So here I am in Cairo. One of the big issues I plan to look here at is this much-reported-on polarization of attitudes between the Shiites and Sunnis of the Middle East.
Abu Aardvark and Badger are two of the people who have done the most to give us the details of how this relatively new polarization has been spreading almost “virally” throughout much of the Arab world. (There is also some very deadly Shiite-Sunni tension in Pakistan, that is more of a long-running thing; and a certain amount of it historically in Afghanistan, too. But I think the dynamics there might be a bit different? Anyway, I don’t feel qualified to comment on those phenomena. The Middle East alone is quite hard enough to fathom and explain.)
What is frequently described as a Shiite-Sunni “polarization” in today’s Arab world is, in fact, more like a tsunami of anti-Shiite agitation, propagandizing, and also apparently real sentiment that has been sweeping many Sunni-dominated Arab socieies. One of the first things to note is how incredibly fast this tsunami has gathered its force. I mean, it was only last September that we were hearing about the vendors in Cairo’s (deeply Sunni) street-markets naming the choicest among their special Eid baskets of dates after Hizbullah head Sayed Hassan Nasrallah… But here we are today, a bare 4-5 months later, and rumors– never yet substantiated!– of widespread and scary Shiite campaigns to convert Sunnis, and other nefarious plots that are all somehow Shiite-related seem to be sweeping through Egypt and other Sunni Arab communities like wildfire.
So one of the things that I want to do while I’m here is to really probe what’s been happening. And also, to survey the possible future directions in which this sign of sectarian fitna (complete social breakdown) might go.
It seems evident that the whole series of episodes that surrounded the execution of Saddam (and his half brother) at year’s end did a lot to catalyze and/or exacerbate this tsunami of anti-Shiite feeling among many Sunnis… But that is certainly not all that has been afoot. Other very relevant factors include the fact that after three-years-plus of increasingly sectarian carnage in Iraq, the nerves and sensibilities of nearly everyone in the Arab world are very raw. At this level, it doesn’t even “help” the argument much to note that the greatest number by far of casualties from sectarian violence there have been Shiites– those thousands of Iraqi Shiites who have been killed over the past three-plus years by acts of anti-civilian violence of almost mind-numbing callousness… Bombs in markets, bombs in mosques, bombs at religious festivals, etc etc.
And yes, there has also been some extremely callous counter-violence against Iraqi Sunnis. The torture chambers, the mass arrest campaigns, the hundreds of mutilated bodies of Sunni men tossed out on the roadside… But in addition to the hurt from that violence there is also, probably, for many Iraqi Sunnis a broader sense of a stark new vulnerability. From having been valued members of (for many of them) a relatively well-cared-for and well-educated elite– and lauded by many of their fellow Arabs for their role as a bulwark against Iran– most of Iraq’s Sunnis were reduced within a few short months to being members of an extremely vulnerable minority in their own country. That kind of rapid downward mobility can easily– as in post-1919 Germany– be a ready incubator for hate-fueled or even genocidal ideologies…
And in another corner of the Arab world we have Lebanon, where the “national unity” of last summer turned very rapidly– and with the determined help of the Americans– into a sullen form of Shiite-Sunni jousting for power. In Lebanon, too, as in Iraq, the Sunnis have been faced with having to give up a social and political ascendancy over the Shiites (though notably never, in Lebanon, over the Christians) that dated back to the days of the– determinedly Sunni– Ottoman Empire. In a sense, I suppose you could say that what is happening in both Lebanon and Iraq is a last-stage crumbling away of some last vestiges of the Ottoman-bequeathed social order…. And it hasn’t been a happy process for the Sunni communities of those two countries.
Add into this mix a few other complicating factors, too. Starting off with a powerful US-Israeli strategic axis in the region that (a) has projected a very powerful message that the use of force is quite okay in the modern era, while resisting and blocking nearly all the available channels for talking through differences rather than fighting over them, (b) has played a documented role in stoking the internal discord and violence in at least one very visible area: occupied Palestine, and (c) has showed itself openly eager to try to enrol the Sunni Arab regimes, and as much as possible of the Arab publics, in a coalition dedicated to confronting or rolling back the growth of Iran’s regional power. Which, by the way, is Shiite.
