The rise of ISIS

[BruceVC]

I like the analysis, Mor. But I'm really not clear on your position regarding Iranian regional ambitions.

 

Let's be clear on mine: they're complete bastards.

 

Iran is a fundamentalist Shia regime, and there is every possible indication that it - more psecifically the hardline IRGC axis - oversees a range of heinous activities across the region already, from heroin smuggling to sectarian bombings and civil war. 

 

I don't think they have a 'legitimate' interest in the region in standard power terms because they want to utterly dominate it, and regard nothing as beyond the pale.

 

Your turn.

 

But Walsie surly you can see the advantages to a peaceful compromise with Iran as opposed to airstrikes? If Iran is prepared to suspend there most sensitive Uranium enrichment and allow nuclear inspectors full access to all sites I don't see how you can't support this? I know the current Iranian regime has committed many questionable and concerning actions in the past few decades but we should still look at a peaceful solution to the whole nuclear development issue

 

This is a win win for all concerned. You also must be aware that the chance of some kind of military action against Iran is almost impossible without the Americans and they won't consider any military option unless all other options are truly exhausted

Edited January 6, 2014 by BruceVC

[Monte Carlo]

Why don't we build a camp fire and sing some songs?

[BruceVC]

Why don't we build a camp fire and sing some songs?

 

I don't think that's going to influence the political decisions of the Iranian regime but I appreciate your positive sentient. Keep up the effort

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Why don't we build a camp fire and sing some songs?

Woldan used all the available wood and most of us are terrible singers.

[Zoraptor]

I like the analysis, Mor. But I'm really not clear on your position regarding Saudi regional ambitions.

 

Let's be clear on mine: they're complete bastards.

 

Saudi is a fundamentalist Sunni regime, and there is every possible indication that it - more psecifically the hardline [basically everyone in power there] axis - oversees a range of heinous activities across the region already, from heroin smuggling to sectarian bombings and civil war. 

 

I don't think they have a 'legitimate' interest in the region in standard power terms because they want to utterly dominate it, and regard nothing as beyond the pale.

 

Your turn.

r00fles!*

 

But really, Saudi and Iran are opposite sides of the same coin in pretty much every respect- both support extremists, both have regional aims, proxies etc etc- and the situation is similar to that in the cold war where both sides try to get countries into their camp/ sphere (or just disrupt countries in the other's) using means fair or foul. Whatever criticisms can be levelled at Iran has to be seen through the prism of Saudi ambitions, and the Saudi brand of extremism and their will to support it has been far more disruptive to us than the Iranian, if only because there are a lot more Sunnis than Shia.

 

Seriously though, I've never seen any evidence at all that Iran (or Saudi, for that matter; and when in power even the Taleban banned it) has profited from the heroin trade. A lot of it goes through Iran for sure, but then it mostly originates from Afghanistan which has a large western presence that for the past decade has itself been trying and failing to eradicate drugs production and smuggling with various means.

 

*Changing country names in quotes? Using r00fles only semi ironically? What next? Using the like button?

Edited January 6, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Mor]

But really, Saudi and Iran are opposite sides of the same coin in pretty much every respect- both support extremists, both have regional aims, proxies etc etc- and the situation is similar to that in the cold war where both sides try to get countries into their camp/ sphere (or just disrupt countries in the other's) using means fair or foul. Whatever criticisms can be levelled at Iran has to be seen through the prism of Saudi ambitions, and the Saudi brand of extremism and their will to support it has been far more disruptive to us than the Iranian, if only because there are a lot more Sunnis than Shia.

You can go further than that and say that everyone has ambitions Russia\China\Turkey\France\UK\USA\etc.. which is true but doesn't mean they are all the same.

 

Yes Saudi has ambitions, but this is the first I heard them being compared to Iran, usually the front runners are Iran and Turkey, at least in terms of rhetoric. In terms of support, while in recent civil war in Syria Saudia has given some direct supported to Sunni militias(like most Sunni states), it was after Iran and its proxy Hezbollah, directly involved themselves in there and the war gained a sectarian nature. Before that you can find many cases of indirect support from individuals in oil rich ME countries, but by large local authorities has worked with the "west" against it. While Iran had no calms about its direct support(i'd bet its part of strategic goals in the Sunni dominant ME, which doesn't like Shias) which is why their name/weapons are tied to many local clashes of a religious nature.

