US Interference: From Afghanistan to Syria

BY ZIAD ALZOGHBI

US interference in the Middle East and Asia did not start in 2001.

Long before Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were attacked by the US Empire and its allies, these countries had something very important in common: They all had secular progressive nationalist sovereign governments with long established ties with the former Soviet Union, which is one of the reasons why the US has long planned to destroy them and turn them into client states.

They had an all inclusive society that respected and protected religious and ethnic minorities and women’s rights. Their economies were necessarily state controlled in order to protect against predatory western corporations that have destroyed and still are destroying national economies around the world in the name of the so-called free trade and open market policies.

After nearly four decades of war, death and destruction, it is now difficult to imagine Afghanistan before its tragic recent history. Up until the Soviet invasion of 1979 the country was indeed a secular country with a nationalist government and long proud history, where people lived their normal lives in peace. Contrary to current perception, women then had access to university education and pursued varied professional careers like their counterparts in any other twentieth century modern country.

Thanks to the overwhelmingly biased mainstream media there are many other myths about Afghanistan long held in the West, however, it is worth reading Jonathan Steele’s article in The Guardian in which he tries to dispel some of them.

Well before the Soviet invasion the Afghan Mujaheddin were supplied with arms by the US and funded by the Saudis in order to topple the pro-Moscow government in Kabul. Furthermore, the US had an even bigger plan to drag the Soviet Union into a quagmire in Afghanistan where “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War”, according to Brzezinski the national security adviser to President Carter. His aim was to break up the Soviet Union at any cost and the Mujaheddin were merely tools used to that end. He called them “Some stirred-up Moslems”who have over the years morphed into today’s terrorists, with more support and aggression from the Empire of chaos.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989-1991, the US found itself the only superpower in an uncertain and rapidly-changing world. Instead of showing leadership on tackling poverty, health, education and climate change, the US, driven by its entrenched Neo-cons and Neo-liberals, chose to embark on a campaign of unprecedented aggression starting with the Middle East, where the world’s largest gas and oil reserves lie. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the US refused outright to accept the Taliban’s offer to hand over Bin Laden on condition the US did not invade Afghanistan.

The mainstream media did not even mention this crucial fact because the propaganda machine in the West was spinning out of control after 9/11/2001.The hawks in Washington were intent on invading Afghanistan under the false pretext of capturing Bin Laden and destroying Al-Qaeda, the very jihadist group they set up years earlier.

Iraq was another example of US Empire projecting its military power. After the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the American administration did not spare any effort in encouraging and supporting Saddam Hussein to engage in a catastrophic conflict with Iran. The result was an 8 year long bloody war which killed an estimated one million people and crippled the economies of both countries.

This left the Iraqi government no option but to ask the Saudi, Kuwaitis and other Gulf states to help Iraq by raising the price of oil, which they refused under American pressure. Intriguingly, American connivance tricked Saddam Hussein into thinking that he could invade Kuwait and put further pressure on the Saudis and others to see matters from his point of view. But this was a grave miscalculation by Saddam Hussein and a well planned American trap for him and one that resulted in yet another catastrophe for Iraq.

The usual propaganda spun its lies about the Iraqi Army’s barbaric atrocities in Kuwait and the valiant resistance there, all of which mobilised public opinion in the so-called civilised world. Consequently, much of the Iraqi Army was pulverised in what was called “Desert Storm” and most of Iraq’s infrastructure was systematically attacked from the air and destroyed. A no-fly zone was declared through the United Nations; nominally over the north of the country but effectively over the whole of Iraq.

Contrary to what was reported in the media at the time, this gave licence to the US and its allies to bomb targets anywhere in Iraq on a daily basis which went on for 12 years. Sanctions had been imposed immediately after Iraq invaded Kuwait and also lasted for 12 years until 2003. The government could not even import essential items such as food and medicine, “As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council” according to The New York Times in 1995.