The complete smashing-up of the Iraqi state, which many other Arabs had in an earlier era seen as a bastion of the “Arab nation’s” defense against Iran, has certainly heightened all these sensitivities and fears. (Less so, I think, the Iranian nuclear program, though that has been the focus of most of the concern in the west. The Middle Eastern Arabs have, after all, lived for many decades now under the shadow of a local power that is nuclear-armed and has a record of hostile actions against them that is considerably lengthier than Iran’s.)
Then, too, have you seen how easily all these descriptions of the nature of this current crisis can slide between one based primarily on sect (Sunni and Shiite) and one based primarily on ethnicity (Arab and Iranian)? This is another complex aspect of the problem. And in this regard, once again, as in the early 1980s, the ultimate (or at least medium-term) allegiances of the ethnic-Arab Shiites who populate the northern reaches of the Arabian/Persian Gulf will prove key to the way the whole situation turns out.
When Saddam invaded Iran in September 1980, he and his people were betting (as some neocons do once again today) that they could rely on the anti-Persian sentiments of many of Iran’s non-Persian nationalities… Including crucially, the allegedly pro-Baghdad sentiments of those millions of ethnic Arabs who populate Iran’s Ahvaz region, to the east of the Shatt al-Arab. (Very productive oil territory, too.)
But it didn’t work. Back in the 1980s some combination of “national” (i.e. pan-Iranian) and sectarian (Shiite) allegiance proved strong enough to overcome any tendency the Ahvaz Arabs might have had towards ethnic solidarity with Baghdad. They didn’t rise against the mullahs’ regime in Teheran. And nor did any of the other peripheral ethnic minorities whom Saddam had been relying on.
This time around, a lot of what determines how the present threat of regionwide fitna turns out will hang on the outcome of a broadly similar clash of loyalties amongst the many millions of Shiites of southern Iraq— who are the close neighbors and sometimes cousins of their co-ethnics and Shiite co-sectarians right acorss the border. Over the coming months and years will they show their loyalties more to the Iraqi nation and their Arab ethnicity, or to their Shiite co-sectarians in Iran? (This is another take on the issue of the “battle of the narratives” inside Iraq that i wrote about a month ago, here.)
I’ll note a couple of things in this regard. The Iraqis Shiites may have “won” an unprecedented degree of political power, due to the US toppling of Saddam and the subsequent de-Baathification campaigns pursued under US auspices. But if political power was something they longed for for all these decades past, then the actual experience they have had of it in the past four years must have been extremely disappointing. Many of their communities have been ravaged by those hundreds of acts of enormous, anti-civilian savagery, and have lost any sense of public security. And meanwhile the “government” to which they were handed the keys was one that (1) had already been denuded of all the actual instruments of governance, and (2) continued to have its freedom of action circumscribed at every turn by the Americans… So they couldn’t even use the government to assure their own most basic security and wellbeing, let alone having tmuch wherewithal with which to reach out “generously” to their Sunni compatriots.
Also, we’ve seen generally lousy leadership from all strata of the political class in Iraq: Shiite, Sunni, or “nationalist”. Maybe this shouldn’t be surprising, given the extent to which Saddam, Hussein had stripped the country of any ability to generate good and visionary successor leaders. He murdered scores of such individuals as they arose within the country! Tom Friedman has famously (and perhaps more than slightly accusingly) asked, “Where is the Arab Martin Luther King, Jr.?” I would say that more than that, what would be great would be an Arab Nelson Mandela: someone who could help unify his people around a clear and compelling political program, stick to it until victory, and then act with gracious magnanimity to the people who had thereby lost a degree of their earlier power.
(Mandela and the ANC achieved this, I should note, through a nuanced combination of main reliance on unarmed civilian mass action, supplemented by the actions of a relatively small but symbolically important armed wing. But mainly what strikes me about the ANC’s strength was its focus on organizing, organizing, organizing… and on an internal discipline that was honed over 82 years of nationalist struggle before they reached victory in 1994.)
The nearest that the Arab Shiites have to such a figure is Sayed Hassan Nasrallah. But I don’t think he yet has anything like the gravitas and wisdom of Oliver Tambo and Nelson Mandela. It would be great to see him reach out with some gestures of grand magnanimity to the many distressed Sunnis in the Arab world… Particularly, the distressed Sunnis of Iraq.
