= new reply since forum marked as read
This "revolt" is the latest effort by Saudi Arabia to undo the main achievement of Bush's invasion of Iraq, which was Iraq became a close ally of Iran. The Shiite-Sunni split is just the latest version of the old Roman Empire - Persian Empire division of before the time of Christ. It was Pagan Rome vs Pagan Parthian Empire, centered on present day Iran till about 250 AD, then it was Christian Rome vs Zoroastrianic Sasanian Person Empire from about 300 till 700 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
Now, the split is actually a three way split, Egypt, Asia Minor and Iran. Under the first Persian Empire, Persia had two of these three areas (You can NOT hold Asia Minor without Greece unless Greece and Asia Minor are in constant conflict (mostly a "Cold War" but sometimes a "Hot War"
. This is the present split between Greece and Turkey means Turkey really can not intervene in the Middle East. Alexander the Great held all three areas but he was dead by the time he was 33 and his empire fell apart, back into Greece and Asia Minor., Egypt and Iran. Rome ended up taking over Greece and Asia Minor along with Egypt, but consistently failed to expand into Iraq (Roman Armies would reach into Iraq, but only occasionally getting to South East Iraq and then never more then a few years, in most cases just a few months. Thus the three way split became a two way split under Roman Rule but return to a three way split after 600 AD.,
After the Islamic movement out of Arabia in the early 600, both the Persian and Roman Empire went into rapid change (Both Empires had engaged in a violent struggle and were both in bad conditions do to those wars when the successor of Mohammad made his move out of present day Arabia). Roman Emperor Heraclius had completely destroyed the army of the Sasanian Persia Empire, but he had to leave the Sasanian hold Egypt for several years, in which Egyptians found rule by foreigners could be to their profit, for they did not have to pay rent to their Roman Landlords as long a Persia ruled Egypt. Thus 15 years after Roman Rule of Egypt was restored, and the Arabs took Egypt, the People of Egypt, remained Christians till the Crusades over 600 years made a clear perference for rule by these Foreigners over Rule by their Christian Landlords.
This was complicated for the Roman Emperor of that time period, Heraclius, holding onto Greece and Asia Minor while rebuilding the Roman Army and converting it from paid mercenary army it had been since 109 BC to one where ownership of land was tied in with military service, i.e. what we call Feudalism.
Anyway, the Roman-Persian spit continued, the later Byzantine-Arab appears to be a continuance of the older Roman-Sasanian conflict, through like the time period before the Roman Empire, Egypt, Syria and Palestine was part of the Persian area of dominance. The Arabs moved their capital to Baghdad, just north of the old Sassanian Capital and became more and more Persian into the 800s and 900s. The Sunni-Shiite split started at this time (Shiite can be translated as "Follow of Ali", Ali was the son in law of Mohammad, and his followers believed he should have been made Caliph at the death of Mohammad. Ali became the fourth Caliph but was killed and succeeded by successors of the first three Caliphs. Thus both Sunni and Shittes accept the first four Caliphs as legitimate, but the Shiites hold the Caliphs after Ali are not, the Caliphate should have gone to Ali's son (Mohammad's grandson) not to the family of the youngest wife of Mohammad (who had born Mohammad no children).
Anyway, you have echos of the Roman-Persian fight in the growing split between the Sunni and the Shittes. As the Arab Empire collapsed in the late 700s and early 800s this split became more pronounced, through it would take a weird turn of events. Sunni Islam became the dominate form of Islam in the old Roman Areas of the Middle East, while Shiite became the dominate Religion of the old pro-Persian areas of the Middle East. Greek Orthodox remained dominate in the Byzantine Empire held areas of Asia Minor and various local allies of the Byzantine Empire in the Middle East.
The sole exception to this rule was Egypt. By the 800s, Egypt was ruled by the Shiite Fatima Dynasty, but they hold was weak. The population of Egypt was still overwhelmingly Christian, but not in communion with Constantinople (This is the historical Egypt-Greek Split that goes back to the time of Alexander the Great, if not before, but made permanet by the Arab Conquest of Egypt). This paper is on the Shiite-Sunni Split, not the Greek-Egypt division of the Eastern Mediterranean, through the Greek-Egypt Split is the one of the many reasons Egypt, Palestine and Syria, tend to accept Persian Rule more then present day Turkey or Greece.
