The following essay is a commentary on a Brookings Institution article link presented here:
I think the linked article is wrong because in truth Wahhabist Saud separated itself more from the rest of Suni Islam than Shi’a; as a result of FDR’s USAAF fuels procurement for the purposes of defeating the Luftwaffe. Iraq, a purportedly pure Suni remnant of the formerly theologically united Arabia, and thence forward isolated in northern Arabia; has always opposed Iranian Shi’a Islam; even prior to a Wahhabi Saudi partition of southern Arabia away from the previously Suni Arabic world; which left Suni Iraq to oppose Shi’a Iran alone. Basically, that meant an abandoned north Arabia (Iraq) against all of Persia (Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, etcetera). Yet, I just saw an early map of Persia which included north Iraq and thus perhaps defined Arabia then as approximately the Fertile Crescent and the Arabian peninsula. Thus, I now question my definition of the border between all of Arabia and all of Persia as being definitively the Iran Iraq war zone. I still believe that Wahhabism basically partitioned Saudi Arabia away from the rest of Arabia. Yet, does that mean that the Iran Iraq war was Persia attacking what was left of Arabia when Saud had converted to Wahhabism? Finally, though Laden sought a pan Islam, I think the answer to the article’s question of why is Saudi Arabia involving itself with Iraq is that the anthropocentric and resource exploiting permissiveness of Wahhabism is now applicable for a primary theological premise during reservoir exploitation north of the kingdom. The only concern might be a question of whether or not a new Wahhab Shi’a paradigm will conflict with with a pan Islamic idealism. Perhaps the Ladenesque ideation of a unified Suni Shi’a theocracy can be shifted towards the House of Saud’s Wahhabist land use strategy as efforts to exploit Bio-Carboniferous reserves proceed towards final depletion and strategic planning for the end of the petroleum age.