Only Regime Change Will End Iran’s Nuclear Program

Posted on by
12

Only Regime Change Will End Iran’s Nuclear Program

Matthew VanDyke with a mural of Grand Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran

Matthew VanDyke with a mural of Grand Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran

As happens so often in politics, the complex issue of how to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions has been diluted into two simplistic, opposing viewpoints. A decade of negotiations and diplomatic wrangling have produced few results, leading to the emergence of two camps: those who want even tougher sanctions, and those who want a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Neither of these options will stop Iran from acquiring the capacity to build nuclear weapons.

Sanctions

The diplomats, led by the United States, point to the effects that the current sanctions have had on Iran’s currency, inflation rate, and oil production. Iranians are certainly feeling the impact on their lives. But is the regime?

Not really. Many countries won’t enforce the oil sanctions (including China), which leaves Iran with more than enough customers to sustain its government. Iran has been under sanctions before, and the regime is quite adept at weathering the storm.

As with any authoritarian system Iran is concerned about preserving the regime, not about the people of Iran. As long as sanctions don’t lead to an uprising that threatens to violently overthrow the government, they will endure them. Sanctions that inflict some pain on the citizens of Iran would work quite well in a democratic system, but will have little effect in an authoritarian one.

Military Strike

A military strike by the United States or Israel is becoming increasingly likely. At some point Israel will have to make a decision about whether to bomb Iranian facilities before Iran begins building them so deep underground that Israel’s bombs cannot penetrate. Given domestic politics in Israel, Netanyahu’s history, and the stakes – Israel’s very survival – they aren’t going take a back seat on this issue.

There will be two consequences of bombing Iran. First, the nuclear program will be set back by a few years. Second, Iran will surely bury their new facilities deep enough underground that not even American weapons can destroy them.

Iran Will Never Give Up Its Nuclear Program

US and EU policy towards Iran is based on the erroneous assumption that Iran is a rational actor that will modify its behavior in response to hardship and incentives. This is a fundamental tenet of diplomacy. Unfortunately, it does not apply in the case of Iran for numerous reasons:

  • Iranian leaders have a history of acting irrationally. During WWII Reza Shah stubbornly refused to allow supplies to be shipped to Russia through Iran, and Britain and Russia were forced to invade the country to use the railroads. In the 1950s, Prime Minister Mosaddegh nationalized the oil industry despite the certainty that the British and American response would be harsh; two years later he was overthrown in a British-American orchestrated coup d’etat. The taunts, threats, and public statements of defiance from the current regime suggest that little has changed.
  • Part of the reason for the stubbornly defiant attitude of the regime is Iranian culture and national psyche. During my travels by motorcycle in Iran I was struck by the undercurrent of a superiority complex in the society. I hadn’t been in the country for long before I heard talk of Iran’s Aryan ethnicity, their superiority to Arabs, and a proud heritage dating back thousands of years. Add to this the megalomania of authoritarian rule and a belief that compromise projects weakness, and most rationality goes out the window.
  • Even if Iran wanted to act rationally, its leaders may lack the necessary information to make rational decisions. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, doesn’t take criticism well (the regime sentences critics to imprisonment or death); it is unlikely his inner circle is vocal in challenging his decisions or being the bearer of bad news. The information that does seep through to inform his decisions probably isn’t even accurate given the general incompetence of authoritarian governments, especially Middle Eastern ones.

The Underlying Rationality of a Nuclear Program

Despite all the signs that Iran doesn’t act rationally, their central motivation for acquiring a nuclear weapon is rational. Nuclear weapons are the only way to protect the regime against external threats. Nukes are the ultimate deterrent against Iran ending up like its neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is also an element of Persian pride at work. As one of history’s great powers, Iranians believe that their country deserves to be a member of the nuclear club, and the public supports the pursuit of nuclear technology.

Regime Change

How do you deal with an irrational regime run by religious fanatics with a cultural superiority complex and a history of bad decision making?

You don’t. Negotiations with Iran have produced little in 10 years. Nuclear weapons have been around for 70 years – any nation that is determined and resourceful enough can acquire them. It is inevitable that Iran will develop the capacity to build nuclear weapons, barring a persistent campaign to repeatedly bomb every underground facility that Iran attempts to build in the future (which neither the US nor Israel will have the stomach for since it would be illegal under international law).

