Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post Reply
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post by Doc »

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/opini ... tente.html
Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente
By MARWAN BISHARA
Published: October 27, 2013

PARIS — Tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States over Washington’s approach to the Middle East were brewing for months before they burst into the open last week.

First, there was the American inaction in Syria and lack of progress on Israeli-Palestinian peace. Then came America’s withdrawal of aid to the Egyptian military after the July coup. Now President Obama is pursuing a very public rapprochement with Iran, Saudi Arabia’s archrival.

The mounting disagreements between the two longtime allies is now in full public view. Last week, the head of Saudi intelligence warned that it would stop cooperating with the United States on certain issues. That came just days after Saudi Arabia stunned even some of its own diplomats when it refused a rotating seat on the United Nations Security Council, citing its anger over the world’s failure to respond to the crisis in Syria.

This spat reflects the Arab world’s deepening frustration with American policy toward Syria, Egypt and Palestine — as well as extreme skepticism about a possible thaw in America’s relations with Iran.

The Arabs have learned from bitter experience that whether by confrontation or collaboration, whatever Iran, America and Israel decide to do leaves them feeling trampled. Like an African proverb says: Whether the elephants fight or play, the grass gets trampled.

America chose Iran and Israel, over their Arab neighbors, as its designated “regional cops” in the 1960s and ’70s, at the height of the Cold War. Since the United States and Iran became sworn enemies after the 1979 revolution, America’s military wishes have by and large been carried out by Arab proxies, often at great cost in blood, treasure and stability. Lebanon, Iraq and Syria are among the countries that have suffered immensely.

Strikingly, until last week, it was only Israel, not its Arab neighbors, that had criticized the thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations (even though Israel might gain a lot from a deal that curtails Iran’s nuclear ambitions).

But ultimately, reconciliation between America and Iran will require compromise over Arab, not Israeli, interests. And these interests are neither Washington’s to cede nor Iran’s to brush aside.

Arab powers fear that negotiations between America and Iran are likely to leave Israel as the one nuclear power in the region, while allowing its occupation of Palestine to continue unabated.

Improved relations between Iran and America could offer benefits: a lifting of Western sanctions and American recognition (however grudging) of Iran’s growing regional influence, starting with Syria, Bahrain and the Gulf region. The United States could use Iran’s help to stabilize Syria — as it helped with Afghanistan after 9/11.

But sooner than later, what appears to be a great diplomatic breakthrough may be revealed to be no more than hopping over a volcano.

That’s because Iranian-American détente will likely deepen the sectarian divisions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, setting the stage for an all-out regionwide sectarian conflict.

Since its 1979 revolution, Iran has become increasingly militarized and religiously radicalized. The Shiite-Sunni tensions that fueled the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 have only grown worse.

As the Saudi government made clear last week, authoritarian Sunni regimes in the region will probably seek to undermine — rather than accept — any agreement that foresees growing Iranian influence in their backyard.

That polarization will inadvertently help Al Qaeda and other extremist Sunni groups, who are bound to see in Iranian-Western rapprochement a tool to multiply their recruits by stoking sectarian hatred. It has already happened in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, and it’s likely to continue.

The consequences are potentially disastrous. Shiite-Sunni fault lines extend through most oil-producing countries. The damage to the regional and global economy from a disruption in the supply of oil could be huge.

But none of this is preordained or inevitable.

The theological roots of the Sunni-Shiite divide might go back 13 centuries, but the violence we are witnessing today is politically motivated and aggravated by foreign intervention in the region.

The Arab states rejected America’s 2003 war in Iraq, which is now ruled by an authoritarian prime minister who is firmly under Iran’s influence. They are not taking kindly to Iran’s continued meddling in the region, including its military support for Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. Indeed, the Syrian opposition has rejected any role for Iran in talks over the future of their country.

While the elephants have been playing, and fighting, Arab leaders have been watching and learning. They know that long-term regional stability is a game they can play, too.

With 370 million people in 22 countries that range from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, Arabs are bound to disagree about plenty of things. But they generally support a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction — and that applies to both Iran and Israel.