The Fatima Dynasty hold on Egypt was weak, this was discovered by the First Crusade, but by the time that weakness was shown the First Crusade was also to weak to take Egypt, thus a Sunni Army from Syria took Egypt instead between the Second and Third Crusades.
Now the Crusades were directed at the rulers of Palestine, and that tended to be Sunni Islamic States from Baghdad to the Mediterranean Coast (From the Third Crusades onward, that included Egypt). The Shiites were thus driven from Egypt, but they still had stronghold around Barsa, through subject to Sunni Rulers at that time period. From they base in what is now Eastern Iraq the Shiite spread into Iran. The Sunni rulers turn increasingly to Turks from Central Asia as they troops, for they did not trust the Persians under their rule (Zoroastrianism would remain the main religion of Persia for centuries after the Arab Conquest, but as we near the modern period became a very small minority do to prejudice against them by their Islamic rulers, mostly Sunnis till after the Mongol Invasion of 1248 AD)/
Now in the 1200s you have the Islamic invasion of Persia and its annexation into the Mongol Empire. The Mongols did not care what religion you were as long as you paid your taxes to them. Under this system the Shiite thrived in Persia, replacing the Sunni in local positions of power.
At the same time, the Turks who had been ruling much of Iran were forced into Asia Minor by the Mongols. The Turks became allied with the remains of the Byzantine Empire and subsequent Ottoman Empire has been called a Joint Turk-Islamic and Greek-Orthodox empire (The Ottoman Empire till about 1600s had strong indications of BOTH threads, one of the reason for today's Greek=Turk hatred is that starting in the 1600s these two parts of the Ottoman Empire became "Divorced" and like many divorces hatred replaced love).
Anyway, the Greeks and Turks were forced even more into each other's hands when Timerlane, based out of Iran, in the mid 1400s, to become the single greatest conqueror since Alexander the Great (and in many ways a Greater Conquered, he failed to take Greece, but he did take Delhi in India and fought the Golden Horde of modern Russia).
From the death to Timberlane, the old Roman-Persian line reappeared, this time as a Ottoman Empire-Persia split that has remain roughly where it has been. Under the Ottoman Empire, this "Roman" Division extended to Barsa. Egypt would come under Turkish rule but never for long except when the Ottoman Empire control over Egypt was purely nominal i.e. local rulers made the rules for Egypt including where Egyptian troops would go, while saying they were under Ottoman Rule.
Now, if you look into the above splits, you see the Persian line has extended to Egypt, but never to Greece (Except for brief time periods). On the other hand the "Roman" line has extended to Basra and the Persian Gulf, but never to Persia itself (Again except for brief time periods). Between these two extremes the border between the Roman and Persian "Empires" have gone back and forth since the time of Alexander the Great.
Into this mix, comes present day Saudi Arabia and its oil wealth. The House of Saud is Sunni and this tied in with the Islamic parts of the old Roman/Byzantine/Ottoman empire. The Shiites, are tied in with Iran and the old Persian Empire. Notice the religions reflect historical divisions more then any division over religious doctrine and that is why the House of Saud is doing all it can to support "Sunni" groups, while Iran is supporting "Shiite" Groups. The split in Islam has evolved to reflect the underlying geographical split between the old Persian Empire (and the concept of "Greater Persia" and the concept of unity built up under the Roman Empire, and preserved in the concept of Christianity and Sunni Islam and their concept of unity.
What the US has to accept is that who do we want to rule Iraq? Iran, Turkey or Egypt (and Egypt will rule via Saudi Arabia for present day Egypt is under the pay and thus control of Saudi Arabia). Turkey has expressed a desire NOT to rule Iraq, Turkey remembers the last days of the Ottoman Empire where Iraq (along with Yemen) became bloody battlefields (and Greece is hostile to Turkey even while both are members of NATO, the main funding for the Kurds in the 1990s was from Greece). Furthermore Turkey is dependent on Iranian Natural Gas and thus will NOT do anything to make Iran to mad at them.
