Middle East Review Volume 1: Research Journal of Area Study Centre

Note for Contributors
 The Middle East Review is an annual research journal

and the Editorial Staff cordially invites the academics,
scholars and policy experts in the relevant areas to
contribute their well-thought and valuable research
articles for publication.
 The research articles submitted for publication should be
the original and unpublished work of the authors and co-
authors. The submitted articles must not have been
previously published or submitted for publication to any
other research journal. Articles are published after the
plagiarism test.
 The Middle East Review follows APA style of
referencing. References should be authentic and relevant
and be placed at the end of the article. Manuscripts
should be in typed in double spacing with wide margins.
 Research articles should have a brief abstract comprising
around 150-200 words and the article length should be
between 4000 and 7000 words. Articles must have key
words, introduction, central theme, conclusion and
references.
 All selected and accepted articles would be initially
reviewed by the Editorial Staff and then will be
recommended for double blind peer-review. The articles
are published after the recommendations of the peer-
reviewers in the relevant field.
 The Editorial Staff will reserve the right to
edit/change/modify the research article, if required and
the authors will be informed for approval before the
publication.
 The views expressed in the published articles of the
Middle East Review do not reflect the views of the Area
Study Centre and its Editor/Editorial Staff and the
responsibility for the accuracy of the facts and opinions
expressed therein rests solely with the authors.
 Researchers/contributors are invited to submit their
manuscripts electronically via email to the Editorial
Staff of the journal on mideastreview.asc@gmail.com.
i
The Area Studies has emerged as an interdisciplinary
field of research pertaining to a particular, but
internationally recognized geographical region.
Academically, the Area Studies was initially launched in
the Western universities following the end of the World
War-II and with the herald of portentous events of the
Cold War to concise the multidisciplinary approach into
an interdisciplinary academic discourse to study and
conduct research about a particular geographic region
involving International Relations, History, Culture,
Political Science, Political Economy and Strategic
Studies. Based on the foregoing concept, the Area Study
Center for Middle East and Arab Countries has been
established by the Government of Pakistan as an
autonomous higher education research institute at the
University of Balochistan, Quetta, by an Act of
Parliament to conduct inter-disciplinary research and
recommend policy proposals regarding the resource-rich
region of Middle East. With the inter-disciplinary
approach, the Centre seeks to conduct research on the
geopolitically important region of the Middle East to
strengthen academic and diplomatic ties with the
regional countries. The principal objective is to produce
highly qualified academic as well as policy-making
experts on Middle East and Arab countries. The Area
Study Center is a HEC-recognized degree awarding
institute and offers M.Phil/PhD admissions in
International Relations, Political Science and History
with specialization on Middle East & Arab Countries.
The Middle East Review is a multi-disciplinary and
annual research journal in which research articles related
to the Middle Eastern and regional affairs (International
Relations, Political Science, History, Political Economy,
Strategic Studies, Peace and Conflict Studies, Foreign
Policy, Religion and Cultural Studies) are accepted for
publication. The key objective of the Middle East
Review is to provide a research forum to the academics,
scholars and policy experts for sharing their valuable
research work related to the Middle East and regional
studies.
Editor
ii
Editorial Board
Patron-in-Chief
Meritorious Prof. Dr. Javeid Iqbal

Vice Chancellor/ Chairman Board of Governors,
Area Study Centre for Middle East & Arab Countries
University of Balochistan, Quetta.
Editor
Mansoor Ahmed (PhD Scholar)
Associate Editors
Para Din (PhD)
Jahanzeb Khan (PhD Scholar)
Assistant Editors
Abdul Qadir (PhD Scholar)
Shaukat Tareen (PhD Scholar)
All Rights Reserved

Area Study Centre for Middle East & Arab
Countries, University of Balochistan, Sariab Road
Quetta, Pakistan
ISSN: 2663-0680
Subscription Rates
Pakistan: Rs.150 for a Copy
Overseas: US$.3 for a Copy
Disclaimer: Opinions and views expressed in the

published articles are those of the authors/contributors
and should not be attributed to the the Editor and Staff
of the Middle East Review, Area Study Centre for
Middle East & Arab Countries, University of
Balochistan, Quetta.
iii
Advisory Editorial Board
Foreign
 Prof. Dr. Marvin G. Weinbaum
Professor Emeritus, Director of Pakistan Studies,
Middle East Institute, Washington, USA.
 Prof. Dr. Akbar Ahmed
Professor at School of International Service & Ibn,
Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies,
American University, Washington, D.C. USA.
 Prof. Dr. Faegheh Shirazi
Department of Middle Eastern Studies,
University of Texas at Austin, USA.
 Prof. Dr. Miriam Cooke
Professor Emerita of Arab Cultures,
Duke University, North Carolina, USA.
 Prof. Dr. Joel Gordon
King Fahd Centre for Middle East Studies,
University of Arkansas, USA.
 Dr. Maria Holt
Associate Professor, Dept. of Politics & International
Relations, University of Westminster London, UK.
National
 Prof. Dr. Abdul Razzaq Sabir

Vice Chancellor, University of Turbat, Balochistan.
 Prof. Dr. Nazir Hussain
Director School of Politics & International Relations,
Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad.
 Prof. Dr. Mansoor Akbar Kundi
Department of International Relations International,
Islamic University Islamabad.
 Prof. Dr. Malik Muhammad Tariq
Dean Research, Faculty of Arts,
 Prof. Dr. Hussain Shaheed Soharwardi
Department of International Relations,
University of Peshawar.
 Dr. Salma Malik
Assistant Professor, Department of Strategic Studies,
Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad.
iv
Contents
1. Post-Arab Spring Middle East: The Regional

Rivalries, Global Actors and Transformation in
Political Landscape……………………………….1
Muhammad Ramzan
2. Rise of Kurds in Syria: A Case Study of

YPG……………………………………………....32
Mansoor Ahmed
3. Military Regimes and Stability in Middle East:

A Case Study of Iraq….…………………….…...58
Aqeel Ahmed and Aziz Ahmed
4. The End of History and Clash of Civilizations:

A Comparative Study………………………...…74
Zakir Ali, Mansoor Ahmed and Faiza Mir
5. Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia: The Role of Key

Players……………………………………………94
Muhammad Najeebullah and Para Din
6. The Politics of Insecurity and Uncertainty in

Afghanistan Post-2014: Implications for
Pakistan…………………………………………113
Allaudin and Sohail Ahmad
7. The New Cold War in Syria………………...…130

Muhammad Dawood Kakar, Matiullah Tareen and
Dost Mohammad Barech
v
Volume No. 1 January 2019
Post-Arab Spring Middle East: The Regional

Rivalries, Global Actors and Transformation
in Political Landscape
Muhammad Ramzan
M.Phil Scholar at Area Study Centre,
Ramzanch22@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The 17th December 2010 will be remembered as a
historical day in the chequered history of Middle East
when the uprising commenced from Tunisia which was
later termed as “Arab Spring” by the international
community. This uprising which was sparked mainly due
to political and socio-economic deprivation of common
people of MENA region snowballed and engulfed one
country after the other. Social media played a pivotal
and crucial role in spreading the wave of this so called
Arabs awakening to the entire region. Maximum
countries passed through a period of turmoil barring
very few which did not witness any major revolution.
Although few countries have stabilised after the
revolution yet civil war is going on in Syria, Yemen and
to some extent in Libya. Overall a state of chaos and
uncertainty prevails in the region with no apparent
solution in sight. Regional as well as global powers are
pursuing their vested interests and hitherto there is not
much change in socio-economic conditions which forced
the people to resort to uprising. Many extremist groups
and non-state actors supported by regional as well as
major world powers are busy pursuing their vested
interests. Saudi-Iran rivalries are continuing and US-
Russian competition is back whereas no world body
including UN is playing its role to find a political
solution to bring peace in the region.
MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 1

Key Words: Middle East, Arab Spring, Regional

Players, Global Actors, Rivalries, Interests.
Introduction
The Middle Eastern region lies at the cross roads of
Africa, Asia and Europe. It is known as cradle of
civilizations and home to most important divine
religions i.e. Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The
region due to its strategic importance has been prone to
conflicts since centuries. According to United Nations
Population Division, the Middle East is generally known
area comprising Bahrain, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Kuwait,
Jordan, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
Syria, Turkey and Palestine (Zulfiqar, Aslam, Ghaffar,
Ali & Masoud, 2016). The region is continuously in a
state of influx due to host of reasons just to mention few
like unrealistically drawn state borders, unsettled Israel-
Palestine dispute and sectarian divide etc. Besides many
Arab-Israel Wars, the region has witnessed wars and
foreign interventions in the recent past as well to include
Iran-Iraq War of eighties, First Persian Gulf War and
lately US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The Arab uprisings of 2010 -11 which profoundly
impacted the Middle East originated from a small town
namely Sidi Bouzid located in Southern part of Tunisia.
It happened on 17 December 2010 when a young fruit
vendor namely Muhammad Bouazizi set himself ablaze
in front of Regional Council Office due to
highhandedness and maltreatment by municipal
inspector who took possession of his fruit (Samira,
2015). He later died in hospital on January 4, 2011 due
to burn injuries. Within weeks of this event, thousands
of young men and women took to the streets in many of
the Arab countries chanting slogan of “Regime
Change”. The common population of entire Middle East
considered this event applicable to their country as well
and started protesting against respective regime. Almost
all rulers of Middle East started claiming that his
country was not Tunisia whereas every citizen of their

country desired that it was like that. This protest which

took a start from Tunisia quickly spread to the entire
Middle East and North Africa (MENA) leaving aside
just few countries. Social and mass media played a very
positive role in spreading the news of unrest and protests
to all countries of the Middle East in a very short span of
time. The causes of unrest varied from one country to
another but were mostly considered similar; mainly the
absence of democratic norms, poor economic condition
of general masses, ever-increasing inflation, political
oppression, disregard of human rights, wide spread
corruption and above all the most important factor was
presence of large number of educated but unemployed
and dissatisfied youth in this region. Though the overall
purpose behind the uprising was apparently same like
removal or over through of authoritative regime and
getting better economic conditions and wellbeing of
general populace yet it had different motives behind.
The response by rulers of different countries to curb the
uprising also varied from social reforms in few countries
on one hand to use of force and suppression of uprising
on the other. As a result of popular uprising against
oppression, head of states in four countries were
removed from power till conclusion of August 2012
whereas ruler of Tunisia Ben Ali took refuge in
neighbouring Saudi Arabia. Wide spread protests in
Egypt forced its dictator to resign in February 2011 thus
putting an end to his almost 30 years of rule. Muammar
Qaddafi of Libya was over thrown and killed on October
20, 2011 following massive domestic protests and
military action by international community. Yemen was
no exception where its authoritative ruler had to resign
and a new president took over the power in Feb 2012.
In Syria, similar type of protests started in January 2011
and spread rapidly to entire country. Subsequently these
protests resulted into a kind of civil war between
opposition and forces loyal to Assad regime (Qaiser et
al. 2013) Lack of relatively better political freedom and
absence of equal rights forced the Shia majority

population of Bahrain to stand up against the minority

Sunni ruling family. Saudi Arabia and UAE (both
having majority Sunni population) came to the rescue of
Bahraini ruler and helped in crushing the uprising
through military intervention. Saudi Arabia itself could
not be an exception hence it also witnessed
demonstrations starting in January 2011 mainly by its
minority Shia population in eastern province which met
with forceful government response. Similarly Jordan
also witnessed protests against her authoritarian ruler
King Abdullah II (Qaiser et al., 2013). UAE did not
witness any protests or uprisings mainly due to
improved economic conditions, better employment
opportunities, and absence of corruption and proactive
approach of their rulers.
At present, there is generally a chaos like situation in the
region; discontentment is prevailing amongst general
masses particularly in Syria and Libya whereas Yemen
is in turmoil especially after the assassination of ex-
President Ali Abdullah Saleh hope of peace, if there was
any, now seems a distant possibility. Coalition forces
led by Saudi Arabia are battling against Shia Houthis
with no political solution insight. Iran, Saudi Arabia and
Turkey are trying for regional hegemony whereas;
Russia is maintaining her influence through Iran and
Syria. The cracks amongst Gulf Cooperation Council
(GCC) countries are widening day by day and Qatar has
been isolated by members on the allegation of
supporting Iran and Hezbollah. The present US
administration under President Donald Trump has come
closer to Saudi Arabia whereas their dealing with Iran is
getting harsh day by day since USA has withdrawn from
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions (JCPOA) and has
re-imposed severe economic sanctions against Iran. The
U.S. announcement in December 2017 and subsequent
shifting of her Embassy to Jerusalem in May 2018 has
resulted into a widespread disappointment and
resentment throughout the Muslim world (Aljazeera,
2018, May 15).

Major regional players of Middle East to include KSA,

Iran, Turkey and Israel as well as global powers like
Russia, USA and China are busy to safeguard their
vested interests in the region disregard to the aspirations
and problems of individual countries. In this paper, an
endeavour will be made to highlight the interests and
role being played by both regional and extra-regional
powers in this war torn region of the world.
Regional Rivalries: Effect on Political Landscape
Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia like many other countries
of the region could not shield itself from the waves of
Arabs uprising of 2010-11 when protests commenced
once an old man set himself ablaze in city of Samtah
which gradually reached to main cities like Jeddah,
Qatif, Riyadh and other cities in February 2011. Saudi
Arab is majority Sunni country with only 10-15 % Shia
population (Abner, 2016). Protests in Saudi Arabia
were mostly restricted to Shia majority areas of Eastern
province like Qatif and other small cities demanding
labour rights. Protestors were demanding equal share
for Shia minority population in important government
offices, withdrawal of security forces dispatched to
Bahrain by Sunni dominated GCC countries including
KSA, release of Shia prisoners and political reforms.
Besides Shia minority of eastern province, women were
also very active in Saudi Arabia during Arab uprisings
of 2011. They were asking for electoral rights, driving
permission and right to do jobs. In order to appease the
population, government of Saudi Arabia announced
heavy packages to improve quality of life of her masses.
Saudi Arabia viewed the Arab Spring uprisings initially
with mixed approach of concern and scepticism. As the
revolution further spread, it resorted to financial as well
as military support in some locations depending upon its
interests. Saudi Arabia provided asylum to its old friend
Ben Ali after he was overthrown from power and did
offer help to Hosni Mubarak, reportedly. In order to
include other monarchies of the region in GCC, Saudi

Arabia offered assistance and asked Jordon and

Morocco to apply for GCC membership but there was
no progress or mention of its expansion anymore (Ennis
& Momani, 2013). As far as Saudi role in Yemen is
concerned, Saudi Arabia committed a shear mistake by
launching brutal war in its neighbouring country which
has been converted into a sectarian conflict thus pitching
Saudi Arabia and her allies against leader of Shia
community Iran. Saudi Arabia at times tried to play
double game by aligning itself with and supporting
Saleh while simultaneously looked for alternate
leadership who can be patronized beforehand. In case of
Libya KSA adopted different approach and supported
NATO led intervention since its rulers did not enjoy
friendly relations with Gaddafi. Uprising of Bahrain
really antagonized the Saudis who initially attempted to
appease them through financial assistance and provided
$ 20 billion combined assistance to Oman and Bahrain.
Once they observed that Bahrain is unable to control it,
Saudi forces along with some UAE troops crossed over
to Bahrain in Mar 2011 to crush the revolution. Saudis
are obsessed with safeguarding the monarchic nature of
GCC regimes all around and not only stop democracy to
take roots here but also forestall possibility of any
Iranian influence in these areas (Ennis & Momani,
2013). Fanning religious differences and exploiting
sectarian differences has been the Saudi approach to
spread unrest in Shia majority areas. The credit for
appalling curse of sectarianism and divisive politics in
the region has largely been the hand work of KSA and
her religious bigots.
In order to offset Iranian influence from Syria, Saudis
have been trying to label the uprising by Sunni majority
population as sectarian issue and tried to bring Syria
back into Arab and Sunni sphere of influence. If they
could achieve this, their position would have improved
in the region. This is the reason that KSA and Qatar had
staunchly supported the idea of arming Syrian rebels by
international community. Since they could not succeed

to convince international community hence managed to

find alternate ways to smuggle arms to them (Ennis &
Momani, 2013). The Arab revolutions though did not
directly threatened Saudi Arabia in real sense yet these
developments have unnerved the monarchy and it has
been shaken. Regional uncertainty, fluctuating Iran-US
relations and coming into power of Muslim Brotherhood
led government in Egypt were all but important
developments which posed a serious challenge to Saudi
prominence in the region. According to some observers,
the risk of internal revolution in Saudi Arabia itself is
much higher as it looks from outside. The causes which
led to mass uprising in neighbouring countries of the
region are as applicable to KSA as elsewhere but may
have temporarily been subsided due to handsome
financial package released by Saudi authorities coupled
with some social reforms.
Saudi Arabia developed serious differences with Qatar
which resulted into diplomatic boycott of tiny Gulf state
by GCC countries led by KSA in Jun 2017 (Khaleej
Times, 2017, June 05) and later enforcement of
blockade against Qatar supported by other GCC
members. The biggest Saudi difference with Qatar is
latter’s support to Muslim Brotherhood and her relations
with Iran. Unfortunately Saudi dominance of region is
also not liked by other GCC members as well as Yemen.
KSA even proposed to convert GCC into a political
union which met with opposition hence was
disappointing for them. Moreover, Saad Hariri who is
considered Saudi ally could not get substantial number
of seats to form government during elections held in
May this year. This will deprive Saudis of erstwhile
influence which they enjoyed over Lebanese
government. It is widely believed that Saudi Arabia
always flags Iranian threat whether it’s her involvement
in Gulf or beyond to include MENA region or her
relations with USA. Western powers including USA,
European countries and many Asian countries which
import 50% of their oil from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

have stakes in KSA because its destabilization may lead

to soaring oil prices (Abner, 2016). Moreover, any
destabilization in KSA may provide an opportunity to
al- Qaeda and ISIS to seek more active role in the
country since both the extremist groups practice hard
core Salafism brand of Islam which is widely practiced
in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Muslims from all over the
world come to perform Hajj and Umera in Holly land of
Saudi Arabia hence have natural emotional attachment.
Therefore, a stable and moderate Saudi Arabia is in the
larger interest of world community. At present Saudi
desire of dominance in the region has met with a serious
blow since Assad regime has been saved, threat of ISIS
has subsided in Iraq and Syria whereas, her staunch foe
Iran has emerged much stronger expanding its influence
to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and to even Yemen. This is a
serious setback to the Saudi aspiration of regional
hegemony at least for the time being.
Iran in collaboration with Russia has not only been able
to keep the government of Bashar al Assad intact
despite lot of international pressure, rather has been
successful to gain geo-political influence over larger
area in Middle East which extends from Iraq, Syria,
Yemen to Lebanon as well. Despite forming 41-nations’
coalition and American support, Saudi Arabia has not
been able to achieve its objective and is feeling
humiliated. Saudis enjoy good relations with new US
administration and have its full support to implement
their agenda of threatening and weakening Iran whom
they consider staunch enemy. However this American
support is at the cost of abandoning Palestine issue and
supporting Israel to which KSA has agreed apparently.
Reportedly, Mohammad Bin Salman has even visited
Israel secretly which was beyond imagination till recent
past, Israel being staunch enemy of entire Arab world
(Silverstein, 2017). Reportedly Israeli intelligence
Minister Katz has vaguely sounded Saudi Arabia that
Israel, KSA and other potential parties should invade
Lebanon and settle the issue of Hezbollah which is their

common enemy and ally of Iran (Silverstein, 2017).

This would be a very dangerous collaboration which
will further widen the existing cracks amongst Muslim
countries and compromise on two state solution of
Palestinian issue once for all. The recent U.S.
withdrawal from JCPOA and re-imposition of sanctions
against Iran seems to be a development in the same
context.
Turkey: Turkey has historically witnessed golden era
in Middle East. Being a Muslim country with
progressing economy and strong democratic system
enabled it good role model for corrupt and inefficient
Arab states of Gulf region. Due to its cultural, historical
and religious linkages with Middle East, Turkey has
begun to influence the regional dynamics of Middle
East. At the commencement of Arab uprisings of 2011,
initially responses from Turkey varied from country to
country according to its relations with them which
changed in favour of protestors with the passage of time
who wanted to bring positive change. Turkey did not
come out openly in case of Yemen but actively
supported Egyptian protesters and the Turkish
authorities demanded removal of President Hosni
Mubarak publically. In case of Libya, Turkey was not
in favour of action by NATO of which it’s a member as
well. During Resolution number 1973 of UN Security
Council, Turkey demanded for protection of Libyan
people against atrocities being committed by forces
loyal to Gaddafi. Turkey however, did not favour
western boots on ground being the sole Muslim NATO
power. As far as uprising in Bahrain is concerned,
Turkey attempted to mediate being a Sunni majority
country and tried to defuse tensions between Iran and
GCC countries led by Saudi Arabia. It also tried to
persuade government of Bahrain to exercise restraints
but Saudi Forces intervened and helped Bahrain crush
the uprising of Shia majority population.
During uprising in Syria, Turkey was over optimistic to
influence the behaviour of Syrian government due to

huge investment in the country which proved otherwise.

Once Assad regime resorted to oppressive measures to
crush uprising even in the month of Ramadan, Turkey
took principle decision to side with Syrian opposition in
August 2011. This resulted into closure of an important
Turkish land route leading to Arab Gulf and Levant.
Atrocities committed by Assad regime against refugees
and coming of thousands of Syrian refugees every
month to Turkey augmented the Turkish decision for
ousting of Assad. Moreover, Turkey provided
headquarters for Syrian National Council till that time
the same was shifted to Egypt in 2012 after replaced
with Syrian National Coalition. While Turkey was
against putting NATO boots on ground in Libya it was
Turkey which was in favour of going for military
intervention in Syria but other NATO countries were
hesitant. However, Turkey later on changed its policy
towards Syria substantially behaving in a neutral manner
because Russia and Iran were supporting the Syrian
Regime.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia both Sunny majority countries
have been criticized favouring action of Bahraini
government against uprising whereas not suggesting the
same for Syria. At the start of Arab Spring, Turkey did
try to fill the power vacuum existing in the Middle East
due to absence of active Arab Leadership. Turkish
diplomats were trying to infuse new proactive approach
in their foreign policy in a region where old corrupt
regimes were falling and there existed a state of vacuum.
Although onset of Arab Spring tempted Turkish foreign
ministry which felt that its newfound prestige is required
to be accompanied by enhanced soft power yet the
events of Arab Spring put Turkish foreign policy in a
state of confusion because it had to either earn good will
of Arab population or take side with autocratic rulers
(Ennis & Momani, 2013).
During the course of Arab uprising, Turkey went for
better option and supported people of Tunisia, Syria,
Libya and Egypt instead of their dictatorial leaders.

Overall, Turkey has been able to get reasonable role in

regional affairs of Middle East by providing moral and
diplomatic support to Palestinians, making efforts to
play the role of mediator during negotiations of nuclear
deal by Iran with the West, not supporting the NATOs
plan of attacking Libya, opposing the phenomenon of
unchecked rising of extremist organization ISIS and
displaying desire to look for solution of Syrian civil war.
Arab Spring, the ensuing crises of Iraq and Syria,
continuously simmering issue of Kurdistan across the
Iraqi border, Rising of ISIS coupled with traditional
actors who are not in favour of granting role of a
regional power to Turkey in the Middle East are few of
the challenges faced by Ankara to become a prominent
regional player. There are two more reasons Turkey has
not been able to assert itself as a regional leader firstly;
its strategic location due to which it became closer to
Europe after WW -II, joined NATO and is also keen to
join European Union. Secondly Turkey is still trying to
strike a balance between religion, democracy and
secularism. Therefore, it cannot continue to play a
leading role in the region till the time it clearly defines
its identity either a western oriented country looking to
become member of European Union or a country that
has its own brand of what can be termed as religious
secularism. Once US President Trump announced
shifting of American Embassy to Jerusalem on 6
December 2017, Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan condemned this move in very strong terms.
As per media reports, USA planned to train Syrian
Border Security Force of about 30000 personnel
comprising half of fighters from Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF) who had been battling against ISIL and
remaining half of the fighters were to be taken from
Kurdish People’s Protection Unit (YPG) who were to be
deployed along Syrian border with Turkey, Iraq and
Euphrates River Valley (The Reuters, 2018 January 14).
However, Ankara considers YPG as a terrorist
organization and she has already launched Euphrates

