Which Islamists Are More Dangerous Sunni or Shia?

By Barry Rubin

There is a passionate, but somewhat academic debate, over the following issue: Which is the greater threat, the Sunni Muslim Islamists (Egypt, Tunisia, Gaza Strip, and perhaps soon to be Syria) or the Shia Muslim Islamists (Iran, Lebanon, at the moment still Syria)?

I would say the answer would be the Iran-led Shia bloc. But two reservations: the margin isn’t that big and it also depends on the specific place and situation.

To begin with, Iran is still the greatest strategic threat in the region. It is moving as fast as it can toward nuclear weapons and it is still the main sponsor of terrorism. At the moment, it is still, too, the most likely state that would initiate an anti-Western war, though that possibility is smaller than often believed. It has lots of money.

What has gone largely unnoticed is that it is almost the middle of 2013 and the Obama Administration has barely begun negotiations with Iran that will probably drag on without success for a year or more. In addition, after Iran’s June elections, which will presumably pick a radical who is less obviously extremist than current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the U.S. government and mass media will probably proclaim a new era of Iranian moderation.

Iran is also the main backer of Islamist revolution in Bahrain (where it has failed); Lebanon (where its Hizballah clients are the strongest force); and Syria (where its regime ally is in serious trouble).

One final point is that Tehran is having some success in drawing the Iraqi (Shia) government into its orbit. Baghdad is certainly cooperating with Iran on defending the Syrian regime, though one should not exaggerate how much Iraq is in Iran’s pocket. At any rate, nobody would want the Iraqi regime to be overthrown by the al-Qaida terrorist opposition.

So a strong case can be made that Iran is the greatest threat in the region.

On the other hand, however, a Great Wall of Sunnism has been built to prevent the extension of Iranian influence except for Lebanon. The Sunni bloc contains few Shia Muslims. The Muslim Brotherhood, the even more radical Salafists, and other Sunni Muslims (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, for example) have said that the Shias are a worse threat than Israel.

Perhaps the fear of Iran provides some common cause with the West. But this is also a scary proposition since the Obama Administration’s promotion of Sunni Islamism (Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, and even Turkey) could use this point as an excuse. Perhaps America could be said to be building a united front against Iran but at what price? Turning over much of the Arab world to repressive, anti-American, and antisemitic Sunni Islamism as Christians flee?

There is also another weakness of Sunni Islamism, however, that also makes it seem relatively less threatening. In contrast to Iran, the Sunni Islamists do not have a wealthy patron comparable to Iran. They can depend on money from Qatar and to some extent from Libya but they have fewer resources. Sometimes the Saudis will help Sunni Islamists but only if they tone down their warlike and anti-Western actions. There is no big banker for Sunni Islamist destabilization of the Middle East.

Equally, they do not have a reliable source of arms, in contrast to the Shia who have Iran and also at times Russia. True, in Syria the Sunni rebels have U.S. backing to get weaponry and arms from Libya and elsewhere paid for by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Yet Syria is an exceptional case. The Saudis are not going to finance the Muslim Brotherhood and its ambitions. Bahrain has declared Shia Hizballah to be a terrorist group even while the European Union refuses to do so.
So arguably one could say that the Shia Islamists and Iran are a bigger danger. But a second danger is a U.S. or Western policy to promote Sunni Islamism as a way to counter the Shia, a strategy that has intensified regional dangers and the suffering of Arab peoples. Then, too, there’s the fact that al-Qaida is a Sunni Islamist organization, and the al-Qaida forces are getting stronger in Syria.

One would have to be very foolish to want to see Sunni Islamism make further gains, to overthrow the monarchies in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, or Bahrain, as well as the Algerian regime. One would also have to be foolish--but here the Obama Administration is so--to want to see Muslim Brotherhood regimes succeed in Egypt, Tunisia, the Gaza Strip, and Syria.

What we are seeing, however, is that Islamism is becoming entangled at present with the power it has gained, especially in Egypt. The country is innately in economic difficulties and these are being intensified by Muslim Brotherhood misrule. Rather than raise their countries to the peak of military-economic efficiency, the Islamist regimes are wrecking them.

But there are some very significant wild cards in the deck:

--If Sunni Islamist regimes in Egypt and Syria face significant problems with instability and economics, they might adopt the time-honored, traditional tactic of Arab dictatorships by stirring up foreign quarrels and promoting anti-Americanism. This could unleash future Arab-Israeli wars.

--Sunni Islamist regimes in Egypt, the Gaza Strip, and probably Syria would give extremely radical Salafist forces a free hand in attacking Christians, moderates, women’s rights, foreign embassies, and possibly Israel. Human rights in these countries—if anybody in the West cares about that—are going to suffer severe hits.

--Hamas will probably attack Israel in future, perhaps with at least some Egyptian backing though the Egyptian regime is now trying to restrain Hamas in order to consolidate rule at home and get Western money.

--Al-Qaida is gaining strength in Syria and for the first time its possible takeover cannot be ruled out, at least in alliance with other Salafist groups.

