status quo and revisionist alike—appeal
to religion for legitimacy. Moreover, the Gulf’s dominant actors (Iran,
Qatar, the KSA, and the UAE) resort to the employment of Islamist
groups, peaceful and armed alike, to serve their interests. While the
employment of these groups has long been a tradition for the revisionist
Islamist camp, the status quo parties are now committing the same (most
likely) mistake they did in the past when they employed Wahhabism to
defeat Arab nationalism and its allies, socialism and communism—only to
the detriment of the status quo alignment. This might fulfill James Bill’s
prophecy, made back in 1984, that the struggle in the Middle East has
72 Philipp O. Amour, “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the
Middle East: A Strategic Assessment,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 3
(July 3, 2017): 293–309, https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1185696.
73 Gamal Abul Hassan, “After 25 Years of Oslo (in Arabic),” Almasry Alyoum, September
74 Bill,
“Resurgent Islam in the Persian Gulf.”
75 Amr Yossef, “Israel and Post-Mubarak Egypt: Perils of Historical Analogy,” Digest of
Middle East Studies 21, no. 1 (March 2012): 49–68.
76 Mark Lander, “Obama Cites Poland and Model for Arab Shift,” New York Times, May
Revolutionary Wave of 1848,” Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 4 (2012): 917–34, https://
doi.org/10.1017/S1537592712002873.
84 A. YOSSEF
78 Henry E. Hale, “Regime Change Cascades: What We Have Learned from the 1848
Revolutions to the 2011 Arab Uprisings,” Annual Review of Political Science 16, no. 1
(May 2013): 331–53, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212204.
79 Jonathan Sperber, The European Revolutions, 1848–1851 (Cambridge: Cambridge
Conclusion
The goals of this chapter have been to reconstruct the security complex,
to provide a strategic situational awareness of the current dynamics in the
Gulf Region and the broader Middle East, and to clarify its implications
for theory and policy. The chapter started by providing a framework of
analysis, which views that the regional security complex’s rivalries revolve
around transnational identities that threaten the domestic regime secu-
rity of the parties involved. The transnational identities in the Gulf
Region and the broader Middle East constitute a bipolar system: status
quo alignment and the revisionist alignment, with its two camps, Arab
nationalist and Islamist, with the latter composed of two strands: Sunni
and Shiite.
Employing the framework suggested here has several advantages. It
puts the regional alliances/rivalries into context, linking continuity with
change. As for continuity, some basic tendencies simply endured in the
old and new Arab cold wars. Unlike Valbjørn and Bank’s argument,
that the “new societal Islamic Political Arabism is less about challeng-
ing the existing state system,”83 the forgoing analysis has shown that
in both cases Islamist parties have been a player within the alignments,
and domestic politics have been the battling ground, with the aim of
challenging the existing state system. Also, in both cases, unlike Ryan’s
82 Philipp O. Amour, “The Arab Spring Movement: The Failed Revolution. Preliminary
argument, the struggle has always been about regime security, by seeking
to influence the rival’s domestic politics. The position of the parties in
this bipolar system shifted and the ideology of the revisionist alignment
changed, but the constellation survived.
As for change, this framework’s adoption of transnational identi-
ties as threats allows a more flexible delineation of alliance member-
ship than that portrayed in the previous literature; specifically, it shows
that the regional cold war portrayed in the previous literature has not
in fact been confined to the Arab world. Rather, it has always included
the region’s non-Arab actors as well. The AKP-led government’s turn to
spend Turkey’s foreign policy energies, as well as its security focus, in this
region, signaled its inclusion in the Middle East security complex (that
was omitted in Buzan’s analysis). From this perspective, Israel is not an
outlier in the system, but rather an established and active member in the
status quo alignment. This supports Gause’s definition of the Middle
East system as one based on “sustained, durable interest and involve-
ment, expressed in tangible commitment of resources, to a common
agenda of issues among the states concerned.”84
Moreover, this framework enhances the validity of Klieman’s TSR
concept and its application by Jones and Guzansky. By showing that
shared values and perception of threats do not preclude competition
within the alliance or cooperation with members of the rival alliance in
other areas, this framework does an important service to our understand-
ing of the regional dynamics. It solves the puzzle of the ostensibly par-
adoxical policies by regional actors. For example, Khouri has described
Iran and Turkey as leading two distinct alliances, although they in fact
belong to the revisionist alignment/Islamist camp. Despite their compe-
tition—Shiite Iran actively supports the Assad regime and Sunni Turkey
opposes it—both share the motive of having a Syrian government that
should, at a minimum, remain outside the USA’s sphere of influence and
continue supporting armed conflict against Israel85; and, at maximum,
turn Islamist domestically as well. This explains why Tehran and Ankara
have been, more often than not, in a cooperative dynamic, along with
Russia, in Syria.86 In the same vein, this explains why the Sunni monar-
chy of Qatar joined the revolutionary alignment/Islamist camp in dest-
abilizing the status quo powers, monarchies, republics, and non-state
actors alike.
The chapter then moved to explain how, within this framework, the
Gulfization emerged in the regional security complex, or the suprem-
acy of the Gulf parties in the two alignments. The Arab Spring events
have caused a drastic redistribution of power in region as it weakened
the status quo alignment and empowered the revisionist. It introduced
a revolutionary wave threat to the status quo, at a time when the Gulf
cannot rely on its traditional allies, the USA and Egypt, the GCC itself is
divided; this offered a strategic window of opportunity for the revisionist
alignment.
Gulfization is a manifest in the greater dependence of the Levant and
Maghreb subcomplexes on the security dynamics of the Gulf subcom-
plex. The KSA and the UAE on the one hand and Iran on the other
are not merely supporting their allies across the region, but they are
the leading force behind in dynamics in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine,
Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia, among others. The 2019 uprisings in Sudan
and Algeria—within the Arab Spring second movement—ousting the
leaderships of two revisionist regimes, turned these two countries, and
especially Sudan, into another area of competition between the two
alignments.
The implications of Gulfization are three-fold. First, the Gulf issues
gain the primacy over other issues in the Middle East, including the
iconic Arab–Israeli conflict. Second, the status quo alignment under the
leadership of the KSA and the UAE is passing a critical stage, given the
fragility and unpredictability of the leadership in the KSA and particularly
the MBS style, which is considered by regional and international observ-
ers to be unpredictable and unreliable. Third, Gulfization could bring
more violent religious extremism, given that governments of the Gulf
parties—status quo and revisionist alike—not only appeal to religion for
legitimacy, but they also employ Islamist armed groups to enforce their
agendas. This might indicate that the future struggle in the Middle East
would be between two versions of Islamism.
86 Hossein Aghaie Joobani and Mostafa Mousavipour, “Russia, Turkey, and Iran: Moving
towards Strategic Synergy in the Middle East?” Strategic Analysis 39, no. 2 (2015):
148–51, https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2014.1000658.
3 GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 89
In this complex reality, the Gulf Region and the broader Middle
East has not been an exception in history. Despite differences, the Arab
Spring first movement shares strong similarities with the 1848 European
springtime of the peoples. Both constituted a revolutionary wave of
region-wide popular uprisings, where the eruption of uprising in one
country caused a domino effect in the neighborhood. Both revolution-
aries of 1848 and 2011 were also ultimately unable to hold state power,
eventually yielding positions to representatives of previously established
regimes. Moreover, the current position of Saudi Arabia is reminiscent,
to a great extent, of that of 1848 Russia in that both had to fight for the
survival of the status quo. The latter’s effort has successfully survived for
decades, while the former’s success is yet to be seen.
Even with the success of counterrevolutions, the status quo align-
ment would not probably succeed in the long term if it does not present
an alternative that provides solutions to the root causes that led to the
Arab Spring uprisings in the first place. Otherwise, and regardless of how
much support the Saudi-led Gulf trio gives to its status quo allies or sub-
dues opposition at home, it could eventually find itself in an uprising like
the one that took tsarist Russia in 1905 and again in 1917. The positive
side of MBS’s policies, gradually liberalizing the kingdom from the strict
interpretation of Wahhabism, could be a step in the right direction—a
genuinely tolerant interpretation of Islam. Similarly, the UAE, having
distanced itself from religious legitimacy, might have a better chance in
providing an example of moving closer toward secular liberalism.87
Bibliography
Abul Hassan, Gamal. “After 25 Years of Oslo (in Arabic).” Almasry Alyoum,
September 16, 2018. https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/1323041.
———. “Defending the Regional Order Is a Political Must (in Arabic).” Asharq
Al-Awsat, February 27, 2016. https://aawsat.com/home/writer/Gamal%20
Abu%20Alhasan.
87 Goldfischer, “The United States and Its Key Gulf Allies,” 77–81.
90 A. YOSSEF
Adib-Moghaddam, Arshin. “After the ‘Middle East’: Turkey and Iran in a New
Region.” JETRO-IDE ME-Review 6, no. 3 (2019 [2018]): 2–7.
Ajami, Fouad. “America and the Arabs.” Foreign Affairs 80, no. 6 (November
2001): 2–16.
Akbarzadeh, Shaharam. “Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council Sheikhdoms.”
In The Small Gulf States: Foreign and Security Policies before and after the Arab
Spring, edited by Jean-Marc Rickli and Khalid S. Almezaini, 99–116. London:
Routledge, 2017.
Al Arabiya. “Qatar Admits That It Is against the Arab Coalition in Yemen.” July
19, 2017. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2017/07/19/Qatar-
admits-that-it-is-against-the-Arab-coalition-in-Yemen.html.
Albloshi, Hamad H. “Kuwait’s Careful Balancing Act with Iran, Saudi Arabia.”
Al-Monitor, May 24, 2018. https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/
2018/05/iran-jcpoa-nuclear-deal-gcc-saudi-kuwait-reaction-division.html.
Amour, Philipp O. “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement
within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010:
Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives.” Journal of Social Sciences
of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31. https://doi.
org/10.18506/anemon.384773.
———. “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle
East: A Strategic Assessment.” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no.
3 (July 3, 2017): 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1185
696.
———. “Palestinian Politics in Transition: The Case of the October War.” In The
Yom Kippur War: Politics, Legacy, Diplomacy, edited by Asaf Siniver, 137–54.
Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
———. “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since
the Arab Spring: An Introduction.” In The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary
Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, edited
by Philipp O. Amour, 1–21. St. James’s Studies in World Affairs. Washington:
Academica Press, 2018.
———. “The Arab Spring Movement: The Failed Revolution. Preliminary
Theoretical and Empirical Deliberation.” In The Middle East Reloaded:
Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab
Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 199–224. St. James’s Studies in World
Affairs. Washington: Academica Press, 2018.
Ben-Dor, Gabriel. “Overview: Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Face a Region in Flux.”
In Saudi Arabia, the Gulf and the New Regional Landscape, edited by Joshua
Teitelbaum, 19–24. Ramat Gan: The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies,
2017. https://besacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MSPS133.pdf.
Berlin, Isaiah. “Russia and 1848.” The Slavonic and East European Review 26,
no. 67 (April 1948): 341–60.
3 GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 91
Bill, James A. “Resurgent Islam in the Persian Gulf.” Foreign Affairs 63, no. 1
(1984): 108–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/20042088.
Buzan, Barry, and Ole Waever. Regions and Powers: The Structure of
International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Cagaptay, Soner. “Is Turkey Leaving the West.” Foreign Affairs, October 26, 2009.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/turkey/2009-10-26/turkey-leaving-
west.
Davidson, Jason W. “The Roots of Revisionism: Fascist Italy, 1922–39.”
Security Studies 11, no. 4 (June 2002): 125–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/
714005356.
Eisenstadt, Michael. “Iran after Sanctions: Military Procurement and
Force-Structure Decisions.” The International Institute for Strategic Studies
(IISS), December 2017. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/
Documents/opeds/Eisenstadt20171219-IISS-chapter.pdf.
“Enemies, Alliances and Animosity in the Middle East.” The Economist, January
7, 2016. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/01/07/enemies-
alliances-and-animosity-in-the-middle-east.
Esfandiary, Dina, and Ariane M. Tabatabai. “Scent of an Oman: The Sultanate
Moves toward the Saudis.” Foreign Affairs, January 17, 2017. https://www.
foreignaffairs.com/articles/persian-gulf/2017-01-17/scent-oman.
Gause, F. Gregory. “Balancing What? Threat Perception and Alliance Choice
in the Gulf.” Security Studies 13, no. 2 (2004): 273–305. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09636410490521271.
———. “Saudi Arabia’s Regional Security Strategy.” In International Politics of
the Persian Gulf, edited by Mehran Kamrava, 169–83. New York: Syracuse
University Press, 2011.
———. The International Relations of the Persian Gulf. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2010.
______. “Systemic Approaches to Middle East International Relations.”
International Studies Review 1, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 11–31.
Gerges, Fawaz A. “The Obama Approach to the Middle East: The End of
America’s Moment?” International Affairs 89 (March 2013): 299–323.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12019.
Goldberg, Jeffrey. “Saudi Crown Prince: Iran’s Supreme Leader ‘Makes
Hitler Look Good’.” The Atlantic, April 2, 2018. https://www.theat-
lantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/mohammed-bin-salman-
iran-israel/557036/.
Goldfischer, David. “The United States and Its Key Gulf Allies: A New
Foundation for a Troubled Partnership.” In The Small Gulf States: Foreign
and Security Policies before and after the Arab Spring, edited by Jean-Marc
Rickli and Khalid S. Almezaini, 74–98. London: Routledge, 2017.
92 A. YOSSEF
Hale, Henry E. “Regime Change Cascades: What We Have Learned from the
1848 Revolutions to the 2011 Arab Uprisings.” Annual Review of Political
Science 16, no. 1 (May 2013): 331–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
polisci-032211-212204.
Ibrahim, Saad Eddin. “Anatomy of Egypt’s Militant Islamic Groups:
Methodological Note and Preliminary Findings.” International Journal of
Middle East Studies 12, no. 4 (December 1980): 423–53.
Jones, Clive, and Yoel Guzansky. “Israel’s Relations with the Gulf States: Toward
the Emergence of a Tacit Security Regime?” Contemporary Security Policy 38,
no. 3 (2017): 398–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2017.1292375.
Joobani, Hossein Aghaie, and Mostafa Mousavipour. “Russia, Turkey, and Iran:
Moving Towards Strategic Synergy in the Middle East?” Strategic Analysis 39,
no. 2 (2015): 141–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2014.1000658.
Kamal, Mohamed. “Obama Wearing a Turban (in Arabic).” Al-Masry Al-Youm,
August 25, 2013. https://ww.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/199659.
Kamrava, Mehran. “The Arab Spring and the Saudi-Led Counterrevolution.”
Orbis 56, no. 1 (2012): 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
orbis.2011.10.011.
Kedouri, Elie. Politics in the Middle East. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Kerr, Malcolm H. The Arab Cold War: Gamal Abd al-Nasir and His Rivals,
1958–1970. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Khalaji, Mehdi. “Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Iran.” The Washington
Institute, February 12, 2009. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/
policy-analysis/view/egypts-muslim-brotherhood-and-iran.
Khorrami Assl, Nima. “Iraq Makes Sanctions against Iran Ineffective.” The
Guardian, January 27, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/
2012/jan/27/iraq-sanctions-iran-ineffective.
Khoury, Nabeel A. “The Arab Cold War Revisited: The Regional Impact of the
Arab Uprising.” Middle East Policy 20, no. 2 (2013): 73–87. https://doi.
org/10.1111/mepo.12021.
Klieman, Aharon. “The Israel-Jordan Tacit Security Regime.” In Regional
Security Regimes: Israel and Its Neighbors, edited by Efraim Inbar, 127–49.
New York: State University of New York Press, 1995.
Lander, Mark. “Obama Cites Poland and Model for Arab Shift.” New York
Times, May 28, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/world/
europe/29prexy.html.
Lynch, Marc. “Obama and the Middle East: Rightsizing the U.S. Role.” Foreign
Affairs 94, no. 5 (September 2015): 18–27.
———. “The New Arab Order: Power and Violence in Today’s Middle East.”
Foreign Affairs 97, no. 1 (October 2018): 116–26.
3 GULFIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST SECURITY COMPLEX … 93
Maloney, Suzanne. “How the Iraq War Has Empowered Iran.” Brookings
Institution, March 21, 2008. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/
how-the-iraq-war-has-empowered-iran/.
Maziad, Marwa. “The Turkish Burden: The Cost of the Turkey-Qatar Alliance
and Hard Power Projection into Qatar’s Foreign Policy.” In The Arab Gulf
States and The West: Perceptions and Realities—Opportunities and Perils, edited
by Dania Koleilat Khatib and Marwa Maziad, 106–33. London: Routledge,
2019.
Milani, Mohsen M. The Making of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Boulder: Westview
Press, 1994.
Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace.
5th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978.
Ng, Ka Po. Interpreting China’s Military Power: Doctrine Makes Readiness.
Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis, 2005. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203325902.
Orbach, Danny. “Tyrannicide in Radical Islam: The Case of Sayyid Qutb and
Abd al-Salam Faraj.” Middle Eastern Studies 48, no. 6 (2012): 961–72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2012.723629.
Organski, A. F. K., and Jacek Kugler. The War Ledger. Chicago: Chicago University
Press, 1980.
Quamar, Md Muddassir. “The Turkish Military Base in Doha: A Step towards
Gaining ‘Strategic Depth’ in the Middle East?” Institute for Defense Studies
and Analyses Comment, September 26, 2017. https://idsa.in/idsacomments/
the-turkish-military-base-in-doha_mmquamar_260917.
Quinlivan, James T. “Coup-Proofing: Its Practice and Consequences in the
Middle East.” International Security 24, no. 2 (Fall 1999): 131–65.
Rabi, Uzi. Back to the Future, the Middle East in the Shadow of the Arab Spring.
Tel-Aviv: Resling, 2016.
Rathmell, Andrew, and Kirsten Schulze. “Political Reform in the Gulf: The Case
of Qatar.” Middle Eastern Studies 36, no. 4 (October 2000): 47–62.
Roberts, David B. “Qatar and the UAE: Exploring Divergent Responses to the
Arab Spring.” Middle East Journal 71, no. 4 (Autumn 2017): 544–62.
Roberts, I. W. “Russia in 1848 and 1849.” In Encyclopedia of Revolutions of 1848.
Accessed August 29, 2019. https://www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/russia.htm.
Rubin, Michael. “Why Is Iran Trying to Sabotage Morocco?” Washington
Examiner, May 2, 2018. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/
israel-isnt-the-only-country-iran-is-meddling-with.
Russell Mead, Walter. “The Return of Geopolitics: The Revenge of the
Revisionist Powers.” Foreign Affairs 93, no. 3 (June 2014): 69–79.
Ryan, Curtis. “The New Arab Cold War and the Struggle for Syria.” Middle East
Report, no. 262 (Spring 2012): 28–31.
94 A. YOSSEF
Introduction
The term Axis of resistance appeared in the aftermath of George W.
Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, in which he described Iraq, Iran,
and North Korea as “an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the
world.”1 It is credited to the Libyan daily newspaper Al-Zahf al-Akhdar
(The Green March), which, in response to Bush’s speech, wrote that “the
only common denominator between Iran, Iraq, and North Korea is their
resistance to American hegemony.”2 The term soon became popular in the
Iranian and certain Arab media, but it was only picked up in the West in the
second half of the 2000s, during the Israeli wars in Lebanon and the Gaza
1 See “Text of President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address,” The Washington Post,
(The multiplicity of alliances reveals the absence of a joint project for the Umma),” Alquds Al-
Arabi, December 3, 2017.
A. B. Soage (*)
EAE Business School, Calle del Príncipe de Vergara, 156,
Madrid 28002, Spain
Strip. Critics of the alliance often use the term in quotation marks to express
their skepticism at its stated aims, and a second term, the axis of moderation,
has been coined to designate state and non-state actors in the Gulf Region
and the broader Middle East who are aligned with the West.3
The axis of resistance is made up of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the
Syrian regime, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, in addition to Hamas and the
Islamic Jihad in Palestine. More recently, journalists and analysts have fre-
quently added to the list some Iraqi Shia militias and the Yemeni Houthis
(see Table 14.1).4 Members of the alliance denounce what is perceived as
Western interference in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East—
especially that of the United States—and identify resistance to impe-
rialism as their main foreign policy driver. Israel is singled out for vitriol,
3 The Axis of Moderation consists primarily of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan,
and Egypt. See e.g., “Mihwar al-i‘tidal’ yatamaddid bi-ri‘aya misriyya li-muharabat ‘al-irhab
(The Axis of Moderation Extends under the Auspices of Egypt in Order to Fight Terrorism),”
Al-Khaleej Online, July 21, 2014, https://alkhaleejonline.net/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%
D8%B3%D8%A9/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B9
%D8%AA%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%8A%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A-
8%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-
%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A
5%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A8; Abdul Rahman Al-Tariri, “Mihwar al-i‘tidal wa-mint-
aqat al-fawdha (The Axis of Moderation and the Area of Chaos),” February 6, 2017, www.
alarabiya.net/ar/saudi-today/2017/02/06/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%
A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%AA%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%
88%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%82%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%
81%D9%88%D8%B6%D9%89.html; and Philipp O. Amour, “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the
Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East: A Strategic Assessment,” British Journal of Middle
Eastern Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 296–301, 307–9, https://doi.org/10.1080/1353019
4.2016.1185696; Philipp O. Amour, “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional
Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary
Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour,
St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington: Academica Press, 2018), 1–21.
4 See e.g., Joseph Puder, “Iran and the Houthis of Yemen. Shiite Revivalism and Its
Challenge to Middle East Order,” Frontpage Magazine, November 29, 2016, https://
www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264974/iran-and-houthis-yemen-joseph-puder; Rafke
Risseeuw, “Stirring Up the Region for Survival: Iran’s Role in the Middle East Proxy
Wars” (Brussels International Center, May 16, 2018), www.bic-rhr.com/research/stirring-
region-survival-irans-role-middle-east-proxy-wars.
4 THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 97
5 The term “Zionist entity” was rather common in the Arab media until the 1980s, but it
is now associated with the axis of resistance. Its intention would be to emphasize that at the
root of the Middle East conflict is a political ideology, Zionism, and not Judaism as a religion
or the Jews as a people. Anti-Zionist Jews are often featured in media outlets to drive that
point home, e.g., “Yahud dhidd al-Sahyuniyya (Jews against Zionism),” Al-Manar, October 5,
2017, www.almanar.com.lb/2713291; “Judaism Forbids Creation of a Jewish State,” Iranian
Students’ News Agency (ISNA), May 20, 2018, https://en.isna.ir/news/97023016609/
Judaism-forbids-creation-of-a-Jewish-state.
6 Dan De Luce, “50 Years Later, Iranians Remember US-UK Coup,” The Christian Science
brief introduction to his life and thought, see Ervand Abrahamian, “‘Ali Shari‘ati: Ideologue
of the Iranian Revolution,” Middle East Report 102 (February 1982): 24–28.
8 Ervand Abrahamian, Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic (London: University of
Soage, “Hasan Al-Banna or the Politicisation of Islam,” Totalitarian Movements and Political
Religions 9, no. 1 (2008): 21–42, https://doi.org/10.1080/14690760701856374.
10 For more on Qutb’s evolution from liberal intellectual to Islamist firebrand, see
Ana Belén Soage, “Islamism and Modernity: The Political Thought of Sayyid Qutb,”
Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 10, no. 2 (2009): 189–203, https://doi.
org/10.1080/14690760903119092.
4 THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 99
11 See Martin S. Kramer, An Introduction to World Islamic Conferences (Tel Aviv: Shiloah
together, and that in 1943–1944 Safavi was a regular guest at Khomeini’s house in Qom.
See Amir Taheri, The Spirit of Allah: Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution (Adler & Adler
Pub, 1986), 98ff.
13 For instance, the system of government they advocated. See Amir H. Ferdows,
“Khomaini and Fadayan’s society and politics,” International Journal of Middle East Studies
15, no. 2 (1983): 241–57, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743800052302.
14 Sohrab Behdad, “Islamic Utopia in Pre-Revolutionary Iran: Navvab Safavi and the
gave a speech that kindled in him “the very first sparks of consciousness concerning Islamic,
revolutionary ideas and the duty to fight [the Shah’s regime],” see “Biography of Ayatollah
Khamenei the Leader of the Islamic Revolution,” Khamenei.IR, accessed August 30, 2019,
http://english.khamenei.ir/news/2130/Biography-of-Ayatollah-Khamenei-the-Leader-of-
the-Islamic-Revolution. Another founding father of the Islamic Republic, Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani, is also said to have had links to Safavi and Fada’iyan-e Islam during his youth;
see Eskandar Sadegui-Boroujerdi and Siavush Randjbar-Daemi, “Serving the Leviathan,”
Jacobin Magazine, January 18, 2017.
16 A Tehran metro station is named after the Shahid [martyr] Navvab Safavi, and in 1984
On the face of it, the long-running alliance between Islamist Iran and
Baathist Syria seems counterintuitive: Baathism is a secular ideology that
seeks the rebirth of the Arab nation, and Syria was aligned with the “athe-
ist” Soviet Union. However, president Hafez al-Assad was internally chal-
lenged by forces that emphasized his regime’s heretical Alawi character and
externally isolated among Western-aligned conservative monarchies and
rival Arab nationalist republics. In response, he sought religious endorse-
ment from Shiite clerics and a regional ally in Iran. Aware of Syria’s geo-
political importance and itself as an international pariah, Iran was willing
to overlook ideological differences and focus on the shared rejection of
Zionism and Western imperialism. As the two regimes gave up their populist
economic policies and faced mounting demands for political freedoms, the
axis of resistance became a central pillar of their ideological legitimacy.
17 For more on perceptions of ordinary Iranians who lived through the revolutionary
period, see Sepideh Parsapajouh, “Les valeurs en cause. Crise de l’idéologie et crise de la
transmission dans la société iranienne depuis la Révolution de 1979,” Archives de sciences
sociales des religions, Les valeurs en cause, 59, no. 166 (Avril-juin 2014): 243–68.
4 THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 101
have political authority over the people until the return of the Hidden
Imam.18 The Guardianship of the Jurist is enshrined in the constitution
of the Islamic Republic, which is a hybrid of theocracy and democracy but
gives clerics the final say.19
The early period of the Islamic Republic was marked by the desire to
export the Revolution. Khomeini’s appeals in that regard were relatively
successful among the discontented Shiites in the Gulf region—who were
frequently marginalized, when not derided as heretics—and serious dis-
turbances erupted in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. They con-
tributed to Saddam Hussein’s decision to attack Iran in 1980, and to the
Gulf states’ willingness to bankroll Iraq in the ensuing 1980–1988 Iran–
Iraq War.20 But rather than weaken the new regime, the conflict rallied
Iranians around it and facilitated its consolidation. It also boosted the
influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), originally
created to protect the Revolution, and led to the establishment of two bod-
ies subordinated to it: a paramilitary volunteer militia, the Basij (Niruyeh
Moghavemat Basij, Mobilization Resistance Force) and a special unit
responsible for extraterritorial operations, the Quds Force.21 The first task
of the Quds Force was to support the Kurds fighting the Iraqi government.
It would soon be drawn into the Lebanese Civil War, as we will see below.
18 For a discussion on the topic of Velayat-e Faqih (in Arabic, Wilayat al-Faqih), see
Shahrough Akhavi, “Contending Discourses in Shi’i Law on the Doctrine of Wilāyat
Al-Faqīh,” Iranian Studies 29, no. 3/4 (Summer–Autumn 1996): 229–68.
19 The Iranian people choose by direct vote their president and their representatives in the
parliament (Majlis), the Assembly of Experts (which elects the Supreme Leader), and local
councils. However, members of the Assembly of Experts must be high-ranking clerics, and
all candidates for public office are vetted by the Guardian Council. The Supreme Leader has
wide-ranging powers, including the appointment of the six clerics that sit in the twelve-mem-
ber Guardian Council; its remaining six members are jurists nominated by the Head of the
Judiciary, himself an appointee of the Supreme Leader. Furthermore, the Guardian Council
can veto any Majlis legislation it considers contrary to the Constitution or un-Islamic.
20 For more on the impact of the Islamic Revolution on the Gulf region see Ana Belén
Soage, “The Gulf Cooperation Council, Iran, and the Limits to Integration,” Orient 59,
no. 2 (2018): 47–54.
21 For an account of the early years of the Islamic Revolution and the IRGC’s o rigins
see Roozbeh Safshekan and Farzan Sabet, “The Ayatollah’s Praetorians: The Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps and the 2009 Election Crisis,” The Middle East Journal 64,
no. 4 (Autumn 2010): 543–58, https://doi.org/10.3751/64.4.12; Frederic M. Wehrey,
ed., The Rise of the Pasdaran: Assessing the Domestic Roles of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary
Guards Corps, Rand Corporation Monograph Series (Santa Monica, CA: RAND National
Defense Research Institute, 2009), Chapter 3.
102 A. B. SOAGE
For nearly a decade after the Revolution, Iran was ruled by the Islamic
Republic Party (IRP), set up in 1979; no other parties were allowed. The
IRP comprised two main factions: The right, organized as the Society of
Militant Clerics, was deeply conservative in social issues and advocated
a free-market economy, reflecting its ties to the pious merchant class of
the bazaar. The left, which formed the Association of Militant Clergy,
championed a statist approach to the economy, put greater emphasis on
social justice, and advocated a radical foreign policy. Khomeini was the
arbiter between these two factions, but he leaned toward the left, whose
policies were also better suited to the war effort. Tensions within the IRP
resulted in its dissolution in 1987, but those two trends continued to
compete for domination of Iranian politics until the death of Khomeini
in 1989, when the conservative Ali Khamenei became Supreme Leader.22
That same year, Khamenei’s then-ally Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was
elected president. A pragmatist, he followed a moderate foreign policy in
order to improve Iran’s relations with its neighbors. With a caveat: Tehran
remained inflexible in its attitude to Israel and became gradually more
involved in the Arab–Israeli conflict on the side of the forces. These forces
do not accept Israel’s right to exist and were against the peace process.
At home, Rafsanjani advocated an economy-first policy, which included
privatizations and free market reforms, in an effort to raise living stand-
ards and quell mounting social unrest. In addition, Rafsanjani tried to
deradicalize the IRGC by letting it enter the economy. The now margin-
alized Islamist left, not immune to the soul-searching that characterized
left-wing politics after the collapse of the Soviet Union, rebranded itself as
reformist and proposed varying degrees of economic and political liberali-
zation, as well as a renewal of ties with the West. Right-wingers reacted by
calling themselves Principalists to indicate their attachment to the princi-
ples of the Islamic Revolution.23
Growing dissatisfaction with the system—even among leaders of the
Islamic Revolution, like Grand Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri24—led
24 Montazeri was Khomeini’s designated successor until he was pushed aside in the late
1980s due to his condemnation of authoritarianism and repression in the Islamic Republic.
In 1997, he was put under house arrest for openly criticizing Ali Khamenei, and he later
attacked Ahmadinejad’s policies. He died in 2009, and he is regarded as the spiritual leader
of the Green Movement (see below).
4 THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 103
Syria
The alliance between the Shiite Islamic Republic and the Alawi-dominated
Syrian regime is often assumed to be based on religious affinity. In reality,
Alawism is markedly different from Shiite Islam, and throughout history
it has been considered a heresy by Sunni and Shiite Muslims alike.29 Its
followers’ acceptance into the Muslim community in the early twentieth
century was due to political, rather than religious, considerations. While
some Alawis were hoping to establish their own state after the end of
the French Mandate for Syria, others deemed it more prudent to throw
in their lot with the Arab nationalists fighting the colonial powers, and
they took steps to be recognized as Muslims. In 1936, their efforts were
validated by a fatwa issued by Jerusalem Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini,
27 See Ali Alfoneh, “All the Guard’s Men: Iran’s Silent Revolution,” World Affairs 173,
bin Abi Talib, cousin and son-in-law of prophet Muhammad, who is venerated in Shiism
but only as an imam (political and spiritual leader). Among the heterodox beliefs of
Alawism is the worship of a divine triad made up of Ali, Muhammad, and Salman
the Persian (one of the prophet’s Companions); the transmigration of souls; and that
Alawis used to be stars and will return to the world of light after death if they are virtu-
ous. However, esoteric wisdom is only revealed to a small group of carefully selected
male initiates, and ordinary Alawis know little about their religion. For more on the
Alawis and their faith see Mahmud A. Faksh, “The Alawi Community of Syria: A New
Dominant Political Force,” Middle Eastern Studies 20, no. 2 (1984): 133–53, https://doi.
org/10.1080/00263208408700577.
4 THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 105
who wished to form the largest possible coalition against the Western
occupation of the Levant and the Zionist project in Palestine.30
In Syria, where most Alawis live, a handful of Sunni families from
Aleppo and Damascus had traditionally monopolized political and eco-
nomic power. Muslim minorities (Alawis, but also Ismaelis and Druze)
concentrated in poor rural areas and were looked down upon by the Sunni
majority. During the French Mandate, the children of the relatively pros-
perous small and middle landowners among those minorities found oppor-
tunities for social advancement in the military, and later many of them were
attracted to the egalitarian ethos of Baathism. The combined force of the
Army and the Baathist Party enabled the largest minority, the Alawis, to
become the rulers of the country, consolidating power through successive
coups in 1963, 1966, and 1970.31 The latter, known as the Corrective
Movement, overthrew the more radical wing of the Baathist Party and
allowed Hafez al-Assad to become the first non-Sunni president of Syria.
Assad endeavored to obtain the acquiescence of the Sunni majority:
He sought to expand the social base of his regime by tempering the pop-
ulist statism of the most uncompromising Baathists and by lifting some
of the economic restrictions that had hurt Sunni merchants and indus-
trialists. He watered down the secular principles of Baathism, relaxed
restrictions on Sunni religious institutions, and exhibited his personal
piety by attending public prayers at the mosque on Fridays and Muslim
holidays. He tried to avert accusations of heresy with the support of
Shiite clerics, who reiterated that Alawism is a branch of Shia Islam.32 In
addition, he took steps to minimize the differences between Alawism and
mainstream Islam, banning specifically Alawi religious organizations and
festivities and imposing a unified religious curriculum based on Sunni
Islam for all Muslim children.33
30 The Shia seats of learning in Najaf and Qom remained conspicuously silent on the issue.
See Martin Kramer, “Syria’s Alawis and Shi’ism,” in Shi’ism, Resistance, and Revolution, ed.
Martin Kramer (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987), 237–54.
31 Faksh, “The Alawi Community of Syria.”
32 Specifically, two Lebanon-based clerics eager for the support of a powerful patron in
the highly charged pre-Civil War atmosphere: Imam Musa al-Sadr and Ayatollah Hasan
al-Shirazi. See Kramer, “Syria’s Alawis and Shi’ism” We will encounter Musa al-Sadr again
in the section about Hezbullah. Iraqi-born al-Shirazi was assassinated in Lebanon in 1980,
allegedly on orders of the Iraqi Baathist regime.
33 Information based on direct observation and field interviews conducted by the author
34 In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, 8000 new mosques were built and 600 religious insti-
Welfare, Islamic Charities, and the Rise of the Zayd Movement,” International Journal of
Middle East Studies 41, no. 4 (2009): 595–614.
4 THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 107
Iran–Iraq War. For its part, Iran appreciated an alliance that called into
question the propaganda depicting the Persians as the eternal enemy of
the Arabs36 and afforded access to the first line of the struggle against
Israel.
Syria plays a crucial role in the axis of resistance, as a conduit for funds
and weapons from Iran to Lebanon and as a safe haven for training and
weapons storage. In return, the alliance provides the Syrian regime with
an ideological legitimization which became ever more important as Syria
progressively abandoned the tenets of Baathism. In effect, confronted
with rapid population growth and inefficient economic structures, the
regime ditched its populist socialism and embraced liberal economic pol-
icies—a process that started under Hafez al-Assad and accelerated under
his son and heir, Bashar. Already frustrated by decades of repression,
nepotism, and corruption, Syrians had to contend with high rates of
unemployment, the loss of subsidies for staple goods, and growing social
inequalities. Opposition to the regime finally exploded in the context
of the Arab Spring, in the form of the 2011 popular mobilizations that
degenerated into the ongoing Civil War.
36 Iraqi propaganda during the Iran–Iraq War characterized the conflict as Qadisiyyat
Saddam (Saddam’s Qadisiya), in reference to the historic battle in which the (Arab) Muslim
armies defeated the (Persian) Sassanid Empire in 636.
37 Robert Dreyfuss, “Cold War, Holy Warrior,” Mother Jones, February 2006, www.
motherjones.com/politics/2006/01/cold-war-holy-warrior.
108 A. B. SOAGE
the regular armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in the first Arab–Israeli
War, and their literature makes much of their heroic role in the conflict.38
However, from the mid-1950s the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood
(henceforth PMB) shunned activism and focused on religious and social
activities, for ideological as well as practical reasons. Firstly, it felt that the
liberation of Palestine required the moral regeneration of its people as a
precondition. Secondly, given the unfavorable balance of forces, it deemed
it wise to prioritize its own survival. Consequently, the PMB chose not to
join the alliance of nationalist and leftist groups that fought a guerrilla war
against Israel after the occupation of the Gaza Strip in 1967. These forces
were crushed, while the PMB was able to develop a network of religious,
health, and education charities to proselytize while helping the poor. It
was tolerated, even encouraged, by the Israeli authorities, which hoped to
weaken support for the nationalists, at the time perceived as more dan-
gerous for the Israeli state. The organization’s leader, frail but charismatic
Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even obtained official Israeli recognition for his
Islamic Centre in 1979. This no doubt contributed to the PMB’s public
appeal being rather limited at the time.39
The situation began to change in the late 1970s in a context of wide-
spread disillusionment with pan-Arabism, which had failed to achieve
Arab unity or liberate Palestine. Inspired by the proliferation of radical
Islamist groups in Egyptian campuses and by the Islamic Revolution in
Iran, some PMB students in Egypt decided to react to what they con-
sidered their organization’s neglect of the nationalist question, and they
set up Islamic Jihad—commonly known as PIJ to differentiate it from
other groups with similar names. Their intellectual references were the
usual Sunni authors (e.g., Rashid Rida, Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb,
and Abu-l-A‘la Maududi), but also Shiite scholars, such as Muhammad
Baqir al-Sadr, Ayatollah Khomeini, Ali Shariati, and Muhammad Hussein
38 For instance, Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Yusuf al-Qaradawi wrote in his autobi-
ography that the heroism of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine prompted the British to
put pressure on the Egyptian authorities to ban the organization. See Yusuf al-Qaradawi,
“Al-Qaradhawi sira wa-masira (Al-Qaradawi: Autobiography),” Archive Islam Online,
Chapter 18, accessed August 30, 2019, https://archive.islamonline.net/.
39 Ann M. Lesch, “Prelude to the Uprising in the Gaza Strip,” Journal of Palestine
Studies 20, no. 1 (Autumn 1990): 1–23; Jean-Pierre Filiu, “The Origins of Hamas:
Militant Legacy or Israeli Tool?,” Journal of Palestine Studies 41, no. 3 (Spring 2012):
54–70, https://doi.org/10.1525/jps.2012.XLI.3.54.
4 THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 109
40 According to Abdallah Shallah, who became PIJ leader in 1995 after Israel assassi-
nated its founder, Fathi Shiqaqi. See Ramadan ‘Abdallah Shallah and Khalid Al-‘Ayid, “The
Movement of Islamic Jihad and the Oslo Process,” Journal of Palestine Studies 28, no. 4
(Summer 1999): 61–73.
41 ‘Abdallah Shallah and Al-‘Ayid, 62. For its part, the PIJ criticized the PMB for its close
relationship with countries aligned with the West, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
42 Tensions had been escalating owing to deteriorating economic conditions and acceler-
ating Israeli expropriations of land in Gaza. Furthermore, the Arab Summit held in Amman
in November 1987 had focused on the Iran–Iraq War and all but ignored the plight of the
Palestinians. Still, the role of PIJ militants in the eruption of the Intifada should not be over-
looked. See Lesch, “Prelude to the Uprising in the Gaza Strip,” 54–70.
43 For years, the Hamas Charter was nowhere to be found in Hamas’s website, possibly
because it was an embarrassment due to its outdated rhetoric and politically incorrect refer-
ences. Nevertheless, the organization refused to revise it until May 2017, when it issued “A
Document of General Principles and Policies” which manifested a desire to abide by the rules
set by the international community in exchange for recognition. The original Hamas Charter is
available in “The charter of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)- Palestine (in Arabic),”
Palestine Net, 1988, http://palestine.paldf.net/Uploads/pdf/%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AB%
D8%A7%D9%82-%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%82
%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7-
%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B3.pdf; English translation
available in “The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (18 August 1988),” Yale Law
School, accessed August 30, 2019, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp;
The new Document is available on Hamas’s website, both in Arabic “A Document of General
Principles and Policies (in Arabic),” 2017, http://hamas.ps/ar/uploads/documents/599ab-
f9aafa1b76837c1242eb229e87b.pdf; and in English “A Document of General Principles
and Policies,” The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), 2017, https://hamas.ps/en/
post/678/a-document-of-general-principles-and-policies.
110 A. B. SOAGE
While the PIJ coordinated its activities with the United National Leadership
of the Uprising (UNLU), set up by nationalist and leftist forces, Hamas
opted to go it alone. However, the two Islamist organizations coincided in
their rejection of any compromise with Israel.
Iran first established contacts with the Palestinian Islamists in the late
1980s, after the end of the Iran–Iraq War. This probably happened in
Lebanon, where the Israeli authorities routinely expelled Palestinian
activists. In 1988, around twenty PIJ members were exiled there
and started receiving funds from Iran and training from Hezbollah.
Revealingly, in 1990, the PIJ moved its headquarters to Damascus,
already the main base of far-left Palestinian groups, such as the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the
Liberation of Palestine. Nonetheless, and unlike Hamas, the PIJ was
never able to attract a wide following among the Palestinians.
Conversely, Hamas was reluctant to be associated with Iran. Like much
of the Muslim Brotherhood, it distrusted the Islamic Republic due to its
Shiite character, and it did not wish to jeopardize the support of its Arab
benefactors in the Gulf Region. The situation changed with the launch of
the Israeli–Palestinian peace process, which the Islamists opposed. Hamas
attended the first International Conference in Support of the Palestinian
Intifada held in Tehran in October 1991—concurrently with the Madrid
peace conference—alongside the PIJ, Hezbollah, and the Syrian regime.
The following year, 400 members of the movement—among them, many
of its leaders—were deported to Lebanon, where they became closer
to Hezbollah. Hamas chose Damascus for its headquarters in 1999,
after it was expelled from Amman.44 For much of the 1990s and 2000s,
it obtained funds, weapons, and training from Iran and its allies, which
allowed it to run its operations—including charitable activities, but also sui-
cide attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians during the Second Intifada.
Those attacks contributed to Israel’s decision to withdraw from Gaza in
2005 and to Hamas’s 2006 electoral victory against a Fatah undermined
by the stalling of the peace process and pervasive corruption within the
Palestinian National Authority. However, the Civil War in Syria since 2011
gave rise to tensions between Hamas and its backers, as we will see below.
44 King Hussein had a long history of conflict with PLO leader Yasser Arafat and saw
Hamas as a potential ally. His son and successor, King Abdullah, was less keen to pursue that
relationship and came under pressure from the West due to Hamas’s suicide attacks in Israel.
In August 1999, he decided to expel the Hamas leadership from Jordan.
4 THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 111
Hezbollah
The emergence of Hezbollah must be contextualized within the process
of awakening and mobilization of Lebanon’s Shiite community, which
had traditionally been economically disadvantaged and politically dom-
inated by a handful of feudal-style landowning families. That process is
often credited to Imam Musa al-Sadr, who founded the Amal Movement
in the mid-1970s.45 Amal was not Islamist; it advocated individual free-
doms, downplayed its sectarian identity, and borrowed leftist jargon to
denounce feudalism in Lebanon and imperialist interference in the region.
As Islamism became an ascendant political force, and especially after the
1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, some of Amal’s members grew disgrun-
tled with its secular character. Then, in 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon for
the second time in four years, and Iran sent a contingent of 1500 Quds
Force advisers to the Beqaa Valley to train Shiite troops, provoking a wave
of defections from Amal. This was the origin of Hezbollah.46
The new militia soon came into action. Between 1982 and 1986,
there were dozens of suicide bombings in Lebanon against US,
French, and Israeli targets; these attacks have since been attributed
to Hezbollah.47 However, the group did not make itself known until
the publication of the “Open Letter from Hezbollah to the
45 Born in Iran to a Lebanese family of Islamic scholars, Musa al-Sadr arrived in Lebanon
in the mid-1950s on an invitation by Shiite clerics from the southern city of Tyre. In 1974,
he established Harakat al-Mahrumin (Movement of the Dispossessed). The following year,
among the rising communal tensions that would trigger the Lebanese Civil War, he added a
military wing, Amal (Afwaj a l-Muqawama al-Lubnaniyya, or Lebanese Resistance Brigades;
the acronym means “hope”). Sadr mysteriously disappeared during a trip to Libya in 1978,
probably murdered on orders from Gaddafi, but his movement survived thanks to a great
extent to the support of Hafez al-Assad, who had been an ally of Sadr’s (see Footnote 32).
46 Hezbollah means “party of God” and is a reference to the Qur’an (58:22). The name
has been adopted by a number of groups and movements, but the most prominent among
them is undoubtedly the Lebanese one. For more on Amal and Hezbollah in the 1970s and
1980s see Marius Deeb, “Shia Movements in Lebanon: Their Formation, Ideology, Social
Basis, and Links with Iran and Syria,” Third World Quarterly 10, no. 2 (1988): 683–98,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436598808420077.
47 At the time, the group would have been operating under the name Islamic Jihad. Its
bloodiest attack, in October 1983, targeted the barracks of the Multinational Force in
Lebanon (MNF)—perceived as biased toward Maronite Christians—and left 241 US marines
and 58 French paratroopers dead. The withdrawal of the MNF within months of the attack
was depicted as a humiliating defeat for the United States.
112 A. B. SOAGE
48 English translation available in “An Open Letter: The Hizballah Program,” 1985,
https://web.archive.org/web/20060821215729/www.ict.org.il/Articles/Hiz_letter.htm.
Revealingly, the Open Letter does not appear in any H ezbollah-affiliated website. It has been
superseded by other texts, especially Hezbollah’s 2009 Political Manifesto (see Footnote 51).
49 Asad Abukhalil, “Syria and the Shiites: Al‐Asad’s Policy in Lebanon,” Third World
Quarterly 12, no. 2 (1990): 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/01436599008420231;
Christopher Dickey, “Assad and His Allies: Irreconcilable Differences?,” Foreign Affairs 66,
no. 1 (Fall 1987): 58–76.
50 This situation contravened the 1989 Taif Agreement, which put an end to the Civil War.
The accord contemplated the disarmament of all militias within six months and the with-
drawal of Syrian troops within two years.
4 THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 113
Iran has been a major source of funding and support for Hezbollah
since its creation, allowing it not only to maintain its military wing, but
also to offer a wide range of social welfare services to its Shiite constit-
uency. Despite this, it would be incorrect to characterize the group as
merely an Iranian proxy, especially after the end of the Lebanese Civil
War in 1989. In effect, Hezbollah has undergone a process often
described as Lebanonization, which has entailed toning down its reli-
gious rhetoric and emphasizing its Lebanese nationalism and its defense
of the Lebanese people as a whole.51 In addition, it has entered the
political process, participating in elections since they resumed in 1992—
although it remains critical of the sectarian nature of the Lebanese polit-
ical system.52 Furthermore, Hezbollah’s resistance to Israel’s occupation
of southern Lebanon and subsequent Israeli withdrawal in 2000 earned it
supporters far beyond the Shiite community.
