Sunni? Shi'a? Yes, it matters.

Over in jolly old England, Con Coughlin gets the fear over Iranian involvement in Afghanistan. I can't really quote the article because the most significant thing about it is what it is missing. Coughlin treats the idea of a Taliban/Al Qaeda alliance with Iran as a serious threat. He fears that this is not taken seriously by military planners:

But whenever I have raised the issue of Iranian involvement in Afghanistan on my visits to Nato headquarters over the past year, I have invariably been greeted with either blank stares or an eagerness on the part of senior commanders to move quickly to another, more amenable topic of conversation.

Coughlin seems to imply ignorance of Iran in this section. What he mentions nowhere is that, well, the only thing that the Iran's Shiite clerics and the Taliban hate more than Western meddling is each other. Remember: Iran is a Shi'a majority country run by clerics, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are Sunni fundamentalists. From my limited understanding of Islam, both sides regard the other as heretical.

Is it possible that Iran may be trying to make life tough for NATO in Afghanistan? Yes. There are even some good reasons for them to do so. That said, this is nowhere near the same situation as Southern Iraq where Iran is helping other Shi'a. If NATO left, Iran would probably want to limit the power of Taliban as much as possible. As we have seen in the most horrible and vivid way, understanding the Sunni-Shi'a dynamic is important. I think Coughlin is overplaying the sort of alliance that could ever be forged between the Islamic Republic and the Taliban.
Picture: Imam Ali
Tags: Con Coughlin, Iran