--The stronger the Sunni Islamists the more uncooperative the Palestinian Authority (PA) will be with attempts at a “peace process.” It is possible that the PA would face a considerable challenge from Hamas on the West Bank while forces within Fatah, the PA’s ruling party, might form alliances with Hamas. Israel should be able to keep the PA in power—a situation wrought with irony—but its stability could crumble.

In short, while one can make the case for Shia Islamism being the more dangerous—at least as long as Iran might get nuclear weapons—one must very carefully examine the implications of that judgment in every specific case. Promoting Sunni Islam is no panacea but rather substitutes longer-term for shorter-term threats.



We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.

By credit card: click here. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
For tax-deductible donations in Canada and the UK, write us here.

-------------------- Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His next book, Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East, written with Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, will be published by Yale University Press in January 2014. His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, also published by Yale. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for free at the website of the GLORIA Center including The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

New Poll: Gosnell Trial Shifted Public Opinion Toward Pro-Life

The good news is that those who saw media reports of the Gosnell trial lean more pro-life than before, the bad news is that thanks to media bias not many people saw a media report.

According to an Investors Business Daily/TIPP poll only 24% of total adults saw news coverage of the trial of Kermit Gosnell but 42% of those who saw news stories regarding the trial of the Abortionist say they now lean more toward pro-life views than pro-choice views.

"The media's downplaying of this story was clearly reflected in the poll results," according to Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence, which conducted the survey.

Those who did see or read media reports of the trial were far likelier to be affected in the pro-life direction. Only 14% said that because of the trial, they now lean more toward pro-choice views.

Those whose view was not changed one way or the other by the Gosnell trial totaled a sizable 41% — almost as many as those affected in the pro-life direction.

Interestingly the poll showed very little difference between Men (43%) and Women (40%) shifting toward pro life.

A majority of those with some college — 57% — lean more toward pro-life because of the trial, while 33% of those holding a degree swerved in that direction.

Perhaps some of the future investigations will will receive more coverage, for example Houston abortionist Douglas Karpen 

Houston doctor Douglas Karpen is accused by four former employees of delivering live fetuses during third-trimester abortions and killing them by either snipping their spinal cord, stabbing a surgical instrument into their heads or 'twisting their heads off their necks with his own bare hands'.

Other times the fetus was so big he would have to pull it out of the womb in pieces, Karpen's ex-assistant, Deborah Edge, said in an Operation Rescue video, which has prompted a criminal investigation into the doctor.

'Sometimes he couldn't get the fetus out... he would yank pieces – piece by piece – when they were oversize,' Edge explained.

Karpen and others like him are being investigated. Sadly there are many more Like Karpen and  Gosnell to help sway public opinion.

Ways and Means IRS Hearing: Miller Tap-Dances Around Truth - IG Says More Scandal Reports Coming

Both Democrats and Republicans showed frustration in their questioning during today's House Ways and Means Committee hearings.  Acting commissioner Miller (who is still employed by the IRS)tapped danced around the scandal, while Inspector General Russell George furnished all he could about the report.

The first real surprise was when Russel George indicated there were similar investigations being made so there may be much more coming. 

The most fun surprise was the revelation that last week's question to Lois Lerner which made the scandal public was staged.

Rep Nunes “Was her question to Ms. Lerner about targeting certain groups planned in advance?”

Miller replied, “I believe we talked about that, yes.”

As for the "real" investigation-- Miller kept claiming there was no Politics involved in the targeting of conservative groups:

"I think that what happened here was that foolish mistakes were made by people who were trying to be more efficient in their workload selection," Miller said, calling the practices described in the inspector general's report as "intolerable" and a "mistake," but "not an act of partisanship."

He apologized for what he later called "horrible customer service," but he also stubbornly rejected any accusation that it amounted to politicizing the work of the IRS.

Miller objected to the term "targeted", he said the phase targeting conservatives was pejorative--Congressmen of both parties objected.  They asked how could there not be targeting when it was only conservative groups who were abused.

“When you talk about targeting, it’s a pejorative term,” Miller said. “There was a lot of discussion within the system about these” [new 501c4 organizations].

Miller said former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman's testimony failing to disclose the activity when asked specific question by the same committee --was "incorrect," but not misleading.  HUH?

Miller also claimed -- over and over -- that he was being honest with Congress during a hearing last year--with those claims he was walking on a very fine line:

"You did not share the information you knew," Rep. Reichert charged.

"I answered all questions truthfully," Miller replied.

This claim was met with deep skepticism Friday. Miller acknowledged he learned of the practice during a May 3, 2012, briefing. Yet when he was asked about it at a July 25 hearing that year, he said only that some applications fell into a particular category -- and that those organizations were grouped for "consistency" and "quality."

When he was asked if his answer was incomplete--Miller would only say his answers were "Truthful."

Miller claimed he did not know who was responsible for the targeting of conservative groups by IRS agents.

“Who is responsible for targeting the conservative organizations?” Rep Brady Asked pressing for names. “I don’t have names for you?, Mr. Brady,”Miller said.

Sounds like he could take over Eric Holder's Job, as Holder also knows nothing.

