Conflicted S1 E5 - Syria

CONFLICTED

S01E05

Thomas Small Welcome back to Conflicted. The last episode was dedicated to the Yemeni Civil War, an intractable conflict that continues to ravage the lives of the Yemeni people. Today, we're going to talk about, perhaps, the greatest tragedy of modern times, the Syrian civil war. In this war, you'll certainly notice a lot of the same players involved. It is a highly complicated civil war. And we're going to try to help you understand how on Earth serious leader, Bashar al-Assad, asset and the world let this beautiful country and its people get caught in the dangerous crossfire between government and terrorists and foreign interest.

Aimen Dean Syria wasn't known for extremism or for this kind of brutality and bloodshed. This is foreign and alien to it. And this is why, whenever, basically, I see jihadists, you know, and jihadist sympathizers, you know, whether they are in Europe or North America, in the Middle East or South Asia. and they keep telling me about Bashar this, Bashar this, Bashar that, you know, the first thing I tell them, "Shut up. You and people like you empowered him."

Thomas Small Stick with us. 

This is Conflicted

Here we are again, dear listener. I'm here as always with Aimen Dean, author of Nine Lives: My Life as MI6's Top Agent Inside al-Qaeda. Nine Lives: My Time as MI6's Top al-Qaeda—

Aimen Dean Oh, dear. You have put me in trouble now. 

Thomas Small Author – author – author of Nine Lives: My Time as MI6's Top Agent Inside al-Qaeda. Aimen Dean, welcome as always. And I'm Thomas Small, co-producer of Path of Blood, a documentary film about Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda. 

Today, we will be discussing the great tragedy of modern times, the Syrian civil war. The last episode, we devoted to the Yemeni Civil War, a tragic conflict that is extremely complicated, in which Iran plays an important role, the Gulf states play an important role, the international community plays an important role. Today, we will be talking about another tragic civil war, the Syrian civil war, with many of the same players on the stageIran, the United States, Sunni jihadists, Shia militants, the Gulf states, and, in this case, Turkey as well.

Aimen Dean Russia.

Thomas Small Ugh. And, of course, Russia. It's an extremely complicated story, the Syrian civil war, much more complicated than even this podcast can do justice to. But we will do our best. 

So, to talk about Syria is a difficult thing. It's a complicated country. Its history is very complicated. The current president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, came to power in 2000, following the death of his father Hafez al-Assad, who had been dictator of the country for thirty years. For the first three years or so Bashar al-Assad's rule, the West, in particular, was encouraged. It thought that Bashar al-Assad would introduce liberal reforms and would dial down some of the oppressive police state aspects of his regime. This was called the Damascus Spring. These hopes proved to be ill-founded when, following the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bashar al-Assad returned to the old ways of the Assad dynasty. He doubled down on oppression of his own people. He facilitated jihadist moving into Iraq to help undermine American efforts there. And by 2011, his people had had enough. They rose up against him, demanding reform. When he rejected those demands and instead ordered his police to fire on the crowds, the uprising became a rebellion, which was quickly infiltrated by Sunni jihadist on the one side, Iranian radicals on the other, and the whole country descended into anarchy and death and destruction. 

Aimen, tell us again, briefly, what is Iran's geostrategic aim in the region and why would it focus on Syria? 

Aimen Dean We have to remember that when we are dealing with the Iranian regime, we're not dealing with an ordinary political entity. We are dealing with a leadership of a country that believes passionately in religious ideology and eschatology. 

Thomas Small [unintelligible]. These are—. These prophecies, again, that you've been mentioning, the prophecies of the end times, and, somehow, these end times prophecies plays in – in Syria. 

Aimen Dean Indeed. And that's why I have to beg the indulgence of a Western audience when they hear, you know, prophecies. When they hear the phrase "eschatology," they immediately become cynical. But the answer is: Do not try to analyse the mindset of the Iranian regime through your own religious scepticism and cynicism. No. You know, if you try to apply your own pragmatist Western-based cynicism and scepticism, then you will fail to understand the motives and the strategic engines of the Iranian regime. 

Thomas Small So, what you're saying is some people in the West might think that the Iranian regime employs religious rhetoric in order to further strictly pragmatic aims, but they don't really believe it. Because who could really believe that nonsense? That's what you're saying the West needs to get over and realise that the Mullahs, the Iranian regime really believes this. 

Aimen Dean Yes, they do believe this nonsense. I mean, we—. This is what we have to, you know. emphasize. You know, the rallying cry of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, of the Hezbollah, the Lebanese Hezbollah brigades, of the battalions of the Houthis in Yemen, of the Shia militias in Iraq, in Syria, and elsewhere in the world, their rallying cry is: "Labaik ya, Mahdi." You know? "We are here for you, Mahdi."

Thomas Small The Mahdi, which is a sort of end-of-times figure who comes, what, on a white horse, carrying a sword to vanquish the enemies of Islams?

Aimen Dean Oh, the enemies of the Shia Islam, I would say.

Thomas Small In this case. 

Aimen Dean In this case. Yeah.

Thomas Small In– in the eyes of the Iranians, the Shia. Yeah.

Aimen Dean Exactly. And, you know, the saviour figure. So, you know—. And this is why when, you know, the entire political system in Iran is based on the Mahdi. I know many people will be sceptical, but actually, you know, the system is called Wilayat al-Faqih, which, basically, you know, for those who read Lord of the Rings trilogy, you know, you have an absent king. And so, in his stead, there is a steward. 

Thomas Small That's right. So, yes, the ancient kingdom of Ghandour has languished without a king for centuries. And in the king's place, a steward has sat on a little chair just beside the king's throne. 

Aimen Dean Absolutely. So, what you have here is that the Grand Ayatollah of Iran, Ali Khamenei and Khomeini before him, actually, they are called Wilayat al-Faqih, which their mission is to just sit there, deputising on behalf of the absent imam, the Mahdi, who disappeared twelve hundred years ago and – when he was only a baby or, I think, he was 40 years old, according to Shia theology. And he's prophesised to emerge again when the Shia are in dire need of him. 

You know, the entire political system is based on that. The title of the Grand Ayatollah, his mission, the – what is written into the constitution of Iran is actually all based on deputising on behalf of that absent imam, the twelfth imam who disappeared twelve hundred years ago. 

Thomas Small And when twelfth imam, the Mahdi returns, he's going to return to Syria?

Aimen Dean He's going to return to a place which is between Syria and Iraq. And the idea is that, from there, he will use the armies that are based in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, who are his supporters, to invade the Hejaz, the western part of Saudi Arabia where Mecca and Medina, the two holy cities in Islam, are located. So, therefore, Iran's strategy was that the Mahdi could only appear if all the Shia of the regions are united under one banner and one goal, which is the Islamic revolution, which will place armies that are in Yemen and in Syria and in Iraq. 

And, actually, during the Houthi war and the Syrian war, many of the discussions emerged among the Shia militias. And you can see it online, everywhere. It centres around the fact that we are fulfilling the prophecies of the end of time. Even Assad of Syria features heavily in the prophetic texts, modern prophetic texts of the Grand Ayatollahs in Iran.

Thomas Small Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria, he will no doubt to take up a certain amount of the – of our time today, because he's a very important figure. But first I'd like to just talk about Syria. Not the Syria of prophecy, but the Syria of everyday reality. I lived in Syria for a year in 2007, 2008, during my university degree.

Aimen Dean Well, that's just one year before I visited myself.

Thomas Small Oh, my goodness. Well, you – you – you've been haunting me my whole life, Aimen. Just shadowing me like a, you know, like a – like an unlucky penny. I don't know. That's a mixed metaphor. 

Aimen Dean You have no idea what I had in my mind for you. 

Thomas Small Oh, no. [unintelligible]. I know a podcast. When I lived in Syria ten years ago—. And it's amazing to think, ten years ago, Syria was, to those of us visiting it, a haven of stability, friendliness, sectarian, cooperation, and peace. None of us would have thought that, within four years, the country was going to descend into what is arguably the most tragic civil war in – in modern Middle Eastern history, I think, without a doubt. Would you say—? How would you characterise the Syrian civil war?

Aimen Dean I would say it is. Not just only the most tragic civil war, but I would say it's the most unnecessary war to have ever occurred, you know, in modern Middle Eastern history. And – and, you know, when you compare that to Iraq, which was the most unnecessarily invasion ever, you know, that's saying something.

Thomas Small It's a double whammy. The most unnecessary invasion on one side of the Levant and the most unnecessary civil war on the other side, creating this petri dish of chaos. I mean, it's hard to imagine actually how the region will escape from it. 

Aimen, tell me, as an Arab, as a Muslim, what is Syria to the average Arab and Muslim? 

Aimen Dean If you asked me about Syria, I would say is that sitting here represents, to every Arab, the glories of the Umayyad dynasty. 

Thomas Small The Umayyad dynasty. The first great—.

Aimen Dean Dee-nasty, not die-nasty. 

Thomas Small Is that true? I'm an American. I—.

Aimen Dean Yeah. Yeah. I don't – I don't care if I'm American. You are in the UK. Here, you are supposed to say dee-nasty, not die-nasty. 

Thomas Small Listen, I spent every – every day after – after school watching reruns of Dynasty. It was die-nasty. 

Anyway, the Umayyad dynasty, the first great, let's say, secular dynasty. How would you describe it? The first great—. 

Aimen Dean Royalist dynasty.

Thomas Small The first great royalist dynasty.

Aimen Dean In Islam.

Thomas Small In Islam, in Muslim history. Centred on Damascus and ruling much of the known world at the time.

Aimen Dean Absolutely. The greatest extent of the early Muslim empire happened during the Umayyad dynasty when Damascus was the centre of the Muslim world. So, Damascus is synonymous with great architecture, with great intellectual renaissance. And at the same time, Damascus and the whole of Syria, including Aleppo and Homs, [unintelligible], many of the great cities there, are synonymous with the great heroes who resisted the crusades Saladin, Nūr al-Dīn, Imad al-Din Zengi, and all of these wonderful figures from, you know, Muslim and Arab history. After this, that—. 

You know, in modern time, you know, Syria is synonymous with amazing cuisine, synonymous with brilliant music and also with drama. I mean, you know, many of the drama and comedies that used to come out of Syria in terms of, you know, TV, production, and films up until 2011, up until the beginning of the civil war, they were catching up with the Egyptians and they were projected to replace the Egyptians as the most prolific in terms of production and in terms of viewership.

Thomas Small Something else that made Syria not – not – not entirely unique, but very special, I would say, in the Middle East is its demographic diversity. It was an extremely diverse country. It is an extremely diverse country. Yes, they're all Arabic-speaking. They're all Arabs. But within that umbrella, there – there was a tremendous diversity in terms of sect, in terms of class, in terms of ethnicity. 

Aimen Dean And history. I'll tell you something. You have Sunni Arabs. You have Kurds. You have Arab who are Ala- – Alawites. You know, a more—. A fringe sect of Shia Islam. You have Shia Muslims. You have Ismailis. And, in fact, the centre of Ismailis is in the world, in the whole world, whether they are in East Africa or in India or in Europe or in North America, their centre is a small town in Syria called so Salamiya. 

Thomas Small You have the Druze.

Aimen Dean The Druze, of course, in the – in the south.

Thomas Small And all sorts of Christians as well.

Aimen Dean Oh.

Thomas Small You have an Orthodox Christian, Syriac Christians, Catholic Christians. Even Pentecostal is Christians these days. 

Aimen Dean Oh, don't forget the Armenians.

Thomas Small And Armenians. 

Aimen Dean I—. Absolutely. I mean, you know, not to for- – forget also that we have Kildanians. You know, we have Assyrians. And, in fact, the language, the mother tongue of Jesus, you know, it still survives to this day in Syria and spoken, you know, among many Syrians.

Thomas Small Yes. Aramaic.

A Aramaic.

Thomas Small The Aramaic language. It's the only place where it's still spoken in some villages. I mean, I hope it's still spoken, my goodness. 

Aimen Dean There were—. There was a village called Jacobi. Another village called—.

Thomas Small Malula. 

Aimen Dean And Malula. And also [place]. All of these villages, you know, Aramaic, and, sometimes – sometimes, they call it Syriac, you know, was spoken and beautifully. And you can listen to the hymns. You know? So, basically—.

Thomas Small Oh, I remember when I was touring Syria and I visited Malula and I went to a monastery up in the hills above Malula, and the priest there showed me the altar, which actually was a pagan altar. It had been a pagan altar before it was converted to a Christian altar. And he said, "Would you like me to recite the Lord's prayer in Aramaic for you, i.e., the language that the Lord himself, if you like, would have recited originally?" That was a very powerful moment. 

Aimen Dean Indeed. I still remember it and I actually memorised it by heart.

Thomas Small Did you?

Aimen Dean Indeed.

Thomas Small You are a poster child—. 

Aimen Dean [foreign language]. I mean—. And—. Yeah. And so—. 

Thomas Small Poster child for ecumenical harmony and peace, you former al-Qaeda member. 

Aimen Dean So – so – so, of course, Syria, you know, was diverse. And, you know, there was great harmony there. But the problem is all of this was a charade. 

Thomas Small Well, not a charade. It was all held in, I would say, extremely taut tension by a regime…

Aimen Dean Mmhmm. 

Thomas Small …a Ba'athist regime run by the Assad family for the Assad family and for the Alawite sect of the Assad family, which ended up smashing the country to pieces.

Aimen Dean Indeed

Thomas Small . So, who is Bashar al-Assad? Why has he become now a byword for dictatorship and bloodletting? This man, in addition to being a psychopath and an extremely ugly man, lived in London for several years, where he trained as an eye doctor. Lived, you know, in Northwest London. Very, very nice, civilised, middle-class area. Ended up falling in love with a Syrian British woman who grew up here, a nice West London girl with a cut glass accent, who is now the first lady of Asma al-Assad. A very strange contradiction, really. On the one hand, a nice British or Anglicised middle-class family, a doctor working on Harley Street, and, at the same time, a psychopathic dictator of Syria. 

Aimen Dean Well, shall I tell you about another evil eye doctor. Ayman al-Zawahiri?

Thomas Small Oh. Maybe it's a problem with eye – with – with eye doctors. 

Aimen Dean Yeah. Yeah. The leader of al-Qaeda is an eye doctor. 

Thomas Small Eye doctors, we've got your number.

Aimen Dean Indeed.

Thomas Small So, Bashar al-Assad, he's famously soft-spoken. If you look at him, he's – he's a bit of a pencil neck, actually. He doesn't seem so scary. 

Aimen Dean Well, you see, this is a problem with narcissistic psychopaths, is that they do not appear to you to be willing to sacrifice a whole nation in order for them to stay in power. You know, don't forget the man wasn't actually going to be the successor. 

Thomas Small That's true. He had his older brother, Bassel al-Assad, who was groomed to succeed the, father Hafez al-Assad. Bassel al-Assad, he died in a car crash in Damascus. He was a famously reckless driver and, famously, a psychopath. He was supposed to be the psychopath, not Bashar.

Aimen Dean Indeed. But don't forget the entire family is just a family of psychopaths. And I now, I will tell you why. First of all, we have to go back to the 1966 when, you know, you have the Ba'ath Party coming to power in Syria. Hafez al-Assas became the defence minister. And then, in 1970, he staged a coup and became the president. Hafez al-Assad, the greatest survivor of Middle Eastern modern politics. And the trouble is that he held onto power so much and he allowed his fellow minority Alawites to become powerful in the cabinet, in the army…

Thomas Small The army. 

Aimen Dean …the intelligence services. So, they know they have, you know, taken over most of the important apparatus of power within Syria. So, it became a rule of minority. Power resided with the Alawites. 

Thomas Small And within the Alawites, with the family, it was very much a mafia state in that – in that regard. 

Aimen Dean Just like Saddam Hussein in Iraq. You know, it's simple. It's like carbon copies of each other. One is a Ba'ath Party, but Sunni in terms of its, you know, makeup, in terms of power. And, in Syria, it was the Ba'ath Party, but Alawite in its makeup, with dependence on some other minorities, like the Christians and the Druze and the Ismailis.

Thomas Small One thing that's often brought up in Hafez al-Assad's favour is that not only did he bring to power the minority, Alawites, but he also protected all the other minorities in Syria. And to this day, the minorities of Syria—Christians, Armenians, Druze, as we said—they tend to support, but Bashar al-Assad to this day, despite all the destruction that's going on. 

Aimen Dean Well, the problem is, if the protection of the minorities against the majority happen not through consensus means but by brute force, this is not a treatment. 

It's just painkillers. Painkillers. And then the pain would come back again. Many people don't understand that, in Hama, in 1982—.

Thomas Small I'm glad you brought that up, 'cause I wanted to bring that up now.

Aimen Dean Yeah. 

Thomas Small That the – the sort of – the sort of uncompromising response of Bashar al-Assad to the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011 was foreshadowed by his father's response, in 1982, to a Muslim Brotherhood inspired uprising in the city of Hama, where quite infamously, Hafez al-Assad ordered his brother, Rifaat…

Aimen Dean Rifaat. Yes.

Thomas Small …to utterly destroy and crush that rebellion, resulting in tens of thousands of civilian deaths and the leveling of much of that city in 1982. So, Bashar al-Assad's response to the Arab Spring could have been foreseen. And another thing about the Hama massacre of 1982 that's quite instructive, I would say, is that it was a Muslim Brotherhood uprising that the Syrian state under Hafez al-Assad Hoff crushed. You have, in that conflict, in 1982, a similar ideological conflict of – of the one that, at least in rhetorical terms, is going on in Syria now. That between a sort of Sunni Islamist movement and the "secularism" of the al-Assad state, of the Ba'ath Party state. What does secularism mean in the context of the Ba'ath Party? And why—? And – and do you think that it is fair to hold up the secularism of – of a state like Syria before it collapsed as a – as a great achievement?

Aimen Dean You see, this is one of the debates that divides people the world over when it comes to Middle East politics. The Syrian Ba'ath Party, and they will say, "Oh, my God. It is secular. We must support it, because secular equals good." And they see the Muslim Brotherhood and anyone else basically, and they say, "Oh, they are religious. Oh, my God. Then, they are so bad.": Because religious movement equals bad. And this is where this oversimplification of the ideological, you know, tectonic plates in the Middle East that's pushing against each other, you know, result in myopic and inaccurate analysis of what happened in Syria. 

Not all seculars in the Arab world are good. Look at Saddam. He was secular. And look how many people he killed and gassed and everything and all of that. And in the name of Arab nationalism. And the Ba'ath Party, look at them. Basically, they are all secular, you know, in Syria. And yet, look how many people they have killed and caused to kill. The problem here is not about "secular equal good" and "religious equal bad." You know, it's far more complex than that. Sometime, you have religious people who have more respect for democratic process and human rights than their secular counterparts. And that the most vicious dictators in the Middle East actually were secular in their outlook. Look at Gadhafi. Look at Mubarak. Before him, Gamal – Gamal Abdel Nasser and look at Hafez al-Assad and look at Saddam Hussein. All of them are secular.

Thomas Small Sure. But you might say, if the greatest threat of all is some sort of Taliban-style government rolling across the Middle East, then perhaps you need an authoritarian secularist to crack some skulls and break some eggs to prevent an even worse evil from – from establishing itself.

Aimen Dean This is why I always say that between the two wolves, you know—. So, you have a wolfpack there and you have a wolfpack here, and they are are fighting each other. And what's happening is that the world is divided, cheering, you know, for one side against another. And I was saying no. No. You know, there are other alternatives, you know, especially when it comes to the fact that I'm an unabashed monarchists. Because monarchies tend to behave better. 

Look at Morocco, less resources than Syria. And yet, basically, the living standards and Morocco are better than in Syria. We have to ask ourselves why. The system of governance, it seems to be more resilient and less prone to torture, imprisonment, and brutal tactics. 

You know, the king of Jordan, no one is going to – going to call him a dictator, even though he is, actually, in all sense of the word "dictator." That is where people got it wrong as far as Bashar al-Assad. They saw his secularism and they viewed it as a virtue when, in fact, actually, it is not a virtue. 

