An Empire in the Making

When will gullible Muslims and paranoid non-Muslims realize that there is no such thing as monolithic Islam?
There is no united Muslim ummah, regardless of how many people scream about this army of ghosts.
There is no concerted Muslim political entity, regardless of what the OIC says.
Muslims are divided into numerous subsects both in the Sunni category and in the Shia one. Sunnis (Hanafis, Hanbalis, Malekis, Shafais, Wahabbis, Ahmedis, Sufis) and Shia (Asna Ashuri, Ismailis, Zaidis, Druzes, Alawites), and then there were the Yazidis, Kharajites, Qarmatians, and some very strange ones who don`t even advertise. :)

Once you get past the religious differences, Muslims are even more prone to provincial jealousies and prejudices than most other humans. Just in Pakistan, we have Punjabis, Saraikis, Kashmiris, Pathans, Baluchis, Sindhis, Mohajirs and the hundreds of sub-ethnicities within those major groupings.

So, calling Muslims one monolith is like considering the fish in the ocean as one united group and predicting that the world will be taken over by fish.

Don`t listen to UBL - he wants to terrorize us all.

#37, jang {``they may have avoided civil wars, but were very gullible in their organized fight with saddam. overtrhow of shah regime was a mini-civil war (or a purge).``}

Jang,
Give them some credit. Even the Shah chose to leave Iran rather than risk a civil war. If a revolution of that scale and significance had occured in any other country, certainly a lot more people would have died. Consider the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, even the English Revolution of 1648 or the Partition of India or the secession of Bangladesh. All had many times more deaths than the relatively bloodless Iranian revolution. Even the Shah`s military chose to surrender rather than fight its own people - something you can`t say about Pakis.
What people don`t realize is the academic power of Iranians - both domestic and in the diaspora.

#38, Bongy {``for them the Shia and Iranian objectives are closely aligned.``}

Exactly. To the Iranians, Shia Islam is Persian Islam as opposed to the Sunni/Wahabbi Arab Islam. There is a vast difference between the two - please see my post #40 for why the two will never act together.

#36, Mohar {``Are you sure? ``}

Yes, cross my heart. Scout`s honor. :) The Shia brand of Islam has always been very different. I cannot recall a single instance of lasting Shia/Sunni collaboration in running a country or in military matters. Possibly the Mughals come closest to this - and even they persecuted Shias (e.g. Maharaja Aurganjeb wiping out Shia kingdoms in the Deccan). Also, whenever Sunni Ottomans were busy fighting Christians in Europe, the Shia Safavids made sure to attack them in the east. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Shia/Sunni conflict is real. Tally Bans were more intolerant of Shias than they were with the Sikhs in Afghanistan. Persian Mullahs will never surrender their interests to the Wahabbis like UBL.

#38

Also, its interesting now to see the Saudi`s and Kuwaiti`s squirm in their pants (or whatever they wear underneath) as the Iranian Shia influence now reaches their border via Iraq. This precisely is why we see greater US pressure on Iran, which is to offset the strategic ``wedge`` that the Iranians have driven though southern Iraq.

We live in interesting times!

#35

``I humbly suggested that Iran will either moderate or discard its religious extremism.``

---

I would not share your optimism. The theocracy in Iran has been handed a victory over Southern Iraq on a platter. The Iraqi shia`s are people who now have a chance to express their religious views after a long time, which means great support for the Iraqi shia theocracy (as we already see). Iranians to preserve their strategic advantage over this region will promote this religious right-wing as it is closely aligned to its own interests. Hence maintaining its influence over this region will require another round of the Shia-expansionist theology that has characterized post revolution Iran.

You are right to state that even Iranian mullah`s are Persians first, but that precisely is their downfall, for them the Shia and Iranian objectives are closely aligned.

the imperialism of future will have to have a grand ideological basis, like communism or yoga or kung-pao chicken or coca-cola. if iran will be be an influence in distant future, by keeping a 2500 yr perspective, we have to discount oil as an important factor. infact, its religion is the main influence that iran wields, and that saudis are afraid of. they may have avoided civil wars, but were very gullible in their organized fight with saddam. overtrhow of shah regime was a mini-civil war (or a purge).

so, they have to come up with some influecial ideas like dough (with or without soda), flying persian carpets or something like that. untill then, religion it is that influences (urstruly e.g., he is not impressed by sweden but is by iran).

Re: # 35 salim
[...Even the Mullahs in Iran are Persian first and Muslims second....]

