FOR THE MOST PART. Arabia is viewed by most Americans and in their text/newsprint as neither Sunni or Shia so much as simply oil. At least that was the case until the recent year or so in Iraq. Bush called the violence in Iraq an insurgency rather than the Civil War it actually is. It wasn't until recently the words 'sectarian violence' dominated the descriptions of the unrest in Iraq.
It was/is the Arabs that make the delineation far more than The West ever has. The illegal invasion into Iraq by George Walker Bush over 21 years after the article below would fail for several reasons, but, the most major reason was the lack of committment to the 'shadowed' idea that ethnicity would play a huge role in any instability of Iraq.
NOTED:
This article states FEAR ran through the Sunni Arab nations at 'the thought' of a successful Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. That 'fear' guided Bush's propaganda in closing the newsprint of Cleric al Sadr. Bush never once put forward the thought of equity in dealing with the ethnicities of Iraq; he simply carried the same fear forward from so many years before. A long time ago, the Bush Power Brokerage tucked itself into bed with Saudi Arabia. It would derive all it's 'beliefs' about the region from that limited understanding and reality.
There would be an attempt to settle the Iran-Iraq war with diplomatic resolve but it would fail. I believe it was destined to fail as the negotiating Iranian, President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, was also the man who resided over the return of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It was this man and the Ayatollah, the USA would most seek to destroy. Literally, they ran the Shah out of town and took American hostages to prevent retaliation against the new dictator of a completely Shia nation. Quite a plan. Well thought out. Interesting people. The Shia.
The Sunni nation element of 'fear' would be meet with a loyality from the USA to oppress/destroy Iran and it's leadership. Basically, after the Westernized Shah fell, Iran became an enemy of the USA. So, there we were standing in alliance with Sunni nations in exchange, of course, for oil security.
Where is the planet in all of this?
Nowhere !
The point however is, the 'fear' which is met in Iraq today on a daily basis is so entrenched in the societies of the region that it is a huge wedge by which the current war in Iraq has been propagated. It would seem all to clear, the 'fear' element of the societies of the region and within Iraq are all too clear and should have been a 'no brainer' before the illegal invasion ever took place. Perhaps, it was. Perhaps, Bush sincerely and decidedly chose to commit genocide against the Shia to resolve the conflict for the Sunnis forever. This stark reporting of the issue in 1982 just seems too clear in hindsight of the reality we have today in Iraq.
The instability in the region where 'fear' dominates decisions has to end. The nations of Arabia have to resolve themselves to live together as neighbors realizing the USA War Machine (Halliburton, Bechtel, USA Military Hardware Contractors and USA Military Personnel Contractors) are the only people profitting by this war. The people of the entire region, including the Israelis and the American military personnel are suffering while the profits of war are benefitting those that regard it their right.
ALL the Arab nations are capable of reaching out to each other to end such fear and appreciate their Islamic heritage together. They are also capable to make peace with Israel through recognition and economic benefit. Utilizing Israel as a scapegoat to radicalism the Shia, only serves the war and violence, and serves a greater atrocity. The right to annihilate the Shia in order to achieve peace in the region.
The Middle East and it's very, very possible peace is up to those that live in the region. The Sunnis, whom hold the power. The Shia which are so radicalized they are targets of hatred and violence in return for their strikes against their arch enemy, Israel. And Israel, that nearly had the perfect peace with the Palestinians under Sharon.
The fear of each other has to stop. The nations of the UN will not allow any one people to be destroyed or live in oppression. The oil wars and their perverted justifications have to stop.
June 1, 1982
PERSIAN GULF: IRAN AROUSES FEAR IN ARABS; News Analysis
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
If the war between Iran and Iraq ended today, the wider battle for political and psychological domination of the Persian Gulf would be just beginning.
This is the second time in the last three years that the balance of power in the Middle East has undergone a radical transformation. The first was in March 1979, when Egypt signed its peace treaty with Israel and effectively relinquished its role as leader of the Arab world.