However, the Israeli withdrawal was also seized upon by those
who resented Hezbollah’s (and Syria’s) supremacy in Lebanon and
who started publicly questioning the militia’s role.53 They demanded
Hezbollah’s disarmament, accused it being a state within a state, and
criticized the continued presence of Syrian troops since the end of the
Civil War. Frictions were exacerbated by the assassination of the former
prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri in February 2005, widely blamed on Syria.
The ensuing Cedar Revolution polarized the country into the pro-Syrian
51 As part of this process, in 2009 Hezbollah published a Political Manifesto mark-
edly less Islamist in tone than its 1985 Open Letter. See “Hezbolla’s 2009 Political
Manifesto (in Arabic),” Moqawama, 2009, https://www.moqawama.org/essaydetailsf.
php?eid=16245&fid=47; English translation available in “The New Hezbollah Manifesto,”
November 2009, www.lebanonrenaissance.org/assets/Uploads/15-The-New-Hezbollah-
Manifesto-Nov09.pdf.
52 Since independence in 1943, political power has been distributed on a sectarian basis
favoring Maronite Christians and Sunni Muslims. The 1989 Taif Agreement went some
way toward a more representative system, equalizing the ratio of seats allocated to Muslims
and Christians (although the latter are now only around 40% of the population, owing to a
lower birth rate and high emigration), and distributing Muslim seats evenly between Sunnis
and Shiites (the Shiite population is probably larger).
53 Hezbollah insists resistance must continue due to Israel’s occupation of the Shebaa
Farms, the Lebanese prisoners still held in Israeli jails, and the inability of the Lebanese
National Army to protect the country from a potential Israeli attack. For its part, Israel
considers the Shebaa Farms part of the Syrian Golan Heights, captured in the 1967 Six-Day
War.
114 A. B. SOAGE
March 8 Alliance and the anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance, and the latter
succeeded in forcing the departure of the Syrian army. In the summer of
2006, the Lebanese rallied around Hezbollah when the usual tit-for-tat
attacks across the border with Israel unexpectedly degenerated into a
full-blown Israeli onslaught. Tensions resumed after the conflict, how-
ever, and culminated in Hezbollah’s invasion of Sunni West Beirut in
May 2008. An agreement brokered by Qatar later that month gave the
Hezbollah-led opposition a blocking third in the Lebanese cabinet, effec-
tively precluding attempts to force the Shiite militia to disarm.
The Civil War in Syria had a direct and profound impact on Lebanon,
which not only received over a million refugees—in a middle-income
country of six million people—but also experienced sectarian polariza-
tion, acts of violence, and terrorist attacks. In June 2012, the March 8
and March 14 alliances signed the Ba‘abda Declaration, aimed at pre-
serving peace in the country by keeping it out of the Syrian conflict.
Nonetheless, persistent information of Hezbollah’s involvement in the
Civil War, which the group initially denied, was confirmed by Secretary
General Hasan Nasrallah on May 25, 2013, during his speech at the
annual celebration of “Liberation Day” (which commemorates the 2000
Israeli withdrawal). Lebanese attitudes to Hezbollah, which had been
positive overall before the conflict, are now split along sectarian lines.
Iraq and Yemen
Recently, two new forces have often been added to the axis of resistance:
the Shiite militias in Iraq and the Yemeni Houthis. Nevertheless, the two
cases are quite different. While it is clear that Iran has invested heavily in
its presence in Iraq, its efforts in Yemen appear more limited.54
Iraq
The toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 and the instauration
of a system of government based on proportional representation opened
the way for increased Iranian influence in Iraq. Over 60% of the Iraqi
population is Twelver Shiite, and much of the post-2003 Iraqi political
54 For more on this topic see Ana Belén Soage, “Iraq and Yemen: The New Iranian
leadership spent years of exile in Iran, where they were welcomed after
fleeing the Baathist regime in the 1980s and 1990s. One of the main
political parties of the post-Saddam era, the Supreme Council for the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq (now known as the Islamic Supreme Council
of Iraq, or ISCI), was established in Iran in 1982, and its former mili-
tary wing, the Badr Brigade, fought in the Iran–Iraq War on the Iranian
side. However, the advent of an Iranian-style government is not in the
cards. It is opposed by the highly respected religious leadership in Najaf,
led by Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Among the major polit-
ical parties, ISCI was the only one to advocate the Guardianship of the
Jurist system and it changed track in 2007 when, in a bid to boost its
popularity, it announced that it would follow Sistani’s guidance instead
of Khamenei’s, prompting the split of the Badr Brigade from the party.
After decades of hostility from its western neighbor, Iran was glad to
see Iraq become a Shia-dominated, federal country keen to cultivate
friendly links, unlikely to re-emerge as a threat or a competitor for regional
hegemony, and presenting a large market for Iranian products. Eager to
expedite the departure of the US-led coalition, Iran supported Shiite mili-
tias targeting foreign troops—prominent among them, Muqtada al-Sadr’s
Jaysh al-Mahdi (the Mahdi Army, or JAM), although the young cleric’s
fervent Iraqi nationalism and reckless unpredictability did not make him a
natural or desirable ally. Consequently, Tehran encouraged splinter groups
from JAM, such as ‘Asa’ib Ahl al-Haqq (League of the Righteous). It also
supported other Shiite militias accused of sectarian atrocities, such as the
Badr Brigade and a split thereof, the Hizbullah Brigades.
The rise of the self-proclaimed Islamic State among the disaffected
Sunni minority and its dramatic capture of large swathes of Syria and
Iraq offered Tehran the opportunity to scale up its involvement. In
June 2014, Mosul fell to IS and Sistani issued a fatwa calling on all Iraqi
citizens to join the fight against that existential threat, initiating a rush
to volunteer. However, instead of enlisting in the disgraced security
forces, many joined existing or newly created militias, which came to be
collectively known as Wahdat al-Hashd al-Sha‘bi (Popular Mobilization
Forces, or PMF), and they divided their loyalties between Sistani, Sadr,
and Khamenei.55 Iran provided funds and materiel to many of them,
55 Renad Mansour and Faleh A. Jabar, “The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s
Yemen
The Houthi movement appeared in the 1990s in the mountainous and
isolated Saada Governorate, which borders Saudi Arabia, to give expres-
sion to local grievances—notably economic and political marginaliza-
tion and the spread of Saudi-sponsored Salafism, which represented
a challenge to the Zaidi identity.56 Much has been made of the move-
ment adopting a rhetoric usually associated with revolutionary Iran—for
example, referring to the United States as the “Great Satan” and tak-
ing as its slogan: “God is Great. Death to America. Death to Israel.
Curse upon the Jews. Victory for Islam.” However, this type of rheto-
ric is not uncommon among Islamist movements, and the likely inten-
tion of Houthi leaders was to build on widespread anti-US sentiment
and to denounce US allies in the region—first and foremost, Yemen’s
long-running autocrat, Ali Abdullah Saleh (himself a member of
the Zaidi minority).57 Saleh himself found it convenient to characterize
56 Zaidism branched off mainstream Shia Islam in the eighth century and is now almost
exclusive to Yemen, where it is followed by around a third of the population. It differs sig-
nificantly from the Twelver Shiism of Iran and Iraq, and its doctrine and practice are very
close to those of the Sunni Shafi‘i majority in Yemen. As a result, inter-sectarian relations
have customarily been cordial.
57 Barak A. Salmoni, Bryce Loidolt, and Madeleine Wells, Regime and Periphery in
Northern Yemen: The Huthi Phenomenon, Rand Corporation Monograph Series (Santa
Monica: National defense research institute, 2010), https://www.rand.org/content/
dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG962.pdf. The authors point out that the
founder of the movement, Hussein al-Houthi, praised Iran and Hezbollah in his sermons
for their stand against the foes of Islam, not for their Shiite character.
4 THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 117
58 Implausibly, Saleh also claimed that the Houthis were backed by Libya and by
Al-Qaeda. See Christopher Boucek, “War in Saada. From Local Insurrection to National
Challenge,” Yemen on the Brink (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April
2010), 2, https://carnegieendowment.org/files/war_in_saada.pdf.
59 Thomas Juneau, “Iran’s Policy towards the Houthis in Yemen: A Limited Return
the war in Yemen, whereas it was costing Saudi Arabia at least $5 billion a month, see Bruce
Riedel, “In Yemen, Iran Outsmarts Saudi Arabia Again,” Brookings Institution, December 6,
2017, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/12/06/in-yemen-iran-outsmarts-
saudi-arabia-again/.
118 A. B. SOAGE
61 Abd al-Ilah Taqi, “Alat al-i‘lam al-huthiyya: ‘Hizbullah’ marra min huna” (The Houthis’
media machine: Hezbollah came this way),” Al-‘Arabi, April 11, 2015, www.alaraby.co.uk/
medianews/2015/4/11/%D8%A2%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B
9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%AB%D9%8A%D
8%A9-%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%B1-
%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%87%D9%86%D8%A7. According to Taqi, Hezbollah provided invalu-
able assistance to the Houthis in the development of their propaganda apparatus.
62 Payam Mohseni, “The Islamic Awakening: Iran’s Grand Narrative of the Arab
64 “Syria Crisis: Iran’s Ahmadinejad Criticises Killings,” BBC News, October 22, 2011,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15416410.
65 Different articles in Khamenei’s Ali Khamenei website illustrate these points, e.g.,
wa-yakshif ‘an ‘aradh sa'udi li-l-Asad li-inha’ al-azma fi bidayati-ha’ (Nasrallah reveals
how he convinced Khamenei to enter the Syrian theatre and reveals a Saudi offer to
Assad to put an end to the crisis at its inception),” September 12, 2017, www.raialy-
oum.com/index.php/%D9%86%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-
%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%B4%D9%81-%D9%83%D9%8A%D9%81-
%D8%A3%D9%82%D9%86%D8%B9-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A6%D9%8A-
%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85.
120 A. B. SOAGE
were takfiris controlled by the United States and Israel.67 For good measure,
he added that they also posed a threat to Lebanon.68
For its part, Hamas had to balance the advantages of its alliance with
Iran and its gratitude to the Syrian regime with its sympathy toward
the Syrian opposition (which soon came to be dominated by Sunni
Islamists) and the reputational risks of continued association with Assad.
The movement was divided over the issue. In February 2012, its polit-
ical leader, Khaled Mishaal, left Damascus for Qatar, hoping for a rap-
prochement with the Gulf states, but the rift between Riyadh and Doha
over the Muslim Brotherhood thwarted his efforts.69 As the regional bal-
ance of forces turned against Hamas—notably after the 2013 coup that
deposed Egyptian MB president Mohamed Morsi—and it became clear
that the Assad regime was likely to survive, the advocates of mending the
relationship with Iran carried the day.70
At the propaganda level, the cost of involvement has been great.
Despite the protestations of Iran and Hezbollah—which pointed to
their support for Sunni Muslims in places like Palestine and Bosnia—
the Civil War appeared as a sectarian conflict: Just as Islamist and Salafi
Sunni clerics fed the flames of sectarianism by referring to it as a jihad,
Iranian recruitment campaigns focused on the need to protect the Shia
67 The term takfiri designates someone who practices takfir (i.e., excommunication),that is,
declares other Muslims infidels (kuffar, plural of kafir). Extremists like Al-Qaeda and Islamic
State are notorious for their practice of takfir and their hostility toward Shiites.
68 “Al-Sayyid Nasr Allah li-jumhur al-Muqawama: A‘idukum bi-l-nasr mujaddadan” (Sayyed
Nasrallah to the Crowds of the Resistance: I Promise You Victory Again),” Moqawama, May
27, 2013, https://www.moqawama.org/essaydetails.php?eid=27814&cid=141; English trans-
lation of the speech is available in “Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah’s Speech on Syria,” May
25, 2013, www.voltairenet.org/article178691.html.
69 See Philipp O. Amour, “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement
within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and
Neoclassical Realist Perspectives,” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6,
no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31, https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.384773.
70 Ahmad Majidyar, “Iran and Hamas Seeking to Further Boost Relations,” Middle East
71 Especially Sayyida Zaynab, in the south-eastern suburbs of Damascus. While the rise of
Islamic State facilitated recruitment efforts, there were reports of Shiite foreign fighters in
Syria as early as the autumn of 2012. See Christopher Anzalone, “Zaynab’s Guardians: The
Emergence of Shi`a Militias in Syria,” CTC Sentinel 6, no. 7 (July 2013), https://ctc.usma.
edu/zaynabs-guardians-the-emergence-of-shia-militias-in-syria.
72 “Poll: Sectarianism, Syria Drive Negative Image of Iran,” Arab American Institute, March
5, 2013, https://www.aaiusa.org/poll-sectarianism-syria-drive-negative-image-of-iran-read-
more-http-wwwal.
73 “Al-Qaradhawi: Al-Shi‘a khada‘uni. Wa-Hizbullah kidhba kabira (Al-Qaradawi: The
Shiites Deceived Me, and Hezbollah Is a Big Lie),” Al Arabiya, June 2, 2013, www.alarabiya.
net/ar/arab-and-world/syria/2013/06/02/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%B6
%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D8%
AE%D8%AF%D8%B9%D9%88%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-
%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%83%D8%B0%D8%A8%D8%A9-
%D9%83%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9-.html.
74 The Quds Force and Hezbollah helped to organize the National Defense Force, a
reportedly 100,000-strong pro-government militia modeled on the Iranian Basij. See Chris
Zambelis, “Institutionalized ‘Warlordism’: Syria’s National Defense Force,” Terrorism
Monitor 15, no. 6 (March 24, 2017), https://jamestown.org/program/institutionalized-
warlordism-syrias-national-defense-force.
75 Tom O’Connor, “Can Iran Stop Israel in Syria? New Warnings as Russia Prepares
Conclusion
The alliance known as the axis of resistance is held together not by
religious identity or ideological affinity, but by mutual regional objectives
and a common rejection of (Western) imperialist and Zionist designs in
the Middle East. Iran is its linchpin and offers its allies varying degrees
of material assistance (e.g., money, weapons, oil), logistical support,
and ideological guidance. Syria owes its importance to being the only
Arab country allied to the Islamic Republic with access to the front line
of the Levant—although Syria itself has avoided military action against
Israel since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The non-state members of the
Axis, which carry the burden of fighting Israel, benefit from having state
backers and provide them with asymmetric deterrence. As a military alli-
ance, the Axis claims credit for forcing Israel’s withdrawal from southern
Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005—which made it popular across
the region—and for saving the Assad regime.
The axis of resistance has a second and equally vital function: that of
bolstering the legitimacy of the Syrian and Iranian regimes. Pan-Arabism,
in general, lost credibility after the catastrophic 1967 defeat against
Israel. Baathism called for unity but was riven by divisions and degen-
erated into brutal autocracies based on personality cults. Similarly, since
the 1990s Islamism is increasingly out of favor in Iran, where it is widely
felt that the association of politics and Islam has gravely undermined the
76 See Marcin Andrzej Piotrowski, “‘Mosaic Defence:’ Iran’s Hybrid Warfare in Syria
Middle East Cold War,” PS: Political Science & Politics 50, no. 3 (July 2017): 672–75,
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517000373.
4 THE CONSERVATIVE-RESISTANCE CAMP: THE AXIS OF RESISTANCE 123
latter.78 Furthermore, both Syria and Iran have moved away from their
initial statist approach to the economy and turned to neoliberal policies
to tackle their mounting economic problems. This has exacerbated social
inequalities and lost them the support of an important constituency: the
lower and lower-middle urban classes. The focus on foreign enemies
shifts the blame for domestic problems—or, at the very least, distracts
from them.
The 2009–2010 Green Movement in Iran and the Civil War in Syria
since 2011 show that this type of strategy has its limits. Both regimes
are unpopular, as they are perceived as self-serving and detached from
the needs of ordinary people, which makes them insecure and prone to
resorting to repression, conspiracy theories, and rhetorical brinkman-
ship. This undermines the appeal of the axis of resistance narrative even
among those who pay it lip service. For example, the Iranian regime’s
attempt to capitalize on the Arab Spring was dismissed by Iranian
reformists and Arab leftist revolutionaries, as was to be expected, but
even the Muslim Brothers rejected any comparison with the Islamic
Revolution.79 As a final point, the Civil War in Syria, which has served to
display and boost the military effectiveness of the axis of resistance, has
also exposed its internal strains and the persisting power of sectarian nar-
ratives in the Middle East.
Bibliography
“A Document of General Principles and Policies (in Arabic),” 2017.
http://hamas.ps/ar/uploads/documents/599abf9aafa1b76837c1242e
b229e87b.pdf.
‘Abdallah Shallah, Ramadan, and Khalid Al-‘Ayid. “The Movement of Islamic
Jihad and the Oslo Process.” Journal of Palestine Studies 28, no. 4 (Summer
1999): 61–73.
78 Disenchantment with Islamism has led Iranian intellectuals to advocate an Islam auton-
omous from the political sphere in order to preserve the integrity of religion, as explained
by Farhad Khosrokhavar, “Les nouveaux intellectuels en Iran” Cahiers Internationaux de
Sociologie, no. 125 (July 2008): 347–63.
79 See Charles Kurzman, “The Arab Spring: Ideals of the Iranian Green Movement,
Methods of the Iranian Revolution,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 44, no. 1
(February 2012): 162–65, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743811001346.
124 A. B. SOAGE
Luce, Dan De. “50 Years Later, Iranians Remember US-UK Coup.” The Christian
Science Monitor, August 22, 2003. https://www.csmonitor.com/2003/
0822/p08s01-wome.html.
Majidyar, Ahmad. “Iran and Hamas Seeking to Further Boost Relations.” Middle
East Institute, January 25, 2018. https://www.mei.edu/publications/
iran-and-hamas-seeking-further-boost-relations.
Mansour, Renad, and Faleh A. Jabar. “The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s
Future.” Carnegie Middle East Center, April 28, 2017. https://carnegie-mec.
org/2017/04/28/popular-mobilization-forces-and-iraq-s-future-pub-68810.
Mirrazavi, Firouzeh. “Iran Celebrates 65th Anniversary of Oil Nationalization.”
Iran Review, March 18, 2016. http://www.iranreview.org/content/
Documents/Iran-Celebrates-62nd-Anniversary-of-Oil-Nationalization.htm.
Moghadam, Cyrus Namjoo. “Conflict between Rouhani and Iran’s
Revolutionary Guards Intensifies.” Gulf News, July 31, 2017. https://gulf-
news.com/opinion/op-eds/conflict-between-rouhani-and-irans-revolution-
ary-guards-intensifies-1.2066878.
Mohseni, Payam. “The Islamic Awakening: Iran’s Grand Narrative of the Arab
Uprisings.” Middle East Brief, no. 71 (April 2013). https://www.brandeis.
edu/crown/publications/meb/MEB71.pdf.
Moqawama. “Al-Sayyid Nasr Allah li-jumhur al-muqawama: A‘idukum bi-l-nasr
mujaddadan” (Sayyed Nasrallah to the Crowds of the Resistance: I Promise
You Victory Again),” May 27, 2013. https://www.moqawama.org/essayde-
tails.php?eid=27814&cid=141.
———. “Hezbolla’s 2009 Political Manifesto (in Arabic),” 2009. https://www.
moqawama.org/essaydetailsf.php?eid=16245&fid=47.
Muir, Jim. “Syria ‘Death Video’ of Sheikh al-Bouti Poses Questions.” BBC
News, April 9, 2013.
O’Connor, Tom. “Can Iran Stop Israel in Syria? New Warnings as Russia
Prepares Missile Defense.” Newsweek, September 27, 2018. https://www.
newsweek.com/can-iran-stop-israel-syria-new-warnings-russia-prepares-mis-
sile-defense-1142437.
Palestine Net. “The Charter of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)-
Palestine (in Arabic),” 1988. http://palestine.paldf.net/Uploads/pdf/%D9%
85%D9%8A%D8%AB%D8%A7%D9%82-%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A9-
%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85%
D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7-
%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B3.pdf.
Parsapajouh, Sepideh. “Les valeurs en cause. Crise de l’idéologie et crise de la
transmission dans la société iranienne depuis la Révolution de 1979.” Archives
de sciences sociales des religions, Les valeurs en cause, 59, no. 166 (Avril-juin
2014): 243–68.
128 A. B. SOAGE
Introduction
Since the formation of the modern state system in the broader Middle
East, a regional polarization has continued to exist between the sta-
tus quo powers and revisionist powers. Although leaders and members
of both blocs have changed through decades, this bipolar structure
has been a recurrent pattern in the history of the Gulf Region and the
broader Middle East. During the 2000s, and particularly after the inva-
sion of Iraq in 2003, this regional polarization mainly crystallized around
N. Yeşilyurt (*)
Faculty of Political Science, Department of International Relations,
Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
e-mail: nyesilyurt@ankara.edu.tr
M. Yetim
Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences,
Department of International Relations, Eskişehir Osmangazi University,
Eskişehir, Turkey
the Saudi Arabia-led status quo camp, which describes itself as the
moderates, and the Iran-led revisionist camp, which describes itself as the
resistance axis.1
Currently, the status quo bloc includes, among others, the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Egypt, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates
(UAE). The main features of these states are their pro-US for-
eign policy orientations, their mild attitudes toward Israel, and their
conservative-elitist political structures. The revisionist bloc consists of
Iran, Syria, the Lebanese Hezbollah, some Iraqi Shiite factions, and the
Palestinian Islamic resistance movement, Hamas (see Table 14.1). The
main features of these actors are their anti-US foreign policy orienta-
tions, their denial of the existence of Israel, and their populist–authoritar-
ian political structures. The collapse of central authority (i.e., Saddam’s
regime) in Iraq and the growing anger among the Arab public caused by
Israeli atrocities in Palestine considerably increased the revisionist bloc’s
power and credibility throughout the 2000s.
Since the beginning of the 2010s, however, substantial shifts have
occurred in the power structure in the Gulf Region and the broader
Middle East. Political instability, caused by popular uprisings in critical
regional powers, such as Egypt, Syria, and Yemen, created a vast power
vacuum in the region and posed serious challenges to both the status
quo and the revisionist blocs. Meanwhile, a new alliance is in the mak-
ing between Turkey and Qatar, which is attempting to take advantage
of this vacuum to create an autonomous sphere of influence for itself
1 For a reflective and insightful discussion on the preexisting and the emergent camps
in the region and different conceptualizations for current regional polarization see Erik
Mohns and André Bank, “Syrian Revolt Fallout: End of the Resistance Axis?” Middle East
Policy 9, no. 3 (2012): 25–27, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4967.2012.00545.x;
Birol Başkan, Turkey and Qatar in the Tangled Geopolitics of the Middle East (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 1–4; Saud Al Tamamy, “GCC Membership Expansion:
Possibilities and Obstacles,” in Gulf Cooperation Council’s Challenges and Prospects
(Al Jazeera Center for Studies, 2014), 73–75, http://studies.aljazeera.net/mritems/
Documents/2015/3/31/2015331131534662734Gulf%20Cooperation.pdf; Crystal
A. Ennis and Bessma Momani, “Shaping the Middle East in the Midst of the Arab
Uprisings: Turkish and Saudi Foreign Policy Strategies,” Third World Quarterly 34, no.
6 (2013): 1127–30, https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.802503; and Flynt
Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, “The United States, Iran and the Middle East’s
New ‘Cold War,’” The International Spectator 45, no. 1 (2010): 75, https://doi.
org/10.1080/03932721003661624.
5 EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 133
in the region.2 Moving from this observation, the focus of this chapter
is to make a careful analysis of this emerging alliance between Turkey
and Qatar and its implication for the regional order in the Middle East.
Specifically, the chapter addresses whether Turkey and Qatar are form-
ing a third bloc in the Middle East—one that is positioned between the
Saudi-led status quo bloc and the Iranian-led revisionist bloc.3
The chapter starts with a brief analysis of the regional power struc-
ture in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East since the 1940s,
and more specifically, the consolidation of the status quo and the revi-
sionist blocs in the region during the 2000s. The second section then
focuses on the critical domestic and foreign policy transformations that
Qatar and Turkey underwent following the change in political power in
both countries in 1995 and 2002, respectively. The remarkable similarity
between soft-power-oriented policies adopted by Ankara and Doha and
their positioning of themselves between the status quo and the revisionist
blocs is particularly emphasized in the second section. The last section
examines the growing rapprochement between Turkey and Qatar since
the 2011 Arab Uprisings. In this sense, it underlines common policy
responses to ongoing uprisings and deepening bilateral ties between both
countries, along with their implications for the current power structure
in the region.
Overall, the argument is presented that, since the 2010s, the Middle
East regional system resembles a tripolar structure. The growing Turkish/
Qatari alliance and its alignment with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in
various Arab countries have resulted in the formation of a third bloc in
2 There is a growing literature on the analysis of the burgeoning alliance between Turkey
and Qatar. See William Armstrong, “Interview: Birol Başkan on Turkey and Qatar’s
Alliance in the Tangled Middle East,” Hurriyet Daily News, June 24, 2017, http://www.
hurriyetdailynews.com/interview-birol-baskan-on-turkey-and-qatars-alliance-in-the-tan-
gled-middle-east-114696; Ufuk Ulutaş and Burhanettin Duran, “Traditional Rivalry or
Regional Design in the Middle East?” Insight Turkey 20, no. 2 (Spring 2018): 81–105.
3 For a similar discussion see Özgür Pala and Bülent Aras, “Practical Geopolitical
Reasoning in the Turkish and Qatari Foreign Policy on the Arab Spring,” Journal of
Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 17, no. 3 (2015): 287, https://doi.org/10.1080
/19448953.2015.1063274; Phillip O. Amour calls this emergent bloc the “elected
reformist” camp in Philipp O. Amour, “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and
Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring: An Introduction,” in The Middle East Reloaded:
Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed.
Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington, DC: Academica Press,
2018), 9–10.
134 N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM
the Middle East, what we call the moderate resistance bloc. The emer-
gence of this third bloc has substantially affected the regional balance of
powers and now poses certain challenges to the two preexisting regional
blocs. Although their ambitious and revisionist foreign policy agenda wit-
nessed a setback in 2013–2014, Turkey and Qatar still hold their ground
in the middle of the two preexisting blocs and pursue their alternative
regional strategy.
4 Alan Taylor, The Arab Balance of Power (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press,
1982), 24–26.
5 Malcom Kerr, The Arab Cold War 1958–1967: A Study of Ideology in Politics, 2nd ed.
result, Israel gained more room for political maneuvering in the Middle
East. The mentioned state and non-state actors became affiliated with
the conservative (status quo) bloc.
During the 2000s, after the Baath regime in Iraq was toppled with
the US-led invasion in 2003, Iran took advantage of the political insta-
bility and power vacuum in war-torn Iraq by forging ties with the lead-
ing Shiite groups in the country. As Iran’s influence over political actors
in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine increased substantially after the
Iraq War, Tehran gradually became the backbone of the revisionist
bloc against the US-backed Middle East regional order.11 Iran, Syria,
Hezbollah, and Hamas, among others, are often cited as resistance actors
in the broader Middle East, implying their resistance to the US–Israeli
domination in the region (see Chapters 4 and 9).12
As Iranian revisionism gained more ground following the Iraq War in
2003, the KSA emerged as the leading status quo power in the broader
Middle East. In fact, owing to regime security concerns, Riyadh has
always adopted a firm stance against any kind of revisionist and revolu-
tionary forces in its vicinity and continuously supported other status quo
actors, thanks to its huge oil wealth.13 Similarly, during the 2000s, Saudi
Arabia sought to close the ranks among Sunni states in the Gulf Region
and the broader Middle East against what it perceived as the rising Shiite
Crescent led by Iran.14 Saudi Arabia and its current allies (the UAE,
Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO, among others) are often cited as
Middle East States, ed. Raymond A. Hinnebusch and Anoushiravan Ehteshami (Boulder:
Lynne Rienner, 2002), 283–99; F. Gregory Gause, “Revolution and Threat Perception:
Iran and the Middle East,” International Politics 52, no. 5 (2015): 637–45, https://doi.
org/10.1057/ip.2015.27.
12 Philipp O. Amour, “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement Within
the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical
Realist Perspectives,” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April
13, 2018): 623, https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.384773.
13 M. Evren Tok, Jason J. McSparren, and Michael Olender, “The Perpetuation of
Peter Baker, “Iraq, Jordan See Threat to Election from Iran,” Washington Post, December
8, 2004, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43980-2004Dec7.html.
5 EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 137
the moderate actors in the Middle East, mainly due to their pro-Western
policies and benign attitudes toward Israel.15
At this point, it is also important to emphasize that the general dis-
tinctions between resistance and moderate blocs are extensive in regard
to their divergent positions and approaches toward the Western-imposed
and US–Israeli-dominated regional order in the Gulf Region and the
broader Middle East. These blocs launch different strategies in order to
weaken the rival bloc (revisionist strategy) and to eliminate possible chal-
lenges toward themselves (status quo strategy). Therefore, one should
not be confused with Iran’s pro-status quo position (protection of the
Assad regime by all means) and Saudi Arabia’s somewhat pro-revisionist
stance (overthrow of the Assad regime) within Syria, as these policies are
just the reflections of regional bloc calculations.
Current confrontation and polarization in the Gulf Region and the
broader Middle East between revisionist and status quo blocs for the
regional hegemony can also be considered as a rivalry between different
versions of Islamism, since both blocs extensively use Islamism in their
rhetoric (see Chapters 2 and 3). Some scholars and politicians even tend
to identify this rivalry as a sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni
forces.16 Yet, this is not entirely true, considering the status quo bloc’s
hostile policies toward the leading non-state Sunni organization, namely
the MB, and the revisionist bloc’s friendly relations with Hamas, which is
an affiliate of MB.17 Consequently, recognition of any actor as an enemy
or a friend by either bloc is not necessarily related to its sectarian identity
but to its position toward the regional order.
Turkey and Qatar’s position in this regional constellation was closer
to the status quo bloc throughout the second half of the twentieth cen-
tury. As a NATO member, Turkey upheld a Middle East policy gener-
ally in accordance with that of the United States. The only exception to
this accord was the 1960–1980 period, when Ankara started to act more
15 Amour, “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Within the Regional Order in the Middle East,” 623.
16 On the resurfacing of sectarianism in the Middle East following the Arab Uprisings see
Raymond Hinnebusch, “The Sectarian Revolution in the Middle East,” Global Trends and
Regional Issues 4, no. 1 (2016): 120–52.
17 Matthew Hedges and Giorgio Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood: What
Does Future Hold?” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 129–53; Rola Al-Husseini,
“Hezbollah and the Axis of Refusal: Hamas, Iran and Syria,” Third World Quarterly 31,
no. 5 (2010): 809–910, https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2010.502695.
138 N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM
Qatar is a small state with a tiny population in the Persian Gulf. Its com-
ing to the forefront of regional politics took place during the reign of
Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (1995–2013), who deposed his
father, Sheikh Khalifa bin Hamad al-Thani, in a bloodless coup in
1995.20 In fact, following the Gulf War, Hamad had already been the
de facto ruler of the country in many areas.21 Hence, the 1995 coup
18 Melek Fırat and Ömer Kürkçüoğlu, “Orta Doğu’yla İlişkiler (Relations with the
Middle East),” in Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt I: 1919–1980 (Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume I:
1919–1980), ed. Baskın Oran (İstanbul: İletişim, 2009), 784.
19 David B. Roberts, “Understanding Qatar’s Foreign Policy Objectives,” Mediterranean
mander-in-chief of the Qatari Armed Forces in 1975 and was appointed the Defense
Minister and Heir Apparent in 1977. “Sheikh Ḥamad Ibn Khalīfah Āl Thānī,” in
Britannica Academic, May 1, 2018, https://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/
Sheikh-%E1%B8%A4amad-ibn-Khal%C4%ABfah-%C4%80l-Th%C4%81n%C4%AB/475728.
21 “Sheikh Ḥamad Ibn Khalīfah Āl Thānī.”
5 EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 139
made him the de jure ruler as well. Under the rule of Sheikh Hamad,
Qatar drew the attention of the region and the world by embarking on
an ambitious program of political reform, economic liberalization, and
development. First, in 1996, in a move to enhance press freedom, the
new Emir established the Al Jazeera news channel, which broadcasts con-
troversial news and discussions on various topics in Arabic. Two years
later, he abolished the Ministry of Information, which hitherto had acted
as an organ of press censorship. More importantly, in 1999, elections for
municipal councils were held for the first time in the history of Qatar,
and women were allowed both to vote and to stand. Furthermore, a new
constitution was adopted in 2003, which stipulates the formation of an
advisory council with two-thirds of its members elected. On the eco-
nomic side, Hamad encouraged privatization of state assets, successfully
returned to the state billions of dollars that were taken out by Sheikh
Khalifa after the coup, and invested in liquefied natural gas (LNG) pro-
duction, which eventually became the main source of Qatar’s wealth.22
Sheikh Hamad also took steps in the educational and cultural develop-
ment of Qatar by establishing the Qatar Foundation in 1995.23 The
main rationale behind these courageous reform efforts of Sheikh Hamad
was to gain support from both the younger generation of Qataris and
the West in his vision for greater autonomy from the KSA, the most
powerful state among the Gulf monarchies.24
Predictably, Hamad’s coup was not well received by the neighbor-
ing Gulf monarchies, especially the KSA, because of his courageous and
contrarian foreign policy style, which contrasted with Sheikh Khalifa’s
Saudi-oriented and passive approach. Following the Gulf War, dur-
ing Hamad’s de facto rule of the country, Qatar had mended fences
with Iran and Iraq, and confronted Riyadh in a border dispute.25
Furthermore, Hamad’s relatively young age, brave personality, and
22 Andrew Rathmel and Kirsten Schulze, “Political Reform in the Gulf: The Case of
Qatar,” Middle Eastern Studies 36, no. 4 (October 2000): 53–55; Allen J. Fromherz,
Qatar: A Modern History (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2012), 106;
and “Sheikh Ḥamad Ibn Khalīfah Āl Thānī.”
23 “About Qatar Foundation,” Qatar Foundation, May 26, 2018, https://www.qf.org.
qa/about.
24 Rathmel and Schulze, “Political Reform in the Gulf,” 60.
25 “Prince Deposes Father in Qatar Palace Coup,” Deseret News, June 27, 1995, https://
www.deseret.com/1995/6/27/19179334/prince-deposes-father-in-qatar-palace-coup.
140 N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM
26 Douglas Jehl, “Young Turk of the Gulf: Emir of Qatar,” The New York Times, July 10,
1997, https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/10/world/young-turk-of-the-gulf-emir-of-
qatar.html.
27 Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History, 117–20; “Life Sentences for Qatari Coup
29 Kenneth Katzman, “Qatar: Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy,” CRS Report
independent.co.uk/news/world/emir-of-qatar-deposed-by-his-son-1588698.html.
31 William M. Hale, Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774 (New York, NY: Routledge, 2013),
1–2.
32 PKK is an armed separatist movement which was formed in 1978, and intensified its
terror attacks against Turkish officials and civilians especially in the 1990s.
5 EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 141
economic crisis of 2001 prepared the Turkish political scene for crit-
ical transformations that began with the early elections of 2002. The
newly established Justice and Development Party (AKP) was victorious
in the parliamentary elections and formed a single-party government33
Upon taking power, AKP leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan enthusiastically
embraced liberalism, globalization, and capitalism, and he positioned
himself against military-bureaucratic elites who were strictly resisting the
transformation of Turkey in accordance with neoliberal globalization.34
During this period, Turkey experienced a visible economic growth and
stability as well, which can be observed in high growth rates, rising GDP
per capita, and reduced poverty.35
Throughout the 2000s, the AKP consolidated its power by winning
consecutive elections and referendums and by curbing the influence of
the military on politics. Gradually, AKP rule was equated with economic
growth and political stability for a large segment of the population. All
these transformations in domestic politics greatly ameliorated Turkey’s
image in the Middle East. In the 2000s, Arab observers often watched
political and economic developments in Turkey with great interest and
admiration.36 AKP officials, in return, often underlined the common
Ottoman past and/or Islamic identity in defense of a rapprochement
with the region.37 Moreover, the AKP saw the Middle East as a fertile
export market and investment source for the growing Turkish economy.
As Qatar and Turkey were experiencing these critical transformations
at the domestic level, their foreign policies also started to change. Along
with Emir Hamad, the other main figure behind the formulation of
the new Qatari foreign policy was Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber
33 AKP leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was an ex-mayor of İstanbul, and former member
(Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume III 2001–2012), ed. Baskın Oran (İstanbul: İletişim, 2013),
54–58.
36 Zerrin Torun, “The Debate on ‘Turkey as a Role Model’ (1990–2011),” Avrasya
38 Sam Bollier, “Can Qatar Replace Its Renaissance Man?” Al Jazeera English, June 26,
2013, https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/06/201362613431469150.
html.
39 “Portre: Ahmet Davutoğlu.,” Al Jazeera Türk, May 5, 2016, http://www.aljazeera.
com.tr/portre/portre-ahmet-davutoglu.
40 Gürsel, “Ekonomi (Economy),” 66–67.
41 For the full list of countries with which Turkey signed a Free Trade Agreement
ical machines, motor vehicles. This information is edited from “Coğrafi Ülke Grubu ve
Fasıllara Göre Dış Ticaret (Foreign Trade with Regards to Geographical Country Groups and
Sections)” (Turkish Statistical Institute), accessed May 27, 2018, https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/
disticaretapp/disticaret.zul?param1=5¶m2=21&sitcrev=0&isicrev=0&sayac=5809.
5 EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 143
East comprised more than 40% of all the projects that were undertaken by
Turkish construction companies abroad.43 Consequently, Turkey started
to be considered as a trading state in its neighborhood.44
On the Qatari side, the main driver of economic diplomacy was the
country’s huge natural gas reserves, the third largest on earth. As the larg-
est LNG exporter on earth since 2006, Qatar dominates the global LNG
market.45 Furthermore, since 2009, Qatar has been one of the top five nat-
ural gas producing countries in the world.46 Doha operationalized its huge
income from LNG exports by establishing a sovereign wealth fund in 2005
under the presidency of HBJ: Qatar Investment Authority (QIA). Though
still smaller than other Gulf sovereign wealth funds, QIA makes critical
investments across the world and the broader Middle East, and has thus
become one of the main pillars of Qatari soft power in the region.47
Second, both Turkey and Qatar invested heavily in public diplo-
macy and name branding during this period. Humanitarian aid and
development assistance are an important component of public diplo-
macy for both countries. The main Turkish actors in these fields are the
Turkish Corporation and Development Agency (TIKA), the Disaster
Services Abroad),” Turkish Ministry of Economy, accessed May 27, 2018, https://
www.ekonomi.gov.tr/portal/content/conn/UCM/path/Contribution%20Folders/
web/Hizmet%20Ticareti/Sekt%c3%b6rler%20ve%20Destek%20Programlar%c4%b1/02.
Yu r t d % c 4 % b 1 % c 5 % 9 f % c 4 % b 1 % 2 0 M % c 3 % b c t e a h h i t l i k % 2 0 v e % 2 0 Te k n i k % 2 0
M%c3%bc%c5%9favirlik%28YDMH%29/Genel%20M%c3%bcteahhitlik%20Notu%20
02.05.2018.docx?lve.
44 Kemal Kirişçi, “The Transformation of Turkish Foreign Policy: The Rise of the Trading
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/natural-gas/world-natural-gas-production-statistics.html.
47 “Top 81 Largest Sovereign Wealth Fund Rankings by Total Assets,” SWFI Institute, May
Cairo and Damascus in 2010. Muharrem Ekşi, Kamu Diplomasisi ve Ak Parti Dönemi Türk
Dış Politikası (Public diplomacy and foreign policy of JDP Period) (Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi,
2014).
50 “THY’ye ‘En Çok Ülkeye Uçan Havayolu’ Unvanı (Turkish Airlines Receives ‘Largest
org/dac/stats/qatars-development-co-operation.htm.
5 EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 145
52 J.E. Peterson, “Qatar and the World: Branding for a Micro-State,” Middle East Journal
english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm.
54 Jamie Jackson, “Qatar Wins 2022 World Cup Bid,” The Guardian, December 2, 2010,
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/dec/02/qatar-win-2022-world-cup-bid.
55 Özgür Pala, “The Evolution of the Turkish–Qatari Relations from 2002 to 2013:
Convergence of Policies, Identities and Interests” (MA thesis, Qatar University, 2012), 60;
Qatar signed border demarcation agreement with Saudi Arabia in 1999, and a 2001 rul-
ing of International Court of Justice finalized dispute over Hawar Islands. See Fromherz,
Qatar: A Modern History, 117–19.
56 Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History, 112–13; Mehran Kamrava, “Mediation and
Qatari Foreign Policy,” Middle East Journal 65, no. 4 (Autumn 2011): 539–56.
146 N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM
59 Anrew F. Cooper and Besma Momani, “Qatar and Expanded Contours of Small State
Diplomacy,” The International Spectator 46, no. 3 (September 2011): 120–25, https://
doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2011.576181; Nuri Yeşilyurt, “Orta Doğu’yla İlişkiler
(Relations with the Middle East),” in Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt III: 2001–2012 (Turkish
Foreign Policy, Volume III: 2001–2012), ed. Baskın Oran (İstanbul: İletişim, 2013),
416–17, 431–431, 451–60; In addition, Qatar built relationships with important figures
from both moderate and even some extremist Sunni Islamist groups such as the Muslim
Brotherhood and the Libya Islamist Combatant Group. See Lina Khatib, “Qatar’s Foreign
Policy: The Limits of Pragmatism,” International Affairs 89, no. 2 (2013): 145–50,
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12025; Hedges and Cafiero, “The GCC and the
Muslim Brotherhood,” 145–50.
60 İlhan Uzgel, “ABD’yle İlişkiler (Relations with the USA),” in Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt
III: 2001–2012 (Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume III: 2001–2012), ed. Baskın Oran (İstanbul:
İletişim, 2013), 275; Cooper and Momani, “Qatar and Expanded Contours,” 123.
5 EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 147
More importantly, at least until 2009, both Ankara and Doha kept their
dialogue channels open with Israel, the key US ally in the region.61 In
sum, as a result of these connections and activities, Turkey and Qatar
established themselves as the most effective peace brokers in the broader
Middle East during the 2000s.
This proactive diplomacy in the Middle East was generally welcomed
by the United States. By the mid-2000s, Washington had begun to
acknowledge that Ankara’s and Doha’s active diplomacy in the Middle
East actually served its interests by contributing to the peace and stability
of the region, by creating a back channel for the US government to com-
municate with extremist/hostile actors inside and outside the revisionist
bloc, and by facilitating these actors’ moderation and articulation to the
global system.62 This diplomacy was also in accordance with the US-led
broader Middle East Initiative, which aimed at fostering economic and
political liberalization in the region.63 Turkish/Qatari relations and
activism in the region entered into a new phase in the wake of the Arab
Spring first movement, which brought about not only prospects but also
new challenges for both countries.
61 Yeşilyurt, “Orta Doğu’yla İlişkiler (Relations with the Middle East),” 438–51; Cooper
external pressure since 2014, and the alternative strategy of this bloc,
along with its regional implications.
64 Başkan, Turkey and Qatar in the Tangled Geopolitics, 33–81; Pala, “The Evolution of
and Egypt as “an axis of democracy” which is not against any country: Anthony Shadid,
“Turkey Predicts Alliance with Egypt as Regional Anchors,” The New York Times,
September 18, 2011, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/world/middleeast/
turkey-predicts-partnership-with-egypt-as-regional-anchors.html; Mustafa Yetim and
Bilal Hamade, “The Impact of the ‘New’ Zero Problems Policy and the Arab Spring on
the Relations between Turkey and Lebanese Factions,” Insight Turkey 16, no. 2 (2014):
69–72; and Mustafa Yetim, “State-Led Change in Qatar in the Wake of Arab Spring:
Monarchical Country, Democratic Stance?” Contemporary Review of the Middle East 1, no.
4 (2014): 392–400, https://doi.org/10.1177/2347798914564847.
5 EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 149
the beginning, in the end, both countries became part of the NATO-led
military campaign that toppled Qaddafi.66 In the Syrian crisis, Turkey
used diplomatic channels to encourage the Assad regime to initiate neces-
sary reforms, but once these efforts proved unsuccessful in August 2011,
Ankara became a strong backer of political and military opposition in
Syria.67 Likewise, Doha differed from most Arab regimes by closing its
embassy in Damascus at an earlier stage (July 2011), and by becoming the
first Arab state to call for foreign military intervention in Syria (January
2012).68 Chapter 7 in this book further explores Qatar’s policy regarding
the Syrian crisis.
The newly adopted pro-revolution stance of Ankara and Doha, how-
ever, hardly meant unconditional and unwavering support for all civil
demonstrations in the Arab world. Considering Turkey’s, and especially
Qatar’s, hesitant and silent position toward the Bahraini regime’s vio-
lent repression of Shia-led peaceful demonstrations in 2011, this condi-
tionality becomes only more obvious.69 In this way, during the Bahrain
demonstrations, Ankara and Doha refrained from unsettling the Saudi-
led status quo camp.
Turkey and Qatar’s parallel regional posture in the early phase of
the Arab Uprisings was the first and the most important indication of
the emergence of a Qatari–Turkish bloc in the broader Middle East.
More importantly, during this period, Ankara and Doha distinguished
66 Clifford Krauss, “For Qatar, Libyan Intervention May Be a Turning Point,” New York
70 F. Gregory Gause, “What the Qatar Crisis Shows about the Middle East,” in The
Qatar Crisis (Washington, DC: The Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS),
2017), 10–12, https://pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_
Qatar-Crisis.pdf; HAMAS started to keep the resistance camp at arm’s length first by
moving its headquarters from Syria to Qatar, and second, by declaring a new char-
ter in May 2017. Hamas’s partial shift from revisionist bloc may strengthen the sectar-
ian nature of the revisionist bloc since all the remaining actors in this bloc are Shiite. See
“Hamas Accepts Palestinian State with 1967 Borders,” Al Jazeera English, May 2, 2017,
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-1967-bor-
ders-170501114309725.html; Beverley Milton‐Edwards, “Hamas and the Arab Spring:
Strategic Shifts?” Middle East Policy 20, no. 3 (2013): 64–70, https://doi.org/10.1111/
mepo.12033; and Mohns and Bank, “Syrian Revolt Fallout,” 25–35.
71 Turkey’s rising influence in the broader Middle East was recognized both by regional
and international observers. See Mehmet Akif Kireççi, ed., Arap Baharı ve Türkiye Modeli
Tartışmaları (Arab Spring and Turkey: Debates on Turkish Model) (Ankara: ASEM, 2014);
Paul Kubicek, “Debating the Merits of the ‘Turkish Model’ for Democratization in the
Middle East,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and
Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in
World Affairs (Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018), 145–70.
72 Amour, “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics,” 9; Philipp O. Amour, “Israel,
the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East: A Strategic
Assessment,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 299–308,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1185696.
5 EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 151
73 See Philipp O. Amour, “Editor’s Note: The End of the Arab Spring?” ed. Philipp O.
Amour, The Arab Spring: Comparative Perspectives and Regional Implications, Special issue,
Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations 12, no. 3 (Fall 2013): I–IV.
74 Jeffrey Goldberg, “The Modern King in the Arab Spring,” The Atlantic, 2013, 13–15,
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/monarch-in-the-middle/309270.
