Share This Article with a Friend!

What Conservatives Need To Know About The Attacks On Saudi Arabia

Trump I dont want war
The recent Iranian attacks on Saudi Arabia – and despite Iranian denials there’s no doubt Iran is behind them – require Americans to acknowledge that one important part of the ongoing war in the Middle East is simply a new chapter in a centuries old Muslim civil war.

The competition between the two principal Muslim powers in the Middle East – Iran and Saudi Arabia – is in one sense a continuation of the struggle between the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam. Saudi Arabia is the heart of Sunni Islam, and its ruling House of Saud are the guardians of the holy city of Mecca. Iran is the center of Shiite millennialism based on Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s doctrine of the Rule of the Jurist and thus the Islamic Republic of Iran is obligated to maintain a government committed to an Allah-given mandate to prepare the world for the return of the Hidden Imam.

While the details and history of this almost 1,400-years long competition between Sunni and Shia is far beyond the scope of this brief article and there are certainly other nation-state players, such as Turkey, involved in the competition to lead the Islamic world, the white-hot competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Sunni and Shia, is what is driving the current spate of attacks.

(One readable book on the Sunni – Shia struggle is After the Prophet: The Epic Story of the Shia-Sunni Split in Islam by Lesley Hazleton)

Americans might fairly ask, “What does a 1,400-year-old Muslim civil war have to do with us?”

The short answer is “everything” for one obvious and one not so obvious reason.

The obvious reason is that maintaining a stable and reliable oil supply is essential to a stable and growing world economy.

As we explained in our article Could British Incompetence Lead America To War With Iran? After the British seized the Iranian tanker Grace 1, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard released dramatic video showing commandos carrying machine guns and wearing face masks rappelling fro​m a helicopter to the deck of the British tanker Stena Impero.

I​ran said commandeering the ship was in retaliation for Britain’s seizure of the Iranian tanker off the coast of Gibraltar on July 4. Gibraltar said the Iranian vessel was seized by marines in a daring landing in darkness off the coast of the British territory, because it was suspected of smuggling oil to Syria in breach of European Union sanctions.

The British, due to incompetence or the current chaos in their government or both, failed to closely escort their tanker, even after Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said: “Evil Britain commits piracy and steals our ship and gives it a legal appearance… Iran and those who believe in our system will not leave such vicious deeds unanswered.” (Emphasis ours.)

The Iranians thus made a point of showing the British and the world that they have the same capabilities as the old imperial power, and that they are not afraid to use them, leaving no other power except the United States willing or able to project the naval and air power to the Middle East necessary to keep the shipping lanes open and the oil flowing.

The not so obvious reason is that Iran’s ideology of the Rule of the Jurist and Guardianship of the Jurist and its commitment to export its brand of Islam to the entire world makes the Islamic Republic not just a regional threat, but a global threat.

Confrontation with secular and predominantly Christian America, the Great Satan to Iran’s Shia radicals, feeds support for the Iranian regime, not just at home but among all Muslims who share the Iranian view that the creation of an entire world united under Islam must come through confrontation with the West.

The Saudis are the one Muslim country that can credibly vie with Iran in this cultural battle and they provide the ideal foil to stifle Iran’s aspirations for regional, political and religious dominance.

Serious students of Islam might fairly argue that the Saudis have the same goal of a world united under Islam as do the Iranians, but the rebuttal to that is that the Iranians plan to achieve their version of Muslim dominance through the use of nuclear weapons, the Saudis do not, at least so far.

The United States has been fighting proxy wars with Iran for 35 years, with Syria, Iraq, Yemen and the periphery of Israel all being hot battlefields right now.

Our non-interventionist friends and President Trump’s political enemies would love to see the United States pull out of the Middle East completely, obviously for entirely different reasons.

However, there is a deeper truth that both the President and the opponents of the confrontation with Iran are ignoring, because those who advocate keeping American troops endlessly engaged in the intramural Muslim conflicts that have animated much of the U.S. intervention in the Middle East refuse to acknowledge it exits, let alone that it should be confronted and defeated.

And that truth is that behind all the arguments about borders, self-determination and democratic principles in the Middle East lurks the dark shadow of Iranian-inspired political Islam and its drive for world domination.

The truth is that our most dangerous enemy is political Islam, and the only way to defeat it is to drop the fiction that “Islam is a religion of peace” and use all our national power to present an alternative worldview that undermines and eventually destroys Sharia-supremacism and Iranian “Absolute Wilayat al-Faqih” (Guardianship of the Jurist).

None of the generals who have been tasked with fighting and winning the wars in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, and certainly none of the politicians who have advocated United States involvement in them, have been willing to accept and confront that truth.