Are you sure?

ahmadzai #25, {`` However, I would disagree with the final conclusion that you make.``}

Ahmedzai Sahib,

I had said ``I predict that Iran will either moderate its theocratic nature or even discard the religious extremism when those handicaps get in the way of progress. Thanks for an interesting and fascinating discussion.``}

I am surprised that you disagree with the final conclusion that I made - thanking Mr. Waqar for an interesting and fascinating discussion. :)

Seriously, Sir, I agree with you that Iran is not becoming an Empire or even a Superpower in the near or long-term. That said, I think the issue now is whether the theocracy is an asset or a hindrance to Iran`s progress. I humbly suggested that Iran will either moderate or discard its religious extremism. Even the Mullahs in Iran are Persian first and Muslims second. :)

I don`t think it will serve Iran well to assume any leadership role over Shias in particular or Muslims in general. They remember too well what happened to Ottoman Turkey and how the latter got stabbed in the back by fellow-Sunni Arabs in 1917.

pmishra2 #26,
Unlike Mr. Waqar`s headline, I was talking about neither empire nor superpower and certainly without any timeframes. I was just reminding people about Iranian`s ability to survive adversity and conquest, including the most lasting one by the Arabs. All I am saying is that because of their history of avoiding civil wars, their ability to conduct affairs with minimal violence, and their proven reliance on brains vs brawns, Iranians are inherently equipped to succeed in the future. I didn`t rest this optimism on religion or foreign policy - in fact I stated that Iranians will succeed in spite of the current theorcracy.

Iran is very different from the oil-dependant Arab states. They have decent levels of literacy, a very successful diaspora, and some great alternatives to oil. The theocracy and mullah rule might be among their few hurdles. The Iranians in exile, while turned off from religious extremism, are very patriotic and loyal to Persian Iran. :)

Iran`s inability to monetize its gas reserves gives an indication of how effectively the US has been able to throttle its strategic space. The true comparison to be made here is between Qatar and Iran, both of whom share the worlds largest gas field (North Field/South Pars). The differing trajectory of development on the two sides of the field gives us the true measure of the US influence in the middle east.

Rather than extending its strategic influence (the definition of a expanding power), Iran`s space seems to constantly shrinking.

I don’t agree with everybody’s assumption that attacking Iraq by the USA has backfired. Think Tanks had long recommended that the USA should play the historic Shia-Sunni divide in the Middle-east. This recommendation had made headlines in the news immediately after 9/11.

The USA went in Iraq for a different reason in which it got thrashed, but has successfully trifurcated the country, and may very well decide to move out now, because it knows that chaos in Iraq would mean chaos in the middle-east.

Therefore, if the USA’s current government, Pentagon and the establishment are following through the recommendations made by the Think Tanks then the first indicator would be US military leaving Iraq in a jiffy. In this case, this could only be a beginning.

Iran has always aspired for leadership in the middle-east. On the other hand, Gulf Arab countries have large Shia population bases that have been historically oppressed by the Sunni rulers. Leaving Iraq in this condition would encourage Iran to call for Islamic revolutions in all Arab countries. Last time this happened was after Imam Khomeni came to power in Iran. Shias had risen to the call for revolution by the Grand Imam in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Bahrain. However, at that time, the USA had an interest in keeping these countries stable. Therefore, all the uprisings were brutally crushed. This time the uprisings will be on much larger scale since many Sunni Muslims may also join Shia Muslims in uprising against “Dictators” in the hope of ‘wiping out Israel’.

Iran may not become an Empire, but may end up creating lot of anarchy in the neighborhood.

#28

As an aside, the Pakistani regime`s promotion of the Jamait-ul-Dawa as a social, cultural and charitable organization as opposed to its other face as the Lashkar-e-Toiba, seems to be patterned on the Hezbollah.

#28

``Due to ideological reasons, Iran continues to support and train Hamas.``

Though the Iranian regime does offer some monetary support to the Hamas, it is most closely associated with the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Hezbollah closely follows Iranian ideology, is almost completely funded by Iran and is trained by the Iranian revolutionary gaurds. The Hamas does not share such a close ideological/logistical with the Iranian regime.

re: mullah`s statement
``I don`t think that being monolithic is a pre-requisite for being great. If it is true then India can never be great.``
It is true that you will never be more than a jacka$$ mullah.
Sridhar

re:# this article
Iran is a proud and stupid nation. Why else would Iran worry about Palestine? That state has no bearing on Iran`s future. Due to ideological reasons, Iran continues to support and train Hamas. If Iran were a pragmatic state, it would sue for peace with Israel (much like Egypt) and concentate on development. Instead, it thinks it is being the hero of the muslim block by defying the western nations.
If it were a pragmatic nation, it would sue for peace with US, put a hold on the production of nuclear weapons and try to find ways of selling its abundant gas resources to markets in the neighbourhood. Its efforts to sell gas to India (an assured market) failed because US would not like the deal to take off.
A prosperous Iran today is a threat to western nations. This is mainly due to its clandestine efforts to become a nuclear power.. Iran has no need for nuclear weapons for energy! It is trying to build one because it thinks it will be safe, much like what Pak argued before it developed nuclear weapons. Pak at least had a giant enemy next door. Who is Iran`s enemy?
A lot of undiplomatic noises are emanating from Iran after this character Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was voted to power.
First, this A-hole>/a> said Israel should be wiped off the map.
Then the moron went on to defend staunchly what he said, despite the international uproar his statement caused.

All this does not paint a good picture of Iran and are harbingers of a tough time for that nation.
Sridhar