The problem of the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis in the center of the international scenario

The signing of the Lausanne, is likely to exacerbate the conflict based on religion, which threatens to destabilize not only the Middle East, but also part of Asia. There is, in fact, a whole set of alliances and presence of minority religious groups, depending on which country you look, that can become factors of heavy uncertainty for international relations. One of the main meanings that opponents of Tehran damage to the understanding reached in Switzerland, not so much about the technical aspects agreed to avoid development in the military sense of the Iranian nuclear technology, but rather a political valence, which allows the state of Iran break the isolation in which he was condemned and aspire to become a regional power able to assert their intentions. This fear is especially that of Saudi Arabia, that henceforth no longer enjoys the advantageous position acquired on the international scene, thanks to its strategic importance, in the framework of alliances with the United States. Washington was, indeed, the main proponent of reaching agreement, that should be remembered, is only preparatory in view of the final negotiations, which must be completed by 30 June. On the US position have been let loose, in the Sunni allies stances very contrary, that they did not give up, however, the executive branch of the White House from his intentions, but have forced Obama to extricate themselves, through dangerous balancing acts in international relations with the countries of the middle east. The ongoing conflict in Yemen has been repeatedly identified as a clash distance between Iran and Saudi Arabia and can be taken as a model for future situations, where the presence of a minority Shiite or Sunni, requiring the direct or indirect power patron. What appears is a duel to the distance, potentially seamless, which is likely to wear down the figure of the first super world power of the United States. In the case of Yemen, the United States intervened on the side of Saudi Arabia, but in Iraq, although not formally allied with the Iranians. Besides these theaters of war advances the case of Pakistan, a country that has built a sizable minority of Shiites, about 20% of its total population, but which has long been engaged in border conflicts with Tehran, especially in areas of the border with the country where they reside Iranian Sunni minority. Recently is the last episode where you recorded the death of eight Iranian soldiers, whose culprits, seem to have fled the country of Pakistan. Pakistan is considered an unreliable ally by the Americans in the fight to the Taliban Afghans, so much so that one of the projects of Obama, once officially ironed out differences with Tehran, is precisely to ally with the Iranians to defeat fundamentalist militias that are often found refuge in Pakistani territory. But Islamabad is also an ally of Saudi Arabia, who called on the Pakistani troops to be part of the alliance against the Shia of Yemen. As you see, we are in the presence of a scenario completely connected, where the presence of minorities is likely to become a strong element of destabilization, not only of individual situations, but overall framework of international relations in the making. It should be remembered also the case occurred during the Arab Spring in Bahrain, a country ruled by a Sunni monarchy, but populated by a Shiite majority (about 61% of the total), who led a revolt nipped only by the intervention of the Saudi armed forces. Another element not to be forgotten is the possession of nuclear weapons by the country of Pakistan, a nation increasingly seen as unstable. The most urgent, at this time, is represented by the fight against Islamic state, but immediately after could multiply a number of situations where the contrast between Shiites and Sunnis could put a strain on American leadership because of the delicate balance that will solicit . For the White House, but not only, will present a scenario completely asymmetric capable of altering the overall framework of international relations. It would be better to work with a set of diplomacy to the totality of the situation, rather than continue in the choice of small steps and in the assessment of the individual case from time to time.