Thomas Small  There's a tragic irony with – in the story of Bashar al-Assad, because when he came to power following his father Hafez's death in 2000, the first three years or so of his rule in Syria was known as the Damascus Spring, when it seemed that Bashar al-Assad was going to liberalise slightly, was going to open up more to the West, was going to bring Syria back into the fold of the international community from its self-imposed isolation and strident anti-Israeli rhetoric and all that sort of thing. That, in the end didn't happen. And it's possible to say that one of the reasons it didn't happen was because of that other tragic war in the Middle East, the invasion of Iraq, at which point, Bashar al-Assad thinks, "Hmmm, I'm probably going to be next here. Why should I be playing along with America? These neo-cons are clearly threatening me." Do you feel that that was a turning point for Bashar al-Assad, the Iraq War?

Aimen Dean Yes. And also, don't forget that many people don't understand that, you know, while Bashar was, you know, of course, basically a secular dictator, his greatest ally in the region was the theocratic government of Iran, because of the fact that, while he is secular on paper, but because he belongs to a minority that belonged to a fringe Shia sect, he asked that he saw in Iran a great ally and a protector.

So, this is where the irony comes when people say, "But Bashar is so secular." No. And, in fact, that is why when the Iraq, Bashar decided to pull two strings here. His alliance with Iran made him allow many of al-Qaeda members to actually come and pass through Syria and then get into—.

Thomas Small Yes. Let's – let's – let's go into this in great detail…

Aimen Dean Yeah.

Thomas Small …'cause it's actually a wonderful story. I mean…

Aimen Dean Yeah.

Thomas Small …because Bashar al-Assad oversaw a secularist regime, at least on paper, and because Sunni jihadists, in particular, and Muslim Brotherhood-influenced revolutionaries were a threat to that regime, they languished in Syrian prisons. Come the Iraq War, Bashar al-Assad, in collusion with the Iranian regime, is – is what people understand today, agreed to release those jihadists from Syrian prisons and facilitate their entry into Iraq in order to discomfit the American forces there. 

And not only that, but from all around the world, jihadists who went to Iraq to fight, to join al-Qaeda in Iraq, under Zarqawi, as we discussed two podcasts ago, they came via Damascus, and the Syrian regime facilitated that movement. Is that right? 

Aimen Dean Absolutely. In fact, you know, I happened to have met one of the grandees of the Syrian redeem, you know, who later defected and against Bashar al-Assad. He was the son of the former defence minister class. And so, when I talked to him, he confessed. He said, "Yes, we did it. We did it, because, basically for us, we wanted to make sure that the project for the Americans in Iraq never succeed." 

Then, don't forget the other string I was talking about, you know, Assad pulled the first string, which is the Iranian alliance. But the second string here was the fact that the Ba'ath Party in Iraq was still ideologically, you know, linked to the Ba'ath Party in Damascus. And, of course, they lost that power. So, many of the Ba'ath Party members fled to Syria. And there, they—.

Thomas Small So, ISIS—. So, Iraqi Ba'athists fled to Syria…

Aimen Dean Yeah.

Thomas Small …where they regrouped, where they – where they also conspired against the American occupying [crosstalk].

Aimen Dean Absolutely. So, you know, basically, Bashar al-Assad was playing both sides,. was playing the Ba'athists, you know, the Iraqi Ba'athists who resided in Syria. And also he was—. He, you know—. He played the, you know, the Iraqi. So, the Iraqi al-Qaeda members and also the foreign al-Qaeda members who were coming, and he facilitated their entry into Syria. 

Thomas Small When Bashar al-Assad was facilitating foreign fighters into going into Iraq to attack the Americans there in 2006, around 2005, 2006, you were still an MI6 double agent.

Aimen Dean Indeed.

Thomas Small Were you working in any direct way on countering that or – or—. I mean, how – how did – how did the Western intelligence agencies counter that – that conspiracy? 

Aimen Dean Well, it's simple. I mean, we discovered, at the time, that Syria was the root from as early as 2004. How? Because what happened is, of course, many people who were in Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait and in Bahrain—. And these are the countries I was monitoring at the time. I was monitoring of activities in these countries. Whenever you have a new young man recruited and wants to go to Iraq, where would he go? You would immediately find that there are certain people, who I knew personally in Bahrain, in Kuwait, who would hand over small pieces of paper with instructions and phone numbers. And all of them are where? In the Damascus. 

So, I'm talking about one example, two or ten or twenty. I'm talking about dozens of examples here.

Thomas Small But Bashar al-Assad, by allowing this jihadist activity to take place inside Syria in those years, he was really laying the foundations for the destruction of his own country. Because, in the end, these jihadists, they came back to Syria and began fighting him. So, the Arab Spring, of course, afflicted many countries throughout the Middle East. In Syria, it played out in a unique way. Protests began in the south of the country, but quite quickly it descended into violence. What happened?

Aimen Dean Well, I'll give you my take on what really happened here. They—.

Thomas Small Well, first, give us the official narrative.

Aimen Dean Yeah.

Thomas Small And then, undermine that narrative, if you wish.

Aimen Dean The official narrative is that there is a conspiracy by Saudi Arabia, by Qatar, by Turkey, by the Muslim Brotherhood, by the US, by the European Union, by Jordan, even, by Israel. So, all of these powers. In fact, you know, the – the – the city TV used to call it the globalist conspiracy to topple the regime there. And what many people don't understand that no one had any interest of the regime actually falling. No one. Even the Saudis and the Qataris. No one wanted that to happen, actually. They wanted just to punish Bashar for everything he did, the killing of the prime minister of Lebanon in 2005 as – as a nation of so many Lebanese pro-Saudi and pro-Gulf politicians. But that's another story. But no one wanted him to be toppled. 

So, what happened here is that they said these protests in Daraa, which is the first city to experience protests [crosstalk].

Thomas Small In the south of Syria.

Aimen Dean Yeah. In late March of 2011. What happened there? According to the people, they were saying the three young kids, they were taken into custody for mischievous behaviour. They were just kids from a poor neighbourhood. There were young boys around the age of eleven, twelve, or thirteen. And then, their bodies were found ditched somewhere.

Thomas Small Mutilated. 

Aimen Dean Yes. And raped. By the way, you know, there has been many instances, many numerous documented instances, of rogue police officers in Syria kidnapping and raping young boys. 

Thomas Small Hmmm.

Aimen Dean And that was rampant. And no one can deny that. Because the people themselves would admit it happened. So, of course, what happened is that the atmosphere of the Arab Spring, the fall of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt convinced people of Daraa that, "Look, do we have to put up with this anymore?" 

Thomas Small "Do we have to put up with Bashar al-Assad's policemen raping our boys?"

Aimen Dean Exactly. So, what happened is when the uprising in – in Daraa, it was actually directed at the local police. And they sent a delegation to Damascus to meet Bashar al-Assad to say, "Reign in your – in your police. The Arab world is changing, and you have to change. And your police need to be less impressive. Less powers of the police. That's how it all started. 

Thomas Small Which, it seems to me, a perfectly legitimate thing for the people to do.

Aimen Dean Exactly. Because I've been to Syria. You've been to Syria. You see how the police were behaving with impunity, taking bribes from people, you know, oppressing people. If you are a police officer, it's just—. Basically, your salary, it's just, you know, like a tip. The rest of your income actually come from bribes. So, the city a was incredibly corrupt police state, you know. Don't forget. It's the only country in the world almost where, undemocratically, a son succeeded his father as a president. The second one was North Korea. It wasn't like a bastion of democracy and human rights and [crosstalk].

Thomas Small Certainly not. No one would claim that.

Aimen Dean No one. Yeah. So, you know, the – the people said, "Well, enough is enough." Because the atmosphere in the Arab world was that of freedom.

Thomas Small So, what happened? They say, "Enough is enough." They sent a delegation to Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. What does he do?

Aimen Dean Bashar promised them to do everything right. And then, as soon as they returned, [unintelligible] were arrested. And this is basically when things started to get more ugly. People went more into the streets and started to infect other cities, where—. Then, in Homs, there was another young boy who was kidnapped by the police. Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb. Very famous case. Kidnapped, raped, and his body was dumped into the rubbish. And the police station that done it said, "If you keep protesting, we will kidnap more boys and do it." They don't understand that the world is changing and there is social media. And, you know, and this kind of tit-for-tat, "If you do this, we will do that," it's no longer applicable. People will rebel. 

Thomas Small And quite soon after, the rebellion started. The regime turned their guns on the crowds.

Aimen Dean Exactly. So, what happened here is that, you know, the protests all around the country were not anti-Bashar. Actually, it was more anti-government repression. So, their demands in the first three months, I still remember. And people unfortunately have short memories, they think basically that they wanted to topple the regime. No. The demands were the repeal of Article VIII of the constitution, which is that the Ba'ath Party is the only party that is allowed to be, you know, empowered or—. 

Thomas Small So, they – they wanted more political pluralism. 

Aimen Dean Exactly. Which is fair enough. 

Thomas Small It seems to me. 

Aimen Dean Yeah. And also, they demanded that the seventeen security agencies to be, you know, more merged into one or two or three agencies, and more – with more oversight, because every agency thought they are immune and they could kidnap boys or take bribes or arrest people at a whim and disappear them without any trace.

Thomas Small They wished for the state security apparatus to be disempowered.

Aimen Dean Indeed. 

Thomas Small So, political pluralism, less state oppression.

Aimen Dean Yeah. And the political prisoners. 

Thomas Small Now, what does that mean though? Because political prisoners in Syria, I mean, aren't these, the jihadists we were talking about? Does that – does that mean that, already amongst this movement, there was a – there was a Sunni jihadist undercurrent?

Aimen Dean Oh, no. There were so many different, you know, types of political prisoners, you know. Even sometimes comedians and, you know – you know, and even artists. Like, you know, we are part of the political prisoner movement. Sometimes, children, unfortunately. You know, there was a, a young teenage girl, sixteen-year-old. She was fifteen when she was arrested and seventeen when she was executed. [name]. She was living in Egypt. She had the blog where she was reminding Bashar al-Assad of his democratic promises when he came to power. 

Thomas Small During the Damascus Spring. 

Aimen Dean Exactly. You know, when she arrived back in Syria, she was arrested at the age of fifteen. [name], her name. She was arrested at the age of fifteen for writing a blog. And then, they decided to put her on trial in front of a military tribunal for being a spy for the Israelis. And she gave information to the Israelis, which enabled, you know, a, you know, the Israelis to target, you know, a – an intelligence officer of the Syrians, and he became paralysed for life, which is completely pathetic [unintelligible]. 

Thomas Small Clearly—. Yeah. Clearly, these are trump charges

Aimen Dean And then, she was executed. 

Thomas Small Unbelievable.

Aimen Dean Yeah. 

Thomas Small So, the protesters were in fact appealing to their president, Bashar al-Assad, to make these very reasonable reforms. But instead…

Aimen Dean Yeah.

Thomas Small …he switches the psychopath button in his mind and he orders his men to fire into the crowds. And within months, the whole movement is militarised. 

Aimen Dean There as a sentence he uttered just one month after the beginning of the uprising. After one month or less than that, he gave a speech to parliament.

Well, I mean, to the appointed parliament, as you know, in Syria. And in that speech—. You know, I was listening to him so intently. Of course, basically, I was trying to see where will he go, which direction he will take. And one sentence, just one sentence, in my opinion, inaugurated the whole civil war. Because he said—. Of course, at the time there were about seven hundred, eight hundred thousand people on the streets of Syria. After—. Out of about, you know, twenty-five million, you know, population. So, it was still easily containable. 

He said that "from the videos of the protests, we have identified sixty-four thousand protestors who we believe are criminals and we will arrest them, and justice will be done." That is, in my opinion, the stupidest, most idiotic, dangerous sentence ever uttered in modern Middle Eastern history. When there are eight hundred thousand people on the streets, and you are saying, "We have identified sixty-four thousand," each and every one of these eight hundred thousand will never come back home. That you have basically inaugurated civil war, because you told them, "Keep on protesting, keep on being violent, keep on, you know, this uprising, because if you go back home, you will have the secret prisons treatment." And Bashar's prisons are very infamous, unfortunately, for being nothing but death factory. 

Thomas Small He undermined the possibility that these protests could have resulted in something like reform. 'Cause he wasn't interested in reform.

Aimen Dean Not – not just only not interested in reform. You know, when you threaten the protesters on the street that possibly all of you will be in prison—because none of them know which one of them is part of the sixty-four thousand—you give them a point of no return. You—. You give—. You put them in a – on a path where there is no return. 

Thomas Small The Syrian civil war did quickly devolve into total violence on all sides. And I'll have to ask us to sort of skip forward three or four years to when the civil war was raging at its most violent. We have a battlefield scenario where there are myriad Sunni jihadist groups, myriad so-called moderate revolutionary groups, although who these people are has never been entirely clear to anyone. You have Bashar al-Assad's forces. You have Hezbollah in Lebanon, providing troops to Bashar al-Assad to fight the Sunni jihadist. You have Iranian Revolutionary Guard commanders overseeing that Bashar al-Assad effort. You have Afghan Shia mercenaries shipped in by the Iranian regime to Syria to provide further troops. It's a total shit storm. And at the same time, you have foreign powers—the United States, the EU, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar—on the opposition side to Bashar al-Assad, coordinating, mis-coordinating. And then, in the midst of all this, you have ISIS arise. 

Let's talk about these jihadists. 

Aimen Dean Yeah.

Thomas Small Why such a patchwork? Why such a kaleidoscope of jihadist groups fighting each other, fighting the regime, fighting the Americans. What was going on? 

Aimen Dean You see, the greatest calamity that Syria suffered after Bashar al-Assad, you know, was the arrival of al-Qaeda. When my wife asked me, you know, "Could you tell me in one sentence what went wrong with Syria?" So, I told her, "al-Qaeda came to town."

Thomas Small Now, tell us that story. 

Aimen Dean Yeah. Well, you see, Bashar was partly responsible for that in two ways, one before the war and one after the war.

Thomas Small Before the war, as we – as we said, he released al-Qaeda prisoners and such like people from prison and – and sent them to the Iraq, where they regrouped and came back to bite him in the butt. 

Aimen Dean Exactly. The second way after the war in which the way he responded to the uprising, which was moderate at the beginning, with violence, led to people, you know, trying to find—. "Okay. Who will protect us? Who will actually, you know, be the force that could actually force Assad us to re-evaluate his options?" [crosstalk].

Thomas Small And they turned to al-Qaeda, which was called, initially, in Syria, the Nusfra Front.

Aimen Dean  Exactly. Jabhat al-Nusra…

Thomas Small Which—.

Aimen Dean …which means the support front. 

Thomas Small And it was – it was—. The—. So, the Nusfra Front was an al-Qaeda franchise, if you like. But at the very—. At the beginning, not everyone knew that. Is that right? They was—. They had done a pretty good job of – of – of hiding their al-Qaeda affiliation.

Aimen Dean I knew. 

Thomas Small Well, yeah. You're not – you're not just everybody.

Aimen Dean But I knew, because, immediately, I started to notice. Because, don't forget, after I left the service of MI5 and MI6 2006, I became a banker, as many listeners would have known by now. And because I was a banker, I was always, you know, in the banking section, which monitored terrorism finance. 

Around November, December of 2011, just about seven, eight months after the beginning of the uprising, that there are certain, the financials in Kuwait, in Bahrain, in Qatar started some movement of collecting money for certain groups. And that's when I started to become suspicious that something is not right. And I remember, even at a great risk to me, I went all the way to Kuwait at the beginning of 2012 and even attended one of these fundraising meetings… 

Thomas Small Wow

Aimen Dean …which was risky, but I just wanted to—.

Thomas Small Risky, because, at that point, you – there was already the fatwa against you.

Aimen Dean Exactly. 

Thomas Small Your former al-Qaeda, you know, brothers were – were – were going to kill you. 

Aimen Dean So, I thank God there were hundreds basically in that big tent erected, you know, near one of the [foreign language] in Kuwait, basically. So—.

Thomas Small So, you're saying you went to a – you went to a – a – a jamboree in Kuwait specifically oriented towards raising money for terrorists in Syria.

Aimen Dean Well, tThey didn't call them terrorists. They called them basically, you know, a, you know, the cause of jihad in Syria against the tyrant Bashar al-Assad.

Thomas Small Right. 

Aimen Dean And funny enough—funny enough—I started listening to the speakers, and they were talking about eschatology. 

Thomas Small Oh, the prophecies.

Aimen Dean Again. Again. 

Thomas Small Goodness gracious.

Aimen Dean Among them were, you know, [name]. You know, he was—. He's a famous Salafist cleric in Kuwait. Among them was Hammad Ali, one of the famous supporters of al-Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, in al-Qaeda [crosstalk]. 

Thomas Small Now, why are these – why are these people able to come out in the open and Kuwait and say these things? Why aren't these people in prison, Aimen?

Aimen Dean Because not far away, just about fifteen, sixteen kilometres away in Kuwait— I'm not kidding you—in Kuwait, just at, you know, at the same week, there was another big tent that—. Yes. I'm not kidding. There was another big tent, another [unintelligible] gathering of Shia Kuwaitis, raising funds for, you know, militants to go and fight in Syria alongside Bashar al-Assad. 

Thomas Small So – so, Gulf funding was funding both sides. 

Aimen Dean Yes. 

Thomas Small Yes. It's—. The Syrian civil war has been a sort of solvent that has – that has caused national identities, other identities to wither away, and the sectarian identities are all that's left. 

Aimen Dean Exactly. And, actually, you know, to give an example, you know, I'm a Bahraini.

Thomas Small Yeah.

Aimen Dean And my nephew and cousin, both of them are Bahrainis. You know, my nephew, Ibrahim, was – he was only nineteen and my cousin, Abdurrahman, he was only twenty. Abdurrahman went to fight with Jabhat al-Nusra.

Thomas Small With al-Qaeda in Syria?

Aimen Dean With – with al-Qaeda in Syria. And he died there in May 2013, in Damascus.

Thomas Small I'm sorry to hear that. That's very sad. 

Aimen Dean Then, my nephew went. First, he was tempted to join ISIS, but I, after many Skype calls, you know, myself, his father, I mean, basically we convinced him not to join them. Basically, like, you know, just try to go somewhere else. And he joined another more moderate group, which belonged to [unintelligible], another, you know, Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, of the insurgents. And he died there in September of 2013. 

There are two Bahrainis, but there we're not the only two Bahrainis, from Bahrain, to fight and die there. There were other trainees who were from the other side, Shia Bahrainis…

Thomas Small Shia. Shia Bahrainis. 

Aimen Dean …who fought alongside Hezbollah and Bashar al-Assad. So, there are Kuwaitis fighting Kuwaitis and Bahrainis fighting Bahrainis and Saudis fighting Saudis in that conflict. It is—. You know, with the arrival of al-Qaeda, which brought with it, of course, ISIS, after that, and their purest Sunni jihadist ideology, and because they came not from al-Qaeda central—they came from al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was known at the time as the Islamic State of Iraq—and then, when they break rock away from al-Qaeda as a whole, in 2013, they announced that, "Oh, al-Nusra, these people in Syria, they are ours." And that caused al-Nusra to split, with two-thirds going to ISIS and one-third remaining, you know, which basically grew up later, of course.

Thomas Small It's quite complicated. But the takeaway is that ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria are essentially the same organisation. They just had picked… 

Aimen Dean Split.

Thomas Small They had picked a fight with each other. 

Aimen Dean Yeah. They split in May 2013.