Thus it is Egypt/Saudi Arabia vs Iran. Given the lack of oil money in Egypt and the overwhelming oil money in Saudi Arabia it is Saudi Arabia and the House of Saud vs Iran.
The House of Saud knows one of the main areas of this fight is the hall of the US Congress, so the House of Saud keeps a lot of lobbyists on retainer. The arrange deals that benefits various US Congressmen through NOT through direct political donation (which are illegal for Saudi Arabia is a foreign nation) i.e offer to buy something made in the district of the house member (or the State of the Senator) and to make sure it is known that it was done through the efforts of that member of Congress (what efforts are not mentioned). Another way to to give donation to domestic US groups that can donate to members of Congress. There are ways around the ban on donation including hiring relatives of the member of Congress or having them hired by other groups.
All I am saying is what is being said by members of Congress as to removing Maliki is do to the fact Maliki is viewed by the House of Saud as am ally of Iran and must be eliminated by any means possible. These statements may also indicate the the US wants Maliki gone for the US views Maliki as to pro-Iran.
All I am saying is this is the Political Split, where three overlapping Empire meet. This has been true for Centuries (and while I start with the Persian Empire, early traces of it exist as early as the first written Records). Right now, one of those three Empire has other concerns (Turkey) thus the other two are fighting it out over who will rule what in the Middle East.
The first written record we have is of a Pharaoh reporting about his great victory over the Hitties from Asia Minor near Megiddo. It is also suppose to be the location of the "Final Conflict" in the book of Revelations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Megiddo
Megiddo is tied in with Armageddon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon
The reason for this is just outside of Megiddo the Coastal Road from Egypt to Damascus splits, one going to Tyre and Asia Minor the other to Damascus and to the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. These three groups have also come to blow in that general region for it you are Egypt and want to invade Asia Minor you take the road to Asia Minor, but that leaves you open to an attack from the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. If you are an invading force from Asia Minor Heading for Egypt, once passed Megiddo, you are opened up to having your supply lines cut from the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. If you are invading from the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers once passed Megiddo you are opened up to your supply lines being cut off from Asia Minor.
Here is a map of Israel, notice the coastal plan, it is flat from Egypt to Megiddo
At Megiddo, anyone on foot has to go over that ridge, then at turn to Tyre or Damascus.
if you are going north pick your poison, if you are heading South, then Asia Minor or Iraq can move up to that Ridge and block you from your supplies. Thus Megiddo is a hot stop for battles and always has been.
Thus the book of revelations is based on fact, the fact that Megiddo is along a choke point for any invading force going north or south. To move north or south you must secure that area, but it is NOT high enough to act as a natural barrier. You can move your army around any point on that ridge. The problem so can your enemy. Thus Megiddo was always a fort to base an army in, that can run to other points on that ridge and prevent someone going north or south. Thus Megiddo, itself has seen few battles, it has seen battles all around it. This is where the Egyptian, Asia Minor and Iraqi/Iranian/Persian Empires tend to meet.
Iran/Persia, since the First Persian Empire has tended to control the lower parts of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. Prior to the first Persian Empire the lower Euphrates and Tigris Rivers was held by various Empires of that region out of Babylonia. Those earlier empire all had extensive connections with present day Iran. Thus Babylonia could always spread West ward if Iran let it go and prior to the first Persian Empire, the Iranian did that. Once the First Persian Empire was established it took over the role of the Babylonia.
Side note: The Ancient Kingdoms of Israel and later Judea, were centered around Jerusalem. Jerusalem is off in the interior away from the Coastal highway. Israel did claim the coast, but between the Phoenicians to the north and the Philistines to the south, what Israel claimed in pre Roman times was restricted. Rome Expanded the borders of Judea, and after the second Jewish revolt 132-135 AD, changed the name to Palestine, which was roughly the Latin version of Philistine.
