If we want access to many varied assumptions that surround the emergence of diversified factions representing the Islamic State (IS), which appear to have regional and global support in varying proportions, we inevitably become astonished.
If we assumed that the IS is an Iranian-Syrian-Russian-Chinese invention, (the Syrian regime lifeline theory) with the aim of relieving the regime from regional and international isolation claiming that the IS is Islamist terrorism organisation that harbours the ideology of Al Qaeda and Sunni fanatic extremists, the theory would possibly be correct and the aim becomes clear.
As the aim is to restore the relations between the Syrian regime and a number of Arab countries became one of a qualitative change or an evolution, because in a way or another, the Syrian regime, with the help of the Russians, the Iranians, Hezbollah, the Shia-led regime in Iraq and the Chinese, will eventually return.
Whether IS was made by Iran or others or created itself, we can assume that Iran specifically is the sole inventor of the idea of conveying to the West that Shia Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, and they are rather a victim and this is the most important for Iran. Therefore we notice, (though it is publicly denied), Iran’s alignment with the American led coalition against IS, proven by the Iranian aircraft bombing of IS locations in Iraq almost two months ago.
If we also assume that the establishment of IS aims to at least neutralise Sunni governments or Sunni and Shia hostility to Israel, portraying that IS is now the sole enemy of the Arab world— both Sunni and Shia. Therefore, we must wage a war against it. This theory then possibly could be correct as well.
What confirms such a hypothesis is a study published by the National Zionist Centre for Strategic Research in Tel Aviv that the creation of IS has united Israel through the West with the Shias, whether directly or indirectly, especially Hezbollah and Iran who are currently involved in directly fighting IS? This will make the possibility of attacking Israel by Hezbollah invisible at least now. The same thing could happen with minimising the threat that Iran could pose to Israel because of the Iranian nuclear programme (this is another hypothesis).
However, there is no suspecting the fact (this is not a hypothesis) that since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni regime in Iraq, Iran became concerned with Sunni Arabs’ view and the views of many Arab regimes which considered Iran its first enemy (and not Israel) of the Arab world, especially the Gulf countries.
When I met the Iranian Cultural Consul in his Doha office, he told me: Israel and the West, which is certainly directly led by America, AIPAC and global Israeli lobbies, Europeans are interested in constantly creating animosity between Sunnis and Shias in the region as an alternative to the hostility against
Israel.
Under all of these hypotheses and conjectures, where does the truth lie? Did IS create itself by benefitting from regional and international downfalls, or has been created by these
powers?
Recently, Russia accused the United States of supporting IS against Bashar Al Assad’s regime in Syria. This could be true. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean a US and Western coalition with IS, as much as it is more “common interests” between the America-led West and IS to weaken Russia and its Syrian ally.
Didn’t the America-led West support Al Qaeda and the Afghan Jihad that transpired the Taliban movement out of its cloak? So, it was definitely in the framework of common interests or intersection of interests, which seems evident in the Syrian crisis.
In addition to all these conflicts and chaos through the popular Arab revolutions that were countered by new revolutions, is the nicely played armed conflict between IS and America-led coalition, all in order to keep “Israel” the strongest in the region.
If this hypothesis seems reasonable then the promotion begins that the “Islam” represented by IS is the first and only enemy of the Arab world and not “Israel”.
