I'm just starting into it, but one revelation thus far sheds light on the foundation of our miscalculations in Iraq: Since the Iranian revolution in the late 70s that knocked the Shah off the throne, the US has known and worked with only Sunni Muslims and fundamentally misunderstood the centuries of differences and domination between Sunnis and Shia. From the book's intro:
The Middle East today is more vulnerable to instability and extremism than at any time since Iran's Islamic revolution swept a U.S. ally of the throne of that country and brought Shia radicals to power there. America's call for democracy in the region has rattled its friends [Sunnis] while failing to placate its enemies [Shias].
Thus far the book is persuading me that America's "role" in the region can be to pull back, maintain Iraq's border integrity and protect U.S. interests there.
Nasr's book makes it clear why Bush's failed attempt to transplant Democracy in the Middle East was doomed from the start, but he doesn't rule it out altogether:
Peace and stability will come to the Middle East only when the distribution of power and wealth reflects the balance between the communities and the political system includes all and provides for peaceful ways of resolving disputes. Once the conflicts that have already been set in motion are exhausted, the majority of Shias and Sunnis will settle for a political order they can share-- not dominated by one or the other, theologically or politically -- and that represents everyone's social, economic and political aspirations.
Yes - that seems like a tall order, and the key words here are "Once the conflicts that have already been set in motion are exhausted." I think we have a long, terrifying way to go before those conflicts are exhausted. But I hope by the time I finish this book I will be optimistic that they will be.
2 comments:
Let me recommend Tamara Sonn's excellent A Brief History of Islam for a quick summary of the high points of the religion, its culture, and the differences between Sunni and Shi'a.
I too started to try to understand what is going on in the Middle East with Vali Naser's excellent book. As ever when you have only one view it is important to discount possible bias. Naser's Persian roots will have had an influence on his thinking so there is a need to look more broadly.
However he provides wonderful insights and has inspired me to research more deeply.
I have started to post my analysis on my blog. I have called it “A really simple explanation of Sunni/Shia tension and the Middle East crisis” and that is what I am trying to provide. A tough task I know.
So far I have looked at the lie of the land in terms of population and have pushed my understanding well beyond its starting point which was much as you describe yours: it “could fit on the period at the end of this sentence”.
I have a second article ready to be published on Thursday. It looks at where the oil is and what implications that has. I have another project in mind about where the oil money has gone. The region, despite its mineral wealth, has failed to raise many of its people out of poverty and it has failed to develop a non-oil economy so there is little opportunity for its population. Then there is the interesting question why, if Islam is so great do so many of its sons and daughters choose to live in the hated West.
There is no shortage of material. Come and have a look at what I have found so far at http://www.thinkhard.org/2007/10/a-really-simple.html I hope you find it interesting. And feel free to add, comment and contradict.
Post a Comment