And then, talking of distressed Sunnis, we also of course have the Palestinians… whose duly elected parliamentary leaders of the Hamas movement have maintained good relations with Teheran. Now Hamas also has close ideological and organizational relations with the Muslim Brotherhood in both Egypt and Jordan. It must be a constant, looming concern for the Bushists that the harshness of the Israeli policies against Hamas that they in general strongly support might at any point tip the political balance in one or both of those key, overwhelmingly Sunni countries against their present pro-US rulers and in favor of the Muslim Brothers… So the anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian propaganda campaigns that these regimes in Cairo and Amman have been undertaking also seem to have the goal of trying to distract their peoples’ attention away from the crisis that continues to grip the Palestinians.
Where is this all headed? That’s one of the things I want to try to figure out more over over my two-plus-week visit here.
One general observation I’ll make is that these days, and perhaps especially in this region, history seems to be proceeding at a dizzyingly fast pace. Near the head of this (admittedly slightly rambly) post I noted the speed with which the present round of anti-Shiite agitation seems to have sunk some roots in Sunni Arab communities. But this trend could stop, or even be reversed, with just the same kind of speed. I have the distinct sense that the coming three to six months will be momentous for this whole region… And yes, I believe that will be the case even if (God willing!) the Bushists should finally decide not to launch any military attack against Iran.
But if they do take such a foolhardy and callous step, then the whole region might erupt in quite unpredictable ways.
11 thoughts on “Whither the Shiite-Sunni “split””
Comments are closed.
You point this out, but perhaps you don’t emphasize this as much as Abu Aardvark in particular does: the Sunni-Shiite divide, while obviously exacerbated by the disenfranchisement that Sunni Arabs all across the region feel as they see Shiites gaining more power as a result of Iraq, is primarily what Abu Aardvark calls a reflection of top-down strategy. The Sunni Arab regimes, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are all too happy to go along with and exploit the anti-Shiite current, because it both deflects criticism and anger away from themselves, stabilizing their power, and also allows these states to show the US that they are eagerly giving it support for its anti-Iran stance.
What the Sunni Arab regimes might not realize is that this kind of policy is counterproductive, in that it sows the seeds for long-term conflict between Sunnis and Shia all over the region, and this conflict could seriously destabilize these Sunni regimes if it were to translate into violence in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.
relatively new polarization has been spreading almost “virally” throughout much of the Arab world.
Helena did you read this report of National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)
Thanks to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte?
For his nice work and he will be again a hero of ME after what he got his old heroism when he was in Latin America.
Helena,
I believe that will be the case even if (God willing!) the Bushists should finally decide not to launch any military attack against Iran.
US went and invaded Iraq to liberate Shiites in Iraq not Iraq and not Iraqis.
So if Bushists go to Iran whom they go to librating?
…this much-reported-on polarization of attitudes between the Shiites and Sunnis of the Middle East.
Not just in the Middle East…Today’s New York Times had a front page story by Neil MacFarquhar on the “Sunni-Shiite split in U.S.”
An excerpt:
Escalating tensions between Sunnis and Shiites across the Middle East are rippling through some American Muslim communities, and have been blamed for events including vandalism and student confrontations. Political splits between those for and against the American invasion of Iraq fuel some of the animosity, but it is also a fight among Muslims about who represents Islam.
Long before the vandalism in Dearborn and Detroit, feuds had been simmering on some college campuses. Some Shiite students said they had faced repeated discrimination, like being formally barred by the Sunni-dominated Muslim Student Association from leading prayers. At numerous universities, Shiite students have broken away from the association, which has dozens of chapters nationwide, to form their own groups.
“A microcosm of what is happening in Iraq happened in New Jersey because people couldn’t put aside their differences,” said Sami Elmansoury, a Sunni Muslim and former vice president of the Islamic Society at Rutgers University, where there has been a sharp dispute.
(mostly for “Mike”)
You might emphasize more strongly still. “The Sunni Arab regimes, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are all too happy to go along with and exploit the anti-Shiite current” is certainly sound, but I incline to guess that these folks may be egging the Bushies on, and not vice versa. Helena and “Abu Aardvaark” and “Badger” all seem to start from a Middle Eastern conventional street wisdom to the effect that General Mubárak and the rest of the Arab Palace gentry can never be anything but puppets of Uncle Sam. If one starts from the present disarray down at Crawford, though, there may be room for an exception.
