[Texgreen] Geopolitical forecast

[Roger Baker]

[I stumbled across this by accident, but it seems like an accurate
analysis. -- Roger]

<http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=42673>

The final solution
By Zarrar Khuhro

By removing Saddam and the Taliban, Washington effectively removed
regional checks on Iran's power, while also ensuring that a future
united state of Iraq will be more closely aligned with Iran than with
the US. This is of course anathema to US policy planners and so, a
new plan was evolved to check the rise of Iranian power in the Middle
East. Just as Iraq was the cause of the US Middle Eastern woes, it
was in Iraq's rising sectarian violence that a solution to the
problem was found. This solution is to use a divided Iraq to push the
entire Middle East into a sectarian civil war, pitting Iran and its
allies against the Sunni Arab states, with the backing of Israel and
the US. A de-facto independent Kurdistan can also be used to keep
Iran, Syria and Turkey in check.

I am in no way implying that the sectarian violence in Iraq was
caused or even meaningfully abetted by the US, but in all fairness,
what imperial power could possibly resist such a ready blueprint for
dividing and conquering? Muslims in any case have shown a tremendous
propensity to slaughter each other on just about any pretext you can
get hold of. In Pakistan, we have seen our share of Lashkars and
Sipahs ready to kill you if your beliefs do not match theirs. We
don't even need sectarian or ethnic divides to fuel the fire; just
look at the way Fatah, flushed with western money and backing has
proceeded against a heavily sanctioned Hamas. Indeed, civil war on a
grand scale is the perfect solution to revive the US's flagging
Mideast fortunes.

The Arab world has traditionally been wary of Persia's power and when
coupled with Shia-Sunni tensions, the recipe for disaster is
complete. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are particularly worried
about Iran's rise to power, given their proximity to Iran, and what
with the restive Shiite populations, and the memories of Iran's
attempts to export its revolution. For Iran's part, it remembers well
the support given to Saddam Hussein by these states in his war
against Iran. The prospect of an Iran-allied state on the borders of
Saudi Arabia is enough to make the Saudis very uneasy indeed, and
this is reflected not only in official statements, but also in Saudi
Arabia's plans to fence its Iraqi border.

Nevertheless, just because tensions exist, there is no guarantee that
Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will instantly leap aboard this new,
highly dangerous US plan. With the credibility of the US war machine
in tatters thanks to Iraq's low-tech insurgents, and the US itself
finding itself to be the most hated nation in the Muslim world, it
wouldn't be easy for any state in the region to openly ally itself
with this new plan. What the US needed was a victory against Iran and
her proxies. For this victory, the US turned to Israel and the chosen
target was Hizbollah.

The choice of Hizbollah is important, because movements like
Hizbollah are an existential threat to the old order of the Middle
East, as represented by the monarchies and dictatorships. In this
context, Hizbollah poses a more serious threat to the existence of
these regimes than Israel does. Nor do Hizbollah's rockets threaten
the existence of Israel; on the contrary, such attacks serve as a
unifying force for Israelis. If Israel has anything to fear, it is
that democracy will spread the ideology of resistance across the Arab
world, bringing groups like Hizbollah, Hamas and the Muslim
Brotherhood to power.

It is Hizbollah's ideals, and its alignment with Iran that threaten
the ancien regimes of the Middle East. Hence, the attack on Hizbollah
was not meant to simply destroy a potential danger to the Israeli/US
hegemony, it was also meant to send a clear signal to the Sunni Arab
powers that the battle lines were drawn and that Iran's allies could
not stand against the might of the US/Israeli weaponry. So when the
war began, sparked off by routine hostage-taking, the statements
coming out of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia were very hostile to
Hizbollah. Right at the outset, two Saudi Sheikhs issued fatwas
ordering Muslims not to 'pray for Hizbollah' which was a 'heretical
sect' in their view. Official statements from the Saudi government
openly condemned Hizbollah and Hamas for their "miscalculated
adventures" in resisting Israeli aggression. Hamas, while not Shiite,
was targeted because of the Iranian assistance to that organisation.
Not to be left out, and anxious to curry the favour of the US, both
Egypt and Jordan jumped on the bandwagon, condemning Hizbollah's
actions as "irresponsible" and "inappropriate". Had the war gone as
planned, these states would have eventually stepped in as the
'saviours' of the Lebanese people, their foresight and wisdom
confirmed by Hizbollah's defeat.