As if this humanitarian tragedy of enormous proportions was not enough to satisfy the neo-con hawks who pulled the levers of power behind Bush junior they used the events of September 2001 in America to whip up such frenzy around the world so as to silence any dissenting voice, not that the mainstream media showed any signs of being critical or even tried to question what the US administration was doing- interesting in a country that claims to be the land of democracy and freedom of speech. The Bush administration even concocted “evidence” from various questionable sources showing falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (“WMD”), this despite the fact that the UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix were reporting that there were no WMD, having been dealt with and disposed of many years before. Among such sources were an Iraqi exile’s PhD thesis and the infamous dossier that led Blair to tell parliament in September 2002 that Saddam Hussein had “chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes”.

Fourteen years later the Chilcot Reportfound that the “Supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction identified in an intelligence dossier resembled an inaccurate portrayal of such weapons in a fictional Hollywood movie”.

All the protest around the world by millions of people could not prevent the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the attack of September 2001 on America, had no connection whatsoever with Al-Qaeda and more importantly posed no threat to any western countries, all of this did not make any difference to the US administration already intent on invading Iraq. Apart from the oil, there were arguably other reasons why the Americans were so determined to invade Iraq:

1. Iraq was already a weak state without significant allies and therefore with no hope of defending itself against the military might of the US who counted on minimal casualties.
2. America had long wanted to banish once and for all the nightmare of Vietnam that had been weighing heavily on the American psyche for a long time.
3. The military industrial complex had huge stockpiles of arms that needed to be tested and used in a “fireworks” show to project its might as the only superpower in the world.
4. To make huge fortunes for the arms manufacturers and other big corporations.
5. To intimidate and bully other countries and demonstrate literally what it could do to them if they do not fall in line with US imperialist policies.
6. To satisfy Israel’s unquenchable thirst for security by destroying a major Arab country.
7. To confirm itself as the only superpower in the world.

The well planned and executed US invasion of Iraq saw the complete destruction of a sovereign state: Its army, civil service, ministries, power stations, hospitals, schools, bridges, museums, archives and much more of the Iraqi state’s administrative, social and civil structure. Some have always argued that the vacuum and chaos that ensued represents the failure of the invasion as the planners had no plans for the aftermath. Seen from a different perspective, it could well be argued that the lack of plans for the post-invasion period was, in an undeclared way, deliberate and as such the invasion was indeed a big success. Its real objective was to plunge Iraq and the entire region into endless sectarian wars for years or even decades, leading ultimately to Balkanising the Middle East.

Until 1991, Iraq was a modern secular country with an excellent free health care system and a first class free education system up to university level. Art, science and music flourished and were enjoyed by all citizens irrespective of their religious or ethnic affiliation.

Libya too had free health care and education systems with an economy considered to be the best in Africa to the extent that it provided employment for thousands of Africans from across the whole continent. After the Western invasion of Libya those workers who survived the killing spree by the NATO-backed death squads had no option but to head for Europe as migrants. Gaddafi was always portrayed by the West as the “madman of Libya”, though in fact he was helping to develop African countries and their economies in many ways, hardly the work of a madman. Moreover, Gaddafi had huge quantities of gold and silverwith a plan to”establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar” which would threaten western currencies and lead many African countries to more economic and political independence, according to recently disclosed emails.

This clearly was the real reason behind NATO’s military campaign in Libya, which was not reported at all in the West. Instead the public were fed with the usual fabricated images of civilians about to be massacred by Gaddafi‘s forces and that NATO had to intervene to prevent a humanitarian disaster, using the UN Security Council resolution as a fig-leaf. Consequently Libya’s weapons were looted by extremists and soon went to various African countries, a destabilising factor and a major contributor to the on-going migrant crisis in Europe. Following the collapse of the Libyan state, the US oversaw the transfer of significant quantities of Libya’s weapons to the jihadists in Syria. According to Seymour Hersh, “The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition.”

For years Syria has been refusing to become a client state of the US Empire. Since independence from the French colonisers in April 1946, the Syrian people have built a modern secular inclusive society with free education and health care for all citizens. The Syrian economy needed to be controlled by the government in order to protect it from hostile western multinationals. Unsurprisingly, such an independent stance always angered the US who never ceased to plot and scheme to interfere in Syria’s internal affairs over the past seven decades.

What is happening in Syria these days is not a civil or sectarian war but a war of aggression by the US and its regional proxies to dismantle the state and tear apart the very fabric of Syrian society and culture.

