10 new wars that could be unleashed as a result of the one against ISIS -Washington Post


“The borders of the Islamic State’s “caliphate” are shrinking fast. The group’s strongholds in Iraq and Syria are collapsing one by one. The U.S.-led war has reached a point where questions are being raised about what comes next.

So far, the answer seems likely to be: more war.”


This article probably oversimplifies things in the sense that it suggests that these wars are discrete events. Rather, the conflicts being played out in Syria are the product of long submerged tensions that were unleashed first by the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and then the Arab Spring. Once the state system began to collapse in 2010, they were bound to come to the fore. The article is effective though, in the way it identifies the various schisms and how they have been effected by recent events.



Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 -Various


The new Saudi King, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, and his son, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman have drawn up a plan to reform the Saudi economy and wean the country away from its reliance on oil as the main source of income. The details of the plan are covered in this Bloomberg article:


Economic diversification is not a new idea for the Saudis, political scientists, economists and even Saudi politicians have been talking about it for years. For an economic argument for diversification and neo-liberal reform, see:


The problem has always been that economic reform in Saudi Arabia could be politically destabilizing. Oil is not just the backbone of the Saudi economy, it is one of, if not the most important political pillars of the state. Oil money (referred to in the poli-sci literature as rents) provides approximately 95% of government revenue. This not only provides money for services etc… it provides the regime with a large degree of economic and therefore political independence from society. The al Saudi do not have to tax Saudi citizens. Instead they redistribute money back to society in the form of generous social benefits and patronage spending. While it may be an oversimplification to say no representation without taxation, the re-distributive nature of the Saudi economy reduces a great deal of pressure for democratization. Not only does the government in effect pay it citizens, oil wealth has been used to build a new middle class beholden to the regime for government handouts. The use of foreign workers also means that organized labor has little or no power.

The Saudi political system cannot be reduced to oil rents, but economic reforms are extremely risky. Even if everything works as planned and the result is economic growth, diversification could very well mean more independence for the middle class and labor. Although the al Saud deny it, reform may also lead to taxation. As the country becomes more economically liberal, there may also be calls for social and cultural liberalization, which would threaten one of the regime’s other pillars of political support, its relationship with the conservative religious establishment.

If King Salman actually follows through with his economic plan it will lead to new political dynamics within the regime, dynamics that the institutions of the Saudi state may have a hard time coping with.

For more, see:




Persian (or Arabian) Gulf Is Caught in the Middle of Regional Rivalries -The New York Times


This article looks at the seemingly trivial dispute over the term “Persian Gulf”. It is no small mater on either the Iranian or the Arab side. As the article points out, Americans frequently use the term Gulf to avoid controversy. I can say from my own experience, that usually does not work. I referred to ‘the Gulf’ once at a talk in Tehran and I was corrected in no uncertain terms, by three separate members of the audience. I have seen a couple of other academics at conferences in North America meet the same fate.

“Analysts say the name can be a source of friction even in diplomatic encounters.

“It’s deeply emotional; it’s not simply semantic,” said Frederic Wehrey, an expert on gulf politics at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Mr. Wehrey recalled meetings that degenerated into shouting matches over the name. At the heart of the matter, he said, was “a geostrategic dispute about ownership of the gulf.”

Kenneth M. Pollack, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who served as the Persian Gulf affairs director at the National Security Council, said that the terms used by American officials had become more nuanced, and that more officials now say Arabian Gulf or simply “the gulf.”

The terminology shifted along with geopolitics, he said. While the close American-Saudi relationship dates to World War II, ties deepened between the United States and other Gulf Arab states after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, and even more so with the 1991 war in Iraq.

The National Geographic Society found itself in the middle of the argument when it published an atlas adding the term Arabian Gulf in parentheses below the term Persian Gulf in 2004. After protests, National Geographic added an explanatory note to later editions.”

He Said, She Said -New York Times


With the Iranian-Saudi rivalry heating up, the foreign ministers of both countries have published editorials in the New York Times condemning the other state. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the editorials is that they are in the times. Both states clearly are playing to the US. The Saudis want to stop the rapprochement between Washington and Tehran. Given that the nuclear agreement is now in effect, and the new relationship survived Iranian ballistic missile tests, the seizure of American naval vessel that “drifted” into Iranian waters, and the imposition of new American sanctions, it would appear that the Saudis have their work cut out for them.


Can Iran Change?

“THE world is watching Iran for signs of change, hoping it will evolve from a rogue revolutionary state into a respectable member of the international community. But Iran, rather than confronting the isolation it has created for itself, opts to obscure its dangerous sectarian and expansionist policies, as well as its support for terrorism, by leveling unsubstantiated charges against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

It is important to understand why Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies are committed to resisting Iranian expansion and responding forcefully to Iran’s acts of aggression.”

Mohammad Javad Zarif: Saudi Arabia’s Reckless Extremism

Why Saudi Arabia escalated the Middle East’s sectarian conflict -Washington Post


Although Iran is not without fault, the sudden crisis in Iranian Saudi relations is due to the Saudis escalating the rivalry by executing Shi’a cleric Nimir al-Nimir. But why? According to Marc Lynch’s post at the Monkey Cage, a blog maintained by the Washington Post, the reasons are complex. The Saudis are feeling increasing vulnerable, the conflict in Yemen is dragging on, Tehran’s nuclear deal with the US is allowing Iran to escape its regional isolation, and the Saudis see a leadership void in the Sunni Arab world which they wish to fill. Will this lead to an Iranian-Saudi war? Probably not. But as Lynch argues: the mobilization of sectarian passions are part of the standard playbook for Riyadh when faced with regional and domestic challenges. But the new forces unleashed by the Arab uprising, from state weakness and civil wars to potent new media platforms, make this sectarian game much more dangerous than in the past. It will be far more difficult to deescalate these sectarian passions than it has been to inflame them.”


Iran’s careful balancing act -al Monitor


“even as Iran shows determination to move forward with implementing the nuclear deal, its leadership is also showing signs of wariness about moving to expand contacts with the United States, ruling out bilateral talks with the Americans on regional issues for now, even as it reaches out to Europe on Syria and has accepted European offers to mediate and try to facilitate a dialogue between Iran and the Sunni Gulf states, as yet rebuffed by Saudi Arabia.”