Has the religious civil war started in the Middle East?

[YmirGF]

The current problems are a product of the 1979 Iranian revolution and the Saudi led response, modern nationalism, the nation state, US Middle East policy amongst others.

To view it as a 1400 year old conflict is facile and unenlightening. 1979 is a better start point.

And yet, to skip over the meaty bits that made those events precipitous is a bit disingenuous.

 

[metis]

I would not mind living in Italy myself and I'm not even Italian. However, the people of Italian heritage (The one's I know) who came here as a result of WW2 do not seem to have any desire to return.
I find that typically people who came here as war refugees, not just Italians but also Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Afghan, Iraqi, Palestinian etc.

A small group of my wife's relatives have, but they weren't here for that long to begin with.

 

[esmith]

The problem is that when a country appears weak and unwilling to face reality other countries tend to see you as weak or unwilling to make hard decisions which can and has caused major wars and conflicts. When a country projects strength and backs that up with the will to commit military action, your adversaries are less likely to make decisions based on an assumption based on the aforementioned. If you look back at history you will see that wars and major conflicts happen when one or more countries perceive that they can project their agenda without fear of reprisal.

By this logic, the United States should just carpet bomb the ISIS controlled regions. That would certainly project strength, as you say. It would also be a serious war crime and a humanitarian disaster.

The reality is that we have a containment strategy in place. It is the only plausible strategy for the time being.

I guess you do not seem to understand the idea of "peace through strength" (old statement). If an adversary knows that you will back up your words with action then they will be less likely to actually confront you. FYI we are not attempting to negotiate with ISIS and your statement to "carpet bomb ISIS controlled areas" is not germane to the concept I was putting forward. We are NOT containing ISIS or many other so called Islamic terrorist organizations, as a matter of fact they are continuing to infect more and more areas of the world. Would like to know where you get your idea behind the statement " The reality is that we have a containment strategy in place". And just what is this strategy?

 

[metis]

I would suggest that us now pretty much forcing the countries over there to actually help us fight elements like ISIS is actually a rather smart move.

 

[esmith]

I would suggest that us now pretty much forcing the countries over there to actually help us fight elements like ISIS is actually a rather smart move.

So, we are supporting Saudi Arabia in their fight against the al-Houta rebels who are supported by Iran, while we are supporting Iraq who is being supported by Iran, at the same time we are supporting whatever group is opposed to Bashar al-Assad of Syria who is supported by Iran. While again trying to negotiate with a government (Iran) who is a state sponsor of terrorism for a non-nuclear weapons proliferation treaty that doesn't have any meat in it which in the eyes of most experts cause other nations in the area, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and any other country that has the expertise and moneyto start their own nuclear weapons programs. Wow such a convoluted mess and the very high possibility of a nuclear weapons race in the region. Guess this administration really has their eyes on the ball. Oh forgot Putin and his little adventurism.

 

[metis]

So, we are supporting Saudi Arabia in their fight against the al-Houta rebels who are supported by Iran, while we are supporting Iraq who is being supported by Iran, at the same time we are supporting whatever group is opposed to Bashar al-Assad of Syria who is supported by Iran. While again trying to negotiate with a government (Iran) who is a state sponsor of terrorism for a non-nuclear weapons proliferation treaty that doesn't have any meat in it which in the eyes of most experts cause other nations in the area, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and any other country that has the expertise and moneyto start their own nuclear weapons programs. Wow such a convoluted mess and the very high possibility of a nuclear weapons race in the region. Guess this administration really has their eyes on the ball. Oh forgot Putin and his little adventurism.

Just a quick reminder that it was Bush's absolutely crazy excursion in Iraq that really started this mess. I know you don't like to hear this but it is very much the truth. War makes for some rather strange bedfellows at times, and this is one of those times.

Do I believe Obama played all of his cards right? No. The heavy use of drones has caused much damage to us as it has hardened the opposition and helped them recruit.

So, what's your solution? Bomb the hell out of everybody there? Send maybe 100 thousand more American troops? If you think Obama has done so wrong, what's your solution?

And what's your solution with the Ukraine? Arm the country, thus increasing the chances of a major Russian/American conflict that could very easily escalate? How about Iran? Bomb them, without sending ground troops, which the defense experts have stated simply will not work? So, what's your solutions?

