Iranian strategy in defense of the Shiites against Sunnis

Yemen is an ongoing civil war, which has implications beyond the internal fact of international potential to affect very heavy on global balances. The first is the indirect comparison that is developing between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which is not only geopolitical, but also, and not secondarily, between Shiites and Sunnis. This aspect framed in the development of terrorism in the world, is particularly important, as religious extremism in the Arab world, and thus Islamic matrix is ​​mainly Sunni. The spread of this phenomenon on a global scale, which not only covers cases emerging, consisting of the Islamic state, in Syria and Iraq, Boko Haram and Sunni militias in Africa and in the southern Mediterranean, but also, albeit with different connotations , the problem of the Uighurs in China and the Caucasian territories of Russia; not to mention the problems of European peripheries where the lack of integration has favored Islamic consciousness, which favored the worrying phenomena of recruitment and terrorist acts isolated. Tehran has felt surrounded by the growth of a phenomenon, which could even undermine its territorial integrity and reduce his religious influence. Behind these reasons, there is the choice of a commitment, not in person, but concrete in Yemen, which is absolutely equivalent to that employed directly in Iraq, with its troops, against the actual caliphate. The will of Iran is to perform a containment of the spread of the Sunnis, not as a terrorist threat, such as excessive concentration of military power, political capacity and increase of territorial sovereignty. The first level that you want to fight is not conventional, the troops of the Caliphate, which in addition to extending their domains, have threatened Damascus, considered a key ally and Lebanon, where the presence of Hezbollah, guarantees the Shiites . These are key elements in the context of Iran's foreign policy, which has learned to survive the effects of the isolation of sanctions for the nuclear issue, and now wants to play a role as a regional power in the Middle East in terms of political and military, therefore geopolitical, but, also, to increase its influence religious, contrasting his role, never lost, the country leader of the Shiites to the recognized leaders of the Sunnis: Saudi Arabia. It does not seem possible that Tehran wants to pursue an expansion of its influence, but rather make the garrison in areas where the presence Shiite justifies its protection. In the case of Iraq, Tehran is directly stepped in to protect Shiite ethnic persecution of the Sunni caliphate, playing a strategic role for the United States, but raising protests in Riyadh. This scenario is a mistake of the United States, who did not want to divide a country already practically separated, where the rule of Saddam Hussein had given power to the Sunnis, who if they are seen by Shiites subtract, becoming, in the first phase of expansion the Caliphate, allies of the Islamic State. A division into three parts, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, would probably facilitated the management of power and prevented the spread of Sunni militias in the Shiite area. One of the reasons I did not want to divide the state of Iraq was to think of creating a secular state without the intrusive religious influences, which is impossible for the roots of the phenomenon confessional. In Yemen, the situation is similar with the variable of Al Qaeda instead of the caliphate. The confrontation between Shiites and Sunnis is doing very harsh, even for the indirect interference of Iran and Saudi Arabia, who do not intend to abandon their parties also can not lose control over the country. Riyadh, then, extremely close to its territory requires special attention, which could also provide a direct action by its troops. This scenario does not bode well, and announced a new emergency globally, the result of a confrontation that has always existed but has never had occasion to become directly involved. If the voltage rises in official way between the two states lead the two main currents of Islamism, the consequences can get, given the implications of energy production, as having grave consequences for the global economy. Once again it seems the situation got out of hand to the United States, which will have to work as soon as possible to reconstruct the situation, through a diplomatic engagement undoubtedly incessant.