Tensions rise as Iranian dams cut off Iraqi water supplies

notjustanymike 2021-08-19 14:23:27 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Here's a database of water conflicts going back over 6,000 years: http://www.worldwater.org/conflict/list/

sillysaurusx 2021-08-19 14:26:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Because of course there's a database of water conflicts going back over 6,000 years. I mean, why wouldn't that be a thing? There's probably a database of pokemon conflicts, so it shouldn't feel so surprising...

Anyway, thanks!

> Two members of the right-wing "Order of the Rising Sun" are arrested in Chicago with 30-40 kg of typhoid cultures with which they allegedly planned to poison the water supply in Chicago, St. Louis, and other cities. Experts say the plan is unlikely to cause health problems due to water chlorination.

I actually burst out laughing. "My dastardly plan! twirls moustache Foiled by... chlorine! How could anyone have known?" Quite the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPUgjy-Pn-4 vibe.

This is my new favorite database. Especially when the first entry is "God Punishes Man with Six-Day Storm" and the Conflict Type is classified as "Weapon".

dstick 2021-08-19 14:31:42 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Not quite a database, nor the type of Pokemon conflict you were probably looking for, but at least it's a good read! https://www.reddit.com/r/pokemongo/comments/8siha6/father_an...

2dvisio 2021-08-19 15:56:44 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Just saying: 1503 - Florence plan to cut Pisa's water Weapon - Republic of Florence - Southern Europe

Leonardo da Vinci and Machiavelli plan to divert Arno River away from Pisa during conflict between Pisa and Florence (Italy).

zetalyrae 2021-08-19 14:28:46 +0000 UTC [ - ]

They should merge that with the Seshat databank[0], Peter Turchin's quant history project.

[0]: http://seshatdatabank.info/

mc32 2021-08-19 14:30:24 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I have to refer back to these long traditional rivals when I read people waxing poetic about the prospect of erasing international borders and becoming a brotherhood of man and then at the same time rejecting homogenization of culture. You can’t eat your cake and have it.

These are two historic rivals. Maybe with the right governments they can work out deals like we work out with Canada and Mexico with regard to shared resources —but I’m not holding my breath on this given the Kurds are kind of the out group within the Iraqi family and probably won’t get full support from the central govt.

bb101 2021-08-19 16:26:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]

It strikes me as an example of Sigmund Freud's "Narcissism of Small Differences"[1]: "The thesis that communities with adjoining territories and close relationships are especially likely to engage in feuds and mutual ridicule because of hypersensitivity to details of differentiation."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_difference...

Mordisquitos 2021-08-19 17:06:15 +0000 UTC [ - ]

And by sheer coincidence, I very recently learnt on a HN linked article on big-endian and little-endianness that these terms come from Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift [0], where Lilliput and Blefuscu wage war over which end should be cracked first when eating a hard-boiled egg:

> The novel further describes an intra-Lilliputian quarrel over the practice of breaking eggs. Traditionally, Lilliputians broke boiled eggs on the larger end; a few generations ago, an Emperor of Lilliput, the Present Emperor's great-grandfather, had decreed that all eggs be broken on the smaller end after his son cut himself breaking the egg on the larger end. The differences between Big-Endians (those who broke their eggs at the larger end) and Little-Endians had given rise to "six rebellions ... wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown". The Lilliputian religion says an egg should be broken on the convenient end, which is now interpreted by the Lilliputians as the smaller end. The Big-Endians gained favour in Blefuscu.

This seems like a perfect fictional example of the Narcissism of Small Differences, published more than a century before the birth of Sigmund Freud!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilliput_and_Blefuscu#Satirica...

duxup 2021-08-19 14:57:26 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I recall an American military officer describing his trying to understand the local human conflicts and alliances while serving in Iraq. Region to region and even village to village (often right next to each other) he struggled to understand / balance it all.

People have their reasons, but ultimately they have to feel safe / want to work together too.

