Sunday, March 29, 2015

The tangled web of the middle east




Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
                      - Marmion by Sir Walter Scott

All is not what it seems in the Byzantine history of the middle east. The gang of thugs in ISIS make front page news every day for another heinous act. Republicans call on a "do nothing" President to yet again send American youth into battle and eliminate this latest scourge. While some would have  America spend its blood and treasure on another middle eastern war the key question is why the well armed Arab countries stand by the side or do very little about ISIS while they showed great alacrity in bombing Houthi rebels in Yemen and are preparing for an invasion of that country. The answer is a tangled web of history and religion.

The two most important countries in the Arab world are - 1) Egypt which has the largest (mostly Islamic) population the Arab world along with major institutions of learning such as Al Azhar University and 2) Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam and the country with the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

The key Arab kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a family dictatorship of the Al Saud clan. In the 21st century this country is an anomaly in that it is a personal property of the King and his extended Al Saud clan where they can pretty much do anything they please. Their first priority is safeguarding their position (monarchy protection) as the rulers of this country as well as being the guardians of the holy sites of Islam in Mecca and Medina. The Saudis are predominantly Sunni. The Syrian regime of Bashar Al Asad (initially established by his father Hafez Al Asad) is controlled by Bashar's Alawite sect which is a form of Shia Islam. Hence the Syrians since the time of Hafez Al Asad have been sworn enemies of the Saudis. The Syrians in turn established close ties with Iran the major Shiite power.

Iran is not an Arabic country. Anyone calling an Iranian an Arab does so at his own peril. The Iranians or Persians were initially for the most part Zoroastrians before they were converted to the Shia sect of Islam. The Iranians have their own rich culture inherited from thousands of years of the Persian civilization. While Iran is the major supporter of Shia movements across the middle east, the Arab shia have little in common with Iran except for religion.

Since the Iranians are Shia, they are the sworn enemies of the Saudis. Iran has courted and supported Shia minorities across the Arab world. The majority Shia of Iraq were suppressed and controlled by the Sunni minority led by erstwhile dictator Saddam Hussein. Iran remained a historical supporter of the Iraqi Shia and maintained various training camps for Shia rebels. Shia clergy also lived and studied in Iran's holy cities like Qom. When Saddam launched the Iran-Iraq war which lasted 10 years, he was tacitly backed by Iran's arch enemy the Saudis as well as the other Sunni Arab countries like Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE. After the end of the pointless war where many lives were lost to little gain on either side, Saddam required his Sunni allies to pay their dues in the form of monies to reimburse the depleted Iraqi treasury. When they refused, it led to Saddam invading Kuwait and the first Gulf War. It must also be noted that Iraq also claimed Kuwait as its own since the latter never existed in the erstwhile Ottoman province from which the British carved out Iraq after World War I. The second Gulf War and US invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein was a godsend for the Iranians. Nervous at having US troops on both their eastern (Afghanistan) and western (Iraq) frontiers, they armed and trained Shia militia to fight against the American occupiers eventually forcing their depature. Their Shia allies are now in power and the Shia dominions had extended their reach meeting up with the Alawite/Shia ruled Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Shia now spanned an arc from the Mediterranean to the straits of Hormuz.

Amazed at the arrogance, naivety and ignorance of their strong ("you are with us or against us") US allies squandering blood and treasure to strengthen the hand of their Iranian Shia enemy, the Saudis looked for every opportunity to fight them. The Sunni tribes in Iraq received Saudi money and weapons. When the Shia majority in Bahrain rebelled (backed by Iran) against their minority Sunni rulers, Saudi troops backed by the UAE rolled into Bahrain to suppress the uprising. When the Syrian version of the Arab spring happened, Saudi money and arms flowed to the predominantly Sunni opposition fighting Bashar Al Asad's Alawite led regime. This collection of tribes, gangs and Islamic fundamentalists later morphed into today's ISIS, an extreme Sunni force. Rumor has it that Saudi monies and arms still flow to ISIS. Why would the Saudis fight their own kind? The Iraqi army and Shia militias fighting ISIS are actually supported and armed by Iran. ISIS however has grandiose ambitions of forming an Islamic caliphate stretching across all the Islamic world. Now that is a threat to the Al Saud rule and their role as the protectors of the holy sites of Islam. Therefore, ISIS fighting the Shia is fine but they cant be allowed to become victorious and endanger the Al Saud.

