Font size: 
Instead of concentrating on the Palestinians by negotiating at least a "Cold Peace" on other fronts, an overconfident Israel opened a Shiite front in Lebanon, in the process bringing(Shiite) Alawi-controlled Syria into the mix of those ready to shed blood for the destruction of the Jewish state. But for the participation of Damascus, Khomeinist Iran would have been severely hobbled in its efforts to help Shiite and other anti-Israel non-conventional militaries in Lebanon. And without the help provided by this second front, the Palestinian battle against Israel would not have continued with such vehemence.
The 1980s arousal of the Shiite will come to be seen in Israel as an error of judgment similar to that made by Zbigniew Brezezinski and later by William Casey in the United States, when during 1979-81 both chose Wahabbi religious zealots over the secular but anti-Pakistan Pashtun nationalists as their agents of choice to battle the Soviets, who had occupied Afghanistan. Many of these zealots later morphed into the Taliban, a group that was assisted to come to power by U.S. officials such as Robin Raphel, then an assistant secretary of state under U.S. President Bill Clinton.
Together with Unocal representatives including Zalmay Khalilzad and Hamid Karzai, Raphel visited Afghanistan and Pakistan several times in the years before the Taliban's 1996 takeover, giving Mullah Amar assistance that proved decisive in ensuring their victory over rivals in Afghanistan. Such U.S. help to the Taliban continued into the Bush presidency,till 9/11 exposed the nature of the beast that had been nurtured with such care.Thereafter, another mistake was made by Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, who halted the Northern Alliance from rolling up the Taliban networks from the whole of the country, and thereby ensured a sanctuary for them in southern Afghanistan. Later, the United States and other NATO countries moved against the Northern Alliance, getting rid of key ministers such as Foreign Affairs Minister Abdullah and Defense Minister Fahim, replacing them with others receptive to Islamabad's strategy of re-inserting the religious extremists into positions of authority in the "new" Afghanistan in the guise of "moderate" Taliban.
The only force within the Islamic Ummah, or Diaspora, capable of softening up the Wahabbi fringe enough to enable genuine Muslims to reclaim their faith are the Shiite, who are seen by followers of Abdal Wahhab as "worse than Jews and Christians." A reading of Wahabbi literature would reveal the extent of demonization of the Shiite, and show exactly why this sect is so persecuted in Wahabbi-influenced countries, principally Saudi Arabia, where the Shiite have been dispossessed of their oil and even the meager rights enjoyed by others in the kingdom.
The first attempt from within the Shiite to align their beliefs and worldview with those of the Wahabbis came from Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who adopted several features of Wahabbism into his unique philosophy of Khomeinism, which took in toto the Wahabbi worldview of intolerance toward other faiths and the divine fiat for an authoritarian state. While Wahabbism postulated a split between mosque and state, with the House of Saud being given temporal power by the Almighty and the Al-Wahab clan religious overlordship, Khomeini merged both into a single superman -- himself.
Later, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia attempted to integrate this aspect of Khomeinism into Wahabbism, by adding spiritual authority to political control of the kingdom by declaring himself and his successors the "custodians of the holy places." However, this did not result in any letup of the discrimination against Shiites in Saudi Arabia, who are treated as tenth-class citizens to this day. While Khomieini sought to moderate Shiite Islam's antipathy toward the Wahabbis by integrating several of the latter's concepts into his own philosophy, the fact remains that the two are natural enemies. It would be unfortunate for international stability were both to combine against the West, as they appear in danger of doing now, mainly as a result of an approach adopted first by Israel and now by the United States and the European Union while dealing with the Shiite.
The 2003 toppling of the secular but anti-Shiite regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq could have been the beginning of reconciliation with the Shiite that could have led to an alliance against the Wahabbi threat. However, the ignoring of persecution of the Shiite in countries such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, the demonization of Iran and the continuing military occupation of Iraq are helping to create a Shiite-Wahabbi alliance against the West that could take decades to counter. Alternatively, a Shiite focus on the Wahabbis as their principal foe could result in the emasculation of this threat within a generation, and the return of Islam to the Sufi variants practiced under Turkish (Caliphate) suzerainty.
It was the United Kingdom and then the United States that propped up the Wahabbis, first against the Turks in the early 1900s, then against Nasserite Arab nationalists in the 1960s and 1970s and finally against the Soviets in the 1980s. Now it is again the United States and the United Kingdom that are adopting a policy tailor-made to infuriate the Shiite, whether these be in Iran, Iraq or elsewhere.
Israel has paid -- and is paying -- a heavy price for adding the Shiite in the 1980s alongside the Palestinians in the list of implacable enemies of the Jewish state. Hopefully,the rest of the Western world will learn from this mistake and avoid making the same. Once again let it be remembered that apart from Israel, no part of the Western world is as yet under a terrorist Shiite assault, the way the Wahabbis of al-Qaida are targeting the United States and the European Union, besides Australia. None of the 9/11 hijackers or the London bus bombers were Shiite.
There needs to be a distinction made between the Iranian people and the mullahcracy that rules them, so that it is made clear that it is only the latter that is standing in the way of acceptance of the right of Iran to develop nuclear energy, of course under sufficient international safeguards. The United States and other foreign forces need to accept that they cannot defeat an urban insurgency whose principal objective is the removal of the occupation. Iraq needs to be handed back to the Iraqis, and this includes the oil that is the focus of so much attention by Zalmay Khalilzad in Baghdad.
The coming together, even if briefly, of Germany and the USSR in 1939-41 helped spark World War II, while a Soviet-French-British alliance may have scared away Hitler or crushed him before the monster struck the civilized world. Rather than continue with policies designed to bring into play a Shiite-Wahabbi alliance against the rest, the international community -- principally the West -- needs to enlist the backing of the Shiites in the ongoing crusade launched by the Wahabbis against the modern world.
--
(Professor M.D. Nalapat is vice-chair of the Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair, and professor of geopolitics at Manipal University)