75 Hedges and Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood,” 129–53.
76 Carlotta Gall, “Tunisia’s Premier Resigns, Formally Ending His Party’s Rule,” The
In face of these existential threats, Turkey and Qatar mostly left their
previous soft-power-oriented policies aside (i.e., zero problems with
neighbors, hedging), and became more involved in the Syrian and
Libyan civil wars by lending both political and military support to their
proxies, though with little hope of a supreme outcome.77
77 Jonathan Schanzer, “Turkey’s Secret Proxy War in Libya?” Text, The National
military base in Qatar to deter any possible invasion of Qatar. These steps
greatly helped solidification of the alliance between Ankara and Doha.81
Moreover, in 2017, the trade volume between the two countries reached
679 million USD, up from 132 million USD in 2005.82
The 2017 Qatar crisis (explored in Chapter 2) clearly demonstrated
that the Saudi-led status quo bloc is still worried about Ankara and
Doha’s growing alliance and their continuing ties with the MB-affiliated
groups throughout the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East.
Hence, the status quo bloc’s activities remain the major challenge
against the consolidation and expansion of the moderate resistance bloc.
Nevertheless, Turkey and Qatar seem able to hold their ground against
these pressures and pursue their alternative regional strategy. It is now
time to shed some light on this alternative strategy and its implications
for the regional power structure.
81 Marc Lynch, “The GCC Crisis in Perspective,” in The Qatar Crisis (Washington, DC:
The Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS), 2017), 3–5, https://pomeps.
org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf; Marc Lynch,
“Three Big Lessons of the Qatar Crisis,” in The Qatar Crisis (Washington, DC: The
Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS), 2017), 14–17, https://pomeps.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf.
82 “Ülkelere Göre Dış Ticaret (Foreign Trade with Regards to Countries),” Turkish
inally developed to explain Turkey’s regional position during Arab Uprisings, but it can be
also used as a general concept to understand the moderate resistance bloc’s regional activ-
ism. See Ulutaş and Duran, “Traditional Rivalry or Regional Design,” 93–96.
154 N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM
quo bloc. Yet, unlike the status quo bloc, the moderate resistance bloc
does not refrain from criticizing US policies toward regional issues such
as the Syrian civil war or from directly condemning Israeli aggressions
toward the Palestinians and Lebanon. Furthermore, in opposition to the
status quo bloc, Qatar and Turkey never ignored Iran’s critical role in
the region,84 and they built strong relations with emerging global pow-
ers, such as Russia, China, and India. So, in a sense, the moderate resist-
ance bloc seems to be much more pragmatic and flexible in its foreign
policy formulation than are the other two blocs. This was most obvious
when Turkey and Iran were congruent in supporting Qatar against the
Saudi-led blockade in 2017, despite the deep conflicts among them-
selves regarding the future of Syria.85 Turkey’s collaboration with Iran
and Russia during the ongoing Astana process is another indication of
the pragmatic nature and balanced position of the moderate resistance
bloc.86
The Turkey–Qatar-led third bloc’s relations with the Iranian-led revi-
sionist bloc were also fluctuating. The relations between these two blocs
were seriously strained, mainly due to their divergent policies toward the
Syrian crisis. While Iran regarded the possible fall of the Assad regime as
an existential threat to the maintenance of the revisionist bloc/resistance
axis, Ankara and Doha fully supported the opposition groups like SNC
84 Armstrong, “Interview: Birol Başkan”; Mohns and Bank, “Syrian Revolt Fallout,” 33;
and Seth J. Frantzman, “Turkey’s P ower-Play in Qatar Leads to Warmer Relations with
Iran,” The Jerusalem Post, July 1, 2017, https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/
Turkeys-power-play-in-Qatar-leads-to-warmer-relations-with-Iran-498468.
85 “How Turkey Stood by Qatar amid the Gulf Crisis,” Al Jazeera English, October
quo camp members such that Turkey was allegedly described as a “triangle of evil” with
Iran and Islamist groups by KSA’s MbS. See “Saudi Prince Says Turkey Part of ‘Triangle
of Evil’: Egyptian Media,” Reuters, March 7, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/arti-
cle/us-saudi-turkey/saudi-prince-says-turkey-part-of-triangle-of-evil-egyptian-me-
dia-idUSKCN1GJ1WW; W. Robert Pearson, “Saudi–Turkey Ties Take a Turn for the
Worse,” Middle East Institute, March 8, 2018, http://www.mei.edu/content/article/
saudi-turkey-ties-take-turn-worse; and “Iran, Turkey, Qatar Increasing Threat to Arab
Region: Sisi,” Egypt Independent, April 17, 2018, https://www.egyptindependent.com/
iran-turkey-qatar-increasing-threat-to-arab-region-sisi/.
5 EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 155
Conclusion
The Middle East is no longer a bipolar regional system. As a result of the
emerging Turkish/Qatari alliance and their sponsorship of MB affiliates
in the region, the regional system in the Gulf Region and the broader
Middle East was transformed into a tripolar regional system during the
initial years of the Arab Uprisings. Despite the setbacks of 2013–2014,
Qatar and Turkey went further in deepening bilateral relations and stick-
ing to their alternative regional strategy mentioned above, which can
2013, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23175379.
156 N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM
Bibliography
Al-Haj, Saeed. “Analysis: The Implications of the Qatar–Turkey Alliance.” Al
Jazeera English, June 18, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea-
tures/2017/06/implications-qatar-turkey-alliance-170618110726262.html.
Al-Husseini, Rola. “Hezbollah and the Axis of Refusal: Hamas, Iran and Syria.”
Third World Quarterly 31, no. 5 (2010): 809–910. https://doi.org/10.1080
/01436597.2010.502695.
Al Jazeera English. “Hamas Accepts Palestinian State with 1967 Borders,” May
2, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/hamas-accepts-pales-
tinian-state-1967-borders-170501114309725.html.
———. “How Turkey Stood by Qatar amid the Gulf Crisis,” October 14, 2017.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/turkey-stood-qatar-gulf-crisis-
171114135404142.html.
Al Jazeera Türk. “Portre: Ahmet Davutoğlu,” May 5, 2016. http://www.alja-
zeera.com.tr/portre/portre-ahmet-davutoglu.
Al Qalisi, Mohammed. “Qatar Loses Its First Soldier in Yemen.” The National,
November 12, 2015. https://www.thenational.ae/world/qatar-loses-its-first-
soldier-in-yemen-1.47850.
Al Tamamy, Saud. “GCC Membership Expansion: Possibilities and Obstacles.”
In Gulf Cooperation Council’s Challenges and Prospects, 70–77. Al
Jazeera Center for Studies, 2014. http://studies.aljazeera.net/mritems/
Documents/2015/3/31/2015331131534662734Gulf%20Cooperation.pdf.
Amour, Philipp O. “Editor’s Note: The End of the Arab Spring?” Edited by Philipp
O. Amour. The Arab Spring: Comparative Perspectives and Regional Implications,
Special issue, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations 12, no. 3
(Fall 2013): I–IV.
5 EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 157
Cafiero, Giorgio, and Daniel Wagner. “Turkey and Qatar: Close Allies, Sharing a
Doomed Syria Policy.” The Huffington Post, October 11, 2015. https://www.
huffingtonpost.com/giorgio-cafiero/turkey-and-qatar-close-al_b_8512336.
html.
Cleveland, William L., and Martin Bunton. A History of the Middle East.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2009.
Cockburn, Patrick. “Emir of Qatar Deposed by His Son,” June 8, 1995.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/emir-of-qatar-deposed-by-his-
son-1588698.html.
“Coğrafi Ülke Grubu ve Fasıllara Göre Dış Ticaret (Foreign Trade with Regards
to Geographical Country Groups and Sections).” Turkish Statistical Institute.
Accessed May 27, 2018. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/disticaretapp/disticaret.
zul?param1=5¶m2=21&sitcrev=0&isicrev=0&sayac=5809.
Cooper, Anrew F., and Besma Momani. “Qatar and Expanded Contours of Small
State Diplomacy.” The International Spectator 46, no. 3 (September 2011):
113–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2011.576181.
Dalay, Galip. “Is There Really a Turkey–Iran Rapprochement?” Al Jazeera
English, September 13, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opin-
ion/2017/09/turkey-iran-rapprochement-170907101356869.html.
Dargin, Justin. “Qatar’s Natural Gas: The Foreign-Policy Driver.” Middle
East Policy 14, no. 3 (2007): 136–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1475-4967.2007.00318.x.
Davutoğlu, Ahmet. Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu (Strategic
Depth: Turkey’s International Position). Istanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2008.
Demirtaş, Serkan. “İşte Katar Ile Askeri Anlaşmanın Detayları (The Details of the
Military Agreement with Qatar).” Hürriyet, June 9, 2015. www.hurriyet.com.
tr/dunya/29234032.asp.
Deseret News. “Prince Deposes Father in Qatar Palace Coup,” June 27, 1995.
https://www.deseret.com/1995/6/27/19179334/prince-deposes-father-
in-qatar-palace-coup.
Egypt Independent. “Iran, Turkey, Qatar Increasing Threat to Arab Region: Sisi,”
April 17, 2018. https://www.egyptindependent.com/iran-turkey-qatar-
increasing-threat-to-arab-region-sisi/.
Ehteshami, Anoushiravan. “The Foreign Policy of Iran.” In The Foreign Policies
of Middle East States, edited by Raymond A. Hinnebusch and Anoushiravan
Ehteshami, 283–311. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2002.
Ekşi, Muharrem. Kamu Diplomasisi ve Ak Parti Dönemi Türk Dış Politikası
(Public diplomacy and foreign policy of JDP Period). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi,
2014.
Ennis, Crystal A., and Bessma Momani. “Shaping the Middle East in the Midst
of the Arab Uprisings: Turkish and Saudi Foreign Policy Strategies.” Third
World Quarterly 34, no. 6 (2013): 1127–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/014
36597.2013.802503.
5 EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 159
Fırat, Melek, and Ömer Kürkçüoğlu. “Orta Doğu’yla İlişkiler (Relations with
the Middle East).” In Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt I: 1919–1980 (Turkish Foreign
Policy, Volume I: 1919–1980), edited by Baskın Oran, 784–96. İstanbul:
İletişim, 2009.
Foreign Economic Relations Council. “Türkiye – Ortadoğu ve Körfez İş
Konseyleri (Turkey—Middle East and Gulf Business Councils).” Accessed May
27, 2018. https://www.deik.org.tr/turkiye-ortadogu-ve-korfez-is-konseyleri.
France24. “Turkey Supports Saudi Mission in Yemen, Says Iran Must Withdraw,”
March 27, 2015. http://www.france24.com/en/20150326-turkey-support-
saudi-yemen-erdogan-interview-france-24.
Frantzman, Seth J. “Turkey’s Power-Play in Qatar Leads to Warmer Relations
with Iran.” The Jerusalem Post, July 1, 2017. https://www.jpost.com/Arab-
Israeli-Conflict/Turkeys-power-play-in-Qatar-leads-to-warmer-relations-with-
Iran-498468.
Fromherz, Allen J. Qatar: A Modern History. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press, 2012.
Gall, Carlotta. “Tunisia’s Premier Resigns, Formally Ending His Party’s
Rule.” The New York Times, January 9, 2014. https://www.nytimes.
com/2014/01/10/world/middleeast/tunisias-leader-resigns.html.
Gause, F. Gregory. “Revolution and Threat Perception: Iran and the Middle East.”
International Politics 52, no. 5 (2015): 637–45. https://doi.org/10.1057/
ip.2015.27.
———. “What the Qatar Crisis Shows about the Middle East.” In The Qatar
Crisis, 10–12. Washington, DC: The Project on Middle East Political Science
(POMEPS), 2017. https://pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/
POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf.
“Global Energy Statistical Yearbook 2017: Natural Gas Production,” May 27,
2018. https://yearbook.enerdata.net/natural-gas/world-natural-gas-produc-
tion-statistics.html.
Goldberg, Jeffrey. “The Modern King in the Arab Spring.” The Atlantic,
2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/
monarch-in-the-middle/309270.
Gürsel, Seyfettin. “Ekonomi (Economy).” In Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt III: 2001–
2012 (Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume III 2001–2012), edited by Baskın Oran,
52–70. İstanbul: İletişim, 2013.
Hale, William M. Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774. New York, NY: Routledge,
2013.
Hanieh, Adam. Capitalism and Class in the Gulf Arab States. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2015.
Haşimi, Cemalettin. “Turkey’s Humanitarian Diplomacy and Development
Cooperation.” Insight Turkey 16, no. 1 (Winter 2014): 127–45.
160 N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM
Hedges, Matthew, and Giorgio Cafiero. “The GCC and the Muslim
Brotherhood: What Does Future Hold?” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (Spring
2017): 129–53.
Hinnebusch, Raymond. “The Sectarian Revolution in the Middle East.” Global
Trends and Regional Issues 4, no. 1 (2016): 120–52.
Hürriyet. “6 Saatlik Kritik Görüşmeden Ilk Detaylar (First Details of the 6
Hours-Long Critical Meting),” August 9, 2011. http://www.hurriyet.com.
tr/gundem/6-saatlik-kritik-gorusmeden-ilk-detaylar-18446872.
Jackson, Jamie. “Qatar Wins 2022 World Cup Bid.” The Guardian, December
2, 2010. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/dec/02/qatar-win-
2022-world-cup-bid.
Jehl, Douglas. “Young Turk of the Gulf: Emir of Qatar.” The New York Times,
July 10, 1997. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/10/world/young-turk-
of-the-gulf-emir-of-qatar.html.
Kamrava, Mehran. “Mediation and Qatari Foreign Policy.” Middle East Journal
65, no. 4 (Autumn 2011): 539–56.
Katzman, Kenneth. “Qatar: Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy.” CRS
Report. Congressional Research Service, 2018. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/
mideast/R44533.pdf.
Kerr, Malcom. The Arab Cold War 1958–1967: A Study of Ideology in Politics.
2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1967.
Khatib, Lina. “Qatar’s Foreign Policy: The Limits of Pragmatism.” International
Affairs 89, no. 2 (2013): 417–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12025.
Kireççi, Mehmet Akif, ed. Arap Baharı ve Türkiye Modeli Tartışmaları (Arab
Spring and Turkey: Debates on Turkish Model). Ankara: ASEM, 2014.
Kirişçi, Kemal. “The Transformation of Turkish Foreign Policy: The Rise of the
Trading State.” New Perspectives on Turkey 40 (2009): 29–57.
Krauss, Clifford. “For Qatar, Libyan Intervention May Be a Turning Point.”
New York Times, April 3, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/
world/middleeast/04qatar.html.
Kubicek, Paul. “Debating the Merits of the ‘Turkish Model’ for Democratization
in the Middle East.” In The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes,
Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, edited by
Philipp O. Amour, 145–70. St. James’s Studies in World Affairs. Washington,
DC: Academica Press, 2018.
Leverett, Flynt, and Hillary Mann Leverett. “The United States, Iran and the
Middle East’s New ‘Cold War.’” The International Spectator 45, no. 1
(2010): 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932721003661624.
Lynch, Marc. “The GCC Crisis in Perspective.” In The Qatar Crisis, 3–5.
Washington, DC: The Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS),
2017. https://pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_
GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf.
5 EMERGENCE OF THE TURKISH/QATARI ALLIANCE … 161
———. “Three Big Lessons of the Qatar Crisis.” In The Qatar Crisis, 14–17.
Washington, DC: The Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS),
2017. https://pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_
Qatar-Crisis.pdf.
Mansfield, Peter, and Nicolas Pelham. A History of the Middle East. New York:
Penguin Books, 2013.
Milton‐Edwards, Beverley. “Hamas and the Arab Spring: Strategic Shifts?” Middle
East Policy 20, no. 3 (2013): 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/mepo.12033.
Mohns, Erik, and André Bank. “Syrian Revolt Fallout: End of the Resistance
Axis?” Middle East Policy 9, no. 3 (2012): 25–35. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1475-4967.2012.00545.x.
“Nato Operations in Libya: Data Journalism Breaks Down Which Country Does
What.” The Guardian, May 22, 2011. https://www.theguardian.com/news/
datablog/2011/may/22/nato-libya-data-journalism-operations-country.
NTV. “Erdoğan: Türkiye Libya’da arabulucu olabilir (Erdoğan: Turkey Can Act
as a Mediator in Libya).” Accessed March 29, 2011. https://www.ntv.com.
tr/dunya/erdogan-turkiye-libyada-arabulucu-olabilir.
O.E.C.D. “Qatar’s Development Co-Operation,” May 27, 2018. http://www.
oecd.org/dac/stats/qatars-development-co-operation.htm.
Osman, Mohammed. “Emir Was First Leader to Call Erdogan: Qatar Envoy.”
The Peninsula, July 18, 2016. https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/
qatar/387615/emir-was-first-leader-to-call-erdogan-qatar-envoy.
Pala, Özgür. “The Evolution of the Turkish–Qatari Relations from 2002 to
2013: Convergence of Policies, Identities and Interests.” MA thesis, Qatar
University, 2012.
Pala, Özgür, and Bülent Aras. “Practical Geopolitical Reasoning in the Turkish
and Qatari Foreign Policy on the Arab Spring.” Journal of Balkan and Near
Eastern Studies 17, no. 3 (2015): 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/1944
8953.2015.1063274.
Pearson, W. Robert. “Saudi–Turkey Ties Take a Turn for the Worse.” Middle
East Institute, March 8, 2018. http://www.mei.edu/content/article/
saudi-turkey-ties-take-turn-worse.
Peterson, J.E. “Qatar and the World: Branding for a Micro-State.” Middle East
Journal 60, no. 4 (Autumn 2006): 732–48.
Qatar Foundation. “About Qatar Foundation,” May 26, 2018. https://www.
qf.org.qa/about.
Rathmel, Andrew, and Kirsten Schulze. “Political Reform in the Gulf: The Case
of Qatar.” Middle Eastern Studies 36, no. 4 (October 2000): 47–62.
Reuters. “Saudi Prince Says Turkey Part of ‘Triangle of Evil’: Egyptian Media,”
March 7, 2018. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-turkey/saudi-
prince-says-turkey-part-of-triangle-of-evil-egyptian-media-idUSKCN1GJ1WW.
162 N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM
M%c3%bc%c5%9favirlik%28YDMH%29/Genel%20M%c3%bcteahhitlik%20
Notu%2002.05.2018.docx?lve.
———. “Yürürlükte Bulunan STA’lar (FTA’s in Force).” Accessed May 27,
2018. https://www.ekonomi.gov.tr/portal/faces/home/disIliskiler/
SerbestTic/SerbestTic-YururlukteBulunanSTA.
Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Uyuşmazlıkların Çözümü ve Arabuluculuk
(Conflict Resolution and Mediation).” Accessed May 27, 2018. http://www.
mfa.gov.tr/uyusmazliklarin-cozumu-ve-arabuluculuk.tr.mfa.
Turkish Statistical Institute. “Ülkelere Göre Dış Ticaret (Foreign Trade with Regards
to Countries).” Accessed May 27, 2018. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/disticare-
tapp/disticaret.zul?param1=4¶m2=0&sitcrev=0&isicrev=0&sayac=5808.
Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates. “Qatar and the Arab Spring: Policy Drivers and
Regional Implications.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
September 24, 2014. https://carnegieendowment.org/2014/09/24/
qatar-and-arab-spring-policy-drivers-and-regional-implications-pub-56723.
Ulutaş, Ufuk, and Burhanettin Duran. “Traditional Rivalry or Regional Design
in the Middle East?” Insight Turkey 20, no. 2 (Spring 2018): 81–105.
Uzgel, İlhan. “ABD’yle İlişkiler (Relations with the USA).” In Türk Dış
Politikası, Cilt III: 2001–2012 (Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume III:
2001-2012), edited by Baskın Oran, 246–336. İstanbul: İletişim, 2013.
———. “AKP: Neoliberal Dönüşmün Yeni Aktörü (AKP: The New Actor of
Neoliberal Transformation).” In AKP Kitabı: Bir Dönüşümün Bilançosu
(AKP Book: Balance Sheet of a Transformation), edited by Bülent Duru and
İlhan Uzgel, 11–39. Ankara: Phoenix, 2009.
“World LNG Report.” IGU World LNG Report. International Gas Union
(IGU), 2017. https://www.igu.org/sites/default/files/103419-World_
IGU_Report_no%20crops.pdf.
World Trade Organization. “The Doha Round,” May 5, 2019. https://www.
wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dda_e.htm.
Wright, Robin, and Peter Baker. “Iraq, Jordan See Threat to Election from
Iran.” Washington Post, December 8, 2004. www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/articles/A43980-2004Dec7.html.
Yeşilyurt, Nuri. “Orta Doğu’yla İlişkiler (Relations with the Middle East).” In
Türk Dış Politikası, Cilt III: 2001–2012 (Turkish Foreign Policy, Volume III:
2001–2012), edited by Baskın Oran, 401–52. İstanbul: İletişim, 2013.
Yeşilyurt, Nuri, and Atay Akdevelioğlu. “AKP Döneminde Türkiye’nin
Ortadoğu Politikası (Turkey’s Middle East Policy during the JDP Period).”
In AKP Kitabı: Bir Dönüşümün Bilançosu (JDP Book: Balance Sheet of a
Transformation), edited by İlhan Uzgel and Bülent Duru, 381–409. Ankara:
Phoenix, 2009.
164 N. YEŞILYURT AND M. YETIM
Stephanie Carver
Introduction
The arrival of then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the Somali
capital in August 2011 signaled a watershed moment in the relation-
ship between Mogadishu and Ankara. Not only did Erdoğan set a new
model for engagement with the Federal Republic of Somalia (hereafter,
Somalia) by becoming the first state leader to venture into the war-torn
country from outside the Horn of Africa region1; it has also been inter-
preted as a sign of Turkey’s intention to become a leading player in the
Horn of Africa region, among other dimensions, through engaging in
areas of security provision, economic support, extensive aid programs,
and emergency humanitarian assistance.
1 The Horn of Africa includes countries of Djibouti, Eretria, Ethiopia, and Somalia;
broader definitions include as well part of or all of Sudan, Uganda and Kenya. The author
of this article follows the later category.
S. Carver (*)
Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
e-mail: Stephanie.carver@monash.edu
2 Onur Sazak and Auveen Elizabeth Woods, “Thinking Outside the Compound: Turkey’s
4 Dimitar Bechev, “Turkey’s Rise as a Regional Power,” European View 10, no. 2 (2011):
173–74, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12290-011-0184-0.
6 EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 169
“aspiring Great Power.”5 While much of the literature gets bogged down
in debating the validity of categorizing Turkish power, what remains
overlooked is an assessment of Turkish soft power within the confines of
the Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) and an assessment of the
ability of the RSCT to adequately address Turkish behavior in the Horn
of Africa regional security complex as a bid for greater regional influence.
Interpreting the shift in power dynamics within the Horn region has,
to date, only received limited attention, while even less research has con-
sidered how the Turkish model of engagement has affected the regional
security complexes. This chapter seeks to address this research deficit by
asking: To what extent has Turkey’s soft power tactics in Somalia enabled
Turkey to cultivate greater power and influence in the Horn of Africa
region? Specifically, this chapter will consider Ankara’s engagement
within Somalia and some of the key strategies used to build influence
within the Horn of Africa regional security complex and the principal
security actors operating within the Somali state, including the African
Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), IGAD, EAC, and the OIC as
a snapshot of Turkish involvement in Somalia and the different meth-
ods that Turkey uses to pursue greater regional influence in the Horn of
Africa.
To this end, the chapter is divided as follows: the subsequent section
will outline the theoretical framing for the chapter, which specifically
draws on Buzan and Waever’s seminal work on RSCT to conceptualize
regional security complexes. From there, the second section provides
a brief background of Turkish involvement in the Somali state, con-
sidering the regional security complexes at work in the Horn of Africa
and specifically Somalia. The third section considers whether and by
what methods Turkey can seek to influence the security complexes that
exist in the Somali region, presenting a snapshot of Turkish engage-
ment with RSC by first considering the soft power strategies of visibil-
ity and a humanitarian framing to Turkish activity within Somalia, before
focusing on the alliances with various security actors. The final section
summarizes the points raised in the chapter and presents some closing
remarks.
Security Complex Theory,” Mediterranean Politics 19, no. 2 (2014): 165, https://doi.org/
10.1080/13629395.2013.799353.
170 S. CARVER
6 Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in
the Post-Cold War Era (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), 188.
7 Barry Buzan and Ole Waever, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International
Post-Cold War Horn of Africa, ed. Roba D. Sharamo and Berouk Mesfin, ISS Monograph
Series 178 (Halfway House: Institute for Security Studies, 2011), 3.
6 EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 171
groupings of these regional states. Instead, the theory delves deeper; that
is, it prioritizes groupings of states that can act to influence the security
concerns of fellow member states rather than just focusing on geograph-
ical representations of regionalism.9 It is therefore possible to consider
which actors dominate the security terrain and are positioned over the
other members of the complex.10 Through analysis of these patterns of
interdependence, the RSCT affords the researcher a lens through which
to examine the power distributions within a security environment.
While the RSCT might provide a lens to perceive the power dynamics
at work within the region, it is necessary to consider the varied capac-
ity of the actors, including Super Powers, Great Powers, and Regional
Powers, who operate within the RSC. Especially relevant to this chapter
is the consideration of the actors that are geographically situated beyond
the RSC but still exert some influence over security dynamics within
the RSC. In ending this section, it is worth pointing out that the RSCT
used in this chapter is in harmony with the general theoretical framework
introduced in Chapters 1 and 14 of this book. The following subsection
will seek to unpack the types of actors within an RSC.
to which they can exercise that power. Within this structure of Super,
Great, and Regional Powers, it is worth considering how Turkey should
be understood within the RSCT.
20 Ąžuolas Bagdonas, “Turkey as a Great Power? Back to Reality,” Turkish Studies 16, no.
Within the Horn region, Somalia represents one of the principal secu-
rity threats. The collapse of the state in 1991 left a complex and con-
voluted legacy and has opened the space up to a multitude of different
threats, actors, and security regimes, all of which contribute to the (in)
security dynamics within the Horn region. The following subsection
considers some of the most pressing threats to security in Somalia and
the Horn of Africa security complex.
25 Robert I. Rotberg, “Failed States in a World of Terror,” Foreign Affairs 81, no. 4
Somali Piracy,” Scientia Militaria: South African Journal of Military Studies 43, no. 2
(2015): 24, https://doi.org/10.5787/43-1-1107.
178 S. CARVER
despite not claiming the attack, is likely responsible for the October
2017 Mogadishu attack that claimed more than 300 casualties.30
The recent spate of attacks underscores the ferocity of the group and
the danger the group poses to the region. Regional control by Al-Shabab
has fluctuated in accordance with extra-regional actors’ engagement
with Somalia, in particular Ethiopian and AMISOM troops, and has
ranged from extensive control of the southern regions of Somalia and
Mogadishu to withdrawing to regions further afield.
Threats to security inspired by weak state control, including poverty,
population movement, humanitarian crises, and terrorism, can escape
from the Somali state due to the systemic and extensive shadow econo-
mies, the porous borders, and corruption that threaten the security and
stability of the states in the broader Horn region. State instability, pro-
longed conflict, and regional famines have left a large swathe of the
Somali population vulnerable and have subsequently fed into mass move-
ments of refugees, economic migration, and displaced people through-
out the Horn. Regional dynamics, including the instability in Yemen
and Libya, have seen many Somalis seeking to leave, but many more also
return home to Somalia. According to the monitoring bodies, Somalia
remains a popular area of transit for mixed migration groups but, more
recently, it has also become a popular destination for people returning
from Yemen.31 The uncontrolled movement of people within the region
is cause for concern for regional states, especially as the numbers of people
on the move escalate.
The following section will consider how Turkey has sought to engage
within the Somali state and how the actions that occur within Somalia
benefit the broader Horn of Africa RSC.
30 “Managing the Disruptive Aftermath of Somalia’s Worse Terror Attack,” Crisis Group
24, SAIIA Research Report (South African Institute of International Affairs, November 21,
2016), 18, https://saiia.org.za/research/turkey-in-somalia-shifting-paradigms-of-aid/.
34 Pınar Akpınar, “Turkey’s Peacebuilding in Somalia: The Limits of Humanitarian
Challenges and Prospects,” Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity
41, no. 6 (2013): 865–70, https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2013.857299.
37 Soner Cagaptay, “Defining Turkish Power: Turkey as a Rising Power Embedded in the
Western International System,” Turkish Studies 14, no. 4 (2013): 801, https://doi.org/10
.1080/14683849.2013.861110.
180 S. CARVER
43 Stearns and Sucuoglu, “Turkey in Somalia,” 20; Sazak and Woods, “Thinking Outside
Emerging Interests and Relations,” Chatham House, June 28, 2012, 2, https://www.
chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Africa/280612summary.pdf.
6 EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 183
51 Recep Tayyip Erdogan, “The Tears of Somalia,” Foreign Policy, October 10, 2011,
https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/10/the-tears-of-somalia/.
52 Sazak and Woods, “Thinking Outside the Compound,” 172.
mediator, Turkey hosted the eighth round of talks between the Federal
Somali government and the Somaliland authorities in March 2015, as the
two authorities tackled issues of maritime security, including piracy and
illegal fishing, among other issues.55
By remaining visible within the region, Ankara engages directly with
the RSC by beginning to address some of the sources of conflict that
destabilize the region. Attempting to mediate between Al-Shabab and
the Mogadishu government provided Ankara the needed opening to
directly impact the security conditions within the RSC through attempts
to mitigate or at least manage the threat to the Horn region by the
insurgents.
Projecting a visible image in Somalia also builds recognition of
Ankara’s influence within the region. Buzan and Waever indicate that an
essential part of the construction of Regional, Great, and Super Power
status is the reflected recognition from the rest of the international
community of that power capacity. Yet, according to their categoriza-
tion, Turkey is neither a Super nor a Great power, and yet it still oper-
ates by exactly adopting these sorts of tactics. According to the RSCT,
this behavior would be unexpected from a Regional Power, who would
be expected to lack the material or economic might to enable these
changes within an external RSC. Regardless, Turkey has managed to
achieve precisely this. Ankara has continued to demonstrate its capacity
in the Somali state through a variety of different engagements, but in its
attempts to become a “voice” for the African state in the UN General
Assembly and other international platforms, Ankara reiterates very
publicly that it is engaging with the beleaguered Somali state and that
Ankara has the capacity to address these problems. Turkish engagement
within Somalia through soft power tactics would appear to run counter
to what the RSCT would predict, and this presents a challenge to this
theory more broadly.
Somalia. Within the Horn RSC, Turkey is just one of many Regional,
Great, and Super Power actors who have varied interests in the secu-
rity complex of the Horn of Africa. Early attempts to resolve the Somali
conflict drew on regional and international actors who sought alliances
with the various regional and local actors in an effort to rebuild and sta-
bilize the Somali state in the early 1990s through the United Nations
Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) I and II and the Unified Task Force
(UNITAF) in an effort to provide humanitarian relief and peacekeep-
ing in the civil conflict that engulfed the state. The practice of building
alliances between external actors with local and regional actors contin-
ues and has proven a useful method for Turkey to bolster its power and
influence within the region. How Turkey exerts this influence and the
extent to which Ankara can gather traction with these regional actors as
an extra-regional actor is unpacked in the following paragraphs regarding
the most prominent regional security actors, including the EAC, IGAD,
the OIC, and the AMISOM.
Ankara’s collaborations with IGAD and EAC engagements have
proved useful in bolstering Turkish visibility and in fostering greater
legitimacy within the region. From within the RSCs, Turkey’s pro-
jection of power has remained relatively constrained by the immobil-
ity of the security complexes, who remain a global entity and are thus
unwieldly within the Horn. Instead, Ankara’s involvement serves to act
as a demonstration of the extensive engagement that Turkey has within
the region. Erdoğan’s regular travel to EAC countries serves to reiterate
this connection.56 The value of visibility within the region is less inform-
ative when considered in isolation. Considered collectively, however,
the engagement with these economic security regimes paints a picture of
Turkish involvement as a “thick” network that spans across a variety of
different security dynamics. Individually, by contrast, these RSCs afford
the Turkish state very limited space to test Ankara’s power and influence
over the RSCs.
Ankara adopted a different strategy within the OIC in an attempt to
indicate the ascendancy of Turkey within the international community
and as a dominant player within the Horn of Africa RSC. Mimicking
the role of Great and Super Powers with RSCs, Ankara demonstrated
56 Mücahid Durmaz, “Turkey Seeks Deeper Relations with Africa,” May 27, 2016, https://
www.trtworld.com/in-depth/turkey-seeks-broad-based-relations-with-africa-114268.
6 EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 187
57 Mehmet Ozkan, “The Turkish Way of Doing Development Aid? An Analysis from the
Somali Laboratory,” in South-South Cooperation beyond the Myths: Rising Donors New Aid
Practices? ed. Isaline Bergamaschi, Phoebe Moore, and Arlene B. Tickne (London, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 65.
58 Erdogan, “The Tears of Somalia.”
61 “Final Communique.”
62 Eva Svoboda et al., “Islamic Humanitarianism?” HGP Working Paper (London:
Humanitarian Policy Group, February 2015), https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/
files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9457.pdf.
188 S. CARVER
regions and the speed of this delivery enabled the Turkish state to take
an active role in influencing the engagement of the OIC within the Horn
region. By its quick and effective management of the Somali humani-
tarian crisis, Ankara was able to “take the reins” on crisis management.
Turkey was able to exercise its leadership role and to test its ability to
shape the RSC through advocating and making the Horn a priority for
the OIC. Turkey was able to assert itself as a champion of the Horn
region and of Somalia by drawing international focus, but it also built on
this position by mobilizing donors in aid of the state.
By doing so, Ankara has branded Turkey with a transnational identity of
a humanist Regional (Great) Power for segments of people in the broader
Middle East or as a Pan-Islamic State for others; all of which have fostered
the image of Turkey in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East and
increased its popularity and legitimacy among peoples and political elites
across the different security blocs mentioned in this book.
The Turkey–AMISOM relations present a fascinating Petri dish of the
various influences and impacts that are at work on the security complex.
Financially, Turkey is a contributor to the purses of AMISOM, contribut-
ing more than US$2 million dollars to strengthening the organization.63
In addition to financial aid, Turkey has, in the past, also provided men-
tor support through private security providers and training for Somali
security.64 Overtures had been made by Ankara to take a more proac-
tive and steering role in the training of Somali National Army (SNA).
Those efforts, however, have been met with resistance from other larger
donors to AMISOM, including Ethiopia, the European Union (EU),
and the United States (US).65 The financial backing of these actors to
AMISOM purses dwarfs that of Ankara.66 The rejection of Turkey’s 2013
proposal to implement a training program with the SNA was perhaps to
be expected, since there could be little incentive for these actors to will-
ingly see their influence over the provision of security within the state
eroded by a growing Turkish influence. Instead, the financial backing of
Policy,” Sarajevo Journal of Social Sciences Inquiry 2, no. 2 (2016): 102, https://doi.
org/10.21533/isjss.v2i2.86.
64 Akpınar, “Turkey’s Peacebuilding in Somalia,” 746–47.
the EU and US locked Turkey into a position wherein its power would
be unlikely to present a challenge to Ethiopia or the US. This outcome
suggests that while Turkey has the ability to engage with tools of soft
power, such as a humanitarian aid, and to be a proactive extra-regional
actor within Somalia, there are still limits on the extent to which Ankara
can influence some of the actors within the RSC. By extension, this lim-
its the ability that Ankara has to shape the security dynamics within the
Horn RSC.
Unable to engage in the provision of security directly through
AMISOM by putting its mark on the provision of training of SNA
troops, Ankara opted to engage in the security sector bilaterally. In late
2017, Turkey opened its largest overseas military base, covering about
four square kilometers in Mogadishu, with the intent of using the base
to train 10,000 Somali soldiers.67 Turkey has poured resources into the
state, contributing approximately $50m on the base alone. The base is
a strategic step for Turkey, designed to underscore Turkish long-term
commitment to the security of the Horn region in particular (with the
Turkish chief of General Staff Hulusi Akar’s statements at the opening
ceremony: “The government of Turkey and its army will provide all the
needed support to our brothers in Somalia”) and the broader Middle
East in general.68 The attempt to alter the dynamics within the RSC
has been deemed for Ankara to gain a foothold in the region, alongside
the attempts of the covert US bases (which are largely unacknowledged
by the US government but that include the Balidogle airfield near the
Somali capital), UAE base outside Mogadishu, and plans to add a sec-
ond base outside of Somaliland in the northwest of the state.69 Ankara’s
opening of the base is part of the intra-regional power competition in
Africa’s Horn. While these military bases promote prospects for the
67 “Turkey Sets Up Largest Overseas Army Base in Somalia: Ankara Move Is Part
involved actors; they also pit the competition between the rival actors
and create risks for the Horn RSC.
The opening of the military base in Mogadishu in 2017 is not a coin-
cidence. In the same year, Ankara signed the Suakin agreement with
Khartoum to restore and run the port in Sudan’s Suakin Island. These
ports give Turkey direct access to the Red Sea. Ankara’s military base
in Doha is its third military grip approximating Africa and the Gulf
Region. Ankara’s expansion of power comes with the dissatisfaction of
the KSA and the UAE (as well as Egypt) for attempting to expand its
area of influence in the Horn of Africa region by opening military bases
and naval docks. The upset of Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir in
2019, has changed for the mentioned actors the allies in the subregion
and will most likely have implications in this regard on their expansion of
power.70
Conclusion
This chapter examined the extent to which Turkey’s soft power strate-
gies of visibility and collaborative efforts in Somalia have enabled Ankara
to cultivate a greater degree of power and influence within Somalia and
the Horn RSC. The evidence indicates that Turkey has become an active
participant within Somalia and the Horn RSC. The chapter has also
demonstrated the challenges the case of Turkey presents to Buzan and
Waever’s RSCT. Rather than seek a linear progression from a Regional
Power to a Great Power, as the RSCT would expect, Turkey’s strate-
gies of visibility and humanitarianism provide a challenge to the theory
and demonstrate that Regional Powers can also act in external RSCs.
Ankara’s ability to affect the security terrain in which the RSCs oper-
ate has afforded Turkey the ability to demonstrate its influence on the
region. This engagement forces a reaction from other actors and secu-
rity regimes. For example, Turkey’s decision to operate on the ground
in Somalia rather than from an external neighboring state has enabled
Turkey to disrupt or alter the dominant modus operandi in address-
ing Somalia. Similarly, the widespread and expansive engagement with
Bibliography
Akpınar, Pınar. “Turkey’s Peacebuilding in Somalia: The Limits of Humanitarian
Diplomacy.” Turkish Studies 14, no. 4 (2013): 735–57. https://doi.org/10.1
080/14683849.2013.863448.
Al Jazeera. “Turkey Sets Up Largest Overseas Army Base in Somalia: Ankara Move
Is Part of Efforts to Increase Foothold in the Horn of Africa,” October 1, 2017.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/turkey-sets-largest-overseas-ar-
my-base-somalia-171001073820818.html.
Bagdonas, Ąžuolas. “Turkey as a Great Power? Back to Reality.” Turkish Studies
16, no. 3 (2015): 310–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2015.1069
712.
Barrinha, André. “The Ambitious Insulator: Revisiting Turkey’s Position in
Regional Security Complex Theory.” Mediterranean Politics 19, no. 2 (2014):
165–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2013.799353.
Bechev, Dimitar. “Turkey’s Rise as a Regional Power.” European View 10, no. 2
(2011): 173–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12290-011-0184-0.
Berouk, Mesfin. “The Horn of Africa Security Complex.” In Regional Security
in the Post-Cold War Horn of Africa, edited by Roba D. Sharamo and Berouk
Mesfin, 1–30. ISS Monograph Series 178. Halfway House: Institute for
Security Studies, 2011.
Buzan, Barry. People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security
Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991.
Buzan, Barry, and Ole Waever. Regions and Powers: The Structure of
International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Cagaptay, Soner. “Defining Turkish Power: Turkey as a Rising Power Embedded
in the Western International System.” Turkish Studies 14, no. 4 (2013): 797–
811. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2013.861110.
Davutoğlu, Ahmet. “Turkey’s Humanitarian Diplomacy: Objectives, Challenges
and Prospects.” Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and
Ethnicity 41, no. 6 (2013): 865–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2
013.857299.
Durmaz, Mücahid. “Turkey Seeks Deeper Relations with Africa,” May 27, 2016.
https://www.trtworld.com/in-depth/turkey-seeks-broad-based-relations-
with-africa-114268.
Erdogan, Recep Tayyip. “The Tears of Somalia.” Foreign Policy, October 10,
2011. https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/10/the-tears-of-somalia/.
Frazier, Derrick, and Robert Stewart-Ingersoll. “Regional Powers and
Security: A Framework for Understanding Order Within Regional Security
Complexes.” European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 4 (2010):
731–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109359847.
6 EXPANDING THE TURKISH BID FOR REGIONAL … 193
Hanlie Booysen
Introduction
In the wake of the Arab uprisings, Qatar took significant foreign
policy risks in supporting Islamists,1 including the moderate Islamist
Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (SMB).2 This position is in contrast with
Doha’s habitual foreign policy stance of hedging its bets, i.e., to pursue
opposing positions in order to reduce risk.3 For example, Qatar hosts
1 Lina Khatib, “Qatar and the Recalibration of Power in the Gulf” (Carnegie Middle East
Center, September 2014), 4–7, https://carnegieendowment.org/files/qatar_recalibra-
tion.pdf; Lina Khatib, “Qatar’s Foreign Policy: The Limits of Pragmatism,” International
Affairs 89, no. 2 (March 1, 2013): 417–31, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
2346.12025; David B. Roberts, “Qatar and the UAE: Exploring Divergent Responses to
the Arab Spring,” The Middle East Journal 71, no. 4 (Autumn 2017): 558, https://doi.
org/10.3751/71.4.12.
2 For the purposes of this chapter, ‘moderate Islamist’ denotes an ideological commitment
by Islamists to n
on-violent political change and parliamentary democracy.
3 See Mehran Kamrava, Qatar: Small State, Big Politics (New York: Cornell University
H. Booysen (*)
Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
e-mail: hanlie.booysen@vuw.ac.nz
the biggest number of United States (US) military personnel in the Gulf
Region and the broader Middle East,4 while it also maintains cordial rela-
tions with Iran. Qatar further hosted an Israeli trade office for more than
a decade and then hosted the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas.5
In the first two years of the Arab uprisings, however, hedging became
superfluous.
This chapter will argue that Doha’s commitment to the SMB’s strug-
gle against the Syrian Ba’th regime was not precarious, but pragmatic
and based on Qatar’s constructed identity and the political environment.
In doing so, the chapter will show that an individual brand of Qatari
Wahhabism, and a mutually beneficial relationship with the Egyptian
Muslim Brotherhood (EMB), predisposed Qatar to view the 2010/11
Arab uprisings as an opportunity to enhance its influence in the Gulf
Region and the broader Middle East Region. In using the Syrian upris-
ing as a case study, I demonstrate further how and why other actors in
the regional system supported Qatar’s stance on the Syrian conflict and
why countries like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) changed their
policy notion and behavior over time.
The next two sections will demonstrate that Qatar’s state identity,
rationale of gaining independency in Gulf politics from bigger states, and
geopolitical calculations moved Doha to pursue an independent stance
on the SMB.6
4 Brad Lendon, “Qatar Hosts Largest US Military Base in Mideast,” CNN, June 6, 2017,
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/05/middleeast/qatar-us-largest-base-in-mideast/
index.html.
5 Qatar hosted an Israeli trade office from 1996 to 2009, and Hamas relocated from
Damascus to Doha in response to the Syrian conflict in 2011/12. For more on Qatar and
Israel, see Uzi Rabi, “Qatar’s Relations with Israel: Challenging Arab and Gulf Norms,” The
Middle East Journal 63, no. 3 (Summer 2009): 443–59.
6 See Raymond Hinnebusch, The International Politics of the Middle East, 2nd ed.
7 Allen James Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History (Washington, DC: I.B. Tauris, 2012), 58.
8 Cihat Battaloğlu, Political Reforms in Qatar: From Authoritarianism Top Political Grey Zone
(Berlin, Germany: Gerlach Press, 2018), 18.
9 Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History, 55.
10 Fromherz, 58–59.
11 Qatari tribes shifted from the Maliki to the Hanbali school of law under the influ-
ence of Wahahbism during the rule of Sheikh Jasim. See Andrew Hammond, “Qatar’s
Leadership Transition: Like Father, Like Son,” Policy Brief (European Council on
foreign relations (ecfr.eu), February 11, 2014), 4, https://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/
ECFR95_QATAR_BRIEF_AW.pdf.
12 Fromherz, Qatar: A Modern History, 59.
13 The formation of the Saudi state was based on an alliance in 1744 between the fight-
ing power of Muhammad bin Saud and the religious call of Muhammad bin Abd al-Wah-
hab. See Stephane Lacroix and George Holoch, Awakening Islam: The Politics of Religious
Dissent in Contemporary Saudi Arabia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011), 8.
198 H. BOOYSEN
14 J.E. Peterson, “Britain and Formation of Gulf States: The Case of Qatar and Shaykh
Jassim Bin Muhammad,” in Jassim Bin Mohammed Bin Thani—The Day of Solidarity,
Loyalty and Honor, ed. Jamal Mahmud Hajar et al. (Qatar: GEM Advertising &
Publications, 2008), 67.
15 Birol Baskan and Steven Wright, “Seeds of Change: Comparing State–Religion
Relations in Qatar and Saudi Arabia,” Arab Studies Quarterly 33, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 107.
16 David B. Roberts, “Understanding Qatar’s Foreign Policy Objectives,” Mediterranean
Emirates Is Inflaming the Middle East” (Project on Middle East Political Science, October
2017), 33, https://pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-
Crisis.pdf.
7 QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 199
In the meantime, however, the United States has taken a more nuanced
position and the United States–Qatari alliance endures intra-Gulf con-
flict. The miscalculated blockade has not forced Qatar to capitulate to
the trio’s demands, which include ending any contact with the Muslim
Brotherhood (MB) and closing down the Al Jazeera media network (see
Chapters 1 and 2). By contrast, Qatar has strengthened its bilateral rela-
tions with Turkey18 and Iran,19 while its agricultural sector’s Made in
Qatar brand resonates with a heightened Qatari nationalism.20
Thus, Qatar has historically aimed to pursue a balance between secu-
rity and autonomy from the control of bigger states in the Gulf Region
and the broader Middle East. In managing this challenge, Qatar ini-
tially played the Ottoman Empire and Britain off against each other, and
subsequently Britain and Saudi Arabia. At present, Qatar is pursuing its
foreign policy independent of Saudi Arabia’s political line because of its
alliance with the USA and with Turkey, its regional great power backer.
towards the Arab Uprisings,” Sicherheit Und Frieden (S + F)/Security and Peace 32, no. 4
(2014): 260.
200 H. BOOYSEN
22 Jocelyne Cesari, “Disciplining Religion: The Role of the State and Its Consequences
of Muslim Brotherhood Affiliates in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates,” International
Journal of Middle East Studies 49, no. 3 (August 2017): 483, https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0020743817000344.
24 Lacroix and Holoch, Awakening Islam, 10.
Democracy in Qatar,” in Reform in the Middle East Oil Monarchies, ed. Anoushiravan
Ehteshami and Steven Wright (Reading, UK: Ithaca Press, 2012), 18.