Thomas Small When I was in Syria, one of the monasteries that I visited there, Mar Musa, not far from Damascus, not far from Malula, in fact, where Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ, is still spoken. It was a Roman Catholic monastery, and it's Abbott, Father Paolo, in Italian Franciscan, if I'm not mistaken, who had really worked hard for twenty years to form close relations with the Sunnis, with the Shia, with all the different groups in the vicinity. And the mo- – the monastery had become a place of pilgrimage for all these groups. When the Syrian civil war started, Father Paolo very famously refused the Vatican's demand that he – that he leaves Syria because it was too dangerous, 'cause he wanted to remain a spokesman for sectarian unity in Syria. In the end, he was kidnapped and beheaded by ISIS. 

Aimen Dean And that's the tragedy. You see, Syria wasn't known for extremism or for this kind of brutality and bloodshed. And this is foreign and alien to it. And this is why, whenever, basically, you know, I see jihadists, you know, and jihadist sympathizers, you know, whether they are in Europe or North America, in the Middle East or South Asia, and they keep telling me about Bashar this, Bashar this, Bashar that, you know, the first thing I tell them, "Shut up. You and people like you empowered him." He was about to fall. Many people defected. Even his own prime minister, Riyad Hijab, left him in March of 2012. Many people were leaving him. His army was – started – started to disintegrate. And it was clear that he either concede reforms or give up. He might lose, but what saved him was al-Qaeda.

Thomas Small The arrival of al-Qaeda. The arrival of al-Qaeda on the scene gave him a rhetorical victory. He could always say, "I'm defending Syria from al-Qaeda."

Aimen Dean Exactly. al-Qaeda did not start. They just arrived and taken advantage of that war, and, as a result, turned the war from a war of liberation in order to bring about some sort of a better Syria into a conflict that is based on sectarian jihadism. 

Thomas Small What about these moderate rebels, Aimen? We – we heard, especially here in Britain, because the UK was always going to support the moderate – the moderate rebels in the Syrian civil war. Who were these moderates?

Aimen Dean At the beginning, they were mostly soldiers from al-Assad army who actually defected.

Thomas Small The Free Syrian Army.

Aimen Dean Indeed. And many of them had purely nationalistic aspirations. Many of them were not just only Sunnis, but also they had Druze and Christians. 

Thomas Small So, what happened to the Free Syrian Army? 

Aimen Dean They were taken over by, you know, and marginalized by the jihadist and the ideological, you know, groups that were linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Thomas Small So, you say jihadists both infiltrated the Free Syrian Army and also attacked the Free Syrian Army and defeated them on the battlefield.

Aimen Dean Well, not just only that. But actually, more or less, just like what happened if you listen to the podcast on Iraq, when we talked about Zarqawi. What Zarqawi was money – was money, but also the name of al-Qaeda and the name of jihad. And so, they were able to cannibalize other groups, including the Free Syrian Army. So, it's just pure cannibalism on the part of the jihadists that marginalized the moderate rebels completely.

Thomas Small And what role did the Gulf states play in all of this? Because, you know, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Emirates, they're often accused of fueling the bloody mess of Syria with money, with – with – with weapons. What's – what's the truth there?

Aimen Dean Well, the truth that is that it happened. And in fact—. You know, I'm not going to deny it. It happened. The Qataris we're supporting [name]. The Saudis were supporting Jamal Maarouf and Hazim. You know, it's a group called Hazim. And they supported Unit 13. They supported Unit 49. You know, the Turks, of course, they supported Nūr al-Dīn Zengī group. And others they supported the [unintelligible], the TIP or the Turkistan Islamic Party. You know, we will talk about them in the next podcast.

So – so, in a sense, you know, all of this was not coordinated. And at the same time, many of them, while they were moderate, but they were not moderate enough. They still had this stingy of either jihadism or Muslim Brotherhood, you know, ideology about them. 

Thomas Small But, surely, some of these Gulf states also supported al-Qaeda directly, ISIS directly. That's what we're always told. 

Aimen Dean No.

Thomas Small None of them did?

Aimen Dean None of them. See, you know—. You know, I – I always basically had—.

Thomas Small How can we believe you, Aimen, actually? I mean, surely, you're just – you're just, you know, you're just – you're just a – an apologist for Gulf – for Gulf states.

Aimen Dean No. Of course not. I'm not an apologist for anyone. I'm apologist only for the truth. And, for me, I am a ex-spy and, after that, a financial banking investigator, which means that I follow the money. And whenever someone challenged me on this and says, "The Saudis are supporting ISIS and al-Qaeda, the Qataris as supporter – supporting ISIS and al-Qaeda. The Americans actually are supporting and creating ISIS and al-Qaeda."

Thomas Small These are all the accusations?

Aimen Dean Yeah. And I would say to everyone, "Look, I have spent eleven years of my life in the banking sector. Before that, eight years of my life as a spy against terrorist groups. So, unless if you have with you, you know, official transactions, banking transactions, or any other form of transactions that I can take actually to court, then, please, do not utter this nonsense." Why? Because I have followed terrorism finance for nineteen years of my life. 

Thomas Small And you're saying there's no hard evidence that Gulf state supported either ISIS or al-Qaeda in Syria?

Aimen Dean If you have—. If you are, as a listener, have an evidence, I will actually guarantee you hundreds of thousands of pounds of – in payment from many lawyers who want to hold these countries to account and demand justice for the victims, whether they are in North America or Europe. If you have evidence, come forward. You don't, then it's not there. 

If you hear about me buying a Lamborghini and basically living in one of the machines in Beverly Hills, it means that I finally found the evidence. [crosstalk].

Thomas Small That's the lottery ticket. That's the lottery ticket. The proof we've all been looking for.

Aimen Dean Yes. Because if it happened, I would be a rich man by now. But it never happened. They were supporting groups that are not related to al-Qaeda or ISIS. They did, but these groups cannot be classified as terrorists, because they were not classified as terrorists by the US Treasury or by the EU. 

Thomas Small And in—. But—. And sadly, indirectly, the support of these other groups may have led to the empowerment and aggrandizement of al-Qaeda and ISIS when al-Qaeda and ISIS conquered those groups and expropriated the funds and the weapons that had been given them. So, it was blow back. 

Aimen Dean Indeed. Absolutely. And that's why, you know, all of these countries stopped completely, you know, by, I would say, the end of 2016. That's it. All the support dried out.

Thomas Small They realised that their support for other jihadist groups, other resistance groups in Syria had backfired. 

Aimen Dean Exactly. First, the Americans told them stop. And they also stopped on their own volition, as well as the fact that the Americans decided that the best one to fight ISEs are not those so-called moderate, you know, Syrian groups. They are useless. The only ones who can do that were the Kurds.

Thomas Small America empowered the Kurds. Now, that allows me to ask a question about America in the Syrian civil war and, especially, the former president, Barack Obama, often accused of waffling in his response to that conflict, accused of – of drawing his red lines beyond which he said Bashar al-Assad would not be allowed to – to pass, but then Bashar al-Assad would transgress the red line, and – and Obama would do little or nothing. What is your estimation of America's intervention or lack of intervention in the Syrian civil war, especially given the fact that you say America's intervention in Iraq was such a disaster?

Aimen Dean You see, the problem of the Syrian conflict is that it was a victim of the Iraq War in many ways, of the radicalization that took place in Iraq, which basically sent ISIS and al-Qaeda from Iraq back to Syria. But also, because in Iraq, the West was over-committed. In Syria, because of what happened in Iraq, the West was under committed. And what Syria needed, especially—especially—that window, between November 2011 and June of 2012. That window, if the Americans used it wisely, all what – all what was needed was just two American submarines and seventy-two Tomahawk missiles raining on Bashar al-Assad's security and military apparatus. And his own army would have ditched him immediately. There would have been a coup. And his vice president, Sunni yet secular and Ba'athist, Farouk al-Sharaa, would have become president. And the Syrian civil war would have ended before it even started. 

Thomas Small So, why didn't Barack Obama order the Tomahawks to – to rain down?

Aimen Dean Because he was a chicken.

Thomas Small He was a chicken?

Aimen Dean Yes. 

Thomas Small Okay. Expand on that. 

Aimen Dean Okay. The problem with Barack Obama is that he was always a hesitant leader when it come to world events. You know, this is why Putin took advantage of Obama's hesitation on the world stage. And he supported, of course, stupidly, the Arab uprising, especially against Mubarak. But then he did not want to intervene. 

He was always anti-intervention. 

Thomas Small But what about Libya? We intervened in Libya. Why did we intervene in Libya, but not in Syria? Oil?

Aimen Dean No. There was more to it than that. Barack Obama wanted to appease the Iranians over the nuclear deal, and he wanted to negotiate a nuclear deal with them. Antagonising them on Syria meant that he would lose Iran forever. So, for the sake of that nuclear deal, which is gone now, anyway—.

Thomas Small 'Cause Trump has vetoed it. 

Aimen Dean Exactly. 

Thomas Small Or he has abrogated it. 

Aimen Dean Absolutely. So, for the sake of that deal, he hesitated on Syria so much that this hesitation cost the Syrians and the world, especially Europe, with the waves of migration, a lot of great pain.

Thomas Small And, finally, Russia. Russia intervened in the Syrian civil war on the side of Bashar al-Assad to protect its naval base in Tartus, on the Mediterranean Coast, to project its own influence in the Middle East further, to take advantage of Barack Obama's hesitation and, in general, Obama's withdrawal of American influence from the region. And in alliance with Iran, Russia has ended up being the major player in that part of the world. No one would have foreseen this ten years ago. 

Aimen Dean Of course not. And that's the problem with, you know, the fact that Barack Obama's foreign policy was absolutely disastrous as far as the Middle East was concerned. Because he could have put an end to this war. Even – even if he really, really forced Bashar al-Assad into a corner, he could have forced him to concede at least some reforms. But, unfortunately, he decided to sit on the side lines and allow this, you know, to happen. Why—?

S; And does – does Russia now call the shots in the region then? 

Aimen Dean Well, not in the region, but in Syria, at least. And I want to raise another issue: how to show the globalist thing of it. There are two people—two people—I blame personally for sending Syria into this chaos even further because of their constant interference—theological, ideological interference—with the uprising in Syria. Abu Qatada, the Jordanian cleric, who was based here in the UK for more than thirteen years. Possibly even more. Actually, no. Twenty years, almost. And he went to Jordan after he left the UK, of course, when he was extradited to Jordan. And there, the Jordanians, you know, allowed him to have his own Twitter account and online presence. And he kept talking about "You must do this. You mustn't do that. You must do this. Don't agree to democracy. Don't agree to pluralism. Don't agree to do [crosstalk] harmony." 

Thomas Small He's addressing the Syrian uprising, is he?

Aimen Dean Absolutely. And he just kept along with the other snake, Abu Mohammed al-Maqdisi, who was also responsible for informing the ideology of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia in the early days, which, you know, informed your film, Path of Blood. He—. Both of them, you know, your put their poisons into the mind of the young people in Syria who were, you know, protesting based on, you know, civil rights demands and turned all of this into ideological battlefield over jihadist ideology purity. 

Thomas Small So, when you said at the beginning of the episode that the Syrian civil war was the most preventable civil war in the Middle Eastern history, is it because al-Qaeda didn't need to have arrived on the scene?

Aimen Dean I would say it was preventable because of several facts. One, Assad did not need to use repression or violence against his own people. 

Thomas Small No.

Aimen Dean He could have just conceited fewer reforms, and the number of protestors would have plummeted from the hundreds of thousands to only a few thousands, which then he can deal with. But he could have conceded reforms. Some people would say, "Oh, no. The protesters would have kept on." No. I will say no. Because we have two other countries where, when reforms were promised, the protesters went home—Jordan and Morocco. Both of them led by young people. King Abdullah of Jordan and King Mohammed VI Morocco both conceded the reforms and, in both cases, the protesters went home. 

Thomas Small So, Bashar could have conceded reforms. What – what else? 

Aimen Dean He did not need to utter that sentence, the most fateful sentence in the Syrian history when he said that "there are sixty-four thousand people we identified. We will let us them." That was wrong. You know, you just forced them to stay on the streets and then become militants. 

Thomas Small Okay. And three?

Aimen Dean And three, al-Qaeda did not need to come there.

Thomas Small When you say they did not need to come there, but who—. No. How—? Who is going to sit down with al-Qaeda and talk sense into them? They did need to go there in their own minds, because of the prophecies, because of everything they'd been working towards for twenty years. 

Aimen Dean Ah, yes, the prophecies. The bloody prophecies. I mean, basically, I—. you know, I wish, really, these prophecies never existed. 

Thomas Small So, Aimen, al-Qaeda didn't have to come to Syria. Sure. Certainly, Bashar al-Assad didn't have to respond the way he did. But now, what is it, seven years later, is it safe to say Bashar al-Assad, despite being the asshole that he is, has won the war and will be on his throne in Damascus for the time being?

Aimen Dean No. If this is winning, what is losing? Seven hundred thousand people dead. Thirteen million people displaced. The entire country ravaged, destroyed. The infrastructure is non-existent. It will cost $500 billion, half a trillion dollars, to rebuild the whole thing. If this is winning, God knows what losing is. 

Thomas Small But he's in power. 

Aimen Dean Well, at what cost and at what price? And the question is: Maybe he won the war, can he win the peace? Because why? Still, a quarter of the country is in the hands of the Kurds, and they are not going to play ball with him. They are not going to give up the sovereignty, the sovereignty they had won. One quarter of the entire Syrian territory is in the hands of the YPG, the Kurds who fought so hard against ISIS onslaught, the massacres that ISIS has committed against them, and the enslavement of many as eighty women among them. 

So, do you think they will just roll over and give up everything they have? Because, basically, Assad was repressing the Kurds also. Denying them their language. Denying them—. Denying three million of them citizenship, even. So, now that they have been empowered, they have an army almost the size of two hundred thousand fighter, do you think they are going to give all this up and go back to being subservient to Assad? 

Thomas Small So, what you're really saying is the war is not over.

Aimen Dean No.

Thomas Small It's too early to declare a victor. 

Aimen Dean No. This is why I would say, basically, that Assad has won back about seventy per cent of the territory, because twenty-five per cent is in the hands of the Kurds and five per cent still in the hands of al-Qaeda and their allies in Idlib. So, we are not there yet. Because don't forget three and a half million people live under al-Qaeda's rule in Idlib and other jihadist groups and roughly another three to three-and-a-half million live under the rule of the Kurds. Everything that is basically east – north of the Euphrates is under the hands of the Kurds. So, the idea that he won, well—. And don't forget he won the war, but with the help of so many foreign mercenaries. One day, they have to go back. Their salaries are just draining the Iranian and Syrian coffers. One day, they will have to go back to their families and homelands. And then, Assad will not have enough manpower to control even the territories that he has won.

Thomas Small Aimen, you say that Bashar al-Assad's military strength has relied almost entirely on mercenaries for a while now, mercenaries who will eventually return home. Of course, al-Qaeda militants and other Sunni jihadist militants, they also have a tendency, eventually, to return home, which is what we're going to be talking about in the next podcast. What is the world to do about the phenomenon of jihadists, battle-hardened, ideologically-committed jihadists returning home? 

This episode of Conflicted was produced by Jake Warren and Sandra Ferrari. Original music by Matt Huxley. If you want to hear more of Conflicted, make sure you search for us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you download yours.

Conflicted S3 E10 - Arab-Israeli Blitzkrieg

Thomas Small No time to banter today, Aimen. We've got so much to cover in this episode.

Aimen Dean So much to condense for sure.

Thomas Small The Six-Day War of '67 and its bold sequel, the Yom Kippur War of '73. But you are still alive, right?

Aimen Dean Alive and thriving.

Thomas Small Good to hear. Now, let's get straight into it.

Yes. We finally reached the climax of the Cold War in the Middle East. Well, a climax at least. The outcomes of both the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War are relatively well known. Less so, the political machinations leading up to them. We'll do our best, dear listener, to take you behind the scenes of the corridors of power and into the minds of Arab and Israeli leaders.

No one wanted war. Yet war arrived. Why? That's our question? These two wars were transformative. Nasserism was out, and radicalism was in. And in the ongoing clash of civilisations in the Middle East, a new and improved player emerged from the wreckage of war: radical Islamism. Are you excited, Aimen?

Aimen Dean Of course. Of course. Now, I can trace the roots of my ideological, you know, youth, to the 1960s and 1970s.

Thomas Small The Six-Day War was a turning point in the history of the modern Arab world. Arabs were left traumatised by their spectacular defeat. The Nasserist project was thoroughly discredited. And so, a huge Egyptian transition began, away from the Soviet union and toward the United States, away from a centralised command economy and toward crony capitalism, away from Arab nationalism and toward Egyptian nationalism. And all of these changes had huge reverberations across the region.

But in the years running up to the 1967 War, things had changed since the first clash between Israelis and Arabs in 1948. Israel's victory in '48 is largely down to the corruption of its Arab enemies. They were weak regimes, still dependent upon colonial powers and internally disunited.

But by 1967, this had all changed. Arab states were now independent. They were centralised. They were heavily armed and radically nationalistic. Syria and Egypt had Soviet military advisers, as well as armaments. So, even though with hindsight, we know that Israel soundly defeated the Arabs. Before the war began, an Israeli victory was far from certain.

Okay, Aimen. Give me the global Cold War context in the run-up to the '67 War. We're in '63, '64. What's the world like at the time?

Aimen Dean Many listeners, you know, will be thinking right now that, "Oh, we have a war on Ukraine. We have a war, you know, with the Taliban. You know, took over Afghanistan. We have, you know, crisis here, crisis there."

You know, if they were living, you know, in the 1960s, I don't know what they will do. They will go into significant panic, because 1966, you know, in October and November, the world came really pretty close to nuclear annihilation.

Thomas Small The Cuban missile crisis.

Aimen Dean The Cuban missile crisis.

Thomas Small Yeah.

Aimen Dean Absolutely. So, can you imagine? And then a year later—almost a year later—in 1963, in November, President Kennedy was assassinated.

Thomas Small Wow. Yep. That's true. Imagine if—. I mean, we – we can't really imagine it now. It must—. It was so huge.

Aimen Dean The channels of information were really scarce. You know? People were depending primarily on, you know, radio, newspapers, and, you know, a few TV stations. That's it. So, it was a really panic-stricken world at the time. 1962: Cuban missile crisis. 1963: Kennedy was assassinated. 1964: the Vietnam War.

Thomas Small '64: Vietnam starts. Yeah.

Aimen Dean So, you know, it was, like—.

Thomas Small The world was crazy.

Aimen Dean Absolutely. You know? 1962: China invaded India or at least, like, you know, parts of India. And there was a war between India and China. I mean, the spectre of war between India and Pakistan was always ever-present. You know? The world was not exactly a very happy place at that time or it didn't seem so. So, that is why we understand that the Middle East was not—. The Cold War dynamics in the Middle East did not happen in a vacuum. You know? The entire world was in turmoil.

Thomas Small Zooming down into the regional level. I mean, we're talking about the Middle Eastern heartland here: Israel and Palestine, Syria, Jordan, and, of course, Egypt. What's the status quo at the time there in terms of the borders? I mean, tell us about the Green Line.

Aimen Dean If you go to 1960, '62, '63, '64, '65, and '66, you know, these years, the Israeli borders were pretty much, you know, you take away the West Bank and Gaza and the Golan Heights, and that's what Israel looked like at the time. So, it is from, you know, from the Lebanese-Israeli border, there was a demilitarised zone. The Golan Heights, all of it basically was demilitarised zone. And then, you have the Green Line, which separated the West Bank, you know, from Israel proper. Including even the Green Line barricades, you know, and kind of scary in the middle of Jerusalem.

So, Jerusalem was divided into East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem, West Jerusalem: Israeli. East Jerusalem: Jordanian.

Thomas Small It's important to say, I think that it wasn't—. The Green Line wasn't really a border. It—. Because there – there had only been an armistice after the '48 War, not a peace treaty.

Aimen Dean Yeah.

Thomas Small So, in effect, the war, that war, the war of Israeli independence, never ended.

Aimen Dean Yeah. So, actually, East and West Jerusalem resembled, you know, East and West Berlin to an extent, except, basically, there was far greater movement, you know, between the two sides for religious reasons. It's more like, you know, if people in Northern Ireland who are listening to this, they will remember the Green Line in Belfast. I mean, it's something similar to that, between the two communities.

