Comments on: Saudi Arabia and Iran to Clash?

By: Assem Salih

Assem Salih — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:29:51 +0000

I totally disagree with your idea of having a win-win situation for united states in the case of sunni-shi’ite civil war in the middle east. Remember that the Afghan civil war (1989-1996) led to the most brutal regime and most sophisticated terrorist network in the 20th century. Imagine what would a large scale middle eastern civil war bring.

By: Sue Hail

Sue Hail — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 10:47:13 +0000

The problem with the Westerners is that you guys don’t understand what role the religion play in the Muslim World.

Frankly speaking the religion is only for the poor to believe in and the powerful and wealthy to abuse and manipulate. Also the religion is used as a deterrent to democracy and an excuse not to comply with international obligations so that their hold on power is not weakend.

Whatever the outcome in Iraq, the blame is on US, either by Shia or Sunni. Iraqis will kill their brothers as much as they could in the near future as they are not to be blamed by no one in the Islamic world.

In my understanding, if US pulls out, the most likely situation will be, Iraq going into full scale civil war with a powerless government, different factions backed by various regimes in the region, making way for another brutal dictator to takeover the central government in the name of Islam. Maybe someone like Zawahiri or Zarqawi.

More unstability in the world, because of the world’s denial of the real conflict- powerless and illeterate people enslaved by relentless dictators- forcing a faith cutomised to suit the latter while they themselves do not practice it.

By: kreiz

kreiz — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 03:25:22 +0000

One of the key goals of the US preemption in Iraq was to create a counterforce of democracy and freedom that would sweep through the region. Instead, it’s looking like Saddam’s removal increased Iran and Syria’s regional hegemony and destabilized the region, leaving Saudia Arabia and Egypt feeling vulnerable. One of the many unintended consequences of the decision to remove Saddam.

By: ES

ES — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 02:41:00 +0000

More links about the Shi'ite tilt Sic Semper Tyrannis The Washington Post

The Bush administration is deliberating whether to abandon U.S. reconciliation efforts with Sunni insurgents and instead give priority to Shiites and Kurds, who won elections and now dominate the government, according to U.S. officials. The proposal, put forward by the State Department as part of a crash White House review of Iraq policy, follows an assessment that the ambitious U.S. outreach to Sunni dissidents has failed. U.S. officials are increasingly concerned that their reconciliation efforts may even have backfired, alienating the Shiite majority and leaving the United States vulnerable to having no allies in Iraq, according to sources familiar with the State Department proposal.

By: ES

ES — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 02:24:10 +0000

For the sake of being brief, there seems to be two train of thoughts out there about what the US will do with Iraq and let regional powers to help alleviate the violence. The two thoughts are total opposites, but they are spoken at the same time. In one corner is the Saudi help to strengthen the Sunnis. Here are a couple of posts I had seen about this plan: Sic Semper Tyrannis Washington Post op-ed by Nawaf Obaid The Washington Note Then there is the second plan to entrust the passing of the baton by picking the US's favorite. The intriguing part of this description is the use to Thomas Ricks' (author of FIASCO) sources in the Pentagon. The link below will have two more links - one a video of a teevee interview with Ricks and an op-ed piece Ms. Rozen had done for the LA Times two plus weeks ago. One plan is to depend on the Saudis and the other is to "throw our lots" with the Shi'ites. Which plan is the one to do? War and Piece

By: grognard

grognard — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 01:26:30 +0000

Paul in Austin, interesting scenario. The Saudis would have to determine if the Bathists once integrated into Saudi Arabia would represent a threat to the regime. Iran might have a similar problem with the Iraqi Shiites in that they might resent â€œPersianâ€? control. There are ways around these issues, mostly by paying off tribal leaders, so the scenario is a possibility, and both nations dramatically increase in size and power.

By: Paul in Austin

Paul in Austin — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:30:38 +0000

Grognard, Nice stream of consciousness.

Another options is that Iran and SA prepare for war and then divide up Iraq along ethnic lines, with Kurdistan a separate state. By that time the Iraqi’s may welcome the peace.

By: grognard

grognard — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:50:53 +0000

I am going to assume a Iran Saudi conflict that quickly includes all Shiites and Sunnis. Saudi Arabia has a population of 21 million [I am excluding non citizens] , Iran has 68 million. Iran has itâ€™s own weapons programs, but the production capacity of more advanced weapons like the various longer range missiles is questionable. They might be able to get help from North Korea, but the supply routes are easily shut down. Saudi Arabia can buy the weapons it needs but the battle will be fought on the ground and that is where Iran has a distinct advantage in numbers.
Iranian options: The straight of Homuz would a major area of contention, no doubt the US navy will do everything in itâ€™s power to keep the lanes open, and oil flowing. I donâ€™t think Iran will want to provoke the US in direct confrontation. That leaves missile attacks on oil facilities [of which Saudi Arabia has considerable built in redundancy] or ground attack from the Shiite areas of Iraq, letting shear numbers decide the issue.
Saudi options: A missile exchange creates considerable havoc but does not decide the issue, the number of Shiites, Iranian and Iraqi is a huge concern in defending the borders. In order to offset the advantage in numbers the Saudis need help from a large Sunni state, Turkey with a population of 70 million and geographically near is the logical choice. The problem with Turkey is that the military is secular, they might not want to get involved. Problem two is any ground operations would have to go through Kurdish areas. Although Sunni the Kurds might not want Turks crossing into their territory even in the name of defending the true faith.
I think if there is to be a clash between these two powers the first sign of something brewing would be a diplomatic effort by Saudi Arabia towards Turkey and the Kurds.

By: Sootytern

Sootytern — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:45:34 +0000

You really, really don’t want a refional war between Sunni and Shi’a to break out in the Middle East. I would estimate that 20% of the world’s oil shipments would disappear in a hurry. Can you live with $150 oil.
I don’t think so.
People are talking of a possible recession next year, 2007. I can guarantee it wouldn’t be just a recession but a depression. And Europe would be hurt as much as the USA.
Personnally I think the world is a lot closer to madness than many people realize. I’m a pesssimist trying to be an optimist.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:07:13 +0000

Paul, that is an interesting question. Of course, we can expect theories like that to come from certain people in the Mideast: hence, the blame is put solely on the US again (I’m sorry, I’m writing an essay about anti-Americanism and it pisses me off).

Rudi, yes I agree. My girlfriend is Muslim and we are talking about subjects like this every now and then. I heard stuff like “they are not Muslims” to “I do not understand how they can believe this”.;)

By: Paul in Austin

Paul in Austin — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:40:24 +0000

Fascinating point of view.

I wonder if the real powers behind the US throne were aiming for this. They may not have enjoyed being taken for granted by the Saudis and looked for a way to have them replace us.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:19:56 +0000

I agree somewhat with your assertion with the blame being on the Arabs. A big problem is that the Shia are seen as the ME Gypsies or US trailer trash by the Sunnis. The average Shia is far removed from the wealthy Sunnis breaking all the rules in Monte Carlo. The SA royalty are a plutocracy unwilling to to any dirty work. That’s what the poor from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are for. The rich Sunnis are worried that the ‘dirty’ Shia will storm the Bastille.