tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post5046747367539678199..comments2024-03-18T17:20:21.775-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Ethnic separatism and national weakness in wartimeagnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-59622328227840689032017-05-04T18:06:16.193-04:002017-05-04T18:06:16.193-04:00http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/afghanistan-tr...http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/afghanistan-trip-u-s-general-suggests-russia-arming-taliban/<br /><br />Link speaks for itself<br /><br />More pretext for war with Russia Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-9131610731741352242017-05-01T21:12:19.816-04:002017-05-01T21:12:19.816-04:00"By the time of the Qajars, there seems to be..."By the time of the Qajars, there seems to be a stronger Azeri ethnic identity distinct from Persians to the south."<br /><br />During the time of the Safavids, most of the people in the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran were Turkic speakers, though of course there were many bilingual people. Shah Ismayil Xetai, for example, wrote poetry both in Azerbaijani Turkish and Persian.<br /><br />I would actually say the question is less whether Azerbaijanis are distinct from Persian-speaking Iranians and more whether they are distinct from other Oghuz Turkic speakers. For example, the aforementioned Shah Ismayil Xetai angered the Ottomans by drawing on Turkic speakers from Anatolia into his armies, and many of the Azerbaijani intelligentsia were afraid both during and after WWI that the western Turks would annex their short-lived republic, considering Azeris to simply be Turks who practice Shi'ism and speak an archaic dialect of Turkish.Sidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-62835534875676241172017-05-01T20:44:05.125-04:002017-05-01T20:44:05.125-04:00Saudi Arabia is facing a separate crisis, the over...Saudi Arabia is facing a separate crisis, the over-production of elites, namely the proliferation of the Saudi royal family, all while there wealth growth (oil) is growing more slowly or plateau-ing.<br /><br />Wealth per capita among the elites is diminishing, and that's going to lead to a war within the top level. After that happens, bye-bye Saudi nation.<br /><br />If our leaders were knowledgeable and cunning rather than ignorant and bumbling, they would be positioning the US to ditch the moribund Saudi nation and scoop up oil wealth in the Shia area along the Persian Gulf, get in the good graces of the non-jihadist Hejaz, and let the sandniggers from Riyadh go to hell.<br /><br />Or at least make allies with the regional powers who are going to dissect and feast on the Saudi corpse. Iran for sure in the Gulf, and either Egypt or an independent Hejaz along the Red Sea.<br /><br />I'm doubtful that the Hashemites would be able to do it in the Hejaz, despite having a long history there. They got overthrown in Iraq with the rise of the Baathists, and are not about to make a comeback. And by now Jordan is just a bought-off toadie of Uncle Sam -- not exactly inspiring leadership for a resurgent local culture.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-48217477537979542422017-05-01T18:34:54.262-04:002017-05-01T18:34:54.262-04:00The only other time that the Najd was so tightly s...The only other time that the Najd was so tightly surrounded by a single foreign power was during the Sassanid Empire from Persia -- right before the birth and spread of Islam out from Arabia.<br /><br />Being in such an enclosed pressure-cooker made the Najd and the Hejaz band together with apocalyptic fervor (with the Salafi fervor during the Ottoman pincer phase coming in 2nd). And we all know how that ended for the Middle East.<br /><br />Lesson: try not to enclose the Arabian Desert on too many sides by a single nation that is so foreign to them. Otherwise you're going to put them into another apocalyptic pressure-cooker, and it'll be Arabian jihadism 3.0.<br /><br />At least it looks like the world won't have to deal with that problem for another 1200 years, though.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-48475093303019291932017-05-01T18:16:48.257-04:002017-05-01T18:16:48.257-04:00"Beyond the points he made about Shias and fo..."Beyond the points he made about Shias and foreigners, the Saudi Arabs themselves are not exactly united by default."<br /><br />They got united because of the Ottoman Empire encircling them more tightly. They never got the Najd, but they spread all the way along the Red Sea coast and halfway down the Persian Gulf coast. The Ottomans may have been Sunni, but they were otherwise as foreign as could be -- Turkic, then more Anatolian, and a sedentary civilization with its capital in Europe / Eastern Mediterranean.<br /><br />Getting enclosed within the Ottoman pincers was enough to rally the Desert tribes together and fend off a common enemy.<br /><br />That pincer pressure has not been there for quite awhile, and would be doubtful to return under a single threat. Eastern Mesopotamia could come under Iranian influence, and the Hejaz perhaps under Egyptian (like under the Fatimids). Even that's a bit of a stretch -- let alone under a single nation?<br /><br />Their asabiya has got to be taking a nose-dive, and we know what level it's going to revert to among nomadic Desert tribes.