 

Anyway considering what I sen of Iran's rhetoric, increased army build up and naval reach, development of nuclear and missile technology, its past actions, standing territorial claims etc. Neither Saudi or anyone else there come close to Iran as a threat to regional stability.

 

 

@Walsingham, I hope the above answer your question. Sorry, I didn't have time for some more elaborate right now(barely half-assed this one, hopefully without too many squirrels in my way)

[BruceVC]

I would also argue that Sunni dominated countries like Saudi Arabia have been friends to the West and assisted in the War on Terror. It wasn't always the case from 2001 -2003 but when Saudi Arabia was targeted by Al-Qaeda they changed there attitude towards extremism and starting acting directly against Al-Qaeda. They have been instrumental in preventing several attacks against Western countries. They didn't do this because they love the West or were concerned with protecting our concept of Democracy but they realized that the ideological objectives of Al-Qaeda threatened there way of life and there rulers. So alliances with the West made sense

[Walsingham]

Sorry Zor. I just noticed my detail rejoinder last night got lost in the interwebz.

 

Short version: beyond a lazy generalisation that both nations have a powerful autocratic elite, how EXACTLY are the Saudis and Iranians alike?

[Kroney]

Oh, I don't understand all this business at all. I belong in the era of the Shah, where I could be found sitting in a tent, wearing baggy silken trousers and a head cloth, fanned by a couple of Persian lovelies whilst my man-servant pours me a fresh tea. Visitors would take back tales of how "that awful man has gone entirely native".

 

Nowadays they all seem so terribly cross.

[Walsingham]

Oh, I don't understand all this business at all. I belong in the era of the Shah, where I could be found sitting in a tent, wearing baggy silken trousers and a head cloth, fanned by a couple of Persian lovelies whilst my man-servant pours me a fresh tea. Visitors would take back tales of how "that awful man has gone entirely native".

 

Nowadays they all seem so terribly cross.

 

You realise of course that there are a great many people doing precisely this around the world right now? Well, more or less.

[Meshugger]

Why don't we build a camp fire and sing some songs?

 

Hey, it sure hasn't been tried yet!

[Zoraptor]

Short version: beyond a lazy generalisation that both nations have a powerful autocratic elite, how EXACTLY are the Saudis and Iranians alike?

Authoritarian theocracies? Check.

See themselves as protectors of (their branch of) Islam? Check.

Mid level powers? Check.

With ambitions? Check.

Export their ideologies? Check.

 

I could go through a very long list, but it's easier to list the differences. One is western backed, one isn't, one is sunni, one is shia. One is arab, the other persian. One is at least slightly more democratic than the other. There really isn't that much more, at a fundamental level. And when it comes to playing the Great Game- which is pretty much what they're both doing, just on a smaller scale from the historically big players- the methods used by all sides are similar.

 

Yes Saudi has ambitions, but this is the first I heard them being compared to Iran, usually the front runners are Iran and Turkey, at least in terms of rhetoric. In terms of support, while in recent civil war in Syria Saudia has given some direct supported to Sunni militias(like most Sunni states), it was after Iran and its proxy Hezbollah, directly involved themselves in there and the war gained a sectarian nature.

 

Turkey has become more assertive, but only really recently which has coincided with their tilting more towards islamism, prior to that you have to go back to Ottoman times. Saudi has had ambitions ever since they conquered the Hedjaz, as their possession of Mecca and Muhammad's homeland gives them massive prestige and (in their eyes at least) a far better Caliphatic claim than anyone else. They dominate entities like the Gulf Cooperation Council and Arab League due to their financial clout, and every oil producer fears them knocking the spigots out and dropping the price of oil. Their armed forces are pretty rubbish due to their inherent nepotism and rivalry (the air force and army nearly fought a war against each other in the 70s) but then Iran's armed forces aren't brilliant either.

 

KSA has been arming rebels since near the beginning, most of the FN FALs the rebels got came from KSA stockpiles and that certainly started before Hezbollah got involved. They frequently buy from intermediaries to avoid unfortunate questions about their support for the more radical groups, as does everyone. Saudi has actually invaded (or intervened in, if you want to be charitable) two countries recently, Bahrain to prop up the sunni minority absolutist Khalifas and Yemen to attack shia rebels there even if you don't count things like Libya, Syria, Afghanistan as well.

