The growing Sunni-Shiite divide
“The Shiites are rising,” he said, arching his eyebrows in an expression suggesting both revelation and fear.
The growing Sunni-Shiite divide is roiling an Arab world as unsettled as at any time in a generation. Fought in speeches, newspaper columns, rumors swirling through cafes and the Internet, and occasional bursts of strife, the conflict is predominantly shaped by politics: a disintegrating Iraq, an ascendant Iran, a sense of Arab powerlessness and a persistent suspicion of American intentions. But the division has begun to seep into the region’s social fabric, too. The sectarian fault line has long existed and sometimes ruptured, but never, perhaps, has it been revealed in such a stark, disruptive fashion.
Newspapers are replete with assertions, some little more than incendiary rumors, of Shiite aggressiveness. The Jordanian newspaper Ad-Dustour, aligned with the government, wrote of a conspiracy last month to spread Shiism from India to Egypt. On the conspirators’ agenda, it said: assassinating “prominent Sunni figures.” The same day, an Algerian newspaper reported that parents were calling on the government to stop Shiite proselytizing in schools. An Egyptian columnist accused Iran of trying to convert Sunnis to Shiism in an attempt to revive the Persian Safavid dynasty, which came to power in the 16th century.
Very interesting. Later in the article it listed a few people who suspected the West is behind it:
“There’s a proverb that says, ‘Divide and conquer,’ ” Mohammed said. “Sunnis and Shiites — they’re not both Muslims? What divides them? Who wants to divide them? In whose interest is it to divide them?” he asked.
“It’s in the West’s interest,” he answered. “And at the head of it is America and Israel.” He paused. “And Britain.”
Of course paranoia about the US and conspiracy theories are quite popular in the mid-east (and around the world) so that is probably all this is. It would be a crass but deft use of Realpolitik if we really were behind it. One stated goal of the neo-cons was to focus the anger of our enemies on our military presence in Iraq in order to spare civilians at home. A goal I find morally objectionable, but pragmatically intriguing. To be perfectly cold and calculating, it is far better for our enemies to blow up humvees and helicopters than office buildings and subway stations.
Perhaps creating a Sunni-Shiite split was step two of that brilliant redirection plan. Get them to fight each other instead of us. Brilliant Realpolitik. Of course that would be giving a lot more credit to the Bush Administration’s foreign policy than I’m prepared to give. So I prefer to stick to my guns and say that this was not some evil American plot, but just an inadvertent outcome of our horrible overseas bumbling and misjudgment. Despite the comments of “we’re all Muslims” one doesn’t need a vast conspiracy to get Sunni and Shiite to fight, they’ve been doing it since the birth of Islam (or more accurately since the death of Muhammad). So while it may have been dormant for a while, the sectarian animosity has been bubbling under the surface all the while.
Hopefully the region won’t go down the road of a broader civil war, but… I dunno. Iraq seems to be broken beyond all hope of repair at this point. Dozens are dying every day. The only thing stopping the country from totally melting down at this point is American troops (who, least it go unsaid, caused the country to start melting down to begin with). Once we pull out it will only get much worse. Without the US acting as a supposedly neutral arbiter why wouldn’t Iran intervene to help the Shiite majority extend its power, and why wouldn’t the Sunni nations in the region intervene to stop it? Even if it doesn’t end up with full blown war, could we see Bin Laden turn his attention towards Tehran, and Hezbollah turn its attention to Riyadh? Possibly.
It’s going to be a bumpy ride.