It's all so typical of Republicans who whine and complain but offer no solutions-- just platitudes.

 

[esmith]

Just a quick reminder that it was Bush's absolutely crazy excursion in Iraq that really started this mess. I know you don't like to hear this but it is very much the truth. War makes for some rather strange bedfellows at times, and this is one of those times.

Do I believe Obama played all of his cards right? No. The heavy use of drones has caused much damage to us as it has hardened the opposition and helped them recruit.

So, what's your solution? Bomb the hell out of everybody there? Send maybe 100 thousand more American troops? If you think Obama has done so wrong, what's your solution?

And what's your solution with the Ukraine? Arm the country, thus increasing the chances of a major Russian/American conflict that could very easily escalate? How about Iran? Bomb them, without sending ground troops, which the defense experts have stated simply will not work? So, what's your solutions?

It's all so typical of Republicans who whine and complain but offer no solutions-- just platitudes.

Ok, you blame President Bush for getting us into Iraq, but then again we do not know what would have happened if Saddam was left in power. However, that is a moot point, Iraq did happen
Now I blame Obama for not listing to his military advisers about leaving a military presence in Iraq. Again it is a moot point, Obama did.
US involved in overthrow of Libya government but fails to follow through with assistance to keep Islamic terrorist from gaining power. ISIS moves into Libya eventually
Now I blame Maliki for his purge of Sunni's from his administration and military. Again a moot point. Maliki did.
Obama backs down from his "red line" in Syria showing that he doesn't have whatever it takes to back his threats. This could be the start of why countries think they can do whatever they want without consequences.
Iraq request assistance from the US to help battle ISIS. Obama rejects the request, Iraq now goes to Iran for assistance
Obama promises to arm the Kurdish forces to battle ISIS; Kurdish forces still do not have the promised equipment
ISIS forces continue to make advances in Iraq and Syria; Obama administration seems at loss what to do to counter this. Pin prick bombing does little to counter ISIS
Iranian along with Iraqi military and militia go on the offensive in Iraq. US air power used to support Iraqi forces. What about the Iranian forces, did our attacks support the Iranians
Yemen government falls to Iranian backed militia. US surprised by the sudden fall.
Obama administration in talks with Iran over nuclear weapons program. Iran will probably get what they want.

So, you ask what I would do. Well let's put it this way. Things are so screwed up in the region now that there is probably nothing that can be done to stop a probable major conflict However, the first thing I would do is present Iran with our demands.
Remove all enriched uranium to another country
Remove all centrifuges
Open up all of Iran to inspection of the IEAE

If the following is not started within 15 days economic sanctions will be imposed and enforced. Military actions are not off the table. All ships leaving the ports of Iran will be stopped and boarded. Any contraband will be confiscated and the vessels will be impounded. Any vessel no complying will be given due warning then sunk.


.

 

[Moishe3rd]

This current Great Sectarian Arab Muslim Civil War started with the demise of the Ottoman Empire.
The tribe of al Saud had been trying to impose their Wahhabist heresy on the Arabian Peninsula for the previous 200 years. With the demise of the Ottomans, they managed once more to successfully conquer the Arabian Peninsula and create their own Saudi Caliphate - Saudi Arabia. After the Saudi Ihkwan sacked, looted, and conquered Mecca, they refused to turn it over to the Saudis and the Saudis had to raise another army to attack their own fanatic shock troops in order to claim Mecca.
Once the Arab/Muslim world no longer had a "Rightly Guided Caliph" in the form of a Muslim Empire and the Saudis opened the Gates of Ijtiahd; "independent reasoning" and replaced normative Sunni Islam with Wahhabism, every Arab/ Muslim faction and sect began to fight to seize power.
They have been fighting each other ever since.
Khomeini's new invention, the Iranian Shia Vilayat al Fiqh, is just he latest new Shia cult to enter the fray. Shia Islam has been splitting out various "messianic" cults since its inception. Some, like the Druze, are not even considered Muslim anymore. The Houthis of Yemen are Zaidi Shia which was a breakaway back towards Sunni Islam started by the grandson of Husayn ibn Ali. Shia means partisans or followers of Ali.
So, the Houthis will gladly take Iran's money and arms but, if they were ever in a position of dominance, they would be attacking Iran as easily as Saudi Arabia.
It's a world war and can only end badly.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

We live in a time called Al-Malhama. These are mini wars before the great war starts. Malhama is sign of Amiir Mahdi's arrival.
Allah knows best how long the mini wars will be. It could be years ,decades or centuries.