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-5184807118017659232017-05-01T18:08:11.920-04:002017-05-01T18:08:11.920-04:00The Safavids might be a bit too early to call them...The Safavids might be a bit too early to call them "Azeri" instead of proto-Azeri or something. The Turkic Oghuz languages just landed in the Caspian region during the Medieval period, and the Safavids were Iranians from the Kurdish region who moved toward the Caspian and adopted the inchoate Turkic language, although the originators wrote in Azari, an Iranian language that used to be spoken in what's now Azerbaijan before the Turkic migrations swept through.<br /><br />By the time of the Qajars, there seems to be a stronger Azeri ethnic identity distinct from Persians to the south.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-22959107267911674442017-05-01T15:47:09.457-04:002017-05-01T15:47:09.457-04:00"It's unclear from my cursory look at the..."It's unclear from my cursory look at the genetic findings whether these Azerbaijanis are genetically similar to the Persians and have adopted a foreign group's language, or whether that foreign language correlates with a foreign genepool."<br /><br />I have a lot of experience in Azerbaijan the country, which is essentially just the portion of where Azerbaijanis live which was annexed by Russia in 1828, and became independent following the collapse of the Soviet Union.<br /><br />I would say that Azerbaijanis are essentially Iranians and Northeastern Caucasians who speak a Turkic language. For the most part, they look quite similar to Iranians. The women usually have pale skin, while the men look more brown. They usually have dark hair and eyes, though their hair and eye colors are surprisingly varied, given how the Caucasus is a wine cellar for various genetic influences.<br /><br />Of course, I expect Southern Azerbaijanis, being farther away from the Caucasus, probably have a more uniform, swarthy appearance.<br /><br />It's quite common for someone to have Iranian blood, but they grow up speaking Azerbaijani Turkish in order to assimilate.<br /><br />Former Soviet Azerbaijanis now have their own national identity. To the best of my knowledge, Southern/Iranian Azerbaijanis are effectively integrated into the Iranian nation. Not only were the Qajars Azeri, the Safavids (the dynasty which converted Iran to Shi'ism in the 16th century) was also Azeri. In short, they feel apart of Iranian history and civilization and are not hankering to forge an ethnostate.Sidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-86587271782827286622017-05-01T14:19:12.573-04:002017-05-01T14:19:12.573-04:00"Tribes With Flags" is part of a phrase ..."Tribes With Flags" is part of a phrase attributed to Tahseen Bashir, an Egyptian diplomat. Regarding his belief in the centrality of Egypt within the Middle East he opined: "Egypt is the only nation-state in the Arab world; the rest are just tribes with<br /> flags".Toddy Catnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-44715467545276998542017-05-01T10:25:40.686-04:002017-05-01T10:25:40.686-04:00Went back and read those extremely elaborate comme...Went back and read those extremely elaborate comments on warfare scenarios.<br />I've never thought of the Saudis being an independent power in their own right. They would naturally be part of an alliance contributing money and high tech American weapons. Economic power sometimes is decisive(American Civil War, both World Wars)<br />Beyond the points he made about Shias and foreigners, the Saudi Arabs themselves are not exactly united by default.<br />For the time being wealth redistribution seems to keep them all together. But less than a century ago, they were a quarrelsome collection of kingdoms and tribes.<br />I have no idea what sentiment on the ground is like now, but I would think at the very least there would be some regional resentments, especially in the Kingdom of the Hejaz which was leader of the pack in charge of the holy cities before bin Saud managed to unite the deep desert Nejdis with the help of hardcore Wahabbi clerics.<br />They could even restore the Hashemites if they wanted by bringing in someone from the royal family of Jordan.Giovanni Dannatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17078484856266829650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-7860187664025972882017-05-01T10:10:00.106-04:002017-05-01T10:10:00.106-04:00Since Mesopotamia had its day in the sun early on,...Since Mesopotamia had its day in the sun early on, dominance of the Middle East has most of the time shifted in between powers based in Persia, Anatolia, and Egypt.<br />So in any 3 way relationship, you can expect the two weakest to gang up on the strongest and then re-shift accordingly.<br />That's how we should expect Egypt to behave. If the Iranian alliance gets the upper hand Egypt turns against them, and vice versa.<br /><br />Egypt under Nasser reacted very much like this to the pressures of the cold war, changing loyalties with the fortunes of American and Soviet proxy coalitions.<br />It caused such intense frustration to the Americans who intervened on their behalf in the Suez Canal Crisis it seems like the Washington establishment has tried ever since to destroy Arab Nationalist governments, having further tantrums as the power vacuums they create invariably got filled by jihadis.Giovanni Dannatohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17078484856266829650noreply@blogger.com