In its July 5th-11th 2014 issue, The Economist bemoans the failure of the so-called “Arab spring” completely ignoring western meddling behind it, through their supply of funding and weapons as well as their hired agitators and saboteurs who operated among innocent protesters.  The vast majority of the Syrian people did not participate in such protest and were appalled by the armed violence and the atrocities committed at the start of the conflict by the mercenaries sent by the Wahhabi machine. The Economist also questions the failure of Arab countries to create democracy and prosperity for their people. Again there is no mention of the constant and relentless aggression from western powers throughout the past one hundred years or more. Even after independence colonial powers never stopped interfering in the whole region covertly or otherwise, not to mention the illegal creation of Israel in Palestine at the heart of the Arab world. Imagine if these countries were left alone to develop and build their economies free of bullying or threat of regime change, the world would be in a better state than it is now.

After a quarter of a century of America’s campaign of continuous destruction and military adventurism in the Middle East, US aggression has now hit a hard obstinate rock in Syria. It is the rock of resistance that has its roots deep in Syrian history. It is the unshakeable rock on which all foreign invaders were defeated; the people of Syria refuse to be subjugated.  Syria and its allies have shown the world their legendary resistance over the last 6 years and the Syrian people will eventually emerge united and triumphant from this neo-colonial-manufactured crisis.

Saudi contagion — the US-Israeli nexus

Abu Dharr

Have you ever stepped back and looked at the crumbling regimes in the Arab East? If you did, have you realized they are republics and not monarchies; not that there is much of a difference between the two but the hype in the corporate media is about freedom, rights, dignity, democracy, and the rest of this political litany that is well-known. And if we were to stick to this line, then surely the people most deprived of these freedoms, rights, etc. are the people who live under such despotic rulers as the Saudi royals where criticizing the king is tantamount to kufr!


It is against the law to hold a demonstration in American-managed Saudi Arabia. It is against the law for a woman to drive a car in American-supervised Saudi Arabia. It is against the law to allow Muslims to meet in Makkah and Madinah so they can express their ideological mind and Islamic conscience about such uniting issues as the liberation of Palestine and other American occupied territories. And it is an unwritten law that forbids the establishmentarian journalists and the salaried academics from highlighting the anti-democratic and pro-chauvinist nature of the kings and princes of Arabia. It is called “self-censorship.”



And if the woes of the Peninsula were limited to Arabia then it could be argued that it is up to the Arabians of Arabia to fix their own house. One Saudi lady, complaining out loud a few weeks ago after noticing other men in other countries standing up and sacrificing life and limb for their principles, is quite right when she said that Saudi men have lost their testosterone. To which we add: they have misplaced it; they let go of it in brothels instead of building it up in boot camps. But, alas, the evils of that kingdom are directed into other Islamic regions, particularly into the lands that are fired up by the “Arab Spring.”


With American and Israeli guardianship, the Arabian mushrik monarchs were thrown the Libyan bone. They sensed victory was in the air. And, thus, they turned their fury against Syria. Syria has become the political Maginot Line for Riyadh and its Gulf Cooperation Council offshoots (Bahrain, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and ‘Oman). Syria in and of itself would be of no concern to these moneyed mushriks. [Mushriks, we say, because they have correlated Allah’s (swt) power and authority with that of the imperialists and Zionists]. But Syria is the untested link between a future groundswell of popular determination to liberate Palestine that is centered on Islamic Iran and extends all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. The Americans and Israelis played their hand against Islamic Iran in Iraq, first via Saddam’s regime and lost, and then via the current regime in Baghdad and lost again. The Israelis and Americans tried their hand against Hizbullah and Hamas and lost yet again. The only thing left now is to sabotage the Syrian connection by breaking Syria up.


