5 ms·
>Having strong relations with both Shiite and Sunni powers in the Middle East will likely reduce sectarian violence. This is a ridiculously optimistic, naïve,
by kobayashi 11y ago
>Having strong relations with both Shiite and Sunni powers in the Middle East will likely reduce sectarian violence.
This is a ridiculously optimistic, naïve, and shallow reading of the situation.
To better understand the current state of sectarian conflict, I highly recommend reading Kenneth Pollack's recent Brookings essay. [0] To quote:
>Indeed, both the civil wars and the spillover they generate have also produced a general mobilization of the Middle East’s Shiites, instigated and led by Iran. And that includes the Shiites in the Saudi kingdom. Officials in private and press reports occasionally note that hundreds of Saudi security service personnel have been killed and wounded in operations in the Eastern Province, the home to the vast majority of the kingdom’s Shiites. Americans tend not to pay attention to these operations because we see them as proof that the Saudis have things well in hand; but another way to look at it is that the Saudis are fighting pitched battles with someone in the cities of the Eastern Province. In other words, there seems to be a much higher degree of mobilization and violent confrontation among the Saudi Shiites than most realize.
[0] http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/01/08-fear-and-loathing-saudi-arabia-pollack?rssid=Markaz http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/01/08-fear-...
- tyre 11y agoIt is optimistic, but not naive. I'm not saying that our relations will in any way reduce the two sides' hatred for each other. The US now has a vested interest in reducing tensions between Sunnis and Shiites. If we have a diplomatic partner on one side of the fight (e.g. only the Saudis), our response must be to either support their interests in the region or stay out of it. If we have interests on both sides, our options are to either push for peace or to play the sides against each other in hopes of chaos and a mutual weakness. We may end up pushing for the latter, as was the case in the Iran-Iraq war, but with a shared enemy in the Islamic State and our long-overdue recognition that chaos hurts our own security and economic interests, it is in our own self-interest that we advocate for stability. Let me be clear: both Iran and Saudi Arabia are ruled by theocratic despots. They will continue to revile each other and assert themselves in the region. But it is far easier to turn a blind eye on their bad behaviour when we have no other option (both in SA and Pakistan.)
- bhouston 11y agoThe Kenneth Pollack article really makes Saudi Arabia look bad. The Saudi Arabian regime is actually more autocratic and less democratic than Iran.
- kobayashi 11y agoWell, I agree that Saudi Arabia's regime is more autocratic and less democratic than Iran, given that SA is one of the world's last absolute monarchies. However, I think Pollack accurately depicts SA as largely reactionary to Iran's external meddling, which is highly disruptive to the region and the world. Pollack didn't really touch upon the issue of Iran as a revolutionary power, but I think it's worth noting. The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to act as a movement, rather than a status-quo power, as it continuously acts to export its revolution and remake itself as the dominant hegemon in the region and beyond.
- bhouston 11y agoYou seem to have a belief that Iran is worse that SA for some somewhat undefined reason. I can not aruge with that.
- kobayashi 11y agoTo briefly summarize why I think the Iranian regime is worse than the Saudi regime - Iran is a more destabilizing force. It's the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism and it seeks to remake itself as the Middle East's superpower by whatever means necessary. It calls for, and takes actions towards the destruction of a UN member state. In short - SA is a despicable regime that mostly keeps it's human rights abuses confined to its borders, while Iran conducts its despotic behaviour both internally and externally. PS: the fact that Iran knows how to play the Western media, speaking in terms that resonate with Western audiences, is very troubling.
- timeu 11y agoseriously ? Are we talking about same SA that sponsors radical islamists and islamic schools all around the world and delivers weapons and money to radical islamists in Syria which fuels the civil war ? The same SA that hangs a shiite cleric as an atempt to sabotage the atom deal ? Sorry but SA is the worst regime in the world and if it would vanish tomorrow, the world would be probably a better place.
- hackuser 11y ago> ridiculously As an aside, when I see hyperbole like that in a comment, I stop reading. I assume the reader is just ranting (and I really don't need to read yet another rant on the Internet) and even the valuable content is going to have subtle facts, analysis and judgement sacrificed for dramatic overstatement. (Sorry to pick on this comment, I know it's a widespread phenomenon.)
- kobayashi 11y agoI understand where you're coming from. I don't usually use hyperbole, but sometimes we type as we talk, and I'm no exception.