The Arab nations, because of their size and strategic significance, are indispensable in shaping the region’s future and its security. Alienating them is wrong — and dangerous.

If, as Mr. Obama said recently at the United Nations, he believes that it is in America’s best interest “to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous,” he needs to make sure the Arabs are part of, and don’t lose from, any future bargain with Iran.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post by Mr. Perfect »

This was a central plank of the Milo Doctrine way back, that a nuclear Iran would cause more internal problems among Muslim countries as opposed to Israel or the US, which is probably true. Irrelevant now because the goal of the MD was to make America stronger and our enemies weaker, and of course bams found a way to do the opposite.
Censorship isn't necessary
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/opini ... tente.html
Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente
By MARWAN BISHARA
Published: October 27, 2013

PARIS — Tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States over Washington’s approach to the Middle East were brewing for months before they burst into the open last week.

First, there was the American inaction in Syria and lack of progress on Israeli-Palestinian peace. Then came America’s withdrawal of aid to the Egyptian military after the July coup. Now President Obama is pursuing a very public rapprochement with Iran, Saudi Arabia’s archrival.

The mounting disagreements between the two longtime allies is now in full public view. Last week, the head of Saudi intelligence warned that it would stop cooperating with the United States on certain issues. That came just days after Saudi Arabia stunned even some of its own diplomats when it refused a rotating seat on the United Nations Security Council, citing its anger over the world’s failure to respond to the crisis in Syria.

This spat reflects the Arab world’s deepening frustration with American policy toward Syria, Egypt and Palestine — as well as extreme skepticism about a possible thaw in America’s relations with Iran.

The Arabs have learned from bitter experience that whether by confrontation or collaboration, whatever Iran, America and Israel decide to do leaves them feeling trampled. Like an African proverb says: Whether the elephants fight or play, the grass gets trampled.

America chose Iran and Israel, over their Arab neighbors, as its designated “regional cops” in the 1960s and ’70s, at the height of the Cold War. Since the United States and Iran became sworn enemies after the 1979 revolution, America’s military wishes have by and large been carried out by Arab proxies, often at great cost in blood, treasure and stability. Lebanon, Iraq and Syria are among the countries that have suffered immensely.

Strikingly, until last week, it was only Israel, not its Arab neighbors, that had criticized the thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations (even though Israel might gain a lot from a deal that curtails Iran’s nuclear ambitions).

But ultimately, reconciliation between America and Iran will require compromise over Arab, not Israeli, interests. And these interests are neither Washington’s to cede nor Iran’s to brush aside.

Arab powers fear that negotiations between America and Iran are likely to leave Israel as the one nuclear power in the region, while allowing its occupation of Palestine to continue unabated.

Improved relations between Iran and America could offer benefits: a lifting of Western sanctions and American recognition (however grudging) of Iran’s growing regional influence, starting with Syria, Bahrain and the Gulf region. The United States could use Iran’s help to stabilize Syria — as it helped with Afghanistan after 9/11.

But sooner than later, what appears to be a great diplomatic breakthrough may be revealed to be no more than hopping over a volcano.

That’s because Iranian-American détente will likely deepen the sectarian divisions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, setting the stage for an all-out regionwide sectarian conflict.

Since its 1979 revolution, Iran has become increasingly militarized and religiously radicalized. The Shiite-Sunni tensions that fueled the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 have only grown worse.

As the Saudi government made clear last week, authoritarian Sunni regimes in the region will probably seek to undermine — rather than accept — any agreement that foresees growing Iranian influence in their backyard.

That polarization will inadvertently help Al Qaeda and other extremist Sunni groups, who are bound to see in Iranian-Western rapprochement a tool to multiply their recruits by stoking sectarian hatred. It has already happened in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, and it’s likely to continue.

The consequences are potentially disastrous. Shiite-Sunni fault lines extend through most oil-producing countries. The damage to the regional and global economy from a disruption in the supply of oil could be huge.

But none of this is preordained or inevitable.