And to do this the Israelis and the Americans will need their trump card: the Saudi brand of Islam. The Saudi brand of Islam, which considers [Zionist] Jews and [imperialist] Christians to be “Ahl al-Kitab” and considers ‘Alawi Muslims and Shi‘i Muslims to be kafirs, heretics, and unbelievers, is a godsend to the American and Israeli policy-makers at this critical moment in the world-shaking developments in the Muslim realm. The political slaves of Arabia who were never liberated by the Qur’an and the Sunnah are taking orders from America and not from the Almighty. We can without much imagination see how desperate and hopeless the master in Washington is when he speaks to his slaves in Riyadh, and how inferior the slave who obeys a toothless master must be. Uncle slave-master Sam nervously watches the 19 Americans to be tried in Egypt by, of all people, the Egyptians who were also the political slaves of the US just last year. Three US senators have gone to Cairo to “extradite” these 19 Americans from the US embassy where they have been fugitives from the law for the past couple of weeks. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman are probably expressing dire threats in diplomatic language to diffuse this new low in American prestige overseas. And the Egyptian officials (if we read them correctly) will either release the 19 without due process to gain brownie points with their yesteryear masters, or will promise the senators their eventual release after a theater of due process so as to avoid the wrath of Egyptian public opinion.


The price of oil is climbing because Israel wants its Euro-American allies to put the pressure of sanctions squarely on the people in Iran. Prices have already hit $120 a barrel after the Islamic Republic cut off oil sales to the Israeli political subsidiaries of France and Britain. The more the Israelis and Americans become nervous the more their Saudi subordinates feel the pressure to “do something about it”.


Enter al-Qaeda. How about that? Al-Qaeda has found common purpose with its arch-enemy, the US, in targeting the heretic ‘Alawis in Syria! How about that for a Saudi feat? An al-Qaeda leader somewhere to the east or south of Tora Bora is rediscovered by the media and his video-taped message to all al-Qaeda units in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey becomes a news sensation. Don’t be fooled by this yet again al-Qaeda-fits-all-occasions scenario. It is not al-Qaeda that is on its way to kill, blowup, assassinate, or commit acts of violence and terror is Syria. It is the Special Forces of the US, Britain, and Zionist Israel who are about to enter the fray in Syria. You can be sure that when the specter of al-Qaeda is flashed to the general public, it means that Navy Seals, Army Rangers, intelligence agents under deep cover, and black-ops personnel are being positioned to execute their orders which will prove the Saudi propaganda correct: kill the Syrian heathens (minority Muslims) and thank Ahl al-Kitab Sam and Ahl al-Kitab Moshe for being on the orthodox side in this intra-Islamic strife in war-torn Syria!


The Syrian-Saudi sectarian strife is only one chapter, as important and dangerous as it is, in the ongoing three decade confrontation between the US and Israel on one side and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the other.


All these details aside, the maturing political Muslim must understand that the corporate and capitalist war against Iran with all its ruling classes around the world is what defines the reactions of such regimes as the Saudi and other Arabian ones. The Syrian people are oppressed like other peoples in that castaway part of the world. The Syrian people deserve a representative government like all other peoples in that region and in the world. That, though, does not mean that the Israeli-American-Saudi troika should be given the opportunity to play off their antagonism toward Islamic Iran riding on the waves and lives of the Syrian people. How hypocritical and misleading can an American regime be when it is shedding crocodile tears on those killed in Homs while the same American regime committed atrocities in Fallujah across the border in Iraq — that in comparison would make the Syrian regime look quite civilized? When were the American and Israeli officials so concerned with Syrian lives? When were the Saudi royals themselves concerned with Syrian lives?


The Saudi brainsick rulers will not listen to advice. They have attached themselves to the US and thus to Israel beyond any quote from the Qur’an and citation of the Sunnah. They can’t see that Israel is positioning the Iron Dome defense batteries around Tel Aviv in preparation for war. This fortification of Israeli urban centers will continue in the coming weeks. Israeli schools are holding what they call earthquake exercises. Israeli police are running drills in what they tell us are scenarios of Palestinian mass riots and attempts to storm across the borders from all directions. This may be in reference to this year’s mass mobilization of a peoples movement to cross into occupied Palestine from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria.


The noose is tightening around the war criminals in their racist enclave. The wars that have been imposed on the Muslims all over the world amount to an unintended military basic training exercise. The US and Israel along with their Saudi sidekick have militarized the Islamic world. And if they want to light the match they should know very well that their corporate and transnational interests will go up in flames. People will fight on their own turf for however long it takes to free themselves of invasions and occupations.