Shield Operation against it in 2016 which was

concluded in March 2017. Turkey strongly condemned
this development and launched operation “Olive
Branch” against YPG along its southern border with
Syria in Afrin District in January 2018 and liberated the
area from rebels by mid of 2018. Turkey considers YPG
as extension of PKK with whom Ankara is fighting for
the last about three decades. (Middle East Monitor,
2018, January 24). USA initially reacted against the
operation by Turkey however, soon adjusted her point of
view and later claimed that her real ally in Syria is
Turkey and not the YPG, according to a senior U.S.
official. According to the same official, U.S respects the
Turkey’s right to safeguard her borders and citizens
(Hurriyet News, 2018, March 01). Although Turkey and
USA are close ally of cold war era being active
members of NATO however their relations have been
sliding from bad to worse in recent times. There are
many reasons of worsening relations between two
NATO allies including agreement on purchase of S-400
missiles from Russia, non-compliance by Turkey to US
sanctions against Iran and improvement in their
relations, its stance on Palestinian issue, declining
Turkish-Israeli relations, its role in Syrian civil war,
improvement of relations with Qatar vis-a-vis Saudi
Arabia and more importantly Turkish post Arab Spring
growing geo-political role in Middle East. However,
lately Turkey’s relations with USA deteriorated further
due to demand from U.S. President and scores of
congressmen for release of American Pastor Andrew
Brunson to which Turkey did not agree. The Pastor is
under arrest since 2016 just after Turkish failed coup
and was awarded 35 years in jail on charges of
espionage and terrorism. This resulted into doubling of
tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminium by USA which
caused about accumulated 40% drop in the value of
Turkish lira during the current year. As of today there
seems no improvement in relations between the two
erstwhile allies. Turkey has come under pressure from
USA and her western allies on one hand and is losing

the goodwill and strategic space she earned in the

beginning of Arab Spring on the other. However her
relations with Iran and Russia are improving due to
obvious reasons.
Iran: Iranian reaction to the Arab Spring was quite
different as compared to other Middle Eastern regimes.
Since Iran was already looking for such an opportunity
to fulfil its regional ambitions and expand her sphere of
influence in the region, it found a lost opportunity in the
form of Arab uprisings by oppressed masses against
their mostly western supported rulers. It is generally
believed that Iran and Israel are the beneficiaries of Arab
revolutions unlike any other country of the region.
Iranian reaction to the Arab Spring developments was
very mature, calculated and balanced. Iran generally
supported the stance of protesting masses and urged the
concerned governments and its rulers to pay heed to the
legitimate demands of their people. Iran also equated the
uprisings with its Islamic Revolution of 1979 which
were viewed positively specially by Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt. It was this positive acceptance
that Islamist government of Egypt for the first time after
1979 allowed Iranian vessels to pass through the Suez
Canal which reached Syrian port as a symbol of
solidarity with the then Egyptian administration
(Cakmak, 2013).
Strongest reaction from Tehran came in support of
Bahrain which has majority Shia population but ruled by
Sunni monarch. Iran strongly opposed rather protested
military action of GCC countries led by Saudi Arabia to
crush the people’s uprising demanding legitimate rights.
Iran even went further to support Shia population of
Bahrain and voiced concern with UN Secretary General
besides highlighting to governments of Turkey and
Qatar however Iran mostly blamed west for the unrest
referring to presence of US military base in the country.
Iran issued strong statements advocating democratic
solution to resolve the issue and address people’s
grievances. Iran openly supported protestors of Tunisia

and Egypt, but in case of Libya adopted cautious

approach, initially. Iranian stance against Arab uprisings
has been varying according to her interests and previous
relations with the ruler of that particular country. It did
not support Libyan opposition as Gaddafi never acted
against Iranian interests and Iran perceived no advantage
by aligning itself with the Libyan opposition at that
particular time.
Adoption of selective approach by Tehran is also proved
from its stance in case of protests against Syrian ruler
Assad. In this case Iran not only sided with Assad rather
actively supported its government by providing active
military assistance to suppress the opposition. Iranian
apprehensions that in case Assad is replaced by Sunni
led government in Syria, her desire of reaching Lebanon
will no longer be served, are very much based on facts.
On the other hand it is important to fulfil her long term
policy objective of reaching out to Hezbollah where they
have invested heavily for the last about three decades.
Hezbollah has played very important role in saving
Assad’s regime by actively fighting with forces opposed
to Syrian government. Therefore it can be concluded
that Tehran adopted a selective approach to react against
Arab Spring protests and instead of advocating
democratic freedom and fundamental rights, it went for
own national interests. Iranian ambitions to expand her
sphere of influence to the entire Gulf region particularly
reach out to Shia community wherever they live, has
been evident from her reactions throughout the Arab
uprisings. This has been important cardinal of her
foreign policy throughout the region which has been
consistent with basic principles of Islamic revolution.
Overall goal of Iranian foreign policy is to become a
regional power in the region initially and to lead the
entire Muslim Ummah in the longer run.
Iran is very much concerned to keep Iraq subordinated
or at least have friendly regime there being her
immediate neighbour and with whom she has fought
prolonged bloody war of eighties. Until Iraqi elections

of May 2018 there was a pro-Iranian Shia government in

Iraq and Iran enjoyed deep influence throughout the
country but it has resulted into national fragmentation in
Iraq. In Yemen Iran is supporting Shia faction of
Houthis who managed to take over Sanaa in September
2014 and extended their hold towards further south.
This development worried Saudi Arabia which reacted
by end of March 2015 to provide active support to
Yemeni government in connivance with UAE, other
GCC members and coalition partners (Katzman, 2018).
Iran considers Saudi Arabia and Sunni dominated GCC
as a threat to her goal of regional domination. In the
post Arab Spring environment, it is generally believed
that Iran with support from Russia has overall been able
to achieve diplomatic as well as political success in the
region. The regime of her staunch ally President Assad
has been saved, Qatar is inclined towards Iran after
enforcement of blockade by KSA and her close Sunni
allies, Houthis of Yemen have gained substantial
success whereas Saudi Arabia seems generally isolated
in the region. However with coming into power of new
US President Donald Trump, American support to KSA
and her GCC coalition partners has increased manifold
and Iran is coming under US pressure. Israel is
apprehensive of growing presence of Iranian militias in
Syria and there have been many clashes between Iranian
and Israeli forces. Israel has launched a number of air
strikes on Iranian targets in Syria resulting into
substantial human and material loss to Iran. Although
Iran has moved her forces more than 85 kilometres away
from Israeli border yet Israel is not satisfied and does
not want any Iranian presence in Syria (Bafa & Vest,
2018). USA is fully supportive of Jewish stance and
announced to withdraw from JCPOA in May 2018
which resulted into severe pressure on Iran however,
European countries signatory to the deal are trying their
best to save the deal which has multiple economic
implications for them. In August 2018, USA has re-
imposed severe economic sanctions against Iran which
has badly impacted Iranian economy and resulted into

high inflation and unemployment hence a sort of

discontentment prevails amongst general public.
Israel: Although Israel initially adopted wait and
observe policy at the onset of Arab uprisings of 2010 -
11 and subsequent developments yet its policy makers
and analysts were deeply worried as the situation
unfolded in their neighbourhood. First and the foremost
worry of Israel was negative developments in Egypt and
resulting Islamists hold on power. Since Israel and
Egypt had reasonably cordial relations as a result of
mutual peace treaty of 1979, the biggest worry for Israel
now was unfriendly government of Muhammad Morsi
in Egypt who was highly anti-Semitism. During the era
of President Mubarak Sinai was peaceful with no
military activity, Egypt remained opponent of Iran who
is staunch enemy of Tel Aviv and Israel was also getting
gas supply from Egypt but now the things had changed.
The situation was now different as the new government
of Muhammad Morsi who had full support of Muslim
Brotherhood started adopting an anti-Israel posture
everywhere. They threatened to abrogate the peace
treaty, started discussing movement of military in Sinai,
and allowed the use of Suez Canal by Iranian vessels
and even stopped provision of gas to Israel
(Scheinmann, 2013). These were serious developments
for the security of Israel not seen for the last three
decades.
Arab Spring and ensuing developments provided more
space to Israeli rival Hamas which invited dignitaries
from various Muslim countries to visit Palestine and
many of them did visit. Even relations between Jordan
and Hamas started improving following meeting
between officials from both the parties. Fall of
government in Libya and Egypt enabled Hamas to pile
up stocks of weapons to be utilized against Israel. To
their sheer bad luck, the post Arab Spring developments
in Syria were also troublesome for Tel Aviv. The once
dormant Golan Heights became active after so many
years of peace and normalcy. Sporadic artillery shelling

in Golan Heights from Syria became a routine activity

and a state of discontentment prevailed amongst Israeli
community living in this area. The most serious threat
cum fear of chemical weapons which could be used by
Syria or her ally Hezbollah was another issue worrying
Tel Aviv and her western allies. Many terrorist groups
like Al-Qaeda and its affiliates who were staunch anti-
Israel flocked to Syria and expressed determination to
get back Golan from Israel thus became a source of
tension for Israeli policy makers. These all
developments and ever deteriorating political as well as
law and order situation prevailing in almost all
neighbouring countries of Israel worried Israel after
many years.
Situation in Jordan, the historically trusted ally of Israel
was also not different where anti-Israel sentiments
started prevailing after Arab uprisings. Islamic Action
Front which is considered affiliate of Muslim
Brotherhood and certain Jordanian tribes started
protesting against peace agreement with Israel which
worried Tel Aviv and the King alike. Moreover pouring
in of many Syrian refugees resulted into further stress on
already weakening Jordanian economy. These all events
put together no sane person would deny that Arab
Spring brought havoc to Israel however, subsequent
events proved otherwise and ultimately Israel became
the top most beneficiary of Arab Spring.
King Abdullah of Jordan despite many odds managed to
survive hence peace treaty remained intact. Since
Jordan is dependent on USA in many ways and is
getting lots of financial assistance as well as military
hardware from America, it cannot deviate from old
policy of maintaining peace with Israel. Syria though
staunch ally of Hezbollah and Iran who are considered
born enemies of Israel, is passing through a chaos where
civil war is going on in many parts of the country. The
Assad regime though survived for the time being with
Russian and Iranian help is not in a position to pose
threat to Israel in near future. Syrian Economy has been

shattered whereas her armed forces with more than 15

thousand causalities and many defections have gone too
weak to look towards Israel.
Similarly Egypt which once upon considered itself as
leader of the Arab nation has gone weak financially,
militarily as well as politically. During the short period
of Morsi extremism left its marks with present military
government of General Sisi battling on many fronts.
Military has carried out many operations against
terrorists in Sinai, Hamas has gone weak here after
toppling of Islamist government of Muhammad Morsi
and policies of present Egyptian government are all in
favour of Israel (Scheinmann, 2013). Therefore, in all
probability Egypt does not pose any threat to the
security of Israel in near future. Even Saudi Arabia the
hitherto staunch supporter of Palestine is changing her
policy and becoming closer to Israel in order to gain
Israeli support against her Shia rival Iran. Iran though
had been able to reach near Israeli border due to
deployment of her forces in support of Assad but has
been put under severe pressure from USA after later has
withdrawn from JCPOA and re-imposed severe
economic sanctions against Iranian regime. At present
there is not a single country amongst neighbours which
can pose credible threat to Israeli security.
Role and Interests of Global Actors
United States of America: Middle East did not
attract much US political interest and presence till
conclusion of World War II before which there were
only three main US involvements in this region which
include influencing national movements of Arabs in 2 nd
decade of twenties, sending of supplies to the then
USSR through Iran in early forties and lastly but most
importantly the establishment of oil company in late
thirties in collaboration with Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
That time onwards influenced by power shifts, oil
attraction and interest to establish and protect the state of
Israel has attracted U.S. involvement in this region

continuously and without any interruption. Termination

of 2nd World War witnessed new phenomena of balance
of power where two main power blocs emerged led by
USA and USSR. Since erstwhile European powers saw
their influence diminishing in mid-forties, they observed
Kremlin’s involvement is outpacing the hitherto
presence of Britain in this region who was security chief
of this region up till then. West realized that United
States will have to come forward to take charge from
Britain in order to contribute in economic developments,
forestall outside influence and prevent unnecessary
exploitation by any other power from outside. Hence in
1947 there came the Truman Doctrine which meant that
USA is going to replace Britain in this region. Truman
lobbied for and accepted UN peace plan regarding
Palestine and recognized Israel just after 11 minutes of
its creation in May 1948. (Tristam, 2017) In order to
forestall possible intervention by Kremlin, Middle East
Treaty Organization came into being in mid 1950s. In
1953 US was involved in ousting of Iranian President
Mossadegh and then came Suez crises when western
powers attacked Egypt who nationalized the Suez Canal.
Since United Kingdom was experiencing economic
crises throughout 1960s, it decided to leave the Middle
East for good thus replaced by America which issued yet
another doctrine by President Nixon forming an
opposition block to counter Soviet influence in this area.
During this period Middle East went through Arab -
Israel Wars of 1967 and 73. U.S. did play active role in
negotiations of 1974 as well as 1975 for disengagement
between Israel, Syria and Egypt but without any
agreement and not touching Palestinian problem. U.S.A
tried to give powers initially to regional proxy Israel
followed by Iran and finally Saudi Arabia in early
seventies to further their interests in Middle East.
However Israel was enemy of all Muslims hence hated
by most of them and KSA neither had will nor capacity
to act. Whereas, to the bad luck of America, Iran turned
from friend to foe overnight due to 1979 Iranian
revolution (Pollack, 2015).

During the tenure of President Jimmy Carter, US

became more vocal about its role and influence in the
region and openly informed the world in 1980 regarding
their interests with regards to security in Middle East
and one of the main reasons was to contain possible
Soviet expansion. Carter did achieve two diplomatic
successes in the Middle East, i.e. conclusion of Camp
David Accord of 1978 and peace treaty between Israel
and Egypt in 1979. Throughout the 80s, U.S.A actively
supported expansion of Israeli settlements in
Palestinians territories disregard to Arab sentiments.
Reagan administration supported Saddam Hussein
during eight years Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 (Tristam,
2017). Then invasion of Kuwait by Iraq took place in
1990 followed by Operation ‘Desert Storm’ which
liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. In the
aftermath of Cold war and dismemberment of USSR,
Russia remained no longer a threat and U.S. emerged as
a sole power of the world. During the Clinton
administration, U.S. involvement in Middle East
included Oslo Accord of 1993 and mediation of Jordon-
Israel peace treaty of 1994. Next turning point for US
deeper involvement in Middle East came after 9/11 and
ensuing occupation of Iraq by America and its western
allies in 2003 which provided justification for America
to remain continuously engaged in this volatile region
for a longer time. In the same context, a study was
conducted by RAND under the title of “US Strategy in
the Muslim World After 9/11” according to which
American policy makers were advised to exploit
sensitive Shia-Sunni problem of Muslims to achieve her
objective in Muslim world (Shaukat, 2016). This
policy was initially tried in Iraq where many large scale
attacks were executed against Shia community in 2004.
This initiated a series of mutual attacks by Shia-Sunni
on each other’s religious places as well as personalities
resulting into death of hundreds of thousands of
innocent people. Later, Obama Administration
disengaged from Iraq almost undoing whatever little
success was achieved during 2007-09. At the same

time, U.S.A diverted its attention from other important

issues and events of the region. Instead of pressing for
just solution of Israeli-Palestinian problem it just turned
away from the issue, did not push governments to
undertake political as well as economic reforms and
finally but most importantly allowed civil wars to erupt
and extend throughout the volatile region unabatedly.
This all contributed towards likelihood of uprising like
Green Revolution in Iran and Arab Awakening in rest of
the region.
As expected, the next came the protests of “The Arab
Spring” which exposed American intensions of
supporting authoritarian rulers loyal to them and their
closest ally Israel. The US tried to help its client states
by even providing weapon shipments to weakening
regimes and stood by most of the reliable dictators
(Abukhalil, 2012). U.S. supported Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak until it became untenable. Ruler of
Tunisia Ben Ali had Obama’s support till he fled to
Saudi Arabia (Abukhalil, 2012). U.S. supported Iraqi
Kurds and reportedly armed them to fight against ISIS
which they fought successfully and the terrorist group
has been rooted out from Iraq at least for the time being.
However, USA is not interested in stable and peaceful
Iraq having majority Shia population which gets closer
to neighbouring Iran. This is nowhere in America’s plan
rather it wants to divide Iraq along sectarian lines, keep
it unstable to attract Iranian support to their Shia
brethren thus over stretching Iranian military to weaken
it and reduce their power in the region (Cartalucci,
2017). America is cooperating with Saudi Arabia,
selling weapons worth billions of dollars ignoring its
atrocities in Yemen, support to Bahrain, blockade
against Qatar and provision of full support to Syrian
opposition. Despite all out American and Saudi support
to Syrian opposition, Assad Regime has been saved
thanks to Russia and Iran. Iran has been successful in
saving Shia bloc which is now powerful ever before
having Iraq, Syria, Houthis of Yemen and Hezbollah of

Lebanon on its side. This is a big embarrassment for the

USA and her Gulf Allies mainly Saudi Arabia and more
importantly Israel. USA in order to secure her
hegemony in MENA region as part of its global
aspirations wants to encircle Iran, disrupt country’s
socio-political and economic order and establish its
supremacy in the region which she has not been
successful for the time being (Cartalucci, 2017). To
counter this development, America has apparently been
able to convince Saudi Arabia to collaborate with Israel
to fight against Iran and Hezbollah. Reportedly Saudis
have agreed to abandon Palestinian cause of separate
country, their right to sovereignty over Jerusalem and
they will no longer support Palestinian right of return. In
return they have asked USA and Israel to support their
fight against their rival Shia power Iran (Alabama,
2017). This is a dangerous development which is only
possible with support and connivance of USA. Another
important development with regards to U.S. interest in
the region is its withdrawal from JCPOA, reportedly on
insistence of Israel. After withdrawal, U.S.A imposed
strict sanctions against Iran in August 2018 which has
put Iran under severe economic pressure. As per recent
developments, U.S. relations with Turkey have also
deteriorated to a point of no return due to host of issues
of disagreement between the erstwhile NATO allies.
America is not ready to withdraw her forces from Syria,
is supporting Syrian Kurds and so called SDF to further
her agenda of encircling Iran however it may not be
possible for USA to implement her foreign policy in the
region while antagonizing both Turkey and Iran (Asia
Times, 2018, August 15).
Russia: Russia considers Middle East just next to its
borders and planning to formulate and implement long
term strategy to regain its position and influence it had
in Middle East during golden era once its power was at
peak. Russia has historically enjoyed cordial relations
with Syria and Egypt during cold war era. Although
Egypt drifted towards US camp in seventies, Iran and

Syria were and remained close allies of Russia. Russian

influence in Middle East diminished during post-Cold
War era to a great extent. However, Russia has been
able to get renewed role in post Arab Spring period and
has been able to forestall Libya like military action by
US and her allies in Syria and Iran. Kremlin intervened
militarily in Syria by the end of September 2015 on the
request of Syrian regime. This was a historic
intervention since for the first time in history Russia sent
its soldiers to Syria on ground to support an ongoing
conflict in the region after their such adventure during
1973 Arab-Israel war. This move has been by and large
successful and Russia has achieved two fold objectives
of saving Assad Regime on one hand and ensuring
protection of its only military base in the region, on the
other. Russia is opposing and even carried out aerial
bombing against US and Saudi supported rebels and IS
fighters who were fighting against Syrian regime (Khan,
2015). Iran and Russia have been able to reduce
American influence in the region and Shia bloc led by
Iran has been able to sustain Western pressure thus
saving Assad regime.
Another important country with whom Russia is
developing close ties is Egypt. Once America pulled out
from its former and old time ally Egypt after General
Sisi took over from President Morsi in 2013 and stopped
supply of arms, Russia was quick to fill this vacuum.
Russia and Egypt signed their first ever arms agreement
after cold War era and head of states of both the
countries have exchanged visits regularly. As far as
Russian ally Libya is concerned, The Kremlin did make
efforts to prevent direct military intervention by
European powers and vetoed a number of UN
Resolutions in this regard. Ultimately Russia had to
agree to support forces opposing Libyan government on
insistence of western powers and other members of
international community. Later Russia abstained from
UN Resolution passed in March 2011 to authorize arms
embargo against Libya thus imposing no fly zone over

Libya and enabling NATO to execute military

operations in support of rebels by the end of March
same year. However to their bad luck, new Libyan
government is not friendly with Moscow. The new
government even did not entertain contracts worth $10
billion concluded by Russia with previous regime and
the country is now more inclined towards west.
Moreover Russia has improved her relations with
important regional country Saudi Arabia in the recent
past. Saudi King Salman visited Moscow in October
2017 on invitation of Vladimir Putin who termed the
visit as a land mark event in the relations of both the
countries. Prior to this the then Saudi Deputy Crown
Prince Muhammad Bin Salman also visited Russia in
mid of 2015. Relations between both the countries are
further improving and as per press reports, Riyadh is
planning to purchase expensive S-400 Air Defence
System from Moscow which will be 2nd such country
after Turkey to whom Russia has agreed to sell this state
of the art system (Borshchevskaya, 2017).
Similarly Russia is also forging close ties with Israel and
both countries have cooperated on important issues of
mutual interest in the region in the recent past
(Goldenberg & Smith, 2017). Russia is coming up in
Middle East with full resolve and trying to develop
strategic relationship with important allies of USA i.e.
Egypt, Israel and Turkey. Russian approach towards
Middle East is different from that of America which is
interested to save her ally Israel and ensure
uninterrupted flow of oil whereas Russia is interested to
block reaching of fundamentalists to Russia and reduce
American influence in Middle Eastern region. In short
Russia has been able to regain the lost space in Middle
East which she used to enjoy 40 years back. Today she
enjoys good relations starting from Israel to Turkey,
KSA, Egypt, Iran and Qatar not to mention Syria. There
are many countries ready to purchase military equipment
from Russia especially the famous S-400 air defence
missiles. Whereas, USA despite maintaining many bases

in the region comprising over 50000 troops and civilians

does not enjoy same leverage in Middle East barring few
countries (The Hill, 2018 March 06).
China: Contrary to many observers who argue that
Chinese’s relations with Middle East are taking a start
now, her relation with region can be traced back to the
years of Mao Zedong. Chinese ties with Middle East
expended during the era of Deng when China started
opening up its economy from late seventies onwards.
These initial ties expanded further once China permitted
individual workers, contributed in construction projects,
also allowed different groups and corporations to send
labours and to provide consultation services in the
markets of this region in mid-eighties (Daojiong &
Meidan, 2015). These workers and companies were
welcomed by host Middle Eastern countries due to their
better technological knowhow; they had no desire to
settle here, were well disciplined and followed better
work ethics. Similarly, in early eighties, a branch of
China National Petroleum Corporation commenced its
operations in Iran and Kuwait. This company after its
initial success in the region explored further
opportunities and went to Egypt and Sudan as well.
Great Wall Drilling Company of China followed suit
and took part in oil exploration in many other Middle
Eastern countries. China also exported military
hardware to many countries starting from early eighties
and countries like Egypt, KSA and Iraq became its
major customers. Later on Middle Eastern Region
became the largest purchaser of its arms and it became
major portion of its exports to this region i.e. about 78 %
of its total exports in 1984 and slightly less in 1987
which stood at 72 % King Abdullah visited China in
year 2006 which was first ever such visit by Saudi
Monarch to this country (Daojiong & Meidan, 2015).
Once Saudi relations with America went down post
9/11, in order to diversify their relations with world
powers Saudi Arabia went more close to China and their
mutual trade improved tremendously touching $74

billion in year 2012 (Daojiong & Meidan, 2015). In

2005 Saudi Arabia managed to go into a joint venture
with China in a refinery project located in Fujian
province. Similarly, Chinese relations with Iraq
improved a lot after war and visits by high level officials
were exchanged in years 2006-07. China’s National Oil
Company entered into an agreement with government of
Iraq to develop al-Ahdab oilfield securing development
rights for 23 years. Later in year 2010, China’s
Offshore Oil Corporation purchased shares in Maysan
oilfields located along Iran-Iraq border. Moreover, ever
improving Chinese relations with Middle Eastern
countries are visible from visits of their heads of states
to Beijing that include King Hamad Bin Isa the king of
Bahrain in 2013 for the first time in history of their
relations, this was followed by visit of Saudi Crown
Prince in March 2014, Iranian president and Kuwaiti
Prime Minister also visited China during the same year.
(Daojiong and Meidan, 2015)
Unlike foreign policy followed by US and Russia in the
Middle East which has political and dominance motives
attached to it, foreign policy of China is a non-
missionary in nature that too without any political
strings. What China wants is very clear, expansion of its
economic market and maximum contracts for energy so
that much needed energy is continuously supplied to it
in order to ensure her exports increased tremendously.
As China is very much interested in energy supply,
therefore wants a stable and economically progressing
Middle East. China is endeavouring to minimize
prevailing economic influence of USA through
enhanced access to Middle Eastern region, its huge
economic markets and developing close relations with
maximum countries of the region which are situated
across the new Silk Road and maritime economic belt.
In this context China’s National Petroleum Corporation
(CNPC) managed to acquire first upstream stakes in
UAE in a deal with Abu Dhabi National Oil Company in
2014 which is a first such deal by UAE which was

traditionally more comfortable with Western oil

companies (Daojiong & Meidan, 2015). Although China
is presently interested in market and energy, it may
automatically get involved in politics of the region. In
post Arab Spring developments, China differed from US
and her Western allies on their handling of Syrian and
Libyan issues and did not support military intervention.
It had very limited involvement in Syrian conflict
initially however it started taking more interest later
especially since 2016.
Lately it has shown inclination towards joining block led
by Russia and intend supporting Assad regime (Hussain
& Amna, 2016). There are many logical reasons of this
involvement; it has plans to out manoeuvre US towards
financial side, then politically and finally militarily.
Actually China has more economic stakes in Middle
East, due to her ever expanding trade in Middle East she
expects that her economic interests would be better
served by aligning with Assad regime and likely to win
his support. As part of its One Road One Belt agenda,
China announced enhancement of its non-financial
investment to Middle East from $10 billion in 2013 to $
60 billion in coming decade coupled with enhanced
cooperation in the fields of new energy, aerospace
technology and nuclear energy (Daojiong & Meidan,
2015). Moreover, China expects that its alignment with
Iran, Russia and involvement in Middle Eastern affairs
will bring economic stability in the volatile region which
in turn will provide China much needed oil and access to
large market for its arms sale. China may have more
open involvement in the region but it is still following
its traditional policy of nonintervention and has
immediately no plans to replace role of USA in Middle
East. Although China does not have any old time
traditionally affiliated allies yet its influence is
increasing very rapidly and its acceptance is increasing
day by day with regional countries.

Conclusion
Presently Middle Eastern region is passing through
difficult times of its history where a power game is
going on between regional actors as well as major global
powers. Its political landscape is marred with
uncertainty whereas socio-economic conditions which
led to popular uprising eight years ago are by and large
the same rather have gone worse in some cases. USA is
trying to retain her influence in the region which she has
been enjoying for decades. Her renewed relations with
Egypt after removal of Muhammad Morsi, continuous
support to King Abdullah of Jordon and close relations
with KSA have enabled her to forestall the threat to
Israeli security, if there was any. Russia is also busy in
establishing foothold through her allies Syria and Iran
which she has been able to achieve to some extent.
China an emerging power and future stake holder has
been able to make some inroads in the region and trying
to expand it further through her Belt and Road initiative.
KSA and Iran are busy scoring points and trying to win
support of maximum countries of the region through
their proxies and money as well as physical support in
some cases. Turkey is passing through difficult times
due to her deteriorating relations with USA and resulting
economic situation, unrest in areas adjoining Syrian
border coupled with perpetual Kurdish issue. Israel is
getting unconditional U.S. support and has been able to
put lot of pressure on Iran and her ally Hezbollah
through USA and other Western Allies. Israel and Saudi
Arabia has been successful in persuading the US to
withdraw from JCPOA and re-impose economic
sanctions on Iran. Yemen, Libya and Syria are passing
through civil war whereas situation in rest of the
countries of the region is relatively better though not
ideal. Although elections have already been conducted
and due in some countries during the current year but
genuine democratic system may take quite some time
that democracy takes roots in this war torn region of the
world.

References
 Abner Elihugh M. (2016, June 06). “The collapse of
Saudi Arabia and the cataclysmic power shift in the
Middle East”, Journal of International Affairs,
Spring/Summer 2016, 69(2), 169-173.
 Abukhalil Asad. (2012, August 28). “US Intervention in
the Arab Spring”, E-International, Retrieved from
http://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/28/us-intervention-in-the-
arab-spring/
 Alabama Moon. (2017, November 14). “Revealed-
Saudi plan to give up Palestine- for war on Iran”, Global
Research, Retrieved from
https://www.globalresearch.ca
 Baffa Richard C. & Vest Nathan. (2018, August 21).
“The growing risk of a new Middle East war”, RAND
Corporation, Retrieved from https://www.rand.org
 Bhadrakumar M.K. (2018, August 15). “US-Turkish
alliance reach the point of no return”, Asia Times,
Retrieved from http://www.atimes.com/article/us-
turkish-alliance-reaches-the-point-of-no-return/
 Borshchevskaya Anna. (2017, October 10). “Will
Russian-Saudi relations continue to improve?”, Foreign
Affairs, Retrieved from https://www.foreignaffairs.com
 CAKMAK Dr. Cenap. (2013). “Iran and Arab Spring”,
Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu
 Cartalucci Toni. (2017, December 18). “US plans slash
and burn of Middle East to minimize Iranian influence”,
New Eastern Outlook, Retrieved from https://journal-
neo.org
 Daojiong Zha & Meidan Michal. (2015). “China and the
Middle East in a new energy landscape”, Chatham
House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Retrieved from https://www.chathamhouse.org
 Ennis Crystal E. & Momani Besmma. (2013). “Shaping
the Middle East in the midst of the Arab uprisings:
Turkish and Saudi foreign policy strategies”, Third
World Quarterly, 34(6), 1127-1144. Retrieved from
http://www.arts.waterloo.ca

 Goldenberg Ilan & Smith Julie. (2017, March 07).