This leaves only one option: remove the regime. The US and EU must place the toughest possible sanctions on Iran and pull every diplomatic lever to get the international community to enforce them. This will cause widespread dissatisfaction among many of Iran’s 75 million citizens as inflation coupled with unemployment makes life under the regime unbearable.

The covert war between Israel and Iran should continue, and the target list expanded beyond nuclear facilities and assassinations of nuclear scientists. Numerous covert actions, including sabotage of prominent government facilities in full view of the public and the exposure (or manufacture) of regime corruption and misdeeds must be undertaken to make the regime look weak, vulnerable, and incompetent in the eyes of the Iranian people.

Support should be given to Iranian opposition groups and a PSYOP campaign waged to show the Iranian people how dramatically life will improve in a post-revolution Iran.

Over 60% of Iranians are under 30 years old, and the number of Iranians on Facebook is estimated to be several million. The literacy rate in Iran is above 80%. The majority of the population was born after the Islamic Revolution and do not identify with the regime the same way their parents did. Mobilizing them through covert action should be a top priority.

A military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities that lacks the steps to encourage regime change is a short-term solution that will need to be repeated again in the future. However, a military strike that is coupled with a comprehensive, long-term campaign to incite a revolt in Iran will signal to the Iranian people how incompetent the government of Ayatollah Khamenei really is. The overthrow of Bashar Assad in Syria will further isolate and weaken Iran, and if the conditions are right when that happens, the Iranian people may take it as a sign that the time for their own revolution has come.

The potential for popular uprising is already present in Iran, as evidenced by the Green Movement in 2009. Sanctions and military action must be part of the larger strategic goal of regime change, not temporary fixes to set the Iranian nuclear program back by a few years. The seeds of revolution are still present in Iran, and they’re not buried too deep. With encouragement the Iranian Spring will come.

Matthew VanDyke on his MZ Kanuni motorcycle in front of a Ayatollah Khomeini and Khamenei billboard in Iran

Matthew VanDyke on his MZ Kanuni motorcycle in front of a Ayatollah Khomeini and Khamenei billboard in Iran

The Arab Spring and the Democratic Domino Theory

Posted on by
9

The Arab Spring and the Democratic Domino Theory

Democratic Domino Theory and the Arab Spring

The Democratic Domino Theory

You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences. – President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Eisenhower’s answer to a question about the spread of communism in 1954 would later be developed by others into the domino theory.  The theory was simple: if a country fell under the influence of communism, then neighboring countries would also, and communism would spread throughout a region.  The domino theory became a major influence on American foreign policy throughout the Cold War.

The concept of a domino theory was given new life in 2003.  Termed the “Democratic Domino Theory” (or “reverse-domino theory”), it became one of many rationales for the war in Iraq.  Some in the Bush administration believed that establishing a democracy in Iraq would lead to the spread of democracy in the Middle East, and lead to the overthrow of authoritarian regimes hostile to US interests.  This was a short-lived iteration of the domino theory (and one that few have even heard of), and was discredited as years passed when the Iraqi model failed to inspire change in the region.

Although Iraq was clearly not the domino that set off the chain reaction that many had hoped for, the Arab Spring has shown that the Democratic Domino Theory is alive and well.  The dominoes are authoritarian regimes, and they are falling.

What happened?

Just a few years ago the dominoes appeared to be glued to the table, unmovable and permanent.  Authoritarian rulers were grooming their children to take office when they died, and talk in the media and policy circles focused on hopes that the son wouldn’t be as bad as the father.

On December 18, 2010 the world changed.  Unrest erupted in Tunisia in response to a young man setting himself on fire in protest the day before.  Tunisians took to the streets and within a month the regime of Ben Ali collapsed.

The first domino had fallen.  Inspired by the protests in Tunisia, Egyptians overthrew President Hosni Mubarak after two weeks of an intense standoff between the people and the regime.