That's not a justification of any given military action but more about the complexities in some regions. We think in terms of nations, some places there are so many other layers... sometimes it's not even just nation vs nation politics playing out.

throwaway59553 2021-08-19 15:36:30 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Westerners fail to understand tribalism, or any clannish attitudes.

Even the so called "experts" in charge are pretty much clueless about it.

duxup 2021-08-19 15:52:26 +0000 UTC [ - ]

The ability to delegate decisions up and down through layers of the government and mostly ... not involve all the infighting that COULD come from it is pretty amazing IMO.

Once in a while some folks in my area get all worked up about how some regional transportation authority made some decision but man ... we do not need each city and layer of gov making their own call / fighting about it. And that's without any kinda 'serious' tribal factors at play.

mc32 2021-08-19 16:01:44 +0000 UTC [ - ]

It still exists in the form of different “street gangs” and “the mob” families. They just don’t happen to run regions outlined by political boundaries. These are people who otherwise are very much alike but will inflict violence upon the other as necessary.

secondcoming 2021-08-19 16:04:44 +0000 UTC [ - ]

This is just completely wrong. Western society also had periods of clans and tribes in its history. It's more that it moved on from it. The British Empire used inter-tribal rivalries as a tool to further its influence and spread. Scots still wear kilts whose colours are clan-specific.

Maybe, by 'Western' society you mean 'America'?

mc32 2021-08-19 16:08:10 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I interpret them as saying “we think that because tribalism is a minor issue in the west and normally doesn’t surface, then we must generalize that it’s also a non-issue elsewhere” it is however, far from being the case.

duxup 2021-08-19 16:17:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I think the other user is saying that people now don't understand something, not that it hasn't ever existed.

People forget / if they don't experience it don't understand it well.

bingohbangoh 2021-08-19 14:32:58 +0000 UTC [ - ]

"...but I’m not holding my breath on this given the Kurds are kind of the out group within the Iraqi family and probably won’t get full support from the central govt."

Are Kurds treated better within Iran? My understanding is that they're a pariah everywhere in the Middle East

mc32 2021-08-19 14:38:03 +0000 UTC [ - ]

They’re treated poorly in all three major countries there, Iran, Iraq and Turkey. The brits should have carved out a country for them, for they are different enough to deserve their own self determination. If we didn’t have Turkey in NATO and hadn’t messed with Iraq we could have helped the formation of Kurdistan, but there’s no guarantee these three wouldn’t have steamrolled them to prevent potential fragmentation from other internal out groups.

Unfortunately in the 1800s as other geographies fought wars to rid differences to achieve unification, things were too tribal to achieve that there. I guess the idea of Mesopotamia was too distant to serve as a glue for all the different interests.

jgeada 2021-08-19 14:44:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]

The Brits intentionally created unstable countries so that none could rival them in power in a region. All those countries were too busy dealing with internal strife to become regional competitors to England.

KineticLensman 2021-08-19 15:11:47 +0000 UTC [ - ]

At the time these countries were created none of them were powerful enough to be a regional competitor to Britain. The brits were keen for individual countries to be stable so that they were easier to govern. Remember also that the British empire wasn’t created following a top-down strategic plan and that operationally it was a mass of country-specific special cases

mygoodaccount 2021-08-19 14:54:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Source? I agree the borders were a failure, but I can't find anything close to what you're saying in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

jgeada 2021-08-19 16:57:14 +0000 UTC [ - ]

http://www.thetower.org/article/the-map-that-ruined-the-midd...

Maybe deliberate is too strong a word, but certainly the map ignored all tribal, geographical and cultural boundaries. Nothing other than instability should have been expected.

redis_mlc 2021-08-19 16:54:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]

The British were able to play European powers against each other for centuries, so expect the same elsewhere.

jcranmer 2021-08-19 15:49:00 +0000 UTC [ - ]

At the time of World War I, the British already had pretty much the rest of non-Ottoman Arabia under various forms of protectorates, and Persia too for that matter--Persia being by far the most powerful country in the region, at least outside of the soon-to-be-carved-up Ottomans.

