Answer to a Question
The Reality of Disagreements between States Dependent on a Major State
Question:
Peace be upon you and the mercy and blessings of Allah,
Is it possible for dependent states or those that orbit within the sphere of influence of a major state to struggle against one another if the major state they follow is the same for all of them? If this is possible, how can we explain it as long as the state they follow is one? Does this struggle not affect the interests of that followed state? If such a struggle does not occur, how do we explain, for example, what is happening between Iraq and Turkey, or between Iran and Saudi Arabia, or between Turkey and Iran? Thank you.
Answer:
And peace be upon you and the mercy and blessings of Allah,
The broad outlines of the subject are as follows:
It is inconceivable for states dependent on a major state to carry out actions that would harm that major state. This is because being dependent on it in foreign policy means that these dependent states follow the plans drawn up for them by the major state, or the policy it implements, without deviating from it in any detail. Their foreign actions are tied to the will of the major state, and they cannot take any action before consulting it and following its orders, such as Jordan with Britain. Jordan's rulers carry out its orders and do not perform any foreign policy action before informing the major followed state, unless it is a previously known and followed policy where they act within its framework—such as Jordan contacting Qatar (also dependent on Britain) to carry out an action that serves British policy.
As for the "orbiting state," it is linked to the major power by an association of interest, not an association of total dependency. Therefore, it might deviate from its orbit in a specific detail of foreign policy because it seeks its own interest while orbiting the major power. This deviation is directly proportional to the influence the major power had in bringing the rulers of the orbiting state to power, as stated in the Answer to a Question dated 2013/07/30: "One must observe the factors of influence and pressure of the major state on the orbiting state, which prevent it from deviating in any of these details. The strength or weakness of this prevention depends on the extent of the major state's influence in bringing the ruling class in the orbiting state to power. If the major state's influence is strong, it is extremely difficult for the orbiting state to break away from any detail. The less influence the major powers have, the more the orbiting state is able to break away from one or more details of the major state's foreign policy." For example: Canada orbits the American sphere as it orbits the British one, according to its interests. However, on 2015/09/29, Canada declared Iran a state sponsor of terrorism and closed the Iranian embassy, even considering that Iran "represents the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today," as stated by its Foreign Minister John Baird. This came after the nuclear deal cooked up by America to make Iran openly engage with it in so-called peace and security in the region. This action by Canada—which orbits the American sphere—contradicts America in a specific detail and does not support American policy; it is in America's interest for Canada to accept Iran as a state seeking to achieve peace and security, rather than cutting ties and declaring it a terrorist state threatening peace and security. Thus, an orbiting state can disagree on a specific detail if the major state's influence was not the primary cause of its rulers reaching power.
As for Turkey, the aforementioned Answer to a Question dated 2013/07/30 stated: "America's influence in bringing the ruling class to power is strong. Erdogan feels that he could not have reached power or consolidated his internal influence without American help. He sees his fate as linked to America, which has gained significant control in Turkey such that it can control the government, the rulers, the judiciary, the economy, the military, and the security apparatus... Therefore, America's influence on the government in Turkey is strong. Consequently, for Turkey to deviate in any detail from American foreign policy is extremely difficult." The answer concluded by saying: "That is, Turkey currently orbits the American sphere, and American influence in Turkey's affairs is strong. If Turkey's strong association with America continues as it is, Turkey may approach full dependency on America, and its status as an orbiting state may become questionable!" Therefore, Turkey is not at the level of Canada; rather, America's influence over it is so strong that Turkey has not been able to deviate from America in any detail. Instead, it has strengthened its link to America, agreeing with it on every minor and major matter. For instance, when Turkey, through Deputy Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu, told the American CNN channel on 2015/08/11: "The two countries (Turkey and America) agreed to establish a 'safe' zone about 100 kilometers long and about 50 kilometers wide." The Turkish