Article source: Sobh-e Sadeq
Article date: 18 July 2011
Sobh-e Sadeq, the weekly political newspaper of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), in its latest edition has warned Turkey about its position on Syria. The IRGC has supported the series of uprising in the Middle East and North Africa beginning in 2011, which it calls the “Islamic Awakening”, especially what it views to be the anti-Western revolts against Ben-Ali of Tunisia, Mubarak of Egypt, and others.
However, it has taken the opposite stance on the uprising in Syria. As the author explains: “It can be shown with logic and reason that this Syria is a “similar yet distinct” case…Syria, in its nature and governmental position, differs from other countries in the geographic scope of these events…Syria is on the vanguard of the resistance front and because of its dedication to this cause has paid a heavy price and become the target of the wrath of America, the West, and Arab regimes.”
The author recognizes certain cause for discontent with the Syrian regime leading some to question the rule of Basher al-Assad. However he emphasizes that in the case of Syria foreign powers have taken advantage of this discontent by “…interfering in Syria’s affairs, organizing the discontent, and spurring [them] on and creating chaos, protest, vandalism and killing…from the point of view of the US, Western and Arab countries, the overthrow of Assad’s regime’s is valuable enough as to compensate and even exceed [their] losses in the region thus far…In the instance of the collapse of the al-Assad’s regime and its replacement with a pro-Western regime the regional equation will shift back in [their] favour.”
Next the author focuses on Turkey’s position on the uprisings, criticizing it and concluding that it is hypocritical. He emphasizes that in Tunisia and Egypt the Turkish government fully supported the people, in Libya it initially supported the government and eventually the people and in Yemen and Bahrain it has not supported the people.
After highlighting Turkey’s hypocritical and contradictory policy toward the Arab Spring, the author further castigates Turkey for its interference in Syrian affairs: “Turkey on two occasions was the host of the Syrian opposition, and…As some Syrian officials have pointed, part of the Syrian oppositions weaponry have entered Syria by way of Turkey.”
He concludes by saying that to the extent which “Iran’s interests’ are seriously bound up with Syria’s issues…if Turkey’s leaders continue to insist on this path to the degree that Iran is forced to choose between Turkey and Syria, Iran on the basis of its strategic interests and ideological proclivities will choose Syria.”