 

Anyway considering what I sen of Iran's rhetoric, increased army build up and naval reach, development of nuclear and missile technology, its past actions, standing territorial claims etc. Neither Saudi or anyone else there come close to Iran as a threat to regional stability.

Well yeah, that's because Iran wants change in the region. Those with the power already (Saudi, US) don't want change if it has any chance of weakening their power. They also tend to define 'stability' as anything that benefits or strengthens them, and 'instability' as anything that benefits their enemy, Iran in this case. The Saudi/ Qatari/ Turkish intervention in Syria certainly decreased stability, as did the festering sore of the Iraqi invasion far more than anything Iran has done since 1979, indeed the other major destabilising factors were as a result of the (Saudi/ US instigated) Iraqi invasion of Iran in the '80s

[Guard Dog]

 

I'm not saying I'd take whatever drug makes Bruce so bloody optimistic all the time.

 

...but I would.

 

Walsie I just believe that human beings would rather do the right thing in life than the wrong thing, I believe in the inherent good of people. And even though this may make no sense in the political bedlam of places like the Middle East I still think people would rather live in a prosperous and stable country than a country wracked by violence. Its up to the leaders of those countries to make the correct decisions to uplift there citizens to the standards of Western countries, yes it will be hard but its not insurmountable

 

I used to think this way. I was forcibly disabused of that notion though. Once you see what's behind the curtain you don't believe in magic anymore!

[Walsingham]

"One is Sunni the other Shia"? LOL. have to get into this later. 

[Walsingham]

 

January 9, 2014 | 1031 GMT

Iraqi tribesmen and police have recaptured the majority of Anbar province from al Qaeda-linked fighters, Al Arabiya reported Jan. 9. Clashes continued east of Ramadi.

 

 

<Stratfor.com>

 

[Mor]

@Zoraptor, IMHO that was a politician answer, you don't exactly stayed in context backing up your initial claim, but mostly strayed and nitpicked to reinforced your postion in the west vs whatever argument.

 

Also I am not US/Saudi(or Russia/Iran/..) and my definitions of stability differs from what your "because Iran wants change in the region" post implies. As I said:

Anyway considering what I seen of Iran's rhetoric, increased army build up and naval reach, development of nuclear and missile technology, its past actions, standing territorial claims etc. Neither Saudi or anyone else there come close to Iran as a threat to regional stability.

My definition of stability doesn't include wars, nor nuclear arm race. Compared to that I have no problem with Saudi dominate the Arab League due to their financial clout, no more than anyone else e.g. Russia holds EU energy market in the balls, do you suggest EU should follow Iran example to make a change in the region?

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, most answers are political type ones, though not without reason. I know perfectly well that it is difficult if not impossible to convince anyone that Iran and Saudi are opposite sides of the same coin. But, as much as it is up to me to 'prove' their similarities and the significance of them, it is also up to the counter arguers to prove their dissimilarities and their importance since there isn't really a default position.

 

Mainly though, I don't see stability as being an aim and a benefit in and of itself. I tend to see it more in terms of 'change' and 'default' rather than in/stability. If change is needed then instability is not necessarily a bad thing. Change is needed in the Middle East so instability is not necessarily bad- except neither of the big regional powers is particularly 'nice'.

 

Also Saudi is now the US's biggest arms customer, iirc, and has been one of the largest for decades. So it isn't just Iran uparming, and Saudi's arms are at least theoretically (though the Saudi armed forces are reputably terrible quality wise, and riven with nepotism and corruption) far superior to Iran's.

[Monte Carlo]

I know perfectly well that it is difficult if not impossible to convince anyone that Iran and Saudi are opposite sides of the same coin.

 

I can see where you are going and am inclined to agree. Both sides view the other as the head of the snake, the only difference is that the Saudis need alliances in a way Iran doesn't. Saudi Arabia is a small country that would be utterly insignificant if it weren't for (a) Mecca and (b) oil. Iran is a sophisticated nation state with significant military, political and cultural power.