Thomas Small Exactly. So, as you say, there were – there were DMZs with Jordan and Syria mainly. I mean, with Lebanon, too. Lebanon doesn't really come into it. And across the Jordan and Syria DMZs, they had been fighting back and forth. And especially with Syria.

Now, as for Egypt, right. Remember their listener, Israel had taken Gaza and much of the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt during the Suez Crisis in 1956. But after the crisis, under international pressure, they had withdrawn. And Suez and Gaza were being patrolled by the United Nations Emergency Force (the UNEF), which, of course, leaves Jordan, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which had occupied and annexed the West Bank in the 1948 War. So, they were controlling Jerusalem. They were controlling all of the holy places in the region: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim.

But it might surprise the listener to know that, at that time, Israel actually had quite a good working relationship with King Hussein.

Thomas Small Well, King Hussein was always pragmatic, to be honest. I mean, and at the end of the day, he realised that, "Okay. These are the people on my border. I need to keep Jerusalem as part of my fiefdom, part of my kingdom, part of my legacy, part of my inheritance." Because King Hussein realised that, you know, his grandfather and his great-grandfather lost Mecca Medina, you know, and the Hejaz to the House Saud. And so—.

Thomas Small We talked all about this in the last episode, on the Hashemites.

Aimen Dean Exactly. So, he needs to keep Jerusalem. And he realised, you know. And if you – if you – if you read many of the interviews basically that he gave throughout the years, of course, in hindsight, he was always sounding regretful, you know, about, you know, participating in any of the Arab foolishness regarding, like, you know, annihilating Israel and all of that, because he realised he lost the West Bank and Jerusalem because of that.

Thomas Small He had some other difficulties, too. Internal difficulties. And his regime was Western leaning on the whole. But it was always being opposed by the Palestinian majority inside the country. Remember he was ruling not just the present-day Jordan, but also present-day West Bank. So, the majority of his country were Palestinians. They were fervently pro-Nasser. They were fervently pro-Arab nationalism.

And so, the revolutionary Arab regimes—like Syria, like Egypt—were always interfering internally in Jordanian affairs, putting the King Hussein in a tight spot.

Aimen Dean Absolutely. And this is the problem is that, you know, the – the – the Palestinians at that time were started to fashion themselves as the new cool kids, you know, of the revolutionary scene globally. I mean, you remember, these are the 1960s. These are the days of Castro, Che Guevarra. You know, all of these, you know, revolutionaries, like, you know – you know, parading around dinner with their berets and all of that. And the military uniforms. And, you know, they are the cool kids. You know, the socialists. You know, the leftists.

So, the Palestinians started to fashion themselves around that image of global socialist, internationalist, revolutionary solidarity. And this is where it clashed completely with the image of the calm, stoic monarchy of Jordan.

Thomas Small Okay. So, that's the regional political status quo. Now, let's drill into the Israeli government's mind at the time. After the Suez Crisis of '56, right, the Israeli government changed policy. It did not want war. And the government had specifically told the Israeli Defence Force (the IDF) to avoid any escalation with the Arab countries.

To this end, the prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, was obsessed with obtaining nuclear weapons for Israel. He – he said this: "What Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Teller (the three of them are Jews) made for the United States could also be done by scientists in Israel for their own people."

The Israeli acquisition of nuclear technology is a fascinating Cold War story in its own right, isn't it. Aimen?

Aimen Dean Oh, indeed. There's no question. I mean, the – the secrecy. The piracy. You know, the stealing of information. The espionage. The intrigue. Oh, my God. Like, you know, I mean. The—. You know? But in the end, they got what they wanted.

Thomas Small They did. They did this by working closely with, perhaps, a country that people wouldn't expect.

Aimen Dean Funny enough, it's France.

Thomas Small That's right. The French. Now, the French they'd been developing their own nuclear deterrence. This is actually one of the consequences of the Suez Crisis. Remember, the Americans refused to support Britain and France in that war. And at the end of the war, the French were like, "Well, we can't trust the Americans. We don't want to be under their nuclear umbrella. We need our own deterrence."

So, they were developing nuclear bombs. And already, as we saw in episode six, France and Israel were really close allies. In fact, it was not the US back then. It was France that was by far Israel's closest ally. France was the main supplier of weapons to Israel. And Israel had been helping France combat Algerian freedom fighters by passing on intelligence gathered from North African Jews during the Algerian War for Independence.

And – and remember it was France that had arranged for Israel to contribute to the Suez campaign. And, in fact, to get Israeli support for the Suez campaign, France had agreed to supply Israel with vital nuclear technology, which became part of Israel's Dimona reactor in the Negev Desert. This reactor would play an important role in the '67 War.

Aimen Dean In fact, Thomas, the – the, you know, the – the – the French alliance with Israel goes further than just the nuclear cooperation. The entire Israeli Air Force at the time was made up actually of French fighter jets. You know, the Mystère and the Mirage. The Mirage fighter jets were really, you know, a league ahead of their Soviet counterparts. And so, you know, the French military cooperation with the Israelis played a decisive role, you know, in the wars to come.

Thomas Small In Israel's mind, they were developing nuclear weapons in order to prevent war. Israel hoped that a nuclear deterrent would convince their Arab enemies never to invade.

Of course, that's not how the Arabs saw it. And they – they saw the development of an Israeli nuclear weapon programme as a reason, possibly, to go to war to prevent Israel from getting a nuclear bomb.

Aimen Dean Sounds familiar.

Thomas Small Throughout this story, we will see, you know, interpretations of – of one side's actions by the other, which run exactly counter to the intentions of the enemy.

This is – this is, of course, something that we have to always bear in mind when we're talking about war. You know? We have this objective God's eye view of the situation now. With hindsight. But at the time, you know, what Israel is thinking, Egypt doesn't know. What Egypt is thinking, Israel doesn't know. They have to guess based on the moves that they can see.

Aimen Dean And this is the problem with conflicts. You always sleepwalk into conflict when you start second-guessing what your neighbours and adversaries and your enemies might be thinking, When you start second-guessing and, you know, you start, you know, underestimating what they are thinking, what they are trying to do, and you try to delve deeper into their mindset and you go into the wrong path rather than the right path, the path will lead to war.

Thomas Small That was definitely true of the Six-Day War. It was true of the First World War, actually. It was true of a lot of wars. Maybe even the recent war with Ukraine and Russia.

Aimen Dean And, of course, like, you know, I mean, if anyone wants to understand, like, you know, how second-guessing and underestimating your enemies could lead to war, please read the book The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman. It was published in the 1960s. And this book basically will give you an idea about how really, like, you know, I mean, second-guessing your enemies could lead to dire consequences.

Thomas Small Okay. Right now, that's Israel's – that's Israel's perspective at the moment. They don't want war. They're developing a nuclear deterrent in order to prevent war. They've told the IDF not to foment war with the Arab states.

Let – let's move now to Egypt and its president, Gamal Abdel Nasser. Put us inside Nasser's head in the mid-1960s, Aimen. I mean, after the Syrian coup, in '61, took Syria out of the UAR (the United Arab Republic), Nasser's prestige was damaged, and he began remorselessly attacking the Syrian regime. He – he began doing all sorts of slightly more aggressive things. What – what – what – what was going on inside Nasser's mind at the time?

Aimen Dean Nasser's mind was really like a scrambled egg at the time, and for a very good reason, because he was having one setback after another all across the Arab world. Nothing was going his way.

Thomas Small Not just across the Arab world. In fact, the social and economic policies of Nasserism, which were becoming more and more extreme (nationalising industry, nationalising finance), these were beginning to bear quite rotten fruit at home. And there was a growing unrest within Egypt. The economy wasn't doing great.

Aimen Dean Indeed. Because, of course, like, you know, I mean, since when collectivisation and, you know, nationalisation of industries, like, you know, I mean, and crony socialism ever work?

And so, that's exactly what happened to him. I mean, you know, and at the same time, there was a resurgent Muslim Brotherhood. There was a second wave of the Muslim Brotherhood, you know, in Egypt, in the 1960s. He really wasn't having a good time. And the pressure on him was just so great.

Thomas Small Absolutely. And Nasser was still animated by a kind of anti-Israeli feelings. He had suffered two embarrassing defeats at the hands of Israel or Egypt had at least: the '48 war and the '56 Suez Crisis to some extent. He had not forgotten these defeats.

But Nasser had disengaged from active hostility to Israel by the early sixties. He'd stopped supporting guerrilla attacks against Israeli territory for example, because he believed that the Arab world needed to unite first and undergo a proper social and technological revolution before it took on Israel. So, instead, Nasser was focused on shoring up his project of creating a pan-Arab union with Egypt at its centre. And this was leading him to do more and more desperate things.

I mean, in 1962, he invaded Yemen. Most people don't know this. Egypt invaded Yemen, trying to force Yemen to join with Egypt. I mean, there were sort of tens of thousands of Egyptian troops. Tens of thousands dead. This was very much weighing down Nasser's ability to act.

Aimen Dean Indeed. And in fact, basically that war soured the relationship with Saudi Arabia and with other Arab countries, and some Arab people started to view Nasser as an imperialist himself rather than an anti-imperialist.

Thomas Small Soured relations with Saudi Arabia. My goodness. Way more than that. I mean, Nasser was bombing Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was working with the United States to repel the Egyptian attack in Yemen. Very much similar to the situation going on in Yemen today.

Aimen Dean Indeed. Absolutely.

Thomas Small So, there was this alliance of conservative Arab states against Nasser. He was feeling blue. What he really wanted was a Syrian regime that recognised his leadership of the pan-Arab cause or at least pretended to do so. And he got it in early 1963 when, as we said in – in the last episode, both Syria and Iraq experienced successful Ba'athist coups. And in order to strengthen their new regimes, the Ba'ath movement immediately initiated talks with Nasser on a new union, a new UAR between Egypt, Syria, and Iraq.

Aimen Dean Indeed. To the point where a new flag was created with three stars, which is, you know, today's Iraq flag. Funny enough. [unintelligible].

Thomas Small This new union was greeted with huge jubilation, especially by the Palestinians. The signatories had made it a signature aim of the new union to liberate Palestine. This was an explicit aim of their agreement.

And so, the Arab street erupted in – in glee. So, there were huge riots inside the – the West Bank of Palestinians waving a flag with four stars on it, 'cause they were really hoping that – that Jordan would also join this union.

Aimen Dean Indeed. Because, you know—. The – the listener must remember that the West Bank at the time was part of Jordan.

Thomas Small That's right. Now, Nasser's regional enemies greeted this new revived UAR with great dismay. Ben-Gurion, the Israeli prime minister, said that the new union meant the spectre of a new Holocaust. But perhaps more than anyone, it was King Hussein of Jordan who freaked out. Just like in 1958, when the first UAR was announced, in 1963, King Hussein was like, "Oh, God. This is not what I want."

Aimen Dean Indeed. I mean, don't forget, for King Hussein, this is 1963. In 1958. you know, his cousin, his dear cousin, King Faisal of Iraq, was killed. You know? So, he still feel, five years later, that at any moment, it could be him.

Thomas Small He said, "The ring is closing around us once again."

Poor King Hussein. He must have felt so insecure. And that wasn't helped when US Intelligence learnt that Egypt was in league with pro-Nasser officers in Jordan about launching a military coup there. A bit like what happened to his cousin in '58. A military coup that they hoped would incorporate Jordan into the UAR.

Aimen Dean And that's why the Israelis really freaked out when they felt that Jordan could be the next to fall. Because if Jordan falls, then Israel will become extremely vulnerable. And that's why they threatened to invade and annex the West Bank.

Thomas Small This is 1963, dear listener. We're – we're – we're still leading up to the '67 War. But this is all really important context.

Aimen Dean Indeed. You know? You know? In – in 2018, when I was in Israel, I have driven from Tel Aviv, you know, to Jerusalem and it took literally twenty minutes. Twenty-minutes' drive exactly to go from Tel Aviv to the board of the West Bank. That's it. So, in reality, you know, for Israel, you know, the West Bank was its Achilles heel. If the West Bank is controlled by a hostile power, then what's going to happen is that they can cut Israel in half in twenty, thirty minutes. That's it. There is no strategic depth.

And so, for the Israelis, they threatened Nasser and they threatened the Arabs that, you know, if Jordan falls, a hostile power, if there is a military coup, "we will invade the West Bank to shore up our strategic depth and strategic defence.

Thomas Small This threat by Israel to invade, in fact, kind of made Nasser back off. So, the – the – the—. Any – any machinations inside Jordan to launch a coup there stopped. And in fact, by mid-'63—so, only three or four months after the new UAR was announced—the scheme had already basically failed.

As we said in the last episode, Ba'athists and Nasserists, they didn't really like each other. There was a lot of infighting between the two groups. And in Syria, there was a massive massacre of Nasserists in Damascus, so much so that Nasser broke off relations with Syria entirely. He called the Syrian regime fascist. So, Israel must have heaved a sigh of relief thinking, "Well, at least the Arabs once again are more divided than they are united."

Aimen Dean Indeed.

Thomas Small Yet it was at this point that David Ben-Gurion suddenly resigned the premiership of Israel. For mysterious reasons. You know? In fact, this is one of the great debates of history. Maybe he couldn't take the pressure who knows. But what's important for the '67 War is – is his replacement.

He was replaced as prime minister by Levi Eshkol, a Ukrainian Jew as it happens.

Aimen Dean Levi Eshkol was of the, you know, of the pragmatist, you know, school, you know, within, you know, the long list of Israeli prime ministers. And he came to power hoping to deescalate rather than escalate. His dream, you know, always basically was of having a – a more cordial relationship with his Arab neighbours. I mean, they were looking for acceptance rather than for confrontation.

Thomas Small He – he had been a lifelong Zionist, an early player in the Israeli Zionist movement, a major player in the founding of the state of Israel. But yes, as you say, he was hoping, as really was the whole government establishment in Israel, for something like peace or at least, you know, a modus vivendi with its neighbours.

Now, Eshkol also—and this is really interesting—he had a long experience in water development, which is important, because water became a massive casus belli in the '67 War. You'll like this, Aimen. You're always talking about how water in the Middle East. It explains so much.

Aimen Dean Indeed.

Thomas Small There had long been tensions between Syria and Israel, especially over Israel's water development plans, which were diverting source waters of the Jordan River into Israel.

Aimen Dean Well, as you know, basically, Mount Hermon is, you know, one of the most important sources for the, you know, River Jordan.

Thomas Small Yes. A very tall – a very tall mountain to the north of the Golan Heights. At the very tip of Israel, in that part of it. A very tall mountain.

Aimen Dean The white cup mountain actually sits on, you know, the meeting point of three borders: Lebanon, Syria, and Israel. And, you know, from the Lebanese side is my mother's village. You know? So, the village of Shebaa, which, in Aramaic, means Sabbat, which means "seven" in Arabic.

Thomas Small Oh, seven.

Aimen Dean Yeah. Because it's shaped like the number seven in Aramaic. So, from there, you know, the icecap mountain basically, like, you know, provide a lot of the water that flows into the Jordan River. Actually, that mountain, Mount Hermon, is called, in Arabic, Jabal al-Shaykh. You know? For those who, you know, who speak Arabic among our listeners.

In the—. In 1957, you know, that mountain was important for me personally, because, basically, on the Lebanese side of that mountain, in one of the springs and a waterfall there, you know, a very beautiful setting, that was the wedding of my mum and dad.

Thomas Small Oh, Aimen. That's sweet.

Aimen Dean Oh, thank you. Thank you so much.

So, basically the, you know, the, you know, the waters were flowing, you know, from north to south, going from Mount Hermon, going into, you know, the Sea of Galilee and from there, into the River Jordan. And, of course, that was divided. That water was divided, you know, between the Arabs and the Israelis, you know, according to UN agreements.

Thomas Small That's right. The UN had been invited in to mediate the – the – the dispute, and their plan allocated thirty-eight percent of the Jordan's water to Israel. Okay. Israel was, in fact, developing the area, developing the water resources of the area, and they were sticking more or less to within that thirty-eight percent allocation.

However, when the Ba'athist coup happened in Syria in '63, all diplomatic dialogue with Israel was suspended and the new Ba'athist Syrian regime threatened what it called a suicide war with Israel over water. And this resulted, in 1964, to a rather remarkable Arab League Summit.

Aimen Dean In the 1964 Arab League Summit, it's when they decided to divert, you know, the water away from Israel, which actually amounted to an act of war. I mean, it's the Middle East after all. Water is so scarce.

Thomas Small Israel certainly considered the – the – the plan to divert its water to be an existential threat. And they did prepare for war. This caused for fighting again to break out across the DMZ with the Syrians. And on the 16th of March 1965, the Syrians fired on Israeli farmers, in the DMZ. They were settlers. Technically, they shouldn't have been there. They were fired upon. And a tractor driver, an Israeli tractor driver, was killed.

Now, this was a pretext for the IDF (the Israeli Defence Forces) to open fire, although they didn't actually target the place where the attack on the tractor had come from. They targeted the Syrian water diversion project. They'd had it in their sites, and they were waiting for an excuse to attack it.

Aimen Dean And the question was that since the Israelis were attacking Syria right now, would the, you know, Egyptians join the fight? Because, see in that summit of 1964, they created something called the United Joint Arab Command, you know, which actually was anything but united and joined. And then, so—.

Thomas Small It did. It did. It was a military command that united all thirteen Arab states militaries. That's something

Aimen Dean On paper only. Come on, Thomas. This was only on paper. What coordination was there? There was nothing.

Thomas Small Well, that is true. Nonetheless, people did wonder: Is Nasser going to send in his troops since Israel had attack Syria? But, you know, he was bogged down in Yemen. He did not want to be lured into any war with Israel. And so, he – he didn't do anything. That means that the United Arab Command, which was announced with great fanfare the year before, was just another example of Nasser sort of scrambling to make symbolic displays of Arab unity. But in fact, behind the scenes, he always favoured a cautious, incremental approach. He hoped primarily to ensure Egypt's domination of the Arab world.

Aimen Dean And this is why, Thomas, I think, you know, the – the path to war, unfortunately, was paved, you know, with such, you know, jingoistic, nationalistic rhetoric. You know? Nasser, you know, and for all the Arab leaders who actually inflamed the passions of the street about, you know, the glories of the Arabs and the restoration of such union and the crushing of Israel and its colonial backers, I mean, when – when you raise such expectations so high, then with high expectations, you know, these expectations, unless if they are satisfied, they will turn into dissatisfaction.

And this is where, you know, Nasser put himself and trapped himself, you know, between a rock and a hard place. Between his, you know, populous, who were expecting too much, because of his rhetoric, and the realities of "I can't win a war against Israel."

Thomas Small Well, radical Arabist pan-Arab expectations went up again in February 1966 when there was another coup inside Syria in which radical Ba'athists overthrew moderate Ba'athists. And this is the coup that resulted in a certain military officer being made minister of defence. Do you know whom I'm talking about?

Aimen Dean Oh, indeed. Assad the father. Assad the senior. Hafez al-Assad.

Thomas Small Hafez al-Assad. He became minister of defence in 1966. Of course, you know, in 1970, he would take full control of the country. But during the '67 War, he was minister of defence, Hafez al-Assad.

Now, this coup inside Syria that brought the radical Ba'athists to power in Damascus was provocative to Israel. The regime in Damascus supported "direct popular struggle against Israel," by which they meant guerrilla warfare or perhaps, to speak more plainly, terrorism. However you want to describe it. Damascus was calling for revolution now against imperialism and Israel. And this was important, because in the meantime, two new players had emerged on the regional chessboard.

First, let's talk about the PLO (the Palestinian Liberation Organisation), because it was another consequence of that '64 Arab League Summit.