“U.S. - Russia competition in the Middle East is back”,
Retrieved from http://foreignpolicy.com
 Hassan Samira H. (2015). “Social media and the Arab
spring” Retrieved from https://mals.camden.rutgers.edu
 Hussain Dr. Nazir & Amna Javed. (2016). “Syrian crises
and the contours of emerging order in Middle East”,
Margalla Papers, 2016, 62-76
 Khan Dr. Raja Muhammad. (2015). “A perspective on
the evolving geopolitics in the Middle East”, Margalla
Papers, 2015, 107-132.
 Katzman Kenneth. (2018, February 15). “Bahrain:
reform, Security and U.S. policy”, Retrieved from
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/95-1013.pdf
 Kesvelioglu Abdullah. (2018, January 24). “Turkey’s
defensive offensive: operation olive branch”, Retrieved
from https://www.middleeastmonitor.com
 Mathews Jessica. (2018, June 3). “Russia replaces
America as the power player in the Middle East”,
Retrieved from http://thehill.com
 Osman Ms. Marwa. (2017). “US to balkanize Syria
under Kurdish pretext”, Retrieved from
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/383291-syria-kurdish-
balkanization-us-forces/
 Pollack Kenneth M. (2015). “U.S. policy toward a
turbulent Middle East. Testimony before the United
States Senate Committee on Armed Services”,
Brookings Institution, Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu
 Qaiser Brigadier, Khalid Amb, Abidi Colonel,
Abdulelah Group Captain & Shafiq Colonel.
Anonymous. (2013). “Arab uprising: a critical
appraisal”, Armed Forces War Course Journal, National
Defence University, Pakistan, 1(1). 53-64.
 Scheinmann Gabriel. (2013). “The real big winner of the
Arab spring” Retrieved from
https://www.globalresearch.ca

 Shaukat Sajjad. (2016). “Pakistan’s balanced foreign

policy in the Middle East” Retrieved from
http://readersupportednews.org
 Silverstein Richard. (2017, December 15). “Israel’s
Sunni-Shia divide and conquer strategy” Retrieved from
https://www.richardsilverstein.com
 Tristam Pierre. (2017, August 18). “The U.S. and the
Middle East since 1945 to 2008: a guide to Mideast
policy from Harry Truman to George W. Bush”,
Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.
 Zulfiqar Syed, Aslam Lieutenant Colonel, Ghaffar
Abdul Lieutenant Colonel, Ali Mr. Muhammad &
Masoud S/Colonel. (2016). “Conflict in Middle East;
dimensions, prospects and way forward”, Armed Forces
War College Journal, 4, 13-23

Rise of Kurds in Syria: A Case Study of YPG
Mansoor Ahmed
Assistant Professor, Area Study Centre,
qaumansoor@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The Kurds in Syria have emerged to be the most
important actor in the conflicting and chaotic regional
politics of the Middle East as they have simultaneously
become a factor of cooperation and confrontation in
Syria’s intricate crisis, known Bellum omnium contra
omnes, meaning a war of all against all. For a long
time, the Syrian Kurds have remained unfamiliar and
quiescent to the rest of the world, but the startling Arab
Spring in Syria in late early 2011 and the subsequent
rise of the self-styled Islamic State (IS) in 2014
demanded recognition of their decades-long guerrilla
expertise as the most effective weapon against the
looming security threat proliferating beyond Middle
Eastern historic borders. The YPG is the most trusted
ally of the US to wipe out the menace of Daesh (Islamic
State), but this strategic alliance has far-reaching
outcomes particularly for Turkey, a NATO partner of
the USA. Yet, the Syrian Kurds are satisfied with
maximum autonomy in a decentralized federated Syria,
but the self-rule is their first destiny towards
sovereignty. All above, Kurdish sovereignty in Iraq and
Syria would inflict far-reaching consequences on Turkey
and Iran in particular, and the Middle East in general.
Key Words: Syrian Crisis, Kurdish Nationalism, YPG,
Islamic State, Self-Rule and Regional Politics

Introduction
The Kurds, world’s largest stateless nation, straddle
across the borders of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and
Armenia are playing a dominant role in Syrian crises
which started in early 2011 as an outcome of so-called
Arab Spring. For decades, the Kurds have fought for
autonomy in Iraq, sovereignty in Turkey and now
struggling for self-rule in Syria. Kurds were promised to
have a state of their own following the end of the WW-I
but they were put under the French and British mandates
as already decided in the notorious Sykes-Picot
Agreement, secretly concluded between France and
British Empire to divide the post-war Middle East, thus
making Syria the most diversed state among all Arab
states where Arabs, Kurds, Druze, Assyrians, Yazidis,
Christians, Armenians, Sunni-Shia Muslims, Greeks and
Turks often cooperate and confront under an unpopular
but despotic Alawite minority regime. Following the
post-war decolonization, Hafez al-Assad emerged as the
strongest leader of Syria founding the Assad Dynasty
which has ruled Syria ruthlessly by purging political
opposition from all religious or ethnic groups.
The Syrian crisis has twisted to attract almost all
regional and extra-regional powers all around the world
from Oceania to eastern Pacific including the super
power (USA) and revisionist power (Russia). There are
around seventeen conflicting parties in Syria: Assad
Family and Syrian Arab Army, Russia, Iran, Hezbollah,
myriad Rebels and Free Syrian Army, USA, UK,
France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Al-
Nusra/Fateh al-Sham and ISIS/DAESH/Islamic State
and the Kurdish armed groups, fighting opposite sides
on multiple fronts. The USA has three major objectives
in Middle East: free flow of oil, security of Israel and
annihilating extremism and terrorism while for Russia
the Assad regime is the last remaining Cold War-era

strategic ally in the Middle East where it has three

military bases, Tartus which is Russia’s only
Mediterranean facility, an airbase in Palmyra and
another air base in Latakia. In Syria, Russia is
challenging the US domination in the region to elevate
the Russian lost position in global politics.
This paper attempts to look into the rise of the
marginalized Syrian Kurds in the Syrian crises whose
strategic alliance with the US to fight against the Islamic
State and other extremists groups has paved the way to
materialize their well-established longing of national
autonomy Though with the US help, the Syrian Kurds
have pulled off their longstanding demand of self-rule
by creating Federation of Northern Syria but it seems to
be extremely difficult if not impossible to maintain it in
view of the fact that both Russia and USA consider the
Kurds as pawns in the chess board of Syria conflict
where each wants to checkmate the other.
Theoretical Framework
The ethnic conflicts within national or transnational
boundaries of the modern nation-states are one of the
most important elements of the contemporary
international politics. So far, there are 193 nation states
based on Westphalian Order but there are as many as
6000-7000 distinct ethnic groups pre-dating the creation
of modern states within th0se 193 internationally
recognized polities. All such nations when combined are
estimated to be 600 million (10-15% of the world
population) who claim their rights over 25-30% of the
Earth’s surface land and natural resources. (Mayall,
1991). Within these multi-ethnic states, the marginalized
ethnicities struggle for maximum autonomy or
sovereignty on ethnic lines which cause conflict and
violence, and as a result the external powers get
opportunities to interfere and then intervene for their

national interests. Comparatively, the numbers of ethnic

conflicts have decreased following the end of the Cold
War, but there are still such perennial conflicts which
continue to haunt the global peace and security
especially in the third world countries. Despite the rise
of violence in other forms like religious fundamentalism
and sectarianism, the ethnic conflicts equally cause
bloodletting not only in underdeveloped and developing
countries of Asia and Africa but also in South America
and Europe including the Eurasian region. The ethnic
violence endures till to date ignoring the optimism of
different sociologists, political scientists and
anthropologists since early days of globalization that it
would wane with the emergence of economic
interdependence and modernization who foretold the
inevitable decline of the primordial loyalties of ethnicity
in the impending onset of integrative revolution with the
introduction of democracy, international institutions,
human rights and capitalism. (Tambiah, 1989)
Politically and economically, the Kurds in Middle East
have remained excluded from this integrative revolution
due to two major reasons: the exclusion by
majoritarianism and ethnic nationalism based on
primordialist school of thought. The debate of
nationalism and ethnic conflicts revolves around
primordialism, instrumentalism and constructivism. The
primordialism says that the ethnic conflicts originate
from ancient hatred between the different ethnic groups
based on racial, linguistic, religious, cultural, and
historical differences assigned by birth, inherent in
human nature and genetically pass from generation to
generation. Instrumentalism is based on the notion that
ethnic conflict is either driven by relationship between
economic wants/greed and grievances or the
manipulation of ethnic identities by political leaders for
their vested interests while the constructivists believe

that ethnic groups and nations are constructed for

politico-economic reasons due to modernity which cause
them to emerge, rise and then to fall, and they will be
superseded by transnational cultural forms as material
realities change.
The primordialist school of thought that synthesizes the
ethno-nationalism among all Kurds provides the
theoretical framework to this study and stimulates
political and armed struggle to form a nation-state based
on common language, history, culture and territory.
Historically, their inclusion in powerful Ottoman and
Persian Empires could not erode their primordialist
nationalism. The genesis of the modern Kurdish
movement can be trace back to the rise of early
newspapers and magazines like Kurdish Sun, Kurdish
Cultural Association in 1908, Association of Spreading
Kurdish Knowledge, the Student Association,
Association of Kurdish Independence, and Association
of Kurdish People which led to the establishment of
Khoybun Association of all above-mentioned groups.
(Mella, 2015) Although scattered across international
borders, Kurds are one of the distinctive indigenous
people of Mesopotamia. By faith, they adhere to number
of different religions and sects but vast majority of them
are Sunni Muslim. (BBC, 2015)
Despite of the unspeakable subjugation for decades, the
Syrian Kurds have been influenced by the politico-
armed struggle of their neighboring fraternities
especially in Iraq and Turkey. The Movement for
Democratic Society (TEV-DEM), the governing
coalition of 6 Kurdish parties in Rojava (Syrian
Kurdistan), draws its ideological inspiration from
Abdullah Ocala, the imprisoned Turkish Kurd leader of
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). (Zaman, Zaman) The
Arab Spring and the subsequent popular protests against
Bashar al-Assad tyrannical rule in early 2011 gave a

breathing space to the strangulated Syrian Kurds to

replicate the Kurdish struggle in Turkey and Iraq by the
Kurdish Democratic Union (PYD) in the Kurdish
dominated areas of north Syria. The PYD and its
militant wing People’s Protection Units (YPG) is widely
believed to be the derivatives of PKK. The involvement
of Kurds from all across regional borders in PYD’s
struggle in Syria justifies the primordial nature of the
ethnic-nationalism of the Syrian Kurds.
History of Kurds
Kurds constitute the largest ethnic national in the Middle
East after Arabs, Turks and Persians. There is no
accurate estimate about the total Kurdish population in
Middle East but roughly with a population of 30-35
million, Kurds live in roughly 75,000-100,000 square
miles contagious regions of modern-day southeastern
Turkey, northern Iraq, western Iran and northeastern
Syria surrounding the Zagros mountains in the north
central Middle East situated between Iranian plateau and
the Euphrates where they have settled with other ethnic
nations over the millennia. Present-day Kurdistan forms
the mountainous perimeter of historic Fertile Crescent.
According to available statistics, 14.7 million Kurds
constitute 18% of Turkish population, around 5.5
million constitute 17.5% of Iraqi population, and 8.1
million make up about 10% of the Iranian population
while more or less 1.7 million share approximately 10%
of the Syrian population. A small number of Kurds also
live in south-western Armenia and more than a million
Kurdish diaspora mostly live in European countries.
Historians generally agree that Kurds belong to Iranian
branch of the Indo-European race and Kurds called
themselves to be the indigenous ethnic group of the
Middle East who were conquered by the Muslim Arabs
and later occupied by the Seljuk Turks, Mongols,
Safavids and Ottoman Turks in the early 13th century.

Many historians hypothesize the Kurdish origin with the

Medes and Median Kingdom of 100-900 B.C. but
several historians reject this theory. However, the
Median legacy remains evident in the form of
contemporary Kurdish language. Kurds speak two major
languages: Kurmanji, spoken by northern Kurds and
Sorani, spoken by southern Kurds. Many historians
consider Kurds to be a very close ethnic group with
Baloch of Iran and Pakistan. The Baloch of Kurdish
Folk, written by Mohammad Saleh Zangana Baluch,
recalls an ancient ballad which narrates the common
origin for the Baloch and Kurds. (Izzdy , 1992) Both,
Balochi and Kurdish languages share commonalities and
there is a tribe among Baloch in Pakistan known as
Kurd.
Around 75% Kurds practice Sunni Islam, up to 15%
follow Shiite Islam while small number of Kurds also
practice Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrian.
Politically, the Kurds emerged from 7th to 9th century
after three centuries of decline under the Sasanian and
Byzantine Empires who fully converted to Islam from
Judaism and Christianity who established powerful
dynasties that defended Middle Eastern heartland
against Crusaders. Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi who
overpowered the Shiite Fatimid dynasty in Egypt and
established the most powerful Kurdish dynasty in
modern-day Egypt and Syria (1169 to 1250) is well-
regarded as a Muslim leader who successfully repelled
the invasion by the Frankish Crusaders at the Battle of
Hittin in 1187. (Eppel, 2016) During the Ottoman and
Persian Empires, the Kurds sporadically staged low-
intensity uprisings against the central rulers but it was
not until the First World War (WW-I) that the Kurds
nationalism started simmering and by the peak of the
Cold War, it became the most vibrant nationalist
movement in the Middle East. Currently, the Kurds form

the largest stateless nation on Earth with an old but still

relevant saying that they have no friends but mountains
(Kurdun heaval ninin bes ciya). The rugged terrains of
Zagros, Taurus, Pontus and Amanus mountains protect
the Kurds from being fully conquered Iranian to the east,
Turks to the north and Arabs to the south and west. Most
importantly, the Tigris-Euphrates river system, historical
part of the Fertile Crescent including the Upper and
Lower Zab rivers originates from Kurdistan. (Gunter,
2016). Majority of Kurds live in traditional nomadic
lifestyle in inhospitable mountains and have been the
biggest victim of power politics in Middle East since
they have been in relentless struggle for survival against
the Arabs, Turks and Persians to establish an
independent homeland. Although the clandestine Sykes-
Picot agreement between Great Britain and France in
1916 to carve out post-Ottoman Middle East was
catastrophic for whole region but it turned out to be
most evil for the Kurds. The secrete agreements between
Great Britain, France and Russia planned to break up the
former Ottoman areas of Syria and Lebanon as French
colonies, Palestine, Trans-Jordan and Iraq as British
colonies while most of the territories of the modern-day
Turkey were agreed to be under Russian sphere of
influence. The Sykes-Picot pact dominated by the
ruthless ambitions of the two main competing colonial
powers continues to haunt the peace and security of the
Middle East nearly a century after its execution. (Munir,
2016)
Abdulkader Shamdinan of the Kurdistan National Party
and Paris-based General Sharif Pasha who represented
the Kurds in Paris Peace Conference in 1919 demanded
for a separate Kurdish homeland, but lack of unity and
infighting among the local Kurdish leaders remained the
main obstacle to get sovereign. The Treaty of Sevres
signed between Allies and Ottoman Turkey in 1920

agreed to create an independent Kurdish state based on

Kurdish dominated areas of Turkey, Syria and Iraq.
Section III, Articles 62-64, provided for the
establishment of a Kurdish state on Kurdish territories.
According to the Article 62, a 3-member commission
representing Britain, France and Italy shall draft a
scheme of the local autonomy for the predominantly
Kurdish areas lying east of the Euphrates, south of
Armenia, north of Turkish frontier with Syria and
Mesopotamia while the Article 64 states that if within
one year from coming into force of this Treaty, the
Kurdish peoples within the areas defined in Article 62
shall address themselves to the League of Nation in such
a manner by showing that majority population of the
said areas desire independence from Turkey and latter
would be bound to the League recommendations. (Mc
Dowall, 2004) However, the Treaty of Lausanne signed
in July 1923 superseded the Treaty of Sevres in favor of
establishing a modern nation-state of Turkey by giving
control of the entire Anatolian peninsula including the
Kurd areas. In the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) that
established modern Turkey, the Greater Kurdistan was
politically eliminated. (O’Leary and Mcgarry, 2006)
Thus the newly established nationalist Turkey got
international recognition by dividing the Kurds into four
frontiers despite of their primordial bonds.
The failure of the Kurdish-led Sheikh Saad revolt in
Turkey in 1925 resulted to the exodus of large number
of Kurds to Syria. The Kurds in Iraq were permanently
incorporated after its independence from Britain in
1932. In July, 1937, the Treaty of Saadabad signed by
Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan provided an
understanding that Turkey, Iran and Iraq would
cooperate in suppressing the subversive activities of
Kurds despite of the fact that there was no specific
mention of Kurds in that pact. (Taspinar, 2005) In 1946,

with Soviet backing, the Iranian Kurds set up the short-

lived Mahabad Republic but it was soon crushed and
annihilated by the Iranian forces. The Kurdistan
Democratic Party (KDP) founded by Mustafa Barzani in
Iraq in 1946 started armed struggle for an independent
Kurdistan which was later on replicated among Kurds in
the region. After the Syrian independence in 1946, the
Kurds in Syria established the Kurdish Democratic Party
(KDPS) in 1957 which was in fact an extension of
Barzani’s KDP in Iraq.
Being the victims of international politics and
unspeakable suppression under the Arabization policy of
Saddam regime, the Kurds in Iraq have gained almost
sovereign autonomy and virtual independence. The
Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) based in
northern Iraq has become a state within the state. In July
2015, KRG President Masoud Barzani asked the
Kurdish parliament to start preparation for a referendum
on independence and the mainstream Kurdish parties
have agreed to hold a Yes-No vote in 2017. Iran which
has a considerable Kurdish minority of its own is
strengthening its relations with the KRG. Turkey, home
to the region’s largest Turkish population, is the KRG’s
largest trading partner and the incumbent Islamist
regime has adopted a reconciliatory policy despite of the
often-on and often off peace talks with Kurdistan
Workers Party (PKK) which is responsible for decades-
old insurgency in eastern Turkey where 40,000 have
been killed so far. The Kurds in Iraq also enjoy
extremely friendly relations with USA and other
European powers including Israel. Encouraged by the
tumultuous but favoring strategic environment of the
contemporary Middle East, the Kurds in Syria have set
up wide-ranging self-administration in northeast of the
country, known as Rojava or western Kurdistan, which
desire to do away with lines drawn by the infamous

Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916 which separate them

from their ethnic kith and kin in Iraq and Turkey. (Caryl,
2015)
Syrian Kurds
Around 2 million Kurds constitute largest ethnic
minority in Syria who live in 250-mile-wide stretch
between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, known as
Rojava in Syria, a de facto autonomous region consists
of Arfin, Kobani and Jazira along with Turkish border,
and have been ruthlessly repressed by the Assad
Dynasty and are among the poorest of the poor in Syria.
Syrian Kurds speak Kurmanji and are Sunni Muslims
with the exception of the Yazidis. Living under the
French mandate after the WW-I, the growing awareness
of a separate identity based on primordial attachments
raised great suspicion among Arab political elites but in
the post-colonial period, the Kurds in Syria remained
pacifist until the early 2000s when the strategic
dynamics of the Middle East started changing. (Tejel,
2009) The Syrian Kurds rioted and clashed with the
Assad forces in March 2004 after a scuffle at a soccer
match. The uprising has given the Democratic Union
Party (PYD) a political legitimacy to emerge as largest
Syrian Kurdish party established in 2003 following the
Adana Agreement between Syria and Turkey in 1998 in
which Syria declared the PKK as a terrorist organization
and promised the expulsion its leader Abdullah Ocalan
from its territory. (Turkish Foreign Affairs, 1999) The
PYD is considered to be an offshoot of PKK that was
established with the Soviet backing in 1978 in
Lebanon’s Beqaa Valley, then under Syrian occupation.
Historically, the Assad regime has tried to channel the
Kurdish nationalism in Syria towards PKK and against
Turkey.

Despite of pro-PKK polices of the Assad regime, the

Syrian Kurds have faced incessant repression. Many
have been denied Syrian citizenship by profiling them as
ajanib (foreigners) with no rights to vote, own property
or work in government jobs. Moreover, thousands have
been known as maktoumeen (concealed) who were
worse off than the ajanib with no civil rights. Above and
beyond, regime laws have banned the Kurdish cultural
centers and books including the use of Kurdish names.
(Gunter, 2014) However, the Syrian Civil War
following the so-called Arab Spring has harbingered
unheard-of strategic opportunity for the Syrian Kurds
who have emerged as a potential game changer owing to
which the PYD has manifested itself as the legitimate
representative of the Kurds. The PYD calls for the
constitutional recognition of the Kurdish rights with
democratic autonomy. The People’s Protection Units
(YPG) and its Women’s Protection Units (YPJ) are the
combative wings of the PYD.
Since the onset of the Syrian uprising in spring 2011,
Turkey, an ardent supporter of ant-Assad Syrian
National Council (SNC) and Free Syrian Army, has
been accusing the Assad regime for violating the Adana
Protocols by supporting the Kurd militants. It has been
reported that Damascus has reviewed its repressive
policies to pacify the disgruntled Kurds by offering
citizenship to 300,000 stateless Kurds who live across
the 560-mile Turkish border. It is estimated that 20-30%
of the PKK’s foot soldiers are Syrian Kurds. (Cagaptay,
2012) Kurds from Turkey, Iran and Iraq have travelled
to Syria to join the YPG to shore up PYD’s political and
military strategies in Rojava. Among the YPG
causalities between 2013 and 2016, the Turkish Kurds
total around 50% besides Iranian and Iraqi Kurds. (Stein
and Folly, 2016) The PKK-PYD alliance has become
the biggest security headache for Turkey which it

considered to be more dangerous than the self-styled

Islamic State (IS) as the YPG has become a leading
actor in Syria’s complex Civil War which enjoys
strategic partnership with both, USA and Russia to fight
against the IS in Syria and its rise is a zero-sum game
for Turkey which is home of more than 20 million
Kurds. All Kurd forces, Peshmerga, PKK and YPG,
fighting against the IS have become US natural strategic
partners in Middle East who accuse Turkey of using the
US-led coalition against Daesh/IS as a cover to attack
them instead of the real threat. (BBC, 2016) The
Kurdish opposition in Syria is quite fractured as the
PYD has been accused of being a proxy of Assad
regime. (Carnegie Middle East Center, 2012) Yet, the
PYD is the most powerful Kurdish faction in Syria
which initiated a process of self-rule after the Assad
forces withdrew from northwestern Syrian Kurdish
regions bordering Turkey. On 19 July, 2012, the
PYD/YPG declared Rojava revolution by taking villages
first as forward bases and then confiscating civic
services facilities and finally taking the regime military
headquarters. (Wilgenburg, 2016) In March 2016, the
PYD and its allies accomplished the dream of self-rule
by declaring a democratic federal system in three
predominately Kurdish Units of northern Syria with a
militia in shape of YPG and a police force known as
Asayis. This move will be dipping a toe into the roiling
waters of debate over two proposals to redraw the
Middle East by carving up fragile Syria into rump states
or, more likely, into some kind of federal system.
(Branard, 2016) Even though Russia and USA both
support a Syrian federation but they have condemned
this unilateral declaration including Turkey, Arab
League, Assad regime and the Syrian opposition. The
President of Iraqi Kurdistan, Masoud Barzani has asked
for consensus before taking such unilateral step which
has far-reaching repercussions in the extremely

destabilized region. The Kurds in Syria still lack

political harmony and homogeneity despite of such
exceptional opportunity knocking the door since 2012 as
they have best leverage to press their case for political
autonomy. Despite of being a prominent actor in the
Syrian crisis, the Kurds have been ignored in the peace
processes starting from the Arab League peace plans
2011-2012 up till the Astana talks in mid-March, 2017.
Kurds have been excluded in Kofi Annan Peace Plan
(March 2012), Geneva I (June 2012), Geneva II
(January 2014), Vienna Peace process (2015), Geneva
III (2016), Astana Talks and Ceasefire (December
2016), Astana Talks (January 2017) and Geneva IV
(February-March 2017). Currently, the Kurds control
around 12-15% of the Syrian territory.
People Protection Units (YPG)
With the introduction of right of self-determination after
the WW-I, most of the colonized stateless nations
struggled for nation-states and almost all of such ethnic
nationalities in Middle achieved Westphalian
sovereignty except Kurds. Kurds, one of the earliest
inhabitants of Fertile Crescent are still struggling to
achieve an independent state in the heart of Middle East.
(Serdar, 2016) The post-WW-I demarcation left the
Kurds with minority status in western Iran, northern
Iraq, southeastern Turkey and northern Syria. The
Syrian Kurds remained suppressed until early 2000s.
During the 30 years (1970-2000) of Hafiz al-Assad’s
rule, the Kurdish political parties were weakened and
fragmented which posed little threat to Syrian state.
During the 1980s and 1990, Hafiz Assad tolerated PKK
in Syria which also generated ethnic-nationalism among
Syrian Kurds. Understanding the changing political
dynamics of the Middle East, Partiya Yakitiya Demokrat
or Democratic Union Party (PYD) was founded in 2003
by Kurdish activists with the help of PKK in northern

Syria in order to foster a political struggle for the rights

of Kurd nation. (Sinclari and Kajjo, 2013) The 1999
Adana Agreement prompted the Syrian forces to crack
down on PKK elements in Syria, as a result, the PKK
responded by covertly setting up the PYD as its political
branch in Syria which ,later on, easily seized the 2004
uprising in Qamishli.(ICG, 2013) The Syrians Kurds
fighting in the ranks of the PKK have turned into YPG.
According to the PKK sources, from 1984 to 2012, five
thousands Syrian Kurds have lost their lives while
fighting for PKK. (Dicle, 2013)
Currently the Kurds in Syria are divided among three
major political blocs: the Kurdish National Council
(KNS), the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the
National Coordination for Democratic Change. The
KNC was formed in October, 2011 in Erbil under the
sponsorship of Masoud Barzani which represents 16
Kurdish groups ad seeks political decentralization in
Syria. The PYD is part of National Coordination for
Democratic Change which recognizes Kurdish
autonomy within Syria and pursues three principles: no
to foreign intervention, no to religious and sectarian
instigation and no to violence and militarization of the
revolution. (Carnegie Middle East Center , 2012)
The PYD was created the YPG for armed struggle after
the Qamishli uprisings in March, 2004 which erupted
during a football match when supporters of Syrian
football team, Al-Fatwa, raised a portrait of Saddam
Hussein that angered the Kurdish team, Al-Jihad, fans,
who raised Kurdistan flag but the Syrian army
responded quickly and heavy-handedly that resulted to
the killing more than 100 Kurds. Now the Qamishli is
the de-facto capital of the PYD. However, the armed
group did not officially announce its existence and
waited for the right time to get out of hibernation in
mid-2012. The Kurdish fighters earned global fame

when jihadist and fundamentalist entered the Ras-al-Ayn

town through Turkish border. The YPG successfully
expelled these fundamentalist fractions (Ghuraba al-
sham and Al-Nusra front) out of the city in 2012. Since
then, the YPG has become an impregnable force in
Syrian crisis. It also includes Arabs, Armenians
Christians, Assyrians and other minorities among its
ranks besides foreigners from USA, Australia and other
European countries. After the Civil War started in 2011,
the PYD strengthened its hold in Kurdish enclaves of
Afrin, Kobani, Cizire and the Sheik Maqsoud district in
the Aleppo city while YPG emerged as Kurdish army to
protect those areas from Islamic State and other anti-
Kurdish forces. The YPG is the defence force of the
Democratic Administration of Rojava which is currently
combating the Islamic State with 60,000 fighters
including its all-female affiliate the YPJ which are
expected to exceed 100,000 at the end of 2017. With the
support of Peshmerga and US air support, YPG retook
Kobani from the Islamic State in early 2015 and it also
fought with Peshmerga to free Yazidi community from
IS’ control in Sinjar, Iraq. It also captured the Manbji
from the Islamic State in August 2016 and actively
engaged in the ongoing Raqqa Offensive against the IS
in Syria. The inclusion of YPG forces in the fight for
Raqqa is the sticking point for Turkey which views the
Syrian Kurds fighters in disguise of PKK. (The News
Arab, 2017) The YPG has remained the bone of
contention between the USA and Turkey, two anti-
Assad Nato partners as latter wants former to support the
Turkish-backed forces fighting Assad and the IS in Syria
while USA heavily rely on YPG to against IS and other
terrorist groups.
The US supports the YPG for two reasons: firstly, their

offensive has been successful and narrowly focused on
fighting IS. Secondly, in the propaganda war, West’s

public sympathy has leaned to view the Kurds as the

most forward-looking rebel group in the battle against
extremism. (Stephens and Stein, 2015) Turkey is deeply
worried with the group’s military advances and
sympathetic treatment in international media because it
considers YPG as the Syrian branch of the PKK which
has clearly adopted the latter’s ideology and aspiration.
The PKK’s imprisoned leader Abdullah Ocalan’s
Democratic Autonomy and Confederalism vision is
being implemented in Rojava. His book, Sociology of
Freedom is a kind of road map for the liberation of
Rojava which outlined a plan for a democratic,
ecological and gender-liberated society which the Kurds
of Rojava has already created. (Knapp, 2017) It is the
most dominant partner in the US-backed Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF). The US supports the SDF to
fight against the IS and Al Nusra Front/Jabhat Fateh al-
Sham by carrying out targeted strikes inside Syria from
its bases in south Turkey, Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan,
western Iraq and eastern Mediterranean. (Weaver and
Borger, 2015 ) In a nutshell, the YPG contend to be a
multi-ethnic legitimate military institution of all ethnic
groups of Syria including Arabs to fight for the self-
defense of all Syrians in accordance with universally
accepted laws of conflicts and wars.
Leadership of YPG:
Sipan Hemo is the Commander-in-Chief of the YPG and
all of its factions. Other important leaders are Redur
Xelil, Xebar Ibrahim, Ali Boutan, Ciwan Ibrahim and
Rosna Aked while Salih Muslim Muhammad is the head
of its political wing, PYD.
Women’s Protection Units:
Women’s Protection Units or YJP is another militant
wing of the PYD which includes only female fighters
that recruits and trains Kurd women to fight against the

IS and other militant groups. The YJP’s arm force is

estimated to be around 15000 female soldiers and it is
commanded by Nessrin Abdullah. The Kurdish women
have historically remained warriors. In the late 19 th
century, Kara Fatima led a battalion of almost 700 men
in the Ottoman Empire and in 1974, Leyla Qasim, at the
age of 22, become the first female to be executed by the
Iraqi Baath Party due to her struggle for Kurdish cause.
(Dirik, 2014) Female force equally participate in many
battles against IS that has resulted to decisive victories
for the PYD.
Economy of YPG:
The Rojava in Syria has a very strong local-based
economy from where the YPG generates a large portion
of its revenues since the Kurdish enclaves are
considered to be breadbasket of Syria which once
provided the Syrian Arab Republic with more than 40%
of its entire GDP. (Cooperative Economy in Rojava,
2017) Another major source of income for the YPG is
selling of oil as the Rojava region produces about
40,000 barrels of crude oil a day. Other financial sources
include funding from foreign supporters and tax
collection from formal and informal economic activities
within the territories it controls. Each YPG fighter gets a
monthly salary of $200. (Themanews, 2017)
Additionally, it also gets lethal and non-lethal material
support from the USA.
Asayish (Police Force)
It is the Kurdish police force in Rojava which is
responsible for internal security of all three Kurdish
cantons in Syria which is consists of around 15,000
personnel; 10,000 in Jazira, 3,000 in Afrin and 2,000 in
Kobani and 30% of Asayish are women, getting $120
monthly salaries. (Tastekin, 2017) Its organizational
composition is based on modern police force structure.

