It's nice to see some discussion of the complex relationships at play in the middle east.

I fear that far too many westerners view the region as either a simplistic arab monolith or just a series of warring tribes, both of which fail to grasp the true complexities of the situation.

I recently noted a discussion during the Jim Lehrer news hour, between several stakeholders and experts regarding the current situation in Iraq. One spokesman highlighted the importance of the Shia-Sunni-Kurd divide, and asked the representative from a conservative think tank (who was still insisting victory could be achieved) what he believed could be done.

The conservative highlighted an instance where Kurdish militia were able to act as intermediaries and achieve a positive outcome. While there will undoubtedly be instances where this can be achieved, I tend to think it's hardly representative of the situation, which really is edging close to civil war - if not there already.

I can't help but wonder how many proponents of the war in Iraq were genuinely aware of the complexity of this region - we assume the decision makers know that background, but in recent weeks we've seen indications that the head of a US terrorism taskforce is unaware of whether or not Al-Qaeda is predominantly Shia or Sunni.

Issues like this may seem unimportant to Western eyes, but they are crucial to those in the middle east, a realisation that is only just beginning to set in for some, who really should be better informed.

Unfortunately it is little Israel with its nuclear arsenal which is the real menace in the Middle East.

In the first place for the French to supply the nuclear engineering science and the US to allow the go-ahead way back in the late 1970's, will surely be regarded by future historians as a public relations tragedy performed by leaders with surprisingly shallow diplomatic forethought.

TurnRightThenLeft

The dim American awareness of the Middle East sadly doesn't look as though it will diminish under a Democrat dominate Congress.

see http://intelligence-summit.blogspot.com/2006/12/us-house-intelligence-chair-calls-al.html "US House intelligence chair calls al Qaeda Shi'ite, Pelosi pick fails quiz":

WASHINGTON, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Is al Qaeda a Sunni organization, or Shi'ite? The question proved nettlesome for Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, incoming Democratic chairman of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

"Predominantly -- probably Shi'ite," he said in a recent interview with Congressional Quarterly, a periodical that covers political and legislative issues in Congress.

Unfortunately for Reyes, the al Qaeda network led by Osama bin Laden is comprehensively Sunni...

...Asked to describe the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, Congressional Quarterly said Reyes responded: "Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah," and then said, "Why do you ask me these questions at five o'clock?" ...

--
BUSHBRED

I agree. Israel is always given the benefit of the doubt - even when it strafes clearly marked American ships eg 34 US sailor were killed when Israeli jets attacked the USS Liberty in the 1967 Six Day War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident .

Isreal probably had some nuclear weapons by the late 1960s due not only to French and US assistance but also British http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_nuclear_program

The Middle East keeps on getting more complex and is moving closer to the nuclear brink.

Pete

There are very few potentially workable outcomes for Iraq.

1/ Sunni return to ascendancy (=Oppression of the Shia..again)
2/ Vice versa of above.
3/ Kurds make up the WHOLE police force and keep the Shia and Sunni apart.
4/ Partition the country, (Turkey won't like that) but its the most practical outcome I feel.

5/ Sunnis become Shia or Shia become Sunni.
6/ They all see the light, and become Christians :) My preferred solution.

BOAZ

I think after several more years of civil war a rough 3 way Partition (your Outcome 4) will occur - with the Saudis supporting a Sunni state, Iran helping a Shia state and the US/Israel backing a Kurdish state.

Christianity all round (Outcome 6) would, of course, be a long shot ;)

I think my views made 15 months are still valid http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=182#15059

"The US appears to be in Iraq to:
- control Iraq’s oil production and reserves (a significant proportion of the Middle East’s (world’s major producers) oil supplies)
- protect Saudi Arabia from outside threats particularly from the Shiite threat (including Iran). Bush has a long record of personal and public ties with the Saudi’s.
- act as a buffer between Israel (with a well documented record of owning [nuclear] weapons) and Iran and Pakistan (emerging Muslim nuclear weapon states). Its in the US’s interests to prevent a regional nuclear war in the Middle East.
- Give a large (post Cold War) US defence establishment something to do. Defence spend is traditionally good for the US economy and hence the Republican’s chance of reelection.
- Focus American public interest on “manageable” and until recently popular government activities, that is, making war on Muslims in Iraq (while providing far smaller resources for the more useful activity of fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan)

If there is sufficient US public pressure on Bush regarding US casualties then most US forces may need to withdraw to friendlier real estate (such as Kuwait) leaving a civil war in Iraq.

Whatever happens I think a large US presence in the Middle East will remain, however winning or losing the Oil War is measured.
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 15 September 2005 1:35:56 PM"

Pete

Part One

Plantagent, your comments seem on a similar track to historians and political scientists, whom so many of our OLO members call fruitcakes and left-wing loonies.

These are not so much one-sided people, but are advised by philosophical tutors to take the overhead view, similar to honest - to goodness judges and lawyers.

With the way things are in the ME right now, the main thing is to try and achieve some sort of power balance, rather than having the US and her co-Anglophile allies threatening more missile diplomacy for a guarantee of liberty and freedom which at present seems mostly for Israel, rather than what’s left of the citizens of Iraq.

Seeing that our universities used to do well-constructed courses on the above theories, it makes one wonder whether it suits world leaders these days to have them banned or burned, as the Nazis did to the older Reichstag.