Aimen Dean So, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was established as a political organisation initially, not a military one. And it was Nasser's tool, you know, in order to control the internal Palestinian narrative, which angered so many other Arab leaders, including – including King Hussein, because he was the king of the Palestinians, as well as the Jordanians. You know? And this was seen as Nasser stepping on Hussein's territory.

Thomas Small Beyond the refugee problem, the Palestinians, you know, they hadn't really been a political player. They'd been absorbed into Jordan, and the Arab powers were making decisions on their behalf, you know, including by creating the PLO. Nasser, the Arab League, were still managing Palestinian affairs.

Aimen Dean And this actually approves more or less that the Palestinians, even by the 1960s, they did not yet develop what they call basically like, you know, I mean, aspirations for statehood, for a separate Palestinian state. I mean, at the time, they were just hoping for a larger Arab entity to incorporate them as part of the pan-Arab nationalism.

Thomas Small So, as you rightly said, Aimen, the PLO was connected to Egypt and, therefore, it followed Nasser's orders. And – and – and for that reason, they did not launch attacks inside Israel, because Nasser did not want a war.

However, that was not the case with the other Palestinian player that emerged in the mid-sixties: Fatah or the Palestinian National Liberation Movement. Many people think that the PLO and Fatah are the same thing. They ended up merging. And we'll get to that. But in the beginning, they were very different.

Aimen Dean Well, Fatah was actually, like, you know, modelled around, you know, the contemporary, at that time, you know, the contemporary socialist revolutionary movements, such as, you know, Castro and Che Guevara. And, of course, like, you know, I mean, among the Fatah, you know, founders, you know, of the very famous Yasser Arafat.

Thomas Small Yasser Arafat. He—. I mean, in the eighties and nineties, when I was coming of age, my God, there was – there was perhaps no more iconic Arab. He was everything.

Aimen Dean Indeed. With his, you know, wearing the kufiya and the way, like, you know, he was wearing his military uniform. He was trying to be, like, you know, I mean, a mix of a Che Guevara and a Qasem or whatever. But anyway, he and Fatah were far more violent and far more revolutionary, because they were, at the end of the day, like, you know, I mean, you know, a bunch of students, you know, coming from Cairo and Oman and other places in order to, you know, advocate for the overthrow of Israel as a whole. Like, you know, I mean, you know, completely like, you know, annihilation of the state of Israel as it was known at that time.

Thomas Small Yeah. Yasser Arafat and Fatah favoured "popular struggle." They'd been inspired by the success of the Algerian War for Independence. They identified the US as part of the enemy camp. They saluted the USSR, China—especially, they loved Mao—and all the non-aligned countries. So, in the Cold War kind of binary, they were definitely setting their – their – their – themselves against the United States.

They were obsessed with the idea—rightly as it turned out—that Israel was on the brink of acquiring a nuclear bomb. This was part of their motivation for – for fomenting all-out war. They wanted war as soon as possible to prevent that from happening. And starting in early '65, Fatah began guerrilla attacks against Israeli forces. And so, the IDF, in turn, began commando attacks on Fatah positions inside the Jordanian-held Westbank.

Eventually, the Fatah attacks would grow more and more sophisticated, because they received aid by the new radical Ba'athist regime in Damascus. This kind of climaxed in November 1966, when Fattah gorillas, they were – who – who were attacking Israel from the West Bank, which Jordanian-held, but they were being supported by Syria. Jordan didn't support Fatah. They—. The Jordanians hated Fatah. But the Syrians were supporting Fatah from within Jordan to attack Israel. So, these attacks were getting worse and worse. And eventually, the IDF (the Israeli Defence Force) decided to launch a massive raid inside the West Bank. This raid on the village of Samu is – is notorious.

Aimen Dean Indeed. I mean, it was a, you know, the—. It led to significant loss of life, you know, among militants and civilians. And it was widely condemned. You know, widely condemned across the Arab world. And it galvanised, you know, public opinion.

Thomas Small It was called Operation Shredder.

Aimen Dean Yes.

Thomas Small And eight tanks, four hundred paratroopers were sent in. They captured the village. They – they blew up. They dynamited fifty houses, the police station, a medical clinic, a school, and a mosque. It was a pretty – pretty harsh reprisal.

This actually forced the Jordanian troops to intervene. So, fighting broke out between the IDF and the Jordanian troops. Even jets were scrambled. The – the Jordanian Air Force got involved. Two Jordanian jets were shot down by the Israelis. It was pretty tense, especially since following this attack, huge riots again broke out across the West Bank. There were demands for the entire Jordanian government to resign. King Hussein's rule was – was on a knife's edge. He felt extremely threatened. He was so politically weakened by all of this that he felt himself being compelled closer to Nasser and the other revolutionary Arab regimes to bolster his credential with his people.

Aimen Dean Yeah. Practically, he was bullied into it.

Thomas Small And those Arab revolutionary governments were getting stronger, because, in November 66, by some miracle, Egypt and Syria set aside their rivalry and, to the great surprise of the Israelis, they signed a renewed mutual defence agreement.

Now, it's important to point out that Nasser actually hoped that the military pact with Syria would restrain Syria. He was worried that Syrian aggression was provoking Israel – Israel into war. He didn't want a war.

But the Israelis saw Arabs uniting "against us." It's another example of – of how both sides misunderstood the other's motivation, which – which climaxed in a massive way, in a way, the first shot of the '67 War, in a way, on the 7th of April 1967.

Aimen Dean I mean, it's all, again, coming back to a tractor. Yet a second tractor. What is the problem with tractors? You know, they always cause trouble.

So, Syrian regular troops, you know, fired upon a agricultural tractor on the Israeli side. The, you know, the driver was killed. So—. However, this time, the Israeli Air Force immediately scrambled and immediately went into a frenzy deduction. And they went after every Syrian military target they can. From Al Qunaitra, you know, and the Golan Heights, all the way to Damascus. They dropped sixty-five tons of bombs, you know, on these positions. To the point where even when the Syrian Air Force started to – scrambled to resist them, they shut down two Syrian MiGs—you know, fighter jets—over Damascus itself.

Thomas Small What's interesting about that event is that the Israeli government had not been consulted. The commander of the air force acted alone. This is an example of how the tensions, the military tensions that had been ratcheting up over the previous years, were creating a dynamic within the military, not just in Israel as we'll see, but in Egypt and elsewhere, and a dynamic where the military felt it needed to respond so quickly that civilian governments were being slightly side-lined.

But again, in this case, the Arabs and the Soviets, who were backing them, did not know this. They did not know that the air force had acted without government approval. They assumed it was the first move in an Israeli attempt to bring down the Syrian regime.

Aimen Dean And that left Nasser totally humiliated.

Thomas Small Humiliated again.

Aimen Dean Yeah. Why? Because, you see, Jordan was attacked. That village of Samu was attacked. And nothing happened. You know, Nasser, you know, did not do anything. Then, Syria was attacked. You know? Was—. You know, the – the – the – the Israeli Air Force made a mincemeat out of Syrian forces. And the—. The Syrian Air Force. And Nasser yet again did not do anything.

So, really, you know, since you are not good in terms of economy, you are no good in terms of, you know, diplomacy, what are you good for if you are not, you know, going to deter the Israelis?

Thomas Small The Soviets were also really worried at this point. So, just to kind of remind the listener, Soviet military advisers had been training the Egyptian army now for over a decade. And in fact, in September '65—so, just eighteen months before—a huge new arms deal had been brokered between the Soviets and Egypt. And Nasser, in fact, had been made a hero of the Soviet Union during a visit to Cairo by Khrushchev in 1964. That shows you how close the countries had become.

Aimen Dean So much for non-alignment, huh.

Thomas Small At around this time, the head of the commander of all the Warsaw Pact countries—so, this is like the Soviet NATO—the commander of the Warsaw Pact countries paid Nasser a visit. He told Nasser that the Egyptian army was battle-ready, offering encouragement to Nasser, but in fact, knowing full well that this was mere flattery.

The thing is the Soviets had decided they wanted Nasser to do something. The USSR had immediately become a very close ally of the new radical Ba'athist regime in Damascus. And following that April attack on Syria by Israel, Syria had been rocked by protests organised by the Muslim Brotherhood. And there was an increase in terrorist attacks across the border into Israel, which led the Israelis to say that they would have no choice but to launch even more decisive reprisals.

The Soviets began to fear that the Ba'athist regime was on the verge of collapse and/or conquest by Israel.

Aimen Dean So, the Soviets, unfortunately, you know, and in their infinite lack of wisdom, they decided that, to manipulate Nasser into believing that the Israelis are about to attack Syria and depose the Ba'athist regime in Damascus, they told Nasser that they have solid intelligence that Israeli army brigades are marching on the Syrian-Israeli border. And, therefore, because he already told us obvious before that any attack by Israel against Syria will lead to a Egypt intervention, so the Soviets thought, "Uh-huh." You know? "This is how we can manipulate, you know, this guy into actually doing something in order to prevent our allies in Damascus, you know, falling."

And so, that is basically how the intelligence was passed—that was false intelligence—to Nasser. Nasser immediately ordered mobilisation. And this is when you can see that, once you give the military more power, they do foolish things.

Thomas Small That's absolutely right. So, you have, you know—. Israel is now panicked. Israel thinks that Syria and Egypt are planning an attack. Syria is panicked. Syria thinks Israel is going to invade. Egypt is panicked. It thinks that Israel is going to attack Syria and lure Egypt into a war that it does not want. So, it's in this context then, on the 16th of May 1966, the Egyptian army chief of staff orders the United Nations Emergency Force (the UNF), which was in the Sinai, to withdraw from its positions along the Israel-Sinai border.

Now, it's important. Just like before, when they, when the Israeli Air Force attacked Syria, this order did not come from Nasser. It came from the Egyptian army chief of staff. This was a sign that Nasser wasn't in complete control of the military. The logic of war was, in a way, overwhelming the political decision-making.

Aimen Dean In fact, Field Marshall Abdel Hakim Amer, you know, the head of the Egyptian military, you know, he actually requested that the UN forces withdraw from the border only. They just—. He just wanted them to go south. He did not want them to leave the entire Sinai.

Thomas Small That's right. The UNEF first asked Israel if it could perhaps take up positions on its side of the line of the border to be a buffer. But Israel refused. Israel never wanted UN troops inside its territory.

This put the UN in a bind. I mean, it couldn't just withdraw its forces south away from the border with Israel deeper into Sinai and watch as Egypt amassed troops along the border, and the two sides start fighting. You know, they're a peace—. They're peacekeeping troops. What would be the point of doing that? So, they – they were in a bind, and they – they were left thinking, "What do we do?"

Now, the following day, tensions ratchet up again when two Egyptian fighter jets are spotted flying over the Dimona reactor. Remember that, dear listener? The reactor that was the centre of Israel's nuclear development plan.

Aimen Dean I mean, of course, for the Israelis, they thought, "Oh, this must be, like, you know, I mean, a Egyptian, you know, [unintelligible] mission, you know, preparing for a strike on our, you know, nuclear reactor."

So, the Israelis really freaked out now.

Thomas Small And it was certainly widely believed that already, at that time, Israel had a couple of crude nuclear bombs that they could draw on and that they would be able to produce a proper one in six to eight weeks should it be required. So, Israel knew that was the case. Israel had reason to think its enemies knew that was the case. So, you know, it thought, "Oh, my God. They're gonna – they're gonna attack our nuclear programme as a way of luring us into war."

But it's important to note that Nasser still did not want war. Even the fly over at the Dimona reactor was just a show of force. All he wanted to do was deter an Israeli attacked on Syria.

Aimen Dean Again, we come back to the fact that everyone was engaging in second-guessing the other.

Thomas Small Meanwhile, the UNEF had reached its decision. So, as I said, on the grounds. That it couldn't just withdraw to the south and watch Egypt and Israel fight each other. It ordered a full withdrawal. All UN troops evacuated, and the Sinai was free for Egypt to move its troops into.

Aimen Dean So, Nasser was really praying to God, you know, "Please, you know, let the UN stay." But the UN did not, and the UN decided to evacuate Sinai. And by evacuating Sinai, they created this void, this, you know – you know, vacuum that he needed to fill immediately.

Now, he really didn't want to put the Egyptian military into Sinai. But now, he has to. You know? His hand was forced. So, he sent the Egyptian military into Sinai. And now that they are in Sinai, you know, okay, the Arab world is waiting. The Archibald is waiting with bated breath. Like, you know, "Hey." You know? "Do something."

So, what he ends up doing, he closes the Straits of Tiran at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba against Israeli shipping, military and civilian alike. And, you know, in international law, this is an act of war.

Thomas Small Not only Israeli shipping, actually. He closed it to all ships carrying strategic materials to Israel—i.e., oil, most of which interestingly enough was coming from Iran at the time, which, back in those days, was in Israeli ally.

Aimen Dean Indeed. The shah an ally of Israel at the time. So, that was, you know, as far as the Israelis were concerned, you know, the last straw.

Thomas Small Yes. So, this was an act of war. Israel made it clear this is an act of war. But the funny thing is Nasser still didn't want a war. And one week later, at the end of May 1967, he said so. He said Egypt would not be the one to fire the first shot. What he really hoped for was that, by closing the straits of Tiran, he could claim to have had some kind of victory over Israel, placate the Arab masses, and go back to business as usual. But it got out of control. By this point, it was – it was going to happen anyway.

Aimen Dean Mainly, you know, Nasser didn't want to walk. But that was not the case with the Egyptian military. Their adoption military were really eager to wash away the humiliation of '48 and '56. And Abdel Hakim Amer …

Thomas Small The minister of defence.

Aimen Dean … he put together a plan called Operation Dawn or [speaks in Arabic] al-Fajr, in which an invasion of Israel actually was, you know – you know, meticulously planned and put forward. And it was supposed to be launched on 27th of May. Of course, the Israeli intelligence, you know, got hold of that. They warned the Americans. The Americans warned the Soviets. And, of course, the Soviets came back to Nasser and said, "Hey, hey, hey." Like, you know. You know? "We wanted you to just to be on the border to scare the Israelis, not – not to invade Syria, but not to start a real war. Please."

Thomas Small Nasser had actually not greenlit the plan. He was on the fence about it. He also didn't really know what was going on at this stage. He was slightly afraid. Is Israel going to attack? You know? He didn't know. But all this whole thing left Israel on even higher alert. In their mind. Egypt had been on the verge of invading their country. All the while other, Arab states had begun mobilising. Sudan, Iraq, others. Even Saudi Arabia, they all began saying openly, with this, you know, pan-Arab rhetoric that they would contribute to any war with Israel. The tensions were at, you know, really—. You could – you could cut – cut it with a knife.

Aimen Dean Indeed. And, of course, then came the thing that pushed the Israelis over there: King Hussein signing a mutual defence agreement with Nasser.

Thomas Small Yeah. This was really surprising. On the 30th of May. King Hussein and Nasser had been enemies basically quite openly for, well over a decade. And yet there they are assigning a mutual defence agreement in the midst of all this tension. Nasser states, "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." This coming from a man who didn't want a war. This is a way—. This is another sign that Nasser's rhetoric was overwhelming his own cautiousness. You know? But this whole situation was being goaded on by other Arab nationalist leaders, real radicals, such as Hafez al-Assad on asset, who said, "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself and to expel the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland."

So, this is a real threat to Israel.

Aimen Dean So, in the early hours of 4th of June 1967, even though the Israelis were outnumbered three to one on almost every metric—three to one when it comes to crafts, three to one when it comes to tanks, three to one when it comes to deploy troops—the Israelis nonetheless decided to, you know, be, you know, to test the odds. And they launched a, you know, one of the most audacious, unsuccessful air raids in modern history.

Thomas Small So, yes, the war started on the 5th of June, at 7:45, in the morning with Operation Focus. And indeed it was a focused operation. The – the goal was to destroy the Egyptian Air Force.

Aimen Dean Indeed. The Israelis Ironically learnt this, you know, lesson from the Germans during World War II, the Blitzkrieg. The idea that in order to achieve quick, decisive victory, you need to really annihilate your enemy's air force and you achieve immediate air superiority within the first twenty to forty-eight hours. And that was the Israeli objective.

Thomas Small They certainly achieved this. Egypt was caught off guard in fact, because Israeli intelligence had cleverly planted false news reports and newspapers, saying that the IDF was on vacation and that the air force would be carrying out routine training mission. So, the Egyptian Air Force was in a way cooling its heels. And in fact, the – the advanced warning systems that the Egyptian Air Force relied on was not even online. It wasn't on.

Aimen Dean So, a hundred and eighty-three Israeli jets, they flew so low over the Mediterranean, and they surprised, you know, the Egyptian Air Force when they attacked for airfields with such precision that they destroyed eighty percent of the Egyptian Air Force on the ground.

Thomas Small Three hundred and thirty-eight Egyptian jets were destroyed.

Aimen Dean You know? And at that time, Abdel Hakim Amer, and the head of the military intelligence, [name] Nasir, and many other generals were actually having a hangover from the previous night's party. And, you know—. And they were in one of the military headquarters somewhere outside of Cairo, when they saw what was happening. And so, they actually were trying to rush back to the ministry of defence. So, they went to one of the airports, but they found it was bombed. So—. And, you know—. And the – and the military car that dropped them there already left. So, they called for a taxi. I'm not kidding. They called for a taxi to come and pick them up while the country is being bombed and the air force is being shredded by the Israelis. And they all crammed into one taxi trying to get to the Ministry of Defence, so they – to find out what really was happening.

Talk about total surprise and total incompetence.

Thomas Small They didn't know it was happening, because Radio Cairo was pumping out the usual propaganda, which was masking the scale of the Israeli attack. It was saying that Egypt was on the verge of victory. It was being believed by its own – by its own military leaders. And not – not just in Egypt, but actually all around the Arab world. They were thinking, "Oh, Egypt is winning," when, in fact, it was the exact opposite.

That very morning Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula in force and, within a day, had captured the entire thing. In – in response to all of this, Jordan began shelling Israel from the West Bank. And so, on the 6th of June Israel invades the West Bank and, within a single day, had taken the whole thing. The Syrians began shelling Israel. And on the 9th of June, the IDF invades the Golan Heights and, again, captures it the very next day. It had been a total route.

Aimen Dean It was a total route. One, because the Israelis had superior weapons from France. But two, which is extremely important, training, training, training, and training. You cannot underestimate how many times Israelis where drilling and drilling and drilling and training and training and preparing, you know, for this. The average Israeli soldier and the average Israeli pilot had almost nine times the amount of training and the amount of drilling that their Arab counterparts had.

And finally, number three: intelligence. Intelligence was really important.

Thomas Small Well, on the Arab side, it was a total disaster. Abd al-Latif al-Baghdadi, a former Egyptian vice-president, later said, "We felt as though we were dreaming. It was mayhem. Like a nightmare. How could our air force have been wiped out in the space of one day and our ground troops decimated the next? How could they be so strong that we couldn't hold out for more than thirty-six hours?"

Aimen Dean That's what happened when you have a very well-motivated, very well-trained and advanced, you know, and coordinated, you know, military. No matter how small it is, it can take on any larger military that is not coordinated, not well-trained, not well-motivated.

Thomas Small The aftermath of the Six-Day War was sort of inconceivable. The Suez Canal became a war zone and the canal was closed for eight years, disrupting global shipping to a degree that we can hardly imagine. The Palestinians, once again, you know, they were pretty much screwed. At the time, there were about one million inhabitants of the West Bank, about twenty-five percent of them became refugees. Again, another wave of Palestinian refugees, mostly to Jordan. And – and in addition, a hundred and thirty thousand Syrian refugees from the Golan Heights were created by the war.

Fatah and the PLO, as we said before, merged in the wake of the '67 disaster. And now, Yasser Arafat was in charge of the whole organisation, the new merged organisation, and they began escalating their tactics. Not only would they attack rural sites as they had been, they were now going to target urban areas as their strategy became more explicitly terroristic.

In addition, Palestinian nationalism, which as we've said again and again, was not really a thing, it now becomes a real thing. More and more Palestinians are saying, "We need to push Israelis out of the way and take over a historic Palestine for ourselves with our own state."