Arms and Tactics of YPG:

The YPG heavily replies on guerrilla-style battle field
tactics with the use of foot soldiers, snipers, machine
guns, self-produced mortars and explosives. Previously
the YPG fighters have been fighting with light Soviet-
made weapons but since the intensification of the
Islamic State’s widening threat, the USA has been
providing sophisticated arms and ammunitions to them.
Until late 2015, the US had provided 120 tons of
weapons and ammunition to the YPG. (Rogin and Lake,
2015) Although publically denying arms supplies to the
YPG to avoid Turkish hostile response, the US officials
have confirmed on many occasions that they are
supplying arms to a Kurdish-led coalition in Syria.
(Borger and Hawramy, 2016) The YPG follows a third
line: not backing Syrian opposition or the regime
because both reject Kurdish rights. Today, the PYD and
YPG control almost 90% of the 18300 square kilometer
territory of all three cantons of Rojava.
YPG Role in Syrian Crises
The Syrian conflict started in 2011 with the herald of the
Arab Spring at Deraa, a southern city of Syria when
state forces brutally opened fire on peaceful protesters
who were demanding justice for the teenagers arrested
and tortured by the national armed forces for painting
anti-Assad slogans. The mutilation and death of Hamza
al-Kateeb, a 13-year old boy arrested during a protest in
April 2011, triggered, was nationwide protests by
demanding President Assad’s resignation but Assad
forces retaliated ruthlessly. Hence, worsening the
situation then turned into a civil war which has wreaked
havoc in Syria. The core conflict started between
President Bashar al-Assad and the divided rebels which
opened a second conflict when the minority Kurds took
up arms in 2012. The third multifaceted conflict in Syria
involves the Islamic State against all: Assad, Kurds and

rebels, whereas the fourth and most dangerous conflict

has engulfed the foreign powers which are fighting to
serve their own interest with in the region without
realizing about the devastating consequences brought
upon the innocent civilians. (Fisher, 2016) Covertly or
overtly, five countries are playing major role in Syria
with different agendas: Iran along with its Lebanese
allied Hezbollah supports Assad regime which enjoys
the Russia’s unyielding backing too. Saudi Arabia along
with Jordan, Qatar and the UAE shore up the rebels and
purportedly some extremists groups to replace Assad
with a friendly government. Turkey backs rebels against
Assad and also targets Syrian Kurds. With a stalemate
against Assad and growing influence of Kurds, Syria has
become a double quagmire for Turkey. (Pips, 2014) The
USA supports the YPG and other moderate rebels
against Assad and the Islamic State. In this multiparty
conflict, the YPG has also maintained close relation with
Russia which insists the recognition and inclusion of
Kurds in the post-war settlements in Syria.
The course to autonomy and ultimate sovereignty is not

a cakewalk for Kurds as they are surrounded by
unfriendly neighbor from all sides. Turkey has adopted
all means to suppress Syrian Kurds. Turkish government
has threatened to attack Syria if Kurdish autonomy was
established for the reason that Turkey is extremely wary
of domino effect of Kurdish autonomy in the region.
More importantly, the KRG in Iraq is not in a position to
alienate Turkey, its largest trading partner, by supporting
Syrian Kurds. Turkey has remained an important
regional ally of the USA during the Cold War and with
the re-emergence of Russia as a potential challenger, the
USA can ill-afford to push away Turkey. Russia’s first
and foremost strategic priority is the survival of Assad
regime. Iran’s Al-Quds force with 8,000 combatants is
fighting for the survival of Assad too. But on the other

side, with the increasing threat of the Islamic State in

Iraq, the Iranian authorities have encouraged their Kurd
fellows to join Kurdish Peshmerga as volunteers against
Daesh/IS who then moved to Syria to fight for the YPG
but Kurds rise in Syria is equally detrimental for Iranian
territorial integrity. (Jedinia and Kajjo, 2016) Even if the
Kurds in Iran are weak and splintered but the Iranians
are likewise cautious concerning the YPG’s burgeoning
role in Syria as Kurd population in Iran could be
affected by the very definition of domino theory since
hundreds from Iranian Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK)
have joined the YPG. With the recent US strike on
Syrian Shayrat base after the chemical attacks on
civilian in Idlib province, the Assad’s future seems to be
quite uncertain, hence, Russia has no rely on Iran as its
last remaining strategic partner in Middle East.
Conclusion
The military success of YPG and the political success of
the PYD have propelled the Syrian Kurds into a more
advantageous bargaining position but their strategic
goals are so near and yet so far their because several
arch-rival are fighting the opposite sides in the Syrian
crisis. The US direct involvement in Syrian crisis after
the tragic chemical attack will bring it in direct face-off
with the Russians for the reason that Russia would go to
the last extent to salvage the beleaguered Assad regime.
The Kurds seem to be acting rationally by maintaining
somehow better relation with Russia which supports the
PYD to be included in Syrian peace talks, however,
Russia will not support Kurds beyond a negotiated
federation which would be its least strategic option.
Kurds must be part of a negotiated solution of the 7-year
old Syrian Civil War. The PYD reaction by proclaiming
an autonomous federal region in northern Syria would
be detrimental to their hard-achieved successes which

lack international recognition. Indeed, such unilateral

declaration could be the first step towards their ultimate
destiny but as it is said that haste makes waste and the
Syrian Kurds must follow the kin-model of the KRG in
Iraq that was achieved after decades of struggle against
the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. The best possible
solution to the chronic Kurdish issue across the Syrian-
Turkish frontier is a negotiated autonomy following the
conflict resolution in Syria. Bashar al-Assad should
realize the existing realities in Syria sooner than later
and must negotiate a peaceful and acceptable solution of
the Syria conflict. As the US wants to exclude Bashar al-
Assad in any future political set-up, Russia wants him to
be part of transition process. Evaluating the US-UK-
backed mistakes in Iraq and Libya (as observed in
Chilcot Inquiry reports on both countries), a forced
regime-change in Syria could repeat the strategic
blunders committed in Iraq and Libya. Moreover, the
USA and Russian must relinquish their tough stances
based on “my way or no way” to end the continuous
bloodletting in Syria.
As Russia and Iran backed Syrian forces are preparing to
take back the de-escalation zones – ceasefire proposals
agreed in the Kazakh capital Astana aimed at ending the
Syrian war sponsored by Russia, Iran and Turkey – in
Idlib province, northeastern areas of Latakia province,
northern areas of Hama province, western areas of
Aleppo province, the Rastan and Talbiseh enclave in the
northern Homs province, Eastern Ghouta in the north
Damascus countryside and the rebel-controlled south
along the border with Jordan including the parts of
Deraa and Quneitra provinces, but the Taif Agreement
could be the best model of conflict resolution in Syria.
The Taif Agreement of 1989 where Saudi Arabia and
Syria played a major role to end the 15-years Civil War
in Lebanon could be the best model to engage Iran and

Saudi Arabia to end the Syrian Civil War with the help
of USA and Russia. Furthermore, an internationally
recognized and all-inclusive transitional government
should be constituted to write an interim constitution for
Syria which must address the importunate Kurdish
question once and for all as Kurds are predestined to
their final and much-awaited destiny.

References
 Branard, Anne. (March 16, 2016). Syrian Kurds Hope to
Establish a Federal Region in Country’s North.
Retrieved on 23 January, 2018, from www.nytimes.com
 Borger, Julian and Hawramy, Fazel. (29th September,
2016). US providing light arms to Kurdish-led coalition
in Syria, official confirms. Retrieved on 22 January,
2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/international
 Cagaptay, Soner. (5 April, 2012). Syria and Turkey: The
PKK Dimension. Retrieved on January, 17, 2018 from
www.washingtoninstitute.org
 Caryl, Christian. (Jan 21, 2015.). The World’s Next
Country. Retrieved on January, 15, 2018 from
www.foreignpolicy.com
 Dicle, Ahmed. (September 23, 2013). Rojava’s Political
Structure. Retrieved on 16 January, 2018, from
http://www.jadaliyya.com
 Dirik, Dilar. (29th October, 2014). Western fascination
with ‘badass’ Kurdish women. Retrieved on 15 January,
2018, from www.aljazeera.com
 Eppel, Michael. (2016), A People Without a State: The
Kurds from the Rise of Islam to the Dawn of
Nationalism, University of Texas Press.
 Fisher, Max. (September 18, 2016). Straightforward
Answers to Basic Question About Syria’s War?
Retrieved on 11 January, 2018, from www.nytimes.com
 Gunter, Michael M. (2010). Historical Dictionary of the
Kurds, Scarecrow Press.
 Gunter, Michael M. (2014). Out of Nowhere: The Kurds
of Syria in Peace and War, London: C. Hurst & Co.
Publisher
 Izzdy, Mehrdad R. (1992). The Kurds: A Concise
History and Fact Book, Washington: Taylor & Francis,
Inc.
 Jedinia Mehdi and Kajjo, Sirwan. (28th September,
2016). Iranian Kurds Bolster Anti-IS Forces in Iraq,
Syria. ?. Retrieved on 10 January, 2018, from
www.voanews.com

 Mayall, James. (1991) Nationalism and International

Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991
 Mc Dowall, David. (2004). A Modern History of Kurds:
Third Edition, New York: I.B. Tauris.
 Mella, Jawad. (2015). Kurdistan And The Kurds Under
The Syrian Occupation, Indiana: Xlibris.com
 Minutes of the Agreement Signed by Turkey and Syria in
Adana, (20th October, 1999). Retrieved on January 15,
2018 from Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of
Turkey, http://www.mafhoum.com/press/50P2.htm
 Munir, Jim. (16th May, 2016). Sykes-Picot: The map that
spawned a century of resentment. Retrieved on January
17, 2018, from www.bbc.com
 National Coordination Body for Democratic Change.
(January 15, 2012). Retrieved on 10 January, 2018, from
www.carnegie-mec.org
 O’Leary, Brendan, Mcgarry John et. al. (2006). The
Future of Kurdistan in Iraq, Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
 Pips, Daniel. (June 17, 2014). Turkey Support for ISIS
Islamist Terrorists. ?. Retrieved on 13 January, 2018,
from www.meforum.org
 Rogin, Josh and Lake Eli. (October 15, 2015). U.S.
Airdrop in Syria Ends Up Arming the Kurds. Retrieved
on 15 January, 2018, from www.bloomberg.com
 Serdar, Ahmet Akturk. (2016). The Kurds: A Modern
History, Retrieved from on 22 January, 2018 from
Middle East Policy Council, http://www.mepc.org
 Sinclari, Christian and Kajjo, Sirwan. (2013). The
Revolution of Kurdish Politics in Syria. In The Arab
Revolt: Dispatches on Middle East Democracy in
Middle East”, ed., David, Amanda, Indiana University
Press
 Stein Aaron and Folly Michelle. (January 26, 2016. The
YPG-PKK Connection. Retrieved on January 15, 2018,
from www.atlanticcouncil.org
 Syria’s Kurds: A Struggle Within a Struggle, (January
22, 2013). Retrieved on January 15, 2018, from
www.acaps.org

 Stephens, Michearl and Stein, Aaron. (18 June, 2015).

The YPG: America’s new best friend?. Retrieved on 12
January, 2018 from www.aljazeera.com
 Tambiah, Stanley J. (1989). “Ethnic Conflict in the
World Today”, American Ethnologist, Vol. 16, No. 2,
Wiley: American Anthropological Association.
 Taspinar, Omer. (2005). Kurdish Nationalism and
Political Islam in Turkey: Kemalist Identity in
Transition, New York: Routledge.
 Tastekin, Fehim. (January 30, 2017). Does Syria really
want to reconcile with Kurds? Retrieved on 13 January,
2018, from www.al-monitor.com
 Tejel Jordi. (2009). Syria’s Kurds: History, Politics and
Society, New York: Routledge.
 The Kurdish Democratic Union Party. ((March 01,
2012). Retrieved on 12 January, 2018, from
www.carnegie-mec.org
 The Economy of Rojava. (March 4, 2017). Retrieved on
16 January, 2018, from www.cooperativeeconomy.info
 Turkey v Syria’s Kurds v Islamic State. (August 23,
2016). Retrieved on January 10, 2018 from
www.bbc.com
 War in IS: Raqqa offensive begins immediately after
Mosul. (March 19, 2017). Retrieved on 10 January,
2018, from www.alaraby.co.uk
 Weaver Matthew and Borger, Julian. (1 December,
2015). Syria airstrikes: everything you need to know,
Retrieved on 14 January, 2018, from
www.theguardian.com
 Who are Kurds? (March 14, 2016). Retrieved from
www.bbc.com on 1st December, 2017.
 Wilgenburg, Wladimir van. (26 August, 2016).
Dissecting the YPG: Operations and Strategies as the
Defender of Rojava. Retrieved on 22 January, 2018,
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mec/2016/08/26/
 Zaman, Amberin. (January 27, 2017). Hope and fear for
Syria’s Kurds, Retried on January, 17, 2018, from
www.al-monitor.com

Military Regimes and Stability in the Middle

East: A Case Study of Iraq
Aqeel Ahmed
M.Phil Scholar at Area Study Centre,
Kareemaqeel16@gmail.com
Aziz Ahmed
Lecturer of History
azizshahrak@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The communal differences under the colonialism of the
Ottoman rulers and later on of the British, Italians and
the French were too high. The Muslims being ill-
educated and politically weak under the subjugation of
colonial rule became acquainted to servitude. For the
very reason, the decades of rule of the military dictators
left them remain dormant and face the despotism of the
rulers silently. In recent decades, coup activity by
Middle Eastern militaries has fallen sharply. While
armies remain important and powerful in regional
states, governments (often led by former officers) have
learned how to control their armed forces. To some
extent, however, this has produced a situation in which
the effectiveness of Arab and Iranian military
establishments has declined due to the restrictions
placed on them by governments.
Key Words: Arab Nationalism, Military Regimes,
Baath Party, Dictator, Stability and Imperialists.

Introduction
Our views of the military's role in Middle East politics
have largely been formed by the history of the 1950s,
1960s, and 1970s in the region. The armed forces were
highly politicized and rulers generally failed to control
them. During this period, too, the armed forces were the
most effective national institutions and, at times, the
only effective one. The current era, beginning in the
1970s, was shaped by these military regimes and by the
remaining civilian rulers who had learned how to
survive this threat. They were determined to prevent
military officers from staging any fresh coups. Indeed,
governments did have a great deal of success in
preventing their armies from intervening in politics. The
limits placed on the regular militaries as a tool for
fighting external wars have made it more necessary for
states to develop other means of projecting power,
ranging from sponsorship of terrorism to obtaining
Weapons of Mass Destruction. Certainly, the high level
of conflict in the Middle East has led to periodic wars.
Yet this history has also shown the risks involved in
normal warfare and the frequency of defeat for Arab and
Iranian armies. The possession of strong deterrence,
especially by Israel, has also discouraged direct assault.
After the 1980s, the decline of one superpower sponsor
in the region, the Soviet Union, and the relative strength
and willingness to intervene by the sole remaining
superpower, the United States, accelerated this trend.
(Ajami, 1991)
Consequently, such tools as the use of proxies,
subversion, terrorism, and an attempt to obtain Weapons
of Mass Destruction have become important means of
power projection compared to the use of regular armed
forces. Regarding this task, the failure of Arab and
Iranian armies is an important factor in the modern
Middle East's history. Most obviously, Arab armies

were unable to destroy Israel or even to inflict defeats on

that country during the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, 1969-
70 (war of attrition), 1973, or 1982 (Lebanon). While
the Egyptian army can be said to have contributed to
that state's regaining of the Sinai Peninsula through its
successes in the early part of the 1973 war, this is about
the sole gain that can be cited during the five decades of
Arab- Israeli conflict. In power projection terms, the
Arab states failed to eliminate, dominate, defeat, or force
significant concessions from Israel. A second area of
general failure in Arab power projection was the efforts
to use military force to promote Pan-Arab nationalist
objectives or, to put it another way, to ensure one Arab
state's regional hegemony and absorption of neighbors.
(AbuKhalil, 1992)
The Military Regimes
The military regimes are those regimes or the forms of
governments where the military dictatorship has been
established and all the administrative machinery of the
state is under the direct command of the army. As far as
the military regimes of the Middle East are concerned,
during the past four years several Middle Eastern
countries have experienced governmental changes in
which the army took an active part. In Syria and Egypt
the army deliberately intervened to overthrow
discredited regimes and to depose the heads of state. In
Lebanon and Iraq the heads of state, themselves alarmed
by an intense struggle among rival political parties,
invited the army to intervene in order to maintain order.
The military regimes have justified their rule on the
basis of massive scale of policy reforms which suited
their interests and consolidated their grip of power on
the institutions. (Khadduri, 2013)

Sectarian and Ethnic Hatred during the Military

Regimes
Independent actors in the region are very effective in
molding public sentiments and brainwashing them. The
entire belt of the Middle East in the current scenario is
suffering through insurgency, militancy and other non-
state actors, but anti-state actors. As those actors are a
part of the society and they are deeply involved in the
social life of the people of the region, they are at a better
position to project their sentiments among the public to
gain support, patronization and sympathy. Their
propaganda through the use of religion or by promoting
the war literature have witnessed success since the
sharpening of the sectarian hatred and then throughout
the war on terror. Later, other religious parties exploited
the emotional attachment of the public for religion and
molded their opinion accordingly. (Ajami, 1991)
Today, the public opinion toward religious issues is very
rigid and harsh. More mob violence and sectarian
violence is witnessed. More anti-Americanism is the
result of how the speeches and words of the religious
leaders and religious Ulema depict America. Not only
the depiction of America, but the Ulema of different
sects are targeting each other also creating a very
uncertain situation that was once created by the military
dictators in attempts to impose their hegemony over the
others. (Makiya, 1993) The fact of the matter is that the
unilateral campaigns of first Jamal Abdul Nasser and
then by Syria and Iraq against Israel for the so called
support of Palestine in order for gaining local and
regional support were not for bringing Arab nationalism
to its zenith or consolidating its foundations. These
initiatives were not even aimed at bringing harmony and
unity among the Arab nations. As a matter of fact, these
campaigns were based on two political objectives, first
was to gain legitimacy as Saddam Hussein, Hafiz al

Assad, Hosni Mubarak and other leaders of Tunisia and

Yemen had come to power through coups and not
approved means of public support. (Khadduri, 2013)
Therefore, in order to gain the support of public to
become their legitimate rulers, they cashed in the
Palestinian cause which soon doomed to dust as soon as
these dictators consolidated their power sin their
respective domains. The second aspect of these
campaigns was to divert the attention of the public from
the miseries and grievances that they had been facing for
centuries and yet not heeded by any ruler whether a
monarch or a dictator. However, these were not the only
reasons of the implications of their policies that have
created instability in the Middle East. Some very pivotal
policy measures of these dictators which left deep
imprints on the political course of the Middle East in the
time to come are given below. (al-Khuli, 1992)
Arms Race and the Endeavors for Supremacy of the
Arab World
The arms are man-made device manufactured for the
purpose of inflicting damage to humans, structure and to
the systems. Presence of weapons for maintenance of the
efficacy of the security of a society is quintessential,
arms manufactured for sustaining the local security,
gaining strategic advantages or enhancing power,
however, arms and weapons must be preserved and
regulated by the law enforcing agencies and
organizations. If arms become accessible to individuals
in the society, they inflict reversing consequences on the
overall life structures.
Ever since awareness has spread about the intensity of
the damage small arms and light weapons can bring
upon a society, the advanced democratic countries of the
West and Asia have enforced strict weapons regulatory
laws in which access of ordinary people to weapons is

denied. An armless society is a secure society only the

arms should stay confined to the access of the security
agencies. (Isakhan, 2011) In spite of seeing what the
weapons have done to the world in the two great wars
and what they can do to Middle East, the race in
conventional weapons saw its prominence in the late
1960’s and throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s when
Middle East saw some of its greatest conflicts like the
Iraq-Iran war and the Gulf War and the War on Terror.
Beside these wars which proved highly stimulating and
instrumental in pushing the military dictators for
manufacturing of the weapons more and more, there
were many internal chaotic conditions as well like that
of the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, PLO in
Jordan and Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the
Kurdish Militia. (Hamid, 2011)
Once these all factors are discussed and gone through, it
is realized that weapons are highly pervasive in the
society and it is not easy to get rid of them unless the
public is molded against them. The arms race not only
divided the Arab nations giving a fatal blow to the very
concept of Arab nationalism and Pan-Islamism, in fact,
the arms race gave way to the ill-will of these countries
for regional supremacy. The ill-will policies led Iraq to
first engage in a sanguinary and bloody war with Iran
with no ground breaking outcome and then its invasion
of Kuwait not only brought it an image of a belligerent,
but also alienated it from the rest of the Middle East.
That is the main reason that no Arab country came to its
rescue when USA invaded Iraq in 2003. The instability
and chaos ensuing the fall of the dictator Saddam
Hussein spilled over to other countries and at the current
moment, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Egypt are facing the
repercussions of the ill-conceived policies of the
dictators in shape of extremism, radicalism,

communalism, sectarianism, militancy and political

turmoil. (Seeberg, 2007)
The Use of Media to Promote Vested Interests
The current status of media reveals that yellow
journalism and sensationalism is that entire media has
left with it. Lobbies and pressure groups within media
have emerged. Political interference in media is higher
than ever and the pressure groups are tilting news
making process toward commercialism. The influence of
owners and investors is growing rapidly where they
want the journalists to project the news in a manner
which may distort the genuine nature of news, but
should attract more and more people toward it. Any
news of controversial nature or highly critical news first
goes to the news agencies for confirmation then it goes
on air. If news is churned out to seek the truth, it is a
good point, but for most of the part the news is censored
in order to see whether the news is beneficial to the
agencies for profit-making or not. (Hamid, 2011)
This highly censored and immature media was
grooming during the reign of the military dictators who
used the media for their personal gains and made it
hostile toward others. For instance, Iraq made the media
quite hostile to Iran and Kurds during his autocratic rule.
The other military dictators followed the suit. Egypt was
a long aspirant for dominating the Arab world and its
given desire had been challenged by the emerging state
of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Hosni Mubarak made a media
blackout as for as the internal affairs were concerned.
He strictly kept the media under control and kept it
hostile toward the other regional powers. (V, 1992)
John Locke in his highly reputed work called the, “An
essay on the understanding of the humans” said that the
world had changed and the politics was no mere the
authority of a single autocrat, but it was composed of

three things, first the divine laws, then the civil laws and
then the human judgment or the public opinion. It was
his work and his efforts that democracy and public
freedom of expression got a place in the American life
and the American constitution. The military
establishments in the Middle East exercised great
influence on the politics and later economy of the
empires and state. (Hamid, 2011) The French revolution
made the world realized that the public held the basic
key to sovereign authority and that the public opinion
was a major factor in forming and shaping the state
affairs. Hegel writes that public opinion is both the
combination of truth and falsehood and he is right to a
great account. But the role of media and the formation of
the public opinion have been shaped in the total opposite
to what has been mentioned above. Every dictator from
Muammar Qaddafi to Saddam Hussein and from Hosni
Mubarak to Bashar al Assad, media was under strict
surveillance and censorship and it was used as an
instrument to project their vested interests and mold
public opinion accordingly. They kept fuelling ethnic
and religious nationalism among their people discarding
the consequences; as a result, the Arab countries began
to get alienated from each other. (Pollock, 1992)
The Birth of Radicalism
The radical turn in the public opinion and public
emotions was not running that much deep before the
military regimes in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Syria, but the
decade of 1980’s just proved a fatal episode for religious
liberalism and extremist views replaced general
tolerance. The Islamization policies of radicalized public
thinking and that is the same reason why today religion
is a defining actor in shaping public opinion. If Islam is
taken out of the national identity, the identity crisis will
never cease. Ethnic groups promote nationalism on the
basis of ethnic affiliation; seculars want more

modernization and Westernization. Lingual differences

will ensue leading to further chaos in the country.
Therefore, religion is the social, political and economic
bond which has mobilized and cohesive the people in
the country under a single slogan of Islam. These
Islamization policies were not to unite each other, but to
oppose each other and to impose their respective version
of the religion on the other. Sunni and Shia countries
saw the greatest period of tensions and mutual hatred
since the Shia Sunni sectarian conflicts of the 12 th and
13th centuries. (Amatzia Baram, 1993)
Beside the religious radicalism, the nationalist
radicalism was ardently promoted since the military
dictators were edging toward the attainment of the
totalitarian control of the states. These measures of
radicalism to accelerate their representative ethnic and
geo-cultural nationalism at the expense of the Muslim
Ummah and Arab nationalism not only weakened the
cause of the unity of the Arab world, but also alienated
the dictators from each other. (Bengio, 1998)
Politico-Armed Movements against Dictatorship
Weakened Regional Stability
There are a number of factors that influence public
opinion. They have been influencing public sentiments
and shaping their way of behavior since the very
beginning. Most of the public in the Middle East as a
whole is not properly educated. The World
Development Indicators 2013 supervised by United
Nations Development Program reveal that only 43% of
the total population of 26 Arabic speaking countries of
the Middle East as a whole is actually educated and the
rest is illiterate. However, among this 43% only a few
have political understanding and the rest are politically
dormant and politically immature. (Middle East
Contemporary Survey, 2013)

Owing to these disparities of the privileged class and the

deprived class, the apprehensions of the public grew and
so grew their political as well as economic grievances
which culminated in the rise of the various political
movements throughout the Middle East. The most
notable of certain movements are the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt, Palestinian Liberation
Organization (PLO) in Jordan and Palestine, Hezbollah
in Lebanon and the Kurdish Militia. These movements
starting with the political slogans soon turned violent
and radical, thus, striking a serious blow to the security
stability of the Middle East. (Natali, 2005)
Security Instability in the Region
Like Hosni Mubarak and Saddam Hussein who were
formerly affiliated to the army, Muammar Qaddafi as
well made a just façade, depending on a three-layered
local government framework to legitimize military
principle. These local bodies served as the military's
regular citizen base consequently for monetary and
political advantages. Decisions to union (town) chamber
councils were hung on a non-party premise in 1979,
1983 and 1987. The public not only grew radical and
extreme, but also grew weary of the ruling dictators and
began to incline toward armed struggle. Considerable
public support of the militants and the public sympathy
toward the militants in the conflict zone areas bear
glaring evidence to the fact that public opinion is
shifting in their favor owing to less state attention and
due to their deteriorating living conditions. Agitations,
mass protests, communal discord and sectarian warfare,
all of the above are the by-product of the decades long
dictatorship of the military rulers which have engulfed
Middle East today. (A, 2003)

Stagnation of the Political Process and Progress

The lack of proper guidelines for electoral reforms
throughout consecutive democratic regimes is one of the
major causes of the weak and instable status of
democracy and non-penetration of democratic norms in
the society. The electoral reforms and introduction of
technology in many countries of the Middle East and in
their election process and scrutiny is something highly
significant for the future of transparent governance in
the country.
A dark future of democracy in the region prevails owing
to the security, intelligence intervention in politics and
the foreign pressures. Any political reforms even if that
is the electoral reforms will succumb to these elements
and end in failure. (Reich, 2005 Edition) The political
reforms in the Middle East in the past have been
confined to paper work and it was the establishment that
had pressurized the monarchs to go forward and
implement the democratic process. Therefore, the role of
military establishment in the process of the political
reforms is also highly significant. For the very reason,
the political reforms have doomed to failure where the
reforms have mainly been kept on paper work and there
have been no efforts at large to materialize the reforms.
The rigid behavior of the Middle Eastern countries
toward democracy and its reforms is also a serious cause
of lethargic and lackadaisical performance of democracy
in the country. The cultural rigid practices and religious
chauvinism still hamper the acceptance of democracy
and individual liberty at large obstructing the
implementation of reforms. These reforms also include
the electoral reforms. (Middle East Contemporary
Survey, 2013)

From the Western age of Enlightenment to the Dark

Age of Middle East
In the earlier democratic practices of the Age of
Enlightenment, public opinion was of two kinds; first,
there was epistemology (this term means the critical
study and critical observation of something in order to
gain better knowledge or understanding of something or
someone), and the second sense was goodwill regards.
(Pateman, 1970) In the first sense, the public opinion
was highly critical of the political process, the policy-
making and the patterns of rule. This was communicated
by the intellectual writings of that time like Rousseau,
Montesquieu, John Locke and Voltaire. In the second
sense, the public opinion held someone in high esteem
and reputation. The first sense was based on critical
judgment of the performance while the other sense was
about the moral judgment.
The awareness about their rights and obligations made
them realize that how badly they were deprived of their
rights and this is the main reason, which led to the fall of
the French Monarch Louis XVI leading to the French
revolution. This revolution later spread to other parts of
the Europe and gradually with the passage of time till
the early 20th century, most of the Europe had witnessed
the fall of monarchies. Royal absolutism was challenged
across the world and more public awareness created
more challenges for the monarchs to maintain their
power. Not only the monarchs, but also the power of the
Catholic pope and his colleague was challenged. The
early 20th century saw the rise of public democracies and
the diminishing influence of the Church and the kings.
(V, 1992)
However, these changes and revolutions did not see their
way to the Middle East where democracy could never
make a fertile ground for its practices and norms. First

the monarchies, then the military regimes tore the public

wishes away crushing and trampling over their rights.
Internally, they suppressed the public and externally,
they fuelled hatred, power politics and tug of war for
regional supremacy. Those communities who raised
their voice were crushed like the Kurds of Iraq at the
hands of Saddam who perished numbering in thousands
for attaining their basic rights. (Dawisha, 2004)
Conclusion
The military dictators of the Middle East and their
attitude toward the regional stability have been
explained in a comprehensive manner in this research
article. The research suggested measures to offset their
negative influence. Thus, the research proved it this
important document to identify these actors and
recognize those areas wherein they can contribute or
intervene in order to create disturbance and unrest in the
society. Civil wars, environmental security and
degradation, overpopulation, refugee movements,
international terrorism, spread of disease and ethnic
conflict are some of the leading non-conventional threats
to the national security of all those counties that saw the
fall of the decades of military dictatorship and despotism
to come to an end. Involvement of non state actors like
NGO’s, media and financial institutions into the matters
of nation states through the means of soft power is non
military and non-traditional security threat. Since their
fall led to the political crises that still remain unabating,
a sense of security crisis is brewing over the Middle East
entirely.
Trans-nationalization link up war or post war economies
with cross border smuggling routes and global shadow
markets, it also promotes dissident political agendas and
ideological propaganda that are disseminated through
international supporters. The Baathist parties are those

entities which are participating or acting in the sphere of

international relations. These are organizations with
sufficient power to influence and cause change in
politics and not belonging to a state structure or
established institution of a state. They have worsened
the security situation of the Middle East rather than
bringing stability in it. The mutual differences among
the military dictators of Egypt, Iraq and Syria coupled
with their mutual rivalry for regional supremacy and
their rivalry for the same with the other regional powers
like Saudi Arabia have paved the way for more
instability rather than bringing peace.