The Saudis are the one available alternative to Iranian “Absolute Wilayat al-Faqih” and until we are prepared to use all of our national power, cultural, economic and military, to defeat Iran, supporting Saudi Arabia is our best alternative.

George Rasley is editor of Richard Viguerie's A veteran of over 300 political campaigns, he served on the staff of Vice President Dan Quayle, as Director of Policy and Communication for former Congressman Adam Putnam (FL-12) then Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, and as spokesman for Rep. Mac Thornberry former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Share this

Compare 9/11 Sunni hijackers with Iran's Shi'a Islam

George Rasley's "What conservatives need to know about the attacks on Saudi Arabia" extraordinarily misrepresents centuries of history with its supposed comparison of Sunni Islam and Shi'a Islam. More about that in a moment.

More immediately, in terms of realistic political assessment, Rasley "overlooks" the "attack" on Saudi Arabia was a retaliation (credit claimed by Yemenis) directly resulting from the Yemen conflict initiated (2015) by the Saudis and continually escalated by them to today's humanitarian crisis there.

Without getting into the weeds of Islamic theological disputes, I would like to give two easy comparisons between the Salafist (Wahhabi) Sunni Saudi Kingdom and the Islamic Republic of Iran.Namely: 1. 9/11 Islamist Attack; and, 2. Religious Freedom (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia vs. Islamic Republic of Iran).

1. 9/11 Islamist Attack
a. Saudi Arabia - Of the nineteen (19) 9/11 hijackers, all 19 were Sunnis and sixteen (16) of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. None were Shi'a or Iranian.
b. Iran - Iranian religious leaders uniformly condemned the crime of killing innocent civilians in the strongest terms including noting the acts were contrary the Koran. An official message of condolence was sent to Pres. Bush. One (of several) spontaneous demonstrations of support for the American nation was evidenced at a soccer game candle lighting and moment of prayer for the 9/11 victims. Iran, in spite of no official diplomatic relations, offered and delivered assistance in pursuing al Qaeda (and Osama bin Laden) with Afghan Shi'a participation.

2. Political/Religious Freedom

a. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic absolute monarchy in which Sunni Islam is the official state religion based on firm Sharia law. No law requires all citizens to be Muslim, but non-Muslims must practice their religion in private and are vulnerable to discrimination and deportation.[1] Children born to Muslim fathers are by law deemed Muslim, and conversion from Islam to another religion is considered apostasy and punishable by death.[1]
Religious freedom is virtually non-existent.[2] The Government does not provide legal recognition or protection for freedom of religion, and it is severely restricted in practice. As a matter of policy, the Government guarantees and protects the right to private worship for all, including non-Muslims who gather in homes for religious practice; however, this right is not always respected in practice and is not defined in law. (Wikipedia)

b. Islamic Republic of Iran

Freedom of religion in Iran is marked by Iranian culture, major religion and politics. Iran is officially and in practice an Islamic republic—the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran mandates that the official religion of Iran is Shia Islam and the Twelver Ja'fari school, and also mandates that other Islamic schools are to be accorded full respect, and their followers are free to act in accordance with their own jurisprudence in performing their religious rites. Iran recognizes Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian religious minorities, among others.[1] The continuous presence of the country's pre-Islamic, non-Muslim communities, such as Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians, had accustomed the population to the participation of non-Muslims in society. However, despite official recognition of such minorities by Iran's government, the actions of the government create a "threatening atmosphere for some religious minorities".[2] .....

By law and practice, religious minorities can be elected to a representative body or to hold senior government or military positions, and have 5 of a total 270 seats in the majlis reserved for religious minorities. Three of these seats are reserved for members of the Christian faith, including two seats for the country's Armenian Christians, and one for Assyrians. There is also one seat for a member of the Jewish faith, and one for a member of the Zoroastrian faith. While members of the Sunni Muslim minority do not have reserved seats in the majlis, they are allowed to serve in the body. Sunni members tend to come from the larger Sunni communities. Members of religious minorities are allowed to vote. All of the minority religious groups, including Sunni Muslims, are barred from being elected president.[2] (Wiki)

Members of religious minorities, are supported in their pursuit of serving in the judiciary and security services. All applicants for public sector employment are screened, irrespective of their faith, for their adherence to and knowledge of Islam, and members of religious minorities can serve in lower ranks of government employment. The constitution states that the country's army must be administered by individuals who are committed to the objectives of the Iranian constitution, regardless of faith. No religious minorities are exempt from military service. Members of religious minorities with a college education could serve as an officer during their mandatory military service but could not be a career military officer.[2] (Wiki)