26 David B. Roberts, “Qatar and the Brotherhood,” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy
33 Hedges and Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood,” 133.
202 H. BOOYSEN
of the Arab uprisings, the Sahwa once again challenged the monarchy’s
authority.34 Today, the Saudi state views the MB as an existential threat
and a terrorist organization.
Similar to Saudi Arabia, Qatar offered members of the EMB protec-
tion in the 1950s and 1960s to escape persecution by the Nasser govern-
ment.35 A symbiotic relationship developed, which is best represented by
Egyptian born Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s relationship with Qatar’s rul-
ers.36 Similar to other members of the EMB in Qatar, Qaradawi has con-
tributed to the education sector, and in the field of media. His first role
was Director of the Education Ministry’s Institute of Islamic Instruction.37
In 1977, he founded the Sharia Faculty at Qatar University, and subse-
quently became its first Dean.38 The pinnacle of Qaradawi’s influence,
however, was in the media and came in the context of Qatar’s soft power,
as projected by the Al Jazeera television channel. Qaradawi’s popular talk
show Sharia and Life (al-shari’a wa al-hayat) had a global audience of up
to 35 million on an almost weekly basis.39 Furthermore, in contrast to the
Sahwa’s challenge to the Saudi government in 1990 and again in 2011,
the MB in Qatar freely disbanded in 1999,40 and therefore posed no threat
to Qatar in the context of the 2010/11 Arab uprisings.
In this section, we have seen that the al-Thani rulers, from early on,
had to trade off a need for security with an ambition for autonomy
from bigger powers in the Gulf Region. A commitment to gain auton-
omy from the KSA in domestic politics and regional affairs resulted in
37 David H. Warren, “Qatari Support for the Muslim Brotherhood Is More Than Just
Realpolitik, It Has a Long, Personal History,” MAYDAN: Politics & Society, July 12,
2017, https://www.themaydan.com/2017/07/qatari-support-muslim-brotherhood-just-
realpolitik-long-personal-history/.
38 David B. Roberts, “Qatar, the Ikhwan, and Transnational Relations in the Gulf,”
POMEPS Briefings (Project on Middle East Political Science, October 2017), https://
pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf.
39 David H. Warren, “The ‘Ulamā’ and the Arab Uprisings 2011–13: Considering Yusuf
al-Qaradawi, the ‘Global Mufti,’ between the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Legal
Tradition, and Qatari Foreign Policy,” New Middle Eastern Studies 4 (2014): 7.
40 Hedges and Cafiero, “The GCC and the Muslim Brotherhood,” 149.
7 QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 203
41 Hamid bin Jaber al-Thani was Qatar’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister at the
start of the Arab uprisings. He vacated the two ministerial positions when the former Emir
abdicated in June 2013.
204 H. BOOYSEN
42 “UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011)” (United Nations, March 17,
2011), https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7b65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-
8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7d/Libya%20S%20RES%201973.pdf.
43 Shahram Akbarzadeh and Arif Saba, “UN Paralysis over Syria: The Responsibility to
Protect or Regime Change?” International Politics 56, no. 4 (August 2019): 536–50,
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-018-0149-x.
44 “Security Council Veto List (in Reverse Chronological Order),” United Nations,
Northern Ireland.
46 “UN Security Council 6627th Meeting” (United Nations, October 4, 2011), http://
www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.6627.
7 QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 205
47 Christopher Phillips, “Eyes Bigger Than Stomachs: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar
in Syria,” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 38–40, https://doi.org/10.1111/
mepo.12250.
48 Ralf Trapp, “Elimination of the Chemical Weapons Stockpile of Syria,” Journal of
2013), http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2118(2013).
50 Alex De Waal, “African Roles in the Libyan Conflict of 2011,” International Affairs
51 Barack Obama, David Cameron, and Nicolas Sarkozy, “Libya’s Pathway to Peace,”
Analyzing the Arab League’s Legitimizing Role in the Arab Spring,” Regional & Federal
Studies 28, no. 4 (2018): 16, https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2018.1451846.
54 Waal, “African Roles in the Libyan Conflict of 2011,” 376.
57 “Security Council Debates Situation in Syria,” UN News, January 31, 2012, https://
news.un.org/en/story/2012/01/401882-security-council-debates-situation-syria.
7 QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 207
58 “Arabs Agree New Syria Plan, Urge U.N. Support,” Reuters, January 22, 2012,
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-initiative/arabs-agree-new-syria-plan-
urge-u-n-support-idUSTRE80L0WL20120122.
59 India and South Africa are members of the Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South
Africa (BRICS) grouping, and both shared in the Russian interpretation that UNSC 1973
was misused in aid of regime change in Libya.
60 “Syria: Ban Voices Deep Regret after Security Council Fails to Agree on Resolution,”
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.6711.
62 “General Assembly Demands Syria Halt Violence Without Delay,” UN
News, February 16, 2012, https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/02/403592-
general-assembly-demands-syria-halt-violence-without-delay.
63 “General Assembly Adopts Resolution Strongly Condemning ‘Widespread and
Systematic’ Human Rights Violations by Syrian Authorities,” United Nations, February 16,
2012, https://www.un.org/press/en/2012/ga11207.doc.htm.
208 H. BOOYSEN
support for the Arab League’s stance on Syria, the UN and the Arab
League appointed a Joint Special Envoy for the Syrian crisis on February
23, 2012.64
64 “Kofi Annan Appointed Joint Special Envoy of United Nations, League of Arab
Raphael Lefevre, Ashes of Hama: The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria (London: C. Hurst & Co.
Publishers Ltd., 2013); Joshua Teitelbaum, “The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, 1945–1958:
Founding, Social Origins, Ideology,” Middle East Journal 65, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 213–33,
https://doi.org/10.3751/65.2.12; and Joshua Teitelbaum, “The Muslim Brotherhood
and the ‘Struggle for Syria’, 1947–1958 between Accommodation and Ideology,” Middle
Eastern Studies 40, no. 3 (May 2004): 134–58, https://doi.org/10.1080/002632004200
0213492.
66 Roula Khalaf and Abigail Fielding-Smith, “How Qatar Seized Control of the Syrian
and Competing Social Orders (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 135.
7 QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 209
(Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of War (ISW), April 2012), 9, http://www.scpss.
org/libs/spaw/uploads/files/Reports/Syrias_Political_Opposition.pdf.
70 In an interview in June 2015, a member of the SMB executive alleged that the SNC’s
reversal of fortune in 2012 was primarily due to the enduring Western suspicion of Islamists.
71 Khalaf and Fielding-Smith, “How Qatar Seized Control of the Syrian Revolution.”
73 Khalaf and Fielding-Smith, “How Qatar Seized Control of the Syrian Revolution.”
74 International Crisis Group, “Anything but Politics: The State of Syria’s Political
Conclusion
This chapter has investigated the notion that Qatar has taken signif-
icant foreign policy risks by supporting the SMB in the wake of the
Arab uprisings. Not so, given the 2011—August 2013 political envi-
ronment and based on its constructed identity and soft power capacity,
Qatar’s support for the SMB was pragmatic. The decision-makers in
Doha regarded the 2010/11 Arab uprisings as a strategic opportunity
to form novel regional alliances in the broader Middle East and, as such,
to balance against regional great powers in the Gulf Region. Qatar also
came closer to Turkey, as both promoted the rise of a novel bloc, which
included the countries-in-transition, toward democracy (see Table 14.1).
The first part demonstrated that Qatar’s rulers have historically pur-
sued a balance between sovereignty and security. At present, the mili-
tary presence of both the United States and Turkey in Qatar ensures the
country’s security and allows al-Thani rulers to pursue a foreign policy
independent from the KSA, the UAE, and Bahrain. The chapter also
demonstrated that, primarily, in order to shield the country from Saudi
7 QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 211
Bibliography
Abd-Allah, Umar F. The Islamic Struggle in Syria. Berkeley: Mizan Press, 1983.
Akbarzadeh, Shahram, and Arif Saba. “UN Paralysis over Syria: The
Responsibility to Protect or Regime Change?” International Politics 56, no. 4
(August 2019): 536–50. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-018-0149-x.
Amour, Philipp O. “The Arab Spring Movement: The Failed Revolution:
Preliminary Theoretical and Empirical Deliberation.” In The Middle East
Reloaded: Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries
since the Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 199–224. St. James’s
Studies in World Affairs. Washington, DC: Academica Press, 2018.
Baczko, Adam, Gilles Dorronsoro, and Arthur Quesnay. Civil War in Syria:
Mobilization and Competing Social Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2018.
76 See Philipp O. Amour, “The Arab Spring Movement: The Failed Revolution.
Khatib, Lina. “Qatar and the Recalibration of Power in the Gulf.” Carnegie Middle
East Center, September 2014. https://carnegieendowment.org/files/qatar_
recalibration.pdf.
———. “Qatar’s Foreign Policy: The Limits of Pragmatism.”
International Affairs 89, no. 2 (March 1, 2013): 417–31. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1468-2346.12025.
Lacroix, Stéphane. “Saudi Arabia’s Muslim Brotherhood Predicament.”
POMEPS Briefings. Project on Middle East Political Science, October 2017.
https://pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_
Qatar-Crisis.pdf.
Lacroix, Stephane, and George Holoch. Awakening Islam: The Politics of
Religious Dissent in Contemporary Saudi Arabia. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2011.
Lefevre, Raphael. Ashes of Hama: The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. London: C.
Hurst & Co. Publishers Ltd., 2013.
Lendon, Brad. “Qatar Hosts Largest US Military Base in Mideast.” CNN, June
6, 2017. https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/05/middleeast/qatar-us-largest-
base-in-mideast/index.html.
Lynch, Mark. “How Trump’s Alignment with Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates Is Inflaming the Middle East.” Project on Middle East
Political Science, October 2017. https://pomeps.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf.
Mogielnicki, Robert. “The New Economics of Qatar–Turkey Relations.” Middle
East Institute, August 30, 2018. https://www.mei.edu/publications/
new-economics-qatar-turkey-relations.
O’Bagy, Elizabeth. “Syria’s Political Opposition.” Middle East Security
Report. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of War (ISW), April 2012.
http://www.scpss.org/libs/spaw/uploads/files/Reports/Syrias_Political_
Opposition.pdf.
Obama, Barack, David Cameron, and Nicolas Sarkozy. “Libya’s Pathway
to Peace.” New York Times, April 14, 2011. https://www.nytimes.
com/2011/04/15/opinion/15iht-edlibya15.html.
Peterson, J.E. “Britain and Formation of Gulf States: The Case of Qatar and
Shaykh Jassim bin Muhammad.” In Jassim Bin Mohammed Bin Thani—The
Day of Solidarity, Loyalty and Honor, edited by Jamal Mahmud Hajar, Ahmad
Zakaria Al-Shalaq, Yusuf Ibrahim Al-Abdallah, and Mohammed Hammam
Fikri, 56–71. Qatar: GEM Advertising & Publications, 2008.
Phillips, Christopher. “Eyes Bigger Than Stomachs: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and
Qatar in Syria.” Middle East Policy 24, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 36–47. https://
doi.org/10.1111/mepo.12250.
214 H. BOOYSEN
“Popular Protest in North Africa and the Middle East (V): Making Sense of
Libya.” Middle East/North Africa Report. Cairo/ Brussels, 6: International
Crisis Group, June 6, 2011.
Rabi, Uzi. “Qatar’s Relations with Israel: Challenging Arab and Gulf Norms.”
The Middle East Journal 63, no. 3 (Summer 2009): 443–59.
Reuters. “Arabs Agree New Syria Plan, Urge U.N. Support,” January 22, 2012.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-initiative/arabs-agree-new-
syria-plan-urge-u-n-support-idUSTRE80L0WL20120122.
Roberts, David B. “Qatar and the Brotherhood.” Survival: Global Politics and
Strategy 56, no. 4 (2014): 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.201
4.941557.
———. “Qatar and the UAE: Exploring Divergent Responses to the Arab
Spring.” The Middle East Journal 71, no. 4 (Autumn 2017): 544–62.
https://doi.org/10.3751/71.4.12.
———. “Qatar, the Ikhwan, and Transnational Relations in the Gulf.” POMEPS
Briefings. Project on Middle East Political Science, October 2017. https://
pomeps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/POMEPS_GCC_Qatar-Crisis.pdf.
———. “Understanding Qatar’s Foreign Policy Objectives.” Mediterranean
Politics 17, no. 2 (2012): 233–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.20
12.695123.
Saif, Ahmed Abdelkareem. “Deconstructing before Building: Perspectives on
Democracy in Qatar.” In Reform in the Middle East Oil Monarchies, edited
by Anoushiravan Ehteshami and Steven Wright, 103–28. Reading, UK: Ithaca
Press, 2012.
Sergie, Mohammed. “Embattled Qatar Is Rich Enough to Get by for Another
100 Years.” Bloomberg Businessweek, June 6, 2018. https://www.bloomberg.
com/news/articles/2018-06-06/a-year-later-iran-is-the-big-winner-of-the-
qatar-embargo.
Stratfor Worldview. “A Renewed Sense of Nationalism Takes Root in Qatar
Reflections,” December 29, 2017. https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/
renewed-sense-nationalism-takes-root-qatar.
Teitelbaum, Joshua. “The Muslim Brotherhood and the ‘Struggle for Syria’,
1947–1958 between Accommodation and Ideology.” Middle Eastern Studies
40, no. 3 (May 2004): 134–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/0026320042000
213492.
———. “The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, 1945–1958: Founding, Social
Origins, Ideology.” Middle East Journal 65, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 213–33.
https://doi.org/10.3751/65.2.12.
Trapp, Ralf. “Elimination of the Chemical Weapons Stockpile of Syria.” Journal
of Conflict and Security Law 19, no. 1 (April 2014): 7–23. https://doi.
org/10.1093/jcsl/kru002.
7 QATAR’S CALCULATED GAMBLE ON THE SYRIAN … 215
Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates. “Qatar and the Arab Spring: Policy Drivers and Regional
Implications.” Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
September 2014. https://carnegieendowment.org/files/qatar_arab_spring.pdf.
United Nations. “General Assembly Adopts Resolution Strongly Condemning
‘Widespread and Systematic’ Human Rights Violations by Syrian Authorities,”
February 16, 2012. https://www.un.org/press/en/2012/ga11207.doc.htm.
———. “Security Council Veto List (in Reverse Chronological Order).”
Accessed September 3, 2019. http://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick.
UN News. “General Assembly Demands Syria Halt Violence Without Delay,”
February 16, 2012. https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/02/403592-gen-
eral-assembly-demands-syria-halt-violence-without-delay.
———. “Security Council Debates Situation in Syria,” January 31, 2012.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/01/401882-security-council-de-
bates-situation-syria.
———. “Syria: Ban Voices Deep Regret after Security Council Fails to
Agree on Resolution,” February 4, 2012. https://news.un.org/en/sto-
ry/2012/02/402402-syria-ban-voices-deep-regret-after-security-council-
fails-agree-resolution.
“UN Security Council 6627th Meeting.” United Nations, October 4, 2011.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.6627.
“UN Security Council 6711th Meeting.” United Nations, February 4, 2012.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.6711.
“UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011).” United Nations, March 17,
2011. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7b65BFCF9B-6D27-
4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7d/Libya%20S%20RES%201973.pdf.
“UN Security Council Resolution 2118 (2013).” United Nations, September 2013.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2118(2013).
Wajner, Daniel F., and Arie M. Kacowicz. “The Quest for Regional Legitimation:
Analyzing the Arab League’s Legitimizing Role in the Arab Spring.” Regional
& Federal Studies 28, no. 4 (2018): 489–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13
597566.2018.1451846.
Warren, David H. “Qatari Support for the Muslim Brotherhood Is More Than
Just Realpolitik, It Has a Long, Personal History.” MAYDAN: Politics &
Society, July 12, 2017. https://www.themaydan.com/2017/07/qatari-
support-muslim-brotherhood-just-realpolitik-long-personal-history/.
———. “The ‘Ulamā’ and the Arab Uprisings 2011–13: Considering Yusuf al-Qa-
radawi, the ‘Global Mufti,’ between the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic
Legal Tradition, and Qatari Foreign Policy.” New Middle Eastern Studies 4
(2014): 2–32.
CHAPTER 8
Colter Louwerse
Introduction
It is something of a misnomer to write about the security of the Gaza
Strip because, in many ways, Gaza is defined by the near-total absence of
security. In June 2017, Sara Roy, a Senior Research Scholar at the Center
for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University, warned in the London
Review of Books that “the now devastating impact of Gaza’s decade-long
isolation from the rest of the world” as an intentional result of Israel’s
blockade had meant that “an increasing number of people are reaching the
limit of what they can endure.”1 For decades, Gaza has been a paradigm of
human suffering. With almost 1.9 million residents packed into 365 square
kilometers, it is one of the most densely populated regions on the planet.2
Seventy percent of its populace consists of refugees or the descendants
1 Sara Roy, “If Israel Were Smart,” London Review of Books 39, no. 12 (June 15, 2017):
19–20.
2 “Palestine in Figures 2017. Ramallah: March 2018,” State of Palestine. Palestinian Central
C. Louwerse (*)
Institute of Arab Islamic Studies, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
e-mail: cl604@exeter.ac.uk
of refugees, expelled from what is now Israel over the course of the
1947–1949 Arab–Israeli War.3 As many as 80% are dependent on humani-
tarian aid.4 Almost half are children under the age of 18.5
Discussion of Gaza’s security is even more complicated by the fact
that virtually all the decisions influencing the freedom of its populace
are determined outside of its geographical and political purview. While
Gaza has, since the implementation of the Oslo I agreement in May
1994, been under the nominally autonomous governance of either the
Palestinian National Authority (PNA) or Hamas since 2006,6 the Strip
has also been thrust into the unique position of being occupied by a mil-
itary power deployed outside of the territory under its control.7 Israel
removed its settlements in Gaza in a process of strategic disengagement in
2005. Nevertheless, human rights organizations and international bodies
almost universally maintain that Israel retains its legal obligations as a mil-
itary occupier, as it continues to control Gaza’s borders, airspace, water,
electricity, and people’s registry.8 That Israel no longer maintains a per-
manent military presence inside Gaza is widely regarded as legally irrele-
vant. “Modern technology now permits effective control from outside
3 “Where We Work: Gaza Strip,” UNRWA—United Nations Relief and Works Agency,
Economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development [UNCTAD], July 10, 2017), 6, https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.
nsf/22f431edb91c6f548525678a0051be1d/9ef3a17ccd1df05a852581790069fff8?Open-
Document.
5 “State of Palestine,” Humanitarian Situation Report (UNICEF, December 2017), 2,
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/UNICEF%20State%20of%20
Palestine%20Humanitarian%20Situation%20Report%20-%20Year%20End%202017.pdf.
6 Sara Roy, Failing Peace: Gaza and the Palestinian–Israeli Conflict (London: Pluto Press,
ica.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/gaza-israel-internationalpoliticsunicc.html; Norman G.
Finkelstein, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom (Oakland: University of California Press,
2018), 269.
8 See e.g., “Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 Days of Death and Destruction,” MDE
The Legal Status of Gaza” (Legal Center for Freedom of Movement [Gisha], January 2007),
https://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications_english/Publications_and_Reports_
English/Disengaged_Occupiers_en.pdf; “Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding
Mission on the Gaza Conflict” (United Nations Human Rights Council [UNHRC] 27th
Session, September 25, 2009), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G09/158/66/PDF/G0915866.pdf?OpenElement.
10 “Israel: Gaza Blockade Must Be Completely Lifted,” Amnesty International, June
Living in what has been described as “the largest open air prison
in the world,” Gazans have been almost entirely deprived of agency.12
Israeli policy is the ultimate determinant of the relative freedom of the
Palestinian civilian population, and another Israeli operation poses
the most tangible threat to Gaza’s fragile life-supporting systems. As
such, rightward shifts in the makeup of the Israeli political echelon in
the wake of 2014s Operation Protective Edge—with unprecedentedly
hawkish figures at the helm of the Ministry of Defense and Department
of Justice—appear at first glance as the preeminent threat to Gaza’s
already precarious humanitarian condition.13 Israeli officials have repeat-
edly stated that the next round in Gaza is unavoidable, with Avigdor
Lieberman taking the view that there are “no innocent people in the
Gaza Strip,” and assuring Palestinians that the “next war on Israel, it will
be their last” because Israel “will completely destroy them.”14
However, perhaps counterintuitively, recent power shifts in the
regional and international system are a more significant determinant of
the relative safety of the Gazan population than the extreme hawkishness
of a right-wing Israeli government. This is because the primary determi-
nants of the scope, scale, and brutality of Israel’s assaults on the people
of Gaza have typically been external to the political and military decisions
of the Israeli government.
This chapter will argue that the most significant constraints on Israel’s
regular attacks on Gaza are those placed upon it by regional actors and
the international community. In the Gulf Region and the broader Middle
East region, these restraints stem primarily from the relative levels of
2016, https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-dont-worry-there-ll-be-another-war-
1.5387429. While there was a change in Defense Minister between the operations (Moshe
Yaalon replaced Ehud Barak in March 2013), the Prime Minister (Benjamin Netanyahu),
Chief of Staff (Benny Gantz), Air Force Commander (Amir Eshel), and Chief of Shin Bet
(Yoram Coren), all carried over in the same roles.
16 See Philipp O. Amour, “ Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement within
the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical
Realist Perspectives,” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13,
2018): 624, https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.384773.
17 “Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,” 202.
18 Aluf Benn, “Israel Killed Its Subcontractor in Gaza,” Haaretz, November 14, 2012,
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/
Session22/A-HRC-22-35-Add-1_en.pdf.
20 Harriet Sherwood and Peter Beaumont, “Israel Ready to Expand Gaza Offensive, Says
amid Gaza Airstrikes,” The New York Times, November 19, 2012, https://www.nytimes.
com/2012/11/20/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-conflict.html?searchResultPosition=1.
22 “Israel and Hamas: Fire and Ceasefire in a New Middle East,” Middle East/North
23 Finkelstein,
Gaza, 201.
24 “Hamas Supporters in Gaza Cheer Egypt’s Brotherhood Victory,” The Times
of Israel, June 18, 2012, https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-supporters-in-
gaza-cheer-egypts-brotherhood-victory/.
25 Sara Roy, The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of d e-Development, Expanded 3rd
(Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 2016), xxxv, xxxviii.
8 (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 225
the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner consistent with an extra-legal,
arbitrary and summary execution” and that “there is clear evidence to support prosecu-
tions” of Israeli soldiers for “crimes within the terms of article 47 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention” including “Wilful killing,” “Torture or inhuman treatment,” and “Wilfully
causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.” “Report of the International
Fact-Finding Mission to Investigate Violations of International Law, Including
International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law, Resulting from the Israeli Attacks on
the Flotilla of Ships Carrying Humanitarian Assistance, A/HRC/15/21” (United Nations
Human Rights Council. 15th Session, September 27, 2010), 37, 53–54, https://www2.
ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf.
27 Jodi Rudoren, “Qatar’s Emir Visits Gaza, Pledging $400 Million to Hamas,” The New
29 Gabi Siboni, “Operations Cast Lead, Pillar of Defense, and Protective Edge: A
Comparative Review,” in The Lessons of Operation Protective Edge, ed. Anat Kurzand and
Shlomo Brom (Tel Aviv: The Institute for National Security Studies, 2014), 29; It was pre-
cisely this political realignment that Israel attempted to thwart. As the International Crisis
Group concluded: “At the heart of Operation Pillar of Defense” was “an effort to demon-
strate that Hamas’s newfound confidence was altogether premature and excessive and that,
the Islamist awakening notwithstanding, changes in the new Middle East would not change
much at all. Its goal, in other words, was to reaffirm the rules of the game that would govern
the emerging Middle East.” “Israel and Hamas: Fire and Ceasefire in a New Middle East,” 8.
226 C. LOUWERSE
from Tel Aviv,” The Times of Israel, November 14, 2012, https://www.timesofisrael.com/
protesting-israels-gaza-operation-egypt-to-withdraw-ambassador-from-tel-aviv/.
33 “Arab League Chief, Ministers to Visit Gaza on Tuesday,” Reuters, November 18,
2012, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-israel-gaza-ministers/arab-league-
chief-ministers-to-visit-gaza-on-tuesday-idUSBRE8AH0HD20121118.
34 “FM Davutoğlu: Turkey Will Never Leave Gaza on Its Own.”
Conference,” The White House President Barack Obama, November 18, 2012, https://
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/18/remarks-president-
obama-and-prime-minister-shinawatra-joint-press-confer.
36 Matt Spetalnick, “Obama: ‘Preferable’ to Avoid Israeli Ground Invasion of Gaza,”
Other states normally supportive of Israeli actions also weighed in: the
United Kingdom publicly informed Israel that “a ground invasion is
much more difficult for the international community to sympathize with
or support, including the United Kingdom.”37 Finally, regional and inter-
national opposition to Operation Pillar of Defense was buttressed by
several other factors. The fear of another highly critical United Nations
Fact-Finding Report like the Goldstone Report—which had done irre-
versible damage to the IDF’s self-cultivated purity of arms image after
Operation Cast Lead (2008–2009)—combined with the existence
of large numbers of media reporters in Gaza broadcasting first-hand
accounts of the deleterious effects of the Israeli bombardment on the
region and international community, acted as a final barrier to a ground
invasion and persuaded Israel to end the operation prematurely.38
While Israel had initially sought to unilaterally impose its will upon
Gaza, the mutual ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, nego-
tiated under Egyptian auspices, was unamicable to that aim. Hamas won
a small political victory in that the ceasefire agreement, as it effectively
required Israel to implement Hamas’s long-standing goal of lifting the
blockade: it demanded that Israel open “the crossings,” facilitate “the
movement of people and transfer of goods,” and “refrain from restricting
residents’ free movement.” While the ceasefire agreement also guaranteed
national-security/2012/11/19/873f3ab2-325e-11e2-9cfa-e41bac906cc9_story.html; and
Peter Baker and David D. Kirkpatrick, “Egyptian President and Obama Forge Link in Gaza
Deal,” New York Times, November 21, 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/
world/middleeast/egypt-leader-and-obama-forge-link-in-gaza-deal.html. It is additionally
likely that the Obama administration’s hesitancy to greenlight a ground invasion had to do
with the close proximity of the operation to the 2012 United States election, with Obama
disinclined to allow what would likely be widely construed as a U.S. backed Israeli massacre
at the inception of his second term in office.
37 “Foreign Secretary Comments on Situation in Gaza and Southern Israel,” Foreign and
rockets into Israel, the Goldstone report gave rise to vociferous Israeli condemnation for its
conclusion that Operation Cast Lead “was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed
to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic
capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever-increasing sense
of dependency and vulnerability.” “Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on
the Gaza Conflict,” 408.
228 C. LOUWERSE
an end to the rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, Israel’s major demands—
most notably those related to Hamas’s arms smuggling through the
tunnels—were not included.39
Though crucial in limiting Operation Pillar of Defense, the extent
to which Turkey, Egypt, and the Arab League were willing to take risks
for Gaza should not be overstated. The MB in Egypt was in the pro-
cess of attempting to consolidate its precarious control in the wake of
the uprising and was thus careful to avoid any destabilization that might
occur from jeopardizing Egypt’s peace agreement with Israel.40 More
crucially, Egypt remained economically and politically beholden to
Israel’s major ally, as it received an annual 1.3 billion dollars in military
aid guarantees from the United States and was in the process of apply-
ing for a 4.8 billion dollar IMF loan,41 the success of which was highly
dependent on American consent. Likewise, Turkey, a NATO member
and a crucial United States ally in the region, was most likely keenly
aware that the continuation of its warm relationship with Washington
would at some point require a thaw in its icy deportment toward
Israel.42
The following section covers how these factors, when compounded by
major regional shifts, caused these states to significantly downgrade their
support for Hamas after 2013, consequentially enabling Israel to embark
on a far less restrained assault upon Gaza in 2014.
39 “Operation Pillar of Defense—Update No. 8,” The Meir Amit Intelligence and
41 Steven Lee Meyers, “Despite Rights Concerns, U.S. Plans to Resume Egypt Aid,”
43 The unity government, without objection from Hamas, accepted the Quartet’s three
were killed in the same time period, six of them civilians, the rest sol-
diers.46 Indeed, Protective Edge inflicted upon Gaza over ten times the
casualties and nearly fifty times the residential destruction of Pillar of
Defense (see Table 8.1).
The lack of restraints on the Israeli war juggernaut was primarily due
to shifts in the regional security structure in favor of Israel and against
Hamas.47 The International Crisis Group concluded in March 2014 that
“since the November 2012 escalation […], Hamas’s fortunes [had] dra-
matically reversed”48 leaving Gaza in a “downward spiral of economic
strain and regional isolation.”49 By June 2014, Hamas’s former benefac-
tors, Egypt and Turkey, had effectively abandoned it, and it faced bitter
antagonism from the Gulf states and even from the Arab League more
generally.
The most significant blow to Gaza’s security was the 2013 ouster
of the MB in Egypt via a military coup. The new regime, led by Abdel
Fattah al-Sisi, the former Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, was
exceptionally hostile toward the MB in Egypt and, by extension, Hamas
in Gaza.50 Interrelatedly, in seeking to firmly reinstate Egypt as a reliable
ally of American hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East,51 the al-Sisi
government sought to court Israel. While the Morsi government had
pressured Israel to adhere to the terms of the 2012 ceasefire and ease
the blockade, the al-Sisi government did precisely the opposite, acting to
exasperate the deleterious effects of the Israeli siege of Gaza.52 Seeking to
re-cement control over the increasingly unstable Sinai Peninsula, Egypt
46 Fragmented Lives: Humanitarian Overview 2014 (United Nations Office for the
51 The United States praised the new military regime’s crackdown on “terrorism” and
released 575 million dollars in military aid to Egypt in the wake of the coup. “US Unlocks
Military Aid to Egypt, Backing President Sisi,” BBC News, June 22, 2014, https://www.
bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27961933.
52 “The Next Round in Gaza,” 5–6.
8 (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 231
closed off the primary corridor for the supply of fuel and construc-
tion materials essential for Gaza’s economic reconstruction by flooding
the cross-border tunnels. It also drastically reduced Palestinian passage
through the Rafah crossing.53 Cairo additionally banned the MB and
Hamas in Egypt, and prevented a Hamas senior official from leaving
the country.54 These policies toward the MB and Hamas, which Egypt
justified under the pretext of maintaining internal security, were quickly
adopted by the Gulf states, with Saudi Arabia also moving to ban the
MB.55 Hamas was thus thrust into a position of unprecedented political
isolation in the Middle East. Although Hamas attempted to retain Iran
as a potential ally, it could not strengthen ties with that country without
undermining its relationship with the Syrian MB and enfeebling the sup-
port it received from the majority of Sunni Muslims in the Middle East,
including Palestinians. Having nowhere else to turn, Hamas’s rapproche-
ment with its long time factional rival Fatah, and its subsequent decision
to initiate a handover of control of the Gaza Strip to the PNA via a unity
government in April 2014, was one of last resort.56
The breakdown of the established political and civil order in the wake
of the Arab Spring, coupled with the descent into gratuitous violence in
states across the broader Middle East region, also contributed to Gaza’s
growing isolation. The novel Turkey–Qatar-led bloc witnessed a major
setback in the aftermath of the coup in Egypt (see Chapter 5). In ret-
rospect, the Hamas decision to leave the Iran-led bloc proved fatal for
the movement. While the world had been riveted on the wars in Gaza
in 2008–2009 and 2012, the plight of Palestinians under Israeli assault
in 2014 now had to compete for regional and international attention
53 Given that “the construction sector accounted for more than 80 per cent of Gaza’s
growth during the first quarter of 2013,” the flooding of the tunnels dealt a serious blow
to Gaza’s economy and humanitarian situation. By September 2013 OCHA reported that
travel through the Rafah border had decreased by 71%. “Occupied Palestinian Territory:
The Humanitarian Impact of Reduced Access between Gaza and Egypt,” Situation Report
(OCHA, September 23, 2013), https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/default/files/ocha_opt_
gaza_sitrep_2013_09_23_english.pdf; See also Roy, The Gaza Strip, xlii–xliii.
54 “The Next Round in Gaza,” 9.
55 “Saudi Arabia Designates Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Group,” Reuters, March
7, 2014, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-security/saudi-arabia-designates-
muslim-brotherhood-terrorist-group-idUSBREA260SM20140307.
56 Nathan Thrall, “Hamas’ Chances,” London Review of Books, August 36, no. 16 (August
21, 2014).
232 C. LOUWERSE
with the horror of bloodbaths in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. While
Turkey did not realign with Israel as openly as Egypt did, its preoccupa-
tion with the war in Syria left it largely disinterested in the fate of Gaza.
In large part, as a result of the domestic impact of the refugee crisis, the
European Union was also fixated on Syria. The result was a serious lack
of deterrent upon the Israeli resort to force.
Shortly after the hostilities began, Egypt surreptitiously aligned itself
with Israel’s military objectives. In sharp contrast with the mutuality that
characterized the Egyptian-negotiated ceasefire proposal in the wake of
Operation Pillar of Defense, the ceasefire Egypt proposed on July 14,
2014 (just prior to the Israeli ground invasion) effectively demanded
Hamas’s full capitulation to Israel’s demands. Whereas the 2012 cease-
fire agreement had incorporated a written demand for the lifting of
Israel’s illegal blockade, Cairo’s 2014 proposal now included a precon-
dition that “the security situation [become] stable on the ground,” prior
to the opening of the border crossings.57 The American political scientist
Norman Finkelstein has noted that: “Insofar as Israel designated Hamas
a terrorist organization, the security situation in Gaza could only stabi-
lize when Hamas either was defeated or disarmed itself, in the absence
of which the siege would continue.”58 Yet, Hamas’s rejection of the
Egyptian proposal as tantamount to total “surrender” effectively handed
Israel a pretext to escalate the hostilities to a ground invasion.59
Gaza’s plight was similarly exacerbated by the Arab League. The organ-
ization met only once over the entirety of the 51 day period and, when
it did, it undermined Hamas’s bargaining position: the League voted to
endorse the Egyptian ceasefire plan.60 The lack of meaningful regional
opposition to Operation Protective Edge translated into completely
unhindered United States support for the invasion. Throughout the oper-
ation, President Obama repeatedly declared that “Israel has the right to
defend itself,” additionally moving to resupply Israel with munitions, while
59 “Israel Accepts Egypt Proposal to End Gaza Conflict,” BBC News, July 15, 2014,
ignoring the pleas of human rights organizations to limit the violence via
an immediate arms embargo upon all parties to the conflict.61
As extensive as the Israeli use of force during Operation Protective Edge
was, it was not totally without limitations. Events transpiring during the final
day (August 3rd) of the Israeli ground invasion illustrate the crucial role of
the international community, and in particular the United States, in limiting
the extent of Israeli force. As Finkelstein has documented, Israel’s actions
finally shocked the international community into action, when Israel repeat-
edly shelled United Nations schools that were doubling as shelters, resulting
in extensive civilian casualties.62 On August 2nd Benjamin Netanyahu had
proclaimed that the ground invasion would continue for “as much time as
necessary” for Israel to accomplish its goal of exacting an “intolerable price”
upon Hamas.63 Yet, on August 3rd, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon,
acting under immense pressure from within the United Nations, condemned
the latest attack on a United Nations school as a “moral outrage and a crim-
inal act.”64 Now isolated in its unconditional support for the Israeli assault,
the United States finally changed its tune and condemned the attack as “dis-
graceful.”65 The withdrawal of unconditional White House support signaled
61 “Press Conference by the President. The White House Office of the Press Secretary,”
The White House President Barack Obama, August 1, 2014, https://obamawhitehouse.
archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/01/press-conference-president; “Israel/Gaza: UN
Must Impose Arms Embargo and Mandate an International Investigation as Civilian Death
Toll Rises,” Amnesty International, July 11, 2014, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/
news/2014/07/israelgaza-un-must-impose-arms-embargo-and-mandate-international-inves-
tigation-civilian-death-t/.
62 “Israel:In-Depth Look at Gaza School Attacks,” Human Rights Watch, September 11, 2014,
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/11/israel-depth-look-gaza-school-attacks; “Report of the
Detailed Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry Established Pursuant to Human
Rights Council Resolution” (United Nations Human Rights Council [UNHRC]. 29th Session,
June 24, 2015), 111–19, https://www.undocs.org/A/HRC/29/CRP.4.
63 Griff Witte and Sudarsan Raghaven, “Netanyahu Says Israeli Military ‘Will Take as
Much Time as Necessary’ in Gaza,” The Washington Post, August 2, 2014, https://www.
washingtonpost.com/world/hamas-says-missing-israeli-soldier-in-gaza-hadar-goldin-
is-likely-dead/2014/08/02/92562694-56cd-48c0-921b-b851fb2eca09_story.html;
Finkelstein, Gaza, 229.
64 “Gaza: Ban Condemns Latest Deadly Attack Near UN School as ‘Moral Outrage
and Criminal Act’,” UN News, August 3, 2014, https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/
08/474302-gaza-ban-condemns-latest-deadly-attack-near-un-school-moral-outrage-and;
Finkelstein, Gaza, 228.
65 Donna Chiacu, “US Slams ‘Disgraceful Shelling’ of UN school in Gaza,” Haaretz, August
3, 2014, https://www.haaretz.com/u-s-slams-disgraceful-shelling-at-un-school-1.5257920;
Finkelstein, Gaza, 229.
234 C. LOUWERSE
to Israel that the game was up. That same day, Netanyahu announced an end
to the ground invasion.66 The operation continued for another three weeks
via airstrikes, with Israel targeting civilian structures as a means of increasing
its leverage during renewed ceasefire negotiations. Nevertheless, the end of
the ground invasion was indicative of Israel’s fundamental reliance upon the
goodwill of the United States for the continuation of its military assaults.67
As has been illustrated, regional realignments are the crucial varia-
ble limiting or facilitating the destructive capacity of the IDF in Gaza.
Had the drastic regional political realignments between November 2012
and July 2014 occurred just a couple of years earlier, the scope and scale
of Operation Pillar of Defense may have mirrored the vastly more cat-
aclysmic Operation Protective Edge. As the next section will show, the
augmentation and solidification of these new political relations to the
present has continued to bode ill for the people of Gaza.
66 Amos Harel, “After Israel’s Unilateral Withdrawal from Gaza, What’s Next?” Haaretz,
Egypt and Turkey
Egyptian policy toward Gaza has continued along its post-2013 trajec-
tory, with the al-Sisi regime continuing to strengthen ties with Israel. In
late 2014, acting in part upon the request of Israel but against protests
from human rights organizations, Egypt continued to flood Gaza’s tun-
nels, additionally seeking to create a buffer zone between itself and Gaza
via mass eviction of civilians and the capricious destruction of hundreds
of homes along the Rafah border.68 Egypt has come to view Hamas
almost entirely as an extension of the MB and a severe national security
threat.
During the height of ISIS expansion in 2015, Cairo repeatedly
accused Hamas of arming and facilitating Salafi jihadists in the Sinai
Peninsula, a charge for which it produced little evidence, and which
Hamas categorically denied.69 As the International Crisis Group con-
cluded in August 2015, “Egypt is only more hostile toward Hamas and
would not oppose an Israeli war against it, even one aimed at toppling
the movement and reoccupying Gaza.” Cairo has enforced the block-
ade of Gaza even more stringently than has Israel.70 By February 2016,
Israeli officials proclaimed that the security cooperation between Israel
and Egypt was “better than ever.”71 Israeli–Egyptian economic coop-
eration has been “better than ever” as well; for example, in September
2018, the two states concluded a “landmark” 15 billion dollar deal for
68 “Steinitz: ‘Egypt Floods Hamas Tunnels, in Part Due to Israel’s Request’,” The
ple Hamas itself. As one senior Egyptian official put it: “Gaza is next […] We cannot get
liberated from the terrorism of the Brotherhood in Egypt without ending it in Gaza, which
lies on our borders.” “No Exit? Gaza & Israel between Wars.”
71 Yossi Melman, “Security Establishment Furious with Minister After Making Egypt-
72 Ari Rabinovitch and Tova Cohen, “Pipeline Deal Brings Export of Israeli Gas to Egypt
80 Amos Harel, “Israeli Military Chief Gives Unprecedented Interview to Saudi Media:
Jerusalem Move, Saudis Seen on Board with U.S. Peace Efforts,” Reuters, December 8,
2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-israel-saudi-insight/despite-furor-
over-jerusalem-move-saudis-seen-on-board-with-u-s-peace-efforts-idUSKBN1E22GR.
82 Gabriela Davidovich-Weisberg, “Netanyahu Suggests ‘Huge’ Developments
Could Follow Direct Flights to Israel over Saudi Arabia,” Haaretz, March 25, 2018,
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-says-huge-implications-after-
flights-over-saudi-arabia-1.5938962.
83 Quoted in “Palestinians Must Make Peace or Shut Up, Saudi Crown Prince Said to
A Larger Trend
The geopolitical realignments of the major players Egypt, Turkey, and
Saudi Arabia are indicative of a larger trend toward a lack of concern for
Gaza. Even the recent record of the parties supposedly closest to Hamas
underwhelms. In 2012, Qatar had pledged 400 million dollars in recon-
struction funds to Gaza. However, only six years later, as the generators
that keep afloat Gaza’s barely functioning hospital and sanitation systems
began to shut down for lack of fuel in February of 2018, Qatar offered a
of Its Persian Gulf Neighbors,” The Washington Post, October 4, 2014, http://www.
washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/qatars-friends-with-everyone-approach-
rankles-some-of-its-persian-gulf-neighbors/2014/10/04/b89977f8-4a7b-11e4-b72e-
d60a9229cc10_story.html; Brian Murphy, “Why Wealthy Qatar Keeps the Money
Flowing to Gaza,” The Washington Post, August 3, 2016, https://www.washington-
post.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/03/why-wealthy-qatar-keeps-the-money-
flowing-to-gaza/.
85 Mouin Rabbani, “Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf Cooperation Council Crisis,”
mere 9 million dollars to temporarily stave off the crisis.87 The pittance
offered to Gaza during the crisis is exemplary of an overall trend of aid
cuts to the Strip. As Sara Roy has noted, although a full 3.5 billion dol-
lars was pledged for the reconstruction of Gaza after Protective Edge,
only slightly over a third (35%) of that amount has been distributed. Roy
furthermore points to both the unwillingness of both the regional and
international communities to challenge the political framework of “Israeli
occupation, assault, and blockade” as the root cause underlying the symp-
tomatic impediments to Gazan reconstruction put up by Israel.88
Even the Palestinian National Authority, which is vocally sympathetic
to the plight of Gaza but nevertheless in practice coordinates its efforts
to undermine Hamas with Israel, has now taken steps to exacerbate the
Israeli blockade of Gaza.89 In June 2017, the PNA refused to relinquish
funds necessary for paying for Gaza’s electricity bills, thereby allowing
Israel to cut Gaza’s electricity supply from 8 h down to 4 h per day.90
It further attempted to pressure Hamas into ceding control of the Gaza
Strip by cutting salaries to thousands of civil servants in Gaza and by
temporarily suspending crucial medical shipments.91 With even fellow
87 An additional 2 million dollars was pledged by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
“UAE, Qatar Donate Funds to Stave Off Gaza Health Crisis,” Ynetnews.com, February 9,
2018, https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5102687,00.html.
88 Roy, The Gaza Strip, 406.
89 Barak Ravid, “Fatah Asked Israel to Help Attack Hamas during Gaza Coup, WikiLeaks
2017, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/thousands-protest-palestinian-au-
thority-pay-cut-gaza-170408125050217.html; “PA Cuts Off Medical Supplies to
Gaza,” Middle East Monitor, May 10, 2017, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/
20170510-pa-cuts-off-medical-supplies-to-gaza/.
8 (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 241
92 For more details, as well as some qualifications, see Colter Louwerse and Ron Dart,
“Donald Trump and the Christian Zionist Lobby: Letter from Canada,” Journal of Holy
Land and Palestine Studies 16, no. 2 (November 2017): 240–42, https://doi.org/10.3366/
hlps.2017.0167.
93 “Trump Taps David Friedman as U.S. Ambassador to Israel,” Haaretz, December 16,
2016, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/trump-taps-david-friedman-as-u-s-ambassador-
to-israel-1.5474698; Adrian Hennigan, “What Does Nikki Haley Have to Say about
Israel?” Haaretz, March 8, 2018, https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-what-
does-nikki-haley-have-to-say-about-israel-1.5887006; and Judy Maltz, “Exploitable? Jared
Kushner’s Business Interests in Israel Revealed in Full,” Haaretz, February 28, 2018,
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-jared-kushner-s-business-interests-in-
israel-revealed-in-full-1.5865165.
242 C. LOUWERSE
94 Mark Landler, “Trump Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital and Orders U.S.
of Deceit: How the U.S Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East (Boston: Beacon Press,
2013); Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians
(New York: South End Press, 1983), 1–89, 441–70.
8 (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 243
96 See “Gaza: Ten Years Later” (United Nations Country Team in the Occupied
100 “Israel, Hezbollah and Iran: Preventing Another War in Syria,” Middle East/North
105 “Ending the War in Gaza,” 18; Finkelstein, Method and Madness, 9–29.
106 As one Israeli defense official mentioned, the Israel “cannot handle” over “100,000 mis-
siles fired at it… Residential towers in Tel Aviv will be toppled with many casualties. I doubt
Israeli society today knows how to handle that.” “Israel, Hezbollah and Iran,” 5–6, 6n23.
107 “Hamas Deputy Leader Says to Continue Iran Ties, Armed Fight,” Reuters, October 22,
2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-hamas-iran/hamas-deputy-lead-
er-says-to-continue-iran-ties-armed-fight-idUSKBN1CR0MP; Prior to Hamas’s reconciliation
with Iran in 2017, Iranian–Hamas relations had been strained over Syria. “No Exit? Gaza &
Israel between Wars,” 36n184.
108 In contrast with previous Hamas policy documents, Hamas’s relationship to the
goals, foremost among them being the lifting of the blockade. The mass
protests (since 2018) along the Gaza border in support of the Palestinian
right of return are indicative of the strategic potential of nonviolence in
wresting tangible victories from the Israeli government. The image—
condemned by both human rights organizations and the international
media—of unarmed demonstrators and journalists being gunned down
by IDF sniper fire on account of their demand for elementary human
rights, has evoked international indignation at the plight of the Gazan
people.109
Viewed in conjunction with the Tel Aviv’s political and military eche-
lon’s attitude that “there are no innocent people in the Gaza Strip,” the
predominantly one-sided violence threatens to irrevocably tarnish Israel’s
depiction of itself as a benign and liberal occupier. As of this writing, the
people of Gaza have been unable to concretize the Great March of Return
into political or humanitarian gain. Yet, if that mass popular mobilization
were to be sustained, publicized, and directed at an end internationally
perceived as legally and morally legitimate, the people of Gaza might still
be able to shake off their imposed isolation and finally compel the regional
and international community to enforce limits on Tel Aviv’s use of unilat-
eral force in the Gaza Strip. Short of either this or an unexpected shift in
the makeup of the regional security structure, the security of Gaza is likely
to remain as susceptible to Tel Aviv depredations as ever before.
Bibliography
Ahren, Raphael. “Protesting Israel’s Gaza Operation, Egypt Withdraws
Ambassador from Tel Aviv.” The Times of Israel, November 14, 2012.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/protesting-israels-gaza-operation-egypt-to-
withdraw-ambassador-from-tel-aviv/.