The various armies marching through Palestine (What is now called Israel) tended to stay away from Jerusalem, to many areas for an ambush and possession of Jerusalem is NOT needed to invade Egypt or Asia Minor or Iraq/Iran. Jerusalem is to far inland to be of any use in such an invasion. Napoleon pointed this out to one of his General during his Egyptian Campaign when Napoleon was asked if he was planning to march on Jerusalem, Napoleon said no, to dangerous for to little gain. Jerusalem could be taken later if it became the center for attacks on the Napoleon's supply line along the coast but there was no need to take it as he marched North (and the same has been the history of Palestine/Israel since ancient times)
I once told someone that the Book of Revelations is correct, for it is NOT just based on dreams revealed to the writer of Revelations, but on the history of the region. Worse, the attack from the North by "Mog" is typical of attacks on Asia Minor and Iran during times of decrease world wide temperatures i.e. as it get colder up north, people in the north turn south in search of food and end up either going themselves to Asia Minor, or pushing other people south into Asia Minor. The same in the case if Iran, but Iran has deserts to its north so the push will be much less. To get to Egypt any invader has to get by Asia Minor and/or Iran thus Egypt will be the least affected up front.
Thus when you have unrest in the Balkans or the Ukraine, it forces whoever controls Asia Minor to pull troops from the middle east and put them in the Caucasus, Balkans, the Ukraine or Asia Minor Proper. This weakens whatever hold Asia Minor has over the Middle East, providing both Egypt and Iran to makes moves to expand their own areas of Control. Thus the Army of the South marches north, to meet the Army of the East. Their clash in the battle of Armageddon.
Thus the battle of revelations will occur for such battles have occur since the beginning of recorded history.
Battle of Megiddo in 1918:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_(1918)
Battle of Megiddo about 1500 BC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megiddo_(15th_century_BC)
The Mongol Defeat in the Jarzeel Valley at the battle of Ain Jalut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ain_Jalut
A little more on Jarzeel Valley:
http://www.challengetourism.com/The-Valleys-and-Mt.Gilboa/jezreel-valley.html
Jarzeel is the best way to go from the Mediterranean sea to the Dead Sea. The reason for this is up to two million years ago, the Mediterranean sea would flood up the Jarzeel Valley to the dead sea.
Now, between 5.96 to 5.33 million years ago, the Mediterranean sea dried up. Since the Mediterranean sea is filled today by waters from the Atlantic some how the Mediterranean sea was cut off from the Atlantic. There is a debate on HOW this happened, but that it happened is no longer debated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
Now, during that time period the Mediterranean sea did almost fill up a couple of time, during period of extensive wet weather. This brought much of it up to present levels, which given the nature of Jarzell Valley (which was lower at that time period) the waters of the Mediterranean sea would flow into the Jordan River and into the Dead Sea.
This flooding continued after the Mediterranean sea connected again to the Atlantic around 5.33 million years ago. This ended about 2.2 Million years ago. These flood would flow down the Jarzell Valley making it a smoother and flatter route then anything else between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan Valley. The general increase in height in the area has not had to much affect increasing the difficulty of travelling the valley.
Now, the eastern most part of the Jarzell Valley flows into the Jordan river.
?w=625&h=578
On the above map, remember Haifa and Acre are the cities at the Mediterranean side of the Jarzell Valley.
Always remember we are talking about the Fertile Crescent, here is a map where wheat can be grown in the middle east in most years. South and East of the Crescent, it is to dry to plant crops, and thus used as pasture.
?w=625&h=454
http://nealrauhauser.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/rivers-of-the-fertile-crecsent/
Thus the Jarzell Valley is where battles occur for it is fertile AND flat. Perfect to feed an Army and to operate an army. This is do to the interaction between the Mediterranean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean and the Dead Sea.
One last fact about the Jarzell Valley, they is no good NATURE port south of Acre, which is at the end of the Jarzell Valley. It is far enough away from Tyre to be independent of Tyre when Acre had support from Israel, Judea or whoever held the interior. Thus if you want to attack north or south Acre is the key to support any such invasion. That enhances the importance of Acre in military operations in the Middle East.
