Persians, Phoenicians and Arabs – Modern Consequences

When I lived in Lebanon – as a U.S. Foreign Service brat well before the “troubles” – the locals often took the time to tell me that they were really ethnically “Phoenicians” and not “Arabs.” About half the population were Maronite, a Catholic Christian sect, and then Sunnis followed by Shiites and several other smaller religious groups. But Phoenicians were an ancient Semitic peoples, a proud colony of maritime traders with a developed culture within a grouping of autonomous city-states, which existed only thousands of years ago. They disappeared from the Levant Coastline on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean, facing conquests from Persians and Greeks hundreds of years B.C. Alexander the Great seems to have put a knife in their cultural back, and virtually all vestiges of that society vaporized a long, long time ago.

Bottom line: there’s no way for anyone in modern society to prove any direct lineage back to that long-gone empire. But damn, Lebanese just plain didn’t want to be called “Arabs,” even though they speak their own brand of Arabic, while all educated Lebanese also speak French (Lebanon was a French colony until 1943). I do remember the difference in the smiling, urbane and modern attitudes of Lebanon contrasted with the dour, frowning “mired in the past,” fearful feelings I saw as I crossed the border into neighboring Syria, a nation that held its Arab roots as a badge of honor. Little things, like how you said “thank you” in Lebanon (“merci shukran” or “merci ‘tir”) versus Syria (a simple “shukran”) or “goodbye” (“ma’ salemi” in Lebanon, but the second you cross the border to Syria, it’s “hetrik”). Arabs were unsophisticated, unworldly hicks; Lebanese saw themselves as modern sophisticates. They had nothing in common, the felt.

Persians have also long since sought to distinguish themselves from “Arabs.” They dominated their region, pushed back against Alexander the Great and the subsequent ruling Greeks, mounted their own global conquests and have been an advanced culture in the region for millennia. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon – one of the Seven Wonders of the World – is their cultural achievement. They speak Farsi (not Arabic) and their culture is deep, long-standing (ancient) and based on a complex society with settlements, farms with verdant fields, snow-capped mountains in the north (yup, they do have ski resorts, but then, so do the Lebanese), a very well-organized governmental and military complex with large, significant cities. They held the regional nomads – Arabs – in deep disdain… and always have.

But the seventh century brought a harsh shock to the Persian Empire. Islam had gone viral in the region, the Prophet Muhammad had inspired “conversion under the sword” as hordes of newly-minted Muslim Arab military forces, the Rashidun Caliphate at first but rapidly followed by the Umayyad and subsequently the Abbasid Caliphates, took hold over the stunned Persians. They were Sunni rulers, proselytizing the literal reading of the Qur’an as the only path for True Believers. The Persians bridled under Arab rule and soon adopted the teachings of a tiny minority Islamic sect – Shiites who believed that no ordinary mortal could read and understand the Qur’an, only the higher order of prelate (an “Imam” – the Shiite equivalent of a Pope) – as a path to rebellion against their Arab rulers… while still adhering to Islam. It was pure heresy to Arab Sunnis, an excuse to continue their hatred of Persians in yet another direction.

Why the history lesson, Peter? Because as Americans, we tend lump Muslims and nations in Muslim regions into a singular and not-so-useful amalgamated category, thinking of the individual nations as simple political divisions in a more Western tradition of nationhood. In the eyes of Persians and Lebanese, “Arabs” are mired in nomadic, tribal values, having only “settled” into more traditional national divisions under the harsh geographic sectional slicing by Western colonial powers. They are primitive and unsophisticated, barbarians at the gate, if you will. Those oil-rich Arabs with money are simply arrogant nouveau riche.

Today, a huge number of Christians have left Lebanon; Shiites now dominate local politics (under Hezbollah) as the country staggers from an absurd lack of a functioning government. They are torn between Persian (now Iran) values and the Sunni Arab forces – particularly ISIS – around them and their own local brand of modernity that somehow still persists. Lebanon is a mess. Iran is a theocracy, repressive and harsh, but its people are very well educated, competent and used to accomplishment.

The underlying animosity that has been a long-standing traditional between Persians (Shiites) and Arabs (mostly Sunni) is alive and kicking today. Once Iran was surrounded by Sunnis across the Red Sea (Saudi Arabia), Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan and a Sunni dictator in Iraq. And then, in 2003, it all changed.

The key to understanding why this quagmire is so vitriolic today is the politics of modern Iraq. Before we deposed Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein from Iraq with our 2003 invasion, he had ruled Iraq with an iron hand over a population that was predominantly Shiite (60%). Despite the murderous Iran-Iraq War (1980-1989), which ended in a stalemate with millions dead, prior to 2003 Sunni and Shiite kids played with each other, signs that the long-standing animosity might be subsiding. But when Saddam was toppled, and the Americans insisted on a representative democracy, Shiite leaders asked their fellow-believers to choose sides and support a new majority Shiite rule Iraq.