Foreign Ministry statement mentioned that "Syrian opposition forces will take control of this area while America and Turkey will provide air cover." America immediately denied this through State Department spokesperson Mark Toner the following day, 2015/08/12, saying: "There is no agreement on a safe zone... and he had not seen the Turkish statements and could not deal with them." He added: "We have been clear from this podium and on several other occasions, there is no safe zone..." Turkey could not deviate from America in this detail. When it wanted to establish safe zones, it claimed it had agreed with America—meaning it cannot perform any action in foreign policy without coordination with and approval from America; if America does not approve, the matter is not realized. For example, the issue of training the "moderate opposition" that America started a year ago was approved by Turkey without objection, as was the opening of the American base to serve American interests. The Turkish Foreign Ministry announced on 2015/07/29 the signing of an agreement with America to open the Incirlik airbase for American aircraft to launch attacks in Syria. There are many other such incidents. Therefore, it is inconceivable that Turkey under Erdogan would contradict America in any detail. It acts in foreign policy with America as if it were a dependent state and has not contradicted it since Erdogan came to power 13 years ago. Recently, Erdogan visited King Salman's Saudi Arabia—which is dependent on America—and on 2015/12/30, the two countries announced the establishment of a joint strategic council to strengthen ties. Turkey had also agreed with Saudi Arabia on the establishment of a military alliance to "fight terrorism," as announced by the Saudi Deputy Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman.
As for Iran, it moves within the American orbit and has not deviated from any detail. it is almost reaching the point of being a dependent state, especially under the current President Hassan Rouhani and his Foreign Ministry team led by Javad Zarif, who is considered an American agent. It coordinated with Turkey on the issue of Syria; Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesperson Levent Gümrükçü revealed on 2013/11/28 the existence of: "Full consensus on developing bilateral relations between the two countries," "positive talks regarding Syria," and "full consensus on the commitment to cooperation between the two countries to solve the crisis in Syria and stop the bloodshed there." Erdogan visited Iran on 2015/04/07 to strengthen relations between their countries; meaning their ideological differences did not prevent their consensus in foreign policy and their alignment with the American line. Turkey also supported Iran regarding the nuclear program negotiations.
A struggle—in the sense of a real conflict—between dependent states or orbiting states is not expected if the major followed state is the same. This is because the major state manages foreign policy in general, and this policy is usually what controls the conflict. This is regarding "struggle." As for differing without a full struggle—which is more apparent among orbiting states—this can occur in three cases:
Case One: If it is a matter of "distribution of roles" to serve the interest of the major state.
Case Two: If the disagreement is due to internal motives without external effects that impact the foreign policy of the major state in whose orbit those states move.
Case Three: If it is for the sake of supporting one of the agents by heating up an event that "was quiet" between him and another agent, then returning to calm after the requirements for support have ended.
As an example of Case One:
Turkey and Iran implement American policy in the Kurdistan region of Iraq but with different roles that appear contradictory, but the reality is otherwise. Each has a role for the benefit of America that suits it:
As for Iran, it supports America's agents in this region. Since Massoud Barzani is one of the British agents, Iran supports American agents there against him. Among them is the Gorran Movement, a secular political party active in the Kurdistan region founded by Kurdish politician Nowshirwan Mustafa in 2009 after his resignation from the American-aligned Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The PUK had weakened in Kurdistan since its founder, Jalal Talabani, became the President of Iraq and the party became embroiled in corruption similar to Barzani's party. America saw the necessity of establishing another party with a new appearance, so the Gorran Movement appeared to raise the slogan of fighting corruption and to be active in opposition against Barzani, working to weaken or topple him. It demanded regional presidential elections through parliament rather than popular elections and called for reducing the powers of the regional president and granting them to parliament. It entered the regional parliamentary elections in 2013 and won 24 out of 111 seats, becoming the second-largest party after Barzani's party, which won 38 seats. Talabani's party retreated to third place with 18 seats.