During World War I, the British freaked out about the potential unrest that the Ottoman sultan (as caliph) could provoke in their Muslim lands, and as a result made multiple incompatible agreements with whatever forces would be willing to help fight against the Ottomans in the Middle East. In particular, everyone was promised Palestine if they would help in the fight. When it came time to do the actual carving, the British, in fine imperial tradition, honored none of these agreements.

In the actual agreement, the British and the French carved up the Arab regions somewhat (but not entirely) in the vein of the Sykes-Picot agreement, with the French choosing for themselves a majority Christian domain in Lebanon and a majority Muslim domain in Syria. The British kept Palestine for itself, granted Hejaz independence along its original Ottoman provincial boundaries, and created independent states of Transjordan and Iraq, each to be ruled by the sons of the new Hejai king (the upgraded Sharif of Mecca).

goohle 2021-08-19 14:51:41 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Do you know a way to intentionally create a stable country? Can you share this secret knowledge with us, please?

technothrasher 2021-08-19 15:12:18 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Failing to intentionally create a stable country and intentionally creating an unstable country are two different things.

NotSammyHagar 2021-08-19 17:08:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Great point. A core cause of the endless wars in the middle east is people pushed into the truly evil British model of a minority in power over a weaker but larger other party. I get that there are lots of existing problems but doing this in countries on purpose is unforgivable.

My own country (the us) fucks things up too of course - Afghanistan being the latest example, but we have our own long list of shame (Iraq, many countries in south and central America...).

tzs 2021-08-19 15:17:19 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I'd have expected them to be somewhat natural allies. They are the two largest majority Shiite countries in the world by a large margin. Worldwide only around 10% of Muslims are Shiite. Around 90% are Sunni.

My understanding is that Shiite vs Sunni is a big deal in Islam, akin to the Protestant vs Catholic split in Christianity. But not the Protestant vs Catholic split as it is now, but more like it was shortly after it happened when it was taken a lot more seriously.

mc32 2021-08-19 15:26:26 +0000 UTC [ - ]

There is no such thing as a natural ally based on faith. We have examples of the same thing in Europe as powers attempted to control resources (arable land in agrarian times). They may ally against a common enemy or due to pacts which were broken from time to time. Germany and Japan allied and really had little in common beside a desire to control geography for the sake of resource extraction.

klyrs 2021-08-19 15:21:08 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Water rights are a zero-sum game. I'm not sure that humans can be 'natural allies,' but the deck is stacked to make natural enemies when resources get slim...

NortySpock 2021-08-19 15:24:40 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Coast-side desalination seems like it would reduce this issue to be less critical of a zero-sum game.

lazide 2021-08-19 15:29:10 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Cost makes it still essentially zero sum, unless we get actual cheap fusion off the ground anyway. Very few countries can afford to use water from desalination at any scale, and even for them the cost of it is an order of magnitude or more than using existing runoff - when the runoff exists.

mc32 2021-08-19 15:28:11 +0000 UTC [ - ]

That alleviates drinking water. These are agrarian communities. It’s like proposing desal to irrigate the San Joaquin valley —expensive!

thomasahle 2021-08-19 15:59:58 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> I have to refer back to these long traditional rivals when I read people waxing poetic about the prospect of erasing international borders

This is exactly the kind of problems borders create. Dam conflicts like this are nearly always across borders, not within border free regions like a country.

In the past city states might have had conflicts like this, but that's why we created larger governing regions to regulate resources more fairly. Today our problems are again becoming too large for our borders and we need to expand them.

throwthere 2021-08-19 16:08:08 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> Dam conflicts like this are nearly always across borders, not within border free regions like a country.

I don't think your assumption is true. Even just perusing http://www.worldwater.org/conflict/list/ I see plenty of intra-country conflicts. Heck, here's one in a first-world country 2 years ago-- https://www.watereducationcolorado.org/fresh-water-news/eco-...

throwaway59553 2021-08-19 15:33:43 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> I read people waxing poetic about the prospect of erasing international borders and becoming a brotherhood of man and then at the same time rejecting homogenization of culture.

