Senate [Middle East discussion] Syria's civil war, Egypt's elections, cyberwar with Iran, and more

This thread can be used to contain all news and discussion involving the Middle East for the temporary boards.



To start us off, I just read a story that a political union of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain is expected to be announced shortly. A third, unnamed nation was also mentioned as possibly entering into this political union too. Many possibilities are mentioned for future additions.

It seems that this will essentially make them 1 nation: on paper they will still claim sovereignty, still be seated separately at the UN, they royal family of Bahrain will still exist, but they will be governed as one nation-state.

The governments of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia were already close. It was Saudi forces that put down the revolution in Bahrain, while similar revolutions succeeded in Tunisia, Egypy, & Libya and are ongoing in Syria and somewhat in Yemen.

The threat of Iran seems to be the trigger for this political union, but I think the threat of revolution is what has really forced these royal families to take action. The tension between Sunni and Shia, reignited by the 2003 Iraq invasion, is also casting a large shadow over the region.



Here's the article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/13/us-gulf-union-idUSBRE84C07120120513

I have a strong feeling the third, unnamed, nation is Qatar.

The Arab World doesn't have a good track record with political unions of this kind. Nasser tried with Egypt and Syria, Iraq and Jordan tried a federation and even Gaddafi tried to merge with Egypt and Sudan. Though Saudi Arabia has so much more influence over Bahrain than any of the other countries had over each other that it probably stands a better shot.

You clearly don't understand the concept of 'unnamed.'

Unnamed as in 'has no name' or unnamed as in 'the name will not be revealed to you'? If it's the latter, I'm entitled to guess, am I not? If it's the former... well, that's impossible.

Should we interpret this as Bahrain being very, very scared of further revolutionary turmoil? I don't understand how the union would otherwise benefit them. It's sure to be an unequal partnership, especially if it means Bahrain may be pressured into accepting Saudi laws and social norms.

I doubt that it's Qatar. They're far too liberal compared to the Saudi's.

It's Greece.


****, can I say that in a Senate tagged thread?

That's because, historically, they haven't been based on any principled agreements regarding political philosophy or governance, but rather designed to exploit localized political realities. Historically they've just ended up fomenting more resentment and tension among the very factions they were designed to quell.

It looks like this proposal is reigniting turmoil in Bahrain, with tens of thousands protesting. Shia religious authorities are also officially getting involved.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-bahrain-protestsbre84h0tl-20120518,0,7022769.story

For a sense of scale, Bahrain is less than 1/5th the size of Rhode Island (my state) in land area, and about as many people (slightly over 1 million).

The UAE, then? I somehow can't imagine it being Oman.

My guess would be the UAE or Kuwait.

Kuwait would probably have the most to gain. It's safe with the US military presence, but if the US were to ever leave then they'd be worried about Iraq... especially a Shia-dominated Iraq with close ties to Iran. With would align its goals with Saudi Arabia's. It also saw some social unrest during the height of the Arab Spring, I think protestors broke into the Parliament while it was in session or something similar.

UAE seems to be doing fine, they're building their Tower of Babel, though they might want to strengthen their position.

Qatar has been helping the Arab Spring that Saudi Arabia wants to contain.

Oman is the Switzerland of the Middle East. It's the detached peacemaker. They're friendly with the United States, with Saudi Arabia, and with Iran too. They were the ones that hosted the meetings that led to the American hikers being freed in Iran. And their country is neither Shia or Sunni, but a unique branch of Islam. Their leader is powerful, but is also very popular and respected. I don't see them joining with Saudi Arabia.

A bit old Salon.com op-ed piece from December saying that we're already at war with Iran.

Also, the same guy in another piece from the same time. I'm wondering about this bill that he writes about (H.R. 1905). Since the piece is now five months old; did that bill pass? Was it not passed? Was it passed with minor changes? Has anyone by any chance been following this, and know?

According to the Library of Congress's Thomas system for tracking bills, it passed the Senate with an amendment by voice vote yesterday. It now goes back to the House to approve or reject the amendment.

You can also track it on GovTrack. They claim (based on a variety of factors) that it currently has a roughly 42% chance of becoming law.

Thanks.

Our relationship with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain is a clear example of why many in that region of the world don't trust us.

@Ghost said this thread could contain all Middle East discussion so here we go.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18170651
Iran is to participate talks about its nuclear program in Baghdad today.
Here's an excerpt from the article:

Discuss away.

The talks are also the subject of tonight's edition of Amanpour on CNN.

Language is always tough before going into talks, because neither side wants to be seen as weak. But from what I've read, there are indications that there is indeed a desire to reach an agreement on the Iranian side, and as a matter of fact one was almost reached in 2009. The problem is just that the language is tough on both sides, which gives moderates on both sides little space to maneuver. When one side puts out ultimatums, the other side has to respond in kind to preserve their integrity, which leads to the first side having to up the ante yet again. What you get is a vicious cycle of ever more hostile rhetoric coming out of both Tehran and Washington, and anyone on either side who advocates restraint will be labeled weak or worse; an appeaser or traitor, even. At the very least, some form of diplomatic ties should be established, IMO, even if not officially by opening up formal embassies.

This 6 months old op-ed in the New York Times makes the case for this. I especially would like to point out the following two excerpts:

and this: