Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Real Middle East Dominos

The Real Middle East Dominos

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Bush gave a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy that was widely panned as a hoary rehash of worn themes. It certainly wasn’t effective at rallying support for his Iraq policy (currently hovering at 40% or less) or at convincing people that terrorism is job #1 (only 7% of the public think it the most important issue). What it did do was describe the new specter said to be haunting the Middle East: a pan-Islamic movement bent on global domination and competition with the West whose revolutionary vanguard is al Qaeda network terrorists.

How realistic is such a bugaboo? What are the prospects of what is essentially the negative correlative of the Neo-Con democratic domino theory for the Muslim world?

The lands with majority Muslim populations, especially those of the Middle East, have long been home to super-nationalist sentiments. The imperial past of Islam under the Caliphates is a golden age to the minds of many. Such internationalist sentiments have historically taken the form of pan-Arabism – an appeal to the allegiance to the common ties of language, culture and history – embracing people from North Africa to Mesopotamia. The very party we just toppled from power in Iraq, the Ba’thists, were the failed secular embodiment of that aspiration. However, in recent history it is pan-Islamism that, much like Christo-Conservatism here in the U.S., seems to have gained populist traction among average people.

There is a growing tendency to see the possibility of a pan-national political entity born of the religious affiliation among the people of the Middle East. Certainly, al Qaeda and its ilk are a product of, and proponent of, such dreams. The threat of an extremist, international, and totalitarian Islamic Superpower brought into being by a violent and revolutionary vanguard has a toehold in reality, but little more.

Such a dystopian vision suffers a few key delusions: it vastly overestimates the political appeal of radical fundamentalist Islam to the average Muslim; it vastly underestimates the strength and resiliency of national governments and the secular order in the Muslim world; it assigns far more power and resources to violent terrorist organizations than they actually possess; and it overestimates the political appetite among Middle Eastern people for confrontation with the West. In short, it is a boogyman with far less substance and reality than the Red Menace of the Soviets which it is intended to replace in the American political lexicon.

I’m not going to defend my assertions in detail, I’m too lazy, and anyone who is seriously interested in these subjects can easily research them, but there is one aspect of Bush’s boogyman I will consider more closely. Al Qaeda is supposed to play the role of a violent revolutionary vanguard in Bush’s fantasy. This would be somewhat akin to abortion clinic bombers getting all the Protestants in the world to follow them and throw down their governments in their name. The political support of such violent extremists may be intense, but it is neither broad enough nor deep enough to sustain a political revolution – though it may spark and excite the political mobilization of a large constituency with more modest goals – again like the Christo-Cons in America.

Ironically, it may be the minority of Muslims, the Shiites, rather than the majority, the Sunnis, who pose the most immediate threat to American security (if defined by Carter’s Persian Gulf Doctrine). Al Qaeda and their most closely aligned supporters in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and elsewhere are Sunnis. An Islamic state under the majority sect holds little appeal to Shiites, who are often considered not to be Muslims at all by the more purist of the 90% of Muslims who are Sunni. The inspiration for pan-nationalist Islamic political unification for the Shiites is the revolutionary Islamic Iranian state, not al Qaeda. It is to the political Mecca of Tehran that Shiites turn; and that constitutes a serious political threat that Bush’s invasion of Iraq has only inflamed.

The Southern provinces of Iraq have Shiite majorities and contain the greater part, about 70%, of Iraq’s oil reserves. The Shiite majority is determined to control the revenues from those resources. With those resources the Shiites will have a power base from which to dominate Iraqi politics, or to accomplish a de facto secession from Iraq. The economic and military ties between the Shiite provinces of Iraq and Iran are already established and growing stronger fast. Before too long, the dream of a pan-national Islamic state may be a reality in all but name. But the real prospect of pan-Islamic unification is among Shiites led by Iranian mullahs, not among Sunnis led by terrorist radicals which the President claims are the paramount threat to our security. How does the President get this most important dynamic exactly backwards?

Persian Gulf Resources

The Arab-Persian alliance under a Shiite theocracy would be the most populous nation in the Persian Gulf by far, controlling both Iran’s and a the majority of Iraq’s oil resources, as well as the most productive and viable aquifers in the region (an often overlooked strategic asset). But that is not the worst of it. The geographically contiguous Eastern province of Saudi Arabia is also majority Shiite: it also contains 80-90% of Saudi oil fields and reserves. It generates most of that nation’s wealth, but receives little of the benefit. The nominally Sunni House of Saud is highly unpopular, not only among these Shiites of the east, but also among average Sunni Arabs. There are already places in the Shiite majority east that are no-go areas for Saudi national security forces. It is not unrealistic to expect that an expansionist Shiite theocracy, emboldened by success in southern Iraq, would decide to foment the overthrow of the House of Saud in the hopes of peeling off the majority Shiite east in the fray. Nor is it unrealistic to expect that they may be successful in doing so.

The only dominos likely to fall in the Middle East are the Shiite majority areas controlled by superannuated Sunni oil sheiks around the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Dubai and Qatar, all have substantial Shiite populations and sclerotic political institutions ripe for destabilization by populist movements. Without us being able to do much more to stop it than we could have done about Iran itself in 1979, a theocratic Shiite pan-national alliance, led by Tehran, could dominate the Gulf region and the great majority of the Middle East’s oil. This is the real pan-Islamic threat that America should be concerned about. Instead, Bush rants about his fever vision of a grand pan-Islamic superpower stretching “from Spain to Indonesia” led by Osama bin Laden, or someone like him. Bush won’t talk about the real threat, because that chain of dominos is one that his own rash invasion and occupation of Iraq tipped over. Bush is setting America up to be blind-sided by the most important security development in the Middle East since decolonization. Bush isn’t providing leadership on national security, he’s doubling up on a bet he’s already lost, and hoping we don’t notice.

Ed/Pub:LisaM

Powered by

About MBryan

  • Alethinos

    Good post… And I agree with most of your assessment,however… We tend to forget that given the axiology of the region, family-is-center and strong-father-figure is the center of that center, it doesn’t take much to overhaul a country. Look at Iran – by far the most educated and forward-looking people right up to the point of the Islamic Revolution. They’ve yet to shake the fools that lord it over them though they are loathed by millions…

    The mindset in that region is to bow before the man with the big stick. Nothing can be done about it. Unfortunately, due to a very poor reading/understanding of what Mohammad said in the Qu’ran there is wall-to-wall fatalism.

    Those that run AQ and other terrorist/Pan-Islamic movements know the cattle they are trying to corral – they know that it only takes a few who are unafraid to go to the whip to subdue millions…

    I despise Bush & Co., and their attempts to play on our fears. Despite that these terrorists cannot be easily written off. The average Egyptian might not WANT them ruling in Cairo, but he won’t do a damn thing to prevent it…

    Alethinos

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com alienboy

    Great article with lots of food for thought…

  • Tumi Mokau

    It’s good to see the American media waking up and taking notice of the real war. Some of us had thought it might never happen. It’s damn near impossible to overcome enemy who is fighting for independance while all you’re fighting for is foreign conquest. I’m an African. I know.
    It was a different world that nominated America as its policemen, back when the buzz words were “Hiroshima” and the “Red Menace”, light years ago. September 11 proved that.
    What’s happening in Iraq is simply an indication of a new era. That war a microcosm of the continuing struggle between Islam and the West. It is no longer about when America will win, but if. And what happens when the mighty USA, to use the Post’s own phraseology, the vanguard of the West is defeated?(and pulling out is just as bad, perhaps worse)
    The vast majority of planet earth, billions upon billions of people base their very lives on America’s supremacy on the world stage. The very basis of international finance is the US dollar. What happens when America loses the “Battle for Iraq”? How does that bode for the rest of the war? And make no mistake this is a war; the first volley was fired by Al Qaeda.
    History is filled with examples of a seemingly superior foe defeated at the hands of a more determined enemy. If this, along with the many other wars, coups, and armed conflicts the US has orcherstrated, financially suorted, as well as taken part in since WWII, is just its attempt to become Rome in the next Bible – then it should take heed; even the Roman Empire was defeated by the Barbarians.
    My heart goes out to Israel.

  • deanna

    hayyyy

  • http://www.templestark.com/blog Temple A. Stark

    This post was chosen by the section editor as a BC pick of the week. Go HERE (link) to find out why.

    And thank you
    Temple