So that no one misunderstands the title of my article, I will say: Fight the way you like against the Islamic State (IS); prepare armies, make alliances between dozens of countries and attack IS in Syria, Iraq, Libya and everywhere. Keep the world media busy with reports of the evil acts of the IS. Tell the world that IS is the largest and wildest terrorist organisation, which is in no way related to human civilization; nobody will object! What more do you want? No one will accuse us now of being pro-IS; thank God!
Since I have cleared my conscience, while maybe exaggerating a little bit in demonising IS, I kindly request you now to answer some basic questions that millions of ordinary Arabs are asking when they see the international effort being undertaken to eliminate IS in Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Why were you all fired up when IS took over an Iraqi city? You took quick decisions without going to the UN Security Council or consulting anyone else to fight IS and drive it out of Mosul and other Iraqi areas before fighting it later on Syrian territory through a new Syrian army under the apprenticeship of America.
What is the difference between IS storming the city of Mosul and Iranian-supported Houthis taking over Sana’a? Why is the first incident considered terrorism but not the second one? Please do not misunderstand me here; I don’t oppose what you are doing at all. But for God’s sake, isn’t your fight against IS in Syria and Iraq in the interest of Bashar Al Assad and the Iranian regimes?
Iran classifies IS as the greatest threat to its national security. That’s why it has chosen its most prominent general, Qasem Soleimani, to lead the battle against IS in Iraq.
The IS also poses a threat to Assad’s regime. It will not be surprising if one day we find IS forces at the Syrian coast, or even in the heart of Damascus, cutting off the heads of Assad’s supporters.
If IS strikes all this fear in the Iranians and their allies in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen, then doesn’t the international coalition consider its anti-IS fight an indirect support to Iran and Assad?
Some pose the question more simply: After all the inflictions on Syria and Syrians, wouldn’t the Assad regime relax once you get rid of its biggest threat, IS?
“Who will remain on the ground to deal with Assad’s army and its Shia allies other than IS?” — This was a question posed by Mohammed Sham on Twitter.
We do not mean that we are IS supporters, but we have the right to ask this question: Why are you eliminating the IS monster but leaving the Assad monster alone? IS slaughtered many people in a very ugly way, and burned others barbarically; however, Bashar Al Assad burned an entire country in a neurotic fashion, and displaced 15 million from their homes... Which one is more deserving of ablation first? Is it the terrorist group or the terrorist state?
It’s fine, we probably don’t know your plans in Syria after you eliminate IS, but the most important question is: Don’t you consider the international campaign against IS an attempt to facilitate the penetration, expansion and occupation by Iran of Arab countries?
A few weeks ago, one of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards boasted that Iran was celebrating the occupation of the fourth Arab capital after the Houthis seized Sana’a. We didn’t hear any international censure of Iran after it openly acknowledged its occupation of some Arab countries.
While Arab and Western aircraft were striking the IS in Iraq and Syria, the Houthis were invading Sana’a and slaughtering Yemenis in the streets in front of television cameras and the US embassy. We didn’t even hear a small comment, let alone condemnation of the Iranian-Houthi invasion.
Just weeks ago we saw the famous Iranian military commander, Qasem Soleimani, leading Iranian invading forces in Iraq and Syria, on television. We did not hear any comments from the US about the Shia militias from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon led by Soleimani in southern Syria or in Tikrit, Iraq.
Iraqis and Syrians are worried that their countries will lose their Arabic identities after they become Iranian Shia colonies. Just visit the old city of Damascus to understand what I am talking about, not to mention the changing demographic map of Iraq and the eradication of Sunnis in many areas by settling of Shias.
The world didn’t act to preserve the identity of Iraq and Syria from Iranisation and Persianisation.
America and its partners, including the Arabs, are concerned by the danger posed by “Sunni” IS.
Finally, I have a simple question: Can’t we consider this international campaign against IS an attempt to facilitate the Iranian task of occupying the rest of the Arab capitals through US and official Arab support?
Isn’t it funny that some Arabs complain a lot about Iranian encroachment since its revolution, but nevertheless participated in the elimination of Saddam Hussein, who was a bulwark against Iranian intrusion?
They complain even more about the Iranian expansion in the region after the fall of the eastern gate, which was protected by Saddam Hussein.
The strange thing is that some Arabs are committing the same mistake now. Rather than having IS stand like a watchdog against Iranian hegemony, they are taking part in the elimination of IS and others, opening the way for Iran to swallow more Arab capitals.
We beg you not to stop eradicating IS, but we also plead for your answer: Why don’t you stop the Iranian and Shia occupation and terrorism?
Is it that you consider occupation and terrorism by the Sunni IS unlawful, and the same by Iranians and Shias lawful?
The author is a columnist and presenter on Al Jazeera TV channel