The theological roots of the Sunni-Shiite divide might go back 13 centuries, but the violence we are witnessing today is politically motivated and aggravated by foreign intervention in the region.

The Arab states rejected America’s 2003 war in Iraq, which is now ruled by an authoritarian prime minister who is firmly under Iran’s influence. They are not taking kindly to Iran’s continued meddling in the region, including its military support for Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. Indeed, the Syrian opposition has rejected any role for Iran in talks over the future of their country.

While the elephants have been playing, and fighting, Arab leaders have been watching and learning. They know that long-term regional stability is a game they can play, too.

With 370 million people in 22 countries that range from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, Arabs are bound to disagree about plenty of things. But they generally support a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction — and that applies to both Iran and Israel.

The Arab nations, because of their size and strategic significance, are indispensable in shaping the region’s future and its security. Alienating them is wrong — and dangerous.

If, as Mr. Obama said recently at the United Nations, he believes that it is in America’s best interest “to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous,” he needs to make sure the Arabs are part of, and don’t lose from, any future bargain with Iran.

This is the classic know-nothing fantasy about the Middle East. Arabs and Pomegranates are like different factions in Lord of the Rings, they only exist to massacre one another in apocalyptic CGI battles. Insofar as you can generalize about what "Arabs" are worried about today, Arab dictators and their thug soldiers are a much bigger threat than Iran and the US having a mature diplomatic relationship.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post by Mr. Perfect »

NY Times, Marwan Bashar, know nothings, I'll take it. :)
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/opini ... tente.html
Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente
By MARWAN BISHARA
Published: October 27, 2013

This is the classic know-nothing fantasy about the Middle East. Arabs and Pomegranates are like different factions in Lord of the Rings, they only exist to massacre one another in apocalyptic CGI battles. Insofar as you can generalize about what "Arabs" are worried about today, Arab dictators and their thug soldiers are a much bigger threat than Iran and the US having a mature diplomatic relationship.
Are you saying that healthcare.gov is a remake of the lord of the rings with artistic license? :P

Sunni /Shiite It seems like the Mennonites have, in some ways, more in common with the Shiites than the Sunni's do. At least they aren't killing each other.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11570
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/opini ... tente.html
Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente
By MARWAN BISHARA
Published: October 27, 2013

PARIS — Tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States over Washington’s approach to the Middle East were brewing for months before they burst into the open last week.

First, there was the American inaction in Syria and lack of progress on Israeli-Palestinian peace. Then came America’s withdrawal of aid to the Egyptian military after the July coup. Now President Obama is pursuing a very public rapprochement with Iran, Saudi Arabia’s archrival.

The mounting disagreements between the two longtime allies is now in full public view. Last week, the head of Saudi intelligence warned that it would stop cooperating with the United States on certain issues. That came just days after Saudi Arabia stunned even some of its own diplomats when it refused a rotating seat on the United Nations Security Council, citing its anger over the world’s failure to respond to the crisis in Syria.

This spat reflects the Arab world’s deepening frustration with American policy toward Syria, Egypt and Palestine — as well as extreme skepticism about a possible thaw in America’s relations with Iran.

The Arabs have learned from bitter experience that whether by confrontation or collaboration, whatever Iran, America and Israel decide to do leaves them feeling trampled. Like an African proverb says: Whether the elephants fight or play, the grass gets trampled.

America chose Iran and Israel, over their Arab neighbors, as its designated “regional cops” in the 1960s and ’70s, at the height of the Cold War. Since the United States and Iran became sworn enemies after the 1979 revolution, America’s military wishes have by and large been carried out by Arab proxies, often at great cost in blood, treasure and stability. Lebanon, Iraq and Syria are among the countries that have suffered immensely.

Strikingly, until last week, it was only Israel, not its Arab neighbors, that had criticized the thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations (even though Israel might gain a lot from a deal that curtails Iran’s nuclear ambitions).

But ultimately, reconciliation between America and Iran will require compromise over Arab, not Israeli, interests. And these interests are neither Washington’s to cede nor Iran’s to brush aside.

