Friday, April 10, 2015

Comments on The Iran-Saudi rivalry: A rift in the Gulf | The Economist

Comments on The Iran-Saudi rivalry: A rift in the Gulf | The Economist

A rift in the Gulf

Iran's nuclear deal could alter the balance of power in the Middle East,
and inflame Sunni-Shia tensions

Apr 7th 2015 | KUWAIT CITY | Middle East and
IN HOMES and coffee shops across the Gulf, reactions to the framework
agreement announced last week had little to do with opinions on numbers of
centrifuges. More important was the way in which a change in Iran's relations
with the outside world would alter the balance of power in the Middle East. At
stake, many say, is Iran’s ability to meddle in the region. Tehran already
backs armed allies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and (by some accounts)
Bahrain. An Iran freed of pariah status might well become more aggressive.
"The idea of a Shiite crescent in the region has become obsolete,” says
Hassan Hassan, an Abu Dhabi-based analyst. “Today, it's a full moon and the
Gulf is surrounded."

Related topics
Iran's rivalry with Saudi Arabia has in recent years been
soaked in a pool of sectarian bad blood. Iran “thinks that the Shiites have to
conquer the Gulf,” says one tribal Sunni figure here, summing up a common
perception. Meanwhile, Shias in Kuwait say they are assumed to be disloyal,
simply because their sect coincides with that of the Iranian regime. Gulf
officials privately say that they are watching communal relations with
trepidation. In Kuwait, where between 30% to 40% of the population is believed
to be Shia, Twitter is the main sectarian battleground. “We have a good
standard of living in Kuwait,” one Kuwaiti man noted. “But in poorer countries,
sectarian issues are really a problem.”
Regional competition between Riyadh and Tehran is nothing new; ascendent
Iranian influence is, however. Sanctioned out of international energy markets,
Iran’s economy limped along for much of the past decade while soaring oil
prices buoyed the Saudis. Yet in the chaos unleashed by the Arab Spring both
powers have worked to extend their influence—the Iranians arguably with greater
success. A true rapprochement between American and Iran, however unlikely,
could entirely alter the tenuous balance of power. A nuclear deal “is the worst
thing that can happen,” says Khaled Sultan, a Salafist and former Kuwaiti
parliamentarian. “We had hoped that the changes in Syria—success of the
opposition—would deter Iran and downsize it. But [we lose hope] when we see the
American government playing footsie with Iran.”

Kuwait’s government, like all those in the Gulf Cooperation Council, has
said it will welcome a good deal. “Keep in mind that Kuwait is the closest
populated city to [Iran’s] Bushehr reactor, so it is in our interest that any
nuclear facility is in line with international safety regulations,” says
Kuwait’s Minister of State for Cabinet Affairs, Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah
Al-Sabah. “We are hopeful that a resolution to this issue will envelop this
region in greater security.”

Yet Kuwait is also a participant in the coalition of Sunni-majority states
assembled by Saudi Arabia to push back against the Houthi offensive in Yemen.
The Houthis are widely thought to enjoy Iranian support. The robust Saudi
response is not only designed to support the besieged Yemeni government; it is
also a signal to Tehran that whatever deal might be struck with its negotiating
partners, the Middle East does not belong to Iran. The framework agreement
announced last week looks a promising step toward better relations between Iran
and the West. But there is a risk that as some tensions are calmed, others will
be inflamed.


The nuke deal
people have started to view already in different perspective by different groups of
elites and intelligentsia due to the role of Israel its supporters and
subsequent follow up action of its audacity and no action except blank sound
of threats by different countries including some foreign countries. But
surprisingly no Sunni countries criticizing it even after killing hundreds and
thousands of Palestinians. They opined that it all seems to be a preplanned
plan to seat Israel as the chief of the MID EAST giving its present role to act
as a traitor to US.

The author had
been very objective to the fact as is expected to the events that would likely
to guide the nuke treaty to its ultimate fact which it would go in favor of
Israel to deny and stop Iran  flexing its
muscles with cooperation with other countries.

This point
International community of nations be tempted to believe the planned story. But
then the future of the treaty would be in question.

As no Muslim
country would agree Israel’s position as the best ally of America to rule over
Mid East with Netanyahu brute basically with dubious background of indicted in
criminal cases and ill reputed as a veteran assassin and of late as committal
of crime against humanity  under
investigation. Such a plan would would face vehement opposition from the Mid
East Muslim countries.

 And this lacuna would be used by Iran in its
favor to even motivate the Sunni countries against Saudi, Jordan, Egypt,
Turkey, and many Muslim countries of the world. And any favor shown to Israel
would be the best lever given to Iran to turn and twist to strengthen its
position and also invite the two super power in its favor already with
multipurpose force both economically and militarily. Russia occupying the

Arabian sea.

The entire world
is in the grip of killing and killing and animosity only because of lone terrorists
state of Israel. Iran is still nuke free where why should not the unauthorized
nuke holder be take n to task also to disarm by diplomatic dialog , discussion persuasion. As Iran has come to its knees to sit and solve the issue.

 So if
Israel do not give in to disarm nuke then IF NEED use stiff sanctions.

The  world has started to ask why only the entire
Muslim countries are on fire is it because of MOSSAD deep heinous planning to
weaken the Muslim countries and not Israel though it is also a MID EAST
country. It is not a big conspiratorial plan ?

Post a Comment