Ahronheim, Anna. “IDF Chief of Staff Eisenkot Met with Saudi Counterpart.”
The Jerusalem Post, October 17, 2018. https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/
Report-IDF-Chief-of-Staff-Eisenkot-met-with-Saudi-counterpart-569585.
Akram, Fares, Judi Rudoren, and Alan Cowell. “Hamas Leader Dares Israel to
Invade amid Gaza Airstrikes.” The New York Times, November 19, 2012.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-
conflict.html?searchResultPosition=1.
Al Jazeera. “International Reaction to Gaza Violence,” November 15, 2012. https://
www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/20121114173652397372.
html.
———. “Thousands Protest Palestinian Authority Pay Cut in Gaza,” April 8,
2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/thousands-protest-pales-
tinian-authority-pay-cut-gaza-170408125050217.html.
Amnesty International. “Egypt: End Wave of Home Demolitions, Forced
Evictions in Sinai amid Media Blackout,” November 27, 2014. https://www.
amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/11/egypt-end-wave-home-demolitions-
forced-evictions-sinai-amid-media-blackout/.
———. “Israel: Gaza Blockade Must Be Completely Lifted,” June 17, 2010.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2010/06/israel-levantar-
completamente-bloqueo-gaza/.
———. “Israel/Gaza: UN Must Impose Arms Embargo and Mandate an
International Investigation as Civilian Death Toll Rises,” July 11, 2014.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/07/israelgaza-un-must-
impose-arms-embargo-and-mandate-international-investigation-civilian-death-t/.
———. “Six Months on: Gaza’s Great March of Return,” October 2018.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2018/10/gaza-great-
march-of-return/.
Amour, Philipp O. “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement
within the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010:
Neorealist and Neoclassical Realist Perspectives.” Journal of Social Sciences of
Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31. https://doi.
org/10.18506/anemon.384773.
Baker, Peter, and David D. Kirkpatrick. “Egyptian President and Obama Forge
Link in Gaza Deal.” New York Times, November 21, 2012. https://www.
nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/egypt-leader-and-obama-
forge-link-in-gaza-deal.html.
248 C. LOUWERSE
BBC News. “Israel Accepts Egypt Proposal to End Gaza Conflict,” July 15,
2014. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28305830.
———. “US Unlocks Military Aid to Egypt, Backing President Sisi,” June 22,
2014. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27961933.
Benn, Aluf. “Israel Killed Its Subcontractor in Gaza.” Haaretz, November 14,
2012. https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-death-of-israel-s-subcontractor-
1.5198285.
Bryant, Christa Case. “Ending détente, Hamas Takes Responsibility for
Today’s Spike in Rocket Fire.” The Christian Science Monitor, July 7, 2014.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0707/Ending-
detente-Hamas-takes-responsibility-for-today-s-spike-in-rocket-fire.
Chandrasekaran, Rajiv. “Qatar’s Friends-with-Everyone Approach Rankles
Some of Its Persian Gulf Neighbors.” The Washington Post, October 4, 2014.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/qatars-friends-
with- e v e r y one -a p p r o a c h -ra n k l es-so m e-o f -i ts-pe rsi a n-gul f -ne i gh-
bors/2014/10/04/b89977f8-4a7b-11e4-b72e-d60a9229cc10_story.html.
Chiacu, Donna. “US Slams ‘Disgraceful Shelling’ of UN School in Gaza.”
Haaretz, August 3, 2014. https://www.haaretz.com/u-s-slams-disgraceful-
shelling-at-un-school-1.5257920.
Chomsky, Noam. The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the
Palestinians. New York: South End Press, 1983.
Cook, Jonathon. “Israel Instructs Diplomats to Support Saudis.” Al Jazeera,
November 10, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/israel-in-
structs-diplomats-support-saudis-cable-171110134749905.html.
Davidovich-Weisberg, Gabriela. “Netanyahu Suggests ‘Huge’ Developments Could
Follow Direct Flights to Israel Over Saudi Arabia.” Haaretz, March 25, 2018.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-says-huge-implications-
after-flights-over-saudi-arabia-1.5938962.
“Disengaged Occupiers: The Legal Status of Gaza.” Legal Center for
Freedom of Movement (Gisha), January 2007. https://www.gisha.org/
UserFiles/File/publications_english/Publications_and_Reports_English/
Disengaged_Occupiers_en.pdf.
Dugard, John. “Debunking Israel’s Self-Defense Argument,” July 31, 2014.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/gaza-israel-internationalpo-
liticsunicc.html.
Efron, Shira, Jordan R. Fischbach, Ilana Blum, Rouslan I. Karimov, and Melinda
Moore. “The Public Health Impacts of Gaza’s Water Crisis: Analysis and
Policy Options.” RAND Corporation, 2018. https://www.rand.org/pubs/
research_reports/RR2515.html.
“Ending the War in Gaza.” Middle East/North Africa. International Crisis
Group, January 5, 2009. https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/b26-end-
ing-the-war-in-gaza.pdf.
8 (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 249
Hass, Amira. “Palestinians Also to Blame for Gaza Electricity Crisis.” Haaretz,
June 26, 2017. https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/.
premium-palestinians-also-to-blame-for-gaza-electricity-crisis-1.5488522.
Hasson, Nir. “Israeli Peace Activist: Hamas Leader Jabari Killed amid Talks on
Long-Term Truce.” Haaretz, November 15, 2012. https://www.haaretz.
com/.premium-hamas-source-jabari-wanted-truce-1.5198436.
Hennigan, Adrian. “What Does Nikki Haley Have to Say about Israel?” Haaretz,
March 8, 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-what-does-
nikki-haley-have-to-say-about-israel-1.5887006.
“Human Rights Violations during Operation Pillar of Defense (14–21
November 2012).” B’tselem, May 2013. https://www.btselem.org/down-
load/201305_pillar_of_defense_operation_eng.pdf.
Human Rights Watch. “Gaza: Donors, UN Should Press Israel on Blockade.
Punitive Restrictions on Population Undermine Reconstruction,” October
12, 2014. https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/12/gaza-donors-un-should-
press-israel-blockade.
———. “Israel: Apparent War Crimes in Gaza: Accountability Needed for
Officials Who Authorized Lethal Force,” June 13, 2018. https://www.hrw.
org/news/2018/06/13/israel-apparent-war-crimes-gaza.
———. “Israel: Gaza Killings Unlawful, Calculated. Officials Green-Light
Shooting of Unarmed Demonstrators,” April 3, 2018. https://www.hrw.
org/news/2018/04/03/israel-gaza-killings-unlawful-calculated.
———. “Israel: In-Depth Look at Gaza School Attacks,” September 11, 2014.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/11/israel-depth-look-gaza-school-
attacks.
“If the Heart Not Be Callous: On the Unlawful Shooting of Unarmed
Demonstrators in Gaza.” B’tselem, April 6, 2018. https://www.btselem.org/
sites/default/files/publications/201804_if_the_heart_be_not_callous_eng.
pdf.
Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU). “Israel’s West Bank
Crackdown,” June 27, 2014. https://imeu.org/article/israels-west-bank-
crackdown.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). “Gaza Closure: Not Another
Year!” June 14, 2010. https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/docu-
ments/update/palestine-update-140610.htm.
“Israel and Hamas: Fire and Ceasefire in a New Middle East.” Middle East/
North Africa. International Crisis Group, November 22, 2012. https://
d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/133-israel-and-hamas-fire-and-ceasefire-in-a-
new-middle-east.pdf.
“Israel Courts Catastrophe in Gaza Protests.” The New York Times, April 2,
2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/opinion/gaza-protests-isra-
el-hamas.html.
8 (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 251
“Israel, Hezbollah and Iran: Preventing Another War in Syria.” Middle East/
North Africa. International Crisis Group, February 8, 2018. https://
d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/182-israel-hizbollah-and-iran-preventing-an-
other-war-in-syria_0.pdf.
Khalidi, Rashid. Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S Has Undermined Peace in the
Middle East. Boston: Beacon Press, 2013.
Khouri, Rami. “The Palestinian Unity Government Will Shape Its Own Fate.”
Harvard Kennedy School. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
June 4, 2014. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/palestinian-unity-
government-will-shape-its-own-fate.
Khoury, Jack. “Iranian Forces Pulling Back from Israel Border, Says Russia.”
Haaretz, August 1, 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-
news/iran/iranian-forces-withdraw-to-a-distance-of-85-km-from-golan-
heights-1.6337360.
Kubovich, Yaniv. “Israeli Defense Officials Warn Politicians: Trump’s Cuts to
Palestinians Could Harm Israel’s Security.” Haaretz, January 28, 2018.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-trump-s-cuts-to-palestini-
ans-could-harm-israel-s-security-idf-warns-1.5768092.
Kubovich, Yaniv, and Jack Khoury. “Israeli Military Chief Warns: Gaza on Verge
of Collapse, Brings Both Sides Closer to War in 2018.” Haaretz, February 5,
2018. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-military-chief-
gaza-on-verge-of-collapse-bringing-war-closer-1.5788886.
Landau, Noa. “Erdogan Hits Back: Netanyahu Is a ‘Terrorist’ and Israel Is
a ‘Terror State’.” Haaretz, April 1, 2018. https://www.haaretz.com/
israel-news/erdogan-hits-back-netanyahu-is-a-terrorist-israel-a-ter-
ror-state-1.5963819.
Landler, Mark. “Trump Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital and Orders U.S.
Embassy to Move.” The New York Times, December 6, 2017. https://www.
nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-israel-capi-
tal.html.
Lis, Jonathon. “‘There’s No Humanitarian Crisis’ in Gaza, Israeli Defense
Minister Says, Contradicting Army Chief.” Haaretz, February 5, 2018.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/lieberman-contradicts-idf-there-
s-no-humanitarian-crisis-in-gaza-1.5790605.
Louwerse, Colter, and Ron Dart. “Donald Trump and the Christian Zionist
Lobby: Letter from Canada.” Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies
16, no. 2 (November 2017): 237–43. https://doi.org/10.3366/
hlps.2017.0167.
Malsin, Jared. “Whither Goldstone? Did the PA Kill the UN’s Gaza Report?’”
Foreign Policy, October 27, 2010. https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/10/27/
whither-goldstone-did-the-pa-kill-the-uns-gaza-report/.
252 C. LOUWERSE
“No Exit? Gaza & Israel between Wars.” Middle East/North Africa.
International Crisis Group, August 26, 2015. https://d2071andvip0wj.
cloudfront.net/162-no-exit-gaza-israel-between-wars.pdf.
“Nothing Is Immune: Israel’s Destruction of Landmark Buildings in Gaza.”
MDE. Amnesty International, December 9, 2014. https://www.amnesty.
org/download/Documents/MDE1500292014ENGLISH.PDF.
Noueihed, Lin, and Nidal al-Mughrabi. “Seeking to Secure Sinai, Egypt Builds
Closer Ties with Hamas.” Reuters, February 21, 2017. https://www.reuters.
com/article/us-palestinians-egypt-sinai/seeking-to-secure-sinai-egypt-builds-
closer-ties-with-hamas-idUSKBN16010C.
“Occupied Palestinian Territory: Gaza Emergency Situation Report.” Situation
Report. OCHA, September 4, 2014. https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/
default/files/ocha_opt_sitrep_04_09_2014.pdf.
“Occupied Palestinian Territory: The Humanitarian Impact of Reduced Access
between Gaza and Egypt.” Situation Report. OCHA, September 23, 2013.
https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/default/files/ocha_opt_gaza_sitrep_
2013_09_23_english.pdf.
“Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 Days of Death and Destruction.” MDE. Amnesty
International, July 2, 2009. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/
48000/mde150152009en.pdf.
Pappé, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oxford: Oneworld Publications,
2007.
“Permanent Sovereignty of the Palestinian People in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, Including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab Population in the
Occupied Syrian Golan over Their Natural Resources.” United Nations
General Assembly (UNGA). 72nd Session. United Nations General Assembly
(UNGA), December 20, 2017. https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/72/240.
Rabbani, Mouin. “Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf Cooperation Council
Crisis.” Jadaliyya, June 22, 2017. https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/34390.
Rabinovitch, Ari, and Tova Cohen. “Pipeline Deal Brings Export of Israeli Gas
to Egypt within Sight.” Reuters, September 27, 2018. https://www.reuters.
com/article/us-israel-egypt-gas/pipeline-deal-brings-export-of-israeli-gas-to-
egypt-within-sight-idUSKCN1M710F.
Ravid, Barak. “Fatah Asked Israel to Help Attack Hamas during Gaza Coup,
WikiLeaks Cable Shows.” Haaretz, December 20, 2010. https://www.
haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/fatah-asked-israel-to-help-
attack-hamas-during-gaza-coup-1.5096109.
———. “Israel, Turkey Reach Understandings on Hamas.” Haaretz, June 26,
2016. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-turkey-reach-
understandings-on-hamas-1.5401406.
Ravid, Barak, and Amos Harel. “Israeli Cabinet Decides to Reduce Gaza
Electricity Supply at Palestinian President’s Request.” Haaretz, June 12, 2017.
254 C. LOUWERSE
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-to-reduce-gaza-elec-
tricity-supply-at-palestinian-president-s-request-1.5483120.
“Report of the Detailed Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry
Established Pursuant to Human Rights Council Resolution.” United Nations
Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 29th Session, June 24, 2015. https://
www.undocs.org/A/HRC/29/CRP.4.
“Report of the International Fact-Finding Mission to Investigate Violations of
International Law, Including International Humanitarian and Human Rights
Law, Resulting from the Israeli Attacks on the Flotilla of Ships Carrying
Humanitarian Assistance, A/HRC/15/21.” United Nations Human Rights
Council. 15th Session, September 27, 2010. https://www2.ohchr.org/eng-
lish/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf.
“Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.”
United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) 27th Session, September
25, 2009. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/
158/66/PDF/G0915866.pdf?OpenElement.
“Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the
Implementation of Human Rights Council Resolutions S-9/1 and S-12/1.”
United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), March 5, 2013. https://
www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/
Session22/A-HRC-22-35-Add-1_en.pdf.
“Report on UNCTAD Assistance to the Palestinian People: Developments in the
Economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), July 6, 2015. https://unctad.org/
en/PublicationsLibrary/tdb62d3_en.pdf.
“Report on UNCTAD Assistance to the Palestinian People: Developments in the
Economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), July 10, 2017. https://unispal.
un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/22f431edb91c6f548525678a0051be1d/9e-
f3a17ccd1df05a852581790069fff8?OpenDocument.
Reuters. “Arab League Chief, Ministers to Visit Gaza on Tuesday,” November
18, 2012. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-israel-gaza-min-
isters/arab-league-chief-ministers-to-visit-gaza-on-tuesday-idUSBRE8AH-
0HD20121118.
———. “Hamas Deputy Leader Says to Continue Iran Ties, Armed Fight,”
October 22, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestini-
ans-hamas-iran/hamas-deputy-leader-says-to-continue-iran-ties-armed-fight-
idUSKBN1CR0MP.
———. “Israel-Turkey Gas Pipeline Could Be Ready in Four Years—Company,”
March 2, 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/israel-energy/israel-tur-
key-gas-pipeline-could-be-ready-in-four-years-company-idUSL5N1GF3ZO.
8 (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 255
“Steinitz: ‘Egypt Floods Hamas Tunnels, in Part Due to Israel’s Request’.” The
Jerusalem Post, February 6, 2016. https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/
Steinitz-Egypt-floods-Hamas-tunnels-in-part-due-to-Israels-request-444040.
Tahhan, Zena. “Egypt-Israel Relations ‘at Highest Level’ in History.” Al Jazeera,
September 20, 2017. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/11/
egypt-israel-relations-highest-level-history-161107083926863.html.
“The Gaza Strip: A Building Boom.” The Economist, August 18, 2012. https://
www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2012/08/18/a-building-boom.
The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). “A Document of General Principles
and Policies,” 2017. https://hamas.ps/en/post/678/a-document-of-
general-principles-and-policies.
The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. “Operation Pillar
of Defense—Update No. 8,” November 22, 2012. https://www.terror-
ism-info.org.il/en/20433/.
“The Next Round in Gaza.” Middle East/North Africa. International Crisis Group,
March 24, 2014. https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/
eastern-mediterranean/israelpalestine/next-round-gaza.
The Times of Israel. “Hamas Supporters in Gaza Cheer Egypt’s
Brotherhood Victory,” June 18, 2012. https://www.timesofisrael.com/
hamas-supporters-in-gaza-cheer-egypts-brotherhood-victory/.
———. “Palestinians Must Make Peace or Shut Up, Saudi Crown Prince Said to
Tell US Jews,” April 29, 2018. https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-
must-make-peace-or-shut-up-saudi-crown-prince-said-to-tell-us-jews/.
The White House President Barack Obama. “Press Conference by the
President. The White House Office of the Press Secretary,” August 1, 2014.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/01/
press-conference-president.
———. “Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Shinawatra in a
Joint Press Conference,” November 18, 2012. https://obamawhitehouse.
archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/18/remarks-president-obama-and-
prime-minister-shinawatra-joint-press-confer.
Thrall, Nathan. “Hamas’ Chances.” London Review of Books, August 36, no. 16
(August 21, 2014).
“Towards a Lasting Ceasefire in Gaza.” Middle East/North Africa.
International Crisis Group, October 23, 2014. https://www.crisisgroup.
org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/israelpalestine/
toward-lasting-ceasefire-gaza.
“Treading Water: The Worsening Water Crisis and the Gaza Reconstruction
Mechanism.” OXFAM Briefing Paper. OXFAM, March 2017. https://www-
cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/bp-treading-water-gaza-reconstruction-mecha-
nism-220317-en.pdf.
8 (UN)LIMITED FORCE: REGIONAL REALIGNMENTS … 257
Zana Gulmohamad
Introduction
The Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) is an umbrella term for
non-monolithic majority Shi’ militias with divergent orientations, par-
ticularly between pro-Iran and Iraqi-first Shi’ militias. For example,
major pro-Iran militias, such as Badr and Asaib Ahl al-Haq, have closer
ties to Iran, whereas the populist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his militias
reject interference from Iran and the West. Therefore, the pro-Iran mili-
tias within the PMF are allied within the Iranian axis (al-Mihwar al-Irani)
or the axis of resistance (Mihwar al-Muqawama) explored in the first sec-
tion of this book. This axis includes four principal state and non-state
actors: Iran, pro-Iran Iraqi Shi’ militias, Syria, and the Lebanese
Hezbollah. They are the most powerful Shi’ and Shi’-leaning actors in
the region and form a land bridge between the four countries to the
Israeli–Lebanese border at Golan Heights. The Iran-led axis balances
vis-a-vis the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and its regional allies in the
region, including Israel. Furthermore, Iran’s support for Shi’ movements
Z. Gulmohamad (*)
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
e-mail: z.gulmohamad@sheffield.ac.uk
1 “Iraq: Militias Abuses Mar Fight against ISIS. Tikrit Homes Destroyed, Residents
trained, yet its number gradually exceeded that of the Iraqi Army (IA).
Post-1991, Saddam’s regime created state-backed militias, such as
Fedayeen Saddam (Saddam’s Men of Sacrifice) numbering 30,000 to
40,000. This small yet ruthless militia answered directly to Saddam’s
son, Uday.5 Many in the IA resented these militias.6 The state-backed
militias were the regime’s tools for suppression and security. In contrast
to Saddam’s era, the militias post-Saddam are more complex and have
divergent and occasionally colliding interests and loyalties, as the next
sections attempt to explore.
This chapter provides a survey on the structure and categorization
of the PMF, their military and operational capabilities, their supporters
and loyalties, and the different goals between the militias, including their
political ambitions. It looks at their ideological and political orientations
and their ties domestically (in Iraq) as well as regionally (the broader
Middle East). It comes to the conclusion that: (1) A number of pro-Iran
Shi’ militias have been deeply seated in Iraq for decades; however, the
rise of the IS provided the context for prominent Shi’ commanders, fig-
ures, and militias to shape Iraq’s security and military apparatus in a way
that is molding Iraq’s polity and interfering in its policy-making process;
(2) Pro-Iran militias have consolidated the militia presence in Iraq, Syria,
and elsewhere, and by their attitude and behavior, they have extended
Iran’s influence in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East.
American Wars, Resistance, Liberation and Creation of the Second Republic (Beirut: Dar
al-Farabi, 2013), 118.
262 Z. GULMOHAMAD
adhere to the rule of law. In this chapter, the term “militias” is used to
represent the PMF’s factions without any negative or contemptuous
implications.
Amid the rise of IS, the meltdown of ISF, the fall of a third of Iraq
to the IS, and the threat to Baghdad, the Grand Ayatollah al-Sayyid Ali
Husseini al-Sistani, Iraq’s highest religious reference (Marjia al-Diniah
al-A’lia), issued a religious edict regarding the duty of jihad. This was
called the fatwa Wajib Jihad al-Kafai, and it triggered the birth of the
PMF. The fatwa, read by his spokesperson Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalai on
June 13, 2014, called upon “all able-bodied Iraqis to defend the country
and to volunteer in the security forces,” and it declared the war against
IS as a sacred defense (Difa’ Muqadas).7 Former Prime Minister (PM)
Nouri al-Maliki is a PMF founder, alongside a unanimous backing of
the Council of Ministers.8 Two days after the fatwa, Falih al-Fayyadh,
the federal government’s national security advisor, announced the cre-
ation of Haiat Modiriat al-Hashd al-Sha’abi, a committee for the direc-
torate of the PMF. In every Shi’-dominated governorate, masses of Shi’s
responded to the al-Sistani’s fatwa. The PMF offices, many of which
were affiliated to or controlled by the militias, organized and equipped
the recruits. Close to a million volunteers were registered.9
Currently, the number of militias is estimated at 67. Half of these
were preexisting militias and had operated before Ayatollah al-Sistani’s
fatwa. Some had even targeted the US-led coalition during Iraq’s occu-
pation. Just over half have ideological and logistical links and are loyal to
7 “The Statement of Iraq’s Religious Marjiyya Ayatollah al-Sistani on Jihad al-Kafai (In
Islamic State?,” The Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Monitor XIV, no. 9 (April 29, 2016):
5–7.
9 “Maliki Orders the Formation of the Directorate of Hashd Al-Sha’abi to Manage
the Flow (In Arabic),” Qanat al-Alam, June 15, 2014, http://www.alalam.ir/
news/1603017/; Zana K. Gulmohamad, “A Short Profile of Iraq’s Shi’a Militias,”
Terrorism Monitor: In-Depth Analysis of the War on Terror 13, no. 8 (April 17, 2015): 3–6.
9 THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 263
the Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei and the regime, particularly the
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF).10 Iraqi
officials indicated that the PMF fighters total around 110,000–122,000,
and the federal government in Baghdad is responsible for their salaries.11
For example, in 2017, the government paid the PMF 1.63 billion US
dollars.12
This chapter categorizes the PMF militias according to their loy-
alties and sponsors. Previously, the author (in 2015 and 2016) and
other experts divided the militias into three camps: pro-Iran militias,
pro-al-Sistani or Hawza militias, and pro-Sadr and al-Hakim militias.13
However, this chapter presents two camps of militias, based on their cur-
rent religious loyalties and areas of sponsorship. The first group of mili-
tias are the pro-Iran Hashd al-Walai (in Arabic, al-Walai means loyal and
refers to the loyalty to Khamenei). This camp adheres to and/or favors
Khomeini’s version of governance and political system: the doctrine of
Vilayat-i Faqih (governance of the jurist). The second group includes
loyalties and sponsors that are based in Iraq, with various doctrines and
political factions affiliated with al-Hawza and al-Sistani’s institutions,
with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), or with the Shi’ pop-
ulist figure Muqtada’s al-Sadr and his movement. This second camp’s
command structure has been close to the PM’s office since al-Abadi’s
appointment, yet they are incoherent and their cooperation depends
on battlefield dynamics. By contrast, the first camp operates under the
auspices of Iran, particularly the IRGC, and is close to al-Maliki.
All militias argue that they are Iraqi nationalist ones. Many mili-
tias claim that they represent the Iraqi people, are social–political
10 Jack Watling, “The Shi’ Militias of Iraq,” The Atlantic, December 22, 2016, https://
www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/Shi’-militias-iraq-isis/510938/.
11 Nicholas A. Heras, “Iraq’s Fifth Column: Iran’s Proxy Network” (MEI Policy Paper,
Themselves,” Niqash: briefings from inside and across Iraq, June 30, 2015, http://www.
niqash.org/en/articles/politics/5033/Iraq; Gulmohamad, “Iraq’s Shi’ Militias,” 5–7; and
Gulmohamad, “A Short Profile of Iraq’s Shi’a Militias,” 3–6.
264 Z. GULMOHAMAD
movements, and have inherited Shi’ religious legacies.14 All Shi’ militias
possess and portray Shi’ Islamist narratives using various doctrines, while
trying to project the image of an Iraqi nationalist identity. Each camp has
its own interpretation and brand of Iraqi nationalism. For instance, pro-
Iran militias adopt the Shi’ transnationalism linked to Iran’s Khomeini,
whereas many emphasize patriotism to gain legitimacy among all Iraqis
in their fight against IS.15 These transnational narratives pose a chal-
lenge to the state and other non-Shi’ Iraqi communities who may have a
different sense of Iraqi identity.
Since 2014, the controversial legal status of the PMF has faced criti-
cism from a number of Iraqi politicians and lawmakers, particularly the
Arab Sunnis and Kurds, over the PMF’s resources and the plans to turn
it into part of the state security structure.16 Initially, former PM al-Ma-
liki signed an official decree in 2014 to form the commission of PMF.
Critics alleged, however, that the decree violated article 9, paragraph B
of the Iraqi constitution, which clearly prohibits the formation of militias
outside the framework of the armed forces.17 In an attempt to fix this
legal issue, former PM al-Abadi approved (in February 2016) an official
government Executive Order 91, which underlined that the PMF would
be an independent military body, part of ISF, and attached to the PM.
In November 2016, the Iraqi Council of Representatives (ICR) passed
a law known as Qanoon Haiat Hashd al-Sha’abi, which officially insti-
tutionalized and accorded full legal status to the PMF as part of the ISF
to report directly to the PM. The law was supported by 208 out of a
total of 327 members of parliament (MPs), but rejected by many Arab
Sunnis.18
14 Ranj Alaaldin, “Containing Shiite Militias: The Battle for Stability in Iraq,” Policy
Subnationalism and the State” (Middle East Research Institute, March 2017), http://
www.meri-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PMF-Report-0.2.pdf.
16 “Sunnis and Kurds Oppose Hashd Law Passed by Iraqi Parliament,” Basnews,
Iraq’s Future” (Carnegie Middle East Center, April 28, 2017), http://carnegie-mec.
org/2017/04/28/popular-mobilization-forces-and-iraq-s-future-pub-68810.
18 “The Law of Hashd Al-Sha’abi (In Arabic),” Ministry of Justice, November 26, 2016,
https://www.moj.gov.iq/view.2899/.
9 THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 265
19 “The Prime Minister and the Commander in Chief Haider Al-Abadi Issues Regulations
for Hashd al-Sha’abi (In Arabic),” Iraq’s Prime Minister’s Office, March 8, 2018, http://
pmo.iq/press2018/8-3-201803.htm.
20 Mansour, “More Than Militias.”
21 “Fayyadh Announces Creating Ataa Movement (In Arabic),” Iraqi News Network,
Secretive Quds Force,” War on the Rocks, March 23, 2018, https://warontherocks.
com/2018/03/death-of-a-general-what-shaban-nasiri-reveals-about-irans-secretive-qods-
force/.
266 Z. GULMOHAMAD
autonomy and their de facto behavior emerges from various internal and
external stakeholders, and partisan and ideological drivers. The PMF’s
bodies are responsive to the directives of an executive commission, the
Shura Council (Majlis Shura al-Muqawama al-Islamiyyia), which is
a key part of the PMF, is led by al-Muhandis and Hadi al-Amiri, and
includes 10 other key militia leaders from the aforementioned Iraqi and
pro-Iran camps. The purpose of the executive committee is to administer
and conduct day-to-day tasks without going back to the PM for permis-
sion.24 The PMF has created directories (Mudiriyat al-Hashd al-Sha’abi)
for specialized sectors or matters, such as directorates for overseeing the
planning and execution of military operations, intelligence, media, med-
ical matters, operations, and military engineering. The PMF has regional
committees, called offices of the PMF committee (Makatib Hai’at
Hashd al-Sha’abi), which are smaller and less powerful components than
the central administration and supervise provisional-level administrative
matters.
Regional committees are present in many Iraqi governorates, includ-
ing Anbar, Babil, Basra, Dhi Qar, Diwaniyah, Diyala, Karbala, Kirkuk,
Maysan, Muthanna, Salah al-Din, Najaf, Nineveh, and Wasit. Regional
committees are responsible for the affairs of each province and are
dependent on the executive committee of the PMF for resources.25
Al-Muhandis is the key figure in the PMF who shapes the operational,
administrative, and financial dynamics. The majority of the PMF websites
and social media platforms praise al-Muhandis, al-Amiri, and the spokes-
person Ahmad al-Asadi, who are the key commanders of the pro-Iran
militias. They appear to be the most admired leaders, rather than the
Chairman Falih al-Fayyadh. This promotion of its leaders indicates that
the pro-Iran camp has shaped the PMF’s orientations and trajectories.26
24 “Hashd Al-Sha’abi in Iraqi, It’s Creation and Future (In Arabic)” (Rawabet Center
Popular Mobilization Forces: Orders of Battle” (Institute for the Study of War, December
2017), http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Iraq%20-%20ISF%20
PMF%20Orders%20of%20Battle_0_0.pdf.
26 James Garrison, “Popular Mobilization Messaging,” (ICCT Research Paper, The
The administrative structure has paved the way for the pro-Iran
and Iraq first militias to conduct more efficient joint operations.27
Nevertheless, despite the cooperation between the different militias,
rivalry exists between them due to their different ideologies, partisan-
ship, and external ties.28 The PMF’s chairman and other commanders
state that the PMF is under the PM’s power. However, the public state-
ments of many pro-Iran militia leaders, as well as the behavior and forces
within the PMF, contradict the PM’s general domestic policy and for-
eign policy. One example is the presence of PMF Shi’ militias in Syria
and their operational activities on the side of the Assad regime.
The following sections explore the most powerful pro-Iran Shi’ mili-
tias, the minority and micro-minority militias (affiliated to both Iraqi and
Iranian camps), then the non-pro-Iran Shi’ militias.
27
Dury-Agri, Kassim, and Martin, “Iraq’s Security Forces and Popular Mobilization
Forces.”
28 Gulmohamad, “Iraq’s Shi’ Militias,” 5–7; Bashdar Ismaeel, “Dominance of
Militias May Haunt Baghdad. Kurdish Peshmerga Fighters Take Part in a Military
Exercise,” The New Arab, November 2, 2017, https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/
comment/2017/11/2/dominance-of-militias-may-haunt-baghdad.
268 Z. GULMOHAMAD
29 Miran Hussein, Sectarianism and Shi’ Militias and Political Armed Groups in Iraq (In
Arabic) (Cairo: Dar al-Maktab al-Arabi llma’arf, 2015), 70; “Badr Corps,” Global Security,
November 24, 2014, https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/badr.htm.
30 Robert Cleave, “Conceptions of Authority in Iraqi Shi’ism Baqir al-Hakim, Ha’iri and
Sistani on Ijtihad, Taqlid and Marja’iyya,” Theory, Culture and Society 24, no. 2 (2007):
59–78, https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276407074996.
31 Anthony H. Cordesman and Emma R. Davies, Iraq’s Insurgency and the Road to Civil
33 Cordesman and Davies, Iraq’s Insurgency and the Road to Civil Conflict, 38;
“Interview with Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim,” Frontline, April 17, 2017, https://www.pbs.org/
wgbh/pages/frontline/gangsofiraq/interviews/hakim.html.
34 Cordesman and Davies, Iraq’s Insurgency and the Road to Civil Conflict, 38–39.
35 Phillip Smyth, “Should Iraq’s ISCI Forces Really Be Considered ‘Good Militias’?,”
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2016/10/4/iraqi-militia-leader-meets-
british-ambassador.
270 Z. GULMOHAMAD
Niqash,” Niqash: briefings from inside and across Iraq, August 30, 2017, http://www.
niqash.org/en/articles/security/5725/.
9 THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 271
44 Kirk Sowell, “Badr at the Forefront of Iraq’s Shi’ Militias,” Carnegie Endowment for
48 “New War, Old Faces,” The Syrian Observer, May 19, 2014, https://syrianobserver.
Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei. Badr claims that around 1500 men
defend the Shi’ Shrine of Sayeda Zeinab in the Damascus suburbs.49
Badr and other pro-Iran militias, such as Iraq’s Kata’ib Hezbollah and
Lebanon’s Hezbollah, have also helped the minority Shi’ in Syria, espe-
cially those who follow Twelver Shiism, to set up local Shi’ militias;
these include, for example, the Imam al-Hijjah Regiment (Fawj al-Imam
al-Hijjah) in two villages (Nubl and Zahra) in Rif Hallab near Aleppo.50
In the context of Iraq’s 2018 parliamentary elections, Badr formed
the Conquest Alliance (Tahalf al-Fatah al-Mubin) with other Iraqi
pro-Iran militias and a few so-called “independent” traditional Shi’
Islamic and non-Shi’ (Shabak) parties headed by al-Amiri. The Al-Fatah
Alliance has become the second largest party on the list and, as a coa-
lition of several parties and wings of militias, won 48 seats. Badr alone
maintained 22 seats. The electoral list number is 109 and contains 18
factions that include but are not limited to: Asaib Ahl al-Haq (AAH)
and its political affiliation al-Sadiqoun, the Islamic Taliyah Party led by
Ali al-Yasseri and affiliated with the Khorasani Companies, and Kata’ib
Jund al-Imam and its political wing the Islamic Movement of Iraq led
by Ahmad al-Asadi, who is also the spokesperson of the PMF. Kata’ib
Hezbollah in Iraq joined the list and later withdrew, citing US leverage
and presence in Iraq. The alliance also contains traditional Shi’ factions,
such as ISCI led by Human Hamoudi.51
On September 3, 2018, al-Fatah, along with several winners of the
Iraqi parliamentary elections,—namely, Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law
Coalition and Falih al-Fayyadh who splintered from the Nasser alliance
49 “Badr’s Armed Wing in Syria, Labaik Ya Zainab (In Arabic),” Youtube, March 27,
2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVMFOE1FzrM.
50 Phillip Smyth, “How Iran Is Building Its Syrian Hezbollah” (The Washington
Ahead of Parliamentary Elections,” FDD’s Long War Journal, January 25, 2018, https://
www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2018/01/iranian-backed-iraqi-militias-form-coali-
tion-ahead-of-parliamentary-elections.php; “Fatah Coalition Headed by Al-A’meri Receives
Number 109 (In Arabic),” Baghdad Today, February 20, 2018, http://baghdadtoday.
news/ar/news/35759/†فلاحت-†حتفلا-†ةماعزب-†يرماعلا-†لصحي-†ىلع-†لسلستلا-
109-†نمض-†مئاوقلا-†ةكراشملا-في-†تاباختنالا- ;ةلبقملاand “Kataib Hezbollah Will Not
Participate in the Election (In Arabic),” Al-Hayat News, March 2, 2018, https://allhayat.
net/?p=14102.
9 THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 273
Policy Watch (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, September 17, 2018),
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-smart-way-to-sanction-
iranian-backed-militias-in-iraq.
274 Z. GULMOHAMAD
haq.com/index.php/permalink/5229.html.
9 THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 275
Kata’ib Hezbollah
KH (Brigades of Party of God or Hezbollah Brigades) is a pro-Iran
Shi’ militia that operates mainly in Iraq but has a regional presence.
Their leader and founding father, Jamal Jaafar Ibrahimi, known by his
alias Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, is also the Deputy Chair of the PMF.
KH emerged in 2007 with solid ties to and close coordination with the
IRGC-QF and Qassem Soleimani, who has provided equipment and
funding. Al-Muhandis was born in Basra in 1954, and started his polit-
ical career as a member of the Islamic Dawa Party in the 1970s before
fleeing to Iran in the 1980s. During exile, al-Muhandis became a key fig-
ure in the Badr Brigade and participated in regional clandestine activities.
He also served as deputy to al-Amiri.66 Post-2003, al-Muhandi’s rela-
tionship with Iranian security circles developed and gained support for
establishing KH.67 KH, like other pro-Iran Shi’ militias, is loyal to Iran’s
Supreme Leader Khamenei and has adopted Vilayat-i Faqih.68
64 “Iraqi Shi’ Group Vows ‘Revenge’ after Fresh US Sanctions,” Press TV, June 2, 2018,
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/06/02/563624/Iraq-Shi’-Asaib-Ahl-Haq.
65 Kirshnadev Calamur, “Trump’s Latest Warning to Iran Didn’t Come Out of
Involvement in Iraq,” The Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Monitor VIII, no. 9 (March 5,
2010): 3–4.
70 “Treasury Designates Individual, Entity Posing Threat to Stability in Iraq,” U.S.
Since 2013, KH, like AAH, has operated in Syria alongside the Syrian
regime. They were one of the first Iraqi Shi’ militias in Syria and con-
tributed to creating Shi’ militias there, such as Liwa Abu Fadl al-Abbas
(LAFA), the Kata’ib Hezbollah Syrian wing.74 KH’s military presence
and operations in Syria agitated the US and Israel, as they created a cor-
ridor of influence from Iran to Iraq and then to Syria and Lebanon via
their close ally, Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Israel’s airstrikes in Syria near the
Iraqi border in June 2018 targeted KH and other Shi’ militias. Around
52 KH were killed, and this sent a message to Tehran that they have to
leave Syria.75 KH’s regional activities include firing rockets at the KSA’s
borders, training Bahraini Shi’ militants, known as Saraya al-Ashtar, and
kidnapping Qatari citizens in order to pressure Doha.76 Al-Muhandis
denies the presence of his and the PMF’s fighters in Yemen fighting
alongside the Houthis. However, he stated there could be Iraqis in one
capacity or another there, and he confirmed the relationship between
the PMF and the Houthi movement.77 Apart from Badr, AAH, and KH,
there are other pro-Iran militias.
Shiite Militant Group Fighting ISIS” (The Washington Institute, January 5, 2015),
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/kataib-al-imam-ali-
portrait-of-an-iraqi-shiite-militant-group-fighting-isis.
75 Seth J. Frantzman, “Israel Struck Iranian Backed Shi’ Militia in Iraq
with Russian Ok,” June 19, 2018, https://www.jpost.com/International/
Israel-struck-Iranian-backed-Shi’-militia-in-Iraq-with-Russian-approval-560360.
76 Michael Eisenstadt and Michael Knights, “Mini-Hizballahs, Revolutionary Guard
Knock-Offs, and the Future of Iran’s Militant Proxies in Iraq,” War on the Rocks, May
9, 2017, https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/mini-hizballahs-revolutionary-guard-
knock-offs-and-the-future-of-irans-militant-proxies-in-iraq/; David Andrew Weinberg,
“Bahrain and Iran Expel Each Other’s Diplomats,” Policy Brief (Foundation for Defence
and Democracy, October 5, 2015), http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/
david-weinberg-bahrain-and-iran-expel-each-others-diplomats/.
77 David Daoud, “PMF Deputy Commander Muhandis Details Hezbollah Ops in
78 Mansour and Jabar, “The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s Future.”
79 Ali Alfoneh, “Fractured Iraq Shi’ Militias in Syria,” The Arab Gulf States Institute in
Washington, August 22, 2018, https://agsiw.org/fractured-iraqi-Shi’-militias-in-syria/.
80 Jamal Ashtwee, “Iran’s Role in Mosul Operation Is Bigger Than of Iraq’s (In Arabic),”
Political Party,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 32, no. 8 (2008): 669–80, https://doi.
org/10.1080/10576100903039320.
83 Daniel L. Byman and Bernard Gwertzman, “Hezbollah: Most Powerful Political
Liberating Fallujah and Mosul,” CTC Sentinel 9, no. 10 (October 2016): 16–27.
85 Nour Samaha, “Iraq’s ‘Good Sunnis,’” Foreign Policy, November 16, 2016, http://
http://www.aymennjawad.org/2017/10/hashd-brigade-numbers-index.
91 Aaron Y. Zelin and Philipp Smyth, “Hiballah Cavalcade: Quat Sahl Ninawa: Iraq’s Shi’
Shabak Get Their Own Militia,” Jihadology, January 12, 2015, http://jihadology.net/
category/quwat-sahl-ninawa/.
92 Ahmad Umar, “Shi’ Kurds Volunteer in Hashd Al-Shaabi and Reject Peshmerga (In
93 Mustafa Gurbuz, “The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s next Election,” Arab
2007), 280.
95 Anthony H. Cordesman and Sam Khazai, Iraq in Crisis (Washington: Center for
“The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s Future”; “Iraqi Cleric Sadr Scales Back His
Militia,” Reuters, June 28, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-election-sadr/
iraqi-cleric-sadr-scales-back-his-militia-idUSKBN1JO2O4.
9 THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 285
101 Dury-Agri, Kassim, and Martin, “Iraq’s Security Forces and Popular Mobilization
Forces.”
102 “Al-Muhandis Discusses with Saraya al-Salam Leadership the Preparation for
Hashd al-Sistani
This cluster of militias has several monikers, such as Hashd al-Sistani,
which means the crowd that follows al-Sistani, and pro-Hawza, which
refers to the Shi’ seminary in Najaf, where prominent Shi’ scholars are
based and Shi’ students are trained for religious purposes. Hashd al-
Sistani volunteers joined militias after Ayatollah al-al-Sistani’s fatwa in
2014, before which most of the aforementioned militias existed. Hashd
al-Sistani or Hawza militias do not have political ambitions, answer
to Najaf’s religious establishment led by al-Sistani, and are linked to
pro-Sistani institutions, including A’tabat al-A’basya, A’taba al-Alawi-
yya al-Muqadasa, A’taba al-Hussaniya al-Muqadasa, and Saraya al-A’taba
al-Hussaniya.108 In addition to these four militias that relate to and hold
similar names, there are other pro-Sistani militias, such as Al-Abbas fight-
ing division (Furqat al-Abbaas al-Qitaliya -FAQ), Liwa Ali Akbar, and
Liwa Ansar al-Marjia.109 These forces are an integral part of the PMF
and have close ties to the ISF and its command. The most highly skilled
militia within this category is FAQ, which has an intelligence section and
operates drones. They have just over 7000 active fighters and between
35,000 and 40,000 reserve members.110
Pro-Sistani volunteers reflect the vision of the moderate Marjia (reli-
gious reference) and, to a great extent, are aligned with the Iraqi state
and not with any Iranian doctrines or politics. After the territorial defeat
of the IS in Iraq, Hawza militias, such as FAQ, have been engaged in
social and cultural activities; for example, setting up conferences to call
Reducing Iranian Influence in Iraq’s Security Forces,” Policy Analysis (The Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, August 22, 2017), http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/
policy-analysis/view/the-al-abbas-combat-division-model.
288 Z. GULMOHAMAD
Periodic Meeting with Their Representatives from the Governorates (In Arabic),” March
31, 2018, http://www.alabbas.iq/view.php?act=news&id=445.
112 Alaaldin, “Containing Shiite Militias.”
115 Mustafa Habib, “Formerly Armed Angels? The Controversial Iraqi Militia That
Now Prefers Social Work to Politics,” Niqash: briefings from inside and across Iraq,
accessed September 6, 2019, http://www.niqash.org/en/articles/security/5873/The–
Controversial-Iraqi-Militia-That-Now-Prefers-Social-Work-To-Politics.htm.
116 Bilge Nesibe Kotan, “Why Ayatollah Sistani Opposes Hashd al Shaabi to Run for
in politics, the PMF leaders will need to publicly shed their military uni-
forms and militia affiliations to participate in the elections. However,
behind closed doors, it is business as usual.
Conclusion
The rise of Hashd al-Sha’abi filled a security vacuum and demonstrated
the support for Shi’ communities in Iraq who, due to the IS, felt humili-
ated, threatened, besieged, and defenseless.118 However, the ascendance
of the PMF has also served as a political platform for the Shi’ factions
and militias to flex their muscle, politically and ideologically, as well as to
promote their various agendas. After more than three years of military
operations in Iraq, the country’s territories have recovered, partly due to
the PMF’s forces. However, human rights violations against Arab Sunnis
and minority groups by PMF militias include extrajudicial killings, tor-
ture, abduction, arson, and the looting of civilian and public property.119
This has significantly undermined PMF’s credibility as a force to main-
tain security and stability.
Due to the schism among the PMF groups and the interference and
influence of Iranians, especially the IRGC-QF, two hierarchies of com-
mand exist: informal and formal.120 Informal command applies to the
pro-Iran militias that answer to Khamenei and Iran’s security circles,
including Qasem Soleimani through Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. The latter
leads the pro-Iran Shi’ militias, and while he does not have a close rela-
tionship with Muqtada al-Sadr’s or al-Sistani’s militias, he has a friendly
relationship with ISCI. The formal command applies to non-pro-Iran
militias that answer to Iraq’s armed forces’ Commander-in-Chief (the
PM) through Falih al-Fayyadh, the Chairman of the PMF, and their mili-
tia leaders and political wing elites.
118 Hassan Abbas, “The Myth and Reality of Iraq’s al-Hashd al-Shaabi (Popular
Civilians in Harm’s Way,” Human Rights Watch, July 31, 2016, https://www.hrw.org/
news/2016/07/31/iraq-ban-abusive-militias-mosul-operation.
120 Dury-Agri, Kassim, and Martin, “Iraq’s Security Forces and Popular Mobilization
Forces.”
290 Z. GULMOHAMAD
Bibliography
Abbas, Hassan. “The Myth and Reality of Iraq’s al-Hashd al-Shaabi
(Popular Mobilization Forces): A Way Forward.” Amman Office:
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), September 2017. http://library.fes.de/pdf-
files/bueros/amman/13689.pdf.
Adeeb, Kamal. A Summary of Iraq’s History from the Iraqi Revolt in 1920 to the
American Wars, Resistance, Liberation and Creation of the Second Republic.
Beirut: Dar al-Farabi, 2013.
Alaaldin, Ranj. “Containing Shiite Militias: The Battle for Stability in Iraq.”
Policy Briefing. Brookings Doha Center, December 12, 2017. https://www.
brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/shiite_militias_iraq_english.
pdf.
“Al-A’taba al-A’Basiya al-Muqadasa. Qiadat Furqat al-A’bass Convene
at Their Periodic Meeting with Their Representatives from the
Governorates (In Arabic).” March 31, 2018. http://www.alabbas.iq/view.
php?act=news&id=445.
Alfoneh, Ali. “Fractured Iraq Shia Militias in Syria.” The Arab Gulf
States Institute in Washington, August 22, 2018. https://agsiw.org/
fractured-iraqi-shia-militias-in-syria/.
Al-Hashd.net. “Al-Muhandis Discusses with Saraya al-Salam Leadership the
Preparation for Mosul Operation (In Arabic).” September 28, 2016. http://
al-hashed.net/2016/09/28/جاحل-سدنهملا-ثحبي-عم-ةدايق-ايارس-لسلا.
292 Z. GULMOHAMAD
Dury-Agri, Jessa Rose, Omer Kassim, and Patrik Martin. “Iraq’s Security Forces
and Popular Mobilization Forces: Orders of Battle.” Institute for the Study
of War, December 2017. http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/
files/Iraq%20-%20ISF%20PMF%20Orders%20of%20Battle_0_0.pdf.
