Home » CHIT-CHAT » Off Topic Discussions » All-out Middle East war as good as it gets
| All-out Middle East war as good as it gets[message #310427]
|
Thu, 20 September 2012 06:42
|
|
abradley |
 |
Messages:225
Registered:December 2001 |
|
|
Spengler gets out his crystal ball and sees the future ... it ain't pretty:Quote: Sep 18, 2012
SPENGLER
All-out Middle East war as good as it gets
By Spengler
TEL AVIV - It is hard to remember a moment when the United States' foreign policy establishment showed as much unanimity as in its horror at the prospect of a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran.
In a September 10 report for Georgetown University's Center for Strategic and International Studies, Anthony Cordesman warns, "A strike by Israel on Iran will give rise to regional instability and conflict as well as terrorism. The regional security consequences will be catastrophic."
And a "bi-partisan" experts' group headed by former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and co-signed by most of the usual suspects states, "Serious costs to US interests would also be felt over the longer term, we believe, with problematic consequences for global and regional stability, including economic stability. A dynamic of escalation, action, and counteraction could produce serious unintended consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and lead, potentially, to all-out regional war."
If a contrarian thought might be permitted, consider the possibility that all-out regional war is the optimal outcome for American interests. An Israeli strike on Iran that achieved even limited success - a two-year delay in Iran's nuclear weapons development - would arrest America's precipitous decline as a superpower.
Absent an Israeli strike, America faces:
A nuclear-armed Iran;
Iraq's continued drift towards alliance with Iran;
An overtly hostile regime in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood government will lean on jihadist elements to divert attention from the country's economic collapse;
An Egyptian war with Libya for oil and with Sudan for water;
A radical Sunni regime controlling most of Syria, facing off an Iran-allied Alawistan ensconced in the coastal mountains;
A de facto or de jure Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the Kingdom of Jordan;
A campaign of subversion against the Saudi monarchy by Iran through Shi'ites in Eastern Province and by the Muslim Brotherhood internally;
A weakened and perhaps imploding Turkey struggling with its Kurdish population and the emergence of Syrian Kurds as a wild card;
A Taliban-dominated Afghanistan;
and
Radicalized Islamic regimes in Libya and Tunisia.
Saudi Arabia is the biggest loser in the emerging Middle East configuration, and Russia is the biggest winner. Europe and Japan have concluded that America has abandoned its long-standing commitment to the security of energy supplies in the Persian Gulf by throwing the Saudi monarchy under the bus, and have quietly shifted their energy planning towards Russia. Little of this line of thinking will appear in the news media, but the reorientation towards Moscow is underway nonetheless.
From Israel's vantage point, the way things are now headed is the worst-case scenario. The economic sanctions are a nuisance for Iran, but not a serious hindrance to its nuclear ambitions. When US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey intoned on August 30 that he "did not want to be complicit" in an Israeli strike on Iran, he was stating publicly what the Pentagon has signaled to Tehran for the past six months. The US wants no part of an Israeli strike.
(Continued)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/NI18Aa01.html How easy will it be for Israel to bomb the targets?
Page 9 of this AFA pamphlet suggest it would be impossible, but the pamphlet is an ad for buying more F-22s so most likely is biased against the older aircraft.
That said ... IMHO, it will still be a tough nut to crack.
[Updated on: Thu, 20 September 2012 06:44] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: All-out Middle East war as good as it gets[message #311354]
|
Sun, 21 October 2012 13:05 
|
|
Khor1255 |
 |
Messages:1815
Registered:August 2003 Location: Pleasantville, NJ |
|
|
Probably, but the question here is what we will do to support them.
[Updated on: Sun, 21 October 2012 13:05] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
| Re: All-out Middle East war as good as it gets[message #311468]
|
Wed, 24 October 2012 00:14 
|
|
DaethWalker |
 |
Messages:98
Registered:September 2003 Location: Rocky Point, NC |
|
|
Well, I think support for Israel is a given, no matter who is president or which party rules in Washington. Any thing less would be political suicide.
Now, what exactly that support will be? No idea. The middle-east is so screwed up and fractured now, I have no idea what the fallout will be.
We'll certainly join in once Iran starts trouble in the Straits of Hormuz, if not sooner. But, whether or not the rest of the middle-east will implode as stated in the article is nowhere near as likely as it was even 2-3 years ago.
I think most of Iran's neighbors are tired of Iran being the bully on the block. I think they are tired of war and terrorism.
Most have already chosen sides and will not be betting on a losing horse.
Yes, most of the governments will pay lip-service to Iran and condemn the attacks, but they have enough troubles in their own countries that they will not get involved further than that.
Yes, there will be riots in the streets, but that's happening at the drop of a hat on a daily basis already. Hezbolla and Hamas will start firing more missiles and sending out more suicide bombers.
To be perfectly honest, with the situation as it is right now in the middle-east. It's probably the best time to attack Iran. Get it over with as quickly as possible and start cleaning up with diplomacy and foriegn aid.
