| | | Very few are competent to discuss Iran, Syria, Hizbollah, Iraq and Israel. I don't claim to be, but I read an incredible amount of very bad writing about these issues on these boards, especially the ideologically pure ones. On both sides.
In my view, the entire thing at the moment is about Syria which, if it stays in Iran's sphere of influence, extends the Mullahs power in a very strategic way. Hence, they support Assad. It gives them a very nice perch facing Israel. The Sunnis (Saudi Arabia, primarily) support the rebels, who are as bad for the US and Israel as the Shias, but perhaps a tad less so. Syria is a pawn, the game is much larger.
Iraq is a majority Shia state, so that extending Iran's power across Iraq and Syria, puts the Saudis and the other Emirates in a very bad way. Not to mention the Israelis.
Syria is in play, so dealing with Iran at a time when sanctions were working creates a very favorable political climate for the Shias. This of course weakens the Sunni rebellion in Syria and, in a more long term way, threatens Saudi Arabia.
It also sends an internal signal to the more moderate elements of Iranian society that rebellion against the Mullahs is not such a good idea since, after all, the easing of sanctions will tend to create support for the Mullahs and will have tangible economic impact on Iranian society.
In short, easing sanctions on Iran is a very bad idea. The Mullahs cannot be trusted to stop their work towards nuclear weapons. When they have them, and they will, just as N. Korea eventually got them, the de-stabilization of the Middle East will be enormous.
And the Israelis are watching, since this is a huge issue for them - existential, in fact. The only way to strike at the Mullahs and their increasing prestige (and danger) is to destroy their nuclear facilities. Israel will have to do so at some point, probably on its own since the US, especially under Obama, is proving to be utterly unreliable. There is also the personality clash between Netanyahu and Obama.
The consequences to Saudis are huge. They are small, extremely important, and potentially at the mercy of the Shia. They refused a seat on the UN Security Council as a clear protest but this step was brushed aside by the media.
Both Israel and Saudi Arabia have long memories. They can remember how the US treated its erstwhile ally, the Shah, when he got into trouble, and know in their bones that the US is a fickle but powerful friend. When it is led by an utterly incompetent and inexperienced Administration, well, there are jangling nerves everywhere. They remember well the havoc that take place when a weak US president is in charge. And IMO Obama is far weaker and less intelligent than Carter. Obama's volte face on Syria has had enormous consequences because it showed a bias toward the Shia. When it was followed by an easing of sanctions on Iran, well, the message was there for anyone to see. The US under Obama, intentionally or not, is perceived as favoring the Shia, probably because they are more numerous, more 'oppressed', etc. It's hard to believe that such a series of errors was made at such a critical time,.
And that is only part of the price we pay when we elect someone who can read a speech well, but has zero foreign policy or administrative experience and has learned next to nothing on the job. |
|