The Arab Spring was underway.  Protests erupted across the Arab world, and in many cases the authoritarian regimes responded with bloodshed.  Libya and Syria were the worst examples of how far the despots would go to cling to power, as they plunged their countries into civil war.  The Libyan civil war, which I fought in, was successful and we overthrew the regime of Muammar Gaddafi.  As of this writing, however, Bashar Assad of Syria remains in power.

How did all of this happen?  The catalyst for the Arab Spring was social media.  Expanded internet service gave Arabs access to social media like Facebook and Twitter, which allowed them to communicate and coordinate on a mass scale.  Suddenly, it became possible to quickly call thousands of people to protest.  Revolutions could be engineered with a few clicks of a keyboard.  Social media became the turpentine that once poured on the table dissolved the glue that kept the dominoes standing.

Ironically, it was the authoritarian regimes that paved the way for their own demise through internet access.  Gaddafi’s son ran the largest internet service provider in Libya, Assad was head of the organization that introduced the internet to Syria, and internet service in Tunisia was mostly provided by Ben Ali’s government.

After Ben Ali was overthrown the regimes learned quickly: a principal strategy of quelling Arab Spring unrest in their countries was to limit internet access.

Why the Arab Spring?

It is a significant intelligence and analytical failure that the Arab Spring took the West by surprise.  The phenomenon was entirely predictable to anyone who had spent enough time in the region.  The unrest was there, a seething anger waiting for the spark to ignite it.  During my years traveling the region by motorcycle, living among the local population and making friends throughout the Arab World, I would hear the murmurs of discontent.  Sometimes more than just murmurs.  Arabs were usually cautious and reserved in their criticisms, worried about who was listening, but every now and then someone would reveal the truth about what people thought of their government.  The discontent was boiling just beneath the surface.

The late Christopher Hitchens wrote of similar experiences during his travels in authoritarian states:

Someone in a café makes an offhand remark. A piece of ironic graffiti is scrawled in the men’s room. Some group at the university issues some improvised leaflet. The glacier begins to melt; a joke makes the rounds and the apparently immovable regime suddenly looks vulnerable and absurd. – Christopher Hitchens

Add to this the ability to organize via social media and the formula for mass uprising was complete.

But why did it spread so quickly from country to country, toppling authoritarian regimes like dominos?  This too was predictable.  A pan-Arab opposition to the governments of North Africa and the Middle East has existed for years, and has been stoked by Al Jazeera, the universally popular news network in the Arab World.  Virtually every television in the Arab World uses a satellite dish, and with the unifying language of Arabic most get their news from arabic Al Jazeera.  What a commentator says on Al Jazeera reaches the ears of millions, and the images shown can inspire the rage of even more.

Additionally, pan-Arabism and a culture of protest already existed because of opposition to the policies of Israel and the West, particularly with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Iraq war.  The authoritarian rulers applauded and helped incite these protests, unaware of the seeds they were sowing.

There is also a history of political movements sweeping through the region.  First was the spread of Islam.  In the 20th century there was Arab Nationalism and Arab Socialism.  Now is the time of the Arab Spring.

Furthermore, Arab culture tends to emulate success.  Many Arabs talk of wanting to develop their countries and introduce economic models to be like Dubai.  They want a democratic form of government because they see the freedom, liberty, and successes of the Western world.  Even on a micro-level following in the footsteps of success is a tradition.  When a friend or relative immigrates to another country and is successful, many more want to do the same.  Imitation is inherent in culture, but from my experiences in the Arab World I have found it to be an especially strong force in North Africa and the Middle East.

It was intuitive and predictable that once a regime fell, the Arab Spring would spread rapidly to other countries.  The dominos had been arranged long ago, and that the regimes would fall in succession was just as predictable as dominos falling once the first is pushed over.

The Iranian Spring

Once Syria falls, Iran is the next major domino down the line.  The loss of Iran’s main Arab ally in the Middle East will be devastating to the regime’s influence in the region.  Iraq is slowly taking Syria’s place, but with extensive problems of its own, Iraq is a poor substitute.

Sanctions have devastated Iran’s economy.  Their currency has lost half its value, inflation is rising, and assets have been frozen.  Iran will likely have to sell oil to Asia at discounts, in barter agreements, or on other unfavorable terms to stay afloat.

