Why America Targets her Agents - The Case of Iran and Syria

The first step towards perceiving the policies of the major powers is to perceive their viewpoint towards life. The Capitalist doctrine, which the major powers embrace, epitomises life as gaining pleasure. The author of "The Virtue of Selfishness", Ayn Rand, believed that: "…the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest." As for Jeremy Bentham, he once said: "…the said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." Hence, self-interest, or expediency, is the criterion by which the US weighs up her policies and her relationships with other states and rulers. There is no room for the moral, spiritual or humanitarian values in the Capitalist philosophy save for the expedient aspect. In other words, such values are only taken into account in respect of the benefit they render. Lord Palmerston said: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." These quotes are but a true expression of the pragmatic Capitalist mentality.

As for the interests of the US in the Middle East in respect of the ruling regimes, it has become exemplified by the generation of loyal collaborating regimes that enjoy the support of the masses in place of the dictatorial regimes that taunt the masses and evoke the yearning for the system of Islam within them.

This has required America to work towards implementing participatory democracy by distorting and sidetracking the will of the masses instead of manacling and suppressing it. This American manoeuvre harbingered the demise of minority rulers and one-party systems sending shivers down the spines of the Arab regimes and rulers. Hence, the targeting of the rulers and the regimes is part and parcel of the Greater Middle East Initiative, and not part of an international struggle, because the international situation is currently unipolar and not multipolar; and the relationship between the conventional powers and America is based on mutual understanding and cooperation in executing the US projects throughout the world.

"The aim of the Greater Middle East Initiative is not a point of contention among world powers;
they all want to keep the region under international hegemony due to its religious and strategic sensitivity."

The cooperation of the major powers is confined to executing the international policies and is not extended to designing them. During the Geneva talks attended by the US, Russia, France, Britain, China and Germany on the Iranian nuclear programme, President Obama contacted Netanyahu and reiterated Washington's commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This example explains that America is the designer of international policies. As for Russia and Europe, they are merely partners in the execution and not in devising policies. Although the major powers are covetous, they lack the tools of establishing a foothold in the region and they have no agendas of their own for it. They believe that their interests would be achieved through executing America’s initiatives, especially as Islam has become the source of the threat to the Western values and interests. Putin acknowledged in September 2013 the unipolarity of the international situation before a number of world leaders and political figures at the Valdai International Discussion Club. He also admitted that America had no rivals and wanted to debate the strike on Syria in Congress instead of the Security Council. Besides, the rifts that America has with some regimes in the region are in fact just between her and her own agents and not agents of some other power. Hence, the rifts should not be explored within the framework of the international situation but rather the Greater Middle East Initiative, because the rift between America and her agents is over their future and not over international initiatives. The aim of the Greater Middle East Initiative is not a point of contention among world powers; they all want to keep the region under international hegemony due to its religious and strategic sensitivity. When America's agents set about resisting her, this does not necessarily mean they have ceased their collaboration and affiliation. Their aim from resisting is not to break free from their affiliation, defect to another sponsor or abolish America's influence; it is rather a struggle to maintain their statuses as collaborators under America's influence simply because they have no other choice in the absence of an international alternative. And since the patronage of those regimes is America herself, breaking free from her shackles would lead to the obliteration of those rulers due to the lack of natural popular support and the meagre means of support from their internal institutions, such as the army and the security services. This is what toppled Gaddafi and forced Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Mubarak and Abdullah Saleh to step down. Furthermore, the nature of the international situation does not favour the agents; they cannot change camp because there is no international struggle between the major powers who might tempt them to switch, provide them with a safe haven and dissuade the superpower from targeting them. Hence, the major powers would not risk backing dilapidated regimes that the leading superpower has already decided to dump.

As for Iran and Syria's juggling between securing and threatening the Western interest, it confirms their willingness to remain within the scope of affiliation to America and not to liberate themselves or change their allegiance. This situation is unique and adventitious as far as the relationship between the affiliated state and the superpower is concerned. Thus, such a situation could not be viewed as a change in the political stance of the state or the ruler, in terms of collaboration and affiliation, because the initiator of the crisis in the relationship is the superpower through its targeting of the affiliated state or the agent. Hence, we can conclude that some of the political actions of the affiliated states that seem to suggest independence of the political decision of the agent, are in fact independence in the actions necessitated by his struggle for survival and not independence in his political stance. This is because independence in the political stance requires from the state the constituents of survival and from the regime the constituents of defiance such as drawing upon the willpower of the masses and expressing their viewpoint in life."

"As for the issue that has petrified the Syrian regime,
it is the freedom and democracy that the US has been calling to be implemented in the Middle East."

This would be the case in a unipolar international situation and not a multipolar one with an international struggle taking place. This is such because a rift between the superpowers and the states affiliated to them amid an international struggle should be explored in respect of the political stance of the agent to establish whether he has become independent or defected to another power. Hence, it is imperative to distinguish between the actions of the agents when they: (i) fall out with the sponsoring superpower when it is dominating the international situation single-handedly, (ii) attempt to throw into confusion the initiatives that target them, (iii) fall out with the superpower and get involved in initiatives of other world powers in a situation of international struggle with the presence of multiple powerhouses and (iv) a dualism in decision-making when tackling international crises.

