I should have seen that coming. It makes sense considering Iran was supporting the Assad regime.
Interesting too considering Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic state and Assad’s Ba’ath party is secular. Blatantly so.
I guess religion is less important than playing games with political near neighbors.
The roots of the relationship goes back several decades.
By the late 1970s, the state apparatus of the Baath regime under Assad had consolidated into an anti-Sunni orientation. Official propaganda incited Alawite farmers against rich Sunni landowners and regularly disseminated stereotypes of Sunni merchants and industrialists, casting them as enemies of nationalisation and socialist revolution. Bitterness towards the Assadist regime and the Alawite elite in the Baath and armed forces became widespread amongst the Sunni majority, laying the beginnings of an Islamic resistance. Prominent leaders of Muslim Brotherhood like Issam al-Attar were imprisoned and exiled. A coalition of the traditional Syrian Sunni ulema, Muslim Brotherhood revolutionaries and Islamist activists formed the Syrian Islamic Front in 1980 with objective of overthrowing Assad through Jihad and establishing an Islamic state. In the same year, Hafez officially supported Iran in its war with Iraq and controversially began importing Iranian fighters and terror groups into Lebanon and Syria. This led to rising social tensions within the country which eventually became a full-fledged rebellion in 1982; led by the Islamic Front. The regime responded by slaughtering the Sunni inhabitants in Hama and Aleppo and bombarding numerous mosques, killing around 20,000–40,000 civilians. The uprising was brutally crushed and Assad regarded the Muslim Brethren as demolished.
You’d expect party unity between Syrian Ba’ath and Iraqi Ba’ath, but Saadam was labeled a fascist and the Syrian regional branch recognized Khomeni rather early on. Survival and having regional friends were more important than playing games.
Religion isn’t religion isn’t religion. Iran is Shia, “moderate rebels” are by and large Sunni.
Again, the Ba’ath party is 100% secular. Secularism is a cornerstone of their party. It has nothing to do with Sunni and Shi’a here, it has to do with a theocratic regime in a partnership with exactly the opposite.
…Yes, the Ba’ath party is 100% secular, and Tehran would rather deal with secularists than with heretics.
Secularists are heretics to theocrats. I have no idea what you think a heretic is.
No, secularists are nonbelievers, possibly apostates. A heretic believes in the same religion as you do, just the wrong kind of it.
Removed by mod
I’m aware.
oh, rarely really seen somebody contradict themselves so blatantly with their source. how come?
On the contrary, from Wikipedia:
Heresy is any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs, particularly the accepted beliefs or religious law of a religious organization.[1][2] A heretic is a proponent of heresy.[1]
…
Heresy is distinct from apostasy, which is the explicit renunciation of one’s religion, principles, or cause;
Atheism is not heresy. A heretic is a type of believer. You can argue you meant the colloquial usage as “divergent thought”, but that’s not the usage I used.
Either way, the point stands: not all Islam is the same thing, and the Tehran regime quite clearly has an easier time stomaching cooperation with secularists than with Sunnis.
Stop.
Of course by international law they shouldn’t be doing that.
But can you really blame them? Where is the international law that protects the people from a dictator? And prevent outside interference to keep that dictator in power?
If international law doesn’t protect the people against oppression, then the people has little use for international law. And they definitely don’t need an outside influence that support their oppressor.For the same reason USA shouldn’t have held such a grudge against Iran for their attack of the US embassy during the rebellion in Iran.
Unfortunately the ship has sailed on that one. And Iran is now a Russian ally.
Of course by international law they shouldn’t be doing that.
International law is a product of, and supported by, nation states. If the previously ruling government has fallen, it effectively doesn’t have a nation that respects the binding of international law. When a new government forms, that government will most likely take up the mantle of support for international law in exchange for international recognition. Right now on the ground its a bit of a free-for-all, I’d imagine.
That’s a good point, and I think that was kind of valid in Iran in 1981 too? USA has held a grudge against Iran for more than 40 years for that!
The USA grudge against Iran wasn’t because of the storming of the embassy. It was holding Americans diplomatic staff hostage for 444 days and threatening to “put them on trial” if Iran didn’t get what it wanted from the USA.
I haven’t heard any reports of Syrians holding Iranian diplomatic staff hostages yet.
Iran says they are all out, so that’s good.
But not the USA embassy? How curious…
The US embassy has been shuttered since 2012 when Syria severed relations. Limited services are provided out of the Czech embassy for the US.
Maybe because the U.S. has been aiding the rebels and Iran has been aiding Assad? And you don’t tend to storm the embassy of your ally.
Tell me you have no concept of centering Syrians in an analysis of the situation in Syria without telling me you have no concept of centering Syrians in an analysis of the situation in Syria.
It’s fitting. Maybe they will hold some diplomats hostage for 444 days.