The Iranian people are suffering the effects of their government’s policies towards the West and their pursuit of a nuclear program.  A recent Gallup poll found that nearly half of Iranians claim there were times in the past year when they couldn’t afford to buy food for their families.

Iranians already rose up against the current regime during the Green Revolution of 2009.  The government crushed it with an iron fist, and the world stood by and did nothing.  Some Iranians have clearly demonstrated a desire for regime change, and now that those on the sidelines find themselves suffering under sanctions because of their government’s wreckless international policies, the conditions are being set for a larger uprising the next time.

When Assad is removed from power in Syria it will be taken as a sign of Iranian weakness.  Iran’s nuclear facilities will likely be destroyed by an Israeli or American air strike at some point as well.  This will also be viewed as regime weakness, and possibly anger some Iranians that they have suffered under sanctions for a program that their government couldn’t even defend.

Finally, the Sunni Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, with Saudi Arabia at the helm, are engaged in a sectarian rivalry with Shia Iran that is rapidly coming to a head.  They are energized and mobilized by the uprising in Syria, and have their sights set on further weakening Iran.  Once they get rolling on Syria they won’t want to stop until their conflict with Iran is resolved as well.

What Comes Next?

“It was curious to think that the sky was the same for everybody, in Eurasia or Eastasia as well as here. And the people under the sky were also very much the same–everywhere, all over the world, hundreds or thousands of millions of people just like this, people ignorant of one another’s existence, held apart by walls of hatred and lies, and yet almost exactly the same–people who had never learned to think but were storing up in their hearts and bellies and muscles the power that would one day overturn the world.” – George Orwell

The Arab Spring has inspired protests around the world.  Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas, and even the island nation of Fiji have seen protests break out in response to the successes of the Arab Spring.

Most of these protests did not amount to much – they were snuffed out by the regime or died off on their own, or had modest goals that were achieved.  Africa and Asia, however, are two regions where change is long overdue.  The dominos are almost ready to fall, and few of them will fall peacefully.

As long as the momentum of the Arab Spring continues there is little that can stop a wave of democratization from leaping country to country, and region to region.  Once one domino in these regions falls, it should accelerate the collapse of neighboring regimes.

Picking Sides

The battle lines have been drawn.  On one side are the democratic countries, assisted by a small group of non-democratic ones (like those of the GCC) that have joined them in order to take advantage of revolutions for their own strategic interests.  On the other side are the authoritarian and non-democratic (and deeply-flawed democratic) countries, consisting of both vulnerable regimes and their allies who support them for political, economic, and strategic interests, as well as a desire to prevent the Springs from spreading to them.  The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index provides a good visual illustration of where countries stand in this fight:

Democracy Index map showing democratic and authoritarian countries

2011 Democracy Index (Dark green countries are the most democratic, dark red countries are the most authoritarian)

A Responsibility to Act

The countries of the free world have a responsibility to encourage and assist in the overthrow of authoritarian regimes.  In the 21st century no man should have to live his life under an oppressive government.

In 2010 only 11.3% of the world’s population lived in democratic countries.  Of the 88.7% who didn’t, 37.6% lived under authoritarian regimes.  This means that 6.12 billion people don’t live under fully democratic systems of government, and nearly 2.6 billion of them are ruled by authoritarian regimes.

2.6 billion.  In the 21st century.

There is no excuse for allowing this to continue.  We have planted the flag of a democratic country on the moon, yet allow a third of the population on Earth to live under authoritarianism.

Those of us who live under the blessings of democracy cannot abandon 2.6 billion people to medieval forms of government that corrupt and destroy everything it means to be human.

The authoritarian regimes of the world have been weakened.  The despots are scared, and they should be.  They know what is coming.  We can eliminate this scourge with an aggressive, unwavering strategy of isolating and destabilizing their governments, and supporting revolutions against authoritarian rule.

The Democratic Domino Theory should be a major influence on US and EU foreign policy.  The regimes are desperately trying to glue their dominos to the table (and the glue is often made in Russia and China) by better arming themselves, engaging in increased surveillance of their populations, and restricting internet access.  There is a window of opportunity to liberate many more countries from authoritarianism while the momentum is still on the side of freedom.  Allowing authoritarian regimes to learn from the mistakes of those that have fallen and further entrench themselves in power is a mistake that will have profound moral, strategic, and historical consequences for the 21st century.

