Will Ethnic War Destroy Iraq?

The al-Nusra front in Syria has pledged allegiance to the leader of al-Qaeda in a statement. If true, how significant is this issue?

One of the concerns which existed in Syria, and which still exists, was the presence of forces with radical Salafi inclinations or those close to al-Qaeda and their impact on the developments of this country compared with other movements. One of the reasons is that the war in Syria has turned ethnic and this inclination is created in the Alawi-Sunni war, wherein the radical views of the Sunnis grow. From the beginning of these conflicts and the crisis in Syria, and perhaps a short time after that, this radical movement poured into Syria from different Arab and even Asian countries in order to start their activities there. In fact, they considered Syria as a scene for jihad. Thus, both regional countries and the European countries and the US are concerned about the issue that Assad’s replacement might be affiliated with a radical movement close to al-Qaeda. Therefore, the US and many countries are cautious about sending arms to Bashar Assad’s opponents, for there is the probability that these weapons will reach the hands of the radical groups.

Considering the point that the leader of the Iraqi al-Qaeda has also proposed the idea of an Islamic government in Iraq and Syria, to what extent do you think Iraq might be faced with the overflowing of the Syrian crisis into this country?

There is a high probability that the next destination of the transfer of the Syrian crisis would be Iraq. Today’s Iraq is suffering from the same problems that Syria is dealing with. The majority of differences in Iraq are between parties with different religious or ethnic inclinations. In fact, there are three fronts in Iraq: the Shiite front, the Sunni front, and the Kurdish front. In Syria, the situation is almost the same; the Alawi front, the Sunni front, and the Kurdish front. Historically as well, national separation between Syria and Iraq cannot be found, for the present boundaries are artificial boundaries. The people of the western part of Iraq are Sunnis, the south and south-western part are Shiites. A similar situation exists in Syria. Most parts of the eastern regions in Syria are inhabited by the Sunnis, whereas the north and north-western regions of this country are inhabited by the Kurds and the western parts towards the Lebanese border are Alawis and Druzes. In case of a rift, this situation might lead to convergence in culturally similar regions. The more the conflicts in the region become ethnic or religious (what happened in Iraq following Saddam’s downfall), the more the Syrian crisis might be transferred into other countries including Iraq.

In case of unity between al-Nusra and al-Qaeda, will the establishment of their intended governments in Iraq and Syria be possible and what will the consequences be for the whole region?

This measure will have great consequences. It is not in such a way that a group or a radical movement like the al-Nusra front or the radical Sunni groups in Iraq can just make such decisions and not be faced with reactions from the region and the world. The reason is that such an incident will create serious crises and new rifts in the region and change its political geography. In that case, the situation in Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, … will not remain the same. This crisis could also involve Iran and Saudi Arabia; hence, it will have high costs. Therefore, it seems impossible that the regional and world powers would easily allow such an incident to happen, unless there is an international decision to create new developments in the geopolitics and political geography of the region and countries with a new geography are to be created. This is another issue which is related to the developments. But right now no such outlook exists.

Considering the fact that the US has always been concerned about terrorism and al-Qaeda, to what extent can this declaration of unity, in your opinion, impact the US’ position with regard to Syria?

The Americans had put this group on the list of terrorist groups a few months ago. They tried to separate the Syrian opposition and this group and deal with them selectively. Therefore, the US’ position regarding this group is clear. The US position with regard to Bashar Assad’s government is also relatively clear. What is not clear is the future situation of Syria and the direction of developments in this country. That is why the Americans deal cautiously with the developments in Syria, for it is not clear what will happen under the present circumstances after Assad’s downfall.

The fact is that in Syria people are out of the scene and there are only the armed groups which are fighting against each other. On one side, there is the government army and on the other the Free Syrian Army and the al-Nusra front. It is these armed groups which determine the situation, thus, the future of Syria has become very complicated. Of course, it is not only the US which is concerned about this matter; all countries of the region, including Iran, are also greatly concerned. Nobody knows what will happen in Syria in the future and whether there could be a peaceful solution for the crisis in Syria or not? If such a solution does exist, who should sit together to enforce this solution? Who is the other side facing the government? If the radical groups are the ones who face the government, then it cannot be said that the crisis will be solved. Who are those responsible groups which can direct the country through agreement and negotiation with the present government? Hence, the present situation is very complicated and this concern not only exists for the US, but also for Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The present complicated conditions have made the decision-making process very difficult. But it seems impossible for the US to turn towards the government of Syria. Nevertheless, it seems that the US will, from now on, take more cautious steps in giving aids to the Syrian opposition.