
How the Iranian-Saudi Proxy Struggle Tore Apart the Middle East - LordFrith
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/world/middleeast/iran-saudi-proxy-war.html
======
nickik
I really disagree with this article. This is the sort of fundamentalist
thinking that Americans trained themselves in during the Cold War.

> Behind much of the Middle East’s chaos — the wars in Syria and Yemen

Both of these wars are domestic in nature. In any Civil War parties naturally
seek to ally themselves with outside powers. The powers then see the
opportunity to win big for small(ish) cash, or at least avoid losing an ally.

It is true that Iran and the Saudis are fighting for supremacy, but it is not
true that all the wars in the middle east are because of that.

Its equally wrong to force all of this into a even deeper into a pure
sectarian conflict. Neither the Saudis or the Iranians are above supporting
people that they ideologically disagree with it is politically useful to them,
even people who would attack and kill them if they could.

This article tries hard and fails to make everything about Iran. Saudi Arabia
going against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, clearly that is because of
Iran. The Saudis have enough reason to make sure they have allies in Egypt
even when Iran is not a factor. Every countries ties not to have enemies on
all sides.

~~~
woodandsteel
>This article tries hard and fails to make everything about Iran.

No, it just says there is a rivalry. It does say it started when Iran decided
to promote revolution throughout the Middle East, but has gone on of its own
momentum ever since.

>It is true that Iran and the Saudis are fighting for supremacy, but it is not
true that all the wars in the middle east are because of that.

The article wasn't claiming that, but it was claiming those wars are a lot
harder to end because of the Iran-Saudi conflict. I don't see how you can deny
that.

------
finid
The invasion of Iraq, which the New York Times played a major role in, tore
the ME apart.

Very soon we'll be blaming some other group for Libya and Syria.

~~~
devoply
The Saudis and Kuwaitis gave the US 30 billion dollars to attack Iraq for the
first gulf war. After giving Iraq a loan of 25 billion to attack Iran, which
basically put Iraq in a difficult financial position which the Kuwaitis and
the Saudis would not help it get out of it by cutting their supply, so he
threatened them with war [http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/18/business/iraq-
threatens-em...](http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/18/business/iraq-threatens-
emirates-and-kuwait-on-oil-glut.html) But at the end of the day who gave
Saudis all this money, which ended with a bunch of backward tribal nomads
running international political schemes? The Americans built Saudis from
scratch, and their little monster now rocks the cradle.

~~~
nickik
> Kuwaitis and the Saudis would not help it get out of.

There is long distance between 'would not help' and 'drop all your debt claims
against me'.

Nobody had forced Saddam to invade Iran. He took the risk and took the debt
knowingly. He then turned around and and claimed 'I did all of this for you,
so I don't have to pay anything back'.

The Americans did help to build the Saudis, but the Saudis would almost
certainly have succeeded without the Americans as well. Saudi Arabia was never
a America child.

------
sqeaky
The title implies the middle east was ever not torn apart. A quick glance
through a history book shows it has always had more than its fair share of
sectarian violence.

It is resource starved and a major crossroads, why should we expect anything
else without major effort to fix it?

~~~
nickik
You are implying that there was not 'a major effort' to 'fix it' yet.

And you are also implying that 'a major effort to fix it' would make us expect
something new.

Both things are wrong. The US has been military active in middle east since
almost 40 years (longer with the CIA). The US has major military bases all
over the place, has invaded, bombed and fought wars with many countries, has
supported one group or another in a civil conflict in all of them.

All of this was basically done because of the Carter Doctrine, the ME is a
vital strategic area and its stability is very important to keep the oil
flowing. How does this not qualify as a major effort?

What of all of this suggest to you that the US, or even a bigger international
community could 'fix it' with a 'major effort'?

------
nl
The article didn't mention Qatar. Difficult to see it as complete without
understanding what the Qatari's are doing, especially in Syria.

------
frozenport
This article missed a very important point: Iran encouraged and supported the
invasion of Iraq. They supplied the evidence and polticians that would topple
Sadam and take over his goverment. The Iraq was a major Iranian victory.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
Why is this noteworthy? This is obvious to anyone with even minimal knowledge
of the Middle East.

There was an Iraq/Iran war in the 80's with casualties in the millions. Iraq,
a country with a dominant Shia population was ruled by Saddam and the
Baathists, an elite Sunni minority.

The conflicts and politics in the Middle East are very complex, but you can
paint it with a broad Sunni vs. Shia brush. Before this, there was a secular,
pan-Arab movement in the middle east, tacitally supported by the USSR, but the
west didn't like the idea of a pan-Arab movement. So this is the result

~~~
LordFrith
I recently listened to a podcast where Jeremy Scahill (the author of the book
Dirty Wars) claims Saudi Arabia has been belligerently bombing Yemen to show
unruly groups inside of Saudi Arabia that they have the ability to bomb people
too.

[https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-52-dirty-
war...](https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-52-dirty-wars-2-rise-
of-mcraven-feat-jeremy-scahill-102316)