I think, possibly, the greatest personal tragedy of the '67 War is with Gamal Abdel Nasser himself. On the 9th of June in the midst of the war—it's still going on—he announces his resignation. I mean, he was – he was heartbroken.

Aimen Dean Well, I mean, yeah, of course. Like, you know, I mean, you know, the, you know—. No – no shit, Sherlock. Like, you know, basically, he was responsible for the whole mess. Like, you know, I mean, he did not understand the law of unintended consequences.

But nonetheless, you know, the Egyptian people, you know, being, you know, at the time, the naive people they were at the time, I mean, they just swarmed the streets in their millions, asking for him to remain in power and shouting his name and, you know, slogans off, you know, [speaks in Arabic]. You know? "But no, Mr. President."

And the Soviets also urged him to stay. In fact, you know, he received a telegram personally, like, you know, from, you know, Soviet premier, you know, promising that all the military hardware that Egypt lost, you know, in this war (the aircraft, the tanks, the artillery) all of this will be completely replaced and replenished by the USSR free of charge. That was a very sweet deal.

Thomas Small It sure was. That was an incentive. So, Nasser changed his mind. He did not resign and to some extent, I suppose, revived—. He led an Arab summit in Khartoum later that year. This is the famous Arab summit of the three noes: no peace, no recognition, no negotiation with Israel. And this led to what's called the War of Attrition, a kind of constant bombardment by the Arab allies of new Israeli positions that lasted three years.

Aimen Dean Not only the bombardment of the Israeli positions east of the canal, but also commando raids, you know. You know? And it was actually a tit for tat commander is between the two sides. And it was—.

Thomas Small As it had been since 1948. It never ended. There wasn't peace.

Aimen Dean Definitely no peace.

Thomas Small However, just around the corner, a prospect of peace arrived when, in September of 1970, unexpectedly, Gamal Abdel Nasser, the great man of Arab unity, the great Arab of the mid-twentieth century, died. He – he had a heart attack and he died. His funeral is something to be seen. Look it up on YouTube. It's – it's amazing. You might—. You would have thought maybe Jesus Christ himself had died.

But he is followed by a long-term colleague of his. To some extent, the – the brains behind the whole Nasserist project from the beginning. Anwar Sadat. Anwar Sadat becomes president of Egypt and immediately signals his intention to reach some sort of agreement with Israel.

Aimen Dean Well, first of all, I must state to the dear listeners that Anwar Sadat is my favourite president of Egypt. You know? You know, hands down. He's my favourite. And, you know, later, I'll explain why.

The first thing he did actually, in 1971, and he insisted again on that on 1972, you know, is to ask the Israelis, "Please." You know? "Can you withdraw thirty-two kilometres east of the canal, and that area will become adoption zone of control, so shipping can resume and so we can make money out of the canal. I mean, and, you know, we can give you whatever guarantees. It would be demilitarised." You know?" But still, thirty-two kilometres is of the canal that will be ours."

And the Israelis were saying, "No, no, no, no, no." Because Israel has already built a – an impregnable, you know, line of defence, you know, from the mouth of the canal in the north to the mouth of the canal in the south, and that was called the Bar Lev Line of Defence. It's one of the most impregnable lines of defence in modern history.

Thomas Small Or so they thought. In fact …

Aimen Dean Oh, yeah.

Thomas Small … in 1973, on the 6th of October 1973, which was Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, Anwar Sadat, having been convinced that Israel would never agree to any sort of peace unless the Arabs could have something like a military victory, launched the Yom Kippur War as it's known. It lasted from the sixth to the 25th of October 1973. And this podcast episode, God knows, has gone on long enough. So, we cannot talk about it in any detail. The main point is this line—. What's it called, Aimen?

Aimen Dean The Bar Lev Line.

Thomas Small That's right. The Bar Lev Line was fantastically, heroically, and miraculously breached by the Egyptian troops.

Aimen Dean Yeah. The crossing was something of a legend. While the war itself wasn't exactly a victory for the Arabs—.

Thomas Small Not at all in the end. Israel beat them all back. But at the beginning, there was something fantastic that happened.

Aimen Dean Indeed. And you see, like, you know, the crossing—. You see, this is why the Egyptians, to this day, they always celebrate every day – every year on the 6th of October, the crossing. The crossing. That crossing, basically, which is the miraculous crossing of the canal.

In fact, one of my teachers, when I was in middle school in Saudi Arabia, he was Egyptian and he was a conscript and the Egyptian military in 1973, in the Yom Kippur War. And just to show you basically about, like, you know, the heroic, you know, Egyptians in their little dingy, you know, rubber, you know, boats, like, you know, crossing, you know, and using their high-pressure hoses in order to bring down the sand fortifications of the Israelis, you know—. But, you know, he was talking about it so animated to the point where he reached the point where he said, "Even the dolphins came out of the water, fighting with us."

And it's kind of in my image. Like, you know, basically, you know, dolphins with their fins, you know, basically holding AK-47s and shooting and—.

You know? We always grew up with so many movies produced by the Egyptian drama companies about the crossing. They never talk about what happened after the crossing, because it was embarrassing. It's just "We crossed." That's it. That's the most important thing. "We did cross. We did breach the Bar Lev."

And I give them that. It was really a – a piece of military genius. It's just the question of what to do next. And they failed at that.

Thomas Small Well, the Yom Kippur War did create the conditions for something like peace, which was finally achieved several years later when Anwar Sadat went to the Knesset in Jerusalem and said that Egypt would like to make peace with Israel.

We'll probably get to that story sometime in Conflicted. We don't have time now, you know, 'cause another great story from the Yom Kippur War is the Arab oil embargo that it – that it created, which changed everything. And we're going to talk about that next time.

As far as this episode is concerned, to – to sort of close it out, I find in terms of its historical impact one of the most interesting things about the '67 and '73 wars is how it marked the end of – of mid-century Arab nationalism. As the Arabs grew very disillusioned with the promises of secular Arab republicanism, very disillusioned with the kind of, you know, modernisation programmes that the socialist leadership were constantly offering them without getting anything back in return or not getting nearly as much as they were promised.

And instead, they began to retreat away from this form of sort of modern development, modern nationalism, modern patriotism, et cetera, and instead moved in the direction of a renewed political Islamism.

Aimen Dean Indeed.

Thomas Small As for now, because we should raise the question of a clash of civilisations that we're supposed to at any rate, I mean, I think you can see the '67 War, the humiliations that the Arab suffered at the end of that war, the '73 War, we can – you can see this period as the – as the time when mid-century Arab nationalism and all the promise that it held out to the Arab public was lost. And the Arabs began a move towards a greater cynicism towards that vision of modernity and instead retreated back to what they thought was their own civilisation. Something more native to – to the Middle East, native to Arab culture, and that's the – the resurgence of Islam, especially in its political, its Islamist form.

Aimen Dean In fact, Thomas, just nine months, like literally nine months before the 1967 six days war and the humiliation of it, there was a little event that was happening in a jail cell somewhere in Egypt that will have a grave impact. It will be the beginning, you know, of the rise of Islamism and the beginning of the decline of Arab nationalism. It is the execution of a relatively unknown Egyptian thinker by the name of Sayyid Qutb. Nasser had him executed, you know, just nine months before the humiliation of 1967. Little did he know that by doing so, he sealed the fate of Egypt and the fate of the Middle East for many decades to come.

Thomas Small Arab nationalism wasn't dead, but it was now the radicals who were in the driver's seat. A new generation of Arab strongmen came to the fore: Assad, eventually Saddam, and others, but, perhaps most dramatically, Gadhafi. These characters and especially Gadhafi are what we'll be discussing next time.

Join us in two weeks, dear listener, for the next episode of Conflicted. If you don't already, you can follow the show on Facebook and Twitter @MHConflicted. And if you would like to carry on the conversation and learn more about the topics discussed here on Conflicted, you can search for "Conflicted Podcast Discussion Group" on Facebook where you'll find fascinating conversations and debate between other fans of the show.

Those of you who subscribe to the show will know that, each week, Aimen and I choose a different listener question from Twitter and Facebook to answer for our exclusive bonus content section. You could be in with a chance of having your name read out on the show and hearing your question answered by subscribing to ad-free listening and extended bonus content for just 99p on Apple Podcasts.

Or if you listen on Spotify, find Conflicted Extra to also listen ad-free and get access to extended bonus episodes for just 99p per month on Spotify.

Join us again in two weeks' time for another great episode of Conflicted.

Conflicted is a Message Heard production. This episode was produced and edited by Rowan Bishop. Sandra Ferrari is our executive producer. Production support and fact-checking by Molly Freeman. Our theme music is by Matt Huxley.

#

Conflicted S3 E5 - The Soul of Iran

Thomas Small You've seen Dune, haven't you, Aimen?

Aimen Dean Loved it so much. 

Thomas Small You know what? As I've been preparing for this episode, I've been listening to the Dune soundtrack on repeat. Just constantly. You know, that amazing, weird soundtrack. Do – do you think that makes sense? I mean, it has a kind of – a kind of Islamic style, a kind of Middle Eastern-style soundscape. And the whole story is pretty – pretty Muslim, isn't it? 

Aimen Dean Well, yeah. I mean, talking about the Mahdi and Lisan al-Gaib and, you know, Muad'Dib and all of that. But the secret to a good adaptation, just do not cram the whole damn novel into just one movie. Just split them. 

Thomas Small I was thinking that Dune is basically projecting thousands of years into the future into this kind of Islamic universe, this sort of Islamic galactic empire or something. And, of course, in Conflicted

[THEME IN]

… we're trying to, like, go back thousands of years to explain the present. It's like a little—. It like looking in the mirror. With Dune, it's the opposite of what we're doing.

[THEME OUT]

In episode three, we showed how America's first foothold in the Middle East was in Saudi Arabia, with its largest oil reserves in the world managed by an American company, Aramco. And last time, we explained how geostrategic realities have informed Russian geopolitics for centuries. 

In this episode, we shift our focus to your favourite country, Aimen: Iran.

Aimen Dean Oh, it is my favourite. 

Thomas Small Nobody could have known this at the time. But with hindsight, we can see that, at the beginning of the Cold War, Iran had somehow become a whirlpool, swirling with all of the twentieth century's clashing ideological and political forces. All the players are there—an autocratic monarch in the old style; a newly formed communist party conspiring revolution; aristocratic liberals demanding economic and constitutional reform; Islamist terrorists; big oil; a declining European empire; the Soviet Union reviving Czarist geopolitics; and, of course, America, the new superpower. It's a big episode. We've got a lot to cover. 

But I keep meaning to ask you, Aimen. It's been two years since the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the – the head of the Quds Force. And we did a bonus episode on – on his assassination at the time. Two years later, what's your estimation of the impact that his assassination has had on – on the region?

Aimen Dean Well, of course, it's very clear that, since he's assassination and removal from the picture, the fortunes of the groups that Qasem Soleimani used to be the godfather of—. 

Thomas Small Groups like Hezbollah and, you know, even the Houthis.

Aimen Dean If you see that the Houthis are now having trouble maintaining their grip on power in the territories where they control and they failed in their offensive to take the historic city of Marib, you know, where the oil fields are located and the hydro – hydroelectric dam is located. On top of this, it seems that there—. You know, well, Qasem Soleimani's favourites group in Iraq, the [unintelligible 0:03:20], lost a considerable amount of power in the last elections. They went down from forty-eight MPs in the parliament to only seventeen. They lost thirty-one MPs. It shows his absence really, you know, present itself very clearly in the politics of the group – countries where Qasem Soleimani was active in. 

Thomas Small Amazing how the Americans, by taking just one man off of the field, could have affected such a big change. 

Aimen Dean If you remember, we described Qasem Soleimani as the hard disc that contains the secrets, you know, of Iran's external strategic operations in the region. Take him out, and he is offline completely. That hard disc is completely offline. And it is very visible how his absence has created this gap that cannot be filled by anyone else in the Iranian regime circles. 

Thomas Small Iran. Aimen, you know, I studied Arabic and Islamic studies, which is why I know a thing or two about that wacky religion of yours. And I—. 

Aimen Dean More than one and two. 

Thomas Small And I – I – I could never say I regret studying Arabic, because Arabic has opened up tremendous cultural and historical and, indeed, theological vistas to me. That said, if I do have a regret, it's that I didn't study the language that has been described as the language of poetry, par excellence. And, of course, I'm talking about Persian or Farsi. 

Someone once wrote, "What Persian poetry expressed was not an enigma to be solved, but an enigma that was unsolvable." And at the risk of sounding like an unreconstructed Orientalist, this really resonates with me as a kind of Westerner. Because for us, in the West, Persia has always been, like, the great enemy, the essential other. It's always been there, but we – we struggled to imagine it. It's like a mirage.

The ancient Persians are almost the mirror image of the ancient Greeks. You know, they're both Indo-European peoples, originally from the Eurasian steps. They were both newcomers to an already very old Bronze Age civilisation in Mesopotamia and the Levant. They were both destined in ways to inherit that older civilisation. Persia first, then Greece, when Alexander the great sacked the monumental Persian capital of Persepolis and set up court in Babylon, not as a Greek emperor, really, but as the last Persian emperor. 

And the Persians had a tremendous impact on the Bible. The three magi, the three Kings from the orient who visited Jesus and gave him gold, frankincense, and myrrh. I mean, they were Persians. They were Zoroastrians. 

Ideas like creation in six days or at least six categories, ideas like paradise, which is just the Persian word for "a walled garden." The—. The—. A strict distinction between good and evil. Characters or realities like angels. The fact that moral behaviour is the criterion for some kind of post-mortem blessedness or punishment. All of these things actually were in Zoroastrianism and were carried out into the worlds that they conquered by the Persians. 

So, I want to ask you. I mean, that's my perspective as a Christian thinking about Persia, as a Westerner thinking about Persia. But you, Aimen, as a Sunni, and given everything you've said about the Iranian regime on Conflicted, I mean, I imagine you basically hate Iran. Isn't that right?

Aimen Dean No. I don't hate Iran as a whole. I love the people. I love the culture. I love the music. I love the food. You know, there is so much to love and so much to admire about Iran and about the Persian people. 

And remember that, you know, even though I have, you know, no qualms whatsoever with my fellow Muslim – Muslims who, you know, follow the Shia faith, the reality is that, you know, we cannot even associate Shia faith with the Persians, because their conversion to Shia Islam happened only four hundred and fifty-five hundred years ago. That's it. And that doesn't even make them less Muslims. 

The reality is, for me—and I always say this to all my friends from Iran and of Persian descent—I say, I tell them two things. First, I dislike the regime. But everything else, you know, I adore and admire. That's the first thing. The second thing is that DNA doesn't lie. I am thirty-three percent Persian and I'm very proud of it. 

Thomas Small Now, is – is this from your Dirani heritage? Because, you know, greater Persia and all the Persian peoples of – of Central Asia, they're all sort of basically the same stock, aren't they?

Aimen Dean Exactly. So, I have, you know, no qualm. I have—. I have—. I have—. You know, I can almost say I am half-Persian and half – half-Arab, you know, with some, you know, Turkic blood mixed in here and there. And, for me, you know, to hate Iran or to hate the Persian race or culture or traditions is to hate half of me. 

Thomas Small Well, especially as a Muslim, you know, you – you – you – you were right to raise the – the topic of – of the way in which Islam developed in – in Iran. Because, in fact, you know, the Iranian influence over Islam in general has been immense. It's been said that the conquered conquered their conquerors so much that the Persians end up having an impact on Islam. 

Aimen Dean Tremendously. In fact, the Abbasids, they were able to topple the Umayyad dynasty, thanks to the support of the Persian armies. It was then the Persianisation of the government, of the systems, of the departments of governance. The divans, as we used to call them. And the golden age of Islam started when the Persians, led by the Abbasids, were able to merge and incorporate what the Umayyads built in terms of civilisation and in terms of foundation of the state, and merged with it the science and technology and learning that the Persians brought with them. And then, the age of discovery and the age of translation started. And the contribution of Persian scholars to this is immense and cannot be eclipsed at all

Thomas Small That period of history is known as the Iranian Intermezzo or the Persian Renaissance. It began in the sort of the early ninth century and it continued until the arrival of the Seljuk Turks in the early eleventh. We discussed the Seljuks in episode two, because the Azeris consider themselves to be descendants of those Turkic conquerors. 

It was during the Iranian Intermezzo that Iranian poetry really came into its own. You have Rudaki, Ferdowsi, whose epic poem, the shahnameh or The Book of Kings, recounting the Persian past, perhaps more than anything, revived an Iranian national conscious.

Aimen Dean Indeed. Not to mention that, ironically, the Arabic language were preserved and codified, I would say, you know, thanks to the efforts of Persian linguistic scholars, such as Sibawayh. 

Thomas Small I suppose if you – if you're converted to Islam, the – the religion of Arabic, you have to know Arabic in order to worship. So, the Persians were very invested in getting to know Arabic very well. 

Aimen Dean Indeed. Sibawayh wrote the most comprehensive dictionary in Arabic.

Thomas Small Once Islam had sort of grabbed the heart of Iran, there was a sudden explosion of mysticism and visionary theology for Muslim Iran. Al-Hallaj, Suhrawardi, Rumi, Hathas, Omar Khayyam, Jami, Mulla Sadra. These names are immense in the history of Islam. Iranians contributed so much to the development of that religion.

Aimen Dean Talking about Rumi, he is my favourite. Really my favourite Islamic philosopher and poet. However, one of the funny memes that I've seen online, I see his picture and he is saying, "My poetry is not about your ex-boyfriend." So, I thought it was so funny. 

Thomas Small For the listeners who don't understand that meme, Rumi is famous for his extremely romantic, love-infused mystical poetry. Of course, it's all sort of about the love of God. But I think a lot of people today, especially in the West, think that it's – it's sort of like Valentine's Day card stuff. 

Anyway, I could wax lyrical about what the idea of Persia means to me and all that stuff forever. But I think we need to get back on track. You know, the last—. In the last episode, we talked about Russia and Russian geopolitics. Well, Russia and Persia have a very long relationship. 

As a result of wars between Russia and what was then officially called the Sublime State of Iran in the early nineteenth century, Azerbaijan was divided in two. We mentioned this in episode two. The northern part was occupied by Russia and the southern part remained part of Iran, which is the reason why there are millions of Azerbaijanis in Iran today. Now, after capitulating to Russia, the shah and the ruling dynasty then were the Qajars, who were, in fact, Azeri Turk in origin. The Qajar shah turned eastward. He focused on retaking territories in present day Afghanistan, which he'd lost to local rivals—i.e., your ancestors, Aimen, the Diranis. This pissed off the British, who were firmly in control of India and needed to protect their north-western frontier, prompting the Anglo-Persian War of 1856. Eventually, the British compelled, the Qajar shah to agree to a number of demands, including never to invade Afghanistan again and then, later, to two notorious economic concessions, as they are called, the Reuter concession, in 1872, and the D'Arcy Concession, in 1901, giving foreigners near total control over the Iranian macroeconomy. 

Now, because it found itself stuck between two imperial rivals (Britain and Russia) Iran, particularly struggled to withstand the onslaught of modernity, more so even than their Ottoman rivals to the west. This resulted in an almost cartoonish smack in the face when, in 1907, the British and the Russian signed the Anglo-Russian Convention, unilaterally decreeing Northern Iran part of Russia's sphere of influence and Southern Iran part of Britain's. They hadn't even bothered to inform the shah about this.

Aimen Dean Typical.

Thomas Small Two years later, in 1909, oil was discovered in Iran. But because of the D'Arcy Concession, this fell into British hands by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. As you can imagine, this foreign interference was deeply resented by the religious clerics for obvious reasons (Westernisation, secularisation, evil heathens coming to conquer us), but also by those known as bazaaris, the merchant middle-class who watched as profits, usually reserved for themselves, flowed to outsiders instead. In a remarkable precursor to the Iranian revolution of 1979, in 1906, an alliance of clerics and bazaaris, supported by the British as it happens, resulted in what's called the constitutional revolution. The Qajar shah was forced to agree to the formation of a national parliament called the Majles, which then drew up a constitution modelled, strangely enough, on the Belgian constitution. Voting took place, and representatives from around the country were elected, including one Mohammad Mosaddegh, about whom we've got more to say later. 

