Is The BIG Mideast War Coming?

[Kopji]

Weird. The software wouldn't allow all caps? Ruined a good joke.

I had that happen to me once too, doesn't that suck? How are we supposed to act like trolls if we can't upper case?

If you put at least one lower case letter it will work ok.

 

[Kopji]

Oh I dunno. I think that IF reason prevails in the region there will not be a 'Big War'. There are not really any unsolvable problems except maybe religious sectarianism. Unfortunately several Mideast countries live on a kind of razor's edge: It would only a mistake or crazy nudge in the right place at the right time to set things off. Blowing up a historic mosque, or throwing firecrackers in a church in Nazareth are both the same kind of crazy things that can cause even the best plans to crumble (and our plans aren't the best).

There was a political cartoon several years ago that showed each of the region's leaders sitting on kegs of dynamite and tossing lighted matches at each other. IMHO that still sums it up pretty well.

If a senseless 'crazy war' is not triggered first, we need to somehow find a way to boost the standing of Islamic moderates in society, or "those who would like to be moderate" in their case.

We get our wish of democracy and free elections yet seem oddly dissatisfied the results.

It is the extremists that are steering the ship and providing navigation. We should not underestimate the power of a tiny fraction of people to determine the direction a nation can take.

As running dog evil capitalist as it may sound, trade (and the associated employment) is the one thing that could save the region. It makes me nuts when the main response to some cartoons is to put a bunch of Mideast employees of Danish & Norwegian companies out of work. that'll show 'em

We should drop sanctions except for arms. One good thing Bush did this week was drop US opposition to a gas pipeline between Iran and India. We should do more of getting out of the way. Countries that depend on each other are less likely to act like they live in isolation: Iran -> Pakistan -> India -> US -> Israel

 

[jj]

Weird. The software wouldn't allow all caps? Ruined a good joke.

Heh. Well, get the phone out of your shoe and call them up to complain, then.

 

[Ralph]

While I keep hoping that reason will prevail---I think it's becoming increasingly unlikey that this will happen.

Too much hate--too many factions over there who seem to WANT war.

The cartoon jihad has shown how easy it is to keep the fire going on this whole mess and it's beginning to seem like war is inevitable.

A war in the Mid-east would have to center around Iran I would think. One has to wonder if the Iranians truly understand what a REAL war with the west would mean.

No more playing "hide the snipers in the mosque". The mosque will be reduced to rubble or possibly even vapor. No more cease-fires because it's an Islamic holy day.

I'm sure in a religious war against the west--Islamists will be as ruthless as possible & simply try to kill as many infidels as possible. The west should follow suit. The end result will of course be Allahs will.

Perhaps the absolute horror of real war and all the suffering & death that will result will finally bring peace to the region.

 

[egslim]

The mosque will be reduced to rubble or possibly even vapor.

Drop the 'possibly'. Any 'total war' type of conflict will inevitably deteriorate until every possible weapon is used.

I wonder, is it a coïncidence this mess started shortly after the Cold War? Or is it in human nature that when one threat is vanquished, another one will automatically emerge?

A war between the West and Middle-East would know no winners, only losers. The latter would see a large part of its population and property destroyed. The former would incur a large loss of life, and an economic drain probably comparable to what the Western Allies suffered during WWI. Think the currest cost of Iraq, times a lot.

 

[Kerberos]

Drop the 'possibly'. Any 'total war' type of conflict will inevitably deteriorate until every possible weapon is used.

I think it's debatable whether it would be a total war. The fact is that the Middle East just doesn't begin to have the military strenght to chalenge the US, nor do they have the economy to build such a military force.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is a reason why people talk about wars "destabilising" a region, and it's because as soon as a credible threat of war is on the horizon everybody has to start arming up and preparing their populations psychologically for war. That's what I think we are seeing now - the general militarisation of the region in response to a foreign threat.

Really? What mid-east nation is militarizing? Not Saudi Arabia - it was aggression from Saddam (who, BTW, had a larger stockpile of conventional munitions than the United States did), not the US, which they feared. And since that fear has been REMOVED, we've withdrawn troops from Saudi Arabia which were there (WITH their permission) to protect them. Kuwait? Same thing. Yemen? Their tensions are primarily with Saudi Arabia, not the US. The UAE? They're well aware that they can't be a significant military player, and are working hard to become a financial power instead (a move we should encourage). What about Egypt? Nope - the only invasion they're worried about is from restless Palestinians in Gaza who might stir up trouble now that Israel isn't keeping them in check. How about Syria? They haven't been doing any significant military armament, though they are whipping up public resentment right now. Against the US? Nope. Against Denmark, nominally over a bunch of cartoons. But their immediate concerns, while exacerbated because of US presence, are really about their complicity in the Hariri assasination - the fact that we're next door just means that they can't ignore world opinion regarding their guilt, but it's still THEIR guilt which has them in the crosshairs.