History 101: there has never been an invading force that has indefinitely conquered another people against their own faith and will. Will the Muslims identify who the other Muslim is before it is too late? Will the Muslims distinguish between Ahl al-Kitab and the Zionists and imperialists before it is too late? “O our Sustainer! Bestow on us Your eminent grace, and endow us, whatever our [outward] condition, with consciousness of what is right” (10:18).

The Godsend of American Hostility Written by Ali Quli Qarai

Tuesday, 15 June 2010 12:23

The Islamic Republic has been in Washington’s crosswires since the revolution of February 1979 overthrew its client regime of the so-called Shahanshah (the king of kings). Putting an abrupt end to US influence over America’s most priceless geo-political “possession” in the region, the Islamic revolution made Iran emerge as the greatest challenge to long-term American influence in the region and the Muslim world. Three decades later, as we are about to enter the second decade of the twenty-first century, the challenge has not receded or lessened. Rather it has grown more formidable with time, as the Islamic Republic advances in experience and strength, at times faltering but evolving resolutely towards rational horizons, while the US sinks deeper into the quagmire of its super-problems, domestic and international. The United States, as represented by different administrations from Carter to Obama, has never been able to reconcile itself to the Islamic regime, whose foundational principles and policies continue to be viewed by its political gurus and ruling elite as the greatest potential threat to US influence over the Muslim world and perhaps to America’s global hegemony as the world’s biggest military power. Despite the passage of three decades, the Islamic regime has been unflagging in its condemnation of US military adventurism, in particular the adventures of the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in its opposition to US policies in the region, especially its gross support of Israel and its aggressions against Palestinians and neighbors. All the major political and military moves, conceived by the United States in relation to the region, as well as all the labors of the intelligence and media agencies, have been aimed to reverse the setbacks to American influence occasioned by the establishment of the Islamic regime: - The all-round US support for Saddam Husain’s 8-year war against Iran, - the drama of the Gulf war of 1991 and the consequent entry and establishment of American military bases in the Persian Gulf region, - the massive effort, lasting for a generation, by US intelligence agencies and outfits to destabilize the Islamic regime through support for Iranian terrorist outfits and political groups opposed to the Islamic regime, - the hostile propaganda and psychological warfare, also lasting for a generation, by the main-current US and Western media against the so-called “clerical regime,” - the military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, aimed to encircle Iran, and the false-flag operation of 9/11 which served as the justification for these military adventures, - presenting the issue of Uranium enrichment by Iran to the world opinion as involving a unique danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons and threat to international security, and UN Security Council economic sanctions based on the related perceptions and propaganda…. Ironically, most of these moves have had the direct or indirect result of strengthening the Islamic republic politically, militarily and technologically, making Iran more self-reliant and self-confident than ever before in almost every conceivable aspect. Somehow, call it failed ingenuity or stupidity, the hostility of the past US administrations has hardly ever failed to work except in favour and to the advantage of this country and its Islamic regime. By contrast, the US support for its “friends”, especially Israel, which is America’s “special friend” has never failed to work to the detriment of the Zionist regime. America’s financial and military support for Israel has made it so dependent on US “support” that the continued existence of Israel is unconceivable without it. The aggressions and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Zionist governments during the last six decades of Israel’s ignominious history would have been impossible without America’s military and moral support. American support for Israel has left both countries politically and morally bankrupt. The biggest existential threat to Israel comes not from its enemies, but from its own character which has been so hideously shaped by America’s material and moral “assistance” and the fatal reliance of the Zionist regime on US “friendship” and “support,” as if the US were the God of Zionism. Undoubtedly, in these facts of global dimensions there is a bright lesson for America’s friends and foes, especially the Iraqis, the Afghans and the Pakistanis: America’s hostility and enmity are the greatest gifts that any nation may enjoy in moral and material terms, and its friendship and support are the biggest plague and curse that may alight on any nation! --- Ali Quli Qarai is an Iranian scholar, formerly the editor of Al-Tawhid, a quarterly journal of Islamic thought and culture. Among his published works is a translation of the Quran.