References
 A, R. (2003). Hinnebusch. The international politics of
the Middle East. Manchester, England: Manchester
University Press.
 AbuKhalil, A. (1992). A New Arab Ideology?: The
Rejuvenation of Arab Nationalism. Middle East Journal,
46 (1).
 Ajami, F. (1991). The End of Arab Nationalism . The
New Republic (Washington).
 al-Khuli, L. (1992). "Arab? Na'am wa-lakin sharq
awsatiyin aydan (Arab? Yes, but Middle Eastern too!)
London: al-Hayat .
 Amatzia Baram, B. R. (1993). Iraq's Road To War. New
York: : St. Martin's Press.
 Bengio, O. (1998). Saddam's Word: Political Discourse
in Iraq . New York: Oxford University Press.
 Dawisha, A. (2004). Arab Nationalism in the Twentieth
Century: from Triumph to Despair. Literature
Publication .
 Hans, S. (1950). Historical development of public
opinion. 55 (4).
 Isakhan, B. (2011). Targeting the Symbolic Dimension
of Baathist Iraq: Cultural Destruction, Historical
Memory, and National Identity.
 Khadduri, Majid. (2013). The Role of the Military in
Middle East Politics. Volume 47, Issue 2.
 Makiya, K. (1993). Cruelty and Silence: War, Tyranny,

Uprising, and the Arab World . New York : Norton.
 Middle East Contemporary Survey. (2013). Volume 14.

 Natali, D. (2005). The Kurds and the state: evolving

national identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. New York,
USA: Syracuse University Press.
 Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic
theory. London: Cambridge University Press.
 Pollock, D. (1992). The Arab Street"? Public Opinion in
the Arab World . 32.
 Reich, B. (2005 Edition). Political leaders of the
contemporary Middle East and North Africa: A
Bibliographical Dictionary. Westport, Connecticut :
Greenwood Press, Ltd.
 Shadi, Hamid. (2011). The Struggle for Middle East
Democracy. Brooklyn Institute.
 Seeberg, P. ( 2007, May 11). The weakening of Arab
States. Pan-Arabism re-revisited after the invasion of
Iraq .
 V, P. (1992). Public opinion and the communication of
consent . New York: Guilford.

The End of History and Clash of

Civilizations: A Comparative Study
Zakir Ali
Civil Servant, Government of Balochistan, Quetta.
zakirkannarbaloch@gmail.com
Mansoor Ahmed
Assistant Professor, Area Study Centre,
qaumansoor@gmail.com
Faiza Mir
Lecturer of International Relations,
Faizamir2003@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
The End of History and the Clash of Civilizations are
the two most controversial post-Cold War theories.
These theories are particularly important at a time when
the world is facing the spectre of religious
fundamentalism and Economic instability. The so-called
war between the West and Islam has infiltrated the
western capitals. On the other hand, globalization, the
hallmark of liberal democracy, is being disowned by its
most fervent proponents. The United States is on the
path of ‘America first’ paradigm and a policy of
isolation is being adopted. The Islamic fundamentalist
organizations are heading towards the West to destroy
their staunch civilizational enemy. Therefore, it is
important that the above mentioned theories are
revisited and a comparative analysis is carried out for a
better understanding of the current international events.
Key Words: International Politics, End of History,
Clash of Civilizations, Liberalism, Democracy, Political
Islam, Al-Qaeda and Globalization.

Introduction
After the disintegration of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR) in 1991, the European intellectuals
were in a state of euphoria. There was a great deal of
uncertainty about the post-Cold War era. Different
intellectuals gave different theories about the likely
shape of world politics in the post-Cold War era. The
End of History by Francis Fukuyama and the Clash of
Civilizations by Samuel Huntington were two theories
among many that were presented. Francis Fukuyama
first wrote an article titled as End of History and the
Last Man in1989 and then elaborated this theme later in
his book with the same title in 1992. According to this
thesis, end of the Cold War is not just a passing stage of
history; rather it is the end of history. As per this thesis,
end of the Cold War heralded the end of ideological
battles. The liberal democracy has always battled with
competing ideologies; firstly fascism and Nazism
challenged liberal democracy in the West. With the end
of the Second World War, two superpowers in the form
of the United States of America (USA) and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) emerged. USA
espoused the cause of capitalism while the Communist
block was led by the USSR. Both powers tried to export
their version of government in different parts of the
world. According to Fukuyama the end of the Cold War
meant that Capitalism led by the USA out played
communism. Now liberal democracy is the best form of
government as it is without any rival ideology, though,
in some parts of the world political Islam can act as a
competing ideology. Fukuyama’s thesis suffers from
many defects. It is alleged that it is a Eurocentric theory.
Fukuyama took a supposed superior model of the West
as a yardstick against which he measured the history of
mankind. Moreover, it is a reinterpretation of the
Hegelian notion of history. Theory of endism is alleged
to be a theory of the status quo. It is meant to rationalize
and justify the existing scenario.

The second theory was presented by Samuel .P

Huntington in 1993. Huntington divided the world into
nine Civilizations. According to him the world politics
in post-Cold War era will be defined by conflicts
between Civilizations. Prior to post-Cold War era, all
wars were fought within the West, for example World
War I and World War II. He termed these wars as
Western civil wars. The end of the Cold War also meant
that the former colonial states are no more entities in the
hand of western powers. Rather, they are now also
mover and shapers of history. War will be fought for
different reasons, but cultural and civilizational roots
will be the overriding considerations of states in post-
Cold War era. He also gave various reasons for
occurrence of civilizational conflicts, for example,
indigenization of leadership in Third World countries,
return to the roots phenomenon and duality of
globalization. The rallying point for nation states will be
civilization. He coined the term Kin-country syndrome,
which means in an event of war between two states, the
other states will provide support to the belligerent
belonging to their own civilization.
Keeping in view the present circumstances, it can be
said that both the theories capture only limited aspect of
global politics. Both theories are not adequate enough to
explain the complex and ever changing dynamics of
world politics. The global politics is multi-dimensional
and a complex phenomenon. It cannot be predicted with
the help of a single theory. In some cases, Huntington’s
thesis provides a better framework to analyze the global
politics. But, as said earlier, the explanation of whole
global politics is beyond its scope. Noam Chomsky,
Edward Said Gilbert Achachar vehemently criticized the
Huntington’s theory. They are of the view that this
theory provides justification for the US adventurism in
post-Cold War era. In the end, it can be said that
Huntington’s thesis is more relevant to global politics
than that of Fukuyama. However, no single theory is

sufficient enough to define the ever changing dynamics

of international politics.
Theories in International Politics
Different social scientists have presented several
theories and paradigms to understand the complex
nature of the International Politics and the International
Relations. Theories are the basic framework for a
discipline. As a major discipline of social science, IR
has several theories and basically the history of IR
theories begins from the Greek city states and the
writings of the early scholars like Thucydides, medieval
scholar, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and modern
writers, Hans Morgenthau etc. The history of IR theories
is linked with the history of IR as a discipline. Some
writers trace the history of IR as a discipline from the
Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 where the modern concept
of nation state emerged, but the majority of the scholars
of IR agree that IR as discipline begun at the immediate
end of WWI when the war caused severe damages in
terms of lives and material. The first scholars concluded
that the below mentioned questions should navigate IR
as a discipline:
 What are causes of World War I and circumstances
that led to World War One?
 What Lessons were learnt from World War I?
With the permanent establishment of IR discipline, the

IR theories started to emerge within the parameters of
the global and regional politics. Some were revived from
their old existence like Realism and some were newly
presented by then-scholars such as Idealism. The debate
between the Realism and Idealism dominated the
beginning of IR in the early 19th century. Many scholars
from both school of thoughts (Realist and Idealist)
vigorously participated in the great debate between
Realism and Idealism.
The establishment of the League of Nations in 1919 was
declared as the triumph of the idealist school of thought,

but the occurrence of the Second World War in 1939

dented the proclaimed dominance of the Idealist and
emboldened the Realist school of thought. The
establishment of the United Nations in 1945 was
considered as the revival of Idealism, but the immediate
appearance of the ideological clash between the Soviet
Union and the U.S. shattered the idealist’s perception
and an era of intellectual rivalry begin. The great debate
continued throughout the Cold War and during this
period, many other theories of IR were presented by
different scholars. But the end of the Cold War in 1989
added enormous prestige and pride to the Idealist school
of thought which encouraged the liberalist Francis
Fukuyama to present ‘End of History’ to proclaim the
victory of the capitalism. Soon after the Fukuyama’s
thesis, Samuel P. Huntington presented his theory of the
impending Clash between Civilizations in 1993. Francis
Fukuyama stated that the End of History is a broad
concept and its pillars are liberal democracy, individual
rights, representative governments and the market
economy: and he emphasized that it is the final social
evolutionary form of government in the foreseeable
future. He asserted these notions/ ideas will prevail
globally over the years.
While Samuel P. Huntington had argued in his short
essay ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ that the future
belongs to competition not on the basis of ideology or
economic but on the basis of cultural lines especially
between Islamic, Western and Chinese world. Which of
the two competing visions of the global political and
economic future is more accurate? More real politic?
And why? This is the main theme of this term paper and
through available data from different sources; the two
competing post-Cold War paradigms will be studied and
critically analyzed from the perspective of the
contemporary international. No single theory of
international relations can completely define the relation
between states, emerging conflicts and alliances between
countries. A theory may accurately describe an isolated

event in international politics, but at the same time it

cannot be applied to all events. The end of history quite
sagaciously suggests that the world is moving towards
democracy. However, to say that liberal democracy and
the market economy are the end point of man’s
ideological evolution seems to be inaccurate. Likewise,
the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims suggests that
the Orthodox and Islamic civilization are engaged in a
confrontation. Nevertheless, the strife within the Islamic
civilization suggests that the concept of civilization is
itself complex and vague. Thus, any single theory of
international relations cannot completely define the
relation between states, emerging conflicts and alliances
between countries.
What is the End of History?
Francis Fukuyama, the Japanese American scholar,
presented the most debated post-Cold War paradigms,’
The End of History’ in 1989 after the end of the Cold
War. “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of
the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of
post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is,
the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the
universalization of Western liberal democracy as the
final form of human government.” (Fukuyama, 1992.)
This essay brewed a storm amongst the international
intelligentsia and historians. According to the author the
failing of communism and breakage of the Soviet Union
promulgated both capitalism and liberal democracy as
victorious. There is no competition against both
capitalism and liberal democracy and equilibrium has
been achieved in international politics. He further says
that it was indeed the culmination of mankind's
ideological evolution and declaration of liberal
democracy as the ultimate form of human government.
Perhaps ‘The End of History’ rises from the ashes of all
other ideologies i.e. communism, fascism, absolutism
and reaches the end point of human history with the
universalization of liberal democracy. Francis
Fukuyama believed that the world has not completely

implemented liberal democracy, though it is under

process.
A Critical Analysis of the End of History

Fukuyama's essay attracted critical comments from a
wide range of scholars, journalists, historians and
political scientists. While many did not agree with the
author’s contention that liberal democracy was the end
point of human’s political and intellectual growth, but
many amongst the political right found it compelling
and erudite. Undoubtedly, this essay captured the
attention of people worldwide. Benjamin Barber,
Political theorist, believed that Fukuyama mistook the
temporary victory of capitalism and liberal democracy
as the end of history. He argued the Islamic terrorism,
the Rwandan genocide and Balkan nationalisms were
ignored by Fukuyama. (Benjamin, 2005)
Fukuyama and some of his westerner ilk believed that
the failure of communism was indeed the victory of
capitalism. Even in communist china the western ideals
will come to the top given the love for consumerism in
general public. Fukuyama opined that with the liberal
political system comes the liberal economy. Thus, where
consumerism come, democracy becomes inevitable.
Fukuyama, however, did not take into account the
significance of new technology and globalization in the
last few decades. He failed to realize that China was not
politically liberal, yet technologically it was innovative.
Fukuyama’s assertion may be deemed as an early
prediction regarding the rise of liberalism as a global
ideal. Nonetheless, this emerging liberalism is not in
perfect form, thus Fukuyama made an idealistic
prediction. Moreover, there are countries that have
managed economic growth without liberal democracy.
Fukuyama reiterates his belief that the end of history is
only possible if the United States of America fulfil its
nation-building commitments because failed-state
problems cannot be ignored. It may be inferred that the
United States of America would be the harbinger of

democracy and human rights. Thus, it is safe to assume

that Fukuyama’s prediction indicate towards a world
that is dominated by the hegemonic designs of the
United States of America. Fukuyama labels the USA a
transitional empire of democracy and human rights that
should “teach other people to govern themselves.”
(Fukuyama, 2004)
What is the Clash of Civilizations?

The Clash of Civilizations is an antithesis to
Fukuyama’s thesis of the “End of History’. It was
proposed in 1993 by political scientist Samuel P.
Huntington. It suggests that the international politics,
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, has entered into a
new phase. He says the future conflicts would neither be
based primarily on ideology or economic, rather they
would be derived from cultural differences. Nation
states will continue to keep their individual identities,
however the source of global conflict between nations
would be their civilizational roots. The clash between
different civilizations would dominate the future of
international politics. The epicenters of these conflicts
will be the fault lines between different civilizations.
(Huntington, 1993) Huntington suggests that the post-
Cold War groups will be formed on the basis of culture
and not on the basis of economic development, political
or economic system. He describes civilization as a
cultural entity. The fundamental attributes of any
civilization are language and religion and a single
civilization may comprise of many nations and a number
of people. Huntington divides the entire world into nine
civilizations.
1. Western: The Western civilization comprises of
Catholic and Protestant Europe, the United States,
Australia, Canada, Papua New Guinea, New
Zealand, the Philippines.
2. Islamic: The Islamic civilization includes the
Middle East, the central Asia, Saharan Africa, the

central east African coast, Indonesia, Pakistan,

Bangladesh, Indian minorities, Malaysia and Brunei.
3. Hindu: India and Nepal.
4. Confucian: China, Vietnam and Korea.
5. Slavic-Orthodox: Orthodox Europe and Russia.
6. Latin America: Argentina, Mexico and the Greater
Antilles.
7. African: Sub-Saharan Africa/Non-Islamic.
8. Buddhist: Burma, Thailand, Mongolia, Tibet.
9. Japanese: Japan.
Samuel Huntington argued that these civilizations will

fight each other on the fault lines. He believes every
civilization is fundamentally different from other; these
fundamental differences create space for violence.
Moreover, globalization is bringing people into contact
with another, thus violence is inevitable. Moreover,
trade between culturally aligned nations has increased
and decreased among others. The author also
enumerates few fault lines that may or are erupting
violence between the following civilizations:
 Islamic vs. Hindu
 Islamic vs. Western
 Islamic vs. African
 Islamic vs. Orthodox
 Western vs. Orthodox
 Confucian vs. Buddhist
 Confucian vs. Western
 Japanese vs. Western
The author believes that the intensity of conflict may

vary, but they exist. For instance the conflict between
Islamic verses Orthodox has resulted in genocide in
Bosnia, but the rivalry between Japan and Western is
primarily economic.
Critical Analysis of the Clash of Civilizations
In the Clash of Civilizations, the author believes that the

future wars will be derived from cultural fault lines.

Given that nationalism is being replaced by religious

identity, it is highly probable that religion will play a
critical role in future wars. The proponents of clash of
civilization argue that the rise of Islamic
fundamentalism is a case in point. Even Samuel
Huntington had once said that Islam has ‘bloody
borders’. The stereotypical analysis of Huntington faced
severe criticism from different quarters, particularly
from the Islamic world. Nevertheless, both culture and
religion are very diverse .They have never been a strong
uniting force in the past. The supporters of Huntington’s
theory believe that it is pretty much close to reality.
Even though, the followers of religion like Hinduism
and Buddhism, which were traditionally pacifist, are
adopting nationalist and militant agendas. Attacks on
minorities in India and Sri Lanka are increasing in recent
years. Many analysts have termed the war on terror after
9/11 a tacit clash between Islamic and Western
civilization. Many western scholars and politician see
the war on terror a confirmation of Huntington’s
prediction. In 2003 Lewis argued that “the confrontation
with a force that defines itself as Islam has given a new
relevance – indeed, urgency – to the theme of the ‘Clash
of Civilizations,’” and his 2003 book (whose title, The
Crisis Of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, provides
a hint as to its contents) clearly presents his vision of the
‘war on terror’ as a ‘clash of civilizations’. Its opening
paragraph discusses, “the war in which we are engaged,
making it clear that he will not challenge the assumption
that “we” are currently at war with terrorism. As in the
above-mentioned article, Lewis discusses the
complexities of using the term ‘Islam’ before concisely
and simply defining it as a civilization based on its
religion: in the one sense it denotes a religion, a system
of belief and worship; in the other, the civilization that
grew up and flourished under the aegis of that religion.”
(Lewis, 2003). It was Lewis, in fact, who coined the
term ‘clash of civilizations’ in a 1990 Atlantic article
and much of his work is based upon the assumption that
clearly defined ‘civilizations’ and that conflict between

them is inevitable. (Michael, 2004). The Time, in 2004,

included Bernard Lewis in the list of 100 most
influential thinkers on which Edward Said critically
stated that, “what made Lewis’s work so appalling in its
effects was the fact that without any other views to
counter his, American policy-makers...fell for them.”
(Edward, 2004).
The article’s most debated statement comes when

Huntington advocates an association between ‘Islamic
Civilization’ and violence. In Eurasia, the great historic
fault-lines between civilizations are once more aflame.
This is particularly true along the boundaries of the
Islamic bloc of nations from Africa to the Central Asia.
Violence also occurs between Muslims and the
Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Hindus in India, Jews in
Israel, Catholics in the Philippines and Buddhists in
Burma. Huntington says that the Islam has bloody
borders and this connotation was linked to the
earthshattering event of the 9/11 in the U.S. A large
number of Western politicians, scholars and
commentators dubbed the 9/11 attacks as confirmation
of Huntington’s theory of the Clash of Civilizations. But
it also shows that this link can be found in the thinking
of another group- the al-Qaeda network. The Al-Qaeda
leader Osama bin Laden said in an interview with
Aljazeera:
Interviewer: What is your opinion about what is being

said concerning your analogies and the ‘Clash of
Civilizations’? Your constant use and repetition of the
word ‘Crusade’ and ‘Crusader’ show that you uphold
this saying, the ‘Clash of Civilizations’.
Osama bin Laden: I say there is no doubt about this.
This is a very clear matter...” (Lawrence, 2005)
Many Western politicians have rejected the concept of

clash of civilization, including former American
president George W. Bush, yet religiously marked
rhetoric has frequently been used by American

politicians. Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of the

UK, termed the 9/11 a war against civilization and
democracy. Such comments by western politicians
presented the attack on the USA as a civilizational war
between Islam and West and at the same time the war on
terror is being seen by the Muslims as a war against
Islam. There is denying the fact that terrorist
organizations such as Al-Qaida have vehemently termed
the war on terror as the war of civilizations, but it should
not be taken as the opinion of all Muslims. Moreover,
scholars like Dan Smith have described the war on terror
as the show of American power. The USA had built
alliances in this war within the Islamic world which
depicts it is not a war between civilizations. It must be
kept in mind that neither Al Qaida nor Osama bin Laden
represents Islamic Civilization. As a matter of fact,
clash of civilization is a mere rhetoric that suits the
leadership on both sides.
A Comparative Analysis of the End of History and

the Clash of Civilizations
The post-Cold War era was dominated by two political

philosophy paradigms: The Clash of Civilizations and
the End of History. Francis Fukuyama, a Japanese
American scholar, proposed the theory of ‘the End of
History’. According to Fukuyama the human kind has
reached the end point of its evolution with the victory of
democracy and market economy. Democracy is the only
reliable form of governance and market-oriented
economy is the best form of economic system. The
Clash of Civilizations was an antithesis to Fukuyama’s
thesis of the “End of History’. It was proposed in 1993
by political scientist Samuel P. Huntington. It suggests
that the international politics, after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, has entered into a new phase. He says the
future conflicts would neither be based primarily on
ideology or economic, rather they would be derived
from cultural differences. The failure of Communism at
the end of the Cold War prompted Fukuyama to propose

his theory of the End of History. He believed that liberal

ideas of freedom and equality have become universal.
But the terrorist attacks of 9/11 clearly marked the rise
of specter of a clash of civilizations. A war between
different civilizations began on fault lines.
Fukuyama derives his theory from Hegel’s Dialect

approach. He believes the end of the Cold War marked
the end of ideological conflict. In any system, there are
internal contradictions which make it unstable. It cannot
solve its problems and pave the way to a new system.
Similarly, Communism failed to deal with new
emerging trends of globalization, therefore it collapsed.
He argues that liberal democracy is the end point of
dialectical progression, even if it has problems; they can
be resolved within its paradigm. Therefore, liberal
democracy, in the respect of history of dialects, is the
‘end of history’. Despite the West's apparent victory as
prophesied in Fukuyama’s End of History, a number of
international conflicts were witnessed in the 1990s, as
opposed to Fukuyama's claim of the final triumph of
liberal democracy, some went so far as to speak of an
inevitable "Clash of Civilizations." (Krauthammer,
1991, 1999, 2002/03)
The civilization is not a unified body with all apparatus.
While it does have close links with its units in order to
ensure intra-civilization cooperation. Huntington defines
civilization as ‘language, religion, customs and
subjective self-identification of people’. However, he
views civilization through the prism of religion. Yet, if
one considers the example of the Middle East, it is
vividly clear that religion is not a unifying force. There
is violence between Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Further, there
are also cultural differences within so-called Islamic
civilization. Iran has its Persian history so does Egypt
with its Pharaonic history. There are also different forms
of government system. Turkey has managed democracy;
Iran has semi-democratic theocracy and Saudi Arabia
with monarchy. Moreover, the policy towards the West

is also different. Turkey is a member of NATO, while

Iran is a staunch enemy of the USA. Following the
September 11 attacks, Daniel Pipes said, "the main
element of any United States policy toward “militant
Islam” must be that of long-term, patient but firm and
vigilant containment of its expansive tendencies.”
(Daniel, 2002). William Lind, for example, has publicly
questioned the ability of Muslims to live in the West and
has stated that "they should be encouraged to leave.
They are a fifth column in this country." (Weyrich and
Lind, 2002) Daniel Pipes has also argued forcefully that
Muslims in America are "not like any other group" and
constitute a murderous army "many times more
numerous than the agents of Osama bin Laden." (Pips,
2002) According to theorists like Roger Scruton and
Bernard Lewis there is incompatibility between Islam
and modern liberal democratic states. Since liberal
democracy consists of individuals. Whereas, Islam does
not recognize the concept of the nation state, instead it
emphasizes on the Ummah and separate Islamic
community. Secondly, in a liberal democracy, the state
is secular. While in Islam, the state has a religion
through which laws are derived. Islam is not a system of
belief alone; it is a complete code of life.
Amr Mousa, the then Secretary-General of the Arab