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal 1st Class
|
|
|
|
| Re: All-out Middle East war as good as it gets[message #312153]
|
Fri, 16 November 2012 22:10
|
|
Rouger |
 |
Messages:20
Registered:April 2008 Location: Sweden |
|
|
Sorry for the necro but. well.
caling out Iran as the bully on the block is neither truthfull nor fruitfull.
The region has changed much since the fall of the Comintern, even more so since the fall of Saddam and and the ongoing reforms since the arabspring but you can still divide it into a few neat blocks.
But remember that the definition of the region that shold be used isn't the geographic stretching from the anatolian step, caucasus down to suez and east to the afghan border but rather the area directly involved.
So let's think of i as clusters.
1. The Iranian cluster as it is the country in question, encompassing both Iran, Iraq, Assad's Syria and Half of Lebanon.
2. The Ryalist/Salafist Arabians, Self explanatory, Here you got the Saudis, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Parts of UAE. Main objective for the governments here is to stay in power but fringe groups are actively supporting sunni sedition in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Central Asia hell, everywhere.
3. Israel and The US main goal here is stability, as well as reducing the threat risk, of any country not just Iran
4. Europe: Oil, it's all about the oil and trade to be honest. As The US has withdrawn from the Iranian market (officially) the slack was picked up by Europe. A little known fact is an agremeent from the Shah era in which Sweden pledges to supply Iran with nuclear technology, the agreement is valid but impossible. The Ballkicking jawdropper here isn't the possibility of a closed market but the need for Iran as a transit country for oil:
The Ceyhan pipeline can transport some of the central asian oil as well as the Azeri oil to the world market, the rest goes through the russian pipelines (one of the roadblocks on russias road to WTO membership).But for years now Central asian oil has been taken to Iran and sold domestically there whilst Iran has sold their oil as Turkmeni (mostly)
5. China. China doesn't have to take part in it and thats a stance in itself, except for trade agreements they don't have to depend on the middle east fo fuel as members of SCO can provide them with reasonable amounts.
6. Wild Cards: Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon.
7. Dependants: Armenia, Georgia, Azerbadjan.
8. Russia: Russia has the luxury of doing whatever it wants right now, any regional conflict will have a hard time affecting russia in anyway.
So Let's play the scenario of Israeli attacks on Iran, Wonderfull isn't it, solving problems with bombs. Well Chances are that those bombs won't be able to penetrate the rock cover of the nuclear installations, chances are that the Iranians actually has some bright engineers (remember that Iran and the Historical Persia holds the record for being sovereign AND literate).
So the Israeli F-16's (Iran's airforce uses tomcats) or what they will use will direct the next wave on the Industrial backbone, Powerinstallations and abovementioned pipelines disrupting export.
So what we have as an effect of that is an economical weakened but enraged Iran, people don't get less pissed off if you smack them in the face, 70 000 years of face bashing has proven that.
So since the US has invested interest in the region and will support isreal you will have Boghammers taking potshots on every passing tanker, demanding more manpower to secure shipments.
And thats just the small thing.
The big ramafication is that the Israelis in doing this wether or not with American help are commiting a crime, no matter what you think of Iran you have to acknowledge the fact that a foreign secretary like Liebermann (nuke gaza, if anyone remember?) Israel is Irans Iran.
So Even if Sunni countries in the area didn't jump with joy at the thought of a nuclear Iran they still have to voice disdain for israels actions, If they don't the Shia minorites will have a grab your gun and head out to the field day.
The attack might even prove unifying.
Turkey and Egypt will most likely maintain their newly gained distrust towards Israel and so will Jordan. The citizens of Lebanon will duck and cover as Hizbollah retaliates and Israel gives another go at the never working bomb Beirut strategy.
Since the outflow of oil from Iran will lessen, the Baku Ceyhan pipeline will be more important, making Azerbadzjan and Georgia more important to the world economy than anyone wants them to be.
Bombing iranian nuclear installations will give you nothing but more problems, enthropy: creating order means creating more chaos.
The only reasonable solution is a missile defence in the most workable nation, the one whoose closest of actually being able to attain a resemblance of a modern state, but with the utter destruction of Iraq back in the first gulf war I have no idea of what that can be so in my wiev the world should settle for bombing rocket sites.
Taking out rocket sites will diminish the possibility of an attack to a level of nothingness and I'm not talking about Iranian sites solely but Israeli as well since Israel is a threat to the rest of the region. no question about it (on this point i don't accept any dissenting wiews, simply because they all fall under the cathegory "Pro-whateverist statements that won't be refuted by simple reasoning"
But of course we will end up with an illegal unilateral or joint israeli, american strikeforce delta geopolitical retardation team mucking it up. And all I can say is "gon' go get me 'nother beer now, pour me some bourbon too"
edit: got me a primator, Guess whats on the nes, close but I'll wait with the cigars"
[Updated on: Fri, 16 November 2012 22:16] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Jun 12 02:38:01 GMT+3 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00634 seconds
|