The constitutional revolution wasn't a great success. The clerics quickly began to fear the liberals who aimed at the secularisation of society. So, they threw their support back towards the shah, who was supported by the Russians, who shelled the Majles in 1908. 

The next decade was politically chaotic. The central state lost control of its provinces. The local economy continued to crater, not least because trade with Russia had been undermined by the catastrophic Bolshevik Revolution there, but also because famine broke out during the First World War, which shredded what remained of Iranian sovereignty as Britain basically took full control. It was not good.

Now, given this history, Aimen, putting yourself in Iran's shoes, it's not hard to see why you Iran's attitude towards Western powers is so mistrustful.

Aimen Dean In fact, I see a lot of similarities between the Iranians and the Chinese here. I mean, basically, the resentment after the Opium Wars between, you know, China and the Western powers and the imposition of trade, sanctions, and unfavourable trading terms on the Chinese by the Western powers, it's almost mirrored exactly. That is in Eastern Asia. Now, in Western Asia, you see that exactly being imposed in the Iranians. 

Thomas Small Yes. And like Iran, China is also a great, an ancient civilisation who felt totally offended by being treated like that. You know, they thought, "Well, we deserve better. We are a great people." 

Aimen Dean Absolutely. I – I – I think it is the unfortunate position that Iran found itself in, especially after the First World War. It was never a participative power in the First World War. But, nonetheless, they lost between twelve to fifteen percent of the entire population, thanks to famine, drought, as well as the Spanish influenza. So, the economy was in tatters. And at the same time, the oil wealth, which became so immensely important to the rest of the world, and especially when it comes to military, you know, strategy. And yet they can't benefit from it because the terms of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was so unfair that they were receiving nothing but peanuts. Peanuts. 

Thomas Small Definitely, Aimen. Iranian oil would prove a curse as much as a blessing. 

Jumping forward a bit to the Second World War. In 1941, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, the largest military operation in history, a full-scale invasion of the Soviet Union. Now, this is interesting. This relates to what we talked about in the last episode about Russian geography and its geopolitics. A major prong of the Nazi advance was toward the Volgograd Gap in the Caucasus—i.e., in the direction of Iran. To protect its oil interests there and to maintain a line of supply to its ally, Stalin, Britain occupied Iran. To protect its oil interests there and to maintain a line of supply to its ally, Stalin, Britain occupied Iran, landing troops in the south who marched northward while Russian troops invaded from the north and marched southward. The two sides met in Tehran. Thirty thousand troops would arrive later after America joined the war. It was particularly humiliating for Iran. The shah at the time was not a Qajar, but rather the man who had, with Britain's help, overthrown the Qajar dynasty in 1925, Reza Shah Palavi. Dun dun dun. 

I mean, Aimen, it's so funny. When I – when I say the name, I just get this sort of, you know, shock of fear through me. He was such a – a powerful personality, known as the Iron shah.

Aimen Dean However, he was still a failure, 

Thomas Small Oh, poor man. But, Aimen, he was powerful. You see pictures of him. And his eyes, his eyes, they're sort of hypnotic. They'll—. You look at – you look at them and you'll do whatever he says. Reza Shah, a commoner, a mere soldier, and yet immensely formidable. He founded the Pahlavi dynasty. Now, this is the dynasty that would itself be overthrown in 1979. 

He had done much to limit British control and get back Iranian sovereignty. He – he was a moderniser like his hero, Ataturk in Turkey, and he was a Persian nationalist, something new in Iranian history, which had always been a traditional, multicultural, imperial state. He pursued a policy of Persianisation and helped to deeply integrate the idea of Persian nationhood in the people of Iran. 

That – that sense of Iranian ethnonationalism, it – it really remains to this day. Wouldn't—? Would you say that, Aimen? 

Aimen Dean Yeah. I mean, it gives them a sense of imperial nationalism to an extent. I mean, because they are always looking back at the history and the extent of the Persian empire. I mean, sometime, I see RIGC-linked accounts on Twitter and other social media platforms, you know, putting what is the ideal map of Iran today. And, you know, to my surprise, I see the map encompassing parts of Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, Azerbaijan, parts of Turkey. But then, I see all of Iraq, all of the eastern province of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Bahrain and Qatar, and, you know, the entire Gulf, you know, Coast on that side, which is oil rich, funny enough, Syria and Lebanon. And to my horror, I see the Israel-Palestine plains or extending all the way to Egypt. And then, I see out of nowhere, Yemen being part of that, you know, map.

Thomas Small Yemen?

Aimen Dean Yes. Yemen. Because—. And not many Middle East listeners will know this, but, actually, Yemen, for a brief time, maybe seven, eight decades, you know, between the late five hundreds and mid-six hundreds, were, in fact, a – a Persian province. 

Thomas Small This is during the Sasanian Empire, the Sasanian period of Persian history.

Aimen Dean Indeed. When the Prophet Mohammed sent his messages to the Kings of the earth at the time in order to accept Islam, one of the messages went to the Sasanian Persian governor of Yemen. By then, Yemen was already a Persian province for roughly seventy years. Yet even though it was only seventy years over the past two and a half thousand years of the long life of the Persian Empire or the Persian people, yet they still believe or, at least, like, the RICG-linked people, still believe in this ethnonationalistic, imperial fantasy of incorporating Yemen into it and incorporating all of these lines I described. 

Thomas Small That's fascinating. It really shows how – how ancient history is still informing the present, for sure. Now back to Reza Shah, one thing that I found interesting about Reza Shah is his modernisation programme involved him doing something very similar to what King Abdulaziz was doing in Saudi Arabia at the time. And this is forcibly settling the nomads. 

We talked about this in the last episode. Iran, like Saudi Arabia, like all of the Middle East in the early twentieth century, still had a very stark distinction between the urban-settled and the agricultural peoples and nomads, who lived a nomadic life. And Reza Shah put an end to it just like King Abdulaziz was doing across the gulf.

Aimen Dean Oh, yes. Because, at the end of the day, these nomads are a source of instability. They could be the fifth column that could be hired by any invading power, whether the Soviets or the British or any other invading power.

Thomas Small Yes. And if you're – if you're involved in the – in the process of updating your state to modern norms, you know, where borders are fixed and the state rules absolutely within those borders, nomads don't fit in very well, because they don't really believe in borders. 

Aimen Dean Or settlement or laws or regulations or anything. And, of course, you know, if they remain nomads, they will not be paying taxation. 

Thomas Small As we said, Reza Shah was a moderniser and he had focused especially on modernising and strengthening the Iranian army. This is why the Anglo-Soviet invasion of 1941 was so humiliating. His army had folded very quickly. And Reza himself was sent into exile. His son, aged only twenty-two, was installed as shah by the allies, though he was not really allowed to rule and remain confined to the palace for the duration of the war. This young man, Mohammad Reza Shah, would, in time, become an iconic figure. He is the shah whom the Ayatollah Khomeini would overthrow thirty-year years later. 

Mohammad Reza Shah, he truly was iconic, wasn't he, Aimen?

Aimen Dean He was iconic, yes, but for all the wrong reasons, you know. Extremely extravagant in a nation that was generally languishing in poverty. He was extremely pro-Western in a society that was still plagued by religious dogma. And he was cruel in his application of the state security force in order to crack down on opposition using the infamous SAVAK, trained by, you know, none other than the Israelis, in order to crush dissent in his domain. 

And yet he was a weak-willed individual. Nonetheless, his extravagance drove everyone to the edge of despair in Iran, which led, of course, later to his eventual demise.

Thomas Small It's really hard to see in the image of that iconic shah from the 1970s that twenty-two-year-old who ascended the Peacock Throne in 1941, installed by the allies. He—. He's so young. He's so – he's so nervous and gentle. And his experience of the war could not have been easy. 

While Iran was occupied by the allied powers, a historic meeting took place in Tehran between Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin. This was the first time that all three had been around the same table. It was during this meeting that Operation Overlord was agreed. That's the 1944 invasion of Normandy, including the D-Day landings. But, more importantly, for our purposes, the allies signed a treaty, agreeing that they would all withdraw their troops from Iran within six months of the end of the war.

Well, we all know how that terrible war ended, with two nuclear bombs ushering in a new Nuclear Age. Everyone has heard of the Manhattan Project, the American programme to develop the bomb during the Second World War, and we all know what the consequences that had, not least on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

Aimen, give us an overview of how the Nuclear Age has impacted geopolitics in the Middle East? Which countries now in the Middle East have the bomb?

Aimen Dean Well, at the moment, there is only one country that is known to possess the bomb, at least as an open secret, which is the state of Israel. 

Thomas Small What about Pakistan?

Aimen Dean Can we include Pakistan in the Middle East? 

Thomas Small This is a vexed question. I couldn't—. I – I think for the purposes of this podcast, we include Pakistan in the Middle East.

Aimen Dean If we include Pakistan in the Middle East, and the fact that Pakistan is a staunch ally of Saudi Arabia, militarily speaking, then, yes, we can say that Saudi Arabia is, in theory, covered by the Pakistani nuclear defence umbrella.

Thomas Small So, Israel has the bomb, Pakistan has the bomb, and – and, through Pakistan, Saudi has the bomb. In fact, I've read that Saudi has a couple of warheads in Pakistan, really, with its name written on them. It's – it's theirs.

Aimen Dean Just a couple. Actually, it's twelve. Twelve nuclear warheads that the Saudis have access to. And, at any given moment, if Iran tests a workable nuclear device and it become a solid member of the nuclear club, then Saudi Arabia, the next day, will have a twelve nuclear bombs ready at its disposal, should anything, you know, well happen like this, so. 

Thomas Small We did a whole bonus episode on Iran's nuclear ambitions when we discussed another assassination, this time by the Israelis, of the Iranian nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. Go back to your listener and give that episode a relisten for a refresher course. 

In that episode, we discussed the Iranian nuclear deal, the JCPOA, which President Trump withdrew from in – in 2018. Now, Aimen, President Trump's gone, Biden's in, and his administration is now trying to get America back on board the deal. How is that going? How are those negotiations going in your view?

Aimen Dean The reality is that the Iranians, you know, stretched as much as possible the length of talks between them and the Biden administration almost to thirteen months now, and the reason is because they wanted to buy as much time as possible in order to enrich as much weapon-grade uranium as possible in order to blackmail the West and the rest of the world, into believing that they are about to produce a workable nuclear device.

Thomas Small As a way of getting better terms. 

Aimen Dean Yes. The whole idea is to get as better terms as possible. But also, at the same time, the fact that once you reach that critical mass, that critical threshold, I would say, you know, you have come so close that, at some point in the future, if you want to restart, then, instead of waiting four years, you only have few months and you will achieve your goal. 

So, in reality, the Iranians were achieving two aims here. One, they are in a position to blackmail the world powers into saying, "Look, we are only weeks away or a few months away from having enough weapon-grade fuel to build nuclear devices." So, the West start to panic and agree to some of their outrageous demands. And on top of that, the ability in the future that even if they sign it right now and stop all the enrichment, that, in the future, once they resume enrichment, they will be much closer to achieving their goal, because they will be starting from a more advanced position than they did in 2018, when President Trump withdrew from the, you know, the nuclear deal. 

Thomas Small Given the negotiations that are ongoing, it was surprising that, a few weeks ago, to – to read that America had – had actually lifted all of the sanctions on Iran related to non-military nuclear usage, their non-military nuclear programme. Why would they have done that? I mean, that seems to be a very dangerous thing to do right in the middle of these negotiations.

Aimen Dean They had nothing to do with the negotiations. I have it on good authority. And, you know, I always have access to good authority anyway, so. 

Thomas Small That's why I'm talking to you, Aimen.

Aimen Dean I have it on good authority that, actually, it's nothing to do whatsoever with the current negotiations that are taking place in Vienna. The reality is that the Iranian nuclear reactor in Bushehr, which is just on the Gulf waters and surrounded by the Zagros Mountains—. 

Thomas Small This nuclear reactor built by the shah with German and French help. Is that—? That's right? 

Aimen Dean Yes. But they were never finished. And so, in the mid-nineties, the Russians came and they finished it. So, we have a somewhat bastardised nuclear reactor there with German and French parts, with a reactor made in Russia on top of them. 

Thomas Small Oh, my goodness. That does not sound very stable.

Aimen Dean Forget stability, man. Like, you know, forget the technical and the engineering stability. We're talking about the fact that the reactor is sitting on a seismically-active fault line, you know, with frequent earthquakes reaching sometime the, you know, levels of six and seven degrees on the Richter scale. Now—.

Thomas Small Why the hell was a nuclear reactor built there in the first place?

Aimen Dean Because the shah looked at the map and he thought, "Okay. This is the most remote area away from the Persian-Iranian settlements and cities, surrounded by mountains. If there is a nuclear fallout, then the mountains and the prevailing wind direction, you know, will make sure that it's the Arabs, you know, across the Gulf."

Thomas Small Goodness.

Aimen Dean "The Kuwaitis, the Saudis, the Bahrainis, the Emiratis, the Qataris. They are the ones who are going to be screwed up." I mean, so, you know, so charming. Very charming of the shah.

Thomas Small So, what does this nuclear reactor have to do with the recent lifting of sanctions on non-military nuclear usage in Iran?

Aimen Dean Because that nuclear reactor, as I said to you, sits on a seismically-active fault line, lots of earthquakes between now and then, it needs repairs and it needs spare parts. And there are some—. Let's say, you know, I—. You know, no pun intended. But there are some intelligence leaks about some radioactive leaks, you know, from that reactor in recent weeks, which suggest that there is the need for repairs, urgent need for repairs and spare parts to come from certain European countries. So, the need for a waiver to these sanctions was necessary. Otherwise, we could have a Chernobyl on the Gulf. 

And that could spill disaster for the Gulf states. Why? Because Kuwait as well as the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia as well as Bahrain, Qatar, and, to a greater extent, also the UAE rely on desalinated water, water produced from, you know—. Well, you know, they – they suck the, you know, water from the sea. They remove the salt. It become a drinking water for the people who live in the desert, where there are no lakes or rivers, or even, you know, significant amount of rainy days. So, if the waters of the Gulf are to be contaminated with radioactive materials from that nuclear reactor on the Iranian side, say goodbye to the fisheries there. You can't eat, you know, the famous Gulf Hamour fish or the shrimp there, unless if you want to become Aquaman, a radioactive Aquaman. And the reality also is that you can't desalinate the water, because the water, while you can remove the salt from it, you can't remove, you know, radioactivity from it, I mean. So, yeah. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

Thomas Small All this talk about radiation, nuclear reactors melting down, nuclear bombs being developed, it really does put us right back into the beginning of the Cold War. And let's – let's go back to our story of the Middle East and the Cold War. America dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as we said. Stalin was already actually developing a bomb of his own, which is a fascinating spy story in its own, right? Because infiltrators within the Manhattan Project had been passing secret info to the Soviets. The first successful Soviet bomb test was carried out in 1949. And from that point on, the nuclear arms race began. 

However, for those four years in between the atomic attacks on Japan and Stalin's first bomb, America's monopoly on nuclear weapons gave it tremendous leverage at the outset of the Cold War. And this was first demonstrated in Iran. As I said, the allies, who were then occupying Iran, had signed a treaty, agreeing that they would all withdraw their troops within six months of the end of the war—i.e., the 3rd of March 1946. In January of '46, the US and Britain followed through. But it soon became clear that the Soviets weren't going anywhere. Thus, began the Cold War. It began in Iran, specifically in Iranian Azerbaijan. 

Really, Aimen, all roads seem to lead to Azerbaijan this season. Why is that?

Aimen Dean Well, because of all the complexities. You know, it has all the ingredients. It has an ethnic minority. It has, you know, an active communist, subversive, you know, elements and separatists. It has oil. And it's sitting on a crossroad between civilisations. The Persians, the Turks, the Russians, the Arabs, the English, the Americans. Yes. 

Goodness. I mean, what more do you want?

Thomas Small So, let me try to sort of set the scene. We're in – we're in Iran 1946. The first player here that we want to talk about is the Tudeh Party. So, the Tudeh Party is the communist party of Iran. It was founded in 1941. It had offices all around the country, but it was most strongly represented in Iranian Azerbaijan. 

Let's call it south Azerbaijan from now on. It's clearer that way. So, south Azerbaijan's capital of Tabriz is an absolute icon of Islamic splendour and power and Persianate culture. Tabriz had featured heavily in the Persian-Russian wars that we discussed before. And, thus, the province, as a whole, had fallen within Russia's sphere of influence in Iran. And so, it was, let's say, the most modernised part of Iran. 

Anyway, the Soviets took advantage of the Tudeh Party's organisation in south Azerbaijan to encourage two secessionist movements there, one Kurdish and the other Azeri. In addition to communist partisans, local Azeris and Kurds were angry at the Persianification policy, which the exiled Reza Shah had imposed on them. So, these two secessionist movements resulted in the foundation, with Soviet help, of the Republic of Mahabad, a Kurdish Republic, and the Azerbaijan People's Government. Now, the Republic of Mahabad was defended by none other than the Peshmerga, those valiant Marxist Kurdish warriors who, to this day, are defending Kurdistan from ISIS, from Turkey, from all of the players in the region. It's still there today.

Aimen Dean Well, you know, it just shows you basically, not only is a small world, but a small history also. Like, you know, I mean, the – the Peshmerga, which means, you know, "the men of death" or devout people who are willing to die, you know, for their cause, yes, their roots are Marxist. And that remains so for a very long time. And I think, because of the fact that they were always opposing, at one time or another, you know, either a pro-Western nation or a pro-Western power like Iran or a pro-Western power like Turkey, because, you know, Turkey was a NATO member and the shah was always perceived as a pro-Western. And, therefore, their adoption of Marxism was, you know, inevitable at some point. 

To this day, they are still loyal to some extent, to some extent, at least, to their, you know, Marxist, you know, communist roots. 

Thomas Small Well, because the northern half of greater Azerbaijan was already Soviet and was comparatively richer and more developed than the southern half, it's no surprise that communist ideas were circulating in the south. 

As far as Stalin himself, ideological motives played a role. But I'm afraid it was also, and mainly, about oil. He had been seeking a concession to Iranian oil in the north of Iran. And the UK and the U S were actively seeking to prevent this. 

The situation was very tense. So, the United Nations Security Council met. Interestingly, the United Nations Security Council's first resolution was to set up the security council and its second resolution, passed only a week later, was to demand that the Soviet Union withdraw from Iran. 

So, it really is part of the history books here. The Security Council's first move was to demand the Soviets to withdraw from Iran. And because, at that time, America had the bomb and had a monopoly of nuclear force, the Soviets were compelled to do so. And they – they did so in May. 

Aimen Dean Yeah. But it wasn't just pure muscle by the Americans. Also, they were trading with Stalin. "Okay. Get out of Iran. And, in return, we will reduce the amount of military aid we give to the Chinese nationalists who are fighting your allies." You know, Mao and his forces.

Thomas Small It's amazing, you know. It just – it just goes to show that in the Cold War, no event happens in a vacuum. Something in Iran is actually linked … 

Aimen Dean No.

Thomas Small … to something that's in China, that's something in Moscow, that's something in God knows where. The Cold—. In the Cold War, everything is connected. 

So, that's the Tudeh Party and the Azerbaijan crisis of 1946. 

As the forties unfolded in Iran, other players, you know, arose onto the scene, one of whom, very interestingly, is a group called Fada'iyan-e Islam. This group, which actually still exists in Iran, is a precursor to the sort of Islamic terrorist movements that we know today. They were nationalists. So, they weren't a globalist Islamic movement, but they were nationalists. And they assassinated several Iranian politicians in the late forties and the early fifties. And though the shah would blame it on communists, in 1949, Fada'iyan-e Islam actually tried to assassinate him. 