Eisenstadt, Michael, and Michael Knights. “Mini-Hizballahs, Revolutionary
Guard Knock-Offs, and the Future of Iran’s Militant Proxies in Iraq.” War on
the Rocks, May 9, 2017. https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/mini-hiz-
ballahs-revolutionary-guard-knock-offs-and-the-future-of-irans-militant-prox-
ies-in-iraq/.
Frantzman, Seth J. “Israel Struck Iranian Backed Shia Militia in Iraq with
Russian Ok.” June 19, 2018. https://www.jpost.com/International/Israel-
struck-Iranian-backed-Shia-militia-in-Iraq-with-Russian-approval-560360.
Frontline. “Interview with Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim.” April 17, 2017. https://
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gangsofiraq/interviews/hakim.html.
Garland, Chad. “Iran-Backed Militias Obtained 9 US-Made Abrams Tanks in
Iraq.” Military.com, February 19, 2018. https://www.military.com/dai-
ly-news/2018/02/09/iran-backed-militias-obtained-9-us-made-abrams-
tanks-iraq-report.html.
Garrison, James. “Popular Mobilization Messaging.” ICCT Research Paper. The
Hague: International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), April 2017.
https://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ICCT-Garrison-Popular-
Mobilization-Messaging-April-2017-1.pdf.
Global Security. “Badr Corps.” November 24, 2014. https://www.globalsecu-
rity.org/military/world/para/badr.htm.
Gold, Dore. The Rise of Nuclear Iran: How Tehran Defies the West. Washington,
DC: Regnery Publishing, 2009.
Gulmohamad, Zana. “Unseating the Caliphate: Contrasting the Challenges of
Liberating Fallujah and Mosul.” CTC Sentinel 9, no. 10 (October 2016):
16–27.
Gulmohamad, Zana K. “A Short Profile of Iraq’s Shi’a Militias.” Terrorism
Monitor: In-Depth Analysis of the War on Terror 13, no. 8 (April 17, 2015):
3–6.
———. “Iraq’s Shia Militias: Helping or Hindering the Fight against Islamic
State?” The Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Monitor XIV, no. 9 (April 29,
2016): 5–6.
Gurbuz, Mustafa. “The Popular Mobilization Forces and Iraq’s Next Election.”
Arab Center Washington, DC, September 6, 2017. http://arabcenterdc.org/
policy_analyses/the-popular-mobilization-forces-and-iraqs-next-elections/.
Habib, Mustafa. “Divided Loyalties: Iraq’s Controversial Shiite Militias Fight
among Themselves.” Niqash: briefings from inside and across Iraq, June 30,
2015. http://www.niqash.org/en/articles/politics/5033/Iraq.
9 THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 295
———. “The New Arab. Iraq PM Sacks Paramilitary Chief Who Joined
Rival pro-Iranian Bloc.” August 31, 2018. https://www.alar-
aby.co.uk/english/news/2018/8/31/iraq-pm-sacks-paramilitar y-
chief-who-joined-pro-iranian-bloc.
O’Driscoll, Dylan, and Dave van Zoonen. “The Hashd Al-Shaabi and
Iraq: Subnationalism and the State.” Middle East research institute,
March 2017. http://www.meri-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/
PMF-Report-0.2.pdf.
“The Official Facebook Page for Saraya Salam. The Military Media of Peace
Brigades Saraya Salam.” April 4, 2018. https://www.facebook.com/
مالعالا-يبرحلا-ايارس-مالسلا-381095892084387.
“The Official Website for Asaib Ahl Al-Haq (In Arabic).” June 2017. http://
ahlualhaq.com/index.php/permalink/5229.html.
Otterman, Sharon. “Iraq: What Is the Fedayeen Saddam?” Council on Foreign
Relations, February 3, 2005. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/
iraq-what-fedayeen-saddam.
Park, Ned, Babak Dehganpishheh, and Isabel Coles. “How Iran’s Military Chiefs
Operate in Iraq.” February 24, 2015. https://www.reuters.com/article/
us-mideast-crisis-committee-specialrepor/special-report-how-irans-military-
chiefs-operate-in-iraq-idUSKBN0LS0VD20150224.
Pregent, Michael, and Erica Hanichak. “Countering Iran Means Sanctioning
Terrorist Militias.” The Hill, September 27, 2018. https://thehill.com/opin-
ion/international/408741-countering-iran-means-sanctioning-terrorist-mili-
tias.
Press TV. “Iraqi Shia Group Vows ‘Revenge’ after Fresh US Sanctions.” June 2,
2018. https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/06/02/563624/Iraq-Shia-
Asaib-Ahl-Haq.
Qanat al-Alam. “Maliki Orders the Formation of the Directorate of Hashd
Al-Sha’abi to Manage the Flow (In Arabic).” June 15, 2014. http://www.
alalam.ir/news/1603017/.
Rawabet Center For Research and Strategic Studies. “Hashd Al-Sha’abi in Iraqi,
It’s Creation and Future (In Arabic).” August 28, 2018. http://rawabet-
center.com/archives/31326.
Roggio, Bill. “US Troops ‘Are a Target for Us,’ Iraq’s Muqtada al Sadr Says.”
FDD’s Long War Journal, July 18, 2016. https://www.longwarjournal.org/
archives/2016/07/us-troops-are-a-target-for-us-iraqs-muqtada-al-sadr-says.
php.
Reuters. “Iraqi Cleric Sadr Scales Back His Militia.” June 28, 2018. https://
www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-election-sadr/iraqi-cleric-sadr-scales-
back-his-militia-idUSKBN1JO2O4.
———. “Iraqi Shi’ite Militias Pledge to Fight U.S. Forces if
Deployed.” December 1, 2015. https://www.reuters.com/article/
9 THE EVOLUTION OF IRAQ’S … 299
us-mideast-crisis-usa-iraq/iraqi-shiite-militias-pledge-to-fight-u-s-forces-if-de-
ployed-idUSKBN0TK5KQ20151201.
“S.3431-Iranian Proxies Terrorist Sanctions Act.” U.S. Congress, 2018 2017.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3431/text.
Said, Mahmoud. “Hashd Al-A’shari Its Creation, Aims and Future (In Arabic).”
June 26, 2017. http://www.roayahnews.com/articles/2017/6/26/1188/.
Samaha, Nour. “Iraq’s ‘Good Sunnis.’” Foreign Policy, November 16, 2016.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/iraqs-good-sunni/.
Smyth, Phillip. “How Iran Is Building Its Syrian Hezbollah.” The Washington
Institute For Near East Policy, March 8, 2016. http://www.washingtoninsti-
tute.org/policy-analysis/view/how-iran-is-building-its-syrian-hezbollah.
———. “Should Iraq’s ISCI Forces Really Be Considered ‘Good Militias’?”
Policy Watch. The Washington Institute, August 17, 2016. http://
www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/should-iraqs-isci-
forces-really-be-considered-good-militias.
———. “The Shiite Jihad in Syria and Its Regional Effects.” Policy Focus. The
Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 2015. https://www.washington-
institute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/PolicyFocus138-v3.pdf.
Sowell, Kirk. “Badr at the Forefront of Iraq’s Shia Militias.” Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, August 13, 2015. https://carnegieen-
dowment.org/sada/61016.
———. “Inside Iraqi Politics.” Uticensis Risk Services 111 (July 20, 2015).
http://www.insideiraqipolitics.com/Files/Inside%20Iraq%20No111.pdf.
Sowell, Kirk H. “The Rise of Iraq’s Militia State.” Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, April 23, 2015. http://carnegieendowment.org/
sada/59888.
Spyer, Jonathan. “Who Is Qais Al-Khazali, and Why Should You Care?” Middle
East Forum, December 15, 2017. http://www.meforum.org/7104/
who-is-qais-al-khazali.
Steinberg, Guido. “The Badr Organization: Iran’s Most Important Instrument
in Iraq.” SWP Comments. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik—German
Institute for International and Security Affairs, July 26, 2017. https://www.
swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2017C26_sbg.pdf.
Strouse, Thomas. “Kata’ib Hezbollah and the Intricate Web of Iranian Military
Involvement in Iraq.” The Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Monitor VIII, no.
9 (March 5, 2010): 3–4.
The Syrian Observer. “New War, Old Faces.” May 19, 2014. https://syrianob-
server.com/EN/features/32830/new_war_old_faces.html.
Tarbush, Mohammad. The Role of the Military in Politics: A Case Study of Iraq to
1941. New York: Routledge, 2016.
300 Z. GULMOHAMAD
Wyer, Sam. “The Resurgence of Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq.” Middle East Security
Report. Institute for the Study of War (ISW), December 2012. http://www.
understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/ResurgenceofAAH.pdf.
Youtube. “Badr’s Armed Wing in Syria, Labaik Ya Zainab (In Arabic).” March
27, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVMFOE1FzrM.
Zelin, Aaron Y., and Philipp Smyth. “Hiballah Cavalcade: Quat Sahl Ninawa:
Iraq’s Shia Shabak Get Their Own Militia.” Jihadology, January 12, 2015.
http://jihadology.net/category/quwat-sahl-ninawa/.
CHAPTER 10
Introduction
The popular uprising in Syria in 2011 against the rule of Bashar
al-Assad began as a popular, cross-sectarian, leaderless, and non-violent
movement for freedom and dignity, where sectors of the population with
very different ethnic and religious backgrounds played key roles. At a
later stage, however, the civil movement against the regime turned into
a military conflict in the form of a civil war and into a regional proxy
war as a result of the interference of regional and international state and
non-state actors of different types. These overlapping levels of confronta-
tion made the political, social, and military scenario much more complex:
Syria ended up divided into different spheres of influence, dominated by
warlords and militias.
Among those major actors who managed, at some point, to bring
wide-scale areas under their control, two non-state actors acquired
N. Ramírez Díaz (*)
Arabic and Islamic Studies, Independent Researcher,
Madrid, Spain
special relevance in the years between 2014 and 2017, which confirmed the
hypothesis that violent non-state actors had grown in importance on the
ground and, despite their present retreat, could still have an impact on
the future development in the broader Middle East.1 One of these actors
is the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), with its armed wing,
the People’s Protection Units (YPG), a main component of the then
US-supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Another is the n ow-defunct
self-declared Islamic Caliphate/Islamic State (IS), which we will refer to
as Daesh (an Arabic acronym used by the local population for Al-Dawla
al-Islamiya fi-l-Iraqi wa-l-Sham, the IS in Iraq and Syria or the Levant).
Although their origins, background, and human resources are very
different, the PYD-YPG and Daesh shared some characteristics regard-
ing policies and rhetoric that are worth highlighting. For instance, both
non-state actors have usually been included in the loose concept of oppo-
sition to the Assad regime, even though their relationship with Damascus
has been very ambivalent, to say the least. In addition, both resorted to a
chauvinist rhetoric in their claims to authority (parallel to that of the sec-
tarian militias fighting on the side of the Assad regime), which alienated
the local populations and contradicted the basic principles of the uprising
that, ironically, had paved the way for their promotion. This has been
especially significant in the city of Raqqa, the first regional capital freed
from the Assad regime control. Both groups managed to take over it at
different times and used it as a scenario to display their muscle.
By controlling large portions of land and establishing some form of
government, both Daesh and the PYD-YPG gave shape to state-like
entities with different governmental and law-enforcing bodies. It is in
this sense that, throughout the text, I will try to show how important
non-state actors became at some point in the Syrian conflict and how
they challenged the authority of both the Syrian regime and the main
political opposition body, namely the National Coalition of Syrian
Revolution and Opposition Forces (NC).
This chapter presents the argument that Daesh and the PYD, despite
their differences and apparently antagonistic ethos, managed to take
advantage of the victimization narrative in order to achieve their main
aim: the establishment of an autonomous state-like entity. To illustrate
1 Özden Zeynep Oktav, Emel Parlar dal, and Ali Murat Kurşun, eds., Violent Non-State
Actors and the Syrian Civil War: The ISIS and YPG Cases (London: Springer International
Publishing, 2018), 1.
10 BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 305
this, I start by analyzing the factors that led to the rise of these two
non-state actors, their differences and similarities, and the actors
supporting them.
Framework,” in Non-State Actors in World Politics, ed. Daphné Josselin and William Wallace
(New York: Palgrave, 2001), 1–20; Andrew Clapham, “Non-State Actors,” in Post-Conflict
Peacebuilding: A Lexicon, ed. Vincent Chetail (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009),
200–212.
3 Stephen M. Walt, “ISIS as Revolutionary State: New Twist on an Old Story,” Foreign
Affairs, December 2015, 42; Mehmet Gurses, “Transnational Ethnic Kin and Civil War
Outcomes,” Political Research Quarterly 68, no. 1 (March 2015): 142–53, https://doi.
org/10.1177/1065912914554042; and Ekaterina A. Stepanova, Terrorism in Asymmetric
Conflict: Ideological and Structural Aspects (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 39–40.
4 Abu Bakr Al-Naji, “Idarat Al-Tawahhush (in Arabic),” accessed September 6, 2019,
https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/20/207DE0C1094BC68A7061
C96629DD5C1A_adara_twahsh.pdf. According to Al-Arabiya Institute for Studies, this
author’s real identity is Muhammad Khalil al-Hakaymah, author of several books and pam-
phlets on jihad.
306 N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ
not local elements, as was the case in Syria.5 In the case of the YPG and
PYD, since they operated (at least in the early stages of the uprising) in
Kurdish majority regions or areas densely populated by Kurds, they did
not need to resort to what Akın Ünver calls “pre-territorialisation” meth-
ods to earn people’s approval.6 Nevertheless, they did offer Arabs and
other minority sectors of the population some governmental positions,7
in an attempt to show how committed to pluralism they were.8
Back to Daesh, during the “post-territorialisation” stage, the group’s
modus operandi was based on taking over the administration and estab-
lishing a system deeply rooted in an extreme interpretation of religion
preserved by means of the strict enforcement of religious rules.9 This
could only be achieved from a position of confrontation with society,
which was also the cornerstone of its relationship with Kurdish areas,
where the local authorities focused on the creation of safe zones far from
extremist interpretations of religion and governed autonomously. This
contrasted with Daesh’s preference for centralization, inherited from
the strong centralized policies of the Iraqi State under Saddam Hussein,
where they learned the ropes of state-building and consolidation. These
differences notwithstanding, in both cases, we were dealing with actors
that challenged traditional definitions of non-state actors by creat-
ing state-like entities and advancing toward some form of autonomy: a
formal State in the case of Daesh, and a widely autonomous
self-government in the case of the PYD.
Moreover, because Daesh and the PYD had more or less similar
aspirations at the time when they had a strong presence in the north and
north-eastern areas of Syria, they were somehow interdependent in the
5 Yassin al-Haj Saleh, “Tabaqat Daesh (in Arabic),” Al-Jumhuriya, February 12, 2016,
https://www.aljumhuriya.net/ar/content/%D8%B7%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA-%
D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4.
6 Akın Ünver, “Contested Geographies: How ISIS and YPG Rule ‘No-Go’ Areas in
Northern Syria,” in Violent Non-State Actors and the Syrian Civil War: The ISIS and YPG
Cases, ed. Özden Zeynep Oktav, Emel Parlar Dal, and Ali Murat Kurşun (London: Springer
International Publishing, 2018), 40.
7 For example, in March 2016, Mansour Salloum, original co-president of Tell Abyad, was
sense that their projects were incompatible and that there was a zero-sum
confrontation between them: their state-like projects could not coexist,
but in order to push for their particular goals, they needed the other as
an alter-ego justifying each other’s presence and actions. Therefore, even
though their relationship appeared to be strictly confrontational, as sug-
gested by their in-fighting in northern Syria, it was up to a certain extent
relatively symbiotic.
In the following section, I will address the Kurdish case and its back-
ground and origins in a heterogeneous country like Syria, in order to
understand its role as a non-state actor.
fi Suriya (in Arabic) (Beirut: Al-mu’assasa al-arabiya li-l-dirasat wa-l-nashr, 2017), 271–86.
308 N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ
facto dividing some Kurdish areas between the two countries.12 After the
establishment of the French Mandate in Syria, however, this country became
a favorite safe haven for Kurdish refugees coming from Turkey,13 adding fuel
to the version later used by the successive Syrian governments to deprive its
Kurdish citizens of their rights.
After the French withdrawal from Syria in 1946, the Kurdish minority
seemed to adapt reasonably well to the new conditions14; but, in an
atmosphere of mounting pan-Arab exaltation, its presence was regarded
as non-desirable.15 In the early 1960s, the state deprived thousands
of Kurds of their Syrian nationality on the grounds that they or their
parents had been refugees from Turkey during the French Mandate.16 As
a result, Syria’s Kurdish population joined forces to resist the impositions
of the Baathist State from 1963 on.
Since the second half of the twentieth century, two main currents
developed among Kurdish societies in the region. One of them was
nationalist and believed in the right of Kurds to achieve their goal
of an independent country. The other one, classified as democratic,
claimed that the very essence of the Kurdish question was rooted in
the economic, political, and sectarian complexities in the countries that
Kurdistan was divided into, which meant that Kurds could not achieve
any of their aspirations in those countries where the state was a mere
instrument in the hands of the authoritarian governing elite. In other
words, “the Kurdish wound is nothing else than part of the largest
wound of the peoples of those countries.”17
and the English metropolis, the regimes that came to power had a nationalist character,
reinforced by Nasser’s rising star and experiences like the United Arab Republic between
Syria and Egypt, which lasted between 1958 and 1961.
16 Edmonds, “Kurdish Nationalism,” 103 This was the result of a tricky census carried out
in 1962, which deprived a large number of Kurdish citizens from their nationality. As a result,
they became either ajanib (foreigners) or maktumeen (non-existent, concealed), without rights.
17 Kevin Mazur and Kheder Khaddour, “The Struggle for Syria’s Regions,” Middle East
In Syria, the Assad regime (consolidated between 1970 and 1971) did
nothing to improve the situation. For instance, it developed a plan known
as the Arab belt, which guided the relocation of Arab tribes affected by the
flooding of their lands after the creation of the Tabqa Dam to areas of the
Jazira in order to prevent Kurds from establishing contact with their coun-
terparts in other countries. In addition, Kurdish villages were renamed
with Arab names and fertile private lands in the region were turned into
public property. Finally, Kurdish cultural displays and the teaching of their
language became legal offences. On the political side, Hafez al-Assad used
Kurds in Turkey against the Turkish state to gain leverage in certain issues,
such as water supplies and other regional matters.18
Syrian Kurdish parties (as opposed to vocal and independent activ-
ists) were largely disregarded by the regime, a situation that paradoxically
granted them wider action margins than those of other Syrian politi-
cal currents, within an environment of violent political suppression.19
However, if a specific actor was no longer useful, it would disappear. For
instance, some Turkish Kurds (e.g., members of the PKK) previously
used by Syria against Turkey were forced out by the Syrian regime after
the 1999 Adana agreement between Damascus and Ankara. The PKK
responded in 2003 with the establishment of the PYD as its political
branch in Syria.20 The regime found the perfect timing to remind Kurds
who called the shots in the country in 2004, in the aftermath of a football
match, when clashes broke out between the Kurdish and Arab supporters
of the two competing teams. The Kurds saw this clash as an opportunity
to press for their rights, and violent repression by the regime ensued.
In contrast to this case of lack of solidarity between Arabs and Kurds,
it is worth mentioning that the traditional political (Arab) opposition in
Syria, including the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (SMB),21 have called
18 Naomí Ramírez Díaz and Imanol Ortega Expósito, “Relaciones sirio-turcas: la fallida
política exterior de Turquía para Oriente Medio,” Revista de historia actual 3, no. 2
(2016): 311–50.
19 Saleh, Al-thawra al-mustahila: al-thawra, al-harb al-ahliya wa al-harb al-amma fi
(London, 2005).
310 N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ
24 In an early study of the situation in Syria in 2011, a Kurdish interviewee explained
the following: “Kurds started demonstrating quite early because they wanted to prove to
the Arabs that they are not separatist and that this country is a country for all, and that all
Syrians, be they Kurds, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Assyrians or whatever, are one body,
one flesh, in a united Syria.” In Naomí Ramírez Díaz, “The Syrian Revolution through
the Eyes of the Demonstrators,” Working Paper (Toledo International Center for Peace
(CITpax), 2011), 15.
10 BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 311
others, by Amnesty International: Dahi Hassan, “Syrian Kurds in the Hope to Regain
Their Citizenship,” BBC News (Arabic), January 27, 2011, https://www.bbc.com/
arabic/middleeast/2011/04/110401_syria_kurds.
28 Interestingly, Jalal Talabani urged the Kurds not to conflate the fight for their legiti-
mate rights with the dream of a Great Kurdistan: “This is a regime that has repressed you
for 40 years, you tell me? Then why is it only now that you wish to rise? Listen carefully,
you as Syrian Kurds have rights within the Syrian state that you need to fight for, you must
go back now and work on getting them, but you must not confuse that with our dream of
greater Kurdistan.” On the contrary, Masoud Barzani, president of the Kurdish Region in
northern Iraq, “strongly backed the Syrian opposition, in alliance with Turkey.” See Sary,
“Kurdish Self-Governance in Syria,” 7–8.
312 N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ
which some understood as the basis for future negotiations for the official
recognition of Rojava. As if following on this track, on July 18, 2012,
the regime unilaterally withdrew from the Afrin and Kobane regions and
part of the Jazira. As a result, the PYD remained de facto in charge of
those areas, without either a real agreement or a fight. This, however, was
not the case in Qamishli and other areas, where Syria’s oil is produced.
According to eyewitnesses, police presence was very much reduced
following the withdrawal from the other regions, but the regime main-
tained a presence and kept control over the airport and oil operations.
Therefore, a tacit agreement over how to administer the region most
likely had been drafted, as well as a pact of no aggression. This was the
only possible explanation for the fact that, while activists in other Syrian
cities, like Daraa, faced live fire, Qamishli or Amouda witnessed the arrest
of demonstrators who raised national demands, whereas the protests
advancing Kurdish national demands prompted almost no reaction from
the authorities.29
As a result, the PYD became the strongman in Syria’s “ungoverned
space,”30 but always within the scope of reach of Damascus. As straight-
forwardly explained by a Syrian official, the following statement sum-
marizes this peculiar symbiosis: “The Kurds go off track every once in a
while, before sooner or later requiring our support. At that point, they
are often ready to give Damascus what it’s been waiting for.”31
In 2013, the PYD established its control over three autonomous
regions in Syria in pursuit of “freedom, justice, dignity, and democracy”
and proclaimed “a new social contract, based upon mutual and peaceful
coexistence and understanding between all strands of society.” According
to this Charter of the Social Contract, everyone would have the right
32 “Charter of the Social Contract. Self-Rule in Rojava,” January 29, 2014, https://pea-
ceinkurdistancampaign.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/english-version_sc_revised-060314.
pdf.
33 Sary, “Kurdish Self-Governance in Syria,” 17.
314 N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ
2011), 11.
38 “Syria’s Kurds,” 13, 19.
39 This is a good way of showing their alterity with Daesh, where women’s role remains
behind the scenes, and they are viewed as devoted mothers and wives.
40 Some of the alleged brigades inspired by the International Brigades of the Spanish
Civil War are the International Freedom Battalion (Tabûra Azadî ya Înternasyonal) and the
Lions of Rojava. The first claim to be fighting both against Daesh and Assad, whereas the
second focus on Daesh.
316 N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ
41 Doruk Ergun, “External Actors and VNSAs: An Analysis of the United States, Russia,
ISIS, and PYD/YPG,” in Violent Non-State Actors and the Syrian Civil War: The ISIS and
YPG Cases, ed. Özden Zeynep Oktav, Emel Parlar Dal, and Ali Murat Kurşun (London:
Springer International Publishing, 2018), 149–72.
42 Fadel al-Homsi, “Hal Yatahaqqaq Al-Hulm al-Kurdi Fi Suria? (in Arabic),”
Saying that no one could have predicted that a peaceful uprising in Syria
would turn into a bloodbath falls within the category of wishful (yet par-
tially inevitable) thinking, and the author of these lines did not escape that
trend. Bearing in mind past episodes in Syrian history—the most infamous
of which is the Hama massacre in 1982, when entire neighborhoods were
reduced to ashes by the Syrian artillery in its aim to crack down the armed
insurgency of the Fighting Vanguard (FV)—the regime could easily resort
to disproportionate violence, and that is exactly what it did.
Although arms were scarce in opposition circles during the first
months of the 2011 Syrian uprising, the regime did not hesitate in
responding with live fire to the protests, causing the death toll to rise
exponentially. It was just a matter of time for the people to look for
means of self-defense. As time went by, the armed confrontation between
ill-prepared combatants of the FSA and the regime’s heavy artillery cre-
ated situations of insecurity and instability—and instability is, by defini-
tion, the natural environment where radical movements can evolve at a
faster pace, especially when they already have a long trajectory of organi-
zation, pseudo-governance, and lofty aspirations.43
The following sections will try to explain how Daesh expanded and
how it adopted state-like characteristics.
43 Al-Naji, “Idarat Al-Tawahhush (in Arabic)” explains in his book the ways in which the
Global Order (London: Pluto Press, 2018), 90; See also Michael Weiss and Hassan Hassan,
ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror (London: Regan Arts, 2015).
45 Ould Mohamedou, A Theory of ISIS, 89.
46 Dabiq, a small town in northern Syria, is, according to Prophetic tradition, the place
where the final battle between Islam and disbelief will take place. In fact, Daesh named its
now defunct magazine after this town. Nevertheless, its control over the town did not last
long and it eventually retreated.
47 Ould Mohamedou, A Theory of ISIS, 97.
10 BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 319
Jolani and declared that the entity still known as IS in Iraq would stay
in Iraq, whereas Al-Nusra would remain in Syria. However, Daesh had
already set foot in Syria and various factors facilitated its expansion.
ers explains how Assad resorted to Salafi jihadis in Syrian prisons to make his prophecy a self-
fulfilled one. Basel al-Junaidy, “Qissat ‘Asdiqa Sednaya al-Thalatha’: Aqwa Thalathat Rijal Fi
Suriya al-Yawm! (in Arabic),” Al-Jumhuriya, October 16, 2013, https://www.aljumhuriya.
net/ar/19328.
320 N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ
55 Loubna Mrie, “Where Are the Syrians Kidnapped by ISIS?,” The Nation, March 9,
2018, https://www.thenation.com/article/where-are-the-syrians-kidnapped-by-isis/.
56 Aymeen Al-Tamimi, “The Evolution in Islamic State Administration,” Perspectives on
57 Al-Tamimi, 411.
58 The usually praised Sahwa in Iraq was not a mere insurrection against the so-called IS
in Iraq: many of its integrants were former members of jihadi groups in the country who
had opted for a full aesthetic shift. Prieto and Espinosa, La Semilla DePrieto and Espinosa,
La Semilla Del Odio, 411.
59 Naomí Ramírez Díaz, “Against All Odds: Defining a Revolutionary Identity in Syria,”
in Mediated Identities and New Journalism in the Arab World, ed. Azi Douai and Mohamed
Ben Moussa (London: Palgrave, 2016), 83–99; Ünver, “Contested Geographies,” 40.
60 Al-Tamimi, “The Evolution in Islamic State Administration.”
were the exception more than the rule. The history of the SMB them-
selves and their hesitation in the early months of the uprising (in order
not to play a detrimental role, in case the regime decided to use their
participation or support as some proof of Islamist identification) shows
how Syria was probably the least fertile ground for this kind of ideology
in the region.62 Nevertheless, the regime’s constant allegations and its
portrayal of the uprising as an existential threat for minorities added
fuel to latent sectarian tensions, and certain groups did not hesitate
to capitalize on that. This was a new version of Iraq’s descent into the
sectarian hell. Daesh knew how to manage that.
Syrian jihadis, like original Al-Nusra members, were more hesitant in
the beginning to show their true colors: this made Daesh more appeal-
ing to those seeking immediate revenge. It is in this sense that Syrian
writer Yassin al-Haj Saleh stated that groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar
al-Sham, Jund al-Aqsa, or Jaysh al-Islam might be against Daesh politi-
cally but could still share its doctrinal and ideological model. This meant
it was difficult for them to oppose Daesh even when it attacked them.63
In other words, since Daesh promoted what it deemed the ideal
Islamic society and state, some groups struggled to detach from their
ideological grip—another factor that allowed Daesh to pursue its goal of
creating and maintaining a state-like entity. This is not to say that those
groups have not confronted Daesh, but they have only done so when
Daesh has severely threatened their interests, as it was the case with Abu
Rayyan. In any case, it was Daesh that most foreign jihadis joined, since
its propaganda and effective operations matched their pan-Sunni victimi-
zation narrative and were therefore especially appealing, as we shall see in
the following paragraph.
Certainly, the uprising never deemed it necessary to resort to sensa-
tionalist propaganda to convince anyone or earn their support, since they
believed in the noble character of their plight for freedom. However, just
like the Kurds received the support of Leftist groups and activists due
to the ideology they spread and their narrative of victimization, Daesh
received the support of individuals who identified with a group claiming
to fight for Islam and represent Sunni Muslims,64 especially those who
68 “The Financing of the ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS),” In-Depth Analysis
Conclusion
From the above review of the emergence of two prominent non-state
actors in Syria, we can draw some tentative conclusions. The first and
foremost is the fact that the Syrian conflict gave a boost to the rise of
non-state militant actors (to the two actors analyzed here, we must add
other armed factions, political groupings, and civil society activists whose
role has been engulfed by violence) as very prominent elements in Syria,
at least during their years of expansion. In the case explored here, both
actors played a crucial role in changing the conflict’s demarcation lines
while also challenging the often-cited Sykes–Picot borders, even if the
actual treaty that established today’s frontiers was that of Sèvres, in 1920.
While the Kurdish PYD attempted to create an autonomous state-like
region in Syria, the global terrorist threat of Daesh aimed at uniting the
Islamic Umma under a single authority, thereby merging various states
into the one and only “Islamic State” (in its heyday, it was able to blur
the lines between Syria and Iraq). These conflicting projects led us to
claim that both non-state actors had abandoned the “non-state” frame-
work and tried, at different levels, to institutionalize their power within
the framework of state-like entities.
Due to the zero-sum confrontation on the ground, this pair proved
to be especially interesting, representing confederalism versus central-
ism and secularism versus theocracy. This dichotomy also affected the
way the world saw the non-state actors analyzed in this chapter: Daesh is
undeniably a terrorist organization, but the view of the PYD-YPG (main
component of the SDF) still held in different leftist circles is romantic, to
say the least. Multiple reports by the same international Human Rights
10 BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 325
69 Fred Abraham and Lama Faki, “Under Kurdish Rule: Abuses in PYD-Run Enclaves in
the Assad regime and its allies, it seems that those ambitions will remain
unfulfilled. Yet, understanding the conditions that boosted their role in
Syria remains interesting as long as the situation in the country remains
as it is.
Bibliography
Abraham, Fred, and Lama Faki. “Under Kurdish Rule: Abuses in PYD-Run
Enclaves in Syria.” Human Rights Watch, 2014. https://www.hrw.org/sites/
default/files/reports/syria0614_kurds_ForUpload.pdf.
Al-Naji, Abu Bakr. “Idarat Al-Tawahhush (in Arabic).” Accessed September 6,
2019. https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/20/207DE0C
1094BC68A7061C96629DD5C1A_adara_twahsh.pdf.
Al-Qadiyya al-Kurdiyya: Ru’yat Jama’at al-Ikhwan al-Muslimin Fi Suriya (in
Arabic). London, 2005.
Al-Tamimi, Aymeen. “The Evolution in Islamic State Administration.”
Perspectives on Terrorism 9, no. 4 (2015). http://www.terrorismanalysts.
com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/447/html.
“Charter of the Social Contract. Self-Rule in Rojava,” January 29, 2014.
https://peaceinkurdistancampaign.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/eng-
lish-version_sc_revised-060314.pdf.
Clapham, Andrew. “Non-State Actors.” In Post-Conflict Peacebuilding: A
Lexicon, edited by Vincent Chetail, 200–212. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2009.
Díaz, Naomí Ramírez. “Against All Odds: Defining a Revolutionary Identity in
Syria.” In Mediated Identities and New Journalism in the Arab World, edited
by Azi Douai and Mohamed Ben Moussa, 83–99. London: Palgrave, 2016.
———. “The Syrian Revolution through the Eyes of the Demonstrators.”
Working Paper. Toledo International Center for Peace (CITpax), 2011.
Edmonds, Cecil J. “Kurdish Nationalism.” Journal of Contemporary History 6,
no. 1 (1971): 87–97 & 99–107.
Elphinston, Willian Graham. “The Kurdish Question.” International Affairs
(Royal Institute of International Affairs) 22, no. 1 (1946): 91–103. https://
doi.org/10.2307/3017874.
Ergun, Doruk. “External Actors and VNSAs: An Analysis of the United States,
Russia, ISIS, and PYD/YPG.” In Violent Non-State Actors and the Syrian Civil
War: The ISIS and YPG Cases, edited by Özden Zeynep Oktav, Emel Parlar Dal,
and Ali Murat Kurşun, 149–72. London: Springer International Publishing, 2018.
Gurses, Mehmet. “Transnational Ethnic Kin and Civil War Outcomes.”
Political Research Quarterly 68, no. 1 (March 2015): 142–53. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1065912914554042.
10 BETWEEN THE PYD AND THE ISLAMIC STATE … 327
Hassan, Dahi. “Syrian Kurds in the Hope to Regain Their Citizenship.” BBC
News (Arabic), January 27, 2011. https://www.bbc.com/arabic/middleeast/
2011/04/110401_syria_kurds.
Homsi, Fadel al-. “Hal Yatahaqqaq Al-Hulm al-Kurdi Fi Suria? (in Arabic).”
Al-Jumhuriya, February 1, 2017. https://www.aljumhuriya.net/ar/content/
%D9%87%D9%84-%D9%8A%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%82-%D8%
A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%
D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8
%A7%D8%9F.
International. “Syria: Harrowing Torture, Summary Killings in Secret
ISIS Detention Centers.” Amnesty International, December 19, 2013.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/12/syria-harrowing-
torture-summary-killings-secret-isis-detention-centres/.
———. “Syria: ‘Left to Die under Siege’: War Crimes and Human Rights Abuses
in Eastern Ghouta, Syria.” Amnesty International, August 12, 2015. https://
www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde24/2079/2015/en/.
Itani, Fidaa. Al-Jihadiyun Fi Lubnan: Min Quwat al-Fajr Ila Fath al-Islam (in
Arabic). Beirut: Dar al-Saqi, 2008.
Josselin, Daphné, and William Wallace. “Non-State Actors in World Politics:
A Framework.” In Non-State Actors in World Politics, edited by Daphné
Josselin and William Wallace, 1–20. New York: Palgrave, 2001.
Junaidy, Basel al-. “Qissat ‘Asdiqa Sednaya al-Thalatha’: Aqwa Thalathat Rijal
Fi Suriya al-Yawm! (in Arabic).” Al-Jumhuriya, October 16, 2013. https://
www.aljumhuriya.net/ar/19328.
Mahmoud, Rostom. “Al-Inqisam Wa Masirat al Taharrur Fi l Wijdan al Kurdi al
Mu’asir (in Arabic).” Al-Jumhuriya, January 20, 2016. https://www.aljum-
huriya.net/ar/34490.
Mazur, Kevin, and Kheder Khaddour. “The Struggle for Syria’s Regions.”
Middle East Report, no. 269 (Winter 2013).
Mrie, Loubna. “Where Are the Syrians Kidnapped by ISIS?” The Nation,
March 9, 2018. https://www.thenation.com/article/where-are-the-syrians-
kidnapped-by-isis/.
Öcalan, Abdullah. Democratic Confederalism. London: Transmedia Publishing
Limited, 2011.
Oktav, Özden Zeynep, Emel Parlar dal, and Ali Murat Kurşun, eds. Violent
Non-State Actors and the Syrian Civil War: The ISIS and YPG Cases. London:
Springer International Publishing, 2018.
Ould Mohamedou, Mohammad-Mahmoud. A Theory of ISIS: Political Violence
and the Global Order. London: Pluto Press, 2018.
Prieto, Mónica G., and Javier Espinosa. La Semilla Del Odio: De La Invasión
de Irak al Surgimiento Del ISIS. Madrid: Penguin Random House Grupo
Editorial España, 2017.
328 N. RAMÍREZ DÍAZ
Ramírez Díaz, Naomí. The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria: The Democratic Option
of Islamism. 1. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2018.
Ramírez Díaz, Naomí, and Imanol Ortega Expósito. “Relaciones sirio-turcas: la
fallida política exterior de Turquía para Oriente Medio.” Revista de historia
actual 3, no. 2 (2016): 311–50.
Saleh, Yassin Al Haj. Al-thawra al-mustahila: al-thawra, al-harb al-ahliya
wa al-harb al-amma fi Suriya (in Arabic). Beirut: Al-mu’assasa al-arabiya
li-l-dirasat wa-l-nashr, 2017.
Saleh, Yassin al-Haj. “Tabaqat Daesh (in Arabic).” Al-Jumhuriya, February 12,
2016. https://www.aljumhuriya.net/ar/content/%D8%B7%D8%A8%D9%82
%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4.
Sary, Ghadi. “Kurdish Self-Governance in Syria: Survival and Ambition.”
Research Paper. London: Chatham House, September 2016. https://www.
chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2016-09-15-
kurdish-self-governance-syria-sary_0.pdf.
Stepanova, Ekaterina A. Terrorism in Asymmetric Conflict: Ideological and
Structural Aspects. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
“Syria: ‘We Had Nowhere to Go’—Forced Displacement and Demolitions in
Northern Syria.” Amnesty International, October 13, 2015. https://www.
amnesty.org/en/documents/mde24/2503/2015/en/.
Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Mithaq Watani Li-Mu’ajahat Taqsim Suriya. Istanbul,
2017.
“Syria’s Kurds: A Struggle within a Struggle.” Middle East & North Africa.
Brussels: International crisis group, January 22, 2013. https://d2071andvi-
p0wj.cloudfront.net/syrias-kurds-a-struggle-within-a-struggle.pdf.
“The Financing of the ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).” In-Depth
Analysis. European Parliament, September 2017. http://www.europarl.
europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/603835/EXPO_IDA(2017)
603835_EN.pdf.
Ünver, Akın. “Contested Geographies: How ISIS and YPG Rule ‘No-Go’ Areas
in Northern Syria.” In Violent Non-State Actors and the Syrian Civil War: The
ISIS and YPG Cases, edited by Özden Zeynep Oktav, Emel Parlar Dal, and
Ali Murat Kurşun, 35–51. London: Springer International Publishing, 2018.
Walt, Stephen M. “ISIS as Revolutionary State: New Twist on an Old Story.”
Foreign Affairs, December 2015, 42–51.
Weiss, Michael, and Hassan Hassan. ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror. London:
Regan Arts, 2015.
PART III
Introduction
The ongoing Syrian conflict since 2011 has triggered one of the worst
humanitarian emergencies and the largest refugee crisis in the post-World
War II era. The severity of this situation prompts observers to think
about the underlying causes that have led to such a wide-scale conflict.
From an International Relations (IR) perspective, one could grant
primacy to regional and international factors associated with the role of
geopolitics, proxy war, and foreign intervention. There is little doubt
that these factors have greatly contributed to the regionalization and
internationalization of Syrian conflict.
Nevertheless, one point remains to be clarified: what are some of the
major domestic factors that have rendered Syria vulnerable to these
influences in the first place? With this question in mind, the present
E. C. Gürcan (*)
Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: efe.gurcan@istinye.edu.tr
Causes and Consequences (2011–2016),” Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research
11, no. 1 (2018): 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-10-2017-0329.
2 Efe Can Gürcan, “Extractivism, Neoliberalism, and the Environment: Revisiting the
Syrian Conflict from an Ecological Justice Perspective,” Capitalism Nature Socialism 30, no.
3 (2018): 91–109, https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2018.1516794.
3 Andrew Bennett, “Process Tracing and Causal Inference,” in Rethinking Social Inquiry:
Diverse Tools, Shared Standard, ed. Henry E. Brady and David Collier, 2nd ed. (Plymouth:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2010), 207–19; Alexander L. George and Andrew
Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge: MIT Press,
2005); Pascal Vennesson, “Case Studies and Process Tracing: Theories and Practices,” in
Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, ed. Della Porta
Donatella and Michael Keating (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 223–39;
and David Collier, “Understanding Process Tracing,” PS: Political Science and Politics 44,
no. 4 (2011): 823–30, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429.
11 DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 333
What are the domestic factors that have played a major role in rendering
Syria vulnerable to foreign intervention? My overall argument is that
the failure of Syria’s Baathist development project constitutes an impor-
tant root cause for Syria’s tragic destabilization, since it has created a
favorable environment for foreign intervention and the exploitation of
ethnoreligious differences by foreign powers.4
The development model pursued by contemporary Syria can be traced
back to the 1970s, following the military coup that brought Hafez
al-Assad to power. The Hafez al-Assad regime represented a moderate
form of Ba’athism, which consists of a secularly oriented and socialistic
form of Arab nationalism in Syria.5 While the emphasis on nationalization
and agricultural reform was retained, the economic model of moderate
Ba’athism developed a claim to a pluralistic economy based on partnership
between the public and private sector.
6 Thomas Collelo, Syria: A Country Study (Washington: GPO, 1987); Shamel Azmeh,
“Syria’s Passage to Conflict: The End of the ‘Developmental Rentier Fix’ and the
Consolidation of New Elite Rule,” Politics & Society 44, no. 4 (2016): 499–523, https://
doi.org/10.1177/0032329216674002.
7 Azmeh, “Syria’s Passage to Conflict.”
www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?c=4100000002000060000000
000000g000200000000000000001&vs=INTL.44-1-AFRC-QBTU.A&vo=0&v=
H&end=2015.
11 DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 335
also shown a considerable decline since the outbreak of the Arab Spring
first movement, from 383,000 barrels in 2010 to 340,000 in 2011 and
23,000 in 2014. In the wake of the civil war in Syria, the Assad regime
has been unable to generate sufficient oil revenue to ensure economic
and political stability.11
Besides extractivism, another development that has marked the course
of Syrian development is liberalization. Started in 1986, the early phase
of liberalization (ta’addudiyya, or economic pluralism) had already
eliminated certain subsidies, facilitated private investments, and allowed
for a gradual liberalization of prices, trade, and foreign exchange. The
new investment laws adopted in the 1990s were aimed at encouraging
the private sector, including rewards such as tax holidays. This process
gained momentum when Bashar al-Assad took power in 2000 with
a promise of economic and political reform. The objective of build-
ing a social market economy was introduced at the Baath Party’s 10th
Regional Congress in 2005. Syria then focused its efforts on attracting
foreign direct investment (FDI), which mostly originated from Arab
countries interested in speculative and non-productive sectors such
as real estate, finance, and tourism, to the detriment of the productive
sector and infrastructure investments. As part of the Five-Year Plan
(2006–2010), Syria eliminated the state monopoly on imports; liber-
alized prices (including those for diesel, gas, gasoline, and electricity),
deregulated the real estate market, licensed private banks, instituted the
stock exchange, and consolidated the regulations in favor of the protec-
tion of private property.12
It is possible to argue that agriculture was hit the hardest by this
economic restructuring, through the liberalization of agricultural prices and
the elimination of subsidies on energy and agricultural inputs. In fact, the
abolition of state farms had already begun in June 2000.13 Under the Five-
Year Plan, the price of diesel increased by almost 280% with the cancellation
of the subsidy on diesel in May 2008. Although the abolition of subsidies
on diesel and fertilizers was beneficial for the environment, the failure of
11 “InternationalEnergy Statistics.”
12 Omar S. Dahi and Yasser Munif, “Revolts in Syria: Tracking the Convergence between
Authoritarianism and Neoliberalism,” Journal of Asian and African Studies 47, no. 4
(2012): 323–32, https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909611431682.
13 Myriam Ababsa, “Crise Agraire, Crise Foncière et Sécheresse En Syrie (2000–2011),”
and Climate Change in the Syrian Uprising: Untangling the Triggers of the Revolution,”
Middle Eastern Studies 50, no. 4 (2014): 521–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.
2013.850076.
15 Nazih Richani, “The Political Economy and Complex Interdependency of the War
Syria.”
19 Gleick, “Water, Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria.”
regime merely provided them with minor funding, food aid, and transpor-
tation assistance so that they could return to their regions.21
The Syrian crisis is also reflected in the Baathist regime’s unsuccess-
ful planning and policy efforts, which find their sharpest expression
in the overexploitation of underground water resources and environ-
mental deregulation. In other words, Syria’s politicoecological crisis “is
far from a ‘natural’ characteristic of the country’s limited resources and
growing population,” since much of the problem “is attributable to
the government’s promotion of the irrigated agriculture sector.” 22
As such, it is acknowledged that agricultural subsidies were directed
toward industrial crops, such as cotton and wheat, which require exten-
sive amounts of water.23 Moreover, the regime failed to carry out the
modernization of its irrigation infrastructure with the aim of reducing
water consumption and making agricultural production more efficient;
this was attempted in 2005 but remained as a failed attempt.24 This is
further evidenced in that 90% of water resources in the Muslim–Arab
world, including Syria, is devoted to agriculture, while the world aver-
age is only 70%.25 Meanwhile, available estimates on Syria indicate that
50% of its irrigation depends on groundwater systems and that 78% of
21 De Châtel, “The Role of Drought and Climate Change in the Syrian Uprising,” 525.
22 Jessica Barnes, “Managing the Waters of Ba‘th Country: The Politics of Water
Scarcity in Syria,” Geopolitics 14, no. 3 (2009): 515, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14650040802694117.
23 Eran Feitelson and Amit Tubi, “A Main Driver or an Intermediate Variable? Climate
Change, Water and Security in the Middle East,” Global Environmental Change 44,
no. 1 (May 2017): 39–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.001; David P.
Forsythe, “Water and Politics in the Tigris–Euphrates Basin: Hope for Negative Learning?”
in Water Security in the Middle East: Essays in Scientific and Social Cooperation, ed. Jean
Axelrad Cahan (London: Anthem Press, 2017), 167–84, 978-1783085668; Gleick, “Water,
Drought, Climate Change, and Conflict in Syria”; and M. Salman and Wael Mualla, “The
Utilization of Water Resources for Agriculture in Syria: Analysis of Current Situation and
Future Challenges,” in International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, 30th Session
(Fourth Centenary of the Foundation of the First Academy of Sciences: “Academia
Lynceorum” by Federico Cesi and Pope Clemente VIII, Erice, Italy: World Scientific,
2004), 263–74, https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812702753_0031.
24 Fabrice Balanche, “Géographie de La Révolte Syrienne,” Outre-Terre 3, no. 29 (2011):
437–58.
25 Michel Gueldry, “Changement Climatique et Sécurité Agroalimentaire Dans Le
28 Christopher Phillips, “Sectarianism and Conflict in Syria,” Third World Quarterly 36,
30 Phillips,
“Sectarianism and Conflict in Syria.”
31 Azmeh, “Syria’s Passage to Conflict”; Phillips, “Sectarianism and Conflict in Syria.”
32 Hadi H. Jaafar and Eckart Woertz, “Agriculture as a Funding Source of ISIS: A GIS
and Remote Sensing Analysis,” Food Policy 64, no. 1 (October 2016): 14–25, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.002; Richani, “The Political Economy and Complex
Interdependency of the War System in Syria.”
33 Richani, “The Political Economy and Complex Interdependency of the War System in
Syria,” 13.
