The Thirty Years War. Christian Europe's equivalent of Sunni Saudi Arabia versus Shia Iran?

[Yossarian]

What happened in the Thirty Years War?

THE TENSIONS in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia (ruled by the Sunni Saud family) and Iran (the leader of the Shia camp) have led many commentators to draw parallels with Europe’s Thirty Years War (1618-48). That was a conflict that had devastating consequences for central Europe, with around 20% of the German population being killed. The war had religious roots as the Holy Roman Emperor (initially the Habsburg Ferdinand II) tried to reassert Catholic hegemony over the Protestant areas of the empire. The Reformation had begun in Germany in 1517 with the theses of Martin Luther and many princes of the Empire (which had a quasi-federal structure) had converted to the Protestant cause.

An initial revolt by Bohemian Protestants, who threw Imperial representatives out of the window (the Defenestration of Prague), was easily crushed. But the Emperor’s successes, and his attempts to confiscate territory, alarmed other Protestant powers. First Denmark intervened (unsuccessfully) and then Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden achieved a string of military victories for the Protestant side, before he was killed in battle in 1632.

The battle lines were not drawn on exclusively religious grounds. France, a Catholic power, financed the Swedish invasion and later joined the war directly; some Protestant rulers initially fought on the Emperor’s side (the Protestant cause was itself divided between Lutherans and Calvinists). Many of the participants had territorial motives; Sweden wanted control of the Baltic while France used the war to acquire Alsace and Lorraine, two areas that were to cause repeated tensions in the 19th and 20th centuries. The conflict also formed part of the much longer eighty-years war between Spain and its former province, the Netherlands.

So what are the parallels? The first is that events cast long shadows, whether one is thinking of the Reformation, the Iranian revolution of 1979 or the Iraq war of 2003. Changes in the balance of power cause others to react. The second is that religious conflicts, once started, are very hard to stop because of the passions they arouse. In the 17th century, the exhausted powers eventually agreed not to try and impose their faith on other states. The third, perhaps, is that the initial victor may not prove the eventual winner; American military power is less dominant than it seemed after 2003. After the Thirty Years War ended in 1648, Habsburg influence over much of Germany was reduced and the monarchy eventually evolved into the Austro-Hungarian empire.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/01/economist-explains-5

Those of Muslim backgrounds come in many shapes and sizes, including many who are, shall we say, on the edges of classifying themselves as being practicing Muslims, or those (like myself) who see the roots of Islam 1500 years ago as being a means of conveying to the ignorant/uneducated massess solutions to everyday problems of society by couching it in terms of 'God', 'Prophets','miracles' et al in order to get them to follow without needing to provide them with explanations that they would not comprehend (- akin to The Wizardof Oz).

The one thing that irks many of us is the tendency of the media to portray every conflict involving nations ruled by Muslims in terms of religion. "Muslim Iraq versus Muslim Iran","Shia Iran versus Sunni Saudi Arabia"...etc, or even "Muslim invaders..."

And yet how many have said or say "Christian Nazi Germany versus Christian Britain", or "Christian Evangelical USA versus Christian Russian Orthodox Russia", or "Christan West versus Shinto & Buddhist Imperial Japan", or even "Christian European colonialist..."

You get the picture?

 

[Gilly]

The one thing that irks many of us is the tendency of the media to portray every conflict involving nations ruled by Muslims in terms of religion. "Muslim Iraq versus Muslim Iran","Shia Iran versus Sunni Saudi Arabia"...etc, or even "Muslim invaders..."

And yet how many have said or say "Christian Nazi Germany versus Christian Britain", or "Christian Evangelical USA versus Christian Russian Orthodox Russia", or "Christan West versus Shinto & Buddhist Imperial Japan", or even "Christian European colonialist..."

You get the picture?

Usually it is to highlight the difference between the two parties, for instance Germany v England was the Nazi v Democracy and the same with Russia V America it was Democracy v Communist.

Germany v England and America v Russia are not fought along religious reasons but more political reasons thats why religion played no part in the differences.

 

[Yossarian]

Usually it is to highlight the difference between the two parties, for instance Germany v England was the Nazi v Democracy and the same with Russia V America it was Democracy v Communist.

Germany v England and America v Russia are not fought along religious reasons but more political reasons thats why religion played no part in the differences.

Saudi Arabia versus Iran is primarily two strategic powers competing against each other, but who just happen to represent two different sects within Islam. Iran v Iraq was also nothing to do with religion (Does anyone seriously think Saddam Hussain started it all for religious reasons?).

Whereas the Thirty Years War, along with numerous other Christian versus Christain wars within Europe had a Christian religious element to them. eg

The Reformation and Wars of Religion

Starting in the 1520s international relations between the rising European states were dominated by conflicts that were primarily or significantly religious in character: wars in central and southern Europe, between Christians and Muslims; and, in central and northwestern Europe, confessional wars, the fruit of the Reformation. The division between Protestant and Catholic caused or intensified numerous conflicts, resulting in some of the longest lasting, bloodiest, and most bitterly contested and destructive wars in history. This second in a five-part series of articles on Europe’s wars of religion tells the story of the confessional wars in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Christendom.

http://libertymagazine.org/article/the-reformation-and-wars-of-religion

 

[Gilly]

Saudi Arabia versus Iran is primarily two strategic powers competing against each other, but who just happen to represent two different sects within Islam.