Freedom Fighter Matthew VanDyke in the Libyan Civil War

Freedom Fighter Matthew VanDyke working as a DShK machine gunner in the Libyan Civil War

The Syria Game

Posted on by
17

The Syria Game

The leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, recently called on Al-Qaeda fighters to join the revolution in Syria and help overthrow Bashar al-Assad.  That the United States and al-Qaeda find themselves on the same side in Syria highlights the complexity of the conflict.

Syria is about more than just Syria.  Its geographic location, ethnic and religious divisions, ties to Iran and Hezbollah, influence in Lebanon, relationships with Russia and China, vast chemical weapons program, conflict with Israel, and pivotal role in the Arab Spring movement has made it the center of a geopolitical struggle that extends far beyond Syria’s borders.

The Syrian Civil War is well on its way to becoming a proxy war, much like the Lebanese Civil War of the 1970s and 80s.  It is also part of a larger strategic rivalry between East and West, much like The Great Game between the British and Russian Empires in Central Asia during the 19th and 20th centuries.

The players in this new Great Game in Syria have chosen their sides and have enough at stake that they’ll do almost anything to win.

Team Assad

Map of the most influential countries supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria

The most influential countries supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad

Russia and China

Russia is engaged in a desperate bid for survival and relevancy in a rapidly changing world.  It has declined from a world superpower to a flawed, corrupt, quasi-democratic, largely dysfunctional shadow of its former self that is desperately grasping at spheres of influence that are steadily shrinking away.  Most of these spheres of influence are in the Arab world, Asia, and Africa, where the Russians maintain significant economic and military interests.  In Syria, these include billions of dollars in defense contracts and Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base (at the Syrian port of Tartus.)

China is a rising power with similar economic and military interests in Syria.  More importantly, both Russia and China realize that the Arab Spring is just the beginning of a wave of revolutions likely to spread across the globe, and that eventually the Arab Spring will morph into a Russian and Chinese Spring that will land at their doorsteps.  They will do whatever they can, from obstructing the United Nations to advising, arming, and supporting authoritarian regimes, in order to slow the advance of democracy around the world.

Iran

Iran and Syria have an extremely close relationship that has endured for over 30 years.  They are both ruled by Shia Muslims, are opponents of Israel, and provide funding and weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Iran will do everything in its power to prevent the fall of the Assad regime because it would eliminate their strongest Arab ally, choke off Hezbollah, deny them territory from which to launch attacks against Israel, and drastically reduce Iranian influence in the Arab Middle East.  Iran also fears that once Syria falls, Iran will be among the next countries to experience a popular uprising that threatens their own regime.

Iraq

Iraq, run by a Shia-dominated government that maintains a close relationship with Iran, has supported Assad throughout the uprising.  Iraq fears that a civil war punctuated by sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni could spill over the border and reignite more serious problems in Iraq.  There is no doubt that close ties with Iran also guide their support of the Assad regime.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah receives support from Syria, and funding and weapons from Iran.  The removal of Assad would be devastating to them, and if it paved the way for regime change in Iran as well, the organization would be unlikely to survive.

Lebanon

Hezbollah’s political alliance, “March 8,” has been the ruling coalition in Lebanon since 2011.  Although the rival “March 14” Alliance and the majority of Lebanon’s population support the uprising against Assad, Hezbollah will use their political power to keep Lebanon in Assad’s corner, or at least on the sidelines.

Team Free Syrian Army

Map of the most influential countries supporting the Free Syrian Army

The most influential countries supporting the Free Syrian Army

The West

The United States and Europe are driven by a belief in democracy and human rights.  Although they have turned a blind eye to many protest movements in the past and considered regional stability their main priority (as evidenced by the tepid response to Egypt’s uprising against Mubarak), public outcry driven by social media has combined with a realization that the Arab Spring is unstoppable and that their political, economic, and strategic interests are best served by allying with the winning side (the revolutionaries) who will form the governments of the future.

The United States and Europe also want to remove Assad because it would severely weaken Iran strategically and politically.  Regime change in Syria, combined with economic sanctions, the covert war currently being waged against Iran, and the likelihood that Iranian nuclear facilities will be bombed within the next year, could help incite an Iranian Spring and the downfall of the regime.