 

[Augustus]

And yet, to skip over the meaty bits that made those events precipitous is a bit disingenuous.

We don't analyse the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland with recourse to the Protestant reformation and the 30 Years War though.

 

[YmirGF]

We don't analyse the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland with recourse to the Protestant reformation and the 30 Years War though.

True, but as others have indicated in this thread, the problems here are a tad more complicated.

 

[Augustus]

True, but as others have indicated in this thread, the problems here are a tad more complicated.

Not really much different. Some people just see it as more 'exotic' and fall into that trap. 1979 is still the key date for what we see today.

 

[metis]

Ok, you blame President Bush for getting us into Iraq, but then again we do not know what would have happened if Saddam was left in power. However, that is a moot point, Iraq did happen
Now I blame Obama for not listing to his military advisers about leaving a military presence in Iraq. Again it is a moot point, Obama did.
US involved in overthrow of Libya government but fails to follow through with assistance to keep Islamic terrorist from gaining power. ISIS moves into Libya eventually
Now I blame Maliki for his purge of Sunni's from his administration and military. Again a moot point. Maliki did.
Obama backs down from his "red line" in Syria showing that he doesn't have whatever it takes to back his threats. This could be the start of why countries think they can do whatever they want without consequences.
Iraq request assistance from the US to help battle ISIS. Obama rejects the request, Iraq now goes to Iran for assistance
Obama promises to arm the Kurdish forces to battle ISIS; Kurdish forces still do not have the promised equipment
ISIS forces continue to make advances in Iraq and Syria; Obama administration seems at loss what to do to counter this. Pin prick bombing does little to counter ISIS
Iranian along with Iraqi military and militia go on the offensive in Iraq. US air power used to support Iraqi forces. What about the Iranian forces, did our attacks support the Iranians
Yemen government falls to Iranian backed militia. US surprised by the sudden fall.
Obama administration in talks with Iran over nuclear weapons program. Iran will probably get what they want.

So, you ask what I would do. Well let's put it this way. Things are so screwed up in the region now that there is probably nothing that can be done to stop a probable major conflict However, the first thing I would do is present Iran with our demands.
Remove all enriched uranium to another country
Remove all centrifuges
Open up all of Iran to inspection of the IEAE

If the following is not started within 15 days economic sanctions will be imposed and enforced. Military actions are not off the table. All ships leaving the ports of Iran will be stopped and boarded. Any contraband will be confiscated and the vessels will be impounded. Any vessel no complying will be given due warning then sunk.


.

As far as the listing above is concerned, each of these items could be discussed in some detail, and let me just add that there are a couple of areas that I do have problems with what Obama did or didn't do, such as not providing more support for the Kurds, but even with that there's some issues with that could take one in the direction of not supplying them with very much, as how often have we seen weapons to groups we supplied eventually being turned on us and/or our allies.

As far as your latter thoughts on Iran, I agree with two out of the three, but removal of all centrifuges simply ain't gonna happen, and this isn't because of the issue of negotiations but more a matter of national pride. Even though military action may become necessary, it would be a mess in more ways than one-- Iran ain't Iraq, and the military experts I've listened to simply state that this would be a prolonged conflict that would have to have many thousands of American troops on the ground. And some oil experts here have projected that under a worse-case scenario that gas could jump here in the states to as high as $15-17 per gallon for a limited time, and this could cause a major recession. However, I do agree that maybe down the road we may not have any other choice but to use force.

The biggest problem that I have with your post overall is that each one of the steps you propose puts the States dead center in doing just about everything on our own, and exactly how many more American lives and money would we lose, and how many more tours of duty would continue to drain those we send there? The one thing Obama has done very much correctly is to pretty much let the countries over there share most of the burden, and that has been a very smart move.