Since then the role of regional Moslem leader has been up for grabs. Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi President, made a play for the role, but it now seems clear that his reach exceeded his grasp.
Judging from the tones in which Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran has been lecturing his Arab neighbors in the last week - instructing them on how they should treat everything from the Saudi Arabian peace plan, to Egypt, to Koranic law - he sees Iran as filling this role.
Whether President Hussein started the Gulf war, it was clearly a battle that both he and the conservative Arab oil-producing nations, which pumped an estimated $22 billion into the effort, felt was inevitable.
In the last few weeks Iraqi officials have dispensed with the pretense that the war was fought to recover Arab territorial rights. The battle, they now make clear, was waged to contain the ''aggressive and expansionist'' Islamic revolution of Iran.
As long as Iraq was in a predominant position, Iran was on the defensive and the effect of the Khomeini revolution on the neighboring Arab Gulf nations was limited.
With its army now having virtually driven the Iraqi Army out of Iran after 20 months of fighting, the Iranians have both the opportunity and the inclination to project their influence around the Gulf in a way they have never been free to do before.
No one is more keenly aware of this than the Gulf Arabs, who were warned last week by Ayatollah Khomeini to ''repent and return to Islam,'' or face the consequences.
The foreign ministers of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, which are grouped in a conservative alliance called the Gulf Cooperation Council, ended two days of talks in Riyadh today that had been organized to forge a united Arab stance on dealing with Iran.
But given their own differing approaches and the fact that Arab radicals such as Syria and Libya continue to support Teheran, the ministers failed to formulate any unified policy and could only issue a final communique that reaffirmed ''its belief that ending the war is an essential factor in securing the peace and stability in the region.''
The communique added, ''Stability in the region is the responsibility of the states of the region only, and the essential factor in avoiding foreign intervention is to put an end to the continuing war between Iraq and Iran.'' Syria Improves Its Position
That could change if Iranian troops cross into Iraq - a move that could be expected to galvanize Arab radicals and conservatives. Just what Iran is planning in this regard is impossible to predict, but Iraq's reported bombing Sunday of the northern Iranian town of Tabriz, well outside the battle zone, may well encourage the proinvasion elements in Teheran.
Subtle shifts in stature as a result of Iran's victory can already be detected. Syria, for the last few years an outcast in Arab politics because of its backing for Ayatollah Khomeini and its hardline approach to the Arab-Israel conflict, now moves back to center stage. Already Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, has flown to Damascus to urge President Hafez el-Assad of Syria to restrain his Iranian friends.
In the Gulf itself, the Iranian victory seems to be pulling Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, both countries with large Shiite populations of Iranian origin, out of the Saudi orbit. Neither nation reportedly has been willing to join the Saudis in an armed alliance against the Iranians, with whom these small sheikdoms may soon have to negotiate their own futures.
Iran's oil minister boasted in a recent interview that Saudi Arabia's ''pretentions to power and influence in the Persian Gulf will fade very quickly.'' Groups Maintain Identities
Maybe not as quickly though as Iran might think. Since the overthrow of the Shah, the authorities in Iran have repeatedly threatened to ''export'' their revolution. It would seem the time has now come to find out if indeed that revolution is marketable.
If history is any guide, revolutions do not export well in the Middle East, which for all of its pan-Arabism or pan-Islamism remains at heart a region of tribal societies not given to surrendering their individual identities to distant powers.
Nasserism in its heyday also seemed like an unstoppable revolutionary snowball, until it was put to the test by being exported to Syria, where it quickly melted in the heat of clashing cultures.
The Iranian revolution is burdened by an additional handicap: the example of the last two years. The turmoil and economic disarray in Iran is hardly something the Gulf Arabs would care to import. Two years ago, in the flush of the Iranian revolution, it might have been possible, but today may be a little too late.