As for the issues for which Iran and Syria are fighting tooth and nail, they are as follows:

Iran is attempting to preserve the system of Wilayatul Faqih, which has been relished by the conservatives because for the Mullahs, the doctrine of Wilayatul Faqih is the foundation of authority; if it collapsed, the regime would collapse. Hence, Iran is in the same boat as the other regimes in terms of the American endeavour to change them. Wilayatul Faqih lends legitimacy to the ruling stratocracy in Iran and although America has achieved her aims from the system of Wilayatul Faqih and the “exporting of the revolution” in terms of implementing the policy of dual containment pertaining to the Gulf states and "Israel" in the eighties, she has nevertheless been making use of Iran to provide the pretext for her military presence in the Gulf and market her stockpiles of obsolete weapons. The Iranian threat is also being exploited to conclude a host of arms deals generating hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues for America and the West. A report released by the International Defence Exhibition (IDEX) suggested that armament deals of the Gulf States had reached $500 billion between the years 2002 and 2012, i.e. $70 billion each year. It transpired that among the aims behind the visit of John Kerry to the Sultanate of Oman was to encourage its officials to conclude an arms deal worth $2.1 billion with US arms manufacturer Raytheon. On the other hand, America has been exploiting Iran to jolt the "Israeli" public opinion and induce it to back the American bid to settle the Palestinian issue and the regional struggle.

However, the point at issue is that Wilayatul Faqih is nurtured by the achievements of the conservative forces on the ideological and political fronts; those achievements have turned into a lifeblood for the Wilayatul Faqih system and the conservative forces, the most prominent being the ability to influence the Iraqi and Syrian regimes and the political life in Lebanon.

"In any case, the components of the Syrian regime are incompatible with the Greater Middle East Initiative..."

Hence, targeting the al-Maliki regime, Bashar Assad and Hezbollah has turned into a threat to the Iranian regime and a curtailment of its existence, which necessitated some resistance and a non-compliance on the basis of "we will not commit suicide", not the basis of "either us or America", with a slight variance related to the reformists because they are conspiring with America to curtail Wilayatul Faqih and consolidate the concept of the civil state. From a different angle, America is working towards formulating a host of concepts to narrow the gap between the religious and secular movements such as the concept of constitutional harmony. She is also working towards eroding all that may undermine the implementation of participatory democracy that she hopes would lead to stabilising the political situation thus enabling her to achieve her interests in the region. As America exploits the sectarian struggle to tear the entity of the Ummah to shreds, it is simultaneously consolidating the intellectual fragmentation of the Ummah to lay the blame for the abject conditions of the Muslims on Islam itself in order to generate a public opinion for democracy and the civil state in the region. Now that Rouhani has seized the reins of power in Iran, the intensity of political paroxysm in the region is expected to gradually tone down. International and regional political efforts are expected to intensify overtly and covertly to kick-start the peace talks between "Israel" and the Palestinian Authority. Pressure on the government of Netanyahu has already started to pile up, such as the release of Arafat's remains' forensic results and accusing "Israel" of murdering him, making insinuations about a new intifada and dividing the solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis into stages to maintain the existential threat on the Jews looming.

As for the issue that has petrified the Syrian regime, it is the freedom and democracy that the US has been calling to be implemented in the Middle East. The Syrian regime is sectarian; the Alawite minority rules the Sunni majority and the other sects, and democracy means the final whistle for minority rule and one-party systems. The Syrian regime has been basing its authority on the calls for impedance, resistance and liberation because it is a sectarian regime that lacks popular backing. Thus it has been hoisting the revolutionary slogans that echo the aspirations of the masses as a basis for its regime and a validation for its governance. It has been relying on the Alawite sect's control of the means of support such as the army, the security services and the vital institutions. It has also been shrouding its repugnant sectarian face with the cloak of the Baath party. The Assad clan's regime has been impeding the peace process in the Middle East and polarising the resistance movements in order to restrain them and exploit them to heap pressure on the peace process because ending the "Arab-Israeli" conflict would herald the end of the functional role of the regime and the reason for itsraison d'être . Meanwhile, America has been exploiting Syria's embracing of the "resistance movements", especially Hezbollah, as a means to exert pressure on "Israel". Hence, the Syrian regime has been loath to entering the negotiations process and has upped the ante to encumber the talks, not because it has been sincere or independent of America, but to prolong its stay in power.

Agents are of two types: some of them comply with the orders of the superpower before it gets rid of them, either by killing, scandalising or humiliating them, as was the case with Zine al-Abidine or Suharto, who was removed by a telephone call from Albright, and others cling to power and encounter a dreadful fate like Gaddafi. In any case, the components of the Syrian regime are incompatible with the Greater Middle East Initiative, irrespective of the services it has offered the US. Bashar Assad will not remain in power once the ground is prepared for the changeover.