How about Pakistan? Well, their tensions are primarily with India, and have been for a long time. Their long-standing militarization has been in response to those tensions, not to our invasion of Afghanistan OR Iraq. We're allies of both Pakistan and India, and our increased involvement in the region makes war between them LESS likely, not more.

There's one, and ONLY one, country in the middle east which has actually been militarizing recently to any significant degree, and that's Iran. And you're a fool if you think they wouldn't be doing so even if we hadn't invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. They're hoping on becoming a nuclear power, the plans for that started well before 9/11 and have nothing to do with our subsequent actions, and they need military muscle to try to scare us off from preventing them from crossing that threshold.

Who is threatening and who is responding to the other's threats quickly gets lost in the muddle.

Only if you don't pay attention.

 

[Ziggurat]

I wonder, is it a coïncidence this mess started shortly after the Cold War? Or is it in human nature that when one threat is vanquished, another one will automatically emerge?

It's no coincidence. The Soviets were the primary backers of the more despotic and aggressive players in the region, and once the soviet union was gone, they found themselves with more free reign. Meanwhile, the Islamists thought that they defeated the tougher of the two superpowers and decided to keep up what they thought was a winning streak, and we simultaneously became more complacent about our own involvement in the region (and hence confirming their impression of us as cowardly and unwilling to defend ourselves). It was a deadly mixture, but it was neither coincidence nor an "automatic" emergence of a new threat.

 

[Kopji]

Bolton is tossing lighted matches at Iran today. He adds fresh new meaning to the word "diplomat".

The lesson that Iran learned since 911 is that US verbal threats eventually turn into military action. By verbalizing our every militaristic thought we increase the risk of a preemptive strike by Iran, on a target within reach that would result in massive US deaths. To Iran's thinking, if the US plans to attack them, why not get in the first blood?

 

[egslim]

I think it's debatable whether it would be a total war. The fact is that the Middle East just doesn't begin to have the military strenght to chalenge the US, nor do they have the economy to build such a military force.

They don't have to challenge anyone, since the US would be fighting on their playground - that's where the oil is. Forget about pitched military battles in which the US excells, think streetfighting and very heavy partisan activity which are the strongpoint of low-tech religious fanatics with a death-wish.

That's why I believe the best solution for the West is to stall the prospect for such a conflict as long as possible, until our oil-dependency on them is over. At that point we can withdraw from the area and just ignore them.

 

[Ziggurat]

To Iran's thinking, if the US plans to attack them, why not get in the first blood?

Are you really so clueless that you don't know? Because right now the most aggressive we can contemplate being is limited strikes against their nuclear facilities, and even then congress would have to sign off on it and it's far from a sure thing that they would. But if Iran carried out a first strike? Well, Bush doesn't need congressional approval to retaliate against a direct attack, and he wouldn't need to limit such strikes to nuclear installations either. He could basically pound away at will against any Iranian military facility. You really don't understand the difference between these two scenarios from the mullah's point of view?

 

[Kerberos]

They don't have to challenge anyone, since the US would be fighting on their playground - that's where the oil is. Forget about pitched military battles in which the US excells, think streetfighting and very heavy partisan activity which are the strongpoint of low-tech religious fanatics with a death-wish.

That's why I believe the best solution for the West is to stall the prospect for such a conflict as long as possible, until our oil-dependency on them is over. At that point we can withdraw from the area and just ignore them.

First of all I believe that at least the Saudi Oil fields are located in the dessert. The US wouldn't need to occupy the cities, just the oil fields. Secondly while the rest of the world would be hurt by the Arab states refusing to supply us with oil, the damage to their economy would be at least as great, they don't really make much besides oil.

 

[Ed]

Bolton is tossing lighted matches at Iran today. He adds fresh new meaning to the word "diplomat".

The lesson that Iran learned since 911 is that US verbal threats eventually turn into military action. By verbalizing our every militaristic thought we increase the risk of a preemptive strike by Iran, on a target within reach that would result in massive US deaths. To Iran's thinking, if the US plans to attack them, why not get in the first blood?

Because all they would do is piss off everybody else. Last time I looked the missles that they have can hit most of western europe.

BTW, aside from us guys here do you have any references to any specific military threat from the US? Any?

 

[egslim]

First of all I believe that at least the Saudi Oil fields are located in the dessert. The US wouldn't need to occupy the cities, just the oil fields. Secondly while the rest of the world would be hurt by the Arab states refusing to supply us with oil, the damage to their economy would be at least as great, they don't really make much besides oil.

