Sunni vs. Shiite

Shiites: Believe that the Qur’an is a mystical book which can only be interpreted by the highest levels of religious leaders. Majority or largest single religious population in nations like Iran, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon, but only represent 15% of all Muslims. Leadership in Syria is Shiite affiliated (Alawite), but population is majority Sunni. Leadership in Shiite Bahrain is a Sunni monarchy. The most powerful Shiite nation is clearly Iran, and it actively funds and supports Hezbollah, an organization labels as “terrorist” by the U.S. but which is the party in power in Lebanon.

Sunnis: Believe that the Qur’an should be read literally, preferably in the original Arabic, by all practicing Muslims. Represents 85% of all Muslims and includes radical factions like al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Middle Eastern Sunni powerhouse is a very conservative Saudi Arabia, but many “temporary workers” in oil fields are Shiites.

Bottom line: Throughout history (after the death of the Prophet Mohammed in 632 A.D.), Sunnis have persecuted what they consider to be Shiite apostates. Leadership of the Shiite movement was concentrated into the hands of a single Pope-like Imam, with the sect falling into disarray when the 12^th Imam simply disappeared in the 10^th century until the founding of the Iranian Islamic Republic in 1979, seeming to fill that void beginning with the Ayatollah Khomeini.

These two major factions distrust (hate?) each other with varying intensity across the Islamic world, with Iran trying to bolster its power by appeasing some cash-strapped militant Sunni factions, and Sunni Saudi Arabia trying to contain the spread of Shiite power at every turn. The struggles between these two branches of Islam have pitted Saudi Arabia against Iran through their proxies in various regional conflicts. And while Syria would seem to be a nation where Saudis would be loath to topple a de facto monarch, the fact that the Assad regime is effectively Shiite tilts Saudi sensibilities in the other direction.

When the Arab Spring sent Bahraini Shiites into the streets to protest against their Sunni royals, Saudi Arabia sent military assistance against the insurgency to that small nation in support of its fellow monarchs. “Thousands of [mostly Shiite] Bahrainis rose up 16 months ago, demanding political liberties, social equality and an end to corruption. But the Sunni monarchy, seen by the United States and Saudi Arabia as a strategic ally and as a bulwark against Iran, was never left to face the rage on its own… [Now the anger is turning towards the United States, which maintains a naval base in Bahrain, as protestors recently attempted to demonstrate by that installation.] The march on the American naval base, the headquarters of the Fifth Fleet, never reached its destination. When the protesters got to the road leading to the base, riot officers surrounded them and fired tear gas… It was one of several protests [in May] that focused on Bahrain’s decades-old alliance with the United States, which includes close military cooperation and a free-trade agreement. Days earlier, the Obama administration announced the resumption of arms sales after a seven-month suspension.” New York Times, June 23^rd.

Strangely, our own policies have actually led to a strengthening of Shiite power in the region (that old inadvertent consequences thang). When the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein – an avowed Sunni – was extinguished by the U.S. invasion in 2003, the power passed to the majority in that country, Shiites. When the United States pulled its combat units out of that country, the Shiite leadership promptly invited radical Shiite Moktada al-Sadr and his militia to come back to Iraq (leaving Iran where they were sheltered) and join in the government, issued an arrest warrant for the highest-ranking Sunni in the land as a terrorist (a vice president of the country) and proceeded to cozy up to Iran as a natural regional Shiite ally. Today, Sunnis routinely blast bombs in Shiite areas, trying to shed their apparent impotency with such terrorist efforts.

With the “Crown Prince” baton recently passed to the Saudi Prince Salman (after the death of his brother, Prince Nayef), it was no accident that the new heir apparent was also the Minister of Defense. That the Saudi monarchy has a duel battle in its daily existence is no secret: (i) the desire keep the monarchy (and hence sympathy for similar regional monarchies) in power within a stable Saudi government and (ii) to contain Iran and its Shiite satellites, particularly in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, where Iranian money and aid have been focused. Instability in Saudi Arabia would probably create the biggest possible spike in the price of oil, and the world can barely envision another such slam to the global economy. While social change in Saudi Arabia moves at the speed of a lethargic snail stuck in molasses, the royals have stepped their contribution to the social well-being of their citizens with a $130 billion pledge to improve life for their people.

Why the history lesson? To understand why Iran is making such a strong stand against Western pressures and tolerating the increasingly devastating economic sanctions that are truly crushing the local economy: Iran is trying to become the poster-child for Muslim resistance against the West, a desire to become the rallying point for radical Islamists everywhere, regardless of their affiliation. They desperately want to become the voice and power of Islam, supplanting any other faction, Sunni or Shiite. They are making this effort despite the fact that their interpretation of the faith has been despised by Sunnis for centuries. Just think how much more credibility they would have in that rallying effort against the West if they controlled a nuclear arsenal (or if other Muslims believed that they did). Iran needs a lot of “fuel” to counter the skepticism of the vast majority of Islam, the Sunnis, and to cripple the efforts of the Saudis and their ilk at containing them.

Additionally, Iran’s leadership, which does not enjoy the level of popular support they claim, requires a strong outside set of enemies, personified by Israel and the United States, to justify their power and rally what popular support they can. An attack by Israel or the United States would go a long way to retrench this theocratic government in the eyes of a very wary and unhappy electorate.

Meanwhile, Russia – even as it distances itself from anything that would smack of a friendly gesture towards anything the U.S. might want (especially in deposing a rogue regime in Syria) – has begun to see the extreme dangers in a direct conflict between the United States (and what the world believes is our proxy, Israel) and Iran over the latter’s nuclear enrichment program, one that creates weapons-grade nuclear fuel purportedly for peaceful electrical power generation. A conflict here would slam the global economy really hard as well. So even Russia has stepped into the fray to convince the Iranians that (i) it will make sure their power reactors have enough fuel and (ii) that Iran should really consider taking down its enrichment program for the stability of the entire region. But today, Iran seems only to have its eyes on the prize of “Islamic spokesman” no matter the cost to its daily existence.

“Russia launched a desperate bid [on June 19^th] to save nuclear talks between six world powers and Iran from collapse and lessen the chances of a Middle East conflict that could draw in the United States… Failure to reach an agreement that limits Iran's nuclear activities would increase the chances that Israel – already skeptical of diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon – could launch an attack, a scenario that potentially could pull in the U.S. and spread chaos throughout the Middle East…

“Expectations were restrained after [a June 18^th] meeting ended on a downbeat note, with diplomats saying Iran had toughened its conditions in exchange for considering six-power demands that it stop enriching from low levels to higher purities closer to the consistency needed to arm nuclear missiles… [D]espite pleas from the presidents of the U.S. and Russia for Iran to agree to curb nuclear activities[,] Iran says sanctions crippling its oil industry must be lifted before it does anything.” Huffington Post, June 19^th. The talks failed, and there are no signs of any future such negotiations anywhere on the horizon. Shiite vs. Sunnis, Chapter 3, approaches.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I wonder if a long fuse to an inevitable conflict has just been lit or if some semblance of calm has a chance to simmer as well.