Militarization of the Shia Crescent

By Charlie

BEIRUT, LEBANON - Rising tension between the West and Iran is coinciding with the emergence of a loose anti-Western alliance -Israel now dubs it an "axis of terror" - spanning the Middle East, presenting a new challenge to the US's regional ambitions. Centered on Iran, this alignment has hardened in recent months, analysts say, with Tehran shoring up old alliances and strengthening ties with countries ( Syria and Iraq) and with groups (Hizbullah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad) that share its hostility toward Israel and the US.
"The alliance that is emerging in this part of the world is a creation of Iran," says Sami Moubayed, a Syrian political analyst. "It wants to bolster its position by allying itself with countries or groups that can temporarily enhance its regional role and influence."

On Tuesday, Israel's UN envoy Dan Gillerman dubbed this alliance the "new axis of terror" following a suicide bombing claimed by the Iranian-funded Islamic Jihad in Tel Aviv the previous day that killed nine Israelis.

"A dark cloud is looming above our region, and it is metastasizing as a result of the statements and actions by leaders of Iran, Syria, and the newly elected government of Palestinian Authority," Mr. Gillerman said.

The alliance, which is ad hoc and tactical rather than a formalized strategic pact, includes Syria and groups such as Lebanon's Hizbullah, the Iran-backed militant Shiite organization, radical Palestinian organizations such as Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command as well as some Iraqi allies.

So far the strategy appears to be working in their favor. Hizbullah has become one of the most influential players in Lebanon and looks set to retain its military wing for the foreseeable future.

Iran has rarely appeared more resolute, boasting of its success in uranium enrichment and expressing near daily defiance toward the US. Damascus is gaining confidence with a slackening of international pressure lately amid concerns that a collapse of Syria's Baathist regime could trigger Iraq-style instability.

"The Syrians are very supportive of Iran and very supportive of Hamas and Hizbullah," says Mr. Moubayed. "Almost everybody in Syria is praising [Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad's alliance with Iran as a very smart move. Many are saying that the alliance with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad was not political suicide after all."
Iran is the driving force behind the alliance, its strategic position in the region enhanced by the US-led effort to oust Tehran's Taliban enemy Afghanistan to the east and its Baathist foe in Iraq to the west.

This type of “axis” will become more and more frequent as the world order re-shuffles itself. Instead of an old, diplomatically sealed alliance between nation-states, this new axis is comprised of under-the-table agreements, tribal and cultural oaths of allegiance, and realpolitik interest-based alignment. The militarized Shia crescent is assembling in front of our very eyes at a surprisingly fast pace. We already know all of the players on the scene: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Jazeera, the Saudis, and the fledgling Iraqi democracy. What we don’t know are the goals and intent of this organization that is struggling to enter the world scene. If the Shia Crescent Axis materializes, what will be its goal? Regional hegemony with Iran as the guiding power would be my guess, as well as control of natural resources, and most importantly, respect from the rest of the Arab, and Western world. How would they go about achieving this goal, though?

If the Iranians can successfully leverage their influence throughout the Shia Crescent, they may be able to accomplish the following:

1. Bring national governments in the Crescent in line with Iranian thinking & objectives. This can be done violently through terrorist action or non-violently through bargaining and political pressure. This would bring Syria, Lebanon, some of the northern Gulf areas, and part of Shia Iraq under the sway of the mullahs.

2. Organize and legitimize terror groups that will operate at the behest of the Iranian (or the Shia Crescent Axis) government. Think of this as a transnational police force that will translate goals into actions. This would be used to quell dissent from any group (think Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Islamic Jihad, who profess a Salafist version of Sunni Islam: i.e. “apostate” governments must be destroyed so we can restore the (Abasid) Caliphate) that would have a problem with Persian rule.

3. Manipulate regional political and economic power on an international scale. If the Iranians can isolate America on the world stage, and continue to fund the insurgency in Iraq (yes, I think they will fund Al Qaeda to fight the Americans and fund/order their own terror groups to fight Al Qaeda elsewhere if AQ decides to fight the Iranians –has your brain exploded yet?) ,they believe they will be able to increase their control over the region and leverage even more power in the international community. If Iran controlled most of the oil fields in the Middle East (by proxy), they would be an economic force to be reckoned with, making it all the harder for the world to stop their nuclear ambitions. If they commanded a huge swath of the Middle East that the Shia Crescent comprises, their stature and influence would make them the deal-breakers for any type of policy action in the world.

