Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the "Clash within a Civilization"

[ScottL]

The tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia reflect a broad regional power struggle, now made more complex by growing doubts among Saudis and other Arabs about U.S. policies in the region. These doubts have led to a wide range of Arab conspiracy theories that the U.S. is preparing to abandon its alliances in the Arab world and turn to Iran.

In this struggle, almost all of the attacks and casualties are caused by Muslims attacking Muslims, and much of the violence is caused by Sunnis attacking Sunnis. The West is only on the periphery of this struggle, not its focus. It is a "clash within a civilization," and not a clash between them.

The U.S. and Europe need to stop seeing regional political upheavals as some brief prelude to the triumph of Western values and democracy, and focus on their real world human impact as well as the threat they pose. (Center for Strategic and International Studies)

To read more:
Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the "Clash within a Civilization" - Anthony H. Cordesman

 

[The Guesser]

Pity that there's not a strong Iraq, an equal Arab power that hated Iran there, to keep a Check on Iran, instead of the Iraq that is now an Iranian Puppet. hno:. Hopefully our next President will get us the hell out of that region altogether.

 

[ScottL]

You didn't read the article TG

 

[The Guesser]

You didn't read the article TG

Sure did.

 

[superbeets]

US-Saudi relations have deteriorated since the start of the Syrian conflict [Reuters]




The White House has said that President Barack Obama will travel to Saudi Arabia in March to meet with King Abdullah to discuss a range of security issues in the Middle East that have caused some strains in the bilateral relationship, according to Reuters news agency.
The rare visit, which comes at the end of an Obama's Europe trip, will include discussions about "Gulf and regional security, peace in the Middle East, countering violent extremism, and other issues of prosperity and security," the White House said in a statement on Monday.
King Abdullah met Secretary of State John Kerry in November and discussed concerns about the unwillingness of the US to intervene in Syria and recent overtures to its arch-rival, Iran.
Saudi Arabia turned down a seat on the United Nations Security Council in October, in a display of anger at the failure of the international community to end the war in Syria.
That month, Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief said the kingdom was looking at making a "major shift" in relations with the US.

 

[superbeets]

Fighters to be jailed
Meanwhile, Saudi state media on Monday issued a royal decree saying Saudis who join or endorse groups it classifies as terrorist organisations, whether inside or outside the country, would face prison sentences of between five and 30 years.
It appeared to be another official move to discourage the kingdom's citizens from travelling to Syria to fight alongside rebels battling the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
Saudi Arabia's Islamic religious authorities have previously spoken out against Saudi fighters going to Syria, but the Saudi Interior Ministry estimates that about 1,200 Saudis have gone there nonetheless.
Riyadh backs some rebel groups in Syria with money and arms, but is wary of allowing its citizens to go and fight in case they join armed groups that could then target the kingdom's ruling al-Saud family.

 

[superbeets]

Saudi will buy Nuclear weapons from Pakistan, to keep Iran from regional supremacy. Who is capable of stopping that purchase.

 

[superbeets]

China will take over from the US in Middle East involvement in the next decade. China knows it has to secure its oil supply to ensure its economic dominance and hence the reason for its rapid naval military build up.

 

[carlspackler]

Pity that there's not a strong Iraq, an equal Arab power that hated Iran there, to keep a Check on Iran, instead of the Iraq that is now an Iranian Puppet. hno:. Hopefully our next President will get us the hell out of that region altogether.

Yea, it's too bad Saddam was not still in power and we could worry about two radical regimes attaining Nuclear weapon capability. Because I'm sure that a mortal enemy like the Persians developing Nuclear weapons would have no effect on The Butcher of Baghdad. He would probably run to the U.N. for protection.face)(*^%face)(*^%face)(*^%

 

[ScottL]

Yeah, you can't look at Sunni vs Shia, or even al Queda (Sunni) vs Saudi (Sunni) from a Left-Right US political paradigm. It's much more complicated than that. It's also very simplistic to say isolationism would have worked, or will work. While we can't install democracy in the Muslim World the US must support those in the region who espouse free societies. Not saying I have all the answers. Heck an ice storm just sent me back 14 centuries. Glad Mom's house has power!

 

[The Guesser]

China will take over from the US in Middle East involvement in the next decade. China knows it has to secure its oil supply to ensure its economic dominance and hence the reason for its rapid naval military build up.

May they have better luck than the UK, Russia, and the US. But I doubt they will, except they'll become an added target for Radical Muslim terrorists.

 

[ScottL]

Guesser you keep making one critical misstep in your conclusions. It is that you define every attack by fundamental islamists as a reaction to something we or another country does. Islamists do not blow innocent people to bits because of what they do, but because of who they are and how they live. Generally speaking, although there are a few exceptions that possibly can be deemed, "retaliatory," the bombings are the actions of bad people with an inflexible goal, not a reaction. To these people Madrid is occupied Muslim territory.

 

[The Guesser]

Guesser you keep making one critical misstep in your conclusions. It is that you define every attack by fundamental islamists as a reaction to something we or another country does. Islamists do not blow innocent people to bits because of what they do, but because of who they are and how they live. Generally speaking, although there are a few exceptions that possibly can be deemed, "retaliatory," the bombings are the actions of bad people with an inflexible goal, not a reaction. To these people Madrid is occupied Muslim territory.

I hear ya, but I think we'll always think differently about this. I think their actions are almost always "retaliatory" for what they perceive to be outsider interference of one kind or another. ANY Terrrorism is disgusting and wrong, but in their sick minds, they justify it by pointing at things like that. I suspect Terrorist attacks in Mainland China will increase when/if China gets more deeply involved in that region. has there been a terrosrist attack in Spain since they left?
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/terrorists-bomb-trains-in-madrid
"Many in Spain and around the world saw the attacks as retaliation for Spain's participation in the war in Iraq, where about 1,400 Spanish soldiers were stationed at the time. The attacks took place two days before a major Spanish election, in which anti-war Socialists swept to power. The new government, led by Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, removed Spanish troops from Iraq, with the last leaving the country in May 2004."

 

[ScottL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings

There was also a plot to blow up 4 planes in mid air after they took off from Heathrow in London that was thwarted in the final stages. It may sound like a cliche, and I know you're not fond of the guy who said it but really, "They hate us for our freedom." They will always target the strongest nations that differ ideologically, regardless of our actions. You're trying to use rationality to explain irrationality. You can't. As you wrote, "sick minds."

 

[SheriffJoe]

1400 years of Islamic aggression and violence and Mr. Sanctimonious still hasn't figured it out.

It's all Bush's fault!

face)(*^%