Why are these two countries fighting?.

 

[Yossarian]

Why are these two countries fighting?.

Iran (Persia) & Saudi Arabia are both competing for strategic interests. Each is fighting proxy wars on many fronts by backing various different groups, eg in Yemen, in Syria etc. Each wants to influence it's smaller neighbours to be on its side (all the Gulf Arab oil producing states like Dubai, Kuwait, Qatar etc are located in the Gulf). Both are big oil producers, thus economic competitors. Both want the other not to have domination in the Arabian (or Persian) Gulf. The Saudis don't want Iran to control the narrow Straight of Hormuz through which most of the oil and gas from the Gulf states, as well all of their seaborn traffic passes (Saudi Arabia also has access to the sea via the Red Sea, but the rest don't - look at a map of the Gulf).

How different is that to the Americans v Russians in Europe,or the Chinese versus Americans in the South China Sea?

 

[Gilly]

So its nothing to do with Shia's v Sunnis and is all about oil, I didn't know that.

 

[Yossarian]

So its nothing to do with Shia's v Sunnis and is all about oil, I didn't know that.

And general strategic dominance of the Gulf area. Similar to the way European powers like Germany, France, Britain, Spain etc have been competing against each for centuries for dominance and strategic influence.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think the main difference is the 30 year war happened in the 17th century so it's done and dusted mostly. The Islamic version is ongoing and present, thus presents a much more relevant problem today and now.

 

[Yossarian]

So its nothing to do with Shia's v Sunnis and is all about oil, I didn't know that.

Just to add, Iranians (ie Persians) are not Arabs. Majority of Iraqis are Arabs though. And conflict between Arabs and Persians goes back over 3,500 years before the advent of Islam.
So to see Saudia Arabia versus Iran purely in terms of Sunni versus Shia is completely inaccurate.

History of violence between Arabs and Persians goes back to 2700 BC

By Robert D. Kaplan, Special to The Christian Science Monitor April 4, 1984

Baghdad, Iraq — By the lethal standards of Near Eastern history, there is little without precedent in the war between Iran and Iraq. The bloodshed goes back not 31/2 years, but 5,000.

https://www.csmonitor.com/1984/0404/040414.html

 

[Yossarian]

I think the main difference is the 30 year war happened in the 17th century so it's done and dusted mostly. The Islamic version is ongoing and present, thus presents a much more relevant problem today and now.

But the 'Islamic conflicts' between nation states (eg Iran v Iraq, or Iran v Saudi Arabia) as currently portrayed are not 'religious conflicts', and yet are still labelled as somehow being religion based.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

But the 'Islamic conflicts' between nation states (eg Iran v Iraq, or Iran v Saudi Arabia) as currently portrayed are not 'religious conflicts', and yet are still labelled as somehow being religion based.

I think following the Iranian revolution though, they have taken on more religious significance. Sunni extremism has grown as a counter to Iran's tilt towards theology, and while no official Sunni theocracy has been tolerated, nations like Saudi Arabia have been implementing a very strict interpretation of Shariah at home for a long time now. I think the Iranian revolution marked a change in direction for Islamic countries in that it was the first politically motivated theocracy which was prepared to rattle it's sabres towards the west.

 

[Yossarian]

I think following the Iranian revolution though, they have taken on more religious significance. Sunni extremism has grown as a counter to Iran's tilt towards theology, and while no official Sunni theocracy has been tolerated, nations like Saudi Arabia have been implementing a very strict interpretation of Shariah at home for a long time now. I think the Iranian revolution marked a change in direction for Islamic countries in that it was the first politically motivated theocracy which was prepared to rattle it's sabres towards the west.

That's a part of it of course. However, ultimately, that is not the prime reason for the Iranian v Saudi Arabian hostility. That's why, for example now, Saudis are even willing (if reports are to believed) to join hands with the Israelis in order to confront Iran.

I would go so far as to say that even if the pro-American Shah was still around, or even if Iran was now a pro-Western liberal democracy, and similar for Saudi Arabia, these two powers will still be at loggerheads with each other over dominance of the Gulf and the nation states bordering it.

 

[saeedhk]

Personally, I believe that the tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran is due to religious basis and not due to any strategic or economic interests.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Personally, I believe that the tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran is due to religious basis and not due to any strategic or economic interests.

I think there is additional rivalry between Arabs and Iranians which is not religiously motivated. I read something about Saddam Hussein having a derogatory pamphlet published called Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies. That was when he was a Baathist leader who was putting down religious movements in his own country as far as I'm aware. Probably owes more to racism than religion.

 

[Yossarian]

Personally, I believe that the tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran is due to religious basis and not due to any strategic or economic interests.

