Comment at Daniel Drezner's Blog
The principal interest the United States has in the Middle East is seeing oil revenues channeled into infrastructure to improve the lives of Middle Eastern populations, rather than terror weapons to support Islamic radicals in the global jihad.
The Luttwak article Daniel recently linked notes that for Iran, Sunni Arabian oil dynasties very conveniently have Shiite minorities to be mobilized. Very inconveniently for Iran, though, these Shiite minorities are not Persian, but rather Shia Arabs who are much more sympathetic towards fellow Shia Arabs in Iraq than Shia Persians in Iran. Even more inconveniently for Iran, the Persian Empire also has a Shiite Arab minority to mobilize who are also much more sympathetic towards Shia Arabs in Iraq than Shia Persians in Iran. Most inconveniently of all for Iran, the Shiite Arab minorities in Iran are majorities in the provinces where Iran's oil actually occurs.
Given unmatched American military strength in the Northern Persian Gulf and close relations with Ayatollah Sistani, who would no doubt like to see these friendly Shiite Arab populations liberated from their Persian opressors, the US is in a wonderful position to defund the Shiite radicals funded by Tehran. As Laurent Murawiec notes, the Saudi oil provinces also have a majority of Shia Arabs who are much more sympathetic towards fellow Shia Arabs in Iraq than Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia.
A couple of American divisions supporting a couple of Iraqi divisions could control the Northern Persian Gulf, not only defunding 12th Imam Persian Shiite radicals funded by Tehran, but also Wahhabi Sunni Arab radicals funded by Riyadh. We defang Islamic radicals of both stripes simply by dismembering the empires created for Persian and Saudi oppressors by British and French colonialists in the aftermath of World War I.
This wouldn't be blood for oil, it would be blood for liberation, since we would be liberating Shia Arabs from the colonization by imperialist opressors. Ayatollah Sistani would bless the Shia Arab divisions that join us in liberating their neighboring cousins from foreign domination out of Tehran and Riyadh, and agree to international administration of the northern gulf's oil resources in return for the opportunity to unite all Shia Arabs with Najaf. With those Shia Arab divisions at our side, liberating the Shia-majority oil provinces from the Persians in Tehran and the Sunnis in Riyadh ought to earn us a very warm welcome.
Defunding both Tehran and Riyadh seems like a geopolitical masterstroke, fixing the leftover problems from the WWI peace settlement created when those older empires thought they would control those territories and resources. This seems like an entirely appropriate response to the threat that radicals from both the Iranian Empire and the Saudi Empire pose to world stability. Once we put northern Persian Gulf oil production under US-UK-Australia-Canada-Japan-India administration, there's no more worries about an Islamic bomb -- neither the Iranians nor the Saudis will have the money to build it. Nor will they have the money to continue funding Shiite and Sunni extremism.
The Luttwak article Daniel recently linked notes that for Iran, Sunni Arabian oil dynasties very conveniently have Shiite minorities to be mobilized. Very inconveniently for Iran, though, these Shiite minorities are not Persian, but rather Shia Arabs who are much more sympathetic towards fellow Shia Arabs in Iraq than Shia Persians in Iran. Even more inconveniently for Iran, the Persian Empire also has a Shiite Arab minority to mobilize who are also much more sympathetic towards Shia Arabs in Iraq than Shia Persians in Iran. Most inconveniently of all for Iran, the Shiite Arab minorities in Iran are majorities in the provinces where Iran's oil actually occurs.
Given unmatched American military strength in the Northern Persian Gulf and close relations with Ayatollah Sistani, who would no doubt like to see these friendly Shiite Arab populations liberated from their Persian opressors, the US is in a wonderful position to defund the Shiite radicals funded by Tehran. As Laurent Murawiec notes, the Saudi oil provinces also have a majority of Shia Arabs who are much more sympathetic towards fellow Shia Arabs in Iraq than Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia.
A couple of American divisions supporting a couple of Iraqi divisions could control the Northern Persian Gulf, not only defunding 12th Imam Persian Shiite radicals funded by Tehran, but also Wahhabi Sunni Arab radicals funded by Riyadh. We defang Islamic radicals of both stripes simply by dismembering the empires created for Persian and Saudi oppressors by British and French colonialists in the aftermath of World War I.
This wouldn't be blood for oil, it would be blood for liberation, since we would be liberating Shia Arabs from the colonization by imperialist opressors. Ayatollah Sistani would bless the Shia Arab divisions that join us in liberating their neighboring cousins from foreign domination out of Tehran and Riyadh, and agree to international administration of the northern gulf's oil resources in return for the opportunity to unite all Shia Arabs with Najaf. With those Shia Arab divisions at our side, liberating the Shia-majority oil provinces from the Persians in Tehran and the Sunnis in Riyadh ought to earn us a very warm welcome.
Defunding both Tehran and Riyadh seems like a geopolitical masterstroke, fixing the leftover problems from the WWI peace settlement created when those older empires thought they would control those territories and resources. This seems like an entirely appropriate response to the threat that radicals from both the Iranian Empire and the Saudi Empire pose to world stability. Once we put northern Persian Gulf oil production under US-UK-Australia-Canada-Japan-India administration, there's no more worries about an Islamic bomb -- neither the Iranians nor the Saudis will have the money to build it. Nor will they have the money to continue funding Shiite and Sunni extremism.
posted by Mark White at 6:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home