Gotta go, but thanks for your detailed response.

 

[YmirGF]

Not really much different. Some people just see it as more 'exotic' and fall into that trap. 1979 is still the key date for what we see today.

Well, it is a significant date, to be sure. Yassar Arafat was already a fixture on the scene though. Granted, the PLO were still small potatoes back then, but they were managing to get attention.

 

[esmith]

As far as your latter thoughts on Iran, I agree with two out of the three, but removal of all centrifuges simply ain't gonna happen, and this isn't because of the issue of negotiations but more a matter of national pride.

I will concede that the removal of all centrifuges is not workable. However reducing them to the point that enriching uranium to weapons grade is impossible

Even though military action may become necessary, it would be a mess in more ways than one-- Iran ain't Iraq, and the military experts I've listened to simply state that this would be a prolonged conflict that would have to have many thousands of American troops on the ground.

I see no reason to engage Iran in a ground war and in actuality do not even think it would be advisable. Imposing harsh sanctions to the point of almost a total blockaded and insuring that all nations abide by it would be possible but difficult.

And some oil experts here have projected that under a worse-case scenario that gas could jump here in the states to as high as $15-17 per gallon for a limited time, and this could cause a major recession.

Yes the price of oil could be severely affected. The Strait's of Hormuz could become a choke point for oil coming out of the Middle East if the Iranians were inclined to attempt to close it. But by doing so they would be basically declaring war and this would probably cause a coalition of nations to wage a massive air and sea attacks against Iranian military forces. As far as the price of oil that could be handled but I hate to even suggest how that would be accomplished. The world could get by without Middle East oil but it would get nasty.

However, I do agree that maybe down the road we may not have any other choice but to use force.
The biggest problem that I have with your post overall is that each one of the steps you propose puts the States dead center in doing just about everything on our own, and exactly how many more American lives and money would we lose, and how many more tours of duty would continue to drain those we send there? The one thing Obama has done very much correctly is to pretty much let the countries over there share most of the burden, and that has been a very smart move.

Nations have come together before when a threat is seen. The way I see it, if Iran is allowed to obtain nuclear weapons it will start an arms race in the region as I stated before and I really don't think that the world wants to see this. The problem with putting the burden on the countries in the Middle East, Africa, Indonesia, and the Philippines is that they can not handle the rapidly expanding threat of the current so called Islamic extremists. A recent report by the UN says that the number of fighters leaving home to join al-Qaida and the Islamic State group in Iraq, Syria and other countries has spiked to more than 25,000 from over 100 nations, that the number of foreign fighters worldwide had soared by 71% between the middle of 2014 and March 2015. The world is going to have to answer this problem. In the past the world has looked to the US for leadership in situations like this and as we are the most powerful nation on Earth we are going to have to step up and take that responsibility whether we like it or not. This is not saying that we have to supply all of the manpower, but we will have to, unfortunately, shoulder a lot of the burden.
Information about the UN report was gleaned from
:
UN says '25,000 foreign fighters' joined Islamist militants - BBC News
Islamic State, Al Qaeada Receive More Than 25,000 Recruits: UN

 

[Augustus]

Well, it is a significant date, to be sure. Yassar Arafat was already a fixture on the scene though. Granted, the PLO were still small potatoes back then, but they were managing to get attention.

What's Yasser got to do with it? This is really post secular Arab nationalism.

 

[metis]

Nations have come together before when a threat is seen. The way I see it, if Iran is allowed to obtain nuclear weapons it will start an arms race in the region as I stated before and I really don't think that the world wants to see this. The problem with putting the burden on the countries in the Middle East, Africa, Indonesia, and the Philippines is that they can not handle the rapidly expanding threat of the current so called Islamic extremists. A recent report by the UN says that the number of fighters leaving home to join al-Qaida and the Islamic State group in Iraq, Syria and other countries has spiked to more than 25,000 from over 100 nations, that the number of foreign fighters worldwide had soared by 71% between the middle of 2014 and March 2015. The world is going to have to answer this problem. In the past the world has looked to the US for leadership in situations like this and as we are the most powerful nation on Earth we are going to have to step up and take that responsibility whether we like it or not. This is not saying that we have to supply all of the manpower, but we will have to, unfortunately, shoulder a lot of the burden.
Information about the UN report was gleaned from
:
UN says '25,000 foreign fighters' joined Islamist militants - BBC News
Islamic State, Al Qaeada Receive More Than 25,000 Recruits: UN