Everyone who is against borders is openly in favour of homogenization. Specially when we talk about western countries. In the West, for some reason we need diversity. In the rest of the world diversity isn't needed and preserving the homogenity of the natives is paramount.

I'm sure there aren't any hidden intentions behind it tho.

dotcommand 2021-08-19 15:39:45 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> I have to refer back to these long traditional rivals

Long traditional rivals? Iran and iraq are relatively new 20th century european colonial creations. Iran was carved out by the british/russians and Iraq was arbitrarily drawn out on a map by the british and french.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

> when I read people waxing poetic about the prospect of erasing international borders and becoming a brotherhood of man and then at the same time rejecting homogenization of culture

Even with homogenous cultures, no guarantee of "brotherhood of man". Look at north and south korea. The elites will always find something to fight over.

> Maybe with the right governments they can work out deals like we work out with Canada and Mexico with regard to shared resources

It's not the "right" governments. It's called an insurmountable power differential. Canada and mexico simple have to do what they are told. We've fought wars against canada( british empire ) and mexico and taken significant amount of territory from both to ensure that these countries "share their resources" as told. The only way this power dynamic would change if an outside force with enough power helps either canada or mexico challenge the US. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

> but I’m not holding my breath on this given the Kurds are kind of the out group within the Iraqi family and probably won’t get full support from the central govt.

The kurds are the outgroup everywhere - turkey, iraq, iran, etc. The kurds have been used by the US/Europe as a separatist thorn in the side of many middle east nations to keep them unstable. Similar to what we are trying to do with the uyghurs in china, rohingya in myanmar, the balochs in pakistan, india, africa, etc. One of the benefits of having drawn out nations in africa is that the nations are full of different ethnic groups that can be pit against each other making these african nations easier to control. Not sure it was the original intent, but that's where we are right now.

jcranmer 2021-08-19 16:07:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> Long traditional rivals? Iran and iraq are relatively new 20th century european colonial creations. Iran was carved out by the british/russians and Iraq was arbitrarily drawn out on a map by the british and french.

This is completely false when you're talking about Iran. An Iranian state has existed in more or less continuous form as an independent polity since the breakup of the Timurid Empire in ~1500. The three-way contest between the Ottomans, Safavid Persia, and Russia is a staple of the region's politics for virtually the entirety of the Early Modern period.

dotcommand 2021-08-19 16:31:34 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> This is completely false when you're talking about Iran.

I wouldn't say completely false.

> An Iranian state has existed in more or less continuous form as an independent polity since the breakup of the Timurid Empire in ~1500.

More or less? Independent polity? You are independent or you are not independent. You can't be "more or less" independent than you can be "more or less" pregnant.

It certainly wasn't independent after it was invaded and conquered by the british and soviets? It certainly wasn't independent after the british and soviets installed their own puppet to rule over iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

Iran, china, india, etc all love to claim thousand years whatever. Perhaps culturally, historically, etc they have a point but neither iran, china, india, etc are old states.

stickfigure 2021-08-19 16:56:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> As far as the Iranian authorities are concerned, "Iraq's interests are irrelevant," she adds bluntly.

I'm pretty sure that Iraq has missiles capable of destroying dams. Seems like that would be a relevant bargaining point.

odiroot 2021-08-19 16:54:43 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Is 21st century going to be all about wars over water sources?

adventured 2021-08-19 15:34:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Reminds me a bit of the water conflict that has been unfolding in Africa between Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-57734885

kingsloi 2021-08-19 15:09:06 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I've found myself randomly in hour long documentaries on the most diverse subjects thanks to DW.

baybal2 2021-08-19 16:38:23 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Timing...

Iran is going through an extreme drought, yes, but...

1-6 2021-08-19 15:13:13 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I wonder how much the water to oil exchange rate is.

vnchr 2021-08-19 15:55:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]

My understanding is they don't mix well.

joelbluminator 2021-08-19 14:27:39 +0000 UTC [ - ]

This must be Israel's fault!