 

Both see themselves as guardians of the flame vis-a-vis their respective iterations of Islam. Both fund proxies. Both a net exporters of terrorism. Both are theocracies. Both have nascent opposition movements.

 

So, yeah, I totally get your point.

[Meshugger]

It's like what this song is about: 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBsZbL-Akms

 

Silly monkeys, always cut it right in two.

[Zoraptor]

I know perfectly well that it is difficult if not impossible to convince anyone that Iran and Saudi are opposite sides of the same coin.

 

Oh dear, I actually meant to change that line and only got half way through it. It was originally "you" instead of "anyone" but I decided that was an unfair wording and was going to change it to "anyone who believes otherwise". I don't think it's a particularly hard argument to make in a vacuum, it's just a subjective argument since it's dependent on how people weight a whole lot of factors.

[Mor]

That right here is your problem, either you think that some view the Saudis as the good guys or instead of convince that they "are opposite sides of the same coin" you need to be more specific in what respect. Since everyone are familiar with their many similarities, even your die hard proponents of "westren" policy(especially from the US), however, similar is not the same e.g. Some might say that US and Russia were on the same side of the coin during ww2: both fought Germany, both didn't agree with Nazi ideology, both lost a lot of men in that struggle etc etc.. that a lot of both or a lot BS if you are using your coin in the wrong context. In our case, in the context of what I spoke of they might be similiar, but compared to Saudis Iran efforts are in a different league.

 

Mainly though, I don't see stability as being an aim and a benefit in and of itself. I tend to see it more in terms of 'change' and 'default' rather than in/stability. If change is needed then instability is not necessarily a bad thing. Change is needed in the Middle East so instability is not necessarily bad- except neither of the big regional powers is particularly 'nice'.

The first part is perfectly reasonably vague nice play on terms, many will agree that generally change is good. of course the real question is what kind change you are talking about with Iran build up, and the resulting regional build up? I don't suppose its social progress and hopefully its not Nuclear arm race.

[Zoraptor]

Iran hasn't been building up, Saudi has for thirty odd years. Iran has very limited access to any advanced weaponry, Saudi has off-the-shelf access to very advanced stuff and has the highest buy in of any country on earth. Saudi (plus other gulf states) encouraged and financially supported Iraq's attack on Iran. It simply is not some one way road of Iranian attempted hegemony, build up and escalation.

 

And saying that instability isn't necessarily bad is just plain common sense- the break of the USSR was monumentally unstable, but generally gets labelled as 'change' instead and a good thing, not a bad.

[Mor]

And saying that instability isn't necessarily bad is just plain common sense- the break of the USSR was monumentally unstable, but generally gets labelled as 'change' instead and a good thing, not a bad.

Common sense suggest that arm race and proxy wars in region teaming with religious and sectarian strife, a rockbed for radicals and their training ground, With rivers of blood that begin to spill to other regions, with international community already involved and escalations might effect global markets. That this isn't the good kind of instability, especially if we have a nuclear arm race between religious fundamentalists with incompetent armies.

 

As for your example, I assume you reference the recent Shia/Sunni conflict since 79 to the US/Russia cold war era. But who is Iran's counter part here, considering that most of Iran's regional enemies/opponents (Sunni or otherwise) since the 80s has fallen/diminished(Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Russia and USA/west), and military wise they are more competent/stronger and more self sufficient then the Saudi, there is only a power vacuum.

 

Second, USSR fall came from within and while I'd love to see some social progress and reforms here, that is not the change that Iran "Islamic Revolution" export brings to the table. Especially now in the wake of the "Arab spring", which was viewed as the "Islamic awakening" by their Supreme leader Imam Khomeini reinforcing his convictions even further. That plus their continued reach toward Islamic extremest since 89(funding/training/arming/indoctrination not just in the ME) , their arming, rocket/nuclear programs, involvement in recent Syria conflict, UN impotentcy, and Iran's ramp up in their toxic rhetoric. Again leaves me with the question of what kind of generally beneficial change you envision here, unless you just wanted to make the obvious point that "instability isn't necessarily bad", or just looking for ways to diminish the issue, because some anti "westren" bias?

