If we want to understand the Middle East,
if we want to understand why conflicts are
happening the way they are, and how these
conflicts may be resolved, we cannot take
our eyes off the Shia-Sunni conflict. 
Whether it's the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia, 
or the Syria war or the escalating civil war
in Iraq, they all involve sectarianism between
      Shiites and Sunnis.
The Shia-Sunni divide is a political and religious
divide around who was the rightful heir after
the passing of the Prophet Muhammad in early
Islam. Yes, it's remote history, going back
to the seventh century, but for millions of
Muslims around the world, it's what defines
them, sectarianism.
Now, it is not as if you could say 'Well,
let's just resolve this original dispute over
the succession and we can be one.' There is
now 1,400 years of different political social,
cultural and theological history that separates
them.
Of the approximately 1.5 billion Muslims in
the world, about 85 percent are Sunni, and
15 percent are Shia. This is a conflict of
identity far more than it is a conflict of
belief and practice. People actually do feel
this divide deeply, emotionally.
We are seeing a catastrophic civil war in
Syria between the Sunni and the Shia; an ongoing
conflict in Lebanon between the Shia population
and the Sunni leadership; and in Iraq over
the last decade - a devastating battle between
the Sunni minority and the Shia majority;
we've seen it in Iran with a small Sunni population
in the South; in Afghanistan and in Pakistan
in which puritanical movements within Sunni
Islam have slaughtered thousands of Shia;
in Bahrain the very large oppressed Shia majority
has risen up against the Sunni leadership
of that country.
This conflict stares America in the face.
It does have an effect on U.S. foreign policy
and U.S. interests in the region, whether
its in Syria, where we've seen tens of thousands
of people being killed and millions displaced;
or Pakistan, where the U.S. is concerned about
what happens when it withdraws from Afghanistan;
or Bahrain where the U.S. 5th Fleet is based;
or Saudi Arabia, which is the home to oil
reserves; or whether it's in Iraq where the
U.S. has lost lives and billions of dollars
in treasure.
There are dangers of fierce sectarian fighting
if, for example, these terrorist organizations
try to overrun sacred Shia sites, which could
trigger Shia-Sunni conflicts that could be
very hard to stamp out. So we have enormous
interests there.
My greatest fear is that something could conflate
that leads to an all-out sectarian regional
war. God forbid that it should happen but
the ingredients for that happening are very
much alive.
For most of Islamic history, Shiites and Sunnis
have lived quietly side by side, not necessarily
happily but quietly. Pogroms and outright
conflict have been rare in history. And they
happen when there is a political prize to
fight over.
The most important primary event that brought
Shia-Sunni conflict into the fore was the
Iranian Revolution. Once the Shiites asserted
their preeminence in carrying out an Islamic
Revolution in Islamic politics, there was
immediately Sunni backlash.
Fast-forward to 2003, when Saddam Hussein
fell, for the first time in that capital you
have a Shiite-dominated government, which
didn't go unnoticed in the gulf, and certainly
not in Saudi Arabia and Riyadh. And as chaos
spread through Iraq, you could only depend
on your own community and your affiliation
with that community to keep you alive. And
that's when you really saw the Sunni-Shia
divide become personal. It was no longer political,
but it was neighborhood to neighborhood and
neighbor to neighbor.
The Arab uprisings have also been a factor
that's reignited conflict. This is why you
see a civil war in Syria that has a strong
sectarian dimension. In many countries, what
started as a political rivalry evolved into
also a religious conflict.
It's not that the Shias and Sunnis were not
there in history before. It was that sectarianism
was contained by the structure of authoritarian
regimes in the Arab world. The structure that
was containing them cracked. So that actually
caused the fight that was simmering below
this edifice of calm in the region to erupt.
Whether it's Shia or Sunni, the motivation
is all the same. What they all have in common
is the embrace of theological justifications
to legitimize the violence that they perpetrate,
that transforms the motivations to commit
this violence to something much more personal.
For all these groups to survive and for all
of them to engage in terrorism, they need
some outside patron, whether it's wealthy
individuals or whether it's a state backer.
Both Iran and Saudi Arabia have been responsible
for escalating this Sunni-Shia divide, and
they are doing it for their own sort of geopolitical
interests. It's not just a perception that
these two countries are trying to control
different parts of the Middle East -- its
reality. It's in the form of funding, form
of arms. It's in the form in some cases of
even soldiers inside these countries.
There are no bright spots in the region. Sectarianism
will mean instability in the region for some
period. That it will be difficult for states
to rule over their populations happily. You're
going to end up with challenges to authorities,
civil wars, violence, bombings, et cetera,
that would keep the region from focusing on
economic growth, focusing on political stability.
What we can do is to encourage the major regional
powers to deal with their differences. And,
we have to help Middle East states to basically
cross this transition from authoritarianism
to veritable democracy.
You can't say to a minority, whether it be
a Sunni or a Shiite, democracy will be great
for you, because what people hear is ""majority
rules."" That's not democracy. And until there's
a system that protects different sectarian
expressions of religion, there's not an answer
in the region to the Sunni-Shia divide.
