Middle East and the Arab Spring

Middle East and the Arab Spring

© 2015 Rick Adamson

by Rick Adamson 2.17.15

History

The history of the Middle East dates back to ancient times, and the region has generally been a major center of world affairs. Several major religions have their origins in the Middle East, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the Muslim religion).

Islam is the major religion of the region; however, Christians, Jews and many others are well represented. Only about 20 percent of the world’s Islamists (Muslins) live in the Middle East, most live elsewhere.

The modern Arab Countries of the Middle East were created upon the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after WWI and have been dominated by authoritarian or religious regimes ever since. See partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. Iran and that east of it were part of the Persian Empire.

Like Christianity, there are many versions of Islam. In the Middle East the most prominent denominations are Shi’a (20%) and Sunni (80%). These groups occupy every Middle Eastern country with Sunni being the majority in all but Iran, Bahrain and by some estimates Iraq.

These denominations were heavily influenced by the Persian and Ottoman Empires. The Arab countries were from the Ottoman Empire and tend to be Sunni; Iran was Persian and is principally Shi’a.

Sunni and Shi’a do not like each other and have been fighting, in one form or another, since the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632. They live in segregated villages or tribes (countryside) and communities (cities). They discriminate and persecute one another at every turn. They do not talk, socialize or do business with each other.

While most people in the region just want to live in peace there are radical groups within each denomination that are violent and tend to push back against their governments due to discrimination, among other reasons. All these militants/ jihad’s have ever known is war. They fight with their neighboring villages and occasionally band together to fight the West and, of course, Jews. It has been said that the status of a tribal leader is determined by the status of his enemy.

For example: Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The government was Shi’a and they persecuted and discriminated against the majority (Sunni) which welcomed al-Qaida (Sunni) in order to relieve them from persecution.  And after him came Hasan al-Maliki, also Shi’a, and he persecuted and discriminated against the majority (Sunni) who then welcomed the relief that ISIS (formally al-Qaida) promised.

(By the way, there were no substantial al-Qaida forces (ISIS had not been born) in Iraq when our troops left in 2012. Over a short 2 year period Maliki got in bed with Iran and decimated the Iraqi military (which we spent billions of dollars to build).  He then proceeded to persecute the majority (Sunni) population to the point that they welcomed the relief that ISIS (Sunni) promised. A residual force of 20,000 to 30,000 US troops would have stopped that in its tracks.

Who made the decision to withdraw? Obama and Clinton!

O’Reilly explains what really happened: Talking Points, Bill O’Reilly, March 18, 2015

ISIS started in Syria as push back against a Shi’a government which persecuted and discriminated against the majority (Sunni).

This is exactly what happened in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen and is ongoing in Syria. Only the names of the militants change; the reasons remain the same. These uprisings (labeled the Arab Spring) have led to their rulers being forced from power with the exception of Syria which continues.

The Arab Spring has also produced major protests in Algeria, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, and Sudan; and minor protests had occurred in Mauritania, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, and Western Sahara.

In some cases the scenarios have been reversed in that there was a Sunni or other government which was opposed by Shi’a militants such as Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi in Yemen.

Allegedly, Iran (Shi’a) supplies funds and other support to these Shi’a militants as well as to the Shi’a governments of Iraq and Syria, among others. This along with Iran’s pursuit of an atomic bomb is what scares the pants off of the other nations in the region.

With the potential of militant uprisings constantly percolating beneath the surface there is no wonder these countries have been dominated by authoritarian governments. Anyone who has studied the region understands this. This is how governments were able to keep the lid on things and avoid bloodshed while allowing most people to live in relative peace.

The US and others have a perfect right and obligation to encourage the regimes to improve in the area of human rights and to move toward democracy. However, they have no right to naively encourage radical regime change without thinking through to what the result might be.  The question of what next must be contemplated before a dictator is toppled e.g., Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. See what a mess the region is in now.

Arab Spring

It may be a coincidence but this whole region has been coming apart for the past 6 years which happens to overlap the tenure of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

One has to wonder if Obama’s 2009 speech in Egypt had anything to do with the current situation. Obama told his Egyptian audience he was seeking a “new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” Mutual interests? LOL

In that speech he also said "I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose." (As an aside, this is a novel concept that we should try in the good'ole USA.)

I am sure the powers that be simply wanted to free the people of the Arab countries, which is admirable; however, they should have anticipated that, given the opportunity, the militants/jihad’s would overpower the ordinary folks and anarchy would result. Moreover, it is totally unrealistic to expect countries with no experience with democracy to transition to a form of government that has taken us over 200 years to develop. It can’t be done!