League, observed that a wave of discrimination has been
unleashed against the Muslim and the Arab people who
were held guilty immediately after the 9/11 attacks.
(Amir, 2001) In the view of Fouad Ajami, it is not
civilizations that control states, but rather, states that
control civilizations. (Ajami, 1993) The civilizational
categories are quite far from clear-cut. Around the
world, there are nearly one and a half billion Muslims,
most of them are not Arabs, and their priorities and
cultures are very much diverse and different. The
Islamic world, like other civilizations, is divided into
several states, each state has its own interests and
cultural traits, and frequently involved in conflict with

the other Muslim states than with the West. (Hunter,

1998)
Contemporary International Politics and the End of
History
The western political system of democracy, liberalism

and globalization dominates the international political
arena. Since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and
establishment of nation states, different theories have
been proposed to understand international relations.
After the collapse of the USSR, Francis Fukuyama
proposed that liberal democracy is the last stage of
humans’ political evolution. It is the end point of man’s
ideological evolution. It is a system that can
accommodate all needs and wishes of humans.
Therefore, he termed it as ‘end of history’. The end of
the Cold War was seen by Fukuyama as the victory of
liberal democracy over Communism. Liberal democracy
and market-oriented economy will be the last stage of
mankind’s ideological evolution. Although Fukuyama
declared the demise of Communism as the end of
history, but in reality it was the beginning of real
globalization. Virtually all the countries started to
participate in international trade and the global
economy.
However, is it plausible to suggest that globalization is

the end of history in time of global financial and
economic crisis? The globalization faces internal threats
rather than external. Communism and fascism are not
returning in the foreseeable future. As governments do
not regulate market economy, despite of many financial
innovations the system is in disarray. The debt-ridden
economy of USA suggests the severity of the problem.
Charles Krauthammer writes that the defeated of the
USSR is not the end of history, but the world has
entered into the era of weapons of mass destruction. The
authoritarian regimes funded by oil revenue will
certainly create a security situation in the world. The

attack on the United States on 9/11 clearly displayed that

the world is not moving towards democratic process as
suggested by Fukuyama. Samuel Huntington in his
essay ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ identifies
globalization as a factor in the clash between
civilizations.
Contemporary International Politics and the Clash

of Civilizations
The dismemberment of the USSR was welcomed with

great joy in the Western capitals. It was declared as the
victory of liberal democracy and free-market economy.
Western scholars, such as, Francis Fukuyama
pronounced the collapse of the USSR as the end of
history. Fukuyama promulgated the universalization of
liberal democracy and end point of mankind’s
ideological evolution. However, the post-Cold War era
was not as smooth as it was predicted by Fukuyama. In
1993 Samuel Huntington proposed the theory of Clash
of Civilizations. Huntington did not agree with
Fukuyama’s assertion that the humankind has reached
the end of history. He asserted that the future will be
dominated by conflicts which will spring from cultural
differences between civilizations. Indeed, it was
beginning of a new era which was going to be
dominated not by ideology but by cultural differences
between civilizations.
The idea of the Clash of Civilizations has been a

defining moment in the history of theories, particularly
when it comes to the relation between the Islamic and
the Western civilizations. Huntington argued that
globalization has further aggravated the hatred between
different civilizations. Nation states with similar
civilizational values are less likely to fight with each
other than with those with different civilizational roots.
Future conflicts will occur between nation states along
the fault lines. Both Islamic and Chinese civilizations
pose a grave threat to western liberalism. Few

international events supported the idea of a clash of

civilizations. Particularly, genocide in Bosnia, conflicts
in the South Asia and the Middle East. The 9/11 attacks
on American soil magnified the idea of a clash of
civilizations. Many Western journalists reiterated
Huntington’s idea of the Clash of Civilizations and
expressed conviction in the fact that both the Western
and the Islamic civilization are in confrontation.
The clash of civilization identifies individuals on the

basis of their cultural or religious traits. It completely
ignores their profession, education and political
affiliations. Moreover, it ignores the cultural
complexities within a civilization. All Muslims are not
Arab and their cultures are very diverse. The Islamic
civilization consists of 57 nation-states with independent
interests and culture. Even a few of them are engaged in
conflicts. For instance, both Saudi Arabia and Iran are
two Muslim countries. They are a part of so-called
Islamic civilization. Nonetheless, Saudi is a staunch ally
of the United States, while Iran is a sworn enemy of the
America. Similarly, during Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait,
the majority of the Middle Eastern countries became
American allies. One should be clear that though there
are strong arguments from the both sides as the West is
engaged in a Clash of Civilizations in Afghanistan and
Iraq and on the other hand the world has become a
global village and globalization is up to the peak, as
there is a small Islam in West and there is a small West
in each Muslim country, so the civilizations are not
tectonic plates that collides with each other, but they can
merge with each other if they do not collide.
Conclusion
The ‘End of History’ and the ‘Clash of Civilizations’
were an attempt to navigate both the post-Cold-War era.
However, both theories faced severe criticism from
intellectual and political quarters. Fukuyama failed to
explain the re-emergence of Russia and former satellites

of the USSR. These countries not only rejected Western

liberalism, but they also expressed their disdain for
liberal democracy and market-oriented economy. Thus,
Fukuyama was wrong to assume that liberal democracy
is the end point of ideological evolution of mankind.
Likewise, Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations also faced
strong criticism for its narrow and short-sighted
definition of civilization while ignoring the cultural and
religious complexities of civilizations. It also ignored
the national interests of nation states, whereas
categorizing states on the basis of their religious
affiliations. It also ignored the conflicts between states
within a civilization. Moreover, Huntington completely
ignored the cooperation between different civilization
and conflicts within civilizations.
Though there have been major discussions and debates

over the Clash of Civilizations and End of History but
both are not absolutely right in the contemporary
international politics. Though the liberal democracy is
the most dominated political system of the world and the
capitalism is the most practiced economic system in the
world, but the rise of China and the rise of political
Islam cannot be ignored as they are being valued as
alternative political systems. Beside Western world
order, there are other world orders like Chinese world
order, Islamic world order. Many intellectuals, scholars,
academics and politicians considers the event of 9/11
and the War on Terror as tangible evidence of the Clash
of Civilizations, but on the other hand the cooperation,
interaction, engagement and the integration among
different civilizations like the cooperation and
coordination between Saudi Arabia and the USA, Egypt
and USA, Pakistan and the USA and the economic ties
between India and China, Iran and Russia, and the
global trade and investments among the Muslim and the
non-Muslim world negate the perception of the Clash of
Civilizations and display a perception of
interdependence and cooperation.

References
 Ajami, Fouad. (1993). "The Summoning," Foreign
Affairs 72.https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1993-
09-01/summoning (accessed January, 2018)
 Barber, Benjamin. (2005), “Can History Have an End?”,
in Harriet Swain, ed., Big Question in History, London:
Jonathan Cape.
 Elliott, Michael. (2004) “Bernard Lewis: Seeking The
Roots of Muslim Rage” Time 163, no. 17.
 Fukuyama, Francis, (1992), The End of the History and
The Last Man, New York: Avon Books Inc.
 Fukuyama, Francis. (2004) “Nation-Building 101,” in
The Real State of the Union: From the Best Minds in
America, Bold Solutions to the Problems Politicians
Dare Not Address, ed. Ted Halstead, New York: Basic
Books.
 Hunter, Shireen T. (1998). The Future of Islam and the
West: Clash of Civilizations or Peaceful Coexistence?,
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Westport,
Conn: Praeger Publishers.
 Huntington P. Samuel. (1997). The Clash of
Civilizations and Remaking of World Order, New York:
Simon & Schuster.
 Krauthammer, Charles. (1991). "The Unipolar
Moment," Foreign Affairs. 1 Winter,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1991-02-
01/unipolar-moment (accessed January, 2018).
 Krauthammer, Charles. (1999). "A Second American
Century?" Time 20. http://content.time.com (accessed
January, 2018)
 Krauthammer, Charles. (2002/03). "The Unipolar
Moment, Revisited, " National Interest, 70, Winter.
Centre for the National Interest, http://www.cftni.org/
 Lawrence, Bruce. (2005). Messages To The World: The
Statements Of Osama Bin Laden,
London: Verso Publisher.
 Lewis, Bernard. (2003). The Crisis Of Islam: The Holy
War and Unholy Terror, New York: Random House Inc.

 Mousa, Amr. (2001). Cited in Al-Ahram Weekly, 29

Nov.5 Dec. 2001, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg
 Pipes, Daniel. (2002). "Who Is the Enemy?"
Commentary, Vol. 113, No. 1.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com(accessed
January 2018).
 Pipes, Daniel. (2001). "The Danger Within: Militant
Islam in America," The Middle East Forum,
http://www.danielpipes.org/77/the-danger-within-
militant-islam-in-america (accessed January, 2018)
 Said, Edward W. (2005). From Oslo To Iraq And The
Roadmap, New York: Vintage Books, Random House
Inc.
 Weyrich, Paul and Lind, William. (2002). Why Islam Is
a Threat to America and the West, Washington, D.C.:
Free Congress Publications.

Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia: The Role of

Key Players
Mohammad Najeebullah
M.Phil Scholar at the Area Study Center,
University Of Balochistan, Quetta.
nl88baloch@gmail.com
Para Din (PhD)

Assistant Professor at Area Study Center,
paradinkakar@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
The Jasmine Revolution of Tunisia is one of the
remarkable revolutions of the modern history which led
Tunisia successfully to a democratic transition. The
uprising started unexpectedly as a result of self-
immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in protest against the
unjust and insulting behavior of a policewoman in Sidi
Bouzid. The youth went into protest and started
demonstrations against the regime in Sidi Bouzid which
soon engulfed entire Tunisia. The protests and
demonstrations during the revolution were not steered
singly by a political party, organization or ideological
group, but was a collective effort of all key players from
different segments, profession and class of society who
joined the youth in uprising against the regime. The key
players were not only united against the dictator but
expressed great acumen and toleration and put all their
efforts throughout the revolution and transitional period
so as to achieve objectives of Jasmine Revolution and
avert civil war, terrorism, politico-economic instability
or retreat to authoritarianism as other Arab countries
experienced during the Arab Spring.
Key words: Arab Spring, Jasmine Revolution, Key
Players, Civil society, the Youth, Women, Social media.

Introduction
No revolution can be achieved without involving the
groups in a society. The common men, women, elite,
educated and illiterate, politicians and workers, boys,
girls and all other segments of society, directly or
indirectly, play their role in revolutions. Wherever
uprising and revolt emerges, it cannot achieve results of
a successful revolution unless it could not bring together
different groups and segments in a society. On the eve of
Arab Spring uprisings the success story of Tunisian
Revolution revolves around the same idea because the
protesters and participants of uprising hailed from every
segment of the society and positively played their role to
bring down the Dictator and make democratic transition
come true. The causes of Tunisian uprising and
revolution may be numerous but the single and
imminent factor was the self-immolation of Mohmad
Buazizi on 17th of December 2010, a fruit vender, in
protest against the unfair attitude of a policewoman that
convinced the angered Tunisians to come to the streets
and protests against the dictator. The protesters
mushroomed the streets, villages, towns, cities and
ultimately reached the capital Tunis; till the time the
protests had changed in revolt and uprising against Ben
Ali regime and continued until Ben Ali fled Tunisia on
14th of January 2011.
Tunisian Revolution was not led by a single party,
unlike Bolshevik revolution of Russia and Iran
Revolution of 1979 or an organisation but it was a
unique uprising in which everyone, more or less, played
his/her role. The Tunisian youth and political parties
belonging to different ideologies, the workers, trade
unions, lawyers, and teachers, role of Tunisian Army,
women and people from other professions of life played
significant role amid the revolution and democratic
Transition.
There were numerous challenges, after ouster of Ben
Ali, to be addressed and a plethora of issues to be

resolved by the key players since Tunisia was

transforming from an authoritarian to a democratic state.
It was not easy to overcome challenges and issues like
making of interim government, conduction of National
Constitent Assembly election on October 23, 2011,
giving a democratic constitution to Tunisia, revamping
authoritarian political system and democratic institutions
to democratic footings, economic crisis, coping with
conflicting political ideologies and political
assassinations of Chokri Belad and Mohammad Brahmi
that created deadlock in political developments toward
democratic transition. However, the key players all the
way through displayed maturity tolerated each other's
views and ideologies in order to come through all
hurdles and challenges. On the other hand the models of
Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen where the rulers, civil
society and other major players mishandled the protests
and uprisings and could not come to consensus to
resolve the conflict which led them to civil war and
destruction. The key players in Tunisia i.e the Youth,
civil society and political parties, social media activists,
Tunisian Army, the Lawyers, women etc. were aware of
deteriorating scenario of these countries and played truly
intuitive and responsible role and averted chances of
civil war or fall back once again to authoritarianism.
The Youth of Tunisia and Revolution
In 2010, when the "Jasmine Revolution" erupted, the
youth population, below 30 years of age, comprised 52.2
percent of Tunisian population (Sadiki, 2014). This was
one of the main reasons that the youth were the primary
"initiator" of Tunisian revolution. The zeal and fervour
of youth brought all segments in Tunisia to stand against
Ben Ali regime during the 2010 uprising. It was the
youth who were most affected from unemployment and
absence of equal distribution of wealth (Honwana,
2011). After Bouazizi burnt-himself, the youth started
protests and demonstrations against Ben Ali regime. The
demonstrations soon spread to other towns and, owing
to death of two young boys, in Menzel Bouzaiene, the

youth turned violent. They pelted stones to security

forces and burnt official buildings (Honwana, 2011).
The angered, unruly and violent youth in protest,
compelled Ben Ali to return from Persian Gulf vocation
in order to appease the protesters. He visited Bouaziz in
Ben Arous hospital. Ben Ali discerned that the situation
was getting adverse; he therefore, threatened the
protester of stern action. But of no avail. Bouazizi died
on 4th of January. The youth thronged into roads and
streets in solidarity with Bouazizi.
The youth were also involved in cyber activism during
the uprising. The youth used social media i.e. facebook
and twitter, shared videos and photos of regime's
brutality and violence. They also appraised each other
about the happenings and schedule of protests via social
media forums. Not only this, for young Tunisian's the
facebook was a platform to share their opinion and
voice. It was social media that united the youth around
Tunisia (Reich, 2012)
On 9th of January, when youth fervour could not be
beaten using regime's might, force, repression, arrests
and violence, Ben Ali played his last card and enticed
the youth to be co-opted, creating 50000 vacancies and
revealed plans to invest $5 billion in development
projects. He also promised to create 300000 job
opportunities in upcoming two years. Even he was so
compelled before the youth protests that he capitulated
to the demands of youth and gave his word to refrain
from closing internet (Alianak, 2014). But the youth did
not step back from their stance and finally compelled
Ben Ali to leave Tunisia. The youth's role was very
important during "Jasmine Revolution." Their role could
not be marginalised even in post-revolution Tunisia. The
youth were given representation in the High
Commission (Center, 2014). They also acquired
representation in NCA. 10 percent of total 217 seats
were given to youth below 30 years of age (Center,
2014). Youth participation in national affairs was
encouraged after revolution (Center, 2014). Post-

revolution political parties formed their youth wings.

One such example is "Ekbes", which means "get a move
on". It was formed by the Islamist Ennahda party in
order to get rid of or aside Ben Ali cronies from post-
revolution set up (Baker, 2015).
Civil Society
Civil Society is a term used in a broader sense. No
society in the modern world is devoid of civil society.
Be it a totalitarian state, an authoritarian, a theocracy,
democracy or communist: civil societies exist
everywhere with controlled freedoms and powers
limited by the constitution and law. The West and East
have their own ideas and thinking about civil societies.
Westerners think that civil society means to
strengthening public life. On contrary, in the east civil
society means-- irrespective of civil or political liberties-
-rights to private property and market. (Kaviraj &
Khilnani, 2001). During Tunisian Revolution, transition
period and to the making of "Quartet" for conduction of
national dialogues, the role of civil society remained
remarkable. The civil society organistions expressed
their worth in the most critical times in Tunisia: they
proved that they were working for the peace and
stability, and for the continuity of democracy (Melhem,
2015). Therefore, Nader Fargany opines, "the
revolutionary process was bolstered and drew
nourishment from the revived and revitalized civil
society" (Fergany 2016, p. 101).
Although Civil Society played significant role in
Tunisian revolution; however, during Ben Ali's
authoritarian rule the civil society existed but was
toothless: restrained in their actions, deeds, speech and
free political affiliations. Tunisian civil society varies
from rest of the Arab world in nature, formation and
function. The civil society in Tunisia is divided in two
different ideologies: seculars and the Islamic. It is
agreed that first legal civil society association in Tunisia
is UGTT. The UGTT has long history of struggle for the

independence and against post independence dictators.

Tunisian "human rights organisations" and "Amnesty
international" branch in Tunisia are unique in Arab
world as well. Besides, there are affective
environmental, women, leftist and lawyers associations
and organisations. Secondly the Islamic civil society
also works parallel to seculars. Veronica Baker gives a
list of 26 important civil society organisations and
associations that include lawyers, teachers, trade unions,
prisoners, women, workers and human rights (Baker,
2015). But most notable players in Tunisian revolutions
were Tunisian National Order of Lawyers (ONAT),
Tunisia's strongest labor union (UGTT), the Tunisian
Association of Democratic Women (ATFD), the
Tunisian Human Rights League (LTDH), the National
Syndicate of Tunisian Journalists (SNJT), and Tunisian
Confederation of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts
(UTICA). These were the leading organizations that
pushed the revolution ahead by mobilising their member
spread all around Tunisia. In fact Tunisian uprising
could have never been successful without help of civil
society organizations (Baker, 2015).
UGTT
The Union was famous for its leading role at the
occasion of uprising. The Union has great deal of
experience in protests, strikes and demonstration from
its inception. Therefore, the UGTT during the uprising
maneuvered all its skills to further the protests in the
absence of capable political parties against the regime
(Romdhani, 2012). The UGTT was Tunisia's only
influential union in 1990s to which the Ben Ali regime
tried and succeeded in taming the organisation. In recent
times the UGTT was confronted by other trade
organisations too. In 2008 and early 2010, the UGTT
activists started protracted protests in Gafsa mining
basin. Those protests were akin to that of December
uprising (Alexander, 2011). When the uprising started at
Sidi Bouzid, member of UGTT local branch tried to At
this point, members of the local UGTT tried to settle the

issue between the government and the protester. The

UGTT members tried to calm the protesters and
suggesting the government to heed before the demands
of protesters to diffuse the crisis. On fourth day of
uprising, December 20, the protests spread in others
adjacent and desolate towns of Sidi Bouzid. Oppressed
and angry Tunisian youth teemed into the streets Menzel
Bouzaiane, Meknassi, El-Regueb, and Mazzouna.
UGTT Sensed that the protests were approaching a
decisive stage, and, therefore, decided to join, organise
and direct the movement (Taylor, 2014).
During uprising, on 28 December, 2010, the UGTT
organised a rally at Gafsa which was intercepted by the
regime forces which outraged the UGTT and it broke
away from Ben Ali regime. The UGTT and the lawyers
were at the forefront during the uprising in 2010 and
2011 to display the impact of popular strength. The
UGTT branch of Sidi Bouzid was engaged in revolt
against the regime from day one. The Sidi Bouzid
branch of the UGTT was engaged in the uprising from
day one (Ryan, 2011).
The lawyers, the labour union UGTT, the employer's
union UTICA, and the Tunisian human rights
organistion LTDH played role not only during the
"Jasmine Revolution" but their role was also remarkable
during the transition period. Without the four civil
society organisations' help and efforts coalition for
peacemaking through National Dialogue Quartet in 2013
and 2014 could not have been possible and realised.
Tunisia could have plunged into political instability,
civil war and consequently face the foreign intervention
as experienced in Syria, Libya and Yemen. Constitution
making, formation of technocrat government, foundation
of Election commission, and holding parliamentary and
presidential election all became possible owing to the
efforts of Quartet mediated National Dialogue. Thus the
Tunisian civil society was one of the key segments
among Tunisian institution, organisations, and
associations that never lagged behind either in past,

during revolution or in present in showing its presence

and importance.
Lawyers
The lawyers in Tunisia came to streets and joined other
civil society organisagtions and the youth to fight
against a dictator during the 2011 uprising. The lawyers
victoriously shouted ‘Ben Ali hrab’ i.e. "Ben Ale has
escaped" on 14 January 2011.
As soon as the revolt began in Tunisia, after Bouazizi's
self- immolation, thousands of lawyers gone to strikes
and protests. Out of 8000 lawyers in Tunisia, 95%
joined the strikes and sit-ins against Ben Ali regime
(Aljazeera, 2011). On 31 December, 2010 the lawyers
gathered in Justice Palace to wear red ribbons to express
their support to protests and sit-in. They were scattered
by the regime's brutal police force. Some were even
injured. But the Bar called for protest on 6 January,
2011 condemning use of force against lawyers. The
lawyer's strikes could not be curbed but spread quickly
to Thala and Kasserine on 8 and 9 January 2011. This
time the regime force's repression reached the point of
bloodshed. In response the lawyers once again put black
robes and continued their protests in Sfax, Mednine, Sidi
Bouzid and Kasserine. 14 January was last day of
dictator in Tunisia. This day hundred of lawyers drew
together and marched towards Ministry of Interior
located at Habib Bourguiba Avenue and shouted ‘Ben
Ali, Dégage! Means Ben Ali get out (Transitional
Justice Institute, 2015).
Political Parties
In 2017 Tunisia surpassed all Arab Countries regarding
the achievements of aims and objectives of "Arab
Spring". It is well stable, democratic, progressing
towards popular development and well being. Elections
were held for the constituent assembly in 2011 which
was followed with a great deal of conflicts, unrest,
political murders and instability. The period until

legislative elections held in October 2014 was the most

challenging for all key players in Tunisia, particularly
for the political parties. Although the role of all
Tunisian political parties was not significant during
Tunisian revolution (Alianak, 2014) but was
appreciating when they put all their endeavours to make
peaceful political transition possible.
Ben Ali's Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD)
commanded the political arena until January 2011. RCD
adopted all fair and unfair means to remain in power and
dominate other parties. There were only a few
opposition parties before uprising. Ben Ali permitted
two mainstream parties to operate. These were Ettaktol
and Progressive Demortatec Party. Ennahdha and the
Congress Party for the Republic were banned. These
parties operated in absentia. After ten months elections
for the Constituent Assembly held on 23 October 2011,
number of parties competed elections increased to 81.
217 members of Constituent Assembly were elected to
rewrite the constitution (Boillier, 2011).
Role of Army
The Role of Tunisian Armed Forces (TAF) was very
significant during the Jasmine Revolution. The Tunisian
Military has been a professional since the independence.
It intentionally chose enhanced professional and
institutional capabilities when political system war
crumbling. At the inception Tunisian armed forces
followed the orders and directions of President and
deployed forces in order to guard important sites and
infrastructure. The military was stuck in confusion and
uncertainty about goals and objects of the revolution.
Soon the outrage reached to the capital city. The military
discerned that the anger of people was against repression
and corruption of Ben ALi's regime and Trabelsi family,
not against military (Taylor, 2014). Soon it became
clearer to Tunisian military that the Ben Ali's internal
security forces were not in a position to contain the
revolt without the help of armed forces and that the

general public was supporting of military. General

Rashid Ammar, Tunisian Chief of Staff of the Army,
evaluated the scenario and decided not to obey the
orders of Ben Ali, Commander-in-Cheif, and instead
General Ammar advised the President to leave the
country (Taylor, 2014). The zeal and fervour of the
protester did not diminish even when they witnessed the
death of 338 protesters and another 2147 injured.
Biggest part of the casualties was that of civil society
activists pertinently in Sidi Bouzid, Kasserine, Gafsa
and Tunis. The Ben Ali security applied tactics of
repression but could not contain the demonstration. The
President evaluated that nothing was going in his favour
nor the security forces were able to curb the protests, he
ordered the army to deploy and crush the revolt on 9
January 2011 (Pachon, 2014). The next day, on 10
January an administrative telegram released from the
office of the army chief to forbid his units from using
weapons against the protestors unless otherwise ordered.
Four days after this telegram, on 14 January, there was
only one option for Ben Ali...to leave the country. On
the same day and date he fled from Tunisia. The refusal
of army to shoot at the demonstrators made the triumph
of revolution and the protester possible over Ben Ali
regime. The role of army later made the confirmation of
successful revolution when General Ammar, on 24
January, 2011 announced that the Tunisian Army
wholeheartedly supports the revolution (Pachon, 2014).
Albeit the Tunisian Army did not obey the orders of
Commander-in-Chief, the President, during the 2011
revolt but it has history of containing the protests and
riots against the regime. Two such examples are the first
direct confrontation of UGTT and the regime in 1978
and the "bread riots" of 1984. (Taylor, 2014). And third
time it was called to intervene to disperse the protests
that started in 2008 in the Gafsa Mining Basin (Pachon,
2014).

Role of Women
From the beginning of Tunisian revolution in December
2010, the women remained on the front lines for
political change. The women in the streets were
religious, intellectuals, peasants, educated or
uneducated. The women participated side by side with
the men throughout the country. The women in Tunisia
confronted the police and secret agencies. They were
attacked by the police, sexually harassed, arrested and
put their lives in danger for the freedom during the
uprising. They even did not lag behind in playing their
role in social media. They played their part in posting
videos, blogging, and disseminating information. They
also became part of human rights activities, movements,
along with other female organisations (Gondorová,
2014). Women lawyers, human right activist, female
members of UGTT, female teachers, women in the
country side, young and old all equally were participants
in the revolution. The women not only fervently
participated and sacrificed during the uprising from 17
December 2010 to 14 January 2011, the day when Ben
Ali fled the country, but also stood firmly alongside the
men at the critical situations of Kasbah I and Kasbah II
respectively in January and February 2011 (Sadiki,
2014). The women in Tunisia did not lag behind in
political participation after the success of revolution and
the transitional period; elections of National Constituent
Assembly 2011 to general elections 2014; election of
NCA held in 23 October 2011 where women got 24%
share; whereas the NCA was replaced by "Majlis
Nawwab Ash-Sha’ab (TUNISIAN ASSEMBLY OF
PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES) on 26 October 2014.
Women occupied 68 seats in newly elected Tunisian
Assembly (Election Guide, 2014).
Social Media Activists
Communication on social media was not considered a
threat to the security and stability of regime before the
onset of the Tunisian uprising. Major reason of this was

that the forums such as Facebook, Youtube etc were not

used for political purpose and propaganda (Logan,
2012). The state blockage and control of Tunisian press
made it difficult for them to cover the stories of uprising.
Thus the internet oriented activists began to proliferate
information about the events of uprising through
Facebook, email and other forums. Owing to state
control of press, the bloggers took the responsibility and
were the single source to disseminate information
regarding the Jasmine Revolution in first few days
(Ottaway & Hamzawy, 2011). When the authentic
history of Tunisia during the Jasmine Revolution is
written, Facebook's chapter will be highlighted most
because the activists took the help of Facebook to
organise the uprising which the regime was unable to
control (Alexander, 2011). Owing to the access of use of
Facebook, the New York Times columnist, Roger
Cohen, calls the Tunisian Revolution as the Facebook
revolution. The cyber activists and protesters were
apparently out of the reach of the regime as compared to
the protesters in the street. Facebook use in Tunisia was
more extended compared to other Arab spring countries.
Even the Facebook users invited their friends to
participate in the scheduled demonstrations. They also
advised group members to apprise their friends about
events during the uprising (Kazamias, 2011). Tunisian
Internet Agency, controlled by the regime, was also
vibrant against the cyber-protesters. Censoring,
monitoring of the internet activists, and disallowing
Social Media Activists to reach the material against the
regime uploaded in different social media handles.
According to Marc Lynch (2013), a foreign policy
advisor to President Barack Obama, “This was a
generational change. This rising generation of young
people had spent their formative years on the Internet,
plotting their next protest rather than hiding from
politics, therefore, most of them could not even conceive
of the world of the 1970s and 1980s when authoritarian
regimes dominated every aspect of public life” (Lynch,
2013. p. 13).

In North Africa Tunisians out number other countries in

internet use. Approximately 3.6 million Tunisians use
internet (Ryan, 2011). Radio and television were
allowed to function in the mid of 2000s but were not
permitted to broadcast or telecast anything going against
the regime. When Ben Ali won the elections of 2009 he
started retaliation against journalists he thought anti to
his regime (Reporters Without Borders, 2010). Use of
cell phones was another advantage that the Tunisian
populace took advantage of during the uprising. Pictures
of angry, emotional, wounded and dead protesters were
captured at the spot and shared through the social media
sites via their cell phones. Expressing solidarity with
Tunisian in the country, the Tunisian expatriates also
played leading part in sharing videos and pictures of
uprising through Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube
etc. The hashtags on Twitter give us information about
how the protests and uprising of localised nature turned
to national level. A hashtag describes this better:
#bouazizi became #sidibouzid, then #Tunisia. It simply
tells that what Bouazizi did awoke Sidi Bouzid and later
the all Tunisia (Ryan, 2011).
It was social media that got rid of fear of cruelty and
repression from the regime. During revolution protesters
were open and fearless to chant, to share videos,
pictures, comments on social media. Although
Bouazizi's sacrifice was the most imminent factor in
instigating uprising against the regime, it was social
media activist who revolutionised the uprising and made
new Tunisia. Messaoud Romadhani calls the internet
users and jobless youths the heroes of Jasmine
Revolution. (Romdhani, 2012)
Conclusion
The Arab Spring shook the entire Arab world and the
Middle East. It started from Tunisia and gradually the
uprisings spread to almost entire Middle East. One of
the main causes of the failure of uprisings and revolution
during the Arab Spring was that the regimes undermined

the role of various important key players on one hand,

and on the other hand the main key players--the youth,
civil society organisations, social media bloggers,
political parties, state institutions, army etc. in those
countries could not come together to resolve the conflict.
But Tunisia is the best model in this connection and
therefore Tunisia came up as the only successful
revolution during the Arab Spring. The situation, in any
condition, was not ripe for a revolution in Tunisia. But
once the uprising began, the situation turned highly ripe
for a bloody civil war and counter revolution during the
Ben Ali regime forces and protesters face off, during the
making of National Constituent Assembly elections of
2011, during the formation of interim government of the
Troika and the constitution making process; and during
the legislative and presidential elections of 2014 and
2015 respectively. Nevertheless, all the key players in
Tunisia i.e. the youth, women, political parties, civil
society organisations, the bloggers and social media
activists and the state institutions played their positive
role very intelligently during the revolution and the
democratic transition process and led Tunisia out of
socio-economic, political and constitutional crisis and
prevented dangers and havoc of counter-revolution and
civil war.
Although key players in Tunisia triumphed all the
imminent hurdles, dangers, and threats confronted to it
and successfully changed Tunisia into a democratic
state. Even still after the successful democratic transition
and Revolution, Tunisian government is facing some
serious issues regarding the economy, political
instability, terrorism, frustration in youth and inflation.
To avoid being model of Egypt, Syria, Yemen and
Libya, Tunisia has to take rational and reasonable
economic and political decisions to calm and satisfy all
the key players who stood against Ben Ali for freedom,
peace and prosperity and never legged behind from any
sacrifice during the Jasmine Revolution and during the
democratic transition process. Those are the key players

or the main actors in any state in the globe who

ultimately decide its success or failure. Therefore,
Tunisian government has to go altogether with the key
players and fulfil all the social, political and economic
rights and liberties guaranteed to them by the
Constitution of Tunisia adopted on January 2014.