The Sunni International has one big advantage: they know exactly what they want, and they want it very badly, namely protection from “Safavids” regionally and from their own subjects domestically. Republican Party extremists, on the other hand, continue their quest for anything at all that can be trumpeted as success and victory for what they’be been up to since March 2003, regardless of exactly what arrangements in the Middle East those happy abstract words substantially refer to. Under such circumstances, the tail does have some prospect of wagging the dog. I think.
To Tom Friedman I ask, Where did our MLK, Jr. go?
Mike,
in that it sows the seeds for long-term conflict between Sunnis and Shia all over the region,
You are right in this but I have to add Iran recent history in the region during Shah followed by Mullah had demonstrated threat to the stability of the region some times by invading some Islands and then Khomeini’s call to export his revolution to neighbouring states instead to ” wipe Israel or fight the Big Evil” as what Khomeini clamed.
I agree with you this will be dangerous struggle without end but you need to beer in mind these regimes and states have two things:
1- They did not have majority support inside their states for their rulers and they are not loved by their citizens, which they really knew, that enforced them to relay on their western friends whom midwife them 100 years ago.
2- The western friends\supporters also have their interest in the region to be unstable for different reasons and goals one of them serving Israel in long term, none of these states will be using its wealth and power to be developed and also help other sisters to develop or union with them.
In recent history this region experiencing continues wars and tensions for the last 100 years.
Use to be between 7-10 years there is a war done by Israel and Arab so now the region has more threat from different directions.
I would say that more than that, what would be great would be an Arab Nelson Mandela […] The nearest that the Arab Shiites have to such a figure is Sayed Hassan Nasrallah.
I’d be interested to hear you elaborate on this argument. I’ll admit that Mandela isn’t the first analogy that comes to mind when I think of Nasrallah.
I suppose one way that Nasrallah might be likened to Mandela is that he represents a group of people who are disenfranchised under the current National Pact/Taif political system, and is trying to get a better deal for them through mass action and political means. Is this what you had in mind? If so, I take your point but I’m not sure I agree, given that Hizbullah’s ideology excludes or marginalizes a substantial minority of the Lebanese population rather than (as in the ANC’s case) being inclusive toward all. And if you’re referring to HA’s regional role, I’d definitely argue that a major ideological shift would be required before it can be analogized to the ANC.
I too think that there is some potential for Hassan Nasrallah to bring an organized unifying force to the situation. Unfortunately, the initial situation is more complex, I think, in the Middle East than in South Africa. There are more polarized ethnic/political groups, for one thing. But worse, there is the constant manipulation of the situation and the constant threat of violence from the outside. In South Africa, the rulers were the rulers, and the disenfranchised the disenfranchised. In the Middle East, and especially in countries like Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, those who appear to have power don’t really. They are in many ways manipulated by, rather than members of, an external agency.
So, there are no clear boundaries of power. Signora, for instance, can’t capitulate to Hizbollah’s demands even if he wants to. He can’t form a Unity Government because his outside supporters won’t allow it. Hamas and Fatah are fighting a war that was deliberately engineered from the outside world, and then, just to make sure it would happen, the US distributed arms to one side (no food and medicine – just military aid).
I think this creates a situation with a lot more pressure and a context that makes it very difficult to ever resolve any issue or create any unity. In South Africa they actually had local powers to deal with, but in the Middle East there is an unending supply of potential puppets and figure heads for the west to draw on. That is why it is important for us who are in that other world to speak out and use all our resources to try to do something about the situation here.
Jonathan,
May I ask what you are referring to as HA’s “ideology”, and which part of it do you find incompatible with an inclusive society? Thanks.
May I ask what you are referring to as HA’s “ideology”, and which part of it do you find incompatible with an inclusive society?
I’m referring to its 1985 and 2003 platforms, which call for the establishment of an Islamic republic (albeit by democratic means) and governance by Islamic law. I’d consider this program an exclusionary one in a country that’s 30 to 40 percent Christian, unless some affirmative provisions are added to protect the rights of non-Muslim minorities. Otherwise, Islamic governance even by democratic means would amount to tyranny of the majority.
And before you ask, I’m a vocal advocate of national-minority rights for non-Jews in Israel, and I oppose those parties that favor governance by Jewish religious law.