Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Trumpinator

Fear of a Shia full moon

BYLINE: Events are proving that the king of Jordan was right to warn of a ‘Shia crescent’ across the Middle East - even though the phrase was a tad undiplomatic, writes Ian Black

Ian Black | Friday 26 January 2007

Late in 2004, King Abdullah of Jordan coined a controversial phrase that still resonates powerfully in the Middle East: there was, he argued, a “Shia crescent” that went from Damascus to Tehran, passing through Baghdad, where a Shia-dominated government had taken power and was dictating a sectarian brand of politics that was radiating outwards from Iraq across the whole region.

The king’s words were certainly prescient: the divide between Sunni and Shia Muslims looks like being one of the big themes of 2007 as both come to terms with the apparently unstoppable chaos in Iraq, the rise of Iran as a regional power, and the fear of new and catastrophic consequences if the US and/or Israel enter into armed confrontation with the Islamic republic.

Now some scholars are even talking of a new “30 years’ war” between the two branches of Islam - something akin to the struggle between Protestants and Catholics in 16th-century Europe.

Some of this deepening anxiety has been evident in comments by the Jordanian monarch in recent days. A journalist from the London-based Sharq al-Awsat newspaper reminded him that officials in Iran were “looking forward to a full Shia moon, not just a Shia crescent.” The king responded by stressing that he had never used the word Shia in a sectarian sense - “let’s not delve into these labels,” he insisted - but rather was referring to “political alignments”.

His “Shia crescent” tag went down badly because it was simply too frank; it was simplistic, too, smoothing over local factors of ethnicity and nationalism to provide a single, overarching explanation. In a region where political discourse is often coded, it was highly unusual to hear such blunt language.

(...)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jan/26/worlddispatch.ianblack


92 posted on 09/28/2015 10:26:46 AM PDT by Fitzy_888 ("ownership society")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Fitzy_888
...” some scholars are even talking of a new “30 years’ war” between the two branches of Islam - something akin to the struggle between Protestants and Catholics in 16th-century Europe”....

This is all about who will ultimately control the Caliphate in the ME. As that leader will sit at the table of the NWO once it's fully in place. It's political to be sure....

94 posted on 09/28/2015 10:31:44 AM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

To: Fitzy_888
Now some scholars are even talking of a new “30 years’ war” between the two branches of Islam - something akin to the struggle between Protestants and Catholics in 16th-century Europe.

First of all, it was between France (Catholic and often supporting the Protestant estates), and Spain (Catholic, supporting the Catholic states via Protestant mercenary armies). Germany just happened to be the battle ground chosen by both sides.

But it is an apt description. The battlefield here will be Iraq and Syria, and the dividing line isn't so much Shia/Shite, but the House of Saud and Israel vs Iran and the non Arab muslim states. With Israel making noises about supporting the Russian plan, I expect Saud to drift from the US orbit soon.
99 posted on 09/28/2015 11:03:30 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson