With Iranian elections, the Bush idea of a caliphate seems ridiculous

During the recent Bush tenure, a common administration concern was about the rise of a new caliphate -- a united, regional, if not global, Muslim entity that could threaten the security of the West and the rest of the non-Muslim world. While many thought this fear was foolish at the time, the ongoing presidential election in Iran is a example of why that will never happen.

Islam has two major branches that don't see eye to eye

According to the CIA Factbook, Iran is a country of 66.4 million people, of which 98% are Muslim. However, of those Muslims, 89% follow the Shia denomination of the religion, while only 9% are Sunnis. Compare this to Iraq, for example. In that country of 28.9 million, 97% who are Muslim, 60-65% are Shia and 32-37% are Sunni. In Indonesia (the fourth largest country in the world by population and home to the largest number of Muslims), there are 240.2 million people, of which 86% are Muslims -- 99% are Sunni versus just 1% Shia (from the Wikipedia entry on Muslim demographics here). In terms of radical groups, the religious split trend continues: Lebanon-based Hezbollah are Shia, while Hamas is aligned with the Sunni branch. Overall, out of the estimated 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, the Sunni branch dominates (75%), while Shia account for just 10-18% (CRS report PDF here; Wikipedia demographic breakdown here; everyone agrees the figures are not 100% accurate).

The key point is that the Sunni and Shia have major differences, stemming originally from who would succeed as the leader of Islam after the Prophet Muhammad died (632 CE). Sunnis believe that the best leader should be chosen, regardless of his family, and initially settled on Abu Bakr (many use the analogy of Catholicism and the Pope when talking about Sunni leadership). Shia, on the other hand, believe that leadership should have stayed in the family, and that the son-in-law of the Prophet, Ali, should have been in charge.

[see this previous post that talks more about the Sunni Shia split]

Iranian election shows that Muslims care about regular Joe issues, too

The idea that Muslims could suddenly unite in government, despite massive divides such as the Sunni/Shia division, seems preposterous, and the situation in Iran should further dispel this notion. While the election is not about Shia versus Sunni, its major issues demonstrates how Muslims, when it comes to politics, government, and the economy, don't hold a single view in even one country, let alone a region or the globe. Imagine if you add in the issues of ethnic background, tribal affiliations, nationalism, and geography to the Shunni/Shia problem? A single leader is impossible.

An article from the New York Times today read more like a story about any election in the West, with issues about corruption, foreign policy, and economic stewardship cited as impacting voters:

Less than two months ago, it was widely assumed here and in the West that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s hard-line president, would coast to another victory in the elections on Friday.

...

Some say this is another aspect of the campaign that could remain important regardless of who wins. In April, a number of secular and conservative women’s groups joined forces and submitted a list of demands for greater rights from Iran’s next president.

On even a regional scale, the belief that Muslims from Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Palestine could agree on a unified policy makes little sense. And that is with more mainstream Muslims. The most radical, such as those in groups like al Qaeda, can't agree on virtually anything and would undoubtedly turn on each other and fellow Muslims if a caliphate came to be (for a fascinating look at how splintered radical groups are, read The Looming Towers by Lawrence Wright). Just look at what is happening in Pakistan with the Taliban for evidence.

No caliphate, no way

The Bush administration had a way of conjuring up scary images that justified its policies. The mushroom cloud over an American city. Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons. Terrorists with atomic bombs in suitcase at Penn Station. And the idea of a united and anti-West Muslim caliphate.

Of all these, this last vision is the one that has zero chance of ever happening. It made a great sound bite, and some Republican supporters bought into the vision, but it defies all logic and history to believe it could ever happen.

...

Note: For further reading, there is a fascinating blog entry on topics such as the difference between Arabs and Muslims, Shia and Sunni, and other commonly mistaken terms and concepts ("10 Facts about Muslims"). Another interesting breakdown of the difference between Shia and Sunnis can be found at Religion Facts here.