While ISIS bleeds the Shia in Iraq, the Saudis are embarked on air strikes and a possible invasion of their southern neighbor Yemen. This is because the Houthis who occupy Aden and other key towns in Yemen today are a Shia tribe and are supposedly backed by Iran. Anxious to protect their southern underbelly, the Saudis are embarked on yet another religious fight against their Shia enemy.

The predominantly Jewish state of Israel views Iran and its aspirations for nuclear weapons as an existential threat. The irony of the Saudi - Iran faceoff is that it has drawn Israel and the Saudis closer since their common enemy is Iran.

One might think that the Sunni Arabs would be one consolidated power bloc. However, not all is well between the Sunni Arabs either. The Saudis' neighbor to the northwest is the tiny monarchy of Jordan, yet another artificial construct based on lines drawn on maps by Winston Churchill when he was the colonial secretary of Great Britain after the first world war. The King of Jordan belongs to the Hashemite clan. They claim to be direct descendants of the Prophet Mohammad and initially ruled the territory known as the Hejaz before it was conquered by the Al Saud. The Hashemites briefly ruled in Syria and Iraq and currently King Abdullah rules the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The King while well educated and polished is nevertheless a close to absolute monarch of his kingdom which was initially supported by Britain and now the United States. There is tension between the Saudis and Jordan since the Hashemites have historical claims that may threaten the current Saudi role as the protectors of the holy sites of Islam. History might have been very different if the British had picked the Hashemites to rule Arabia instead of the Al Saud.

The Saudis have played a careful balancing act for decades. Blessed with abundant oil wealth, they have sponsored regimes all over the Arab world from Egypt to Lebanon to keep the Shia at bay, cozied up to Wahabi Imams within their country to gain their support to the regime and based on a compact with the US for protection in return for low cost oil. They have extensively supported Pakistan in return for the support of the Pakistani army should they ever need it. It is rumored that they financed the Pakistani nuclear weapons program in order to gain access to an Islamic bomb should they need it (against Iran). In 1987-88 the Saudis acquired more than 100  Chinese DF-3 (CSS-2, Dongfeng) missiles, IRBMs with a range of 2800 Kilometers and based around the capital of Riyadh. Their target is easy to guess.

The Saudis and Iranians hate each other and seek to destabilize each other. The Syrians and Saudis hate each other. The Kurds, Sunnis and Shia in Iraq cant get along with each other. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE kingdoms dread the influence of Iran as they seek to preserve their regimes. Egypt is in a fight between dictatorship and Islamic fundamentalism. Israel is fighting Iranian and Arab backed terrorists (or revolutionaries depending on your viewpoint) while it cozies up to the Jordanians and the Saudis. The Saudis have to fight Iran even as they keep in check their Arab comrades, Israel and ambitious US politicians who think they have answers to these problems. Nothing is what it seems in the middle east. The world of Arabia is very different from the straight talk of America and the west. Into this tangled web, some would have gullible and naive (relatively speaking) Americans ride in with their high tech weapons and restore the peace.

While other religions have had schisms, the Sunni - Shia one has become a deadly source of tension in the Islamic world and has been radiating danger to all parts of the planet. It is not helped by the fact that Pakistan, an epicenter of Islamic terrorism is an economic basket case and has nuclear weapons. External meddling by the west initially by the British and French drawing random lines on maps and then the US after World War II has only made things worse and made America a target for their ire as well. This is an Arab and Islamic problem that can only be solved by them.  They need to champion a reformation of Islam and a rapprochement much like the Catholic church and the Protestants. The west must observe and support under the aegis of international organizations but not interfere for it will only make it worse. 


Sunday, March 23, 2014

Eastern gambit - Russia and Ukraine

The crisis in the Ukraine and Crimea is the result of drawing arbitrary boundaries on maps by victors of war. In the aftermath of World War I Churchill as the colonial secretary of the British empire convened with his minions in the Hotel Semiramis and drew lines over Arab lands creating countries where none existed. Conflicts and battles are still being fought over those artificial boundaries. After World War II, it was Stalin's turn to draw arbitrary lines all over eastern Europe some times creating countries where none existed. The current Ukraine, the progenitor of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is itself an artificial consolidation of lands that previously were part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, Poland and the Russian empire itself. The name Ukraine itself means the "borderlands". Ukraine is the borderland of the eastern slavic nations of yore. Russia and the "Rus" (after whom Russia is named) themselves trace their origins to the Kievan Rus and the Rurik dynasty of the Varangians. Ukraine and Kiev are therefore very special to the history and culture of Russia.

