The events going on in the Middle East are deep and very complicated. I am having trouble getting a grip on who is driving events and who stands to benefit.
The reaction of most of the Arab world (outside of Palestine) to the Hizbollah cross border attack and kidnapping, had been almost uniformly hostile. The Saudis, Jordanians, and Egyptians are openly critical. Most of the pundits on their television shows are critical. And their print press is hostile. It is hard to say what the average Arab on the street thinks, but I’m guessing that mostly comes down to a Sunni/Shi’a divide.
The Shi’a represent a majority in two countries (Iran and Iraq) and a plurality in one (Lebanon). There are significant Shi’ite minorities in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Syria is 74% Sunni but it is ruled by Alawites. Alawites are best considered to be a sect of heretical Shi’ites. Like the Shi’a they have a special reverence for the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali, and all of his descendents.
What I think we are seeing in the Muslim world is a power struggle between the Shi’a and the Sunni. I’m not talking about the carnage that is going in Iraq, although that is certainly coloring Sunni perceptions. I’m talking about the reaction to what is going on in Lebanon.
I’ll get a bit deeper into this below the fold.
The Saudi position, which surprised Hizbullah and its supporters, was outlined by an anonymous official, who said that the people should distinguish between legitimate resistance and dangerous adventurism by some parties without cooperation from their governments and the Arab states.
The Saudi stand reflected the position of all the Gulf countries, which are unhappy not only with Hizbullah, but with Hamas as well. The Gulf countries are of the opinion that Hizbullah and Hamas are acting on orders from Teheran and Damascus.
That’s why most Arab governments have refrained from making efforts to resolve the current crisis. As one government official in the Gulf explained: “We cannot play the role of mediators upon the request of some parties that act without taking into consideration the consequences of their actions.” Similar sentiments have been reflected in a series of articles that appeared in the Arab media over the past few days. Some of the articles appear as if they had been written by Israeli government spokesmen.
One line of interpretation here is that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are U.S. client states, dependent on us for military protection, equipment, training, and intelligence. Bush’s position is that Hizbollah is the problem and they are taking orders from Syria and Iran. So, they parrot that interpretation, as does Israel. (We’ll set aside the question of who is wagging the dog here between Israel and the U.S.).
Ordinarily, I would be inclined to agree with that interpretation. But, not here (or not completely). It looks to me like the Sunni countries are feeling threatened by the Shi’a, particularly Iran. They see what Iran’s influence has done to the Sunni community in Iraq and they don’t want to see it repeated in Lebanon. They appear to be willing to give Israel the room to stomp on Hizballah in the hope that these actions will marginalize Hizballah’s influence.
Additionally, they have a legitimate point when they oppose the use of undisciplined radicals that take their orders from Iran to cause a regional conflict. If the Saudis, Egyptian, and Jordanians want to attack Israel by proxy, they want to have some influence over what those proxies do. With Hizballah, they have no influence.
At the same time, their Arab populations are reflexively opposed to Israel. The question is, to what degree are they also reflexively opposed to the Shi’a? What we’re seeing here is some ambivalence.
Wadi Batti, an Iraqi columnist, said the Arabs should realize that militias and gangsters will only worsen their conditions. “The Lebanese example confirms the fears of Arabs about the presence of armed militias that threaten our stability and security,” he wrote.
“By initiating the confrontation with Israel, Hizbullah has made a mockery of the Lebanese government and leaders, who are now seen as pawns in the hands of [Hizballah head] Nasrallah. How long will the Arabs continue to fight on behalf of Iran?”
I am assuming here that Wadi Batti is a Sunni Arab. (If I’m wrong, this just gets more complicated). And you could replace the word ‘Iran’ with the word ‘Shi’ites’.
It’s true that Bush has unleashed this catastrophe by invading Iraq and setting up a Sunni/Shi’a civil war there. It’s true that Israel is jumping on a traumatic but minor attack to launch a massive and disproportinate invasion and bombing campaign. It’s true that there are domestic political considerations on all sides.
But, this conflict in Lebanon is a lot deeper than the U.S. and Israel versus the Arabs (or Muslims). This conflict is bringing Sunnis back into the fold as American allies. Yesterday I wrote about the Sunnis in Iraq asking us to stay and protect them.
For three years we have been siding with the Shi’a in Iraq, helping them set up a representative government. In theory, this is the right thing to do (given that we invaded their country and disbanded their internal security). Iraqis deserve a government that represents the makeup of their population. Their government should be made up of predominantly Shi’ites. But now the tide is turning.
The Sunnis do not want Iran to have a nuclear bomb and they do not want Iran to dominate Lebanon. In this, their interests are aligned with Israel’s and with the Bush administration.
Things are indeed deep in the Middle East.