Notice the Fertile Crescent itself and how much of it reflects the borders of Iraq. The present southern border of Iraq was drawn by the British in 1921, and was determined by how far an Airplane of that time period could fly and return to its airbase between the two rivers. The rest was left to King Saud I of Saudi Arabia.
What we fight over today, is in many ways what people fought over 4000 years ago. In the middle east it is water and land that can be watered, either by rain or irrigation. Ancient Persians and Modern Iranians (Different names for the same people) are considered some of the best builders of irrigation systems in the world. Drilling into mountains to get at water that can be used to grows (these methods are also used in Afghanistan). Iraq, NOT be in the mountains, used river to field irrigation like Egypt (and the US). The US also uses water from Aquifers, which tend to be depleted over a period of 100 years (unlike the Persian Mountain system, which refills after every rain storm).
Remember Water is what people fight over in the Middle East. Oil is a way to pay for water systems and thus water. One of the reasons the Turks were able to take over Asia Minor from the Greeks, is that Asia Minor is a lot drier today then it was under the Ancient Greeks and Romans. As Central Asia Minor Dried up, it became to dry to farm and the farms were abandoned, replaced by herders. At first these were Christian Herders but after the Battle of Manzikurt in 1071, it became the area controlled by the Turks coming from Central Asia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert
This drying out of Central Asia Minor seems to have been steady since Ancient Times. May be related to the drying of the Sahara. The Sahara has been drying for 6000 years. This is not seen along the coasts, coastal rains keep those areas wet enough for farming (Thus a lot of Greeks still lived on the coasts of Asia Minor till WWI). Greece is surrounded by water and thus influences by such coastal rains. Italy is just narrow enough to also be affected by coastal rains on its coast (please note Northern Italy, Rome on North, is subject to more West to East weather flow typical of temper zone climates. Spain also has dry desert areas, for they are to far from the coast to get water from coastal rain fall. Northern Spain in like Northern Italy gets enough West East weather pattern to farmable lands (Spain during the Middle ages til today, move Sheep from the Southern Areas to the Northern areas depending if rain was falling in the south). People in Asia Minor seems to have done what the Spanish does in Spain, but
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90289718
Movement of Sheep in Spain:
http://news.yahoo.com/spanish-shepherds-guide-2-000-sheep-madrid-173325838.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumance
While such movement occurs in Iran and modern Spain, it is limited to Northeastern Turkey for some reason, probably because the center is to dry and except for the coasts no real improvement for the sheep and no one wants the sheep in lands subject to planting crops. In Spain the movement tends to be through marginal farming areas to areas where grazing sheep is the best use of that land. Thus central Turkey may have no place to move their sheep except onto farm lands along the coasts, and the farmers would object to that.
All this has to do with WATER. Water is the biggest restriction to human life in the Middle East. Moslem and Jews both oppose raising and eating pigs, why? Pigs use as much water as a human being, thus for every pig one keeps in the Middle East, that means one less person. Horses are not as water hogs as sheep (and provide speed when needed) and horses were NOT known to be an Arab animal til Mohammad said each Moslem must own at least one horse for fighting with other Moslem against the Enemies of Islam.
Camels are a Middle East Animals, that the Roman moved to North Africa about the time of Christ. Why? The old Carthage trade route to the Niger Valley had dried up and the old Carthage method of using horse draw carts was becoming increasingly impossible to do, given the increase loss of water sources on the route. This was a product of the increasing dryness of the Sahara Desert, something independent of Climate Change (but seems to be accelerating do to increase levels of carbon in the atmosphere.
I bring up Camels in the Sahara to point out the decrease level of water in the Sahara and that may also be the reason for increase dryness in Asia Minor. And with that decrease in water, Turkey has become less capable of projecting power into the Middle East (Greek support for the Kurds also tied up a lot of Turkey's efforts).
