CIA was wrong this time: It said it wouldn't develop in Syria, but it has been going on for 13 years

Masum Gök/ 12punto EXCLUSIVE

The US intelligence agency CIA had determined in classified reports written in the 1980s that radical Islam would continue to grow stronger. Predicting that radical Islam would develop in many Muslim countries, the CIA was only wrong about Syria.

In a classified report written in 1986, it predicted that radical Islam would not be able to gain strength in Syria, stating: "Despite serious economic and political problems that have contributed to strong fundamentalist movements elsewhere in the Arab world, there will likely not be an explosion of support for radical fundamentalism in Syria. Syrians generally appreciate the political stability that President Assad (Hafez Assad) has provided to the country since he came to power in 1970. Assad has maintained his tight control over the army and security forces and has exploited the Syrians' fears regarding Israel." 

In fact, the CIA report also reveals that the liberal policies of Bashar al-Assad, who succeeded Hafez Assad, revived radical Islam. Following the opening-up policy during the Bashar al-Assad era, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood emerged stronger from this process and initiated the internal conflict in 2011. The situation that could occur after Hafez Assad is expressed in the CIA report as follows: 

"We believe that as long as Assad remains in power, the likelihood of fundamentalism growing in Syria will remain low. However, the post-Assad era is likely to offer greater opportunities for fundamentalists to advocate their cause. Fundamentalists may exploit poor economic conditions, but ethnic and sectarian divisions will likely continue to prevent the growth of a significant fundamentalist opposition."

However, because a radical structure did not form among the Syrian people, foreign jihadists have come from many parts of the world since 2011, and they have participated in the majority of the clashes with the Syrian army. The reason why the Sunnis, who make up the majority in Syria, would not join radical Islamists is explained as follows:

"-The Sunni landowning and business elite, who survived by taking Alawite partners in the early years of Assad's rule, have maintained their existence. These Sunnis now have a stake in stability and are unlikely to make a religious call against the government.

-There are Sunnis in high-level positions in the government, the Ba'ath Party, the army, and the security services. Most of these Sunnis share the rural origins of the Alawites and have risen to positions they could not have reached in the days before Assad.

-Although the Ba'ath is a secular ideology, it generally does not conflict with Islamic values and culture. Many Sunnis may be satisfied with the inherently Islamic nature of the Ba'ath while ignoring its secular aspect."

News Source: Masum Gök