As for Turkey, it works to bring Barzani under its influence to contain him for the benefit of America. It carries out many economic projects in the region. At the same time, it works to pressure him to cut any support for British agents within the PKK who are based in the Qandil Mountains in northern Iraq and carry out armed operations against Turkey. Turkish aircraft strike them in that area without objection from Barzani, as he has become reliant on Turkey, which receives him as a head of state, has established a Turkish consulate in the region, and buys oil from him.
Thus, they appear contradictory but work in harmony with American policy.
As an example of Case Two:
- The tension that recently occurred between Saudi Arabia and Iran following the execution of Nimr. Nimr had been sentenced to death over a year ago on 2014/10/16 during the reign of the late King Abdullah, who was aligned with the British. He died before the execution was carried out. This Sheikh (Nimr) was calling for the secession of Qatif and Al-Ahsa and their return to Bahrain to form a single independent province. It is known that Iran claims Bahrain is part of it and considers it its fourteenth province. Not carrying out the death sentence might cause internal embarrassment for the current King Salman, who is aligned with America. Therefore, the execution of 46 other individuals was announced along with him, including 43 people whom the regime considered takfiris, kharijites, and members of terrorist organizations.
This is from the Saudi side. As for the Iranian side, its sectarian reality necessitates protesting against such a Sheikh due to the internally charged sectarian situation.
However, this tension does not affect the implementation of American plans by both parties. America moved to defuse the tension; State Department spokesperson John Kirby said: "We believe that diplomatic engagement and direct conversations remain essential tools in working through differences, and we will continue to urge regional leaders to take affirmative steps to calm tensions." (Al-Quds Al-Arabi 2016/01/04). American Secretary of State John Kerry contacted his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif and discussed this situation. Subsequently, Kerry stated: "We want to de-escalate the tension and start a conversation between them to reach a peaceful and diplomatic solution between them" (CNN 2016/01/04). Then Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told Reuters on 2016/01/04: "Tehran must act like a normal country for severed diplomatic relations to return," and Abdallah Al-Mouallimi, the Saudi UN representative, said: "The crisis with Iran will have no impact on peace efforts in Syria and Yemen. We will participate in the next talks on Syria, provisionally scheduled from January 25 in Geneva under UN auspices." International envoy for Syria De Mistura, after his visit to Saudi Arabia and meeting with Foreign Minister Jubeir, said: "Saudi Arabia confirmed that tensions with Iran will not hamper the talks for the political process in Syria scheduled in Geneva this month" (Al Jazeera 2016/01/05). Meaning, these tensions between the two countries are on internal issues that do not affect the progress of both countries in implementing the American project related to ending the Syrian revolution, aborting its Islamic project, and preserving the criminal secular regime in Syria.
Thus, internal motives may highlight a temporary disagreement until those motives disappear or are calmed, but that disagreement remains under control and does not affect American interests.
As an example of Case Three:
- The issue of Abadi's objection to the presence of Turkish forces. This came to bolster his position and the position of his government, whose public trust had sunk to rock bottom. America wanted to polish the image of its agent Abadi and his government by raising this issue to support him morally by showing him as a guardian of the country! Turkey answered him by saying it entered at his request a year ago to train his forces. Nevertheless, Turkey responded and carried out a partial withdrawal and redeployment of its forces. Then the Arab League issued a statement supporting the demands of Abadi's government and demanding Turkey's withdrawal. It is well known that this Arab League is directed by America. Thus, the matter ended without a struggle!
For information, America not only supports Abadi morally but beyond that, it does not want Abadi's government to fall under these circumstances. Especially since Abadi appeared shaken after promising to liberate Ramadi and failing, he needed a dose of support secured for him by America. It carried out continuous airstrikes in Ramadi, reaching 630 raids as the White House announced on 2015/12/30, and then the control of the Iraqi army over the government complex in Ramadi was announced.
The conclusion is that it is unlikely for a struggle—in the sense of a real conflict—to occur between dependent states or those orbiting the same major power. Rather, a calculated disagreement may occur as a distribution of roles, for internal motives, or to support an agent. In all cases, this happens without harming the interests of the major followed state.