Now, none of this has come to pass yet, and it can still be stopped. America has a card to play to blunt the Iranian’s plans of expansionism, but the Arab world does as well. While a recent report said that most Arabs think Iran acquiring nukes is fine with them, most Arabs currently view the conflict as a fight against Israel and American influence in Arabia. Therefore, when fellow Muslims get a counterweight to Western influence, they generally support it. The question changes, I believe, when another culture enters the equation and begins to grab at land, resources, political control, and wealth that currently belongs to Arab Muslims. If a Shia Crescent rose in the East, could a Sunni crescent, comprised of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, U.A.E., and Turkey be far off?

America’s handling of the current conflict will also influence the future of this potential axis. If America can somehow act to blunt Iranian power, there would be no impetus for the axis to form in the first place (weak horse/strong horse, remember?) How could America blunt the Iranian expansion?

-By finishing the job in Iraq. If we can stand up an Iraqi army, border guard, and police force that can effectively protect itself, it will be a serious detriment to Iran’s ability to influence the region. Iran will also be harmed by being in range of a free society –Iran’s mullahs may have to focus more on internal suppression of democratic movements than on expansionist foreign policy.

-By confronting Iran, militarily if necessary. We need to show Iran that we won’t put up with their foolishness, military parades, and “underwater missiles.” Their equipment is mainly comprised of Russian knock-offs, and their army is untested. The real danger from Iran is the Pasadran (think Saddam’s republican guards, but religious wackos), the Intelligence service, the Iranian Special Purpose Forces, and the “Suicide” units. These asymmetric threats are much more dangerous than artillery battalions that can be destroyed by Air Force deep strikes. Deploying some troops to the border, and saying it is for the purpose of deterring the Iranian incursions would be a good start to doing this. Starting an “Northern Watch”-Type operation specifically directed at the Iranian threat would also show the Iranians that we take them seriously, and that their rhetoric has consequences.

The sooner Iran is stopped, the easier it will be, the longer we wait, the harder it will become.

April 20, 2006 01:53 PM Iran

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/47

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Militarization of the Shia Crescent:

» The New Mid East Order from Op For
I did a previous post about a militarization of the Shia Crescent, but after reading some news this week, I think there might be more to the story. We all know main story of what’s going on in the Middle... [Read More]

Comments

This is fine, Maybe the American government will open up drilling for the oil that is under our nation now. At that point this alliance becomes less and less a problem.
Maybe that is what this is all about. Supplies of oil in the middle east are getting thin.
I have seen some research about time tables for them to run out, Not that far away.
as far as the terrorists nations I'm tired of the whole fear the muslim thing, splodey is a military insignificance and 40,000 of them don't worry me in the least, if you hit one of them in the presence of the rest you will get a small mushroom cloud and 40,000 dead idiots.

Robert · April 20, 2006 07:53 PM

Shiia are traders and artisans. They have a core of "martyrs" but most are community bound guided by their mullahs-- mullahs take care of morals, businessmen take care of wealth. But Hezbollah is NOT a terrorist group. It's leaders get better at retaliation as the Israeli assassination squads knock off their leaders. Israel is the terrorist because it started a TERROR WAR against Lebanon, hoping that the Lebanese would ask the US and UN to rid them of Hezbollah per UNSC 1559. When that didn't happened, au contraire it back-fired, Israel invaded and is now having to, once again, pull back. This time Kadima is NOT God's chosen peoiple! However, we have for decades kept Israel in endless supply of deadly arms. But when Olmert came to Wash DC begging for an extra $10 billion to meet the demands of social welfare and growth for rich in his coaltion and to move settlers out of 45% of West Bank, Bush thought of a war with Hezbollah growing to a war with Syria then Iran as a way of getting his (really ours) money's worth...As Israel gets into trouble, "thinks" (sic) Bush, the US will insist it can't let down an ally and will become a "war president" all over again in time for the Fall election. This may sound crazy, what with our bet on the Shia Crescent and all, but it is a rule of biology that when a man only follows his gut there is one one end product. In the case of Bush it is, once again, a lot of BUSHIT!

DE Teodoru · July 29, 2006 11:34 AM