34 Gürcan, “Political Geography of Turkey’s Intervention in Syria.”
35 Gürcan.
11 DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 341
direct and indirect methods, that is, cross-border military and intelligence
operations, as well as cooperation with T urkey-aligned opposition groups
and jihadists in Syria. Following the outbreak of the Arab Spring and its
hijacking by Islamist movements and global great powers’ military inter-
ventions, Turkey’s active foreign policy took on a more militarized form.
Indeed, Turkey’s militaristic expansionism was also facilitated by other fac-
tors, such as the Kurdish awakening, the rise of the so-called Islamic State
(IS), and the anti-government civil unrest that erupted on May 28, 2013.36
Besides geostrategic engagements, Turkey’s intervention was also driven by
its energy ambitions. Due to excessive dependency on gas from Russia and
Iran, Turkey aspires to diversify its energy sources and eventually become
an energy hub that connects Eastern energy to Europe. However, Ankara
regards Syria as a great rival that shares the same aspiration of becoming a
regional energy hub.37
36 Bülent Aras, “Davutoğlu Era in Turkish Foreign Policy Revisited,” Journal of Balkan and
(Istanbul: Center for International and European Studies, Kadir Has University, February
2014), https://www.khas.edu.tr/cms/cies/dosyalar/files/CIESPolicyBrief02.pdf; Gareth M.
Winrow, “The Anatomy of a Possible Pipeline: The Case of Turkey and Leviathan and Gas
Politics in the Eastern Mediterranean,” Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 18, no. 5
(2016): 431–47, https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2016.1196012.
342 E. C. GÜRCAN
Finally, Turkey’s Sunni sectarianism goes hand in hand with its Kurdish
ethnopolitics. Turkey supported Sunni Kurds against the growing influ-
ence of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), which is accused by
Turkey of being affiliated with the outlawed and T urkey-based Kurdistan
Worker Party (PKK).38 Turkish authorities fear that this situation could
also further undermine Turkey’s hegemony in the Iraqi Kurdistan in the
PKK’s favor and destabilize domestic politics in Turkey.39
The role of broader geopolitical factors in the transformation of the
Syrian conflict into a proxy war also cannot be ignored.40 For example,
Syria’s strategic position on energy routes and the discovery of abundant
natural gas reserves in the eastern Mediterranean in 2010 have attracted
regional players, such as Israel, Turkey, and Qatar, which have their own
energy projects and counter Iran’s regional influence.41 The discovery
38 Michael M. Gunter, “The Kurdish Spring,” Third World Quarterly 34, no. 3 (2013):
Efe Can Gürcan, “The Arab Spring and the Syrian Refugee Crisis,” Monitor, Canadian
Centre for Policy Alternatives 22, no. 5 (February 2016): 16–17.
41 Delanoë, “The Syrian Crisis: A Challenge to the Black Sea Stability”; F. William
Engdahl, “The New Mediterranean Oil and Gas Bonanza (Part II: Rising Energy Tensions
in the Aegean—Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Syria),” Global Research: Centre for Research on
Globalization, January 27, 2013, https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-new-mediterrane-
an-oil-and-gas-bonanza/29609; Pinar Ipek, “Oil and Intra-State Conflict in Iraq and Syria:
11 DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 343
Sub-State Actors and Challenges for Turkey’s Energy Security,” Middle Eastern Studies 53,
no. 3 (2017): 406–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2016.1265511; and Winrow,
“The Anatomy of a Possible Pipeline,” 431–47.
42 Gavin Bridge and Michael Bradshaw, “Making a Global Gas Market: Territoriality and
Production Networks in Liquefied Natural Gas,” Economic Geography 93, no. 3 (2017):
2–3, https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2017.1283212.
43 Sami Nader, “Natural Gas Resources May Be Backstory in Syria War,” Center for
45 Nafeez Ahmed, “Syria Intervention Plan Fueled by Oil Interests, Not Chemical
47 Engdahl, “The New Mediterranean Oil and Gas Bonanza. Part II.”
344 E. C. GÜRCAN
50 Hinnebusch, 18–19.
Syria’s isolation from the West—as a key factor that has indirectly
fueled the Syrian conflict in 2011—was not merely rooted in the Iraqi
question, the Iran–Syrian alliance, and Russia’s involvement. In Syria’s
eyes, Lebanon is seen as a natural sphere of influence that is crucial to
Syria’s national security. It was known that Syrian opposition elements
took refuge in Lebanon. Moreover, due to its geographical location, the
Syrian regime cannot afford Lebanon to become an Israeli or Western
outpost that could also constrain the reach of Arab nationalism. The
Lebanon-based Shiite Hezbollah is of strategic importance for Syria in
its efforts to constrain Israel’s regional power and consolidate its alliances
with Iran. Moreover, the West was also troubled with the Syrian inter-
vention in Lebanon in 2005, which resulted in sanctions being placed on
Syria. Furthermore, Syria was blamed for the assassination of Lebanese
ex-Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri, who was an important ally of the
Saudi Arabia regime.54
Israel’s involvement in Syria is also worth addressing. Not only is
Syria a strategic gate for Iran, which seeks regional hegemony as Israel’s
archenemy, but Israel is also interested in dominating the gas and oil
resources in the Golan Heights and the Levantine basin by undermining
Syria’s national security.55
Conclusion
The Syrian case is illustrative of how extractivist development strategies
could inhibit industrialization and generate over-dependency on external
markets. Certainly, neoliberal restructuring has done nothing but exacer-
bate these outcomes by harming Syria’s social fabric and intensifying the
already-existing socioeconomic tensions. Furthermore, Syria’s misman-
agement of environmental problems demonstrates that the environment is
more than a mere development issue and that it also constitutes a national
security issue. In the future, the case of Syria is hoped to encourage multi-
disciplinary research on the politicoeconomic and politicoecological foun-
dations of national security.
As far as the external factors of the Syrian conflict are concerned, the
evidence suggests that the transformation of ethnoreligious tensions into
Bibliography
Ababsa, Myriam. “Crise Agraire, Crise Foncière et Sécheresse En Syrie (2000–
2011).” Maghreb—Machrek 1, no. 215 (2013): 101–22. https://doi.org/10.
3917/machr.215.0101.
Ağdemir, A. Murat. “Israel and the Gas Resources of the Levant Basin.”
Ortadoğu Etütleri 6, no. 2 (2015): 136–54.
Ahmed, Nafeez. “Syria Intervention Plan Fueled by Oil Interests, Not Chemical
Weapon Concern.” The Guardian, August 30, 2013. https://www.the-
guardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-
attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines.
Al-Ghazzi, Omar. “Syria.” In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity,
and Nationalism, edited by John Stone, Dennis M. Rutledge, Anthony D.
Smith, Polly S. Rizova, and Xiaoshuo Hou, 1–4. Oxford, NJ: W iley-Blackwell,
2016.
Aras, Bülent. “Davutoğlu Era in Turkish Foreign Policy Revisited.” Journal of
Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 16, no. 4 (2014): 404–18. https://doi.org
/10.1080/19448953.2014.938451.
11 DOMESTIC AND EXTERNAL FACTORS … 347
Ayata, Bilgin. “Turkish Foreign Policy in a Changing Arab World: Rise and Fall
of a Regional Actor?” Journal of European Integration 37, no. 1 (2014):
95–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2014.975991.
Azmeh, Shamel. “Syria’s Passage to Conflict: The End of the ‘Developmental
Rentier Fix’ and the Consolidation of New Elite Rule.” Politics & Society 44,
no. 4 (2016): 499–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329216674002.
Balanche, Fabrice. “Géographie de La Révolte Syrienne.” Outre-Terre 3, no. 29
(2011): 437–58.
———. “La Modernisation Des Systèmes d’irrigation Dans Le Nord-Est Syrien:
La Bureaucratie Au Coeur de La Relation Eau et Pouvoir.” Méditerrané 8,
no. 119 (2012): 59–72.
Barfi, Barak. “The Real Reason Why Iran Backs Syria.” The National Interest,
January 24, 2016. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-real-reason-why-
iran-backs-syria-14999.
Barnes, Jessica. “Managing the Waters of Ba‘th Country: The Politics of Water
Scarcity in Syria.” Geopolitics 14, no. 3 (2009): 510–30. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14650040802694117.
Bellamy, Alex J. Security Communities and Their Neighbours: Regional Fortresses
or Global Integrators? New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Bennett, Andrew. “Process Tracing and Causal Inference.” In Rethinking Social
Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standard, edited by Henry E. Brady and David
Collier, 2nd ed., 207–19. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2010.
Bridge, Gavin, and Michael Bradshaw. “Making a Global Gas Market: Territoriality
and Production Networks in Liquefied Natural Gas.” Economic Geography 93,
no. 3 (2017): 215–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2017.1283212.
Collelo, Thomas. Syria: A Country Study. Washington: GPO, 1987.
Collier, David. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science and Politics
44, no. 4 (2011): 823–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429.
Dahi, Omar S., and Yasser Munif. “Revolts in Syria: Tracking the Convergence
between Authoritarianism and Neoliberalism.” Journal of Asian and African
Studies 47, no. 4 (2012): 323–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096
11431682.
Dal, Emel Parlar. “Impact of the Transnationalization of the Syrian Civil War
on Turkey: Conflict Spillover Cases of Isis and Pyd-Ypg/Pkk.” Cambridge
Review of International Affairs 29, no. 4 (2016): 1396–420. https://doi.org
/10.1080/09557571.2016.1256948.
De Châtel, Francesca. “The Role of Drought and Climate Change in the Syrian
Uprising: Untangling the Triggers of the Revolution.” Middle Eastern Studies
50, no. 4 (2014): 521–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2013.850076.
Delanoë, Igor. “The Syrian Crisis: A Challenge to the Black Sea Stability.” Policy
Brief. Istanbul: Center for International and European Studies, Kadir Has
University, February 2014. https://www.khas.edu.tr/cms/cies/dosyalar/
files/CIESPolicyBrief02.pdf.
348 E. C. GÜRCAN
Gürcan, Efe Can, and Efe Peker. “A Class Analytic Approach to the Gezi Park
Events: Challenging the ‘Middle Class’ Myth.” Capital & Class 39, no. 2
(June 2015): 321–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816815584015.
———. Challenging Neoliberalism at Turkey’s Gezi Park: From Private
Discontent to Collective Class Action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
———. “Turkey’s Gezi Park Demonstrations of Summer 2013: A Marxian
Analysis of the Political Moment.” Socialism & Democracy 28, no. 1 (2014):
70–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2013.869872.
Hinnebusch, Raymond. “Syrian Foreign Policy under Bashar Al-Asad.”
Ortadoğu Etütleri 1, no. 1 (July 2009): 7–26.
Ipek, Pinar. “Oil and Intra-State Conflict in Iraq and Syria: Sub-State Actors and
Challenges for Turkey’s Energy Security.” Middle Eastern Studies 53, no. 3
(2017): 406–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00263206.2016.1265511.
Jaafar, Hadi H., and Eckart Woertz. “Agriculture as a Funding Source of ISIS:
A GIS and Remote Sensing Analysis.” Food Policy 64, no. 1 (October 2016):
14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.002.
Khan, M. Sheharyar. “The Transformation of Turkish Foreign Policy towards
the Middle East.” Policy Perspectives 12, no. 1 (2015): 31–50. https://doi.
org/10.13169/polipers.12.1.0031.
Lindenstrauss, Gallia, and Oded Eran. “The Kurdish Awakening and the
Implications for Israel.” Strategic Assessment 17, no. 1 (April 2014): 83–93.
Nader, Alireza, Larry Hanauer, Brenna Allen, and Ali G. Scotten. “Regional
Implications of an Independent Kurdistan.” Rand Corporation—National
Defense Research Institute, 2016. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/
rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1400/RR1452/RAND_RR1452.pdf.
Nader, Sami. “Natural Gas Resources May Be Backstory in Syria War.” Center
for Geopolitical Analysis, October 11, 2013. http://icmu.nyc.gr/%20
Natural-Gas-Resources-May-Be-Backstory-in-Syria-War.
Norton, Augustus Richard, and Deanna J. Lampros-Norton. “Militant Protest
and Political Violence under the Banner of Islam.” Armed Forces & Society 9,
no. 1 (1982): 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X8200900101.
Öniş, Ziya. “Turkey and the Arab Revolutions: Boundaries of Regional Power
Influence in a Turbulent Middle East.” Mediterranean Politics 19, no. 2
(2014): 203–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2013.868392.
Otero, Gerardo, and Efe Can Gürcan. “The Arab Spring and the Syrian Refugee
Crisis.” Monitor, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives 22, no. 5 (February
2016): 16–17.
Ozkececi-Taner, Binnur. “Disintegration of the ‘Strategic Depth’ Doctrine and
Turkey’s Troubles in the Middle East.” Contemporary Islam 11, no. 2 (July
2017): 201–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11562-017-0387-5.
Phillips, Christopher. “Sectarianism and Conflict in Syria.” Third World
Quarterly 36, no. 2 (2015): 357–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.
2015.1015788.
350 E. C. GÜRCAN
Plakoudas, Spyridon. “The Syrian Kurds and the Democratic Union Party: The
Outsider in the Syrian War.” Mediterranean Quarterly 28, no. 1 (2017):
99–116. https://doi.org/10.1215/10474552-3882819.
Richani, Nazih. “The Political Economy and Complex Interdependency of the
War System in Syria.” Civil Wars 18, no. 1 (2016): 45–68. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/13698249.2016.1144495.
Salman, M., and Wael Mualla. “The Utilization of Water Resources for
Agriculture in Syria: Analysis of Current Situation and Future Challenges.”
In International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, 30th Session, 263–
74. Erice, Italy: World Scientific, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1142/
9789812702753_0031.
Taşpınar, Ömer. “Turkey’s Strategic Vision and Syria.” The Washington
Quarterly 35, no. 3 (2012): 127–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.
2012.706519.
“The Rising Costs of Turkey’s Syrian Quagmire.” Europe & Central Asia.
International Crisis Group, 2014. https://www.crisisgroup.org/file/1151/
download?token=HV5pDXAW.
Thornton, Rod. “Problems with the Kurds as Proxies against Islamic State:
Insights from the Siege of Kobane.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 26, no. 6
(2015): 865–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2015.1095844.
Türkeş, Mustafa. “Decomposing Neo-Ottoman Hegemony.” Journal of Balkan and
Near Eastern Studies 18, no. 3 (2016): 191–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19448953.2016.1176388.
“Turkey and Iran: Bitter Friends, Bosom Rivals.” Middle East & North Africa.
International Crisis Group, December 13, 2016. https://www.crisisgroup.
org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/iran/b051-
turkey-and-iran-bitter-friends-bosom-rivals.
Vennesson, Pascal. “Case Studies and Process Tracing: Theories and Practices.”
In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective,
edited by Della Porta Donatella and Michael Keating, 223–39. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008.
White, Benjamin. “The Nation-State Form and the Emergence of ‘Minorities’ in
Syria.” Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 7, no. 1 (2007): 64–85. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9469.2007.tb00108.x.
Winrow, Gareth M. “The Anatomy of a Possible Pipeline: The Case of Turkey
and Leviathan and Gas Politics in the Eastern Mediterranean.” Journal of
Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 18, no. 5 (2016): 431–47. https://doi.org
/10.1080/19448953.2016.1196012.
“World Bank Open Data.” 2016. https://data.worldbank.org.
CHAPTER 12
Introduction
On April 14, 2018, the United States of America (USA), United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), and France initiated a mili-
tary operation against the Assad regime in Syria in response to the claim
of chemical weapons used in the East Ghouta district of Damascus. One
government facility in Damascus and two others near Homs were tar-
geted, as these were believed to be involved in the use of chemical weap-
ons.1 Russia condemned this operation harshly, with President Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin arguing that the military operation launched by
three Western powers had a destructive effect on the international sys-
tem. Furthermore, he claimed that the actions of the USA served to
deepen the humanitarian crisis by causing a new wave of refugees to flow
U. Bekcan · P. Uz Hançarlı (*)
Department of Political Science and Public Administration,
Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey
e-mail: puz@pau.edu.tr
from the Middle East. The president of the Defense Committee of the
lower house of the Russian Parliament (State Duma), Aleksandr Sherin,
meanwhile described this case as a “second Belgrade” and a declaration of
war against a sovereign state.2
The official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Russian Federation, Maria Zakharova, argued that the Syrian people,
having first suffered the effects of the initial Arab Spring and then the
rise of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), now had their trauma
compounded by the US smart bombs against a state fighting terrorism
for years. In her view, the US’s former Secretary of State, having held up
a bottle of supposed anthrax before the United Nations (UN) in order to
defend the attack on Iraq 15 years prior, had produced another bottle as
a pretext for attack. Rather than a bottle, she accused the USA of instead
using the internet, photos, and videos broadcast in mainstream media to
produce a pretext for military action.3
According to Moscow, the attack was essentially an illegal act of
aggression, as there was no evidence in the hands of USA and its allies
showing that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons. Syria, moreo-
ver, claimed that the aim of the attack was to prevent the investigation of
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), as it
coincided with their visit to research previous claims of chemical weapon
usage in Douma.4
Leaving aside whether the US-led attack in Syria was right, legal,
or legitimate, Moscow’s position had already been one of support for
the Assad regime since the first outbreak of protests in March, 2011.
Moscow has maintained this approach robustly and without hesita-
tion. Moreover, on September 30, 2015, Russia entered the war upon
the invitation of Damascus and helped the Syrian regime to establish its
superiority in the Civil War.
2 Here, Sherin refers to NATO bombing of Belgrade as a violation of international law dur-
ing 1999 Kosovo crisis. There was no authorization by a resolution of UN Security Council
for this air operation of NATO.
3 Before the invasion of Iraq, Secretary of State of US, Colin Powell, claimed on 5
February 2003 that, there were moving biological weapons laboratories in Iraq in his UN
General Assembly speech. In order to enhance his argument, he held a bottle of anthrax
and showed it to the audiences. However, it was realized that this claim did not reflect the
reality. Ve A.B.D. Suriye’ye Saldırdı ODATV, “Ve ABD Suriye’ye Saldırdı,” ODATV, April
14, 2018, https://odatv.com/ve-abd-suriyeye-saldirdi-14041838.html.
4 ODATV.
12 LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 353
Syria has been an important ally for Russia since Soviet times.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union (USSR), relations between
these two lost their dynamism for a couple of years. The second half
of the 2000s saw a rekindling of joint activity. Unlike manifestations of
the Arab Spring movement in other countries, Moscow had paid close
attention to political and security developments in Syria since the Arab
Spring first movement. Moscow’s decision to throw its air force behind
the Assad regime was most likely made upon the calculation that the
benefits would outweigh the accompanying risks in terms of its national
agenda.5 The move represented Russia’s first military intervention
outside of Soviet geography in the post-Cold War period. The last exam-
ple was its Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan in 1979.
Russian involvement in the Syrian civil war and its support for the
Assad regime fell in line with the country’s power politics and economic
interests that regards Russia as a reemerging international great power.
As the Civil War has progressed, Moscow has tried to both balance the
interventionism of the USA while legitimizing its own position within
the context of international law.
The factors for Russia’s backing Syria can be summarized as
countering Western influence, anti-interventionism within the context of
international law, and engaging in the struggle against radical Islamists.
Russian opposition against Western interventionism and influence in
Syria fall line with Moscow’s wish to be an important and powerful actor
in an unfolding multipolar international system. Besides, with its nearly
20 million Muslim population, Moscow considers the struggle against
fundamentalism as significant in terms of its national security and the
security of central Asia (Shanghai Cooperation Organization region).
The persistence of the Assad regime would keep mutual economic and
military relations with Syria, which also marks a continuation of historical
cooperation in the Russian national interest.
Against this background, this chapter addresses the following
questions: Why has Russia been so proactively involved in supporting the
Assad regime? How did it come to disregard the risks of this support? This
study begins with an analysis of Russia’s position toward the Arab Spring.
It then elaborates on the Russian approach toward the Syrian civil war and
explores the factors behind Moscow’s support for the Syrian regime.
5 Christopher Phillips, The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East
6 Naumkin Vitaly et al., Rossiya i Bolshoy Blizhniy Vostok (Moskva: Rossiya i Bolshoy Blizhniy
against the Gaddafi regime. The UNSC decided to take all necessary
measures, including the use of force, to impose a no-fly zone over Libya
in order to protect civilians rebelling against Gaddafi (resolution number
1973).10 Less than 48 hours after the UNSC decision, NATO invaded
Libya. This sat uneasily with Russia, as it seemed a unilateral conflict had
been undertaken under the guise of humanitarian intervention, result-
ing in the murder of Gaddafi.11 Why Russia abstained rather than veto-
ing the decision has been disputed between commentators. While some
suggest that Russia intended to prevent a civil war like that experienced
in Yugoslavia, others interpreted Russia’s response as a fear that disor-
der in the region would raise oil prices, so abstaining was in the interests
of Moscow.12 Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, Prime Minister at the time
between 2008 and 2012, likened NATO’s Libya operation to a crusade
and disagreed with then-President Medvedev for the first time, when the
president argued that those types of comments were unacceptable and
could lead to a clash of civilizations.13
In Moscow’s view, the NATO invasion paved the way for a war that
would destroy the Gaddafi regime in the name of humanitarian protec-
tion. By October, Gaddafi was killed and his regime collapsed. In July
2012, Medvedev expressed regret, as he felt that Russia did not make
sufficient use of its right to veto, stating that: “Russia made a tragic mis-
take. If we knew that resolution 1973 would be interpreted in this way,
we would have instructed Russian officials at the UN differently.”14 With
these words, he forwarded the view that Russia had been cheated by the
West.
27, 2012 (Accessed on 9 August 2019),” R.G., February 27, 2012, https://
rg.ru/2012/02/27/putin-politika.html; For the English version of the same article see
Vladimir Putin, “Russia and the Changing World,” RT, February 27, 2012, https://www.
rt.com/politics/official-word/putin-russia-changing-world-263/.
12 “Pochemu Rossiya Vozderzhalas Ot Aviaudarov Po Livii?” Inosmi, March 19, 2011,
http://www.inosmi.ru/africa/20110319/167498836.html.
13 “Medvedev Rejects Putin ‘Crusade’ Remark over Libya,” BBC News, March 21,
2011, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12810566.
14 Igor Latunskiy, “Liviyskaya Lovuşka Dlya Başara Asada,” Pravda, July 10, 2012,
http://www.pravda.ru/world/asia/middleeast/10-07-2012/1121496-gafurov-0/.
356 U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI
Balancing the West
Russia clearly took up the mantle of the former USSR at its reestablish-
ment in the beginning of 1990s. However, its political and economic
influence became severely limited. In the 2000s, Putin’s leadership
saw the reemergence of the Russian power with a renewed interest in
involvement in international politics. During the Cold War, when it came
to the broader Middle East, the objective of the USSR was to contain
15 As Lukyanov said $4 billion business agreement with Libya was not worth to chal-
lenge the US and Europe. In addition to these, if the conflicting approaches of Medvedev
and Putin are taken into consideration, the reason for Russia’s abstention could be
understandable. In his view, Medvedev has a liberal character of treating and solv-
ing issues on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, Putin is considerably more realist
in character thinking the external environment determines the behavior of states. There
is a system in which everything is connected to one another. If one part is affected, the
results can also be seen in other pieces. It is for this reason he stands against the inter-
ventionist behavior of the West. Fedor Lukyanov, “Za Çto Rossiya Srazheyetsya v
Sirii,” Global Affairs, August 10, 2012, http://www.globalaffairs.ru/print/redcol/
Za-chto-Rossiya-srazhaetsya-v-Sirii-15630.
12 LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 357
16 Christian Snyder, “Analysis: How a 1999 NATO Operation Turned Russia against
Iraq, and Libya have threatened the international order, leaving Russia
reluctant in its place on the UNSC.22 Moreover, Putin has also criticized
the concept of the “Export of Democracy” attempted by Western powers
and declared that Russia had no involvement in the domestic politics of its
neighbors and other countries.23
The Syrian case was no exception to the Russian stance. When the
crisis began in 2011, Russia began by calling for an end to bloodshed,
followed by an announcement that this was an issue for Syrians to solve
peacefully and politically. Later, Moscow called for the circumvention of
foreign intervention.24 Therefore, the Moscow’s standpoint centered on
supporting reform policies in Syria. Furthermore, Moscow vetoed the
draft resolution of the UN Security Council several times, in order to
reject sanctions being launched against Syria. As a result, it prevented a
resolution that would increase tension and constitute a possible stepping
stone toward forcible regime change.25
Events deteriorated, in the view of Foreign Minister Lavrov, in
November 2011, with the suspension of Syria’s membership in the
Arab League, since that removed the chance of regional negotia-
tions being held in a transparent environment.26 Permanent Russian
Representative of the UN, Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, vetoed the draft
resolution in February 2012 that condemned the Syrian regime for vio-
lations of human rights on the basis that the resolution blamed one side,
was unbalanced, and did not reflect the realities in Syria.27 Churkin’s
22 Samuel Charap, “Russia, Syria and the Doctrine of Intervention,” Survival: Global Politics
2018), 463.
25 Column Lynch, “Russia, China Veto Syria Resolution at the United Nations,” The
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-16890107.
360 U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI
Putin also argued that Western interventions would neither lead to a peace-
ful settlement nor benefit international security. To prevent these types of
28 See also UN Security Council resolution no 2042 calling Syrian government to halt
the use of heavy weapons within the context of the Annan Plan as it puts a framework for
political process, a ceasefire and withdrawal of both forces. “Security Council Unanimously
Adopts Resolution 2042 (2012), Authorizing Advance Team to Monitor Ceasefire in
Syria,” United Nations, April 14, 2012, https://www.un.org/press/en/2012/sc10609.
doc.htm This plan was considered a key solution in the region by Russia.
29 Sergei Lavrov, “On the Right Side of History,” Huffington Post, June 2012, http://
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sergei-lavrov/russia-syria-on-the-right-side-of-histo-
ry_b_1596400.html.
30 Paul Harris, “Syria Resolution Vetoed by Russia and China at United Nations,”
interventions, Putin stated that Russia would always be ready to use its
right to veto. What Russia was seeking in Syria was “a well-considered,
balanced and cooperative approach” that would lead to the protection of
civilians.32
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov published an article in the
Huffington Post in 2012, also underlining the fact that developments
in Libya after the toppling of Gaddafi represented a possible outcome
in Syria. This kind of regime change was not to the benefit of people
living in the region, he stated, as it had to be left to the Syrian people to
choose the leader and political system of their country. He added: “For
us, the issue of who is in power in Syria is not the major one; it is impor-
tant to put an end to civilian deaths and to start a political dialogue in a
situation where the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of
the country will be respected by all external actors.”33 Moreover, Lavrov
responded to a question posed at the Russia–EU Summit that December
by emphasizing that the number one priority in Syria was the cessation of
conflict and saving of lives; after that, parties overseen by UN observers
could negotiate the situation.34
Another consideration of Moscow emanated from the potential for
sectarian division in the wake of regime change in Syria spilling over
into Lebanon, Jordan, and any of the countries that shared a Kurdish
population with Syria. Moreover, the status quo along the Syria–Israel
border could be affected negatively. Attempts by the USA and EU to
affect the process in line with their interests were raising the risk of
potential large-scale conflicts in which chemical weapons would also be
used.35 Russia also opposed the draft resolution condemning joint oper-
ations launched by the Syrian army and Hezbollah in Al-Qusayr in June
2013, in line with its policy, by that point, of vetoing all kinds of UN
Security Council draft resolutions on Syria regarding ceasefires.
3, 2013, https://mgimo.ru/about/news/experts/234357/.
362 U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI
36 “Russia: Syrian Rebels Made, Used Sarin Nerve Gas,” CBSNEWS, July 9, 2013,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-syrian-rebels-made-used-sarin-nerve-gas/.
37 “Kimyasal Gazı Kim Kullandı?” Deutsche Welle Türkçe, August 26, 2013, http://
www.dw.com/tr/kimyasal-gaz%C4%B1-kim-kulland%C4%B1/a-17045913.
38 “Syria’s Accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention Enters into Force,” OPWC,
weapons were destroyed in August 2014. However, this was not an end
point for this issue. In April 2018, the USA, UK, and France blamed
the Syrian regime for using chemical weapons against the people in
Douma.
Meanwhile, the war raged on, as did accusations of the use of chem-
ical weapons. As the conflict deepened still, so too did the involvement
and the rising success of militias carrying an ideology that at once united
the Syrian regime and Russia’s own domestic security concerns.
it could pave the ground for radicalization and violence within its own
border.42 According to Lavrov: “Syria is a multi-confessional state:
in addition to Sunni and Shia Muslims there are Alawites, Orthodox
and other Christian confessions, Druzes, and Kurds. Over the last few
decades of secular rule of the Ba’ath party, freedom of conscience has
been practiced in Syria, and religious minorities fear that if the regime is
broken down, this tradition may be interrupted.”43
The predominance of radical jihadist groups among the Syrian oppo-
sition was a major concern for Moscow regarding its domestic politics.
Russia had to combat those groups in the Second Chechen War and was
struggling with the same threat for its own and Central Asia’s security
within the context of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which set the
fight against separatism, radicalism, and terrorism as one of its founding
goals. The existence of Russian radical Islamists among the Jihadists in
Syria further disturbed Kremlin chiefs. Russian and Arabic graffiti on
the walls of ruined houses around Damascus and Daraya, located in the
southwest of the country, such as “Today Syria, tomorrow Russia” and
“Chechens and Tatars, rise up!” and even “We will pray in your palace,
Putin!” also heightened the Russian concerns and was most likely a rea-
son for their intervention in Syria.44
Radical Islam’s coming to power deemed a concern for Russia, as it
could be a sign of fundamentalism exceeding its bounds. It was inter-
preted as potentially provocative not only for places where Russian
Muslims are most populous, but also in Krasnodar Krai in the North
Caucasus and the cities on the European side. The official Russian posi-
tion in Syria was to oppose other countries’ involvement in domestic
issues of Syria via military, political, and intelligence/communication
instruments.45
In an interview given by Putin in 2015, the President argued that it
was the Islamic State and al-Nusra that Assad was fighting against, and
European Far Right. Øyvind Strømmen, “Assad’s Far-Right Europe Corps?” Hate Speech
International Investigating Extremism, November 25, 2013, https://www.hate-speech.
org/other-volunteers/.
12 LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 365
they were the ones controlling 60% of Syrian land. Upon the demand
of the Syrian government, Russia provided military and technical aid for
Assad’s struggle against these organizations.46 Because this struggle was
similar to the one Putin had suppressed in Chechnya, Putin did not hes-
itate to back Assad in order to prevent the spread of the radical Islamist
movement.47 In Moscow’s security understanding, Syria freed from the
threat of fundamentalism would be a more convenient country for devel-
oping mutual economic and military relations.
Russia’s image in the region was yet another consideration of its
involvement in the Syrian conflict. In retrospect, it is unreasona-
ble to argue that Moscow’s policy in the Syrian crisis led to a negative
image in the region or worsened its relations with core state actors in
the region.48 Evidently, Moscow’s support for the Assad regime is not
vigorous enough for specific regional powers in Gulf Region and the
broader Middle Eastern to stand clearly against Russia. The civil war
in Syria soon began to morph along Sunni-Shia lines, with Iran and
Hezbollah supporting the Assad regime, while Turkey, Qatar, and the
KSA backed the opposition, as explained in different chapters in this
book. Multi-confessional Iraq, already scared by inner conflict, aimed to
balance the USA and Iran. Jordan and Lebanon were equally cool with
the Russian role in Syria. Egypt, during the administration of Mohamed
Morsi, had held a harsh attitude toward Damascus under the govern-
ment brought in by its own popular demand; however, the coup d’état
since 2013 had brought a normalization of relations. In other words,
regional powers in the broader Middle East were divided in their atti-
tudes toward the Assad regime, but the role of Russia in the region did
not harm its relations with the KSA/UAE-led bloc. Yet, it most likely
brought Russia and the Iran-led bloc closer together. Interestingly,
Ankara’s balancing policy vis-à-vis the USA brought Turkey and Russia
closer during this period.
2013, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/chechnya/2013-03-25/real-reason-putin-
supports-assad.
48 For other insights see Mark Katz, “Siriya Dlya Rossii Kak Afganistan Dlya SSSR?”
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/syria/tartous.htm.
51 Walter Yeates, “Putin’s World: The Economic Ties between Russia and Syria,”
https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2012/12/24/zachem_nam_siriya.
368 U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI
The Syrian Civil War reminded Russian companies of the loss they
had suffered in the Iraq market after that invasion, and they did not
want to be exposed to the same outcome in Syria.53 There were two sig-
nificant motivations to support the Assad regime on the part of Russia:
arms and energy. The arms trade is one of the key pillars of the economic
relationship, worth $15.5 billion in 2015. It also balanced the nega-
tive effects of Russia’s own economic deficits.54 More broadly, Russian
exporters felt that a regime change would cause loss of a market to the
West, as not only Iraq, but Libya, were also important for Russia in this
regard, once again, in terms of arms. While Gaddafi had imported over
$2 billion worth of arms from Russia from 2005 to 2010, this number
decreased after a new government came to power, as new contracts were
signed with France. Therefore, Moscow’s policy behavior toward the
Syrian conflict was motivated by economic interests to support the Assad
regime in order to protect its weapons sales to Syria.55
Keeping Assad in power would also save Moscow’s receivables, as
Syria has amassed at least $4 billion worth of debt in unpaid arms con-
tracts since 2011.56 In turn, Syria, which has a $5 billion arms market
with $20 billion worth of Russian investment, supported the latter’s
military intervention in Georgia. In 2008, in an interview given to the
Russian news agency Itar-Tass, Bashar al-Assad said that the approach
53 Russian’s commercial influence in Iraq became limited and the US gained a privileged
position in obtaining the oil in Iraq. Before the war, Russia was an important trade partner of
Iraq with its 40% share in Iraqi foreign trade. In 2002, within “oil-for-food” framework, an
economic cooperation program had been prepared between these two countries. Overthrow
of Saddam regime led to economic loss of Russia. Democracy did not come to Iraq, on the
contrary, instability and the threat of fundamentalist terrorism increased in Iraq and in the
region inherently. Radical groups became part of power relations. Alexei Podtserob, “Rossiya
i Krizisnıye Situatsii Vokrug İraka: İstoriya i Sovremennost,” Vestnik MGİMO Universiteta
14, no. 5 (2010): 168; Eldar Kasayev, “Irak: İnvestitsionnıy Klimat i İnteresı Rossii,” İndeks
Bezopasnosti 15, no. 1 (2009): 59–61; and Vagif Guseynov, “Blijniy Vostok: Neobhodimost
Rossiyskogo Prisutstviya,” Rossiya i Musulmanskiy Mir, no. 4 (2008): 139.
54 Phillips, The Battle for Syria, 221.
55 Ken Ifesinachi and Adibe Raymond, “The United States and Russian Governments
Involvement in the Syrian Crisis and the United Nations’ Kofi Annan Peace Process,”
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5, no. 27 (December 2014): 1159, https://doi.
org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n27p1154.
56 James O’Toole, “Billions at Stake as Russia Backs Syria,” CNN Money, February 10,
2012, http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/international/russia_syria.
12 LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 369
of the USA and other Western countries toward Abkhazia and South
Ossetia could be seen as an example of a double standard, and that since
Russia inherited its peace-keeping mission in the Caucasus, Moscow’s
intervention in Georgia was legitimate and justifiable.57
This economic and political affinity was an adequate motive for
Russia to support the al-Assad regime and not to lose an important ally.
When the civil war began in 2011, Syria was the second-largest arms
importer from Russia, constituting 15% of total sales.58 In addition to
these sales, the public use of Russian arms in Syria would serve as an
advertisement method and help Moscow find potential customers else-
where.59 In line with this argument, according to sources within the
Russian government, a military presence in Syria could pave the ground
for new contracts with Algeria, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Pakistan worth
$6–7 billion.60 Given this environment of arms trading and close mil-
itary relations, after the involvement of Russia in the Syrian civil war,
the Khmeimin airbase was opened in Syria as a Russian facility, and, in
January 2017, an agreement was signed by these two countries that gave
the right to use of Khmeimin and Tartous as military bases for 49 years
to Russia.61
Energy also plays an important role in Russia’s economic relations
with Syria. Many Russian companies have been investing in Syrian oil
and gas exploration and production activities. Nuclear energy is another
issue, as, in 2010, Russian companies announced their intended involve-
ment in Syria’s first nuclear power plant. In 2012, Gazprom took over oil
and gas operations from a Croatian company previously active in Syria.62
http://noev-kovcheg.ru/mag/2012-04/3092.html.
58 Ifesinachi and Raymond, “The United States and Russian Governments,” 1158.
60 Alec Luhn, “Russia’s Campaign in Syria Leads to Arms Sale Windfall,” The
and Air Bases,” TASS—Russian News Agency, January 20, 2017, http://tass.com/
defense/926348.
62 Azoulas Bagdonas, “Russia’s Interests in the Syrian Conflict: Power, Prestige, and
Profit,” European Journal of Economic and Political Studies 5, no. 2 (2012): 64.
370 U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI
In the following year, Syria signed an agreement with Russia regarding oil
exploration in order to promote its economy and political stability.63
Conclusion
Throughout the 1990s, Russia, as the successor of the defunct USSR, was
forced to deal with the economic and political fallout of its one regime
change. Vladimir Putin’s later coming to power marked the beginnings of
a Russia reemerging domestically with more bids for power in the inter-
national system. Moscow became willing to engage head-to-head with
Western countries. The most explicit example of this renewed power is
undoubtedly the Syrian Civil War: Moscow’s position resists the unilater-
alism of the USA and other Western countries in affecting regime change
as a means of shoring up interests. Moscow used its right to veto in the
UNSC and consistently emphasized the principle of non-intervention
in states’ affairs, with reference to the UN Charter. No doubt, on this
occasion, the principle fell in line with Russia’s own interests.
Moscow’s security stance is that regime change by foreign intervention
and occupation may pave the ground for instability in the respective country,
as beyond evident in Iraq, Yemen, and Libya. Moreover, fundamentalists are
among the ones demanding the overthrow of the Syrian regime. In Moscow,
policy-makers regard instability in the broader Middle East (which allows
fundamentalist gains) a political threat for the Caucasus, Central Asia, and
Russia.64 But neither are more immediate and temporal concerns far from
view. Putin has aimed to deal with this threat beyond Russian territory.
Russia has been on good terms with Syria since Soviet times and
controls a military naval base, in addition to important economic and
military interests. Learning similar strategic lessons from the cases of Iraq
and Libya, Russia has never wished to lose these privileges under any cir-
cumstances, least of all regime change. Therefore, according to Russian
point of view, non-regime change and non-foreign interference like in
Iraq and Libya are essential to maintain Russia’s strategic interests in
Syria. Russian support for Syria needs to be seen within this framework,
along with that of balancing the influence of Western encroachment that
threatens both country’s interests.
63 “Syria Signs Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Deal with Russia,” RT, December 25,
2013, https://www.rt.com/business/syria-oil-gas-russia-795/.
64 “Syria Signs Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration Deal with Russia.”
12 LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 371
Bibliography
Bagdonas, Azoulas. “Russia’s Interests in the Syrian Conflict: Power, Prestige, and
Profit.” European Journal of Economic and Political Studies 5, no. 2 (2012):
55–77.
BBC News. “Medvedev Rejects Putin ‘Crusade’ Remark over Libya,” March 21,
2011. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12810566.
———. “Russia and China Veto Resolution on Syria at UN,” February 4, 2012.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-16890107.
———. “Russia and Egypt in ‘Historic’ Talks’,” November 14, 2013. http://
www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24936509.
———. “Syria War: Russia and China Veto Sanctions,” February 28, 2017.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39116854.
CBSNEWS. “Russia: Syrian Rebels Made, Used Sarin Nerve Gas,” July 9, 2013.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-syrian-rebels-made-used-sarin-nerve-gas/.
Charap, Samuel. “Russia, Syria and the Doctrine of Intervention.” Survival:
Global Politics and Strategy 55, no. 1 (2013): 35–41. https://doi.org/10.10
80/00396338.2013.767403.
Deutsche Welle Türkçe. “Kimyasal Gazı Kim Kullandı?” August 26, 2013. http://
www.dw.com/tr/kimyasal-gaz%C4%B1-kim-kulland%C4%B1/a-17045913.
Fedorchenko, Andrey. “Blizhniy Vostok: Orientiry Rossiyskoy Vneshney Politiki,”
January 3, 2013. https://mgimo.ru/about/news/experts/234357/.
Global Security. “Russian Naval Base at Tartus/Tartous.” Accessed August 9,
2019. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/syria/tartous.htm.
Guseynov, Vagif. “Blijniy Vostok: Neobhodimost Rossiyskogo Prisutstviya.”
Rossiya i Musulmanskiy Mir, no. 4 (2008): 138–43.
Harris, Paul. “Syria Resolution Vetoed by Russia and China at United Nations,”
February 4, 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/04/assad-
obama-resign-un-resolution.
Hill, Fiona. “The Real Reason Putin Supports Assad.” Foreign Affairs, March
25, 2013. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/chechnya/2013-03-25/
real-reason-putin-supports-assad.
Ifesinachi, Ken, and Adibe Raymond. “The United States and Russian Governments
Involvement in the Syrian Crisis and the United Nations’ Kofi Annan Peace
Process.” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5, no. 27 (December 2014):
1154–62. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n27p1154.
Ilinykh, Aleksandr. “Arabskaya Vesna i Rossiyskaya Politika Na Arabskom Vostoke v
Novıkh Usloviyakh.” İstoriko-Pedagogicheskiye Chteniya, no. 17 (2013): 101–8.
Inosmi. “Pochemu Rossiya Vozderzhalas Ot Aviaudarov Po Livii?” March 19,
2011. http://www.inosmi.ru/africa/20110319/167498836.html.
Kasayev, Eldar. “Irak: İnvestitsionnıy Klimat i İnteresı Rossii.” İndeks Bezopasnosti
15, no. 1 (2009): 59–74.
372 U. BEKCAN AND P. UZ HANÇARLI
Katz, Mark. “Siriya Dlya Rossii Kak Afganistan Dlya SSSR?” Global Affairs,
September 5, 2012. http://www.globalaffairs.ru/print/number/Siriya-dlya-
Rossii-kak-Afganistan-dlya-SSSR-15655.
Kupinov, Maksim. “Segodniya Siriya, Zavtra Rossiya,” June 14, 2013. http://
www.segodnia.ru/content/123738.
Latunskiy, Igor. “Liviyskaya Lovuşka Dlya Başara Asada.” Pravda, July 10, 2012.
http://www.pravda.ru/world/asia/middleeast/10-07-2012/1121496-
gafurov-0/.
Lavrov, Sergei. “On the Right Side of History.” Huffington Post, June 2012.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sergei-lavrov/russia-syria-on-the-right-
side-of-history_b_1596400.html.
Luhn, Alec. “Russia’s Campaign in Syria Leads to Arms Sale Windfall.” The
Guardian, March 29, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/
mar/29/russias-campaign-in-syria-leads-to-arms-sale-windfall.
Lukyanov, Fedor. “Za Çto Rossiya Srazheyetsya v Sirii.” Global Affairs, August
10, 2012. http://www.globalaffairs.ru/print/redcol/Za-chto-Rossiya-
srazhaetsya-v-Sirii-15630.
Lynch, Column. “Russia, China Veto Syria Resolution at the United
Nations.” The Washington Post, October 4, 2011. http://www.washing-
tonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-china-block-syria-resolu-
tion-at-un/2011/10/04/gIQArCFBML_story.html.
Markedonov, Sergey. “Pochemu Rossiya Zashishayet Siriyu Asada?” April 1,
2012. http://noev-kovcheg.ru/mag/2012-04/3092.html.
ODATV, Ve A.B.D. Suriye’ye Saldırdı. “Ve ABD Suriye’ye Saldırdı.” ODATV,
April 14, 2018. https://odatv.com/ve-abd-suriyeye-saldirdi-14041838.html.
OPWC. “Syria’s Accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention Enters
into Force,” October 14, 2013. https://www.opcw.org/news/article/
syrias-accession-to-the-chemical-weapons-convention-enters-into-force/.
O’Toole, James. “Billions at Stake as Russia Backs Syria.” CNN Money, February
10, 2012. http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/international/russia_
syria.
Phillips, Christopher. The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New
Middle East. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016.
Podtserob, Alexei. “Rossiya i Krizisnıye Situatsii Vokrug İraka: İstoriya i
Sovremennost.” Vestnik MGİMO Universiteta 14, no. 5 (2010): 163–72.
President of Russia. “Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference
on Security Policy,” February 10, 2007. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/
transcripts/24034.
Putin, Vladimir. “Annual Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian
Federation.” President of Russia, July 8, 2000. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/
president/transcripts/21480.
12 LENDING AN “OLD FRIEND” A HAND: WHY DOES RUSSIA BACK SYRIA? 373
Mohammad Al-Saidi
Introduction
The Arab region is naturally characterized by an arid and semi-arid
climate, making it among the most water-scarce regions of the world.
Water policy failures arise from increasing scarcity, but they are also a
consequence of a lack of organizational and institutional capacities to
tackle them. While water, rather than oil, might be the most valuable
future resource in this region, the state of water management and infra-
structure is in bad shape in terms of overall performance, with imminent
political and economic risks. This chapter presents the argument that
past policy failures in tackling the sustainable use of key natural resources
such as water have contributed to political crises, conflicts, and state dis-
integration across the region. It presents evidence supporting this thesis
M. Al-Saidi (*)
Center for Sustainable Development, College of Arts and Sciences,
Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
e-mail: malsaidi@qu.edu.qa
from Syria and Yemen, while it provides critical discussion of the growing
body of literature linking conflicts to natural resource use and sustaina-
bility failures.
Overall, the point is argued that the mere existence of resource scar-
city (e.g., water scarcity) or increased variability (e.g., climate-induced
droughts) does not drive conflicts, although these features can lead to
heightened political instability. Moreover, the decades-long failure to
address these environmental problems represents a genuine, long-term,
and increasingly important contributor to conflicts and disintegration in
the broader Middle East. In this sense, this chapter institutes a redefini-
tion of the contribution of the “environmental factors” to conflicts and
the nature of their “causation” mechanism. It indicates that the totality
of unmanaged environmental problems and public policy failures, rather
than singular environmental events, is what causes conflicts and signifi-
cantly heightens the potential for disintegration of state systems.
According to the World Bank’s 2007 Development Report, the
region of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) suffers from three
types of scarcity: a scarcity of physical resources, a scarcity of organ-
izational capacity, and a scarcity of accountability for achieving sus-
tainable outcomes. The first type includes the physical availability of
water resources. The second type stems from public agencies that have
overlapping and unclear functions or difficulties in coordinating different
water uses or that play multiple roles as service provider, planner, and reg-
ulator. The third kind of scarcity refers to the lack of a sound institutional
environment. In order to promote such an environment, it is necessary to
demand accountability, transparency, and inclusiveness as well as to develop
good governance mechanisms.1
Water governance failures have become more evident in the Arab
region; however, physical water scarcity is also increasing due to eco-
nomic, demographic, and climatic pressures. One way to analyze this
type of scarcity is by examining the Water Stress Index (WSI)—an index
based on the approximate minimum level of water required per capita
to maintain an adequate quality of life in a moderately developed coun-
try in an arid zone. It was calculated by Falkenmark as about 100 liters
1 “Making the Most of Scarcity: Accountability for Better Water Management Results in the
Middle East and North Africa” (Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development/The World Bank, 2007), xxi–xxix, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
INTMNAREGTOPWATRES/Resources/Making_the_Most_of_Scarcity.pdf.