Once the people were forced to choose sides, the Shiite majority in Iraq quickly took control, and a fierce discrimination against the 20% Sunni minority – filled with notions of retribution – began. Sunnis and Shiites were once against at each other’s throats. Iran’s leadership couldn’t believe their good fortune. As the Americans delivered a new Shiite-controlled nation, Iran (95% Shiite) literally became the dominant force in Iraq as well. The ancient Sunni-Shiite animosity exploded with newfound violence. We literally handed Iraq to Iran.

During all of this transitional power shifting, a horrible drought – the regional legacy of global climate change – descended on vast tracks of Syrian and Iraq, farmland that was almost entirely populated by Sunnis. Syria itself is 80% Sunni, but it reels from the repressive boot of the Bashir Assad regime, members of an Alawite sect within the Shiite side of Islam. So that Shiite connection unites Iran, Iraq, Syria and a significant part of Lebanon. The drought displaced well over a million Sunni farmers, whose pleas to their Shiite governments met with deaf ears. They were ready for a new direction… and guess what happened. Al Nusra. ISIS. And now Russia stepped over to oppose them.

Vladimir Putin’s regional overtures have focused heavily on building relationships with these incumbent Shiite rulers, and his arming of Syria (with direct military intervention from the skies) is literally his reinforcing the Shiite forces over local Sunnis. While Sunnis represent the vast majority of global Muslims, in this region, Shiite power remains dominant because of the advanced technology built by Iran and now, by reason of Russian support. Russia is now the dominant outside power broker in that region, no matter what we want or think.

We had the makings of a perfect storm. Al Qaeda built its reputation on defending Sunnis from Western conquerors and Shiite governments. They bombed Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad and other mixed-Islamic sect towns. But nothing changed. Old and weak their younger adherents claimed. A more radical force in Syria, the al Nusra Front, raised the stakes with more violence. Syrian Sunni farmers (from moderate to radical) rebelled against their Shiite dictator. Assad struck back with chemical weapons, barrel and carpet bombs that took out hundreds of thousands of civilians along the way. With Russian support, Assad was crushing the opposition. Iran was on the Assad side of the equation.

ISIS grew out of this quagmire. By embracing the most fundamental elements of Sunni Islam, by accepting ultra-violence – reminiscent of the “conversion by the sword” era of early Islam – they used fear, intimidation and brutality to “come to the aid” of repressed Sunnis in the region. ISIS was successful beyond even their wildest dreams, rapidly expanding their mission to global conquest as the new warriors of God that could not fail. God was, after all, on their side they screamed. What’s worse, they used social media very effectively, recruiting everywhere, and imposed new administrative rule in their conquered lands that allowed the locals to resume their livelihoods… but only if they were true supporters of ISIS and its view of the Sunni faith. In short, they have been highly effective with very little in the way of serious opposition in the region.

When Sunni Turkey claimed they joined the battle against ISIS, they instead deployed their military against their own hated insurgents, the Kurds, who had been one of the few effective fighters against ISIS. Russian aircraft – releasing more bombs in one day than what U.S. planes dropped in a month – hit Syrian rebel targets with only minimal efforts against ISIS. Russia maintained that Assad’s regime, good or bad, was necessary to prevent the kind of chaos that ensure when Libya went leaderless after what the West hoped would have been a fair election of a viable government.

If you’re a Sunni in an ISIS-conquered region, you may not like your new harsh masters, but at least they are Sunni. That the only ground forces in the region likely to counter ISIS are troops from hated Shiite-dominated countries make that “rescue” rather untenable. They’d rather live under an ISIS boot than a Shiite boot.

So when you think about the idiotic statements and policy choices from various presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle, keep the above mess in mind. Russia has played its cards well, but it has also alienated a whole lot of Sunnis (remember they are the majority – 85% - of the world’s Muslims).

ISIS is not going to be purged from the region solely by air power. It will take boots on the ground… in significant numbers… to make a difference. And right now, the only likely serious boots on the ground are from Shiite powers. And if you look at history, you just know that could backfire and make things worse… as Sunnis resist this as a realization of their worst fears. For boots on the ground to be effective, they cannot be controlled by hated Shiite nations. But if not those hatred nations, who?

And so, the simple solutions you hear from under-informed presidential candidates could well enhance the mega-mistake that we began when we stupidly invaded Iraq in 2003. This storm was a long-time coming, at it will take a whole lot of new policies to change what we helped foment. With the above information in mind, what do you think the answers are? Does it matter that the vast middle class in Iran, reeling from religious fundamentalism, loves the United States? Hmmmm. Complicated.

 I’m Peter Dekom, and to begin to grapple with Middle Eastern solution, beyond the escalating tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, we need to start with an understanding of the complex pieces on the board.