Thus the fight, right now, is between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is a continuance of the old Roman-Persian fight over who controls the waters of the Fertile Crescent. Turkey is staying out of the present fight, but if the fight gets out of hand Turkey may intervene (through the question is on which side? The Turkish army likes the present Government of Egypt and the House of Saud, the present Government of Turkey prefers the Moslem Brotherhood rulers of Egypt and while they do not favor Iran, they also oppose the House of Saud (Thus may back Iran, both to secure they energy supplies, but also to undermine the House of Saud).
Thus while Turkey claims it has no interest, the other powers know better (and Iran keeps Greece supplied with oil to give the Turks another headache to worry about).
Thus the Middle East is the interaction of these three powers AND their interaction with the various countries in between. Each of the three main powers know they can not control the middle east without help, and thus looks for allies among the various people between the three powers. Prior to 600 it was Latin/Catholic, Greek/ Orthodox and Arab/Eastern Rite Speakers vs Iranian Speakers (Egyptian is a variation of Arabic). After 600 AD it was Greek Speakers/ Orthodox vs Arab Speakers/ Eastern Rite/ Islamic. After abut 800 AD it was Greek Speakers/ Orthodox vs Arab/Speakers/ Eastern Rite/ Sunni Moselm vs Shiite/Iranian Speakers. After 1071 it was Turks/Sunni vs Iranian/Shitte vs Egyptian/Shiite. After the second crusade it was Turks/Sunni/Arabic vs Krud/Egyptian/Sunni/eastern Rite vs Greek/Orthodox vs Catholic/"Franks". After the Crusades it was Mongol/Pagan/Iraian vs Catholic/"Frank" vs Greek/Orthodox. After Timerlane, it was Turk/Sunni/Greek/Orthodox vs Egyptian/Sunni/Eastern Rite vs Iranian/Shiite. This continued after fall of Constantinople (remember the above "Allies" were not always allies during the periods in question, but during most of such periods they were, thus the Turks took Constantinople from the Greeks, but maintained they overall understanding that the Ottoman Empire was as much Greek Orthodox as it was Turkish and Islamic).
During efforts of Reforms starting in the 1600s, the Greek-Turkish alliance slowly broke down, as the Turks made an effort NOT to recruit they soldiers from Christians but from other Turks. The recruiting of Janissaries from Christian then forcing them to convert to Islam, gave the Ottoman a whole group of people who understood the Christians the Ottomans were ruling but retain much of their Christian background to bridge the two cultures. This system started to break down in the late 1500s, and was abolished in 1683 (but remains of it survived in theory till 1827 when Janissaries were abolished).
I bring this up, for Egypt stayed more or less Independent after the 1519 (when Egypt was technically conquest of Egypt by the Ottoman Empire, but the Manluks, who had ruled Egypt since the Crusades were permitted to stay in charge of Egypt except at the highest level). Thus you had Shiite/Iranian Speakers, Greek Speakers/Orthodox, Sunni/Arab Speakers/Eastern Rite and Turkish/Sunni fighting it out. Some were "Subject" to others, but the infighting was intense. France even intervene throughout this time period, mostly in Lebanon in support of the Catholics In Lebanon.
Allies comes and go, but these were the main groups over the last 2500 years. Things do change, sometimes it is religion, some time were the troops are recruited from, sometime it is who is the Caliph, sometime it is who Patriarch of Alexandria or Constantinople. Who is allied with who often changes (and I do not mean between the three main powers, but the little tribes in between, with each tribe and city doing they best to work out the best deal they can between the three major powers. On the other hand, the three main powers tend to remain the same, Iran, Asia Minor and Egypt.
The above needs a good editing, but it is a rough outline of the problems in the Middle East. It needs to be rewritten but I do not have the time (nor the disposition). It is also time for me to go to bed so I am ending this thread, uncompleted but what I believe enough disjointed facts to make the point I am trying to make. The Middle East is a Complex place where simple solutions are not possible. Accept that and only go in when you have to, and then plan to pull out quickly once the military objective is achieved. You may have to go back in several years later, but that is a workable plan, unlike what Bush, then Clinton, then Bush and now Obama have done.