Dubai is full of Iranians and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iranian investments. It is, in atmosphere, much above the other, entirely Arab-controlled sheikhlets of the Emirates. While the Sunni Arabs have had to worry about the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia and about Bahrain (where the Sunni ruler worries about the 75% of his subjects who are Shi'a and don't much care for the present governing arrangement -- so much so that he is trying to give instant citizenship to 50,000 Iraqis, as long as they are all Sunni Iraqis), they didn't worry about Dubai.
After all, wasn't this Iranian capital in flight from the Islamic Republic? And aren't the kind of Iranians who live and invest in Dubai the good kind, the kind who only want to make money? In other words, Sunni Arabs make the same mistake with Shi'a Iranians as Infidels do when they swallow the akyolish nonsense about the swellness of Erdogan et al. because of "economic growth" -- or when they swallow the d'souzaish nonsense about the swellness of those law-abiding, straight-as-Mitt-Romney "traditional Muslims."
What Ahmadinejad’s little rally in Dubai (only a few thousands) will nonetheless do is worry the hysterical rulers of the Gulf statelets, and Saudi Arabia. And they will now worry (unduly, but who cares?) about Shi'a penetration through Dubai of the rest of the Emirates and possibly into Eastern Saudi Arabia (where all the oil appears to be, save for whatever Elf and Totalfina manage to find, if find they do, as they look around the Empty Quarter).
The Shi'a in Iraq were discriminated against by the Sunnis. They were poorer, and had larger families, possibly as a consequence. All Muslims in Iraq were having large families -- the 3 million who lived there at the end of World War I have become 27 million today. The Shi'a have simply outbred the Sunnis in Iraq, and now constitute between 60% and 65% of the population. The Sunni Arabs are worried by the least sign of Iranian power, and by Shi'a efforts, magnified by Sunni fears, at converting Sunnis to Shi'a Islam. Reports of this occurring (in, for example, Syria) worry them.
So why is Ahmadinejad’s Dubai rally a good thing? Oh, because the Saudis won't like it. The Bahraini "king" won't like it. The Al-Thani and the Al-Sabah and the Al-Maktoum and the Al-Thisses and the Al-Thatses won't like it.
That's a good thing.
Another good thing about Dubai, and about the Arab Gulf states, is how much of their wealth is now visibly in gigantic luxury highrises, nicely placed close together. And the same is true for parts of Saudi Arabia, not only in the Xanadu-strewn areas of Riyadh, but all over. And then there are these colossally expensive and ultimately ludicrous efforts to build these Economic Cities in Medina, Tobuk, Jazan, and elsewhere. Hundreds of billions will be spent, and while the luxury apartments may be bought (I don't know -- do you want to buy a luxury apartment in the middle of Saudi Arabia? Does it sound appealing to you?), the "economic" side of those Economic Cities hasn't a chance to succeed. But you don't think any of their Western consultants, from McKinsey on, is going to tell them that, do you? You don't think a single Westerner getting Saudi money is going to discourage them from these cities with luxury apartment complexes and a "manufacturing base" that will supposedly give Saudi Arabia an alternative to oil? Fat chance, given the Saudis, the Arabs, and inshallah-fatalism that justifies a culture-wide indolence in every respect.
Why should we like these skyscraping developments? Why is all that Iranian money in Dubai a good thing for us? It makes it easier, when and if we have to inflict a blow, or many blows, and in one fell swoop seize their foreign assets (just as all assets owned by German nationals were seized, as the assets of enemy aliens, during World War II). And it makes it easier to destroy all those illiquid assets in the area that both Arabs and Iranians are putting so much money into. They’re afraid to keep it in the West where it might -- see my sentence about those German nationals.
Keep building those skyscrapers in Dubai with Iranian money. Keep having those Iranian rallies for an Iranian ruler. Keep it up.
Makes worry-waves that worry-beads cannot deal with, in all the right Sunni Arab places.
Lovely.
we should be making as many waves in as many places possible in Muslim lands..
Huge, I predict that "akyolish" and "d'souzaish" will become the new fisk and frisch of internet vernacular.