Arab powers fear that negotiations between America and Iran are likely to leave Israel as the one nuclear power in the region, while allowing its occupation of Palestine to continue unabated.

Improved relations between Iran and America could offer benefits: a lifting of Western sanctions and American recognition (however grudging) of Iran’s growing regional influence, starting with Syria, Bahrain and the Gulf region. The United States could use Iran’s help to stabilize Syria — as it helped with Afghanistan after 9/11.

But sooner than later, what appears to be a great diplomatic breakthrough may be revealed to be no more than hopping over a volcano.

That’s because Iranian-American détente will likely deepen the sectarian divisions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, setting the stage for an all-out regionwide sectarian conflict.

Since its 1979 revolution, Iran has become increasingly militarized and religiously radicalized. The Shiite-Sunni tensions that fueled the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 have only grown worse.

As the Saudi government made clear last week, authoritarian Sunni regimes in the region will probably seek to undermine — rather than accept — any agreement that foresees growing Iranian influence in their backyard.

That polarization will inadvertently help Al Qaeda and other extremist Sunni groups, who are bound to see in Iranian-Western rapprochement a tool to multiply their recruits by stoking sectarian hatred. It has already happened in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, and it’s likely to continue.

The consequences are potentially disastrous. Shiite-Sunni fault lines extend through most oil-producing countries. The damage to the regional and global economy from a disruption in the supply of oil could be huge.

But none of this is preordained or inevitable.

The theological roots of the Sunni-Shiite divide might go back 13 centuries, but the violence we are witnessing today is politically motivated and aggravated by foreign intervention in the region.

The Arab states rejected America’s 2003 war in Iraq, which is now ruled by an authoritarian prime minister who is firmly under Iran’s influence. They are not taking kindly to Iran’s continued meddling in the region, including its military support for Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad. Indeed, the Syrian opposition has rejected any role for Iran in talks over the future of their country.

While the elephants have been playing, and fighting, Arab leaders have been watching and learning. They know that long-term regional stability is a game they can play, too.

With 370 million people in 22 countries that range from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, Arabs are bound to disagree about plenty of things. But they generally support a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction — and that applies to both Iran and Israel.

The Arab nations, because of their size and strategic significance, are indispensable in shaping the region’s future and its security. Alienating them is wrong — and dangerous.

If, as Mr. Obama said recently at the United Nations, he believes that it is in America’s best interest “to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous,” he needs to make sure the Arabs are part of, and don’t lose from, any future bargain with Iran.

This is the classic know-nothing fantasy about the Middle East. Arabs and Pomegranates are like different factions in Lord of the Rings, they only exist to massacre one another in apocalyptic CGI battles. Insofar as you can generalize about what "Arabs" are worried about today, Arab dictators and their thug soldiers are a much bigger threat than Iran and the US having a mature diplomatic relationship.

.

I saw the NYT article the other day .. didn't post becuase it was rubbish

Ibrahim is correct, Arab dictators, Kings and Amirs and Princes (they all made Kings and Amirs by the Brits) are the biggest enemies of Arabs and not Iran .. that sentiment is shared by Arab mass