In the erstwhile USSR, Ukraine was the bread basket of the union and the second most important republic after Russia itself. So important that Premier Kruschev in another moment of folly (one of many) gifted Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR which later became Ukraine. Crimea was a very strategic peninsula to the Russians giving them warm water access to the Black Sea and Mediterranean as well as guarding their southern flanks, hence the special treaties with the later independent Ukraine. The Ukrainian SSR and the later Ukraine nation are neatly split by the river Dnieper. The regions to the west are majority Ukrainian with sizable Russian minorities. Many Ukrainians in those western regions collaborated with Hitler's German forces during World War II against the Soviet Union. Many were also complicit in the mass murder of Ukrainian jews, and served in special legions of the Nazi SS. The eastern regions of Ukraine are majority Russian (including Crimea) and much of this area belonged to Russia for centuries.

US and NATO overtures to Ukraine and attempts to draw it into the EU have therefore been viewed with great suspicion in Moscow. As most of the former Warsaw Pact satellites slipped into the EU and NATO, the same efforts in Ukraine set alarm bells ringing in Russia. In their view, the Russians see EU and NATO encroachment into Ukraine as an existential threat. Imagine the reaction in Washington DC if Russian troops and missiles were to be placed in a neighboring country. Oh ,wait isnt that what happened in Cuba in 1963? The EU and the US have been too insensitive or not sensitive enough to Russia's interests in their efforts to rope Ukraine into their fold. The Russia of today is not the former Soviet Union but it is still a very powerful country with a large army and nuclear weapons not to mention being the provider of energy to western Europe. The EU and the west therefore have to shoulder some of the blame for the current situation.

The annexation of Crimea could be perceived in one way as the reversal of Kruschev's follly in 1954. However, where does it stop? Are the eastern Russian majority provinces next on Putin's list? What can be done?

During the heights of the cold war, the Soviet Union had 184 divisions (1.84 million men) plus the armies of its satellites threatening the existence of western Europe. It is conceivable that the Soviet Armies flooding into Germany would have not stopped until they reached the English channel and all Europe lay at their feet. To counter this, the US maintained a substantial forward presence based in Europe. REFORGER (reinforcements for Germany) was an annual NATO exercise where the flow of US forces into Europe to mate up with pre-positioned arms and supplies was rehearsed every year.

Russia today is a much diminished version of that cold war Soviet might. The US presence in Europe is drastically reduced. After having fought two long wars the American people and the military are exhausted. The NATO allies long having enjoyed the protection of the US military have spent much of their efforts and money in building socialist paradises where their people live a life of hedonism. They have little stomach to fight any wars. The former Soviet satellites of Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary and Romania quake at what seems like a resurgence of the Soviet empire.

So what are the alternatives?

First, the US must make a strong statement to discourage Putin from any further military moves or land grabs. The US and NATO should move combat aircraft and air defense systems into western Ukraine,  and Poland while beefing up the US Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. It should be made clear that any invasion of Eastern Ukraine will be severely damaging to Russian forces and Russia's prestige.

Second, agree that Ukraine will be a buffer between east and west. Economic ties and trade are fine but there will be no more moves for EU or NATO admission.

Third, respect the results of the Crimea referendum and allow Crimea to return to Russia.

Fourth, clearly define a set of de-escalation measures so everyone can stand down. Russia will stand by its guarantees of Ukrainian sovereignty.

Fifth and finally, get NATO allies off their butts and get them to invest more in their military rather than rely on US largesse which is becoming scarce. The US can strengthen western Europe's energy independence by beginning to ship more gas and oil from its newfound oil wealth.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Vote for peace

US Presidents can do jack about the price of gasoline at the pump. They can fabricate evidence and drag us into unnecessary wars in Iraq or bomb other countries into the stone age, but they can't do jack about oil. Here's a quick primer.

The dollar is the reserve currency of the world. This means international trade happens in dollars. This is a consequence of the Bretton Woods agreements, a result of the US' major contribution to winning World War 2. So what happens when the US government does not have its house in order and spends more than it earns? The price of gold goes up as evidenced over the last few years.

Oil is traded in dollars. When the dollar weakens due to fiscal indiscipline, the price of oil rises. When there is speculation about a strike on Iran or shutting the straits of Hormuz, the price of oil rises as speculators envision an uncertain future.

If your Government spent as much or less than it took in, if your leaders didn't threaten to bomb other countries into submission, if there was certainty in the economy and every day life - then oil would trade at $70 a barrel rather than $120, gold would be cheaper and jobs would be growing.

When you vote in November, vote for peace and sensibility, not bellicosity or rhetoric.