Islamic Civil War?

[Ollie Garchy]

According to various sources, it seems that the Middle East is wobbling on the brink of some kind of religious civil war. Various news agencies like CNN have touched on the potential for a Shi'ite-Sunni conflict. Other think tanks like CSIS have emphasized a growing chasm between states like Egypt and Iran. More or less normal countries like Egypt are getting sick and tired of the Shi'ite extremists.

I have seen quite a few comments by many members of this forum that treat the Islamic world like some kind of amorphous mass. Some members have even suggested a kind of coordinated Islamic grab at world power. Nothing could be further from the truth. As more and more of the Middle East is descending into war, I wonder how long it will take the Sunnis to realize that the Shi'ites have already gone over the brink. Add cultural and political problems and we have an explosive cocktail.

Hezbollah and Al Qaida are mortal enemies. Hamas is an embarrasment for the entire Middle East. Syria is turning the screw on Lebanon -- a country where 40% of the people are Christians. Iraq is a living hell where competing Islamic sects already hunt each other. Afganistan is back to warlord and druglord control. Pakistan is scared to death of India...and Islamic extremists. Add all of the other factors, and we have some kind of imminent implosion on our hands.

Or....hasn't it just always been this way.

http://www.csis.org/

 

[Chief Bones]

O.G.
Your summation is masterful ... and ... yes, the Middle East has ALWAYS been a hotbed for eternal strife. Most of the Arab countries really don't want a civil war and will do everything to ensure that IF one starts, it will be a very very short one. Some of the radical extremist groups are in for an eye opener if they over-step the boundaries that Arab countries are willing to support ... these groups MAY suddenly find themselves up to their backsides in Alligators (former friends), when they begin their Holy Jihads and the Middle East begins to burn with fanaticism. They will find that their former friends have turned against them out of self preservation. Most of the world would offer assistance against extremist terrorist fanatics ... they realize that this kind of war sometimes explodes outside the main battlefield and they do NOT want to end up being a target.

 

[Airborne Eagle]

I think, rather than looking at it from a strictly sectarian perspective, you could view it as a change in government attitudes toward extremists. For years, Saudi Arabia delicately walked on a rope about al Qaeda. They didn't have the power to rope them in, but also didn't want them to take over. (most obviously - bad for business).

I think we may be seeing a pivot point when governments move from supporting groups (overtly or tacitly) to cold relations to outright hostility toward the organizations. They're imbalancing to many regimes. They command the spirit of the disenfranchised, expose the corruption and offer a crusade (pardon the expression).

Regardless, what we may be seeing is the formation of a workable coalition. They don't need to be friendly to the US, but they may be partners in the fight against militant Islam.

As far as al Qaeda and Hizbullah being mortal enemies, the Arabs have an expression, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." To put it another way (also an Arab expression), there are no permanent friends. There are, however, permanent interests.

Don't count out coordination or cooperation. If the secular regimes of Iraq and Syria could/can support terrorist regimes and if Iran can find common grounds with Syria (Iran - Persians and mainly Shia, Syria - Arabs and mainly Sunni, though ruled by Shia), never say never.