See related article: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2012/06/24/obama-s-arab-spring-was-not-based-on-reality/

Eighteen months later, the uprisings of the Arab spring began. The first was a peaceful revolution in Tunisia, then carnage in Syria. Then after the riots in Egypt Obama called for Mubarak to step down "now", (upending three decades of American relations with its most stalwart ally in the Arab world.)

Obama "led from behind," providing air power and intelligence but leaving it to NATO’s European powers and their Arab allies to help overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This one was Hillary’s baby. She was determined to get rid of Gaddafi despite assurances that he was willing to embrace change.  In the brutal aftermath – jihad’s killed the US ambassador in Benghazi – painfully underlining the dangers of unleashing militants who invariably over power the good folks. Please note that Libya was Hillary’s because she, more than anyone, insisted that Gaddafi go.

What about Obama’s May 2011 speech where he called for the leader of Syria to embrace democracy or move aside, though without specifically demanding his ouster. Obama said the "shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region." The president noted that two leaders had stepped down - referring to Egypt and Tunisia - and said that "more may follow." All the while Obama refused to arm the opposition or impose a no-fly zone. Obama later said that a line in the sand would be if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against it’s people, it did and Obama choked.

Obama’s hope was that engagement, combined with the responsibility of exercising power, would encourage Islamist-led governments toward pragmatism. It didn’t.

As usual Obama’s remarks were eloquent; however, they were delivered to the wrong audience. He exhibited immature irrational behavior (attributable to his lack of experience and arrogance) by thinking that he could promote rebellions by legitimate freedom fighters without unleashing the militant/jihad’s.  Another way to describe his actions is doing “Stupid Stuff”.

Finally, at a time when events in the Middle East required our utmost attention, Obama unveiled his 2012 "Pivot to East Asia" regional strategy. This simply meant that more attention would be paid and more resources would be used in the South China Sea areas and less in the Middle East.

In summary, Obama’s actions were akin to starting a fire next door to a fire station and dispatching the firefighters to attend to a blaze across town!

Arab Winter

Obama has defended his record of supporting democratization despite chaos and crises. He told 60 Minutes "It was absolutely the right thing for us to do to align ourselves with democracy, universal rights, a notion that people have to be able to participate in their own governance."

The Brooks Institute has reported that Obama has alienated both regimes and their opponents. "Autocrats, particularly in the Gulf, think Obama naively supports Arab revolutionaries, while Arab protesters and revolutionaries seem to think the opposite."

So to look back now to the uplifting rhetoric of June 2009 is to reflect on the gap between ambition and reality; of idealism and inexperience and of a lack of the simplest strategic thinking like - what next?

Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, a supporter of Barack Obama’s election in 2012, is offering stinging criticism of the president’s Middle East policy, suggesting it led to the ISIS crisis and broad instability in the region. He said “It was big mistake to jump on the Arab Spring enthusiastically, without realizing it was soon going to turn into an ‘Arab Winter’.”

In my opinion, Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton violated their “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” strategy and they own the mess we now have (and that they encouraged) in the Middle East.

Iran

Iran (Persia) is a country with a very long history. It dates back to around 3,000 BC. Iran was once a world power, the first world empire, if fact. Its people are generally smart and well educated.  They are superb negotiators (due to a long history of mercantilism) and very patient.

According to the CIA World Factbook, around 90–95% of Iranians associate themselves with the Shi'a branch (denomination) of Islam.

Iran (Shi’a) supplies funds and other support to Shi’a lead governments and Shi’a militants all over the region (and maybe the world). These include the governments of Iraq and Syria, among others, and militants like Hamas (Gaza), Hezbollah (Lebanon), Houthis (Yemen), among others. This along with Iran’s pursuit of an atomic bomb is what scares the pants off of the other nations in the region.

The US and others are currently in heated negotiations with Iran over it’s nuclear program. Ask yourself why Iran would want a nuclear bomb. The answer is not immediately obvious because they face no real threat from the US, Israel or any other major power.

But, consider this, most Muslims of the world follow the Sunni denomination of Islam. Practically all of the Middle Eastern countries have a Sunni majority population. The Sunnis and Shi’as have been at war for thousands of years. They hate each other.  

So, I think, the answer is that they fear for their survival because other Muslims in the region despise them. ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are Sunni.  Iran (Shi’a) is on their hit list.

In order to survive, they want to dominate the region and nukes provide them that power.

So, we basically have an Arab-Persian conflict persisting as it has for thousands of years but which has been enhanced by technology and meddling by the USA. Lets hope that they do not all get nukes with which they could destroy each other and maybe the world.

And That’s that!