There's nothing above that I disagree with, nor with the other stuff you posted that I didn't quote here. However (you just knew this honeymoon couldn't last), we have to get off the mindset that we are "the solution" because we ain't-- not in that area of the world especially. Dealing with Iran is a tough enough problem with all sorts of things that could go wrong, but when dealing with what's going on in the M.E. and northern Africa, the prognosis is so nightmarish that we really have to think things through many times over before we get involved in the myriad of quagmires that exist there.

Not to pat myself on the back, but not only have I been to the region a couple of times for study purposes, but I've specialized in the study of the region anthropologically, including teaching a three week unit on it in my introductory anthropology class. I also used to belong to the Council on Near Eastern and North African Studies for 15 years, attended many seminars on various aspects of the Middle East, and have had many discussions with people who live in the region, including many who live in Israel and a fair number who live in some of the other countries there. I mention this because this area of the world tends to make fools of experts-- it's that complicated and volatile-- and there have been some turns that have surprised me as well.

When I hear some of these politicians talk about the Middle East and seen some of their actions over the decades, my reactions is to want to grab some of them by the shoulders, shake them, and say "What the hell are you thinking!". Not only do most not appear to have much of a clue about the region, so many of their actions appear to be more politically motivated than sensible responses. Boehner said something the other day, although I can't off-hand remember what it was, and I turned the sky blue around here with one profanity after another. I've gotten equally angry at Obama with a couple of his decisions, especially his over-use of the drones.

Anyhow, you and I may not be as far off as one might think on what might have to happen, so let me leave you and I with a word of condemnation from Confucius: "May you be cursed to live in interesting times".

 

[Typist]

My take is that the same process that took hundreds of years to resolve in Europe is now playing out in the Middle East.

It may seem amazing to us today, but Catholics and Protestants used to be at each other's throats just as Sunni and Shia are today. It took tons of carnage to settle that ideological battle, and apparently it was all for nothing as the two branches of Christianity are largely at peace today.

The other defining battle was between fascists and democrats. That struggle is STILL underway in Europe, even though tons of great progress has been made. The Mideast is having that very same battle, but is hundreds of years behind Europe.

These epic battles will all get settled in the Mideast eventually, but we'll all be long dead by the time it happens. It took hundreds of years to resolve these issues in Europe, and the Mideast will be no different.

Anybody in the Mideast seeking peace needs to pack a suitcase, and look for it elsewhere.

 

[metis]

My take is that the same process that took hundreds of years to resolve in Europe is now playing out in the Middle East.

It may seem amazing to us today, but Catholics and Protestants used to be at each other's throats just as Sunni and Shia are today. It took tons of carnage to settle that ideological battle, and apparently it was all for nothing as the two branches of Christianity are largely at peace today.

The other defining battle was between fascists and democrats. That struggle is STILL underway in Europe, even though tons of great progress has been made. The Mideast is having that very same battle, but is hundreds of years behind Europe.

These epic battles will all get settled in the Mideast eventually, but we'll all be long dead by the time it happens. It took hundreds of years to resolve these issues in Europe, and the Mideast will be no different.

Anybody in the Mideast seeking peace needs to pack a suitcase, and look for it elsewhere.

I wish you were wrong.

 

[Typist]

I wish you were wrong.

Let's hope I am.

But it's hard to justify such a hope as we daily watch much of the Mideast turning in to not just a failed state, but a failed continent.

Those of us outside of the Mideast now have the luxury of feeling sorry for the participants from a safe distance. But if, or more likely when, the chaos reaches in to Saudi Arabia, that may change. As you all know, the traditionally very cautious Saudis are now engaged in what appears to be just short of a full scale war. That would seem to suggest that they too see the threat to their stability as being very real.

As for me, I'm probably only a few weeks short of being that guy on the corner with a long shaggy beard holding a "The End Is Near" sign.