Regional actors must stop perpetuating sectarianism

The argument

The Middle East's drastic sectarianism has lead to an immense crisis in Syria, and on this view the only way to solve the crisis is for the root division to be dealt with rather than its symptoms. The Islamic State's brutal occupation and violence are treated here as a result of the religious tensions between the Sunnis and Shiites, not as an independent phenomenon arriving from outside. If that diagnosis is right, then measures aimed at the group alone cannot succeed, because the conditions that generated it would remain in place. The mechanism proponents identify is opportunity. The Islamic State uses the instability in Syria and exploits it to further their terrorist activities; the sectarianism in the Middle East is what gives IS the opportunity to spread bloodshed. A country divided along the same lines as its neighbours offers a terrain on which an organisation defined by those lines can operate, recruit and hold ground. That instability is not spontaneous, which is what makes the argument a demand on regional actors specifically. Some states, such as Iraq and Iran, back the Shiite Assad regime, being Shiites themselves. Others, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, back the Sunni opposition groups. Each is pursuing the prominence of its own sect through others, and the use of the Syrian battlefield in this way increases violence in the region and exacerbates the crisis. The support that sustains the conflict therefore comes from the same governments that would have to end it. The conclusion follows directly from the diagnosis. If sectarian backing is what keeps Syria unstable, and instability is what IS exploits, then the way to stop the IS, and subsequently the Syrian crisis, is not primarily military. Syria's Middle Eastern neighbors must band together despite their differences, and regional countries must stop backing groups in Syria to push their religious sect's prominence and instead work together to solve the crisis.

Context

Close after the very birth of Islam as a religion, the division entered the belief system. The prophet Muhammed, Islam's primary holy figure, died without naming a successor to lead the religion and subsequent empire. The Sunni branch of Muslims believed Islamic leaders should elect an heir, while the Shia branch believed the heir could only come from Muhammed's family. Ever since then, intense and often violent conflicts have taken place between the two sects. The ruling Assad regime of Syria is Shia, while a majority of citizens are Sunni. This division has been a large driving force in the Syrian civil war.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Solving a 1400-year-old conflict between religious sects is an unrealistic way to solve a time-sensitive crisis. Resolving the sectarianism in the Middle East would be great, but it is a decades, possibly centuries-long task. Millions of Syrians are dying and being misplaced right now, and resolving the deep rotted issue at play would take too long. An immediate solution is more realistic and helpful to solve the crisis.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] Discouraging sectarianism is not a realistic goal to end the crisis.