The “ Shia Crescent ” Revisited

By Rannie Amiri

19 February, 2010
Countercurrents.org

“If pro-Iran parties or politicians dominate the new Iraqi government, a new ‘crescent' of dominant Shia movements or governments stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon could emerge, he [King Abdullah of Jordan] said, alter the traditional balance of power between the two main Islamic sects and pose new challenges to U.S. interests and allies. ”

The Washington Post , 8 December 2004 .

Zakaria: “You spoke a couple of years ago about the danger of a Shia crescent, meaning the Shias in Iran , a Shia-dominated government in Iraq , presumably Shias in the Gulf. Do you regret having made that comment?”

King Abdullah: “No, well, that's not what I said. What I said is I was worried about members – certain members – of the Iranian government using an agenda to create the perception of a Shia crescent, because the last thing that we need in this part of the world is a conflict between Sunnis and Shias. And so when I raise the alarm bell, I saw a political strategy that would as an endgame have the Sunnis and Shias at each other's throats ... the fault line between Shias and Sunnis goes from Beirut all the way to Bombay and it's a catastrophic subject to play with. In my view, I felt that there was an agenda out there that was going to try and push it in that respect, and also raising the alarm bell that that cannot happen.”

– Excerpt from Fareed Zakaria's interview with King Abdullah II in Davos , Switzerland , 29 January 2010 .

Although Jordan's reigning monarch had the dubious distinction of being the first to publicly articulate the fears of Arab dictators over the rise of the region's Shia Muslims – perceived as the emergence of a “Shia crescent” – it had no doubt been in their collective conscience ever since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.

It was not just a geographic designation but a warning that King Abdullah had issued after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. It spoke of the consequences of a string of countries where the Shia were either the majority and held power (Iraq and Iran), were of a sizable minority in close proximity (Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states – with the exception of Bahrain, where they constitute an overwhelming majority but are nevertheless not in power), formed a plurality (Lebanon), or maintained close ties with Iran (Syria, although technically run by Alawis). Without a doubt, his comments belied a racism consistent with the Arab Shias' historical discrimination at the hands of both religious and secular Sunni Arab rulers.

Three seminal events

Punctuating the apprehensions of King Abdullah II, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and the royal families from the Gulf countries to Morocco were three seminal events:

First was the return of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to Iran and the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It stoked fears that what had led to the toppling of a Western-backed tyrant would soon find its way to their borders. The internal fallout was the ostracization of the Arab world's Shia Muslims who were now regarded as “fifth columnists” for Iran – a non-Arab Shia country.

Indeed, in a 2006 interview with Al-Arabiya TV, Mubarak deliberately conflated Arab Shias with Iranians and questioned their fidelity: “ There are Shias in all these countries (of the region), significant percentages, and Shias are mostly always loyal to Iran and not the countries where they live.”

Second was the 2004 fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the end of Ba'ath party rule, both of which had persecuted and brutally suppressed the country's Shia population for decades.

Third was the integration of Hezbollah into Lebanon 's political structure and the widespread popularity of its leader, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah. After nearly two decades of occupation, Hezbollah forcing the Israelis to withdraw from Lebanon in 2000 and battling them to a draw in the July 2006 war made Nasrallah one of the most admired leaders in the Middle East . The silence of the region's heads of state while Lebanon came under relentless Israeli bombardment in 2006 was in contrast to the support both he and Hezbollah had found on the Arab street.

Unbalanced power

The “traditional balance of power” which Abdullah so feared was in jeopardy of being “altered” as a result of the above events betrays a history of deep political and socioeconomic marginalization of the Shia. Detailing it is beyond the scope of this article, but readers are referred to The Arab Shi'a: The Forgotten Muslims by Graham E. Fuller and Rend Rahim Francke (Pelgrave Macmillin, 2000) for further reference.

So is Abdullah's concern for maintaining the “traditional balance of power” simply a hope for the continued domination of the Sunni Muslim political elite over the Shia? Is this what he feared would be “altered” by the end of Saddam Hussein's despotism? Rather than hope for a brighter future for all Iraqis, apparent regret over a more equitable redistribution of power speaks volumes.

The recent explanation and clarification of his original remarks this past January was not only disingenuous, but continues to fuel misconceptions and stereotypes:

“I was worried about members ... of the Iranian government using an agenda to create the perception of a Shia crescent.”