References
 Alexander, C. (2011). “The rise and fall of Ben
Ali” Revolution in the Arab World. Washington, DC:
Foreign Policy.
 Alexander, C. (2011). “A Month Made For
Drama” Lynch, M., Glasser, SB & Hounshell, B.
Revolution in the Arab World: Tunisia, Egypt, and the
unmaking of an era. Foreign Policy, 45-49.
 Alianak, S. L. (2014). The Transition Towards
Revolution and Reform: The Arab Spring Realised?
Edinburgh University Press.
 Aljazeera. (2011 January 7). “Thousands of Tunisia
lawyers strike” Aljazeera, Retrieved April 23, 2018,
from (http://www.aljazeera.com/news
 Arieff, A. (2012). “Political transition in
Tunisia”, Current Politics and Economics of
Africa, 5(2), 287.
 Baker, V. (2015). “The role of civil society in the
Tunisian democratic transition”, Thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado.
 Bollier, S. (2011). “Who are Tunisia's political parties?”,
Retrieved July 1, 2017, from
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth
 Center, C. (2014). “The Constitution-Making Process in
Tunisia, 2011– 2014” Atlanta, GA: The Carter Centre.
 Deane, S. (2013). “Transforming Tunisia: The role of
civil society in Tunisia’s transition”, International Alert.
 Delany, Colin. (2011). “How Social Delany,
Accelerated Tunisia’s Revolution: An Inside
View”, Retrieved July 10, 2017, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
 Election Guide. (2014). “Tunisian Republic”, Election
Guide, Retrieved June 28, 2017, from
http://www.electionguide.org/elections/id/2746/.
 Fergany, N. (2016). Arab Revolution in the 21st
Century?: Lessons from Egypt and Tunisia. Springer.
 Gondorová, E. (2014). “The position of women in post-
revolutionary Tunisia and their role in political decision-

making processes: Between social movements,

frustrations and administrative routine?”, Moving the
Social, 52, 27-47.
 Honwana, A. (2011, September). “Youth and the
Tunisian revolution”, Conflict Prevention and Peace
Forum policy paper.
 Jamoom, Mohammad. (2015). “How online activism
propelled Tunisia's revolution”, Retrieved July 7, 2017,
from http://www.aljazeera.com
 Jamshidi, M. (2013). The future of the Arab spring:
Civic entrepreneurship in politics, art, and technology
startups. Elsevier.
 Jeter, J. P. (1996). International Afro mass media: a
reference guide. Greenwood Publishing Group.
 Kaviraj, S., & Khilnani, S. (Eds.). (2001). Civil society:
history and possibilities. Cambridge University Press.
 Kazamias, A. (2011). “The ‘Anger Revolutions’ in the
Middle East: an answer to decades of failed reform”,
Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 13(2), 143-
156.
 Labidi, I. (2017 December). Mothers of Tunisian
revolution. Retrieved May 05, 2018, from
http://fpif.org/mothers_of_the_jasmine_revolution/.
 Lalkar (2011). “The causes of the Tunisian revolution go
well beyond Ben Ali and his party”, Retrieved June 12,
2017, from http://www.lalkar.org/article/465
 Logan, T. P. (2012). When authoritarianism failed in
Tunisia: An investigation of the Ben Ali regime and the
factors that led to its downfall. Georgetown University.
 Lynch, M. (2013). “The Arab uprising: The unfinished
revolutions of the new Middle East”, PublicAffairs.
 Marcovitz, H. (2014). “The Arab spring uprisings”,
ReferencePoint Press P-27.
 Mejdi, I. (1 Feb 2016). “Tunisia: a booming civil
society, a fragile democracy, and endless challenges
ahead”, Retrieved on June 19, 2017, from
https://nawaat.org/portail/2016/02/01/tunisia
 Melhem, Dina. (2015). “Tunisia's Nobel Winners have
shown how to build peace--the rest is up to us”,

Retrieved April 01, 2018, from

https://www.theguardian.com
 Murphy, E. (1999). Economic and political change in
Tunisia: from Bourguiba to Ben Ali. New York: St.
 Ottaway, M., & Hamzawy, A. (2011). Protest
movements and political change in the Arab world (Vol.
28). Washington, DC: CARNEGIE endowment for
International Peace.
 Pachon, A. (2014). “Loyalty and Defection:
Misunderstanding civil-military relations in Tunisia
during the Arab Spring” Journal of Strategic
Studies, 37(4), 508-531.
 Reich, Devid. (2012). “A Social Media Revolution?
Tunisians Weigh In”, Retrieved March 20, 2017, from
https://sixestate.com
 Reporters Without Borders. (2010). “Tunisia” 5 January.
Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?
 Romdhani, M. (2012, December 31). “Origins of the
Tunisian Revolution” Retrieved April 17, 2108, from
http://www.alterinter.org/spip.php?article3888
 Ryan, Y. (2011). “How Tunisia’s revolution began”, Al
Jazeera, January, 26.
 Sadiki, L. (Ed.). (2014). Routledge handbook of the
Arab Spring: rethinking democratization. Routledge.
 Souissi, Zoubeir. (2015). “How Tunisia's 'Quartet' Saved
A Country From Civil War And Won The Nobel Peace
Prize”, Retrieved August 10, 2017, from
http://www.npr.org
 Syed, M. (2014). “Exploring the Causes of Revolutions
in Tunisia and Egypt”, Middle Eastern
Studies/Ortadogu Etütleri, 5(2).
 Taylor, W. (2014). Military Responses to the Arab
Uprisings and the Future of Civil-military Relations in
the Middle East: Analysis from Egypt, Tunisia, Libya,
and Syria. Springer.
 Transitional Justice Institute (2015). “The Role of
Lawyers as Transitional Actors in Tunisia”, 2015.
Retrieved April 26, 2018, from
https://lawyersconflictandtransition.org

 YÜKSEL, B. A., & Bingöl, Y. (2013). “The Arab

Spring in Tunisia: A Liberal Democratic
Transition?”, Electronic Journal of Social
Sciences, 12(47).

The Politics of Insecurity and Uncertainty in

Afghanistan Post-2014: Implications for
Pakistan
Allauddin
Ph.D. Scholar at School of IR and Public Affairs,
International Studies University Shanghai, China.
allauddin_kakar@yahoo.com
Sohail Ahmad (PhD)

Assistant Professor of International Relations,
COMASATS University Islamabad, Pakistan.
Sohailahamad35@yahoo.com
Abstract
Afghanistan’s history is replete with war, instability,
terror, deaths, corruption, suicides and drug trafficking
because of multiple reasons ranging from domestic
incapability to regional involvement and international
interference. This process is coming to a decisive
conclusion with no permanent and immaculate solution
in sight. This creates a huge issue of concern for Afghan
people, regional states particularly Pakistan and
international community. The present study aims to
describe, the critical phase of post-2014 has invoked the
question that who is going to fit into this uncertain
condition. The answer of this question partly lies in
Afghanistan’s internal security dynamics that whether
stability and prosperity will be achieved or not.
Keywords: Militancy; Sectarian Violence; War on
Terror; Suicide Attacks; FATA: Extremism; Security.
Introduction
On June 22, 2011 the United States of America under
the Obama administration announced to pull out the US-
led NATO forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014
with an undecided and an unsettled future of the

country. With this announcement the responsibility is

shifted from allied forces to the shoulders of Afghan
government and Afghan National Army (ANA) to tackle
the post 2014 Afghanistan and rebuild it for its citizens
with the assistance of International and regional powers
and the resurgence of the Taliban power in the already
war torn country. Former senior commander of the
Coalition forces in Afghanistan in 2009-11, General
David Rodriguez stated that “the Afghan forces,
supported by the Coalition can achieve irreversible gains
and successfully secure Afghanistan’s key terrain by the
end of 2014” ( Rodriguez, 2011)
To tackle, build and transform Afghanistan to a secure,
stable and robust state depends for most of the time on
its internal security calculus which includes Afghan
National Security Forces (ANSF) readiness and
capabilities to counter and cease the terror groups,
foreign forces stationing and their withdrawal timing
from Afghanistan along with the Taliban resurgence on
the Afghan soil with more coercive power. As for the
question of implications on Pakistan are concerned so it
is the geographical contiguity as the foremost reason
which brings Pakistan into question once foreign forces
leave Afghanistan leaving behind a corrupt, inapt and
weak administrative and military setup.
This paper is going to analyze this supposition that
either the changing Internal Security dynamics of
Afghanistan will help the return of peace to that country
or will it lead to another Civil war while creating new
security quagmires for the two neighboring states i.e.
Pakistan and Afghanistan, and what will be the overall
impact of changing Internal security dynamics of
Afghanistan on Pakistan in the aftermath of withdrawal.
The objectives of the paper are to analyze the internal
security dynamics of Afghanistan in post 2014 and in
accordance to forecast the new emerging security threats
which might emanate from the changing security
dynamics and critically examine the implications of
worsening security conditions of Afghanistan on its

neighboring state i.e. Pakistan. Lastly to conduct a

research this helps in devising responsible foreign policy
towards changing security environment of Afghanistan.
To achieve this goal the paper is divided into four
sections; First section is concerned with the theoretical
framework used to conduct this paper and theory opted
to chalk out this research paper is that of regional
security complex RSCT and concept of Military
security. Second section deals with the Internal security
dynamics of Afghanistan in post 2014 scenario and this
includes the stationing of foreign forces on Afghan soil
under the Bilateral security agreement between the
United States government and Afghan government.
Third section takes into account the new emerging
security issues and concerns in post US withdrawal
Afghanistan and these new emerging security quagmires
include the threats of outbreak of a new round of civil
war in Afghanistan and the entrance of Islamic State
(ISIS) fighters into the Afghan land for finalizing of
their dream of a global Islamic caliphate extending to
the Indian peninsula. Fourth and final section deals with
the overall implications of all these internal security
dynamics of Afghanistan in post withdrawal period on
Pakistan due to geographical contiguity and porous
borders with Afghanistan and how much a responsible
policy is needed at this time in point to avert such
uncertain conditions to enter and take into its circle the
Pakistani state and its masses.
Internal Security Dynamics of Afghanistan Post 2014
Internal security dynamics of Afghanistan is a collective
of three-level forces which either enhance or deteriorate
the security of Afghanistan i.e. International forces,
Afghan National Security Forces and Taliban insurgent
forces. (Hilbert, 2014) First of all, how does the
International security assistance forces (ISAF) stationing
at the bases of Afghanistan in the wake of Bilateral
Security Agreement (BSA) to assist, train and equip the
Afghan national security forces after the US withdrawal

affects the overall security of Afghanistan? Second is

that how much is the Afghan national security forces
capable to take full responsibility of the security and
stability of the Afghan soil from internal and external
threats? And lastly how will the reemerging Taliban
leadership and forces prove to be a credible threat to
Afghanistan’s Security and stability in the post 2014
scenario?
Taliban’s Growing Resurgence
The growing resurgence of Taliban is a real issue of
concern because it jeopardizes the security of
Afghanistan along with the combat mission of west.
Taliban have sometimes agreed to come to the
negotiating table but with particular conditions like
taking their names out of the international terrorist lists
and getting their fellow Taliban’s set free which
ultimately shows that they are regrouping and
reemerging like a real threat to the Afghanistan’s
security forces. ISAF forces have always tried to cut off
their supply lines of logistics and other monetary funds
but they still pose a real threat to the Afghanistan’s
stability and are very much deep rooted into the social
fabric of Afghanistan due to their ferocious and
nefarious policies of executing people in front of the
public. (Abbas, 2014)
Taliban are far from being defeated due to their support
and fundraising from other insurgent groups of other
unstable states. Vanda Felbab-Brown states in a research
article that
“With all the challenges the Taliban and its associated
insurgents face, none of them is close to being defeated.
The Taliban is still deeply entrenched in Afghanistan
and its capacity to persevere with an intense insurgency
is undiminished. The group has good reason to believe
that the departure of Western forces will considerably
weaken the ANSF, and its military position will improve
significantly.”(Callahan, 2013)

In long term there needs to be a settlement between

Afghan government and Taliban insurgents because all
those members of the Taliban who are from Afghan soil
needs to be included into the political setup rather than
let them to take out their insurgent activities openly and
inflict heavy human loss on the society. A negotiated
peace between government and Taliban is in the favor of
all. On the other hand Northern alliance reiterated it with
clear words that an agreement which allows Taliban a
greater influence and larger territory is not acceptable in
any means because they as a minority also have the say
in deciding the future of this country which is the
essence of democracy. In case if there remains a
deadlock between the government and Taliban and
Taliban keeps on increasing their influence than it is
going to further aggravate the issue of insecurity and
bring into action some new ferocious security quagmires
to the Afghan soil.
New Emerging Security Issues and Concerns in Post
2014 Afghanistan
With all prevailing uncertainties and no hope in sight for
the peace talks and negotiations between the
Afghanistan government and Taliban the future of
Afghanistan seems a little bleak and there seems that
there will be added more insult to the injury of the
Afghan people. Even there is a fear in the minds of
Afghan people that the current unpredictable situation
might lead to a more disastrous fourth cycle of civil war
if this country is not managed properly by the
international security forces along with the Afghan
National Security forces. This is why Military sector of
security is given high profile urgency and priority to
safeguard Afghanistan from falling into a new civil war
or it might fall into the hands of ISIS partially with the
passage of time as highlighted by the President Ashraf
Ghani. (Ignatieff, 2003)

Implications for Pakistan

Being a next door neighbor to Afghanistan, Pakistan is
undoubtedly going to be affected by the ups and downs
in Afghanistan. As Buzan stated that in a regional
security complex the domestic conditions of a state
affect the overall security and insecurity of the region.
Besides that the spillover effect also comes into action
while taking into account the implications of Internal
Security dynamics of Afghanistan on Pakistan because
both the states are highly integrated due to their security,
history, geography and ethnic realities.(Buzan, 1989)
There are multiple effects of the changing Internal
Security dynamics over Pakistan among which some of
them are discussed.
Threat to Territorial Sovereignty
In the wake of mobility of the terrorist groups within
and out of Pakistan from Afghanistan and in response
the search operation by the U.S forces and in result the
dispensation of drones in the Pakistani territory brings
into question the sovereignty of the Pakistan. Not only
this rather in recent times the U.S drone hitting the
Taliban leader Mullah Mansur in the Baluchistan
Province of Pakistan without prior permission of
Pakistani military officials brought the suspicions of
Pakistani officials and military personnel regarding
threat to their national sovereignty. This not only brings
the sovereignty of the state under criticism rather the
military too for harboring and providing sanctuary to the
terrorists in the country.
Spill Over Effect of Terrorism
With the inclusion of transnational terrorism, extremism
and fundamentalism phenomenon there is this viable
threat of transfer of such dangerous ideas to the state of
Pakistan from Afghanistan. This moment of ideas take
place with the mobility of people from one place to
another. Pakistan is among one of the most affected
country from terrorism. The social structures are

threatened with every passing day by the inclusion of

terrorists and terror attacks.(Underhill, 2014) Domestic
conditions of Afghanistan are worse than ever due to
terrorist’s stronghold in different areas and these
problems are over spilled to the bordering areas of
Pakistan.
Insecure Western Border
The western border of Pakistan is getting insecure due to
insecurity in Afghanistan. Durand line is an unresolved
border demarcated by the colonial British in 19 th
century. Afghanistan has never recognized this
demarcation due to which the western border is getting
insecure. People, goods, ideas and services flow across
the border and this has brought the linkages very strong
among the communities living on the border area and
this in turn is transferred into a conflict. (Janjua, 2009)
Pakistan is getting sandwiched between two hostile
neighbors due to its own policies but the worsening
conditions on western border are mostly due to the
instability in Afghanistan and the cultural bonds of the
people. An insecure western border will further
aggravate the already troubled state faced with terrorism
and two hostile states on either border.
Ethnic Dissatisfaction
Afghanistan and Pakistan have ethnic commonality on
its long border in the shape of Pashtuns and any issue in
one state affects the whole Pashtun community on either
side of the border. Since Afghan war of 1979, Pashtuns
are affected in the two states and this is creating
dissatisfaction among the Pashtuns. Nationalist
tendencies are the outcome of these skirmishes and
worsening conditions of the two states. Inclusion of
Religious element in Pashtuns is also a point of serious
consideration and ethnic dissatisfaction. State of
Pakistan along with the Pashtun leadership is doing
politics over the cultural sentiments of the Pashtuns and
this in long will come back in very violent outcome. The

youth from FATA, KPK and Baluchistan are getting

anti-Military and even anti-Pakistan due to such
suffrages.(Ali, 2008) Even some of them are thinking
for military back leash against the Pakistani state as
Baloch students are doing for freedom and better future
where they are not used as cannon fodder for every
terrorist activities in the Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Issue of Regional Economic Integration
Instability in Afghanistan is directly or indirectly going
to affect Pakistan in all socio-economic, geopolitical and
geostrategic ways but the most dangerous among all
these in recent times is that of economic one. Pakistan
meanwhile is going to sign $46 billion worth project
with China but until and unless there is complete
security and stability in Afghanistan the neighboring
Pakistan cannot avail the prospects of the project
properly. (Husain, 2006) Pakistan due to instability in its
western neighborhood might fear a rise in militancy in
its Baluchistan and KPK provinces on the other hand
People Republic of China will never put their huge
financial project at stake. So in other words Pakistan is
going to get isolated due to the issue of insecurity in
neighboring Afghanistan and economic integration of
Pakistan will become a nightmare which is indeed a
national issue.
Regional Implications for Pakistan
This paper also discusses the impacts of US-Afghan
relations on the regional security of Pakistan. It argues
that the post 9/11 contact of Washington and Kabul has
resulted in deteriorating bilateral relations of Pakistan
with other regional countries. For example, Indian
involvement in Balochistan through Afghanistan has
severe impacts on Pak-India ties. India has been
supporting the insurgent movement of Baloch through
its consulates in Afghanistan. Secondly, Kabul’s
hostility towards Islamabad has been increase in post

9/11 era. These events have affected the regional

security of Pakistan.
Regional Security
Conflict state of affairs is resultantly a threat to security
and it can be defined as freedom from danger, fear and
anxiety. Security falls into danger because of human
relations when human groups have different values,
traditions, needs and interests, like limited resources
availability compel the people of different regions to
fight for. However, in the states’ context, the security
means the invulnerability of a state from outside
international borders and immunization of minimum-
core values called political independence and territorial
boundaries from the effect of other states.
As for as, the international community is interdependent,
the rise of insecurity in one state has direct impacts on
the regional security and even on the global security.
Therefore, regional security can be concluded as, an
ideal type of security order wherein regional states
coordinate to manage a political harmony by solving
regional problems and eradicating these problems to
never arise again in future. (Ayoob, 1991)
Regional and sub-regional organizations have explicit
security building missions since 1945, while renewed
outpouring came into existence from 1990s onward.
There has been standard breakdown of a region in
establishment of the regional security systems in the
form of established security forms like the collective
security system, the alliance, the security community
and the security regime, but these all commitments have
been looking to want in vain. Therefore, a new analysis
and agreement came into existence in the form of
Security. Functionality Points for some years which
consists the following four sets of purposes
1. The security dialogue and conflict management aim to
flourish and establish the peace and stability in the
region like European Union (EU) is the most ambitious

organization to work on this phenomenon for the

purpose of regional security.
2. The second one aims to curb danger from military
activity in the form of mutual systems of military
cooperation. As for instance, Conference on Security
and cooperation in Europe (CSCE), African Union,
NATO, and EU. But, unfortunately, SAARC of South
Asian countries is still naïve in this field of military
cooperation to make secure their own region from
dangerous elements.
3. Democratic standards of government cooperation, for
the respective nations’ development, respect for human
rights, peaceful and secure condition support, are highly
supported by regional organizations.
4. Last one is to promote the cooperation in economic field
and by this cooperative strategies all the regional states
would be able to tackle down new threats like terrorism
and terrorist attacks, but Pakistan does not have regional
security organizations with neighboring countries for
above mentioned purposes due to some reasonable
factors.
Regional security of South Asia is at high risk today,
because this region is facing lots of problems regarding
security. Regional security is at blink of destruction as
this region faces civil conflicts, prolonged unresolved
disputes e.g. Kashmir dispute, human tragedies in the
form of women smuggling etc. intolerance leads to
violence, extremism and terrorism. But, this region was
also very important during Cold War time and played
very crucial role to make the final decision about that
war which devastated the security of this region, because
it played role as a battle field during that war.
(Carpenter, 2000)
Furthermore, the South Asia is being declared as the
most dangerous region on earth, because Indian and
Pakistan both have nuclear weapons that are small but
serious wonder for the people of the world. The obvious
nuclearization of Pakistan and India created a serious
worry for the world instead of only South Asia, because

any disturbance could harm the peace and harmony of

the whole world as both countries are capable enough to
cause great devastation to the globe in time of
war.(Baig, 2017) However, Pakistan has been playing
very crucial to maintain peace and stability not only in
the region, but also across the globe as explained below
and this is the reason that this region is still safe from
nuclear war and terrible insecurity.
Pakistan from its date of inception has played a very
vital role to secure the world from increasing
weaponization and nuclearization, while committed
firmly to the conviction that world should be
safeguarded from the fears of atomic danger. Pakistan is
also a staunch supporter of principle that states the equal
and legitimized security for the globe. The country has
strongly supported the global efforts for non-
proliferation of chemical, biological, and nuclear
weapons that are being declared as Mass Destruction
Weapons or Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Pakistan also proposed that the method of issues related
to nuclear weapons and its non-proliferation agenda
should be made effective through dialogues and
international community’s collaboration. (Cirincione,
2009)
Pakistan proved its commitment towards non-
proliferation by signing all the treaties with United
Nations and joined international organizations related to
this phenomena. Pakistan supported this international
agenda by voluntarily joining the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) and sited all its nuclear services
under the precautionary measures of IAEA in 1957. It
was the only country which probed the UN to put all the
South Asian countries free of nuclear weapons4 and also
sanctioned the International Convention on Nuclear
Safety and the Chemical Weapons Convention and also
approved the Amended Protocol 11 of the Certain
Conventional Weapons Summit in 1997 that oversees
the usage of landmines.(Hersh, 2009) Because of these
efforts Pakistan was elected to IAEA’s Board of

Governors in 1997 for two years, in those two years it

committed to the potential prevention of the nuclear
terrorist’s activities across the globe. And, Pakistan in
1984 came to approve the treaty for Biological Weapon
Convention (BWC) and Organization for Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) under the fulfillment of
obligations of Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
These treaties and agreements came to the conclusion
that Production, Development and stocking up these
toxic weapons should not be enhanced at any cost or
should be destructed soon after their development, while
Pakistan constituted a law regarding these above
mentioned conventions and submitted their initiatives
and annual reports to the world under the national
department called “the National Authority for
implementation of Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC).
However, it was the only country which agreed on all
aspects of biological and toxic weapons control, but
raising the fact that all participated nations should be
universally fair, impartial, and non-discriminatory in
case of global non-proliferation and for this purpose, it
has petitioned the peaceful use of nuclear technology to
enhance the non-proliferation agenda and global
community’s cooperation. It demanded the knowledge
about peaceful use of nuclear technologies in developing
countries from developed countries. Furthermore, it is
not the permanent member of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) and the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty
(FMCT), because it has a valid point to stand on as if the
developed nations are ready to formally recognize it as a
nuclear state then it would absolutely join the above
mentioned treaties. However, Pakistan has played a vital
role with China on Convention on Physical Protection of
Nuclear Materials (CPPNM).(Hilali, 2013) And, it
established its nuclear regulatory authority under the
United Nations Safety Convention’s Act 8(2) on January
22, 2001 that is known as Pakistan National Regulatory

Authority (PNRA). It aimed to ensure the efficacy and

regularization of nuclear technology in regard of
peaceful utilization of nuclear energy.
Besides, all these allegations, Pakistan welcomed and
adopted the advanced and tightened strategies about
nuclear safety. These advancements made it to waste a
lot of economy for these extra securities. These were the
propagandas which compelled Pakistan on nuclear
security enhancement. Because, its assets were already
invulnerable to any perilous agent before and now, but,
unfortunately, its comprehensive command and control
was only present in heavy loss of economy and this was
the arrival of 9/11/2001. (Etzioni, 2008)
Above mentioned propagandas were not enough for US
and its western allies to defame the Pakistan’s nuclear
security measures. Thus, it adopted the United Nations
Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) No. 1540.57
under the bill of Nuclear Control Bill on 10/05/2004 to
prevent proliferation of nuclear technologies and
developed the PNRA to Nuclear Security Action Plan
and also joined the Illicit Trafficking Data Base (ITDB)
of IAEA’s information system and also showed earnest
eagerness towards its clearance for this agency. For this
purpose, Pakistan permitted the Suppression of Acts of
Nuclear Terrorism inventiveness in the United Nations
general assembly and, plotted new lists of sensitive
technologies and material related to put those on
disturbing export control system of nuclear and
biological weapons. It also adopted and issued the
National Control List (NCL) of those weapons which
are being controlled by EU system of classification.
And, this list was displayed by Nuclear Suppliers Group
(NSG) by Australia and the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR). (Gardezi, 2010)
Because, as mentioned above, Pakistan face lots of
allegations from U.S.A and western media that it has
weak security system regarding nuclear security and this
propaganda reached at peak level after 9/11.(Chomsky,

2011) This was the strategic propaganda form US and

its allies to compel the Pakistan to tighten its nuclear
security and waste more economy on the security
measure that would make its economy weak and they
thought that its regional security would become
vulnerable at international level as its economy came to
decline. And, then they will take Pakistan’s nuclear
assets in their own custody to declare it as a security
state and blame the Pakistan as well that it was
incompetent to provide foolproof security to it nuclear
assets. Therefore, Pakistan spent lots of its economic
assets on nuclear security measures and signed many
international conventions regarding nuclear security and
none of the international states helped us economically
for nuclear security that could maintain our previous
economic growth.
Furthermore, US-Afghan relations after 9/11 brought
lots of consequences for Pakistan as the influx of
Taliban from Afghanistan to Pakistani tribal areas and
Khyber-Pakhtoon-khwa put its regional security at stake.
For this purpose, to tackle down the Taliban in those
areas, Pakistan deployed its most of security personals
in Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA) and
KP province for security concerns. Nonetheless, the role
of India in Afghanistan after 9/11 increased greatly that
concluded in the insurgency of Balochistan and this
insurgency also compelled the Pakistan to deploy its
army and frontier corps, although China projects in
Gwadar port also delayed because of this mentioned
Indian involvement in Balochistan. Those were the short
explained repercussions for Pakistan after 9/11 attack on
Afghanistan that brought its regional security and
economy greatly at stake. And, the diplomatic relations
of Pakistan with India and Afghanistan also deteriorated
greatly due US intervention here in Afghanistan after
9/11. (Cohen, 2011)

Conclusion
With the uncertain security conditions and nascent
military institution of Afghanistan according to some
experts the country might fall into a new round of civil
war. This time the civil war is not because of the local
war lords rather this time there is a fear of Taliban
takeover. This civil war is going to hurt everyone deeply
unlike the civil war in 1990’s. Besides that there is
warning from the Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in U.S
congress to the U.S lawmakers and international
community regarding the growing influence of ISIS in
Afghanistan. The new group is having its strong hold in
Syria and Iraq but due to the fertile land for terrorism:
Afghanistan is an easy access and approachable venue
for Islamic State fighters and recruits. Inclusion of this
new deadliest group in Afghanistan will further
destabilize this country.
Due to geographical contiguity and Regional Security
Complex Theory assumption of spillover effect,
Pakistan will surely be affect by the Internal Security
Dynamics of Afghanistan in post 2014 time period. The
implications for Pakistan will be on multiple fronts for
instance, geopolitical, social, economic, geostrategic,
regional and bilateral. Some of the serious issues are
threat to sovereignty, spillover effect of terrorism,
insecure western border, ethnic dissatisfaction and issue
of regional economic integration. In all these cases
Afghanistan’s instability and insecurity will add insult to
the injury of Pakistan’s stability, security and prosperity
and sensible policy is the need of time.