”I don’t have that name, sir,” he told GOP congressman Dave Reichert in today’s House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the scandal, which came to light last Friday.
Reichert persisted, “Did you ask anybody?”
“Yes,” Miller responded — he asked the senior technical adviser, Nancy Marks.
“And what did Nancy tell you, who’s responsible?” Reichert asked.
“That I don’t remember, to be honest with you,” Miller said. 

Not remembering is just as believable as his claim that there was no political reason for the targeting. 

Who knew when? George said he alerted Miller’s predecessor, Shulman, in May 2012. He alerted the Treasury counsel on June 4, 2012, and subsequently told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin. The IG told new Treasury Secretary Jack Lew after his appointment that he was working on investigating the claims.

Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., was the star of the show as he described the ways its agents are capable of ruining lives.

"You can put anybody out of business that you want. ... When the IRS comes in there, you're not allowed to be shoddy," he said, suggesting the agency's leadership was being held to a different standard now that it is coming under scrutiny.

"This is absolutely an overreach, and this is an outrage for all Americans," he said.

When he finished, the committee room erupted in cheers and applause that lasted several seconds.

It was  pointed out that IG George's document was not an investigation it was an audit.  Mr George was asked if he is conducting a full investigation. George answered that he couldn't answer that question--a clear indication that there is much more to come...so buy that BIG Bag of popcorn (but don't record it on your 1040 as a deduction).

Plenty of questions remain unanswered about why IRS agents in Cincinnati started using search terms like “tea party” and “patriots” to filter groups applying for tax-exempt status, under who's direction was  it started, what the top IRS management  did when they found out about it and why the Cincinnati office resumed similar searches months after officials in Washington told them not to. Some of those questions might come out next week when Rep. Issa's House Oversight panel takes its turn with a different set of witnesses.

Obama Caught Abusing Power: Non-Recess, "Recess" NLRB Appointments Struck Down Again

Every since the President decided to make recess appointments when the Senate was still in session his actions have been challenged in federal  court.  Back in January a federal appeals court ruled this the "recess appointments" President Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board were an abuse of power, that he acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess and and the board has not had quorum to operate and yesterday a second federal court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Obama appointments to the NLRB were invalid.

The January ruling covered appointments of of Richard Griffin (2012-present) and Sharon Block (2012-present), yesterday's ruling invalidated the earlier appointment of Craig Becker  who served from 2010-2012.

Yesterday's ruling by the Philadelphia District court agreed with the one made by the DC District court back in January, saying that recess appointments could only be made between congressional sessions, not when congress is on a break/holiday.  

Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation, issued the following statement in light of the court's decision:

"Today, another federal appeals court has invalidated one of President Barack Obama's so-called 'recess appointments' to the National Labor Relations Board. As National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have argued in several courts, the Obama 'recess appointments' have clearly violated the U.S. Constitution.

"As a result, the Board has lacked a quorum since at least August 2011, and under a U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in New Process Steel, L. P. v. NLRB (2010), the Board's biased and decidedly pro-Big Labor rulings since then are therefore invalidated. Over 1,500 NLRB decisions may be invalid as a result. This underscores the constitutional chaos this President has created by gaming the system for union bosses.

"Today's decision is a victory for independent-minded workers who have received unjust treatment at the hands of the pro-forced unionism NLRB over the last few years."

The January ruling said recess appointments made by all recent presidents have been unconstitutional. arguing that the president's recess appointment powers don't apply to "intrasession" appointments (such as when they close for a holiday) only after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which usually means only at the end of a year.

If President's have been making these unconstitutional appointments for decades why is the court first ruling against them now? The honest truth is no one had ever asked (challenged them) before.

Obama's "recess" appointments had created a NLRB that was very biased toward labor. However based on the two court decisions many of those unfair pro-labor decisions are invalid(see below).

Open publication - Free publishing

The DOJ/Associated Press Investigation Was Political Retribution

In response to a question about the Department of Justice/Associated Press "scandal" today the President said “Leaks related to national security can put people at risk,” the president noted. “They can put some of our intelligence officers, who are in various dangerous situations that are easily compromised, at risk.”

But there was no one at risk!  As the Associated Press reported on Tuesday,

We held that story until the government assured us that the national security concerns had passed. Indeed, the White House was preparing to publicly announce that the bomb plot had been foiled.

The White House had said there was no credible threat to the American people in May of 2012. The AP story suggested otherwise, and we felt that was important information and the public deserved to know it.

The fact is the Associated Press sat on the story for five days.  Then, according to the Washington Post report, during a Monday morning meeting, the journalists were asked by agency officials to hold off on publishing the story for just one more day so the Administration could announcement.

The AP held the story for national security but published it when the only reason to hold it was for the Administration to get some glory.

The Associated Press  published the story on Monday, and Tuesday John  Brennan, now the CIA director appeared on Good Morning America the following day to . He said that because of the work of U.S. intelligence, the plot did not pose an active threat to the American public.

So if the plot no longer posed a threat, and the only reason the AP was asked to delay was so the administration could make the announcement first, why did the DOJ subpena  the Associated Press records.  There is only one logical answer, political retribution---the Obama administration was punishing the Associated Press for its blowing the big announcement.