The West’s enthusiasm for the revolution in Syria is nevertheless tempered by concerns that a militarized, post-Assad Syria could result in a failed state that would be disastrous for regional security, especially for the security of Israel.  The fact that Syria has one of the largest chemical weapons programs in the world and the likelihood that some of these weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists after the war ends dramatically exacerbates those concerns.

Al-Qaeda

Assad’s regime is among several secular governments in the Middle East that have long been on al-Qaeda’s target list.  They are especially motivated to fight since Assad and his regime are Alawite Shia Muslims, considered heretics by al-Qaeda.  Al-Qaeda views Syria as an opportunity to join the right side of a popular revolution, and by doing so gain popularity and new recruits, weapons, and influence.  The overthrow of Assad is also central to their belief system, as the Islamic faith mandates helping oppressed Muslims.

Turkey

Turkey has no interest in a protracted, years-long civil war on its border.  But the calculations that led them to provide sanctuary to the Free Syrian Army run much deeper.  Turkey has had a contentious relationship with Syria and Iran over their neighbors’ sponsorship of Kurdish PKK insurgents who are fighting Turkey’s government.  Turkey now sees an opportunity to cut off the PKK’s funding and supply lines by removing Assad from power.  They have gone all-in on the Syrian uprising, as an Assad victory would be a significant boost to the PKK, and result in a contentious relationship that could impact regional trade for years.

The GCC

The Gulf Cooperation Council, with Saudi Arabia and Qatar as its most vocal critics of Assad, is siding with the Syrian protestors because the majority of them are Sunni, and because they want good relations with the new government after Assad falls.  They also want to weaken Iran.  While it may seem hypocritical for the authoritarian regimes of the GCC to be supporting popular uprisings, they have calculated that it is better to be seen as supportive of the Arab Spring, thereby diminishing calls for reform in their own countries.

The Game Has Begun…

All of these players in the Syrian game make the debate about foreign intervention rather meaningless.  Foreign intervention is already taking place.  The United Nations has been rendered useless by Russian and Chinese obstructionism, and the game is now being played through covert action, supplying weapons to the rebels, and diplomatic maneuvering.  The players of this game intend to win at almost any cost.  Although the outcome of the Syrian Civil War appears to favor the downfall of Bashar al-Assad, the amount of time it takes and the number of lives that are lost will be largely dependent on who plays the game the best.

The Lebanese Civil War should serve as a cautionary tale for foreign intervention in Syria.  That proxy war lasted 15 years with over 1 million killed or wounded.  The similar demographics and sectarian divisions in Syria virtually ensure a repeat scenario if the international community plays the game the same way in Lebanon.

The countries that support a free Syria must intervene in an unambiguous, direct way that signals a full commitment to the removal of Assad.  The Syrian rebels must consolidate under the banner of the Free Syrian Army.  Once they have done this, they must be well-equipped with all of the weapons, ammunition, intelligence, and supplies needed to defeat Assad as quickly as possible.

Foreign intervention in Libya helped us win the war far more quickly and with fewer casualties than would have been possible on our own.  The NATO campaign was not only strategically important, but it signaled an international commitment to the removal of Gaddafi that led to far more Libyans joining the rebel ranks.  Once this happened, we were unstoppable.

The international community has the ability, and the obligation, to ensure that the outcome of the Syrian Civil War looks like Libya, not Lebanon.

Matthew VanDyke with his Kawasaki KLR650 motorcycle at the Castle of Assassins in Musyaf Syria

Matthew VanDyke with his Kawasaki KLR650 motorcycle at the Castle of Assassins in Musyaf, Syria

Why I Fought in the Libyan Civil War

Posted on by
55

Why I Fought in the Libyan Civil War (The Libyan Revolution)

(also available in French here)

Freedom Fighter Matthew VanDyke in the Libyan Civil War

Freedom Fighter Matthew VanDyke in the Libyan Civil War

If I die, please tell your friends about me.  On February 25, 2011 when my friend Muiz made this request, the revolution against Gaddafi had been going on for a week.  On the streets fighting…fighting with hands…but we have no guns…people dying for Libya.  His brother in law had already been killed, and Muiz was resolved to die as well.  You have to know something, we Libyans aren’t scared to die anymore.  I love Libya and I don’t want anything to happen to it.  I will die for it.

