AL-HUDA
Foundation, NJ U. S. A
the Message Continues ... 8/68
Article 1
-
Article 2
-
Article 3
-
Article 4
-
Article 5
-
Article 6
-
Article 7
-
Article 8
-
Article 9
-
Article 10
-
Article 11
-
Article 12

|
Playing sectarian
card
By
Azzam Tamimi
DESPITE the horrific failure of its adventures in
Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, the US is now said to be
preparing to attack Iran. Meanwhile, all disputes in the
Middle East have suddenly turned into sectarian
conflicts and Iran is portrayed as the main culprit.
Nothing now seems comprehensible to the western media
and political establishments unless seen through the
prism of Iranian ambitions in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Lebanon, Palestine and even more distant conflicts such
as Somalia and Darfur. Opponents of Iran and of whomever
Iran is thought to support in the region no longer want
us to see US interventions as the main issue — let alone
the primary cause of the mayhem enveloping the entire
Middle East.
The claim that sectarianism is driving conflict across
the Muslim world could not have gained currency had it
not been for the manner in which Saddam Hussein was
executed. Only a few weeks earlier a poll in Egypt,
whose Muslim population is almost exclusively Sunni,
ranked Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, Iran’s Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and Hamas’s Khalid Mish’al as the three most
popular figures (two of the three are Shia).
The staged lynching of the former Iraqi leader, whom the
Americans and their allies have long portrayed as a
Sunni dictator, drastically changed perceptions.
Millions of Sunnis around the world saw the hanging as a
contemptuous Shia act, as an insult by an ungrateful
minority whose existence today is testimony to the
majority’s tolerance.
Since then some Fatah zealots in Palestine have labelled
the Sunni Hamas as “Shia” because the movement was
promised financial aid by Iran. Some Sunni elements in
the ruling coalition in Lebanon have justified their
opposition to Hezbollah — despite its role in the
country’s victory against Israel — as necessary to stop
the expansion of Shi’ism in Lebanon. Rumours about the
conversion of Sunnis to Shi’ism in Syria spread like
wildfire, though without proof. Some Sunnis have also
condemned Iran for allegedly carrying out Shia
missionary activities in North Africa and Sudan.
Of all the hot spots in the region, Iraq is the only
place where sectarian tension has tipped over into
bloody conflict. But that only happened in the aftermath
of the invasion. The US and Britain, having failed to
come up with any evidence to justify their aggression,
claimed that their aim was to rescue the Shia majority
from Saddam’s Sunni regime.
In fact, there is no census evidence showing the Shia as
a majority nor was there any credibility to the claim
that Saddam’s regime was Sunni. It was secular and
nationalist, and the ruling Ba’ath party was believed to
have more Shias in its ranks than Sunnis. Thirty-two of
the 52 names on the US most-wanted list were Shias, and
Saddam punished whoever rose against his regime,
irrespective of religion or ethnicity.
Despite the US-Shia alliance that brought his rule to an
end, sectarianism did not become serious until the
US-led occupation replaced Saddam’s regime with one
based on quotas, a process destined to divide Iraq along
sectarian and ethnic lines. Then came the destruction of
one of the most venerated Shia shrines in the
overwhelmingly Sunni city of Samarra in February last
year. The bombing provided the pretext for the Mahdi
army and Iranian-backed interior and defence ministries
militias of the Iraqi regime to go on the rampage,
driving Sunnis from their homes in Baghdad and
slaughtering them. Since then no less than a hundred
Iraqis have lost their lives each day in unprecedented
sectarian strife.
Now the Americans and their Arab allies in the region
seem convinced that their Iranian adversary is the real
winner from the occupation of Iraq. The threat to US
interests has been compounded by the refusal of the
Iranians to abandon their nuclear programme. The US-Shia
alliance in Iraq has backfired on America. Now, as the
fourth anniversary of the invasion approaches, a
US-Sunni alliance seems to be in the making to pave the
way for an attack against Iran. It is widely believed in
the region that the meeting in Jordan on February 20
between Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, and
the intelligence chiefs of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan
and the United Arab Emirates was aimed at preparing the
ground. The idea appears to be for the Sunni world,
which until recently would have been opposed to any
attack on Iran, to see the merits of a US strike. The
role of Washington’s friends in the region would be to
portray Iran as the real threat to both Arabs and
Sunnis. The best climate for achieving such an objective
is sectarianism not only inside Iraq but across the
region.
But the new US-Sunni alliance is likely to backfire, as
the US-Shia alliance did. If one of the latter’s
repercussions was a Sunni backlash, wait and see what an
Iranian-backed Shia explosion of anger will do to our
world. And the anger will not be confined to Shias. The
US-Sunni alliance is in fact a coalition with the
corrupt regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan —
which falsely claim to represent Sunni Islam and are
loathed by their populations — along with their backers
in the west.
If Iran is attacked, it is highly unlikely that the
Sunnis will be indifferent; just as they stood by
Hezbollah last summer, they will stand by Iran. The
attempt to create a US-Sunni alliance has already failed
to convince most Sunnis that Iran — rather than the US —
is the real enemy. —Dawn/Guardian Service
The writer is the director of the London-based Institute
of Islamic Political Thought and the author of “Hamas:
Unwritten Chapters.”
|
DISCLAIMER:
All
material published by Al-Huda.com / And the Message Continues is
the sole responsibility of its author's).
The
opinions and/or assertions contained therein do not necessarily
reflect the editorial views of this site,
nor
of Al-Huda and its officers.
Copyright
© 2001
CompanyLongName , NJ USA