In which case you don't know much about political and economic interests. I suggest you look at a map of the Persian (or Arabian, depending upon your viewpoint) Gulf, the nation states bordering it, and their only outlet out of the Gulf for all all their imports and exports via sea. Next you'll be saying that Saddam Hussain's Iraq attacked Iran because Saddam Hussain was a devout Sunni and the Iran-Iraq war was over religion.

 

[saeedhk]

In which case you don't know much about political and economic interests. I suggest you look at a map of the Persian (or Arabian, depending upon your viewpoint) Gulf, the nation states bordering it, and their only outlet out of the Gulf for all all their imports and exports via sea. Next you'll be saying that Saddam Hussain's Iraq attacked Iran because Saddam Hussain was a devout Sunni and the Iran-Iraq war was over religion.

Not convinced. Religion is the main driving force for the hatred between the two nations.

 

[Yossarian]

Not convinced. Religion is the main driving force for the hatred between the two nations.

You do realise that Arabs versus Persians (ie Iranians) rivalry and hatred has been going on for centuries, even before the advent of Islam? As I said, go and look at a map of the gulf region and the states bordering it. And their outlets for all seaborn imports and exports, including all their oil and gas. And then think of politics, economics and strategic interests.

Besides, you think Mohammed Bin Salman, the Saudi Crown Prince, is secretly trying to join hands with Israel in order to confront Iran over religion? ie The Sunni rulers of Mecca & Medina are joining hands with the Jewish state, a state they don't even officially recognise, in order for this Muslim Sunni and Jewish Israel combo to confront Shia Iran due to inter-Muslim religious differences? wow!

 

[CricketCartoons]

You do realise that Arabs versus Persians (ie Iranians) rivalry and hatred has been going on for centuries, even before the advent of Islam? As I said, go and look at a map of the gulf region and the states bordering it. And their outlets for all seaborn imports and exports, including all their oil and gas. And then think of politics, economics and strategic interests.

Besides, you think Mohammed Bin Salman, the Saudi Crown Prince, is secretly trying to join hands with Israel in order to confront Iran over religion? ie The Sunni rulers of Mecca & Medina are joining hands with the Jewish state, a state they don't even officially recognise, in order for this Muslim Sunni and Jewish Israel combo to confront Shia Iran due to inter-Muslim religious differences? wow!

True. Sectarian conflict doesnt play any role, or only a minor role between Saudia and Iran.

 

[shaykh]

Those of Muslim backgrounds come in many shapes and sizes, including many who are, shall we say, on the edges of classifying themselves as being practicing Muslims, or those (like myself) who see the roots of Islam 1500 years ago as being a means of conveying to the ignorant/uneducated massess solutions to everyday problems of society by couching it in terms of 'God', 'Prophets','miracles' et al in order to get them to follow without needing to provide them with explanations that they would not comprehend (- akin to The Wizardof Oz).

The one thing that irks many of us is the tendency of the media to portray every conflict involving nations ruled by Muslims in terms of religion. "Muslim Iraq versus Muslim Iran","Shia Iran versus Sunni Saudi Arabia"...etc, or even "Muslim invaders..."

And yet how many have said or say "Christian Nazi Germany versus Christian Britain", or "Christian Evangelical USA versus Christian Russian Orthodox Russia", or "Christan West versus Shinto & Buddhist Imperial Japan", or even "Christian European colonialist..."

You get the picture?

Well it's a fair position no?...the Wahabis in Saudi do see Iran as a Shia nation who want to facilitate the return of the Mahdi...

Look at MBS's recent interview where he basically says there is no way they can negotiate with Shias ...

This notion of an existential threat is religion based ...as from the Shia position is the view of the Saudis of them being heretics ...

This isn't to suggest that regional factors aren't in play and nation state etc but religion does play a major factor in this conflict don't you think?

 

[Yossarian]

Well it's a fair position no?...the Wahabis in Saudi do see Iran as a Shia nation who want to facilitate the return of the Mahdi...

Look at MBS's recent interview where he basically says there is no way they can negotiate with Shias ...

This notion of an existential threat is religion based ...as from the Shia position is the view of the Saudis of them being heretics ...

This isn't to suggest that regional factors aren't in play and nation state etc but religion does play a major factor in this conflict don't you think?

Nope. Just look at the case of Iran-Iraq war. Based upon what you're saying, Saddam Hussain's Iraq attacked Iran because Saddam Hussain was a devout Sunni and the Iran-Iraq war was over religion?

The fact of the matter is that, since the dawn of time, rulers have known that by invoking religion, they can get the ignorant masses to fight and die for them. Even when the real cause is as simple as two brothers fighting over who gets daddy's properties and lands after his death.

Religion is, and always has been, the fig leaf and not the cause.

As for MBS, you seriously think his gripe with the Iranians is over religious differences? And not the strategic, economic and political interests of these two major regional powers (and historical foes, even before the advent of Islam) on the opposite shores of the Arabian/Persian Gulf?

I know you are well versed in matters of religion and religious politics/history, but if you believe that the Saudi v Iranian proxy war is over religious differences, as opposed to political, economic and strategic (one example, Straight of Hormuz?) interests, then you need to brush up on the regional strategic interests of these two regional powers.