I never imagined having such a conversation with a friend on the internet.  The last time I saw Muiz in Tripoli he was happy, smiling,  and carefree, a computer engineer and fellow motorcycle enthusiast with his whole life ahead of him.  Now his city was under siege by the mad man Gaddafi, one of the worst dictators of our time, and Muiz’s world was being destroyed.

Muiz was part of a group of a dozen Libyan bikers who had become good friends of mine during my time in Tripoli in 2008.  Hitem was their leader, a heavy-set, jovial biker with a heart of gold and smile always on his face.  He was a master mechanic, and lived and breathed motorcycles.  I asked Muiz if he had talked to Hitem.  He said he tried to call him but there was no answer.

I had been introduced to the bikers by Tarik, who had gotten me into the country at a time when Americans were not being issued tourist visas to Libya.  He had bribed an official to get me a business visa that said I worked for a company I had never heard of, for what was supposed to be a one week “tour” of the country.  Tarik let me stay in his office instead of a hotel, and I remained in Libya for six weeks before he was brought in for questioning by the regime and told by an official that he had to get me out of the country within 48 hours.  We drove over 1,000 kilometers from Tripoli to Tobruk in one day to make sure I got out in time.  We did, and Tarik had no problems from the regime.

He had problems now, like everyone else in Libya.  My lawyer cousin was shot in the leg yesterday while protesting.  And Abdou, the bald guy who’s always with us, his  cousin was shot with an anti-aircraft gun where Hitem lives. Two pieces when buried.  I was out and saw three gunned down right in front of me by snipers.

Tarik had made his decision.  I’m going to see if I can buy an AK-47 tomorrow morning from a guy in the army.  This is a duty.  What has to be done shall be done.

The words of my friends haunted me.  I watched the news as the revolution began to unfold.  The international community appeared to be doing nothing.  There was no appetite for military intervention.  Gaddafi had the weapons, the ammunition, the tanks, most of the army, and his air force.  The rebels had some pickup trucks with machine guns mounted in the back and Kalashnikov rifles.  It was a dire situation, and the world seemed to not care.

Muiz asked me why nobody is helping them.

That was it.  I told him I would be there.  I called my mother and told her I was flying to Libya to help my friends.  She understood and was supportive.  I then called my girlfriend at work and told her that she should come home soon because I was leaving for Libya that evening.  She was naturally not as understanding or supportive.

I wasn’t going to sit by and watch as Gaddafi killed my friends and their families.  Tarik was right, it was a duty, and what had to be done would be done.  I would go and stand by my friends, fight with them for victory and freedom, or die with them trying.

I had spent years living and working in the region, filming a motorcycle adventure documentary in eight Arab countries, and had witnessed and occasionally experienced firsthand what life was like under authoritarian regimes.  The Arab Spring was a pure revolutionary movement, one that was long overdue, and one that was noble, just, and necessary.  There would be only one opportunity to overthrow the regimes, because each would learn from the mistakes of the other, and each would arrest the troublemakers and spread the fingers of their security apparatus so deep into society that they’d have children informing on their own parents by the time it was over.  There was only one chance to get it right, all or nothing, before the regime could get back on its feet.

My ideological belief in freedom and democracy, formed by years in the region, combined with my strong friendships in Libya compelled me to take up arms as a freedom fighter.  I would not have gone if it weren’t for my friends.  I would also not have gone if the war was taking place along mere ethnic, religious, or sectarian lines.  I would have had no role in such a fight, even to help my friends.  But when my friends were fighting for freedom I could not abandon them.

So I went.  My plan was to go to Benghazi, join the revolution in whatever capacity I could (as a fighter or civilian volunteer, if they refused my participation as a fighter), check on my friends in Tripoli when the war was over, and come home.  When I got to Benghazi I called my Libyan friend Nouri Fonas, whom I had met in Mauritania in 2007.  Nouri, who was a hippie the last time I had seen him in 2008, had become a warrior.  When I saw him now in his military uniform and flak jacket, a man who had travelled the world for ten years in the name of “peace and love” but who now talked of it being “the time for war,” I knew that yes, it was the time for war, and that I could join the ranks of the Libyan rebels.