So, Aimen, this raises the question: What has Iran's impact been on the development of Islamic radicalism in general? I'm thinking in particular of the name Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, a nineteenth century political thinker, who has been called the Father of Islamic Modernism. He advocated pan-Islamic unity against Western domination. And, in fact, in 1869, one of his followers assassinated a Qajar shah. 

Aimen Dean Indeed. He is one of the most influential figures who, of course, resided in Egypt at some point and taught at Al-Azhar University. And there, he taught the principles of pan-Islamism to oppose what he see, the British-French colonial domination of the Muslim world. All the way from the British Raj and its influence in Afghanistan and Persia, all the way to Iraq and Egypt, and the French involvement in north Africa. He was seeking to build that pan-Islamism. And he saw, in Cairo, an important centre for this, because it sits right in the middle, between the influence of the British and the French in the colonial era. 

Among his students was Muhammad Rasheed Rida, who had a great influence on Hassan al-Banna, who would later establish the Muslim Brotherhood movement [unintelligible 0:41:56.8] in Egypt in 1928. 

And the funny thing is that, the ironic, is that the Fada'iyan-e Islam would have, as one of its members, a man called Navvab Safavi. Navvab Safavi went to Egypt and was actually trained by the Muslim Brotherhood there and brought with him a group of the Fada'iyan-e Islam. Some – some of them were trained in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood and then went back to Iran to carry out their assassinations and acts of sabotage. 

What is more interesting about Navvab Safavi is that his nephew is none other than Musa al-Sadr, the founder of the Amal Movement in Lebanon in the 1970s, which would later then give birth to the infamous Hezbollah in Lebanon. 

And also one of the greatest influences on Navvab Safavi is the fact that he met Sayyid Qutb in the early fifties in Egypt and was influenced by him. 

Of course, later, Navvab Safavi would be executed by the shah in 1955. But twenty-four years later, Iman Khomeini would describe Navvab Safavi as the first martyr of the Islamic revolution in Iran. 

Thomas Small It's a reminder of how the phenomenon of Islamist terrorism, of Islamist globalist jihadism, is much older than we think. Much older than 9/11, much older than the Iranian revolution. I mean, a hundred years before Khomeini, you have characters like al-Afghani already fomenting similar ideas that would ultimately, as we, you know, as we learnt, you know, result in the world that we have today. 

So, that's—. So, we have the Tudeh Party. We Communist Party of Iran. We have Fada'iyan-e Islam, an Islamist party of – of terrorists, of assassins in Iran. And, of course, we also have the shah himself. There's a lot we could say about him. We've already talked about how iconic he would become. At this point in history, though, he was basically a refined young man. He wasn't yet the aloof autocratic target of Khomeini's invective. 

When he came to power in 1941, he agreed to rule in accordance with the constitution from 1906 that his father had largely ignored. He reopened the Iranian Parliament, the Majles, on genuinely representative lines. And in the 1940s, for the first time, Iran experienced a genuinely pluralistic democracy, with different parties pursuing different ideologies and all vying equally for power. 

The shah would end up favouring American power over the Soviets, for sure. In fact, he was genuinely spooked by Stalin, convinced that he had designs on Iran. The events of 1946 did not convince him otherwise. This is why he blamed the communists when he was almost assassinated. And he banned the communist Tudeh Party, which then went underground. 

It's all very Cold War, isn't it, Aimen? I mean, what must spy craft have been like in Iran at the time? And we were talking the CIA was there. MI6 must have been there. The KGB, or the MVB as it then was.

Aimen Dean Yeah. And the KVND. And, you know—. So, there were so many different intelligence agencies and spies operating there. And behind them, you have the machinations and the intrigue of the oil industry.

Thomas Small Absolutely. Before too long, all of these players would be implicated in a Cold War event so notorious that it's still informs Iranian attitudes to – to Western powers. I'm referring, of course, to the infamous coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953.

Aimen, what resonance does the name Mohammed Mosaddegh have in the Middle East today?

Aimen Dean For Iranians, he – and – and the other people in the Middle East, he represent, you know, the symbol of defiance against greedy, you know, Western power seeking to rob a nation of its natural resources and the profits of that national resources. He wanted to negotiate a fair settlement. And the powers that be—I'm talking about the British here—you know, rebuffed him. So, for many Iranians, he is a symbol of defiance. He is also the ultimate symbol of grievance against the West and against the Americans and the British for what happened next. 

Thomas Small Mohammad Mosaddegh was born in 1882. I mean, can you imagine that, when he came to power in 1951, he was almost seventy years old? And he had lived through all of the history that we've been talking about. The Russian, British, Soviet, and now American interference in the country. He was related to the Qajars. And, in fact, he married the granddaughter of the Qajar Shah, who had been assassinated by the follower of al-Afghani. It's really—. Everyone's connected. He was indeed well connected. He was educated in Switzerland and had always opposed Reza Shah, because the shah ignored the constitution. At heart, Mohammad Mosaddegh was a nationalist. 

Now, in 1949, after the failed assassination attempt against the shah, the shah began a move toward greater authoritarianism. He managed to push through reforms to the constitution, diluting the power of parliament and increasing his own power, followed by new elections that summer, which were compromised by claims of fraud and corruption. Newsflash: All of the elections that take place over the course of this story are compromised by fraud and corruption. It was endemic. 

But here's something really interesting. Mosaddegh responded to that rigged election in the summer of 1949 by organising a mass protest movement. In a sign of the revolution, really, later in the seventies, students were mobilised and a sit-in was organised. The whole panoply of modern peaceful mass protest. The shah capitulated. He promised fair elections in the future. And the protest movement coalesced into a new coalition of political parties called the National Front with Mosaddegh as its leader. They sought liberal reforms. And at the top of their policy platform was a demand that would cause a political earthquake, really globally. And that was oil nationalisation. 

Aimen, paint a picture of how the oil concession in Iran was being managed at that time and why that would have made Mosaddegh and the nationalists so angry. 

Aimen Dean As you mentioned, Thomas, before the D'Arcy agreement, the treaties that were signed regarding the concessions of trade and national resources meant that the vast – the vast majority of the profits, you know, would go to the company that is actually doing the excavation, the extraction, and the transportation. 

So, you know, in modern – in modern times, you know, a company like Shell or BP or any other company or ExxonMobil would come to a country, would sign the deal in which there will say, "Okay. We, you know, we explore the oil. We dig up the oil. We refine it. We, you know—. And we split the profits, you know, thirty-three/sixty-seven, thirty-five/sixty-five, forty/sixty. But the majority, you know, goes to the country, you know, where the resources, you know, are located."

However, in the Iranian question, you know, something like more than ninety percent of the profits—in fact, more than that—were going to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. 

Thomas Small And fifty-one percent of that company was owned by the British state. So, really, the profits were going to the British government and not to the Iranian government, 

Aimen Dean Not at all. Whatever that was going to the Iranian government were just mere basic royalties. I mean, we're not talking about five or six percent, you know. And which was absolute peanuts. Minimal. 

Thomas Small Especially when Mohammed Mosaddegh would have looked around and seen the – the other sorts of deals that oil companies had struck with other governments. Venezuela, first, successfully negotiated a fifty-fifty deal. And then, in 1950, your friend King Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia managed to negotiate the same deal with Aramco, a fifty-fifty split. Mosaddegh was actually seeking precisely that. And yet the British said no. 

Aimen Dean Yes. This is one of the darkest, darkest episodes of the history of the British empire, you know, post-World War II, in which they squandered, you know, an opportunity and caused a massive rift that – and a grievance that's lasting all the way until now. If they accepted, just accepted, just like Americans in Saudi Arabia accepted, that we split the oil profits fifty-fifty, you know, the question is that Mosaddegh would have succeeded, that the cause of the communists and the religious fanatics would have been contained, and a more modern, democratic, pluralistic Iran would have persisted. 

But guess what? As usual, we are now living the consequences of the mistakes of the past.

Thomas Small That's true. I think we – we owe it to the British to put ourselves in their shoes for a second. And after the Second World War, the British state was effectively bankrupt, haemorrhaging money. They really, really relied on the monies from selling Iranian oil to keep their own country going. And this doesn't defend their decision, but it – it explains why they were so unwilling to grant a fifty-fifty deal to the Iranians. 

Mosaddegh's chief policy was the nationalisation of Iran's oil. And this presented him with a political problem, which, in fact, you know, Aimen, to be honest, has been presenting me with the political problem—i.e., wrapping my mind around Iranian politics in the early 1950s. The—. All of the events—the political events, the elections, the backstabbing, the coalitions, the fallings out—all of these things that happened during the rise and fall of Mohammed Mosaddegh, they really are a brain buster. I swear to God.

Aimen Dean Absolutely. That's why the, you know, the – the ruling class in Iran right now, the Mullahs, they have turbans wrapped up around their heads in order to wrap the Iranian politics around their heads.

Thomas Small Right. So, Mosaddegh is leading this new party, the National Front. But it has nothing like a majority in parliament. And so, only has minority influence. Nonetheless, Mosaddegh is a capable political operator, a good manipulator of the modern media, and becomes the chair of the parliamentary committee overseeing the oil question. His emphasis on nationalism and oil nationalisation resonated with the masses, and his personal popularity was growing. 

However, he had a problem. Mosaddegh was a liberal, but the vast majority of Iranians were conservatives. I mean, they generally favoured nationalism. They wanted Iranian sovereignty to be secured, but they were conservative. They were generally loyal to the monarchy and they were certainly religious. 

There was a man in parliament, Abol-Ghasem Kashani, who sort of represented the religious interests of the country. He was, in fact, allied to Fada'iyan-e Islam. Mosaddegh hoped he could manipulate Kashani into getting his oil nationalisation policy passed. So, Kashani was a nationalist, right? 

Mosaddegh said, "Okay. I'm going to appeal to his nationalism to get my oil nationalisation bill passed." 

Kashani was an Islamist and he wanted Sharia law to be the law of the land. So, he hoped he could manipulate Mosaddegh into imposing Sharia law. 

Then, in March 1951, a Fada'iyan-e Islam fanatic assassinated Prime Minister Ali Razmara, angered by Roz Mara's pro-British stance. One week later, with Kashani's help, Mosaddegh was able to get a bill passed, nationalising the oil industry. And then, a month after that, parliament told the shah that Mosaddegh was their nominee for prime minister. To his credit, the shah agreed and even signed the nationalisation bill. He supported nationalisation now, mainly because he hoped it would increase his popularity with the people. He was afraid he was losing popularity as Mosaddegh gained popularity. 

As we said, Mosaddegh was seeking a fifty-fifty deal. Well, Britain went nuts. They withdrew their personnel from the oil fields of Iran, which meant that oil production stopped. They imposed sanctions on the country, preventing imports of staples like sugar. Iran didn't have a tanker fleet of its own. So, without British help, they couldn't produce or even export oil. It was a total shitshow. Negotiations with the British were going badly. The economy was in a freefall. There was political violence on the street as nationalists clashed with communists clashed with religious enthusiasts. It was chaos. 

Conservatives began to waiver in their support for Mosaddegh and nationalisation, especially after Mosaddegh, in a series of brilliant tactical moves, was granted emergency powers by parliament, effectively side-lining the shah. Mosaddegh was making his liberal anti-monarchical position play. The shah began to turn against him as did Kashani, who realised that Mosaddegh was a secularist with no intention of imposing Sharia law. 

This, Aimen, is where your friends, the spies, come in. As soon as the oil nationalisation bill had passed, Britain had been doing what it could to remove Mosaddegh from power. MI6 were bribing parliamentarians, religious clerics, and other conservative groups. Mosaddegh had hoped the US might support him, but Cold War politics got in the way, especially after President Eisenhower came to power. The Soviet Union's reach had recently expanded in Central Europe, China, and Korea. And because the Tudeh Party had supported Mosaddegh, Eisenhower feared losing Iran to the Soviets, too. So, the CIA began working with MI6 to undermine Mosaddegh's grip on the government. 

So, in the midst of all this, Mosaddegh felt that the only way he could get his political programme through was if he basically could rule by executive fiat. So, he called a referendum to dissolve parliament and give himself dictatorial powers. This referendum resulted in a ninety-nine percent yes vote. Now, we all know what a ninety-nine percent yes vote means: fraud. Mosaddegh had rigged it, for sure. It wasn't a secret ballot. It was definitely transparent. I mean, you know, you had to vote in the open, and there were thugs standing next to you to make sure you voted the right way. So, it wasn't a fair referendum at all, but it gave Mosaddegh the result he was looking for: permission as he saw it to rule as a dictator. 

This was bound to freak his opponents out. The conservatives, top generals in the army, MI6 and the CIA, and the shah, none of them could accept Mosaddegh as a dictator. So, they pressed go on a plan that they had been cooking up for a while, a plan known as Operation Ajax. The plan was quite simple. The shah was going to use his powers to dismiss Mosaddegh unilaterally, without there being elections, and replace him with a man of their choosing, a general called Zahedi. This was the plan. 

On the 15th of August 1953, they pressed go. The shah signs the firman, dismissing Mosaddegh and installing General Zahedi as prime minister, knowing that the CIA had given him assurance that the Americans would support this move. But the Tudeh Party—the communist party of Iran, which had been made illegal, which had gone underground, and which had been an on-again, off-again ally of Mosaddegh and the National Front, and, over the last few years, had infiltrated the Iranian army—the Tudeh Party found out about the plot in advance and warned Mosaddegh about it. So, as the shah's men were going to Mosaddegh's palace with the firman dismissing him, suddenly, Mosaddegh's supporters burst into the streets, and there was a sort of riot preventing this from happening. This freaked out the shah even more. Spooked, he fled the country. 

I mean, it's actually quite a remarkable and cowardly thing. He just up and fled the country. Some coup. He flees the country and ends up in Rome. The CIA meet him there. Probably—. I don't know. They gave him a hug. What do – what do you do when the strongman you thought you were going to support to take power just runs to Rome? 

So, Mohammad Mosaddegh thinks, "I've survived. The coup has failed." So, he sends the supporters back home. 

However, the generals, the clerics, the conservative forces inside Iran that had conspired against him with the CIA, they were not. They paid a mob to dress up like Tudeh Party members, come out into the streets, and declare a communist revolution. This attracted actual Tudeh Party members to join them. A riot broke out along with street violence, all of this giving the conservative generals the excuse they had engineered to remove Mosaddegh from power, which they did on the 19th of August. They arrested him and, in his place installed, General Zahedi as prime minister. 

The shah flies back, with the CIA director in tow, determined to rule in a much more authoritarian way. He's had enough with pluralism. He's had enough with party politics. As far as he's concerned, it resulted in economic collapse, chaos, geopolitical turmoil, the offending of important allies. Et cetera, et cetera. This is where the shah becomes the strongman that we know, the iconic shah that Khomeini overthrew in 1979.

So, Aimen, after listening to me narrate Operation Ajax and everything else that happened during that pivotal point in Iran's history, what do you think? Was it as people usually think? Certainly, Iranians think this. Were MI6 and the CIA the puppet masters, secretly controlling everything from behind the scenes?

Aimen Dean Look, Thomas. I think I want the listener to indulge me a little bit here. When I say that all this talk about the CIA organising military coups here and there, whether it is in Iran, in the Congo, in Latin America, wherever it is, the reality is that, you know, MI6 and the CIA and the French intelligence or any other powerful agency, they cannot do any of this without a fertile ground already being present in the country they want to interfere in. In other word, that the circumstances in the country were ready for a coup. It's just a question of having the direction. 

So, in essence, nothing happens in a vacuum. Now, you know, the CIA does not take a one stable country, completely happy with itself, and then turn it upside down. No. There are always other set of factors, which would contribute to the greater powers of the world at the time, you know, which includes, you know, not just only the British, the French, and the Americans, but also the Soviets when they want – when they want to do something, you know, in their interest. They would basically come and say, "Okay. This country, I can change. I can exact change, because the change – there is a fertile ground for change."

Thomas Small In Iran, at that time, there were too many forces at play. Too many interests, too many political parties constantly changing sides, too many class-based issues. It was too complicated. And, you know, ultimately, Mohammed Mosaddegh, for all of his genius as a politician, he kind of dug his own grave.

Aimen Dean Yeah. He alienated so many of his traditional allies, including shah himself. He could have gained these powers if he just went to the shah and said, you know, "Your majesty, I need to enact these policies. Please. Could you help me?" 

I mean, you know, he could have, you know, heads behind the shop, behind the legitimacy of the shah, and the two could have worked things out together. But guess what? When you are trying to give the appearance of, well, being a backstabber, well, guess what? People with stab you in the front.

Thomas Small Well, there you go. That's our best attempts to explain the chequered political history of Iran in the early part of the twentieth century and at the very beginning of the Cold War. 

Mohammad Mosaddegh, as we said, his memory resounds until the present. Iranians, to this day, convinced that their one chance for a proper liberal democracy was thwarted by the CIA, still invoke Mosaddegh when they shake their fists at America and at the West. Reasonably to some extent, but I do think that it's a little bit overegged. I think that there—. Well, as I say, it was much more complicated than that. 

Nonetheless, as we'll see in the next episode, very soon after Mohammad Mosaddegh's downfall in Iran, an Arab leader of immense historical importance, learning from Iran's failed experiment of oil nationalisation and negotiations with the west, would create an even greater geopolitical earthquake. I mean, of course, the president of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Aimen Dean Very ominous.

Thomas Small On the next episode, we'll tell you all about Gamal Abdel Nasser and his impact on the Middle East. 

This is your biweekly reminder that if you're not doing so already, you can follow the show @MHConflicted on Twitter and Facebook, and argue over the finer points we've raised with other fans of the show on our Facebook discussion page. You can find that by searching "Conflicted Podcast Discussion Group" over on Facebook. 

Finally, I wanted to let you all know that, at the end of each episode, Aimen and I choose a question from a listener and answer it in our exclusive extended bonus feed. If you would like to be featured, ask us your questions on Twitter or Facebook. And then, to hear your name on the podcast and get your answer, subscribe to ad-free listening and extended bonus content for just 99p on Apple Podcasts. 

[THEME IN]

Or, if you listen on Spotify, you can find Conflicted Extra, also for just 99p per month. 

And that, as they say, is that. Please join us in two weeks' time for another exciting episode of Conflicted.

Conflicted is a Message Heard production. This episode was produced and edited by Rowan Bishop. Sandra Ferrari is our executive producer. Our theme music is by Matt Huxley.

[THEME OUT]

#

Conflicted S3 E4 - Borderline Post-Soviet Disorder

Conflicted S3 E4 - Borderline Post-Soviet Disorder

In the last episode we talked about how the American half of the Cold War was established in Saudi Arabia. Today, we’re shifting our focus to the other half of that epic conflict: the Soviet Union. What were the Soviet Union’s designs on the Middle East? Or were their forays into Middle Eastern geopolitics simply countermoves in a Cold War chess game, attempts to wrongfoot their American opponent? And now, as the spectre of war between Russia and Ukraine hangs over Europe, to what extent can Soviet history, and indeed the earlier history of imperial Russia, help us to understand what’s going on?

Listen to exclusive bonus content and get all episodes ad-free by subscribing to Conflicted Extra on Apple Podcasts and Spotify for just 99p/month.

Conflicted S3 E3 - Spying for Saudi

In this week’s episode, we focus attention on Aimen’s homeland: Saudi Arabia. Arabia is as old as time, and we explore how the depth and profundity of its history inform the present day. Saudi Arabia is also, as we’ll show, where the Cold War began, and to understand how, we’ll explain the way in which long-standing British power in the region gave way, fitfully and almost without anyone noticing, to those upstart imperialists from Thomas’s homeland: the United States. And we’ll see how the Cold War world of spycraft, ideological conflict, and state paranoia continues into the present, through Aimen’s take on the notorious murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

// Code block for the FAQ section