To get the oil actually out, you need people. They need housing and facilities. Infrastructure is also required, needing even more people. What about the harbor facilities necessary to load supertankers? You can't build those overnight.

Economically the Arab states would be destroyed, I agree. But that doesn't benefit us in any way and it won't deter Islamic fundamentalists either.

 

[Ed]

Economically the Arab states would be destroyed, I agree. But that doesn't benefit us in any way and it won't deter Islamic fundamentalists either.

I think that all we can do is keep them poor and keep them contained. I mean, is anyone really concerned about the expansionist claims and superior notions of the Bhutu! people of Central Africa? No. The only rub is that damn oil.

 

[Kerberos]

To get the oil actually out, you need people. They need housing and facilities. Infrastructure is also required, needing even more people. What about the harbor facilities necessary to load supertankers? You can't build those overnight.

True but we're still talking about far less than a total occupation of the Arab states. Also I believe that a very large proportion of the people who work in the oil industry are foreigners anyways so they're unlikely to be insurgents.

Economically the Arab states would be destroyed, I agree. But that doesn't benefit us in any way and it won't deter Islamic fundamentalists either.

People nutty enough to commit that kind of economical hara-kiri, are unlikely to actually get to lead a country

 

[Ed]

People nutty enough to commit that kind of economical hara-kiri, are unlikely to actually get to lead a country

North Korea, USSR under Stalin, a host of african countries. Rest assured, the loons in charge don't starve.

 

[egslim]

I think that all we can do is keep them poor and keep them contained. I mean, is anyone really concerned about the expansionist claims and superior notions of the Bhutu! people of Central Africa? No. The only rub is that damn oil.

Indeed. And to keep them contained it is best to stir the pot as little as possible - though at times it may be necessary.

True but we're still talking about far less than a total occupation of the Arab states.

Without a total occupation, how is such a war ever going to end? Maintaining an occupation army for possibly decades - until the oil runs out - isn't exactly cheap.
To force a surrender, one needs to make the alternative even more unbearable - and don't forget the part religion plays there.

 

[Kopji]

Are you really so clueless that you don't know? Because right now the most aggressive we can contemplate being is limited strikes against their nuclear facilities, and even then congress would have to sign off on it and it's far from a sure thing that they would. But if Iran carried out a first strike? Well, Bush doesn't need congressional approval to retaliate against a direct attack, and he wouldn't need to limit such strikes to nuclear installations either. He could basically pound away at will against any Iranian military facility. You really don't understand the difference between these two scenarios from the mullah's point of view?

Ziggurat
A "first strike" from Iran does not need to be a stupid one. I can be one where they supply arms and people to someone else willing to kill Americans in the region. Additionally, if Iran directly attacked US soldiers on Iraqi or Saudia Arabia soil does that give Bush the right to declare war on their country? He probably feels it does, but the rationale he uses for that comes from the same place that would make Iran feel 'damned if I do damned if I don't'.

The mullahs do not seem big into thinking.

Bush does not need congressional approval to attack Iran at all. He has already given complete authority to do whatever is required. That's the message we got from that law passed shortly after 911 that allows him to bypass FISA laws. He already feels that he has carte' blanche to do whatever it takes "to defend us".

 

[Kopji]

Because all they would do is piss off everybody else. Last time I looked the missles that they have can hit most of western europe.

BTW, aside from us guys here do you have any references to any specific military threat from the US? Any?

Sorry, this is what I have in mind:

Updated: 3:40 p.m. ET March 5, 2006
WASHINGTON - Iran faces “tangible and painful consequences” if it continues its nuclear activities and the United States will use “all tools at our disposal” to stop this threat, a senior U.S. official said Sunday, ahead of a crucial international meeting on Iran.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, speaking at a convention of Jewish-Americans, said it is too soon for the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran but other countries are talking about doing so and Washington is “beefing up defensive measures to cope with the Iranian nuclear threat.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684031/

Isn't "use all tools at our disposal" the same wording we used for military action in Iraq? Here it is...

(I may be naive sometimes but I have a pretty good memory)

United States

U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday at a press conference that it is his firm intention to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power (see GSN, June 17).

“I do firmly believe that the world would be safer and more peaceful if there [was] a regime change in that government,” he said.

“We’ll use all tools at our disposal” to remove Hussein from power, and there are “different ways to do it,” Bush said. He added that he is “involved in the military planning, diplomatic planning, financial planning — all aspects of reviewing all the tools at my disposal” (White House transcript, July 8).
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2002/7/9/2s.html
(sorry about the site, I was just linking the quote for context)

I'm just connecting the dots, saying that maybe Iran might take this choice of words with an ear to history.