Syria

It's the truth, man.

What is happening in Syria? Has civil war broken out between the ethnic and religious factions that make up the country, with some factions allying with others, and all trying to gain control of the country? Are Saudi Arabia and Qatar pouring money and arms towards their chosen factions? Is Turkey supplying, and giving safe haven, to one of the factions? Is the UN, under the guise of promoting peace, pushing for resolutions that, coincidentally, favour the factions chosen by the West? Are Jihadi fighters - Sunni mercenaries basically - pouring into Syria from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq? Is the most powerful country in the world, along with opportunistic allies, trying to destabilise Syria, and possibly the middle east?

Well apparently not. According to mainstream media like the BBC and Reuters, what is happening in Syria is that 'the people', led by young activists and rebels, are trying to topple a dictatorial regime, which is responding by unleashing its armed forces upon civilians. And massacring them.

Journalism, we are told, is about reporting the truth. Well, no it's not. It's about selling print and air time to customers, and you do that by giving them a narrative. The narrative being sold to us regarding Syria is, like most narratives, a good vs evil one. We like our dualities in the West, and there's always someone to demonise, whether it's Muslims, Jews, Liberals, Bankers, Capitalists, Climate Change Deniers, whatever. There's a narrative to suit every taste. So for your delectation, dear readers, in Syria it's about young hip radicals versus the ruthless, titanic monster dictator.

Remember Libya? Then, it was about Gaddafi versus 'the people'. One evil man and his black mercenaries against the freedom loving people of Libya. They would fight against overwhelming odds, and then celebrate in the streets when victory is won. Like in the movies.

Gaddafi's dead now, and the media couldn't wait to leave the subject behind. They left the country so fast that they left dust trails. The tribal factions involved in the war (not 'the people') carried on fighting anyway, each taking over a piece of the country and sidelining the West's chosen faction. The country may be about to split into two.

But that doesn't align with the narrative, so best not to report it at all. Wouldn't want all those highly paid reporters to look wrong, would we?

The 'Arab Spring' is another example of a narrative that bore little resemblance to reality. Most of our journalists and media commentators appear to be obsessed with the Sixties, because the various revolts were presented to us as youth revolutions shaking the stuffy, conservative dictatorships out of power, and demanding democracy, equality, social justice and freedom of speech. All on twitter and facebook.

The kids are alright, man.

The reality is that, in Tunisia and Egypt, the Islamists took the popular vote, and the nice looking liberals favoured by our journalists were ignored.

When we look at the world, it seems, we see only what we want to see.

So, what is going on in the middle-east?

The ending of the Cold War, that's what.


Jigsaw pieces.

The middle-east as we know it was formed after WW1, when the European powers divided it up among themselves. WW2 shattered this post-Ottoman entity and the European powers, weakened by the war, pulled out.

Into this void came the USSR and USA, claiming their prize as victors of WW2. The middle-east had oil. For Russia it was also a gateway to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, bypassing potential NATO blockading of the Baltic. For NATO, the middle-east was a gateway to Asia, bypassing the Iron Curtain.

In strategic terms a clash was inevitable and the two regimes divided up the region along new lines, changing regimes they couldn't do business with and funding their own proxies generously.

When the Soviet Union imploded, this whole arrangement became obsolete and, for two decades, America dispensed with its odious allies and adopted a policy of impunity, doing whatever it liked and doing it directly, with its own forces.

The background to all this activity however is that, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Islamism has bided its time in the region - often repressed, but never eradicated, and always close to its grass roots.


What now?

The Cold War is now over, but, so it seems, is America's attempt at direct hegemony. The debacle in Iraq ended in humiliation and the failure of every single one of its objectives. Islamism, repressed again, survived the attempt to eradicate it and now takes heart from seeing the giant stumble away.

America has switched back to more covert means of meddling. It is also switching its military emphasis towards the Pacific now, with a view to containing its new lukewarm war rival, China. This leaves a vacuum in the middle-east, into which lesser, local powers are rushing into.

Islamism, in all its various and often disconnected guises, has not been wounded by the 'war on terror'. In many ways it has actually been strengthened by it. In the middle-east Islamism is proving to be the soil that everyone must water or fertilise. Anything planted outside of Islamism withers and fails to grow.

America funded Islamism in the Cold War against Russia (just as Germany and Britain did in WW1), then it went to war against Islamism, trying to crush it. Now it tries to crush it in Yemen and Somalia while funding it in Libya and Syria. Time will tell whether this is a good idea or not, but there is little doubt that, as the old map of the middle-east cracks up, Islamism will remain the dominant strand. Whether it becomes moderate or radical will depend on a whole host of unforeseen factors.

Qatar is the new rising power in the middle-east. It sent its special forces operatives and oil dollars into Libya and Syria. It broadcasts the narrative it wants to see on Al-Jazeera, the pseudo-radical news outlet that supports 'democratic revolutions' abroad while remaining quiet about the political situation back home. Is Al-Jazeera a Qatari government tool? Possibly.

Qatar is currently allied to Saudi Arabia. Whether the House of Saud can withstand the coming changes in the region is an open question, even as it actively funds Sunni Islamism. Both nations are actively supported by the same western countries that are targeted by such Islamism - an act of irony that only future historians will fully appreciate.

Iran is being systematically weakened by the West. This is to Qatar's benefit. Iraq however is divided between Sunni and Shia. If Syria falls, then the battleground may return there, with Qatar and the West (perhaps) funding the rise of the Sunnis and the attempt to humble the Shias once more in another attempt to isolate Iran, another historical cycle rich in irony.

If Iran falls or fails, the battle for dominance in the middle-east may well be between Qatar and Turkey, a country recently rebuffed by Europe and now becoming more Islamist and attempting to grow its influence in the region (another historical cycle?).

Russia and China both watch anxiously from the sides, cautiously moving a pawn here or a Go stone there.

And India? Conspicuously absent from much of the region, which might say something about its global diplomatic status - parochial, immature, or both.

Meanwhile, the cauldron of Syria boils, stirred by many new hands.

Who can say what kind of dish will be served up on the menu?