The one who created and promulgated the “Shia crescent” concept was King Abdullah himself, as his 2004 statement clearly describes (down to the exact geography). Blame should not now be placed on the Iranian government. Doing so indicates that he has yet to forsake sectarianism as a political tool.

“ ... the fault line between Shias and Sunnis goes from Beirut all the way to Bombay and it's a catastrophic subject to play with.”

Abdullah is again keen on underlining the “fault line” between Muslims, this time extending it all the way to India . Even more telling is why he believes it to be such a “catastrophic subject.”

Should the Arab Shia be prohibited from freely airing their grievances and demanding accountability for past injustices? Stopped from speaking out against the crimes perpetrated against them under Saddam (in which many in the Arab world were complicit)? Prevented from attempting to lift the heavy hand of institutionalized discrimination levied against them in Saudi Arabia ? Barred from seeking an end to their disenfranchisement in Bahrain – where they make up at least 70 percent of the population yet constitute no part of the government or security services? Forbidden from asking why the language of sectarianism was used to justify and amplify the carnage in north Yemen ?

To open this subject and deal with it forthrightly and with justice would indeed be “catastrophic” to the regimes mentioned, and for all those who instigate, support, or benefit from these practices.

“I felt that there was an agenda out there that was going to try and push it in that respect, and also raising the alarm bell that that cannot happen.”

Unfortunately the people who have been pushing a sectarian agenda have been a handful of Middle East dictators and monarchs, specifically King Abdullah II of Jordan, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, the Al-Khalifah family in Bahrain, King Mohammed VI of Morocco, and President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen. Each of these countries – Jordan , Saudi Arabia , Egypt , Bahrain , Morocco , and Yemen – are guilty of fanning sectarian flames.

In Aug. 2009, Jordan put six Shia Muslims on trial in a military court “for promoting Shia ideology.” And both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have recently been harshly criticized by Human Rights Watch for overtly discriminatory practices toward, and torture of their Shia citizens.

Even the desperate people of Gaza have suffered as a consequence; it was the Arab regimes who abandoned Gaza 's Palestinians while Israel imposed its inhumane siege on them, and one of the main reasons was Iran 's vocal support for Hamas.

Why Mid-East leaders promote sectarianism

So why do these leaders promote sectarianism?

To answer this, one must have some familiarity with the Shia ethos.

Ingrained in the fifth school of Islam is the notion of resistance against despotic rule and rulers. This dates back to the epic battle fought on the plains of Karbala , Iraq by the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, Hussain, against the tyrannical reign of the caliph Yazid ibn Muawiya in the year 680 A.D. Outnumbered by the tens of thousands, Hussain and his small band of followers fought bravely but were brutally massacred. The “tragedy of Karbala ” as it known continues to serve as inspiration to the Shia; endowing them with the belief that standing up to oppression and injustice, no matter how great or at what odds, is an act of faith.

The events of Karbala were recalled by Khomeini in the 1979 Revolution deposing the Shah and even by anti-government protestors after Iran 's June's elections. Although it would be incorrect to conclude that Shias are in a continuous state of revolt against the established order of the state, their 1991 uprising against Saddam in aftermath of the first Gulf War, Hezbollah's battles against the militarily superior Israeli Army in the 1990s and 2006, and the recent clashes between Zaidi Shia rebels and the governments of Yemen and Saudi Arabia, are all viewed with a leery eye by the Sunni political class in the Middle East.

The aforementioned regimes therefore believe that if a “Shia crescent” was to take shape and become reality, their authority, power and influence might be swept aside by the people as quickly as was the Shah's.

They also believe that if Arab Shias were accorded fair and equal rights, given the full benefits of citizenship, not treated as fifth columnists, not conflated with “Persians” and accorded the same dignity and religious liberties as all other citizens, domestic harmony would exist and render ineffective the use of sectarianism to further anti-Iranian sentiment.

If they did forsake it, attention could instead be paid to more pressing issues such as education, economic development, combating corruption, ending poverty and resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

One is left to wonder, though, whether these leaders believe it best to purposely ignore these critical needs in favor of conjuring up fictitious crescents, lest it unmask their own incompetence in real governance.

Rannie Amiri is an independent Middle East commentator.