Edited January 14, 2014 by Mor

[Zoraptor]

Common sense suggest that arm race and proxy wars in region teaming with religious and sectarian strife, a rockbed for radicals and their training ground, With rivers of blood that begin to spill to other regions, with international community already involved and escalations might effect global markets. That this isn't the good kind of instability, especially if we have a nuclear arm race between religious fundamentalists with incompetent armies.

You left out the plagues of locusts, waves of pestilence and Justin Bieber/ Celine Dion duets from your Signs of the Apocalypse- plus the rather less apocalyptic talks which have been held.

 

As for your example, I assume you reference the recent Shia/Sunni conflict since 79 to the US/Russia cold war era. But who is Iran's counter part here, considering that most of Iran's regional enemies/opponents (Sunni or otherwise) since the 80s has fallen/diminished(Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Russia and USA/west), and military wise they are more competent/stronger and more self sufficient then the Saudi, there is only a power vacuum

 

IT'S SAUDI ARABIA

 

 

And no, you cannot spin them being the biggest arms purchaser into a weakness and Iran's lack of access into a strength. Thank goodness the Syrian rebels aren't being armed by the west, their self sufficiency is sure to carry the day against the arms the government is getting from Russia etc etc.

 

I'd love to see some social progress and reforms in the ME, but that is not the stability that Saudi Arabia brings to the table. Especially now in the wake of the "Arab spring", which was viewed as dangerous instability (but opportunity) by their King, reinforcing his convictions even further as he helped topple Morsi (hope/ change!) Gaddafi (++hope/ change!!) and trying to do so to Assad (instability!!!, but still potentially hope/ change if only the Russkies and Assad would get with the program). That plus their continued reach toward Islamic extremists since, well, forever basically via funding/training/arming/indoctrination not just in the ME, their arming, massive petroleum market manipulation program via OPEC, involvement in the recent Syria conflict, UN impotency, and Saudi's ramp up in their toxic rhetoric such as saying they'd help the Israelis bomb Iran without any mandate. It again leaves me with the question of what kind of generally beneficial stability you envision here, unless you just wanted to make the obvious point that "stability isn't necessarily bad", or just looking for ways to diminish the issue because of some anti "persain" bias?

[Mor]

And no, you cannot spin them being the biggest arms purchaser into a weakness and Iran's lack of access into a strength.

Actually, I am pretty sure that I was the one who brought the Saudi arm purchases, although I used it as an another example of escalation and instability in the regional arm race.

 

I'd love to see some social progress and reforms in the ME, but that is not the stability that Saudi Arabia brings to the table. Especially now in the wake of the "Arab spring", which was viewed as dangerous instability (but opportunity) by their King. ...

Just in case you were confused, there was no shred of implication that the Saudis can't use some social progress and reforms, only noting that this is not the change we see her per your cold war reference attempt at positive change.

 

I specifically used the example IRGC example strategic goal of exporting the Islamic Revolution which is evidently not only relevant but only reinforced by recent and actively acted upon on every opportunity. [] In contrast, can you be more specific what is the Saudi agenda? because last heard of they had couple of policy changes in recent years and can you give me example of Saudi's actively working on it. Because again its not about who is the good guy, there are no good guys here, its about who is reacting, who is the catalyst in the midst of our situation. On the surface you can say that Iran in Syria was only protecting its interest like Saudi in Bahrain(although Bahrain and Syria has different history..), or that Iran support of Shia radicals is just like Saudi recent support in Syria, but taking a bit more constructive approach outside of Syria in the past five years can you honestly compare their activities? because Iran pops at every single opportunity from West Asian to North East Africa.

 

massive petroleum market manipulation program via OPEC, involvement in the recent Syria conflict, UN impotency, and Saudi's ramp up in their toxic rhetoric such as saying they'd help the Israelis bomb Iran without any mandate. ...

My examples were specifically there in the context of 'change' that you said that Iran want to bring to the region, after noting the past, the venue in which it continues to takes shape and those expand on Iran motivations which you can see reflected in Khominie statements about the UN/West. But what is the point of your example, other than trying to cling to your coin, because Saudi petroleum market only gives another motivation for Iran and Saudi wanting to bomb Iran over Nuclear, just like that whole Nuclear arm race in the ME is again sparked by Iran. (the rest of that paragraph was just a huge lazy fail)

 

 

So again what is the positive change you envision?

Edited January 15, 2014 by Mor