References
 Abbas, H. (2014). The Taliban revival: violence and
extremism on the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier. Yale
University Press.
 Ayoob, M. (1991). The security problematic of the Third
World. World Politics, 43(2), 257-283.
 Ali Shah, S. F. (2008). The Importance of Enduring
Partnership Between the US and Pakistan in Combating
Terrorism. MARINE CORPS COMMAND AND
STAFF COLL QUANTICO VA.
 Baig, Z. N. (2017). Future tense: lessons from the best
and worst cases in Afghanistan from Pakistan's
perspective. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey
United States.
 Buzan, B., Wæver, O., Wæver, O., & De Wilde, J.
(1998). Security: a new framework for analysis. Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
 Cohen, S. P. (2011). The future of Pakistan. Brookings
Institution Press.
 Hussain, Z. (2006). Frontline Pakistan: the struggle
with militant Islam. IB Tauris.
 Callahan Jr, E. M. (2013). To rule the roof of the world:
Power and patronage in Afghan Kyrgyz society. Boston
University.
 Chomsky, N. (2011). 9-11: Was There an Alternative?
Seven Stories Press.
 Cirincione, J. (2014). Repairing the regime: Preventing
the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Routledge.
 Carpenter, W. M., & Wiencek, D. G. (2000). Asian
Security Handbook 2000. ME Sharpe.
 Etzioni, A. (2008). Security first: for a muscular, moral
foreign policy. Yale University Press.
 Gardezi, I. (2010). Pakistan's Stabilizing
Arsenal. Foreign Affairs, 89(4), 176-177.
 Hersh, S. M. (2009). Defending the arsenal. The New
Yorker, 16.
 Hilali, A. Z. (2013). Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives
in the post-September 11, 2001 era. Strategic

Studies, 32.―So, What About Those Nukes?, The New

York Times (New York), November 11, 2007. Accessed
on 29 December 2015
 Hilpert, C. (2014). Strategic Cultural Change and the
Challenge for Security Policy: Germany and the
Bundeswehr's Deployment to Afghanistan. Springer.
 Ignatieff, M. (2003). Empire lite: nation building in
Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan. Random House.
 Janjua, M. Q. (2009). In the Shadow of the Durand Line:
Security, Stability, and the Future of Pakistan and
Afghanistan. NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
MONTEREY CA.
 Rodriguez, D. M. (2011). Leaving Afghanistan to the
Afghans: A Commander's Take on Security. Foreign
Affairs, 45-53.
 Underhill, N. (2014). Countering global terrorism and
insurgency: calculating the risk of state failure in
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Springer.

The New Cold War in Syria
Muhammad Dawood Kakar

Lecturer International Relations,
Muslim Youth University Islamabad.
duad.kakar@yahoo.com
Mati Ullah Tareen

Lecturer of International Relations,
BUITEMS, Quetta.
mati.tareen@gmail.com
Dost Muhammad Barech

Research Fellow,
Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad (ISSI).
bareach87@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire, after World War 1
changed the geographical complexion of the Middle
East. The Great Britain, a victorious party of World
War 1, established small and feeble states in the Middle
East for the purpose of securing its geo-strategic
interest in the region. Unnatural boundaries of states
being created by Great Britain and minority ruling over
majority further added to the fuel in quagmire of the
Middle East. Meanwhile, the 2011 Arab uprisings in the
Middle East also brought a great deal of convergence
and divergence of interest among regional and global
powers in Syria. Syria has now become a battlefield.
The United States, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are on one
page intending to remove Syrian President Bashar al-
Assad. On the other hand, Russia, Iran and China desire
to protect Assad’s regime from toppling. The new cold
war in Syria is underway among aforementioned
powers. The 21st century is an era of proxy war, the
global and regional powers are unlikely to trigger a

nuclear war rather will pave the way for proxy war.
Syria, due to it geo-strategic location and its natural
resources has become a battlefield in the new cold war.
The emergence of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIS) as well as the Kurds’ preoccupation with
independence causes more complexity in Syrian politics.
Presumably, there is less likelihood of ending of new
cold war in Syria by virtue of divergence in interest of
global and regional powers.
Key words: Ottoman Empire, of Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIS), Proxy war, new cold war in Syria,
geo-strategic location, consternation, toppling
Introduction
The ongoing rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran in
the Middle East and their quest for hegemony in the
region triggered a proxy war. The Arab spring 2011,
further accelerated the rivalry of archrivals Saudi Arabia
and Iran, causing sectarian violence in their peripheries.
The Arab Spring by changing geopolitics of the region
instigated the demographically majority power groups to
demonstrate their disapproval against the minority class
ruling over them. After the Arab Spring the two main
branches of Islam, Sunny sect led by Saudi Arabia and
Shia led by Iran started a proxy war in Iraq, Yemen,
Lebanon and Bahrain. Meanwhile, moderate Iranian
president Hassan Rouhani’s victory in Iran in August
2013 and Iranian Nuclear Deal with P5+1 in 2015 lifting
sanctions against Iran brought new changes in the
complexion of the Middle Eastern geo-politics. the
hostility between Saudi Arabia and Iran has brought
many commentators in a quandary. Anoushiravan
Ehteshami is of the view that their enmity started on
account of the Iranian revolution. While Fred Halliday
argues that Saudi-Iran conflict should be seen in prism
of the emergence of nationalism and a derivative of

state- building process. To the contrary, Chubin and

Tripp articulate the issue, saying that structural factors
of sectarian, geo-politics and demography cannot be
ruled out. However, Iranian intention for supremacy in
the region is not a new phenomenon, it emanates from
its history and geography determining the future of the
Gulf region.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia assumes that had there
not been power of the British Empire in the coastal areas
of the peninsula, the Saudi King would have been ruling
the region. Thus, Iran’s pre-occupation with power also
existed before 1979 revolution, the revolution converted
Iranian power projection into religious ascendency in the
region. Islam was declared a new doctrine of the
Republic Iran; Iranian regime started competing Saudi
monarchy and was publicly questioning the monarchy.
Ayatollah Khomeini categorically castigated the Saudi
King and said that the Saudi monarchy was “un-Islamic”
and should be overthrown. Hunter, in this regard, rightly
says that “the challenge of the rise of the radical Islam
was especially difficult for the Saudi Arabia because its
entire political system and legitimacy of its ruling elite
rested on Islam”. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran by
pursuing trajectory of Sunni and Shia orchestrated
sectarian violence in the Middle East. The tactic of war
varied from time to time. Both are now engaged in the
Syrian crisis, thus, new cold war in Syria is underway.
Historical Perspective
The history of Syria dates back to 9,000 years; in the 7 th
century under Christian era, Damascus was the capital of
the Arabs and Islam. In the era of Umayyad dynasty,
Syria became hub of the political, economic, cultural
and spiritual activities. However, Syria in 1616 was
conquered by the Ottoman Empire divided the province
into four administrative units, Damascus, Aleppo,

Tripoli and Sidon. The Ottoman Empire, followed the

path of Umayyad dynasty was having the same Islamic-
Arab empire of the Umayyad. With the end of the
Ottoman Empire during WWI, Europe’s interests in the
Middle East and Syria enhanced. The British promised
Prince Faisal of the Royal family in Mecca Arab
independence, if he could cooperate with British against
Germany and the Ottoman rule. Consequently, Anglo-
Arabian troops were stationed in Damascus and Faisal
was elected with the help of the British as the king by
the Syrian Provincial Congress 1920.
Meanwhile, the region was divided between British and
France in Skyes-Picot agreement. France got Syria and
Lebanon, while British received Palestine and Iraq.
(Leukefeld, 2011) Syria in 1945 joined the United
Nations and the Arab League and got independence
from France on April 17, 1946 which is celebrated as
Independence Day of Syria. Israel in six-day war in
1967 occupied Syrian Golan Heights. There was
political turbulence during 1970s in Syria; subsequently,
Defense Minister Hafiz Al-Assad father of current
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad came into power
through bloodshed coup. Hafiz Al-Assad remained
president of Syria till his death in 2000. After his death
his son Bashar al-Assad assumed the power and became
president of Syria. (Leukefeld, 2011)
Arab Spring in 2011, aimed at bringing change in the
Middle East, caused chaos and destruction in Syria and
turned into a bloody civil war. A real objective of the
Arab Spring was to bring democracy, freedom of
expression and better life to the masses. Resultantly,
revolutionaries took the charge demonstrated in Tunisia,
Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Bahrain and Iran. Arab Spring
arrived in Syria in January 21, 2011. The people of Syria
demanded political reforms and civil rights.

The government did not take demands of the masses

seriously that resulted in mass demonstrations of the
protesters in Damascus, Homs and other ports of the
Syria. Many Syrian people were killed in war between
rebels and Syrian military. On that particular juncture,
the US president Barack Obama and British Prime
Minister David Cameron accused the Syrian regime of
using chemical weapons against its own people. On the
other hand, the emergence of ISIS had also caused a
great of devastation in Syria using social media for its
war tactics by recruiting local masses to wage war. Syria
has now become a battlefield for proxy war of global
and regional powers.
Direct and indirect intervention of major powers such as
the US and its Western allies; Russia and Iran escalated
the Syrian crisis. The US along with Saudi Arabia and
its Western allies desire to change Syrian regime. Russia
and Iran intend to preserve Bashar al-Assad regime.
Syrian war seems to be an endless war due to divergence
of interests among the aforementioned countries. (Odias,
2017)
Role of Foreign Actors in Syria
1. The US Role in Syrian Crisis
The US being a global power has a significant role to
play in the Syrian crisis. Syria plays an exceedingly
important role for the US as far as its interests in the
Middle East are concerned. Toppling the regime of
Bashar al-Assad is the top priority of the US foreign
policy. The regime of Assad emboldens Iranian
influence in the region and poses a threat to Israel - an
ally of the US in the region. Intriguingly, with the help
of Iran and Russia, Syria first time in last seven years
regained full control of Damascus suburbs. The US is
concerned with Iranian inroads into military
entrenchment in Syria. Meanwhile, the US and Russian

hostility paves the way for new cold war in Syria. The
US in 2017 engaged with the Russian mercenaries in
eastern Syria. Consolidated regime of Assad will give an
easy access to Russia to reach to the East which is
unacceptable to the US; Russia under Assad regime
desires to control hydrocarbon facilities of the US which
are under tutelage of Syrian Democratic Forces being
supported by the US.
Russian constantly warned the US that Russia was ready
to attack the US base at Tanf. The US, therefore, is wary
of Russian growing adventurism in Syria. (Mona
Yacoubian, 2018). The Trump administration announced
a new team for Syria led by Jim Jeffery seasoned
diplomats who intends to maintain the US military
presence in Syria, increasing pressure via new sanctions.
Defeating of ISIS is another challenge for the US in
Syria; the US wants to eliminate presence of ISIS in
Syria. (Mona Yacoubian, 2018).
However, recent US Syria Policy announced by
President Donald Trump in his Address to soldiers in
Iraq in December 2018 revealed that US would seek
political solution of the issue in Syria and that US
would gradually Withdrew her forces from the region,
but it is generaly believed that donald Trump may be
confused in decidining the future of Syria. Keeping
President Trump past statements, US might not opt for
complete withdwarl.
2. Russian pre-occupation with Syria
Russia is concerned about the IS growing foothold in
Syria, contemplating to get rid of it, before it reaches to
its backyard. It is believed that many of ISIS field
commanders have affiliation with Chechen that certainly
poses a threat to Russian sovereignty. Assad’s regime
collapse will make Syria a mega-jihadist state that
Russians never want to happen. Russia, having religious

relations with oldest Patriarchates Christendom in Syria,

desires to protect Christian minority and Patriarchates
Christendom has collegial relations with Moscow. Putin
by demonstrating himself as defender of the faith of
Orthodox values having cordial relations with Moscow
Patriarchates. Getting support of Moscow Patriarchates
will consolidate Putin regime. Putin has already made it
clear that minority groups in Syria such as Alawite and
Christian need to be protected. (Petrolekas, 2018)
Russia, on the other hand, is looking forward to
protecting Assad Regime by virtue of its naval base
Tartus in Syria .Tartus naval base gives an easy access
to Russia to reach the Mediterranean Sea for the purpose
of reinforcing its naval power abroad. Apart from that,
Russia has economic ties with Syria and the latter is the
biggest consumer of Russian export items. Russia also
exports arms and fighter planes to Syria. Most
considerably, Russia has invested billions of dollars in
Syrian development. Russia believes that Syria is only
state in the Middle East that strengthens its influence in
the Middle East. Toppling regime of Assad by Western
allies will exterminate Russian economic ties; military
benefits its naval base in Syria.
Of course, there is the fact that Russia has not
overlooked its humiliation in Afghanistan and does not
want to repeat Afghanistan’s episode in Syria.
Overthrowing of Assad regime means that Russia has
less power in the Middle East. Both Putin and Assad
articulated categorically that Syrian fate should be
determined by the Syrians rather than by the US. Syria
asked Russia to intervene in Syria in order to defeat
rebel groups being supported by the US and its allies.
Without Russia’s help, elimination of ISIS and rebel
groups seems to be impossible for the Assad regime.

3. Turkey and Syrian Crisis

Turkey being a neighboring country of Syria watches
bloodshed in Syria very seriously as Syrian crisis has
colossal ramifications for Turkey. Kurds, living in
various parts of the Middle East, are pre-occupied with
an independent state. Turkey, hence, makes no stone
unturned to stop Kurdish independence within Turkey
and across the Middle East. Hence, Turkey is wary of
Syrian Kurd population that makes a consolidated
affiliation with Turk Kurdish to make an independent
state. Turkey sees Syrian crisis from the prism of Kurds.
Ankara’s entering in Syrian crisis diverges with the
interest of the US. Ankara is in direct confrontation with
Kurdish Democratic Union Party (YPD) that is an ally
of the US to fight against the Islamic state. Ankara
responded blatantly to the territorial acquisition by the
PYD-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the
northern Syria.
Turkey is frightened that acquisition of territory by
YPD-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) along
with Turkish border could cause a grave threat to
Turkish sovereignty. (Itani, 2016) A renowned political
analyst Hoshang Waziri based in Erbil says that Kurds
by gaining a recent territory in Syria along with
Turkey’s border and their growing political
legitimacy under the sponsorship of the West
becoming a bigger threat to the Turkey than ISSI
“The fear of the Turkish state started with the
Kurdish defeat of ISIS in Tel Abyad,” says Waziri.
(Collard and Gazientep, 2015).
Turkey, on the other hand, intends to eliminate the threat
of the Islamic State emanating from Syria that has
carried out a series of terrorist attacks within Turkey.
Prevailing ISIS threat compelled Turkey to seek support
of NATO saying growing ISIS influence in Iraq and

Syria, taking swathes of Syria and Iraq territories would

pose a threat to the whole region. Turkish Foreign
Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that Ankara was deeply
troubled by IS, noting that the militants controlled
border posts on Syria on the Turkish frontier.
4. Iran’s Role in Syria
Iran, like other regional powers, is fully cognizant of
proxy war in Syria and is prepared to preserve its geo-
strategic and geo-economic interest in the region. Above
all, Syrian crisis might be geo-strategic gains for other
powers but it is matter of survival for Iran on account of
its geographical proximity with Syria. Removing Assad
will be catastrophic for Iran for various reasons. The
first and foremost reason of supporting Assad regime by
Iran is religious roots. Both regimes have affinity with
heterodox Shia: and Shia is in minority as far as Islamic
world population is concerned. Syria is hub for the
Iranian tourists; Iran constitutes 20 percent of all tourists
to Syria. Majority of pilgrims go to Syria for Shiite
religious shrines. However, Iran and Syria made
headway in building a defensive alliance. Both are
concerned with the American and Israeli foothold in the
Middle East. (Barfi, 2016)
Iran knows that toppling Alawi regime will result in
Sunni dominated government in Syria, making alliance
with Saudi Arabia that might isolate Iran in the region.
Iran, thus, tries to halt Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi Ideology
in the region. Worryingly, Islamic State is obsessed with
Wahhabi Ideology which is incompatible with Shia’s
doctrine. A Sunni regime in Syria would by all means
stop sending arms to Hezbollah being supported by Iran
in Lebanon. (Barfi, 2016). Iran is orchestrating another
Hezbollah type of proxy group in Syria trying to
consolidate National Defense Forces (NDF) local
militia. (Juneau, 2018) Iran via Syria has geo-strategic

interests in Iraq and Lebanon that cannot be ruled out.

Iranian prevailing military influence in Lebanon, Iraq
and Syria causing alarms in Israel. Iran aims at investing
in Syrian economic and human resources to achieve its
desired objectives. Israeli officials have accused Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of having 2,000
IRGC advisers in Syria and vowed to thwart Iranian
entrenchment on Syrian soil. Israel-Iran hostility might
further deepen in the future. (Issacharoff, 2018)
5. Saudi Arabia’s Role in Syria
Saudi Arabia, at daggers drawn with Iran, sees Syrian
crisis in Iranian lens by motivating opposition groups to
break alliance between the Islamic Republic of Iran and
Syria. Saudi Arabia considers Iran a rival state for its
dominance in Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Saudi
Arabia contemplates to enhance its foothold in Syria for
numerous reasons. Its top priority is to stop flow of
Iranian weapons to Hezbollah and supporting Lebanese
groups opposed to Hezbollah. Growing divergence of
interests between Saudi Arabia and Syria with regards to
the issue of Palestine further deepens hostility between
the two. Syria is a staunch supporter of Palestinian
group Hamas which rejects dialogue with Israel. Unlike
Israel, Saudi Arabia aims to support rival Fatah of
Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas who desires to
have a peaceful negotiation with Israel. (Manfreda,
2017).
Saudi Arabia strives to play a religious card in Syria
emphasizing the role of 74 percent Syrian Sunnis. In
order to counter Iranian influence in Syria, Saudi Arabia
is waging a sectarian war against Shia/Alawite political
order. (Wagner and Cafiero, 2013) Intriguingly, the
religious leaders of Saudi Arabia are bluntly calling for
Jihad in Syria. Aidh al-Qarni one of the renowned
religious leaders of Saudi Arabia even publicly called

for Assad’s death. (Moa, 2017) Though, Saudi Arabia

says that Islamic State is an existential threat to its
sovereignty and fighting against IS in Syria is need of
the hour, the reality is something else. In pretext of
fighting against IS, Saudi Arabia tries to support the
rebel groups which are fighting against the Assad
regime. Vladimir Akhmetov senior researcher articulates
that “Although Riyadh states about the intention to fight
against the Islamic State terrorist organization, there are
big doubts about that,” he further says that “It is more
likely that the Saudis intend to provide support to those
armed formations which are fighting against the Syrian
government forces.”
New Cold War in Middle East
After Iranian revolution in 1979, the land scape of
Middle East changed comprehensively. Iranian
Revolution was based on the Ideology of Islam. The
new Republic in its policies was directly against the
harsh Saudi Arabian Islamic ideology of Wahabism.
The two states, not only, were in continuous competition
for the spread of their ideological bases but also wanted
to expand their economic interests in the region.
This new conflict fueled the sectarian violence in the
region. This rivalry was an indirect war just like the
Cold War between capitalist and communist block led
by USA and USSR respectively. Iran wanted to stop
Saudi Arabia from spreading the Wahhabism ideology
and Saudi Arabian Influence in the region while Saudi
Arabia wanted to stop Iran from spreading its Shiite
Ideology and Its oil export in the region. Since then, Iran
has played very critical role in the region through
spreading its ideology and funding to different sectarian
groups for the spread of terror in the region such as it
support to Hezbollah. (Keddie and Richard 2006)

Iran against the desire of Sunni Saud Arabia wanted to

be a major country to lead the Muslim world. His
though was directly affecting the role of Saudi Arabia in
the region. Although Iran wanted to be Islamic leader of
the whole world but in specific it supported the Shia
minorities throughout the world for spreading the Shia
Islam. (Council on Foreing Relations, 2014) For
example, to spread its ideological message, Iran
supported the demonstration of the visiting pilgrimage
to the land of Saudi Arabia, where Iranian government
declared The Saudi government as un-Islamic and
illegal. (Nasr, 2007)
Since both the power were not in position to fight
directly so, they adopted the method to fight indirect
wars in the region by supporting different sectarian
groups in Middle East. (Ciftci and Tezcür, 2014)
Shaping New Alliances
Apart from spreading of Wahhabism ideology, Saudi
Arabia also focused on formation of alliances against
Iran on cold war style between USA and USSR.
Although Saudi Arabia had different issues with Iraq but
it supported Iraq against Iran during Iran-Iraq war in
1980s. (Tirman and Abbas 2014)
Saudi Arabia also helped in the formation of new
regional groups like Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
which played an important role in curbing Iran’s
influence in the region. These alliances also played an
eminent role to support the west in their sanctions
against Iran.
Saudi-Iran Relations after the Arab Uprising in 2011
In the winter of 2001, a large number of events took
place in Arab world that shaped the new political
dimensions and future course of Action in Middle
Eastern region. These events gave new rise to Iran-Saudi

Arabia conflict through support to their respective

groups in Middle East. (Gelvin, 2012)
Arab spring was supported by Iran in most parts of the
Middle East except Syria where the Iranian regime
supported the Syrian Government against the rebels.
While for the Saudi Arabia, this was horrifying event,
having fear that it could eventually reach its own regime
too. Syria was supported by Iran because, Syria was not
only its close ally in Middle East, but also provided
Iran with an opportunity to support the Hezbollah. This
was the base for both the countries to define their future
goals and foreign policy objectives in Middle East.
Future Perspective
Saudi Arabia and Iran rivalry has given further rise to
shaping new ideological bases under notions of new
cold war in Middle East. So it can be assessed that Saudi
Arabia and Iran both want to spread their ideology in the
future too and for that they need week governments in
Middle East to expand the wars for some more time.
Moreover their economic and political interests can only
be secured if they both sustain their harsh rivalry in the
region.
Additionally, there are other factors that compel the two
states to go for peace in the region, as peace is of vital
importance for security and economic interest of the
other actors in the world. Instability and wars will
largely be unfavorable for USA to focus on its
containment policy of China in South Asian region.
Terrorism is also one of the factors of concern for the
actors of the contemporary world. Instability in the
Middle East will further give rise to emergence of
different other sectarian and terrorist groups that will
largely effect the world peace. (Nasr, 2007)

Conclusion
Within the turmoil of the Arab Uprising, the Saudi-
Iranian rivalry has deepened further. Their wish to
dominate the regional politics has challenged the future
perspective of Middle East. These two countries are
supporting different regional rival groups for their
vested political and economic interest. Both Iran and
Saudi Arabia wants to have regional hegemony through
alliances and spread of ideology. Furthermore they also
want to have longer wars in the region so that they can
create further economic and political opportunities for
themselves. Peace is the ultimate need of other global
actors. Instability will cause the emergence of new
terrorist groups such as ISIS to expand their ideology.
Therefore, it is need of the hour to have peace and
stability in the region for a peaceful world.

References
 Barfi, B. (2016). “The Real Reason Why Iran Backs
Syria”, National Interest. https://nationalinterest.org
(accessed in October, 2018)
 Ciftci, Sabri and Tezcür Güne ş Murat ((2014)). “Soft
Power, Religion and Anti-Americanism in the Middle
East”, Foreign Policy Analysis, Oxford University
Press.
 Collard, Rebecca and Gazientep. (2015). “Why
Turkey Sees the Kurdish People Bigger threat than
ISIS”, Time , http://time.com (accessed in October,
2018)
 Gelvin, James L. (2012). The Arab Uprisings: What
Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
 “Iran's Supreme Leader Calls Uprisings an islamic
Awakening” (2015). Los Anglese Times,
http://articles.latimes.com (accessed in Octoeber, 2018)
 Issacharoff, Avi. (May 11, 2018). “Iran vs. Israel: Is a
Major War Ahead? The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com (accessed in October, 2018)
 Itani, F. (2016). “Why Turkish went to war in Syria,.
Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com (accessed in
October, 2018)
 Juneau, Thomas. (2018). “Why Iran’s involvement in
Syria may backfire”, The Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com (accessed in
October,2018)
 Keddie, Nikki R. and Richard, Yann. ( 2006). Modern
Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution. New Haven:
,Yale University Press.
 Leukefeld, Karin. (2011). “Syria: A Historical
Perspective on the Current Crisis”, Global Research.
https://www.globalresearch.ca (accessed in October,
2018)
 Manfreda, P. (2019). “Saudi Arabia and Syrian Uprising
Explained”. Thoughtco. https://www.thoughtco.com
(accessed February, 2019)

 Moa, Rydell. ( 2017). “Syria: Iran’s and Saudi Arabia’s

New Playground”, Department of Political Science,
Lund University, https://lup.lub.lu.se (accessed in
October, 2018).
 Nasr, Vali. ( 2007). The Shia Revival: How Conflicts
Within Islam Will Shape the Future, New York: W. W.
Norton & Company.
 Odias, Hubert. (2017). “The Arab Spring and its
unintended Effects in Syria”, Theodysseyonline,
https://www.theodysseyonline.com (accessed in
October, 2018)
 Petrolekas, George. (2018). “Why Russia is suddenly
interested in Syria’s civil war”, The Globe and Mail,
https://www.theglobeandmail.com (accessed in October,
2018)
 “The Sunni-Shia Divide”, Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR) . https://www.cfr.org (accessed in October, 2018)
 Tirman, John and Maleki, Abbas. (2014). U.S.-Iran
Misperceptions: A Dialogue, Bloomsbury Academic.
 Wagner, Daniel and Cafiero, G. (2013 ). “Saudi
Arabia’s Dark Role in the Syria Conflict”,
Huffingtonpost, https://www.huffingtonpost.com
(accessed September, 2018)
 Yacoubian, Mona. (2018). “U.S Policy towards Syria:
Part 1.” United State Institute for Peace,
https://www.usip.org (accessed in October, 2018)

Middle East Review Volume 1: Research Journal of Area Study Centre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Middle East Review Volume 1: Research Journal of Area Study Centre

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Middle East Review Volume 1: Research Journal of Area Study Centre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Note for Contributors

 The Middle East Review is an annual research journal

Meritorious Prof. Dr. Javeid Iqbal

All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer: Opinions and views expressed in the

 Prof. Dr. Abdul Razzaq Sabir

1. Post-Arab Spring Middle East: The Regional

2. Rise of Kurds in Syria: A Case Study of

3. Military Regimes and Stability in Middle East:

4. The End of History and Clash of Civilizations:

5. Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia: The Role of Key

6. The Politics of Insecurity and Uncertainty in

7. The New Cold War in Syria………………...…130

Post-Arab Spring Middle East: The Regional

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 1

Key Words: Middle East, Arab Spring, Regional

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 2

country desired that it was like that. This protest which

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 3

population of Bahrain to stand up against the minority

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 4

Major regional players of Middle East to include KSA,

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 5

Arabia offered assistance and asked Jordon and

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 6

to convince international community hence managed to

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 7

have stakes in KSA because its destabilization may lead

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 8

common enemy and ally of Iran (Silverstein, 2017).

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 9

huge investment in the country which proved otherwise.

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 10

Overall, Turkey has been able to get reasonable role in

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 11

Shield Operation against it in 2016 which was

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 12

the goodwill and strategic space she earned in the

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 13

and Egypt, but in case of Libya adopted cautious

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 14

of May 2018 there was a pro-Iranian Shia government in

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 15

high inflation and unemployment hence a sort of

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 16

in Golan Heights from Syria became a routine activity

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 17

shattered whereas her armed forces with more than 15

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 18

continuously and without any interruption. Termination

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 19

During the tenure of President Jimmy Carter, US

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 20

time, U.S.A diverted its attention from other important

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 21

Lebanon on its side. This is a big embarrassment for the

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 22

Syria were and remained close allies of Russia. Russian

MIDDLE EAST REVIEW 23