This situation carries major implications for Hamas' control of Gaza, and may partially explain both the moves to challenge its authority by other Iranian-supported groups such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Popular Resistance Committee, and the current flareup of jihadist violence in and around Gaza.
Hamas is caught in the middle of attempting a balancing act between its mostly Sunni Arab constituency and its Shi'ite Iranian backers. It apparently chose its Arab loyalties, and Tehran is signaling to the group that it has other options. "Diplomats: Iran cuts back on Hamas funding due to Syria unrest," from Reuters, August 21:
Iran has cut back or even stopped its funding of Hamas after the Islamist movement, which rules the Gaza Strip, failed to show public support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, diplomats said on Sunday.
One diplomat, who asked not to be identified, said intelligence reports showed that Iran had reduced funding for Hamas. Other diplomatic sources, also relying on intelligence assessments, said the payments had stopped over the past two months.
This falling out, even if just momentary, should be seen within the context of the Sunni-Shia schism. Hamas and the opposition in Syria are linked by their common roots in the Sunni-based Muslim Brotherhood.
If we can - just for a moment - transcend the short-term exigencies of our national security policies, our strategic planners should anticipate a potential future in which a post-mullah Iran becomes a strategic ally of the West, much the way Persia provided the West with a second front against the Ottomans in centuries past. The basis for the alliance would be the existence of an irreconcilable doctrinal antagonism between Sunni and Shia...coupled with demographics, specifically the Shia status as a perpetual minority in the Muslim world.
This is why regime change in Iran has such profound implications. Those who perceive it solely within the context of thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions are missing the bigger picture.
I agree, Cornelius. Hamas only accepted the support of the mullah regime, in keeping with the adage 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', simply because Sunni-dominated countries in the vicinity, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Jordan couldn't possibly have pledged their support for their cause, keeping the historical context in mind.
It seems to me that the tables have been turning rapidly on the Shi'ite Axis of Evil, which exerted the most influence up till now in the region, whereas the Sunni countries stood by the side line. Something else that's quite striking as of late is the fact that Erdogan wants to expand his influence in the region, which suggests to me that he is very eager to claim to be able to unify all Sunni-dominated countries in particular, and eradicating all Shi'ite influence at the same time, which would spell disaster for Hizballah and the Alawites. This whole idea is quite akin to a type of Ottoman nationalism.
I wouldn't be surprised if Turkish intelligence agencies would've had a hand in the internal strife in Syria. They would have probably known very well that the Iranians had no other option than to come to the aid of the Alawite regime as a consequence. The Turks may well replace the Iranians in supporting Hamas if everything goes according to the Ottoman game plan: Turkey expands its influence, Iran loses it and Hamas doesn't have to eat out of the hands of dreaded Shi'ites.
Simple ME geostrategic policy.
"Iran has cut back or even stopped its funding of Hamas after the Islamist movement, which rules the Gaza Strip, failed to show public support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, diplomats said on Sunday."
It doesn't matter. Hamas is being funded by Europe and the US under the guise of humanitarian aid to the democratically elected murderers of a basket case wannabe state.
Iran's contributions over the years paid for the critical items that the West is not yet prepared to openly supply, such as military, propaganda and logistical support.
The Sunni-Shia rift surfaces from time to time, and as Islam makes further advances against the West it may pause periodically for the camps to go at each other tooth and nail, but don't be deceived because both sects know that behind these traditional tiffs the common enemy is civilisation.
Sunni-Shia fighting over ... Muhammad's private parts!!!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/07/private-parts-of-muhammad.html
This might be part of the reasons Hamas started this current confrontation with Israel.
One of their significant sorces of funding dried up. They needed to generate publicity so as to get cash from other sources.
Iran has cut funding to terrorist hamas, which displeased it. So why doesn't Washington also cut funding to the terrorist groups which displease us?