Once again things did not go according to plan. Rather than following
the script and being defeated, Hizbollah and its leader emerged as
the heroes of the Arab world. In Saudi Arabia itself, there were
protests in favour of Hizbollah. In Jordan and Palestine supporters
of Hamas openly aligned themselves with Hizbollah, and the events in
Egypt must have sent shudders through Hosni Mubarak. In the streets
of Cairo, posters of Hassan Nasrallah were carried along with those
of Gamal Abdul Nasser, the hero of Suez. More importantly, support
for Hizbollah cut across sectarian and religious lines, with the
Sunni Muslim Brotherhood condemning Saudi and Egyptian statements,
that said that Hizbollah is defending the "entire Muslim world". Not
only that, Egypt's Coptic Christian community came out in support of
Hizbollah, proving that Hizbollah's struggle was now considered an
Arab struggle, not just a Muslim, or merely a Shiite one. For the
most part, the Lebanese blamed Israel and the west, and not Hizbollah
for the destruction wreaked upon them. Lebanese support for Hizbollah
now cut across sectarian lines as well. The consequence was that, far
from being marginalised, Hassan Nasrallah emerged from his bunker as
the most politically powerful man in Lebanon.

Following the Lebanon debacle, Egypt once again turned to repression
as a political tool, but Saudi Arabia chose a more dangerous tack.
The recent statement by King Abdullah not only condemns Iran's
'interference' in Iraq, but also warns of the dangers of 'Shiite
proselytism' and cautions that 'Arabs alone should solve the problem
of Palestine'. A classic example of killing two birds with one stone:
a statement that highlights not only sectarian, but ethnic
differences as well.

In Saudi Arabia's defence, the Shiite violence in Iraq is largely due
to militias such as Moqtada Al-Sadr's Mehdi army, which is closely
aligned with Iran. Sunni violence, on the other hand, is committed by
groups that as yet have no alignment with Saudi Arabia and in some
cases, are openly hostile to the House of Saud. Under no
circumstances could the Saudi rulers allow Shiite militias to gain
power via Iraq in the Kingdom's eastern regions, and in the absence
of a reduction in Iraqi violence, they may well once again turn to
patronage of militant Sunni groups as a counter to Iranian influence
in Iraq. The nightmare scenario for the region would then be an all-
out civil war in Iraq, with Sunni groups being funded by Saudi
Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, and Shia groups by Iran. Fuad Sinioria
would be supported by the Sunni states and Israel against Hizbollah
and Fatah against Hamas. US provocations against Iran are on the
increase, and if an anti-Iran alliance can be cobbled together, the
apocalyptic scenario of a strike on Iran will become inevitable.

It is pointless to make appeals to Muslim unity in order to avert
this potential catastrophe, but appeals to pragmatism can be made.
Saudi Arabia needs to engage Iran and not needlessly antagonise it.
The long-term survival of the House of Saud does not lie in an
unquestioning American alliance and nor can their oil wealth and
ideology alone guarantee the prime position in the Muslim world.
Saudi Arabia needs to realise that its position as the land where
Islam was born gives it a place of honour in the Muslim world, but
not necessarily a supreme leadership role.

Iran, for its part, needs to make an all-out effort to contain
sectarian violence in Iraq, and being in a position of relative
strength, needs to alleviate the concerns of its western neighbours.
It is true that Iraq has been a windfall for Iranian interests, but
unless Iran can convince the Arab states that it is not the enemy,
Iraq may well prove Iran's destruction. Moreover, President
Ahmadinejad would do well to pay attention to growing discomfort at
home over his foreign policy and his perceived lack of interest in
domestic issues. It is possible that through a miracle this
catastrophe may yet be averted, but if history is any judge, we may
have to wade through rivers of blood to arrive at that miracle.

The writer is a freelance columnist. Email: z_khuhro @yahoo.com