Starting that first day I was working for the revolution, helping to repair the pickup truck we would be using, moving weapons and ammunition, and planning for the war.  I called Americans I knew with military experience to ask for advice on weapons.  We worked tirelessly to get ready for our departure to the front lines, as Gaddafi’s forces swallowed one town after another on their way towards Benghazi.

On March 12 I went to Brega on a reconnaissance mission with three other men while Nouri continued his work at an army base in Benghazi.  On March 13 we were captured in an ambush.  Knocked unconscious during the ambush, I have no memory of what happened.  I woke up in a prison cell to the sounds of a man being tortured in the room above me.

I was kept in solitary confinement for 165 days, undergoing severe psychological torture.  The Gaddafi regime denied having me for over 4 1/2 months.  The world thought I was dead.  Finally they admitted I was in custody but refused to say where I was.  I was in Libya’s most notorious prison, Abu Salim.

On August 24 escaping prisoners broke the lock off my cell and we ran for our lives from Abu Salim Prison.  I waited in Tripoli for Nouri to arrive from Benghazi, and checked on my Tripoli friends I had come to fight for.  Muiz, Hitem, Tarik and the others had all survived.  Nouri and I returned to the war.

Some people in America questioned my decision to return to the front lines.  I had just spent five and a half months undergoing psychological torture in solitary confinement in one of the world’s worst prisons, and they thought I should come home.  So did my girlfriend.

My mother didn’t pressure me to come home.  She knew what I would do after prison.  She was the one who raised me to keep my commitments.  I had made a commitment to the revolution when I went to Libya, a commitment to my friends and to the men I was captured with that I would not leave Libya until Libya was free, and I was going to honor that commitment.  She also knew that I wouldn’t leave behind the men I was captured with.

Nothing had changed just because I went through a horrible experience in prison.  I was still alive, still physically able to continue service, and I had an obligation to return to duty.  If anything I owed more because I had not been able to contribute during the time I was in prison.

My reasons for fighting in the war had changed, however.  My friends in Tripoli were now safe.  But there was no way I would leave Libya while the three men I was captured with, Ali, Mohammed, and Sharif, might still be alive in prison somewhere in Libya.  Furthermore, as a POW I wouldn’t leave the country if there were any POWs still being held in Libyan prisons.  When all cities in Libya were free, then I would go home.

Nouri and I returned to the front lines together.  We joined the Ali Hassan al-Jaber Brigade of the National Liberation Army of Libya.  I was issued a Libyan military ID and we were assigned a jeep, which we outfitted with a Dushka heavy machinegun.  Nouri was the driver, and I was the machine gunner.  We had 40 engagements with the enemy, mostly at the Battle of Sirte, and were nearly killed a few times.  We served honorably and helped defeat Gaddafi’s forces in Sirte.  On October 20 Gaddafi tried to escape Sirte, and was captured and executed.

With the war over, Gaddafi dead, and all POWs free, I said goodbye to my friends in Tripoli and Benghazi, boarded a plane, and came home.  The men I had been captured with in Brega were never found, and the information we have suggests that they were executed by the regime with many other prisoners shortly before Tripoli fell in August.

I have no regrets about fighting in the Libyan Civil War.  I would do it again without hesitation, and if Libya ever faces the threat of authoritarianism again, I’ll be there helping to overthrow that regime as well.

My experiences in the war and in prison changed me forever.  Serving with brave and honorable men on the battlefield, suffering in solitary confinement, hearing the cries of those tortured by the regime echo through the prison walls, and seeing people’s faces as they celebrated freedom for the first time radically transformed me.  I am now defined by an unyielding opposition to authoritarianism, and will do whatever I can to remove this blemish from the pages of human history.

A wave of democratization is sweeping across the world.  Authoritarian regimes will fall like dominoes, and I will do whatever I can to help kick those dominoes over, including participating again as an armed combatant.  This begins with the Arab Spring, but it ends with the Iranian, African, and Asian Springs.

The 21st century is the century of freedom.