Effort to Rebrand Arab Spring Backfires in Iran

New York Times ^ | February 2, 2012 | Robert F. Worth

[SunkenCiv]

It was meant to be a crowning moment in which Iran put its own Islamic stamp on the Arab Spring. More than a thousand young activists were flown here earlier this week (at government expense) for a conference on "the Islamic Awakening," Tehran's effort to rebrand the popular Arab uprisings of the past year...

But there was a catch. No one was invited from Syria, whose autocratic president, Bashar al-Assad, is a crucial Iranian ally. The Syrian protesters are routinely dismissed by Tehran's government as foreign agents -- despite the fact that they are Muslims fighting a secular (and brutal) dictatorship.

That inconvenient truth soon marred the whole script. As the conference began, a young man in the audience held up a sign with the word "SYRIA?" written in English. Applause burst out in the crowd, followed by boos. Audience members began chanting the slogan of the Syrian protesters: "God, freedom and Syria!" But they were drowned out by others chanting pro-Assad slogans.

Soon afterward, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, took the stage to deliver his opening remarks and tackled the subject with his characteristic bluntness...

Those words drew choreographed chants of approval from a claque in the audience. But many participants clearly were not buying, and the uprising inside the conference hall seemed to have left its mark. In the afternoon, journalists were barred from the proceedings...

During a break in the proceedings, a 31-year-old Libyan named Hafez al-Razi Abdollah stood outside in the sun, holding up a Libyan flag and talking to reporters...

When asked why Iran still supported the Syrian leader, he smiled dismissively. "Ahmadinejad supports him because they're both Shiites," he said. (In fact, Mr. Assad is an Alawite, a heterodox strain of Islam, but that distinction is lost on many Arabs.)

[SunkenCiv]

[Reuters] A supporter of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran. Iran's system of rule by clerics seems unlikely to prevail in Arab Spring nations.

[SunkenCiv]

[Reuters] A supporter of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran. Iran's system of rule by clerics seems unlikely to prevail in Arab Spring nations.

[JRandomFreeper]

I'll bet that coffee consumption and overtime are at an all-time high in certain parts of Virginia.

God bless 'em.

It's worse than fixing a trot-line after a Brazos flood.

/johnny

[Olog-hai]

When asked why Iran still supported the Syrian leader, (Hafez al-Razi Abdollah) smiled dismissively. "Ahmadinejad supports him because they're both Shiites," he said. (In fact, Mr. Assad is an Alawite, a heterodox strain of Islam, but that distinction is lost on many Arabs.)

The NYT really tries to be utterly condescending to all but their core audience, do they not. Alawis are a branch of Shi'a Islam. They keep pretending there's some division between the Twelver Shi'ites and the Alawite Shi'ites—but there isn't. Iran's continued support of Assad bears that out. O Captain Obvious, My Captain Obvious . . . our fearful trip be not done . . .

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Iran's continued support of Assad bears that out.

Not necessarily. Assad's Baathists also had a mutually beneficial relationship with the Sunni Batthists in Iraq before the war. The fact of the matter is, Alawis/Alawites are very different from Shi'a 12ers and are considered kaffir and apostates through much of the Muslim world. Not praying or fasting and celebrating Christmas will do that to do.

Personally, I think the Mullahs have decided there's no room in the Caliphate for Assad's kind, and have pretty much left him for dead. Hezbollah could have put Syria's problems to bed a long time ago if they wanted to. Instead, they've been relegated to protecting Iranian interests on the ground. I'm not seeing much in the way of votes of confience for Assad from the Iranians. But they'll howl like a stuck pig if any U.S. assets are deployed in finishing him off.

[Olog-hai]

---

The fact of the matter is, Alawis/Alawites are very different from Shi'a 12ers and are considered kaffir and apostates through much of the Muslim world

---

No, not that different. If Iran can openly support Sunni groups like Hamas (and the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood), they'll still accept Alawites, who themselves still are a "twelver" division. Radical Islam really laughs at the non-Muslims that think that there are significant divisions between them.

---

Hezbollah could have put Syria's problems to bed a long time ago if they wanted to

---

What for? Hezbollah already has Lebanon sewn up and the Marionites acting as their willing dhimmis. No matter who rules Syria in the future, they'll remain dedicated to the Caliphate, and the current government of Iraq is on their side too.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

I agree completely about the idiot media and the imaginary Shi’a/Sunni blood fued that prevents them from working together. It drove me nuts during the 2006 “sectarian civil war” that never was. It’s pure fantasy. The Sunni and Shi’a worked together in Afghanistan. KSM was replaced in AQ by a Shi’a. Shi’a Iran provided logistical support for AQ before 9/11. Hezbollah and AQ collabortaed on Khobar Towers. The great divisions between them are nothing but power struggles, which they have no trouble putting aside when it comes to fighting the real enemy. Islam is Islam, and they’re more united in their struggle than the west could hope to be.

I also agree that there’s no good reason for Iran or Hezbollah to intervene in Syria. I’m just suggesting that Assad has already been left for dead by the Mullahs.

[momincombatboots]

Thanks for confirming what most of us suspected in the first place. It is seriously hard to keep up with good guys vs bad guys these days. I am to the point if your religion endorses a caliphate, and you subscribe to that religion, you are not in the good guy category.

[SunkenCiv]

If by “utterly condescending” is meant “misleading and dishonest”, then yeah. :’)

[SunkenCiv]