**__Syria is one of the most complex arenas in modern geopolitics, due to the number of conflicting interest groups that have an active role. So making sense of what is happening is difficult even for those who try to follow events in some detail. We will aim to provide some clarity, first by highlighting the false narratives that have been adopted by many on opposing sides of this conflict, and then explaining how best to understand the situation.
__**
**False Narratives
**
**__1. The 'Anti-Imperialist' Narrative
__**This is promoted by the political left, and is a reactionary view built around the central theme of western imperialism. It views anyone who is in opposition to the 'greater evil' of the US / NATO in heroic terms, and therefore are blinded to the reality of Assad's brutal regime as this doesn't fit with their black-and-white view of the world. This doesn't mean their political analysis is always wrong, in fact their analysis of geopolitics in the wider sense is usually sound. But their inability to call out evil if it doesn't originate from the US / NATO often puts them against oppressed Muslim communities, not just in Syria but in other areas such as China.

**__2. The 'Pure-Rebellion' Narrative
__**This is adopted by most mainstream Muslim commentators, and essentially strips the events of Syria of any wider political context and paints them as a purely home-grown movement of Syrian opposition to the government, without any significant connection to outside influence or support. This is an almost apolitical stance, one that seems to confuse ignorance with piety. There is no doubt that there was a significant opposition movement to Assad, but it was also clear that there was significant outside involvement in the form of deals between nations and military support to the rebels. Admitting this doesn't detract from the achievement or sacrifice of the rebels themselves, but not understanding this context runs the risk of being outmanoeuvred later, just as happened post-arab spring.

**__3. The 'Headchoppers' Narrative
__**This is perhaps the most dangerous of the three, as it is propagated by both sides (for different reasons), making it much more powerful. The narrative instils the assumption that religious Muslims who are trying to seek political power are inherently deranged. They therefore must prove their liberal credentials before achieving any kind of normalisation and acceptance. The left hold this view due to a deep prejudice towards religion in general, and Islam specifically, combined with a supremacist view of the world which is common amongst white-liberals. So Syria MUST be a secular state, regardless if the majority of its population are Muslim and desire an Islamic system. The liberals know what is best for the 'coloured people'. It is a form of intellectual imperialism that is ironically coming from the supposed 'anti-imperialists'.
The Muslim's fall into the trap of trying to demonstrate their liberal credentials, which normalises the idea that political Islam is dangerous. Examples of this are the posting of images of Syrian women with no headscarves, celebrating the rebellion. Such images alone are not an issue, they demonstrate the wider hatred that existed for the regime. But within the context of this narrative, it is clear that they only serve to further cement this false idea. The EU's announcement that they will not lift sanctions until the new government demonstrates progress on Women's rights shows how far this can be taken, it has become a stick to beat the new government with, to reform it in a liberal image.

**__In the next post we will explain how to make sense of what lead up to the rebellion, and what happens next.__**