Mr. Perfect wrote:NY Times, Marwan Bashar, know nothings, I'll take it. :)
yes

.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:Sunni /Shiite It seems like the Mennonites have, in some ways, more in common with the Shiites than the Sunni's do. At least they aren't killing each other.
The obvious analogy would be Orthodox/Catholic and Protestant/Catholic, all of whom warred off and on for the majority of their existence. But positing a global sectarian conflict is amateurish to say the least. You've got Sunnis and Shia in every country in the world with any Muslim population at all. There is only conflict under certain political circumstances.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:Sunni /Shiite It seems like the Mennonites have, in some ways, more in common with the Shiites than the Sunni's do. At least they aren't killing each other.
The obvious analogy would be Orthodox/Catholic and Protestant/Catholic, all of whom warred off and on for the majority of their existence. But positing a global sectarian conflict is amateurish to say the least. You've got Sunnis and Shia in every country in the world with any Muslim population at all. There is only conflict under certain political circumstances.
There is something to be said that Islam has not been around as long as Christianity. But at the same time the most successful immigrants in North America are either Canadians or Americans without any hyphens. At least that is what I have observed.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:Sunni /Shiite It seems like the Mennonites have, in some ways, more in common with the Shiites than the Sunni's do. At least they aren't killing each other.
The obvious analogy would be Orthodox/Catholic and Protestant/Catholic, all of whom warred off and on for the majority of their existence. But positing a global sectarian conflict is amateurish to say the least. You've got Sunnis and Shia in every country in the world with any Muslim population at all. There is only conflict under certain political circumstances.
There is something to be said that Islam has not been around as long as Christianity. But at the same time the most successful immigrants in North America are either Canadians or Americans without any hyphens. At least that is what I have observed.
Statistically immigrants from India (i.e. Indian-Americans and Indian-Canadians) economically outperform the the rest of the population. So bow down to Ganesh!
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:Sunni /Shiite It seems like the Mennonites have, in some ways, more in common with the Shiites than the Sunni's do. At least they aren't killing each other.
The obvious analogy would be Orthodox/Catholic and Protestant/Catholic, all of whom warred off and on for the majority of their existence. But positing a global sectarian conflict is amateurish to say the least. You've got Sunnis and Shia in every country in the world with any Muslim population at all. There is only conflict under certain political circumstances.
There is something to be said that Islam has not been around as long as Christianity. But at the same time the most successful immigrants in North America are either Canadians or Americans without any hyphens. At least that is what I have observed.
Statistically immigrants from India (i.e. Indian-Americans and Indian-Canadians) economically outperform the the rest of the population. So bow down to Ganesh!
It was talking about a state of mind Not any particular religion.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:Sunni /Shiite It seems like the Mennonites have, in some ways, more in common with the Shiites than the Sunni's do. At least they aren't killing each other.
The obvious analogy would be Orthodox/Catholic and Protestant/Catholic, all of whom warred off and on for the majority of their existence. But positing a global sectarian conflict is amateurish to say the least. You've got Sunnis and Shia in every country in the world with any Muslim population at all. There is only conflict under certain political circumstances.
There is something to be said that Islam has not been around as long as Christianity. But at the same time the most successful immigrants in North America are either Canadians or Americans without any hyphens. At least that is what I have observed.
Statistically immigrants from India (i.e. Indian-Americans and Indian-Canadians) economically outperform the the rest of the population. So bow down to Ganesh!
It was talking about a state of mind Not any particular religion.

Actually that's good because Indian immigrants include Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Christians, Buddhists, and probably some atheists too.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post by Typhoon »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:Sunni /Shiite It seems like the Mennonites have, in some ways, more in common with the Shiites than the Sunni's do. At least they aren't killing each other.
The obvious analogy would be Orthodox/Catholic and Protestant/Catholic, all of whom warred off and on for the majority of their existence. But positing a global sectarian conflict is amateurish to say the least. You've got Sunnis and Shia in every country in the world with any Muslim population at all. There is only conflict under certain political circumstances.
There is something to be said that Islam has not been around as long as Christianity. But at the same time the most successful immigrants in North America are either Canadians or Americans without any hyphens. At least that is what I have observed.
Statistically immigrants from India (i.e. Indian-Americans and Indian-Canadians) economically outperform the the rest of the population. So bow down to Ganesh!
It was talking about a state of mind Not any particular religion.

Actually that's good because Indian immigrants include Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Christians, Buddhists, and probably some atheists too.
And Zoroastrians.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Why Arabs Fear a U.S.-Iran Détente

Post by Ibrahim »

Typhoon wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Statistically immigrants from India (i.e. Indian-Americans and Indian-Canadians) economically outperform the the rest of the population. So bow down to Ganesh!
It was talking about a state of mind Not any particular religion.

Actually that's good because Indian immigrants include Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Christians, Buddhists, and probably some atheists too.
And Zoroastrians.
Ah yes, the Parsees. And me a Moby Dick fan....
Post Reply