13 CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 377
per day (36.5 cubic meters per year) as the minimum requirement per
person for good health. Furthermore, based on experience from devel-
oping countries, roughly 5–20 times this amount is needed to satisfy
the requirements of agriculture, industry, and energy production.2 It
is important to mention that water consumption for agriculture is very
high in arid areas and can reach more than 90% of total consumption
in some Middle Eastern countries. Based on the WSI, countries with
renewable freshwater availability above about 1700 cubic meters per cap-
ita annually suffer only occasional or local water problems. Below this
threshold, however, countries will experience periodic or regular “water
stress.” When freshwater availability falls below 1000 cubic meters per
person annually, countries experience chronic “water scarcity,” as the lack
of water begins to hamper economic development and human health and
wellbeing. Those countries with annual renewable freshwater supplies
below 500 cubic meters per person experience “absolute scarcity.” Using
this simple index, all Arab countries, except for Iraq, fall under the 1700
cubic meter threshold and are hence under either water stress or water
scarcity.3
The static perspective of the WSI does not account for population
growth or a country’s capacity to adapt to increasing scarcity, which are
important factors regarding the link between water scarcity and conflicts.
Scholars have thus considered other indicators, such as future water stress
under population growth, the ratio of annual water demand (withdrawals)
to annual renewable water availability (supply), spatial variability in water
resources within countries, or the total water supply originating from out-
side a country’s borders.4 Other measurements also include a country’s
adaptive capacity through development of comprehensive “vulnerability”
indices that consider availability, economic and institutional factors, and
2 Malin Falkenmark, “The Massive Water Scarcity Now Threatening Africa: Why Isn’t It
4 See e.g., Peter H. Gleick, “Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and
and the Politics of Adaptation in the Middle East and North Africa,” Climatic Change 104,
no. 3–4 (February 2011): 599–627, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9835-4 .
13 CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 379
The region can expect significant climatic pressures in the upcoming dec-
ades, in terms of reduced rainfall, temperature variability, sea-level rise,
and the loss of agricultural production.9 Alongside water stress, these
additional risks have caused c limate-induced migration movements10 and
might cause more pressures in the future. Furthermore, there are emer-
gent problems arising from increased integration between water use and
the use of other resources, as the next section shows. However, these new
challenges are not yet addressed in current policies, and while the impacts
of these challenges are uncertain, they can increase resource insecurity in
new groups of countries in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East.
9 For adaptation measures to climate-change risks in the Arab region see “Adaptation
to a Changing Climate in the Arab Countries: A Case for Adaptation Governance and
Leadership in Building Climate Resilience,” MENA Development Report (The World Bank,
June 11, 2013), http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/740351468299700935/
pdf/Adaptation-to-a-changing-climate-in-the-Arab-countries-a-case-for-adaptation-
governance-and-leadership-in-building-climate-resilience.pdf; For risks and adapta-
tion measures in the Arabian/Persian region, see Mohammad Al-Saidi and Nadir Ahmed
Elagib, “Ecological Modernization and Responses for a Low-Carbon Future in the Gulf
Cooperation Countries,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change (May 2018):
e538, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.528.
10 Quentin Wodon et al., eds., Climate Change and Migration: Evidence from the Middle
East and North Africa (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2014), http://documents.
worldbank.org/curated/en/748271468278938347/pdf/893710PUB0978000Box-
385270B00PUBLIC0.pdf.
380 M. AL-SAIDI
East and North Africa,” Energy Policy 39, no. 8 (August 2011): 4529–40, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.023.
13 For patterns of increased integration in water and energy productions in the
broader Middle East, see Amro M. Farid, William N. Lubega, and William W. Hickman,
“Opportunities for Energy-Water Nexus Management in the Middle East & North Africa,”
Elementa Science of the Anthropocene 4 (2016): 1–17, https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.
elementa.000134.
14 Ben Richard Hughes, Hassam Nasarullah Chaudhry, and Saud Abdul Ghani, eds., “A
the Arabian/Persian Gulf Region Utilizing Marginal Water Resources: Making the Best of
a Bad Situation,” Sustainability 10, no. 5 (April 2018): 1–16, https://doi.org/10.3390/
su10051364 .
17 Al-Saidi and Elagib, “Ecological Modernization and Responses for a Low-Carbon
Transitions in Qatar and the Gulf Cooperation Council Region” (Brookings institute,
February 2014), https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/low-car-
bon-energy-transitions-qatar-meltzer-hultman-full.pdf.
19 Mohammad Al-Saidi et al., “Water Resources Vulnerability Assessment of MENA
Countries Considering Energy and Virtual Water Interactions,” Procedia Engineering 145
(2016): 900–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.117.
20 Mohammad Al-Saidi, Andres Jimenez, and Deniz Oezhan, “Assessment of Energy
Use Patterns for Water and Food Production in the MENA Region,” in International
Energy and Sustainability Conference (IESC) (Cologne, Germany, 2016), https://doi.
org/10.1109/IESC.2016.7569506.
21 Nitin Bassi, “Solarizing Groundwater Irrigation in India: A Growing Debate,”
International Journal of Water Resources Development 34, no. 1 (2017): 132–45, https://
doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2017.1329137.
13 CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 383
22 See e.g., Omar Saif, Toufic Mezher, and Hassan A. Arafat, “Water Security in the GCC
23 For the history of agricultural policies in the Arab region, see “Making the Most of
Scarcity,” xxi–xxix; Mohamed Bazza, “Overview of the History of Water Resources and
Irrigation Management in the Near East Region,” Water Science and Technology: Water
Supply 7, no. 1 (2007): 201–9, https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2007.023; Hussein A.
Amery and Aaron T. Wolf, eds., Water in the Middle East: A Geography of Peace (Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press, 2000).
24 “Making the Most of Scarcity,” xxi–xxix.
13 CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 385
27 See for the case of water pricing in Yemen a review of the similar experience from
“Regulatory Design and Practice in the MENA Region and beyond: A Review and
Performance Monitoring Arrangements for Water Service Providers” (Deutsche Gesellschaft
fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit [GIZ] GmbH, August 2010), http://www.
water-impact-guidebook.net/fileadmin/0_guidebook/resources_exercises/A-Enabling_
Environment/7-Regulatory_Design_and_Practice-MENREM_Survey_Report.pdf.
29 Hassan Hakimian, “Water Scarcity and Food Imports: An Empirical Investigation of
the ‘Virtual Water’ Hypothesis in the MENA Region,” Review of Middle East Economics
and Finance 1, no. 1 (2003): 71–85.
13 CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 387
Are Arab Countries to Global Food Price Shocks?,” The Journal of Development Studies
50, no. 9 (2014): 1302–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2014.928698; Eckart
Woertz et al., “Food Inflation in the GCC Countries” (Gulf Research Center, May 2008),
https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/111316/food_inflation_3609.pdf.
388 M. AL-SAIDI
part of the puzzle of the long litany of bad water and land policies. A
long time before the current conflict started, the growth and misalloca-
tion of vital natural resources, such as water, caused political tensions and
environmental pressures. Syria’s groundwater resources, as well as its sur-
face water resources, are both heavily exploited for agricultural, munici-
pal, and industrial use. With precipitation that can reach up to 1400 mm
in the mountainous areas, groundwater aquifers, and a system of 16
main rivers and tributaries (including six international rivers), Syria has
historically had fewer water concerns than its southern Arab neighbors;
nevertheless, Syria’s groundwater resources are currently overexploited.
At the same time, with a 70% dependency ratio on the inflow of sur-
face water arising from outside the country, this inflow is limited through
(often-disputed) international agreements with upstream countries, par-
ticularly Turkey and the Lebanon.31
Overexploitation of groundwater resources in Syria has resulted from
decades of public policies to expand irrigated agriculture and improve
food security. Starting in the 1960s, the government developed agricul-
tural plans and incentives, including price guarantees for certain crops,
low-interest loans, subsidies for machinery and fertilizers, and heavily
subsidized diesel prices (at times, 20% of the global market price).32
Barnes has analyzed how water scarcity in Syria has been brought about
by governmental policies that promoted water-intensive agriculture. The
ruling Ba’ath party, together with powerful agricultural unions, pursued a
policy of self-sufficiency in main food products by expanding irrigated agri-
culture. Groundwater exploitation and overuse increased in many regions,
resulting in the potential for water-use conflicts in certain “spatial and tem-
poral spaces of scarcity.” Barnes advocated considering these internal politics
of water scarcity when studying conflicts in the region, rather than focusing
on international or inter-state wars.33
The case of agricultural policies in Syria is common in the Arab world
and shows the dominant role of agriculture (around 88% of total water
31 “Syrian Arab Republic,” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
37 See Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell, “Syria: Climate Change, Drought and Social
Unrest,” The Center for Climate and Security (CCS), February 29, 2012, https://clima-
teandsecurity.org/2012/02/29/syria-climate-change-drought-and-social-unrest/; Colin P.
Kelley et al., “Climate Change in the Fertile Crescent and Implications of the Recent Syrian
Drought,” in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 112 (2015), 3241–46,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421533112; and Caitlin E. Werrell, Francesco Femia,
and Troy Sternberg, “Did We See It Coming? State Fragility, Climate Vulnerability and the
Uprisings in Syria and Egypt,” SAIS Review of International Affairs 35, no. 1 (Winter–
Spring 2015): 29–46, https://doi.org/10.1353/sais.2015.000.
38 Jan Selby et al., “Climate Change and the Syrian Civil War Revisited,” Political
Geography 60 (September 2017): 232–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.05.007.
39 Peter H. Gleick, “Climate, Water, and Conflict: Commentary on Selby et al. 2017,”
recent conflict, although the public policy failures in the water sector
might be the key environmental issue driving instability and disintegra-
tion in Yemen.
40 Nicole Glass, “The Water Crisis in Yemen: Causes, Consequences and Solutions,”
conflict, see Matthew I. Weiss, “A Perfect Storm: The Causes and Consequences of Severe
Water Scarcity, Institutional Breakdown and Conflict in Yemen,” Water International 40,
no. 2 (2015): 251–72, https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2015.1004898.
392 M. AL-SAIDI
43 Weiss.
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 9, no. 34 (March 1988): 11–14, https://doi.
org/10.1525/cuag.1988.9.34.11.
47 Christopher Ward, Water Crisis in Yemen: Managing Extreme Water Scarcity in the
Middle East (London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 2014); Gerhard Lichtenthäler, Political Ecology
and the Role of Water: Environment, Society and Economy in Northern Yemen (Surrey: Ashgate
Publishing, 2011).
13 CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 393
48 See Scott Moore, “Parchedness, Politics and Power: The State Hydraulic in Yemen,”
Conflict Analysis and Recommendation” (The Hague Institute for Global Justice, 2014),
http://www.thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Water-
Management-in-Yemen.pdf.
394 M. AL-SAIDI
50 Christopher Ward, “Water Conflict in Yemen: The Case for Strengthening Local
52 Rafik A. Al-Sakkaf, Yangxiao Zhou, and Michael J. Hall, “A Strategy for Controlling
Groundwater Depletion in the S’adah Plain, Yemen,” Water Resources Development 15,
no. 3 (1999): 349–65, https://doi.org/10.1080/07900629948862.
53 Ben Smith, “NCAP Yemen: Results from Sadah Basin,” we Adapt, January 2012, https://
www.weadapt.org/knowledge-base/national-adaptation-planning/yemen-sadah-basin.
13 CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 395
The cases of Yemen and Syria show that the current debate about water con-
flicts remains a controversial topic. In this context, it is useful in this section
to differentiate the argument about water conflicts and expand it beyond the
54 Adel Al-Weshali et al., “Diesel Subsidies and Yemen Politics: Post-2011 Crises and Their
Impact on Groundwater Use and Agriculture,” Water Alternatives 8, no. 2 (2015): 215–36.
55 See Mohammad Al-Saidi, “Institutional Reforms in the Urban Water Supply Sector of
Yemen,” in Social Water Studies in the Arab Region: State of the Art and Perspectives, ed.
Manar Fayyad et al. (Berlin, 2015), 75–91, https://www.sle-berlin.de/files/sle/publika-
tionen/160118DigitalWaterBookFINAL.compressed.pdf.
56 See Weiss, “A Perfect Storm”; Ward, Water Crisis in Yemen.
396 M. AL-SAIDI
57 Jan Selby and Clemens Hoffmann, “Scarcity, Conflict, and Migration: A Comparative
59 Jan Selby, “The Geopolitics of Water in the Middle East: Fantasies and Realities,”
60 See Marcus DuBois King, “The Weaponization of Water in Syria and Iraq,” The Washington
Change, Water and Security in the Middle East,” Global Environmental Change 44 (May
2017): 39–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.001.
398 M. AL-SAIDI
but broad, line of conflict drivers. The essence of this group of drivers
lies in the policy failures to introduce sustainability and improve the
adaptive capacity in a region plagued with natural scarcity and environ-
mental risks. Evidence of these failures is omnipresent and goes beyond
the water sector. More importantly, resources such as water, energy, and
arable land have been managed with great recklessness, despite being
the most valuable commodities in this arid region. The examples of sus-
tainability failures in the Arab regions have been extensively discussed in
the academic literature. These failures are tangible, given the omnipres-
ent factors such as generous energy subsidies, water-intensive cropping
patterns, underdeveloped capacities/infrastructure for resource use and
recycling, structural/market barriers for the use of renewables, low land
productivity or water-use efficiency, large ecological footprints, and rais-
ing of fossil fuel consumption for desalination.
The cases of Yemen and Syria show how the failures of sustainability
policies and water sector reforms is driving water scarcity and increasing
the society’s vulnerability to conflicts, some of which are occurring on an
unprecedented scale. When water policy reforms were introduced, they
were largely water-sector driven and ineffective in curbing overuse in
other sectors. Furthermore, these reforms often brought about institu-
tional conflicts, which limited their success.
In fact, water management institutions are not hollow organizations
subject to a common set of reform pressures. They harbor interest-driven
professionals who help construct the laws and create the regulations. The
institutionalization process of water reforms can become an essentially
political process, the outcome of which depends on the relative power of
the actors who strive to steer this process. This is true for the implemen-
tation of water sustainability reforms in many Arab countries. IWRM has
achieved a degree of awareness about the problem and the concept of its
solution. It was unable to resolve the underlying conflict between, on the
one hand, those water users who believe water should be developed to
promote economic growth and welfare, and, on the other hand, water
managers who advocate sustainable and efficient allocation of water
resources in order to curb water conflicts and minimize growth risks.
At the same time, it is difficult for IWRM, or any water management
paradigm, to resolve conflicts between water-use sectors such as the
agricultural and urban sectors, because those conflicts are not only ide-
ologically based, but also have historical, socio-economic, and political
dimensions. Until today, powerful interest groups (e.g., farmers) and
13 CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 399
Bibliography
“Adaptation to a Changing Climate in the Arab Countries: A Case for
Adaptation Governance and Leadership in Building Climate Resilience.”
MENA Development Report. The World Bank, June 11, 2013. http://
documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/740351468299700935/pdf/
Adaptation-to-a-changing-climate-in-the-Arab-countries-a-case-for-
adaptation-governance-and-leadership-in-building-climate-resilience.pdf.
Al-Asbahi, Qahtan Yehya A.M. “Water Resources Information in Yemen.”
In International Work Session on Water Statistics. Vienna: Intersecretariat
Working Group on Environment Statistics (IWG-ENV), 2005. http://www.
yemenwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/pap_wasess3a3yemen.pdf.
62 See Khaldoon Abdalah Mourad, Hartmut Gaese, and Amer S. Jabarin, “Economic
Value of Tree Fruit Production in Jordan Valley from a Virtual Water Perspective,” Water
Resources Management 24, no. 10 (August 2010): 2021–34, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11269-009-9536-9.
400 M. AL-SAIDI
Luo, Tianyi, Robert Young, and Paul Reig. “Aqueduct Projected Water Stress
Country Rankings.” World Resources Institute, August 2015. https://www.
wri.org/resources/data-sets/aqueduct-projected-water-stress-country-rankings.
“Making the Most of Scarcity: Accountability for Better Water Management
Results in the Middle East and North Africa.” Washington, DC: The
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank,
2007. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMNAREGTOPWATRES/
Resources/Making_the_Most_of_Scarcity.pdf.
Meltzer, Joshua, Nathan Hultman, and Claire Langley. “Low-Carbon Energy
Transitions in Qatar and the Gulf Cooperation Council Region.” Brookings
institute, February 2014. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/
2016/07/low-carbon-energy-transitions-qatar-meltzer-hultman-full.pdf.
Moore, Scott. “Parchedness, Politics and Power: The State Hydraulic in Yemen.”
Political Ecology 18, no. 1 (2011): 38–50. https://doi.org/10.2458/v18i1.
21705.
Mourad, Khaldoon Abdalah, Hartmut Gaese, and Amer S. Jabarin. “Economic
Value of Tree Fruit Production in Jordan Valley from a Virtual Water
Perspective.” Water Resources Management 24, no. 10 (August 2010): 2021–
34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9536-9.
Ohlsson, Leif. “Environment Scarcity and Conflict: A Study of Malthusian
Concerns.” Doctoral, University of Gothenburg, 1999. http://hdl.handle.
net/2077/13417.
Pate, Ron, Mike Hightower, Chris Cameron, and Wayne Einfeld. “Overview
of Energy-Water Interdependencies and the Emerging Energy Demands on
Water Resources.” Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratorie,
2007. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1267289.
Raskin, Paul. “Water Future: Assessment of Long-Range Patterns and
Problems. Background Document to the Comprehensive Assessment of
the Freshwater Resources of the World Report (WMO, 1997).” Stockholm
Environment Institute, October 30, 2008. https://www.sei.org/publications/
water-futures-assessment-long-range-patterns-problems-2.
Saif, Omar, Toufic Mezher, and Hassan A. Arafat. “Water Security in the GCC
Countries: Challenges and Opportunities.” Journal of Environmental Studies
and Sciences 4, no. 4 (December 2014): 329–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13412-014-0178-8.
Selby, Jan. “The Geopolitics of Water in the Middle East: Fantasies and
Realities.” Third World Quarterly 26, no. 2 (2005): 329–49. https://doi.org
/10.1080/0143659042000339146.
Selby, Jan, and Clemens Hoffmann. “Scarcity, Conflict, and Migration: A
Comparative Analysis and Reappraisal. Environment and Planning.”
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 30, no. 6 (2012): 997–
1014. https://doi.org/10.1068/c11335j.
404 M. AL-SAIDI
Selby, Jan, Omar S. Dahi, Fröhlich Christiane, and Mike Hulme. “Climate Change
and the Syrian Civil War Revisited: A Rejoinder.” Political Geography 60
(September 2017): 253–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.08.001.
———. “Climate Change and the Syrian Civil War Revisited.” Political
Geography 60 (September 2017): 232–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
polgeo.2017.05.007.
Siddiqi, Afreen, and Laura Diaz Anadon. “The Water-Energy Nexus in the
Middle East and North Africa.” Energy Policy 39, no. 8 (August 2011):
4529–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.023.
Smith, Ben. “NCAP Yemen: Results from Sadah Basin.” We Adapt, January 2012.
https://www.weadapt.org/knowledge-base/national-adaptation-planning/
yemen-sadah-basin.
Sowers, Jeannie, Avner Vengosh, and Erika Weinthal. “Climate Change, Water
Resources, and the Politics of Adaptation in the Middle East and North
Africa.” Climatic Change 104, no. 3–4 (February 2011): 599–627. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9835-4.
“Status Report on Integrated Water Resources Management and Water
Efficiency Plans. Prepared for the 16th Session of the Commission on
Sustainable Development.” UN Water, May 2008. http://www.unwater.org/
publications/status-report-integrated-water-resource-management-water-effi-
ciency-plans-csd-16/.
Varisco, Daniel Martin. “The Qat Factor in North Yemen’s Agricultural
Development.” Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 9, no. 34
(March 1988): 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1525/cuag.1988.9.34.11.
Ward, Christopher. “Water Conflict in Yemen: The Case for Strengthening Local
Resolution Mechanisms.” In Water in the Arab World: Management Perspectives
and Innovations, edited by N. Vijay Jagannathan, Ahmed Shawky Mohamed,
and Alexander Kremer, 233–67. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/590691468052797602/
pdf/495930WP0Water1Box341965B01PUBLIC1l.pdf.
———. Water Crisis in Yemen: Managing Extreme Water Scarcity in the Middle
East. London; New York: I.B. Tauris, 2014.
Ward, Christopher, Sabine Beddies, Khaled Hariri, Souad Othman Yaffiei, Anwer
Sahooly, and Barbara Gerhager. “Yemen’s Water Sector Reform Program—A
Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA),” October 2007. http://www.
yemenwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/PSIAEnglishFullReport.
pdf.
“Water Desalination Using Renewable Energy.” Technology Brief. International
Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), March 2012. http://www.irena.org/-/
media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2015/IRENA-ETSAP-Tech-
Brief-I12-Water-Desalination.pdf.
13 CONTRIBUTION OF WATER SCARCITY AND SUSTAINABILITY … 405
Philipp O. Amour
In its three parts, this book has explored the regional system in the Gulf
Region and the broader Middle East. The opening chapter introduced
the concept of the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East as a dis-
tinct entity and as a regional system, thereby providing (together with
this chapter) a theoretical framework for regional interactive poli-
tics. Part I of the book examined the major power subsystems across
the broader Middle East and the implications of their intense power
rivalry and ideational polarization on regional interactions in broad
terms of their attitudes: conservative-moderate, conservative-resistance,
moderate-resistance, and Israel-led attitudes, as illustrated in Table 14.1.
The chapters in Part II showed the ways in which Turkey, Qatar, and
Israel project specific patterns of political and ideational processes
outward from their national borders in the form of engagement, rivalry,
or alienation. Part III covered specific external actors (e.g., Russia) and
ecological factors, illustrating their role in regional dynamics.
P. O. Amour (*)
Department of International Relations, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey
e-mail: dr@philipp-amour.ch
URL: http://www.philipp-amour.ch
the broader Middle East have formed the subsystem’s alignment choices
in the broader Middle East.
Second is the conservative-resistance subsystem, which includes most
powerful Shi’ or Shi’a-leaning systemic actors, including Iran, Syria,
Hezbollah, PMF, the Houthi movement, and Islamic Jihad (Sunni
movement). Iran has been the key state in creating, backing, and logis-
tically supporting these proactive and assertive non-state militant groups
in the field. As with the previous power subsystem, the security dilemma
dynamics, psychological factors, and ideational/ideological orientations
account for this subsystem’s security and policy choices in the broader
region. At present, Russia acts as the key international guarantor of this
subsystem’s endurance and security.
Both of these power subsystems, the KSA/UAE-led and the Iran-led,
have long-established regional politics; they have created a predictable
distribution of power in the region since the 1980s. The constellation
of the regional system between them was, however, in retrospect, one of
restraint rather than aggression.
The third regional power subsystem is that formed by Israel, in alli-
ance, at different times, with the Pahlavi dynasty, Turkey, and Kurdish
groups.1 The USA has been the enthusiastic international supporter of
this subsystem. Since the first Arab Spring movement, Israel and coun-
tries from the conservative-moderate subsystem have moved closer
together, not just ideationally but also in various forms of strategic
collaboration.
In the wake of their strategic involvement in the region, both great
powers the USA and Russia (previously the Soviet Union) have not just
exported weaponry and goods to their allies, but have also shared ideas,
mindsets, and ideologies in the broader Middle East.
This polarity of the regional order has been dominant in the twenty-first
century. However, as Chapter 5 demonstrated, a further subsystem has
arisen since the first Arab Spring movement and now challenges these
long-established subsystems: this is the so-called moderate-resistance
subsystem that includes Turkey, Qatar, and other states such as Tunisia
(2011–2014 & 2020), Egypt (2012–2013), and Libya’s Government
of National Accord (GNA), as well as non-state militant actors, such as
(in part) Hamas. This Turkey/Qatar-led power subsystem is approaching
1 See e.g., Ofra Bengio, “Surprising Ties between Israel and the Kurds,” Middle East
both the USA and Russia due to its diversified ideas, narratives, and trans-
national causes. This policy approach can be seen as a balancing act with
leverage possibilities, while containing the potential for tension. Clearly, the
US strategic relations toward the KSA/UAE-led subsystem are steadier and
less fragile than those with Turkey. A similar argument can be made about
Russia’s relationship toward Iran and Syria.
The interrelationship of domestic influences, transnational causes, and
geopolitical balancing can account for the units’ regional policy within
the Turkey/Qatar-led subsystem. Close relations with Turkey seem to
confirm Qatar’s balancing attempts vis-à-vis other regional powers in
the Gulf Region and Turkey’s ideational attractiveness for the first Arab
Spring revolutionary forces. This, in turn, is an advantage for Ankara,
allowing it to boost its popularity across the broader Middle East and
shape its brand as a role model. The narratives of being supporters of
revolutionary shifts, tolerant of ethnic and confessional diversity, wel-
coming to migrants and asylum-seekers, and defender of Pan-Islamic and
humanist values are ones that Turkey and Qatar both attempt to capital-
ize on in their interactions in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle
East.
When balancing calculations inwardly and outwardly, state actors and
non-state militant actors in the Gulf Region and the broader Middle East
are influenced by ideological considerations, as well as their expectations
and aspirations in relation to gaining more power. Against this back-
ground, the regional order and, as such, the regional system is becoming
increasingly multipolar since the first Arab Spring movement. The for-
eign policy of regional great powers has steadily reiterated their drive to
achieve and hold status in their relationship with regional rivals. Most
chapters in this book conform to this notion of the multipolarity of the
regional system in the broader Middle East according to formal/infor-
mal partnerships, in addition to foreign policy stances toward Western
countries. Chapter 3, however, is an exception in that it suggests a bipo-
larity of the regional order encompassing two alignments: the status quo
and the revisionist.
The first of the two long-established subsystems mentioned above,
the KSA/UAE-led one, is described as ‘conservative-moderate’.
‘Conservative’ describes the regime type as being opposed to liberalism
and democratization and its preference for the maintenance of the sta-
tus quo. The second word, ‘moderate’, refers to the subsystem’s benev-
olent policy attitudes and behaviors toward Western states, and the USA
412 P. O. AMOUR
since the Arab Spring: An Introduction,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary
Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp O.
Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington: Academica Press, 2018), 1–21;
Philipp O. Amour, “The Arab Spring Movement: The Failed Revolution. Preliminary
Theoretical and Empirical Deliberation,” in The Middle East Reloaded: Revolutionary
Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the Arab Spring, ed. Philipp
O. Amour, St. James’s Studies in World Affairs (Washington: Academica Press, 2018),
199–224.
14 REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 413
What is the future for the regional order in broader Middle East? The
continuity of this multipolar regional system depends on the preservation
of the regional great powers’ status, per se, and on their ability to con-
tinue to provide their allies with strategic assurance.
The endurance of the long-established subsystems seems secure in
the foreseeable future. Regional great powers of Iran and the KSA/
UAE have succeeded in their strategic objectives of containing a degra-
dation of their own subsystem and containing a strategic upgrade of their
rival. However, it would be misleading to argue that there is a simple
and unchanging relation between these two power subsystems. As far as
the conservative-moderate subsystem is concerned, it has embarked on
tackling the Turkey/Qatar-led subsystem through economic pressure
(Turkey) and economic and political isolation (Qatar).
Despite crucial tensions in the Gulf Region, there are few indications
that the regional great powers or their international backers are inter-
ested in an all-out war in the region. State actors and non-state actors
from different power subsystems seem aware of the material and imma-
terial costs of this type of massive and all-out war and thus appear to
oppose it strategically. As Parts I and II of this book have demonstrated,
the authoritarian leadership in the region lacks the willingness to esca-
late the Arab–Iranian rivalry (sometimes called the Gulf Cold War) into
a direct ‘hot war’. However, while direct violent confrontations between
the relevant regional great powers are unlikely in the foreseeable future,
the conflict is likely to intensify in the form of proxy wars and destabiliz-
ing crises.
There is a long history of cooperation and engagement within the
two long-established subsystems, based largely on shared ideas and sub-
systemic causes, mutual regional geopolitical interests, and mutual rivals.
Both of the long-established power subsystems are likely too big to fail
and too rooted as regional configurations to be deconstructed from the
arena of the state or regional level in the foreseeable future. As Parts II
and III of this book have noted, units of a power subsystem will regard
a regime shift in their own orbit as a precursor to their own downfall.
This explains the interference of GCC-led forces in Bahrain against the
local uprising in the context of the first Arab movement, or the mili-
tary participation of Hezbollah and Iranian forces onsite in Syria to hin-
der an ouster of the Syrian regime. As the case of Syria demonstrates
(Chapter 12), a regime whose survival is challenged tends to ask regional
allies and the international patron to interfere in regional dynamics to
414 P. O. AMOUR
stop this process, thereby leading to the downsizing or fall of the whole
power subsystem. While the possibility of a fall of a subsystem is low, it is
not considered impossible.
Disintegration may, of course, come from the outside and involve the
international level. Nevertheless, a global power is unlikely to initiate an
all-out war in the region under the current strategic constellation; hence,
the USA and Russia stand on opposing sides of the regional subsystems.
Both global great powers appear to oppose a direct confrontation. The
constraints imposed on Iran and Hezbollah by the Trump administration
may lead to the weakening of related subsystemic actors (with implica-
tions for domestic stability and the legitimacy of related actors) but they
are unlikely to lead to a regime’s disintegration. In terms of the structure
of the regional order, the USA and Russia do not seem to have shown
any interest in changing the order of the regional system, per se.
Whatever happens, the current regional dynamics make it certain
that there will be further complications for the subsystems in the future.
The Assad regime appears to be surviving the war due to the interfer-
ence of, above all, Russian and foreign forces, including the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force (IRGC-QF), Hezbollah, and
Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). This intervention, or sur-
vival, will come with a strategic price for the parties involved. The higher
this price, the higher will be the possibility of a shift at the leadership
level in Syria. It remains to be seen if this dynamic will initiate internal
changes in Syria on the macro level, with ramifications for the Assad
administration in the foreseeable future and the Baath party in the longer
run.
Currently, the KSA and the UAE are pulled together into an alliance
in order to balance against a strong mutual peril: Iran. However, judging
from their policies in Yemen and Libya, both countries seem to have dif-
ferent ambitions and distant regional objectives that have the potential to
collide. It remains to be seen if these two countries will manage to pur-
sue foreign policy along a mutual regional course, as happens currently,
or if their ambitious drive for more power will split them in the distant
future. A testing point, and perhaps a defining moment, of these KSA/
UAE relations will be if and when the crown princes in the KSA and the
UAE become the new leaders of their countries, and to what extent they
decide to pursue mutual regional policies.
For the Turkey/Qatar-led subsystem, the challenges appear greater.
This subsystem shows different qualities that may permit different
14 REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 415
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Levant 137 143 147 159 174 185 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
and Gulf
Region
North 11.5 12.7 15.8 17.1 19.9 20.8 21.2 21.6 21.1 19.9 22.2
Africa
Sub- 24.4 25 24.8 24.3 25.8 26.1 22.5 21.5 21.7 19.3 18.4
Saharan
countries
Source Stockholm International Peace Research Insitute (For specifications of the figures see: “Military Expenditure by Region in Constant US Dollars,
1988–2018” [Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (sipri), 2019], https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Data%20for%20world%20
regions%20from%201988–2018%20%28pdf%29.pdf)
14 REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES …
417
418 P. O. AMOUR
and the UAE, thereby promoting their shift in regional course. Second,
geopolitical imperatives arising from an expansion of the Islamic State
(on the frontline for the KSA), Houthis (in Yemen), and Hezbollah (in
Lebanon and Syria) intensified the perceived need for self-defense against
a policy of Islamist/Shi’ encirclement. Third, the status ambitions of
the KSA (following a shift in leadership) and other Gulf countries, such
as the UAE, across the region are reinforced and influenced by secu-
rity regime alarms and questions of national identity. Thus, a combina-
tion of these factors has emboldened the Gulf States, the KSA, and the
UAE to pursue power in a more assertive and bellicose fashion, which in
turn shapes not just their neighborhood policy but policies beyond their
approximate sphere of influence, as noted below.
One implication of these regional dynamics since 2014 has been a
change in the power center of the regional system from the Levant (his-
torically since 1948) to the Gulf Region, where principal regional great
powers are located. There, major conflicts are currently rooted, attempts
are made to push the systemic boundaries, and major military actions
and ideational/informational balancing are embarked on in the Gulf
Region inward or outward across other subsystems, thereby affecting the
whole regional system. Thus, the Gulf Region is the center of gravity for
regional economic, political, and military power.
State actors are not the sole players in the region. The Arab Spring
movements and subsequent power rivalry and ideological polarization
have also served as catalysts and opportunities for emergence (e.g., IS
and PMF, discussed in Chapters 9 and 10) or expansion (Hezbollah and
the Houthi movement) of non-state militant actors. Among the regional
great powers, Iran, above all, has demonstrated its strategic capac-
ity in the formation, inclusion, and mobilization of non-state militant
actors as indispensable tools (of the conservative-resistance subsystem)
to increase its influence across the region, enlarge its advantage over
other regional powers, and combat rival incursions. As demonstrated in
the various discussions on Hezbollah and the PMF, non-state militant
actors help regional great powers transcend any strategic implausibility
and geographical confusion they may face across the broader Middle
East. Indeed, bearing in mind their role and impact in the regional sys-
tem, non-state militant actors have embarked on a strong push toward
increasing hard and soft power capabilities and now display state-like
qualities in their governance and foreign policy behavior.
420 P. O. AMOUR
Beside regional great powers and non-state militant actors, this book
consider a further category. A ‘regional superpower’ within a regional
system denotes a state that possesses nuclear capability, can project
power across the wider region, and enjoys region-wide recognition of its
superpower status. Superpower status and capabilities provide the abil-
ity to choose among different options. A regional superpower may per-
sist on its own, with no formal alliance. During a systemic shake-up, the
regional superpower may conduct a policy of wait and see, as long as its
borders and existence are not threatened. It may support one subsystem
to the detriment of another, as implied in Chapter 8. Across the broader
Middle East, Israel is the sole regional superpower.
As Chapters 11 and 12 noted, the regional order is not decoupled
from the international system. In their relations with their international
backers, systemic actors have responsibilities as well as advantages. This
relationship is occasionally asymmetrical in that the systemic actor loses
some of its independence in relation to the international backer, so that
it has to apply policies that are not in keeping with its normal way of
operating.
The region’s power rivalry and ideational polarization have
re-animated major alignments, with global great powers interfering
across the broader Middle East, as evident, for example, in Syria, where
the USA and Russia face each other and their proxies in the region in the
form of a return to Cold War hostilities.
The interesting question is: How do regional dynamics and political
processes affect the regional system?
Dealing with regional interactive events, state and non-state actors put
into play their hard power and soft power resources, partly through
proxies, in order to support or withstand the strategic push across the
regional system. The following assumptions do not attempt to cover all
these patterns.
In a regional system, state and non-state actors enjoy formal or infor-
mal cooperative collaboration with other higher or lower actors, as noted
in the different chapters of this book. The states in the regional system
cooperate or collaborate with one another to various extents and vary-
ing levels of enthusiasm. Non-cooperative collaborations, or the lack of
visible/open diplomatic or economic interchanges, are also a matter of
consideration in a regional system, as demonstrated by the case of Israel
in Chapter 8.
Obviously, as different chapters have demonstrated, the
intra-subsystemic relations are characterized by strategic cooperation and
engagement. The nature of these intra-subsystemic relations is related to
the symmetry of power among the different actors, so a more power-
ful actor is less dependent on regional policy and a less powerful actor
is more submissive to a higher authority within the subsystem.3 As with
the regional order, it is rare for subsystems to be equal in power to one
another. Hence, competition on material aspects and immaterial aspects
(e.g., ideational, ideological, religious) is also a feature of a subsystem.
The coherency of these intra-subsystemic relations is more likely to
endure, whether in times of balance or chaos, if the different actors share
similar ideas, ideologies, and subsystemic causes, if they have mutual stra-
tegic objectives and mutual rivals, and if the high-ranking decision mak-
ers (domestic influences) guarantee alliance assurance. By contrast, the
relation between two power subsystems is most likely marked by power
rivalry, ideational polarization, violent and non-violent conflict, and pos-
sibly war, depending on geo-cultural and geopolitical factors that go
beyond the scope of this chapter.
Most systemic units in the broader Middle East are authoritarian.
Bearing in mind their dominant regime type and the on-going persistent
regional rivalry and polarization, regional state actors and non-state
the Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and Neoclassical
Realist Perspectives,” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University 6, no. 5 (April
13, 2018): 621–31, https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.384773.
422 P. O. AMOUR
the KSA (e.g., in Bahrain and Yemen), Turkey (e.g., in Syria, Qatar and
Libya), the UAE (e.g., Bahrain, Yemen and Libya), Hezbollah (e.g.,
Syria, Iraq), and PMF (e.g., Syria and possibly Yemen). Power projec-
tion operations of systemic actors in neighboring and distant countries,
as the cases above demonstrate, aim not just at providing assurance to
allies. They also attempt to either divert regional dynamics from their
allegedly authentic course (potentially leading to alliance disintegration)
to minimize the actor’s strategic misfortune, or to impact the interactive
outcome (e.g., maintain the status quo) to increase the actor’s strategic
fortune. Note that foreign involvements such as these are driven in part
by regime security considerations (as a policy course for leaders to pro-
mote their legitimacy and to deflect from domestic challenges), in part
by a drive for material power projection, and in part by ideational factors,
including national narratives and transnational causes.
In the context of their power politics, regional great powers have
demonstrated their power projection capabilities beyond the power
center of the Gulf Region (and the Levant) in an attempt to expand
their military foothold in Africa, the Gulf, the Red Sea, and the Eastern
Mediterranean. An example is the Horn of Africa. Since the second dec-
ade of this century, the Horn of Africa has become a theater for rivalry
between the three regional subsystems (the KSA/UAE-led, Iran-led,
and Turkey/Qatar-led subsystems). The UAE opened a military base in
Eritrea in 2015 and is attempting to open a new one in Somaliland. As
the Gulf Crisis in 2017 worsened relations between the parties involved,
it boosted their efforts to gain material and immaterial influence in
the Horn of Africa to diversify their economies, increase their military
influence, and further attract ideationally foreign constituencies beyond
their classical area of influence. The KSA also has plans to open military
bases in the Horn of Africa region. Turkey opened a military base in
Mogadishu in 2017 and is attempting to run the port on Sudan’s Suakin
Island (2017 Suakin agreement with Khartoum). Regional great powers
play out their competition in the Red Sea corridor, including the Horn
of Africa, and in the Eastern Mediterranean. By doing so, regional great
powers are attempting to influence regional dynamics within and beyond
their direct regional security arena.5
5 See e.g., “Why Are Gulf Countries so Interested in the Horn of Africa?” The Economist,
6 Robert M. Danin, “Hamas Breaks from Syria,” Council on Foreign Relations, accessed
actors can hardly (co-)exist in isolation from other systemic units, nor
can they remain divorced from ideological and political regional con-
texts. Interactive regional events involve systemic actors and force them
to act or react whether through choice, obligation, or pressure. This
notion applies, above all, to the systemic units close to the regional
power center and to the less wealthy systemic units that depend on exter-
nal funding from regional great powers. The arenas of confrontations
will continue to be cold wars, proxy hot wars, small conflicts, and desta-
bilizing crises. It is most unlikely that direct raw confrontations between
regional great powers will take place.
7 Bahgat Korany and Ali E. Hillal Dessouki, eds., The Foreign Policies of Arab States
Palestine,” Turkish Journal of History 67, no. 1 (June 2018): 151–76, https://doi.org/10.
26650/TurkJHist.2018.384983.
9 See Philipp O. Amour, “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order
in the Middle East: A Strategic Assessment,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 44,
no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 293–309, https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1185696.
428 P. O. AMOUR
10 See e.g., Marijke Breuning, Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Introduction (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007); Derek Beach, Analyzing Foreign Policy (Basingstoke,
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/
analyzing-foreign-policy-derek-beach/?sf1=barcode&st1=9780230237391.
14 REGIONAL RIVALRIES AND SECURITY ALLIANCES … 431
the effective (absolute) initial threat posed by their rivals across the
regional system. Instead, the purported/assumed threat is the sum of the
initial threat and the elite’s threat perception (of that initial threat).
Compared to the former two dimensions alluded to earlier in this
chapter (regional order as well as regional dynamics and political pro-
cesses), the perceptual variables are more concerned with the third
dimension: ideas and transnational causes. Thus, by contrast with the
more measurable first two dimensions, transnational causes reflect esti-
mated positions, as they are difficult to measure.
Sectarian Division
Perceptual variables are predominant in the dimension of the regional
system concerned with ideas and transnational causes. Fixed or objective
realities are not regarded as such, but are only taken seriously if major
segments of the people across the broader region perceive them as such.
Regional powers have incorporated the Sunni/Wahhabi threat
versus Shi’/Iranian threat, or Sunni/Wahhabi threat versus the
neo-Ottomanism threat, and vice versa, into their mainstream dis-
course and across their areas of influence and beyond, thereby laying
the groundwork for increasing sectarian conflicts in the future. Indeed,
proactive, assertive, and bellicose state actors and non-state militant
actors attribute a unique and distinct character to their national identity
and religious orthodoxy—be it Sunni, Shi’, Wahhabi, Hanafi, or Maliki.
These actors promote this identity in order to increase their power base.
In most of these countries, the identity discourses project the notion of
great power status, in association with the right of defense and offense
vis-à-vis perceived villainous systemic actors, in addition to the control
of frontline smaller states and failed states. The Qatar crisis and foreign
interventions in Syria, Yemen, and Libya can be interpreted, in part, to
this factor.
One needs to bear in mind that the KSA and Iran claim to be the
guardians of Sunni Islam and Shi’ Islam, respectively, as well as the pro-
tectors of various holy places. The origin of this position goes back to the
primordial conflict between Sunnis and Shi’is and to colliding religious
imperatives. Still, religious (sectarian) polarization does not occur solely
between Sunni-oriented and Shi’-oriented systemic actors. Competition
is also taking place within the Sunni orbit, involving religious higher
orders in the KSA versus Egyptian Al-Azhar or in the Jordanian
432 P. O. AMOUR
Bibliography
Amour, Philipp O. “Did a Palestine Spring Take Place? The Lost Decade in
Palestine.” Turkish Journal of History 67, no. 1 (June 2018): 151–76.
https://doi.org/10.26650/TurkJHist.2018.384983.
———. “Hamas-PLO/Fatah Reconciliation and Rapprochement within the
Unfolding Regional Order in the Middle East since 2010: Neorealist and
Neoclassical Realist Perspectives.” Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan
University 6, no. 5 (April 13, 2018): 621–31. https://doi.org/10.18506/
anemon.384773.
———. “Israel, the Arab Spring, and the Unfolding Regional Order in the
Middle East: A Strategic Assessment.” British Journal of Middle Eastern
Studies 44, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353
0194.2016.1185696.
———. “Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries
since the Arab Spring: An Introduction.” In The Middle East Reloaded:
Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the
Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 1–21. St. James’s Studies in World
Affairs. Washington: Academica Press, 2018.
———. “The Arab Spring Movement: The Failed Revolution. Preliminary
Theoretical and Empirical Deliberation.” In The Middle East Reloaded:
Revolutionary Changes, Power Dynamics, and Regional Rivalries since the
Arab Spring, edited by Philipp O. Amour, 199–224. St. James’s Studies in
World Affairs. Washington: Academica Press, 2018.
Beach, Derek. Analyzing Foreign Policy. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2012. https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/analyzing-
foreign-policy-derek-beach/?sf1=barcode&st1=9780230237391.
Bengio, Ofra. “Surprising Ties between Israel and the Kurds.” Middle East
Quarterly 21, no. 3 (Summer 2014): 1–12.
Breuning, Marijke. Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Introduction. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Danin, Robert M. “Hamas Breaks from Syria.” Council on Foreign Relations.
Accessed June 1, 2019. https://www.cfr.org/blog/hamas-breaks-syria.
Korany, Bahgat, and Ali E. Hillal Dessouki, eds. The Foreign Policies of Arab
States. Cairo: Westview Press; American University in Cairo Press, 1984.
Matthews, Elizabeth G., and Rhonda L. Callaway. International Relations
Theory: A Primer. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016.
“Military Expenditure by Region in Constant US Dollars, 1988–2018.”
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (sipri), 2019. https://www.
sipri.org/sites/default/files/Data%20for%20world%20regions%20from%20
1988–2018%20%28pdf%29.pdf.
“Why Are Gulf Countries so Interested in the Horn of Africa?” The Economist,
January 16, 2019. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2019/
01/16/why-are-gulf-countries-so-interested-in-the-horn-of-africa.
Index
Envoy, 208 G
Eritrea, 167, 175 Gaddafi, 355, 361, 368
Eruptions, 422, 424, 430 Gas, 369
Ethiopia, 167, 175, 177, 188, 189 Gaza, 109, 110, 122, 217–223,
Ethnopolitical, 340 225–232, 234–237, 239–246
Ethno-religious conflicts, 340 GCC crisis, 46
Eurasia, 346 Geo-cultural factors, 332, 346
Europe, 341, 343, 344 Geopolitical/Geopolitics, 331, 332,
Exploration, 369 339, 343, 344, 346
External, 345 Georgia, 343, 356, 357, 368, 369
External factors, 22 Ghannouchi, Rachid, 33, 43
Extractivism, 333, 335 Ghouta, 205, 351, 362
Globalization, 141
Golan Heights, 333, 345
F Government, 304, 305, 308, 312,
Fada’iyan-e Islam, 99 313, 323
Fadaiyun Islam (FI) party, 72 Great Power, 171–174, 185, 190, 191
Failed state, 176 Green Movement, 102, 103, 123
Falih al-Fayyadh, 262, 265, 266, 272, Guarantor, 198
281, 289, 290 Guardianship of the Jurist, 100, 101,
Fatah Al-Sham, 49 112
Fatwa, 262, 287 Gulf, 4, 17, 18, 22
February 2011, 206 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC),
Fedayeen Saddam, 261 46, 47, 49, 50, 64, 65, 73, 75,
Federation of Islamic Organizations in 78–82, 88, 381, 382, 392
Europe, 33 Gulfization, 62, 63, 76, 79, 81, 82, 88
Fertile Crescent, 4 Gulf of Aden, 391
Fifth Mediterranean Squadron, 366 Gulf of Aqaba, 22
Financial, 38, 43, 50 Gulf Region, 1–8, 10, 13–18, 20–23,
First Arab Spring movement, 409– 62–64, 76, 82, 83, 85, 86, 89,
411, 415, 426, 427, 429 196, 199, 202, 203, 209, 210
Foreign audience, 426 Gulf sovereign wealth funds, 143
Foreign influence, 70
Foreign intervention, 331, 333, 336,
339 H
Foreign policy, 2, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, Hadi al-Amiri, 266, 268, 273
195, 198, 199, 210, 211 Hafez al-Assad, 100, 105, 107, 111,
Fossil fuel, 380, 383, 398 201, 332–334
France, 22 Haider al-Abadi, 263–265, 273, 275,
Freshwater, 377, 380, 382, 383, 386 279, 290
Fundamentalism, 353, 364, 365 Hajj Amin al-Husseini, 104, 107
Funds, 107, 110, 115 Hallab, 272
Index 439