Great article Hugh. Perhaps those enlightened Donald Trumps and Tiger Woods and name your owns who are in a race to out-fancy each other in Dubai will provide us with another lesson on Islam. The Mosques in Dubai use the same Qu’ran as the Mosques in Taliban Afghanistan that blew up statues. Big, shiny buildings for international business are idols of infidelity. Looking forward to the eventual show.
On another note: Why is it than when a few hundred Iranian students protest on their college campuses it makes worldwide news as evidence that the ‘Iranian people’ hate their government, but when a few thousand hostile Iranians rally offensively in a foreign land there is only silence? If the Iranians hate their government so much, they can overthrow it. Until they do, it represents them. A few hundred students in a country of 70 million means nothing.
During military service, I had a chance to listen to an Irish musical group at a nightclub in Dubai. Everything was fancy, the drinks were good, the barmaids were Western, it was nice. Those higher-up Brits get really spun up when an American beats them in a game of Cricket. Ha Ha. But when police broke into the room and arrested the drummer in the middle of a set, it left an impression.
"If the U.S.-led coalition forces pulled out of Iraq now, attacks in Europe would increase and troops would have to go back in two to three years, said Rohan Gunaratna, the head of the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore."
from a posting by Catherine
So what is this guy doing to support our effort there? Did he say any of this to the UN? Anyway, talk is cheap.
Maybe troops would have to go back but there's no reason for them to be American troops. He shows how many countries are threatened by Middle Eastern jihadists. Let those countries pony up their share of men and materiel for the battle. Until then Mr. Gunaratna, please lose our phone number.
60 Minutes did a piece on Dubai recently - booze, bikinis, music, etc. My question is - how can this exist with the Sharia-mania that is gripping so many Muslim lands? Why has al-Queda not struck in Dubai? Anyone?
Those who quote Rohan Gunaratna as an "expert" on Jihad will have egg on their face soon enough.
Rohan Gunaratna should focus on the Sinhala problems with the LTTE - this Jihad deal seems way outside his depth.
BunrattyBill-
It's a ruse to sucker the rich Westerners out of money to crypto-fund the jihad elsewhere, until it is successful enough to strike in Dubai openly.
The Ummah can lie to the infidels for the gain of Islam.
Lenin called it "they will sell us the rope that we hang them with".
Hugh, worry beads are a Greek invention. Hoi barbaroi of the Mussulman persuasion may have appropriated them at some point, but they only work for Hellenes or for us Philhellenes who weren't fortunate enough to be born Greek.
I can see the Iranian Women doing the Burka Bake by the Pool.
A little more on terrorism "expert" Gunaratna, asserts that Iraq will somehow become an Al Qaeda base when the Americans leave. Why should we believe him? If Al Qaeda in Iraq consists of non-Iraqis, and regards the Shi'a who up 65% of the Iraqi population as "Rafidite dogs" (and as Infidels who deserve to be attacked) then how likely is it that the Shi'a who now control most of Iraq will let themselves be taken over by Al Qaeda? And how likely is it that the Sunnis in Iraq, some of whom have been at war with Al Qaeda and its non-Iraqi fighters, will necessarily roll over and play dead for Al Qaeda?
Who, after all, is Ronan Gunaratna? He is someone who wrote six books on the Tamil Tigers, and then after 9/11/2001 became a sudden "expert" on all the shows, because of a single article he had written, on Al Qaeda. And he took it from there, with all kinds of promotion and self-promotion. He is not an idiot. But he is given to grandly scary scenarios, and they often appear to coincide with the dire warnings of certain political figures. He knows what side his bread is buttered on. The remarks about Iraq are absurd -- but merely echo those of Bush and Cheney who keep saying that if we leave "catastrophe" will follow, Al Qaeda will somehow "take over Iraq" (exactly how? where? with what weaponry? with what men to subdue the pesh merga of the Kurds, and the Shi'a militia, now trained and armed? and the Sunni tribes? It's all unproven. It's all against what evidence and knowledge we have. But that doesn't keep people from parroting the same party line).
But we don't have to. We are free to describe things as they are. We are not in a state of obstinate confusion, or confused obstinacy. Are we?