From an arab: overly simplified but a good start for most people who just have no idea and talk nonsense (which are a lot).
The Middle East Friendship Chart
51–60 of 100 posts
Re: The Middle East Friendship Chart
#52Uh, this is what happen when you practice data visualization abuse.
Re: The Middle East Friendship Chart
#53This chart is at the very least incomplete and inaccurate if not blatantly false. To accuse Iran of cooperating with Al Qaeda while claiming that Saudi Arabia does not is audacious. Saudi Arabia spreads the most violent branch of Islam (Wahhabism/Salafism) through indoctrination as well as direct funding for terrorism. Just look at the perpetrators of 9/11, all of whom were Sunni Arabs, most of them from Saudi Arabia…
I think this chart reflects the position of county's government. The Saudi government doesn't support Al Qaeda and has a careful relationship with Wahhabism (as they see both as potential threats to their powerbase).
Al Qaeda (the core part anyway) has never really had an anti-Shia bent (or, interestingly, anti-Israel) and Iran did tolerate some movement of Al Qaeda and Taliban through their territories.
Iran did have a real ally: the Syrian government of Assad. Even that was a difficult relationship prior to the fall of Hussein in Iraq because Assad was a Ba'athist (which is a secular ideology opposed to Iran's theocracy) and Hussein was also Ba'athist (Iraq and Iran were enemies since the Iranian revolution for those who missed that bit).
Ba'athism is pretty much irrelevant today, but until the 1990s it was one of the factors that shaped the Middle Wast we see now.
Edit: I assume the downvotes mean I'm factually incorrect about something. I'd appreciate enlightenment.
Re: The Middle East Friendship Chart
#54The chart is over simplification and lacks any depth for such relationships, for example, Jordan and Saudi, both friendly with Israel and have been funding ISIS, yet there is no mention of Jordan, Qatar too, too tiny yet playing a very big role in this mess, not there at all. The main player in all relationship in the middle east is the US and Israel, the rest is not much.
I think the best thing that has been written on the Middle East is Walid Khalidi, ed., From Haven to Conquest. But as a rule of thumb,"When governments are loyal to the US (Israel, Ukraine, etc), the US calls for disarming of all militias and groups that are opposed to those governments. But in the cases of governments that are opposed to the US (Syria, Iran, Cuba, etc) the US funds and arms militias against those governments."
Re: The Middle East Friendship Chart
#55Could someone explain the first couple of principal components of this conflict to a historically illiterate like me?
It all comes down to 'Whose land is it anyway?'
Re: The Middle East Friendship Chart
#56It would be interesting to find the "basis vectors" of issues, if you will, underpinning this matrix.
They seem to be: Israel-Palestinians, Syria's Civil War, Egypt's Overthrow, and the new Iraqi state.
So, if the issues would be resolved in the most peaceful way, namely:
Egypt's current government continuing to exist
Israel and Palestinian Authority defeating Hamas and working towards a peace deal
Iraq getting stable borders (with Kurds using political struggle only)
Syria - probably the overthrow would maximize peace at this point, esp given the resolution above ousting Hamas
The big winners would be:
USA
Israel
Palestinian Authority
Egypt
Rebels in Syria
Iran (even though Assad lost)
And the big losers would be:
Hamas
ISIS
Hezbollah
Al Qaeda and USA will keep fighting
Turkey has recently had its own set of protests against Erdogan, and it's unclear where its future lies
With ISIS gone, Saudi Arabia and Qatar will continue to have stable states favoring Sunni Wahhabism
Iraq will probably become one of the fastest growing economies in the middle east
Iran will go from being polarized to roughly moderate in its connections, esp if a peace agreement is reached with Israel, the Assad regime is ousted, and Iraq is a stable and friendly state
Jordan would enjoy further peace and the Palestinian Authority's new confidence since the ouster of Hamas etc. may prove a strong factor for Jordan's relations with its Palestinian majority, which would take away focus from Israel-Palestinian conflict
The new Syrian government would aspire to join the Arab League but may consider giving Palestinian refugees citizenship, which will play a factor in Israel-PA deals
Re: The Middle East Friendship Chart
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the conflict of interests is too fundumental, they consider themselves enemies :) And of course there are countries which are enemies due to ideology.
Either way, congratulations to Slate for reducing politics in the Middle East to three types of smileys. Their readers must love that kind of stuff.
Simplification is a good thing. And the middle east desperately needs some. Sure, the foreign ministries of the world shouldn't use this chart, but that's not really the audience here.
Re: The Middle East Friendship Chart
#58lol! ISIS has no friends at all
Re: The Middle East Friendship Chart
#59It would be interesting to find the "basis vectors" of issues, if you will, underpinning this matrix. They seem to be: Israel-Palestinians, Syria's Civil War, Egypt's Overthrow, and the new Iraqi state. So, if the issues would be resolved in the most peaceful way, namely: Egypt's current government continuing to exist Israel and Palestinian Authority defeating Hamas and working towards a peace deal Iraq getting stabl…
Hamas won free and fair elections. Peace must come from negotiations with Hamas; it can't be predicated on their destruction.
Re: The Middle East Friendship Chart
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bush was republican, doesn't mean all Americans were right-wing.
Exactly the distinction I wanted to make. Iran is a theocracy, with a population that has at least a significant secular fraction.
Is your purpose in drawing this distinction to claim that the secular tendencies of the population of Iran is an effective counterweight to the ambitions of its theocracy?