SINCE 1917, immediately after the implementation of the Sykes-Picot agreement, Arabs have been struggling to apply their own decisions. The words in the Holy Quran, Surah Al-Hashr, verse 14 that: “Their violence among themselves is severe. You think they are united, but their hearts are diverse,” seem to aptly describe their situation. That is why they did not have a unified stance on the Palestinian issue during the establishment of the State of Israel. Historically, Arab nations have been repeatedly undermined and manipulated. They allowed external powers and countries to dictate their decisions. A prime example is in 1979 when the Shah of Iran was overthrown. The Arabs lacked the strength to resist the Persian plan, presented as “export of revolution”, and thus allowed Lebanon to become a bridgehead for Iran’s interests, which furthered its influence in the region.
Lebanon, a small country, could have freed itself from the malignant Iranian influence if there had been a cohesive and strategic Arab approach. However, Tehran capitalized on divisions within Lebanon, and enhanced the power of the minority Shiite factions by supporting groups like Hezbollah and Amal Movement. Meanwhile, Syria played a role in furthering this divisive strategy and contributing to the fragmentation of other sects. Since 1982, Lebanon has been fragmented into sects, tribes, and parties, each undermining the power of the state. Hezbollah has played a major role in dragging the country into destructive internal conflicts, and further weakening the institutions that survived the civil war.
Also, Hezbollah has repeatedly provoked Israeli aggression in southern Lebanon and failed to achieve victory in those conflicts. Syria, too, has been a key player in Iran’s regional plans. Since the so-called “Iranian Revolution,” Syria has been mired in miscalculations. It transformed from being the beating heart of the Arab world into a mere pawn in the regional power game, following Iran’s lead. Rather than fulfilling its traditional Arab role, Syria became a country where its citizens are led to slaughter like sheep in prisons, and imprisoned for refusing to abandon their nation’s unity and their loyalty to their homeland. Over the past few decades, Iran has employed the old rule of “divide and conquer.” It embedded its militias in most of the Arab world and used Islamic slogans to legitimize its actions. Iran exploited the power vacuum created by the United States in Iraq to dominate Baghdad, which became the third Arab capital under its influence.
Iran also worked to plant its influence in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, where it strengthened the Houthi rebels since 2011 and turned the area into a stronghold of extremism and ignorance. Today, many countries in the Arab world are grappling with a range of serious issues. Lebanon has become a failed state, and Syria has suffered a lot both under the Ba’ath Party’s rule since 1970 with Hafez al-Assad, and more recently. The country has turned into a human mincer, as it witnessed a civil war that lasted 13 years and resulted in the displacement of nearly 12 million citizens and the death of over 500,000 of them. Syria has also been ravaged by poverty and starvation. Iraq has not fared better as well. The rule of a minority elite and the rise of sectarian militias have dominated the country, as Tehran worked to deepen divisions between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. Iran has largely succeeded in this strategy, leaving Iraq fragile and teetering on the brink of another potential civil war under the weight of a complex and ongoing crisis.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of Iran’s regional strategy is its use of the Houthi militia to target the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah. According to Iran’s ideology, controlling these sacred sites would grant them power over the entire Islamic world. It may be useful to look back at history, not to reopen old wounds, but to highlight how wise and powerful the Arabs were in the past. During the dispute between Ali bin Abi Talib and Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with them), the Roman Caesar sought to exploit the conflict. He hence sent a letter to Muawiyah, saying: “We know what has happened between you and Ali bin Abi Talib, and we believe you are more deserving of the caliphate than he. If you order me, I will send an army to bring you Ali’s head.” Muawiyah’s response was wise and resolute: “Two brothers have quarreled, so why should you intervene? If you do not stop, I will send you an army, the first of which will reach you and the last of which will reach me. This army will bring me your head and I will hand it over to Ali.”
In contrast, the leaders of the four countries - Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen - lacked this wisdom. Rather than resisting the Persian extremist agenda, they became deeply entangled in it, which weakened their nations and their people. Today, with the new leadership in Syria whose vision for the country’s future is beginning to take shape, it is important to recognize that Syria’s geographical location and its diverse population are invaluable assets to the Arab world. If Arab and Islamic countries do not act quickly to support Syria, they will be digging their graves. When Syria is stable, Arab soft power can help unite the people of Iraq, sever the last Persian influence in Yemen, and bring stability to Lebanon. This will empower the Arab world, from east to west, to rise with strength and cohesion. As a result, the Arab decision will no longer be in the hands of any minority that seeks foreign support over the interests of their people and country.
Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times
