Middle East - what's next
 

Its a mess. Its spiraling out of control, diplomacy is moot and I have no idea how it will turn out.

Without getting into debates of who is right/wrong (please, not interested in rehashing the old arguments) etc. ...

Anyone care to predict what will be the state of the region in

1 month
3 months
12 months

the region is and always has been a mess.

All that'll happen in the next 30-365 is that it goes from mess to clusterfuck. Basically, the same only more so.

i'm thinking the US needs to get off oil

World War III. And not just the Middle East.

Greyroofoo. I don't think this current situation has anything to do with oil.

Galaxy. Hope you are wrong, but am pretty pessimistic right now. Hopefully without nukes or chemical weapons.

Barring something unforeseen:

1 month -- about the same as today
3 months -- about the same as today
12 months -- about the same as today

And no, I'm not being flippant or trying to be funny, that's actually my prediction. Plus or minus a little, essentially the same as it's been for as long as most of us have been alive.

Galaxy: How exactly would that come about? This is and will be just a regional conflict. And nothing will get accomplished in the next few months. Eventually Isreal will pull back and there will be a period of relative peace and then it will all start over again.

Until the Palestinians get a leader that's courageous enough to wage peace nothing will change. The sad part is that its the Palestinian people who suffer the most from the status quo, but they're willing to believe its all Israel's fault.

Not just the Middle East, but look at Asia (India-North Korea-China-Japan-Taiwan/Hong Kong) as well.

N. Korea is nothing more than a nuisance. I don't believe they'll cause any real harm unless they are attacked. Even then the war will be over quickly as I think they are a paper tiger with poorly motivated troops and failing equipment. S. Korea would take a beating, but it wouldn't come close to replaying 1950.

The other countries won't do anythng unless provoked and even then they have no interest in a brawl. They are all more focused on money and war will just hurt the bottom line.

I agree with JPhillips. Asia is no closer to a major war now than it has been at any time in the last few decades. The exception might be an India-Pakistan conflict, but even those two countries have been getting along better lately.

The thing everyone forgets is that the situation in the Middle East is the same as it has always been, it is just getting more press now. Heck, I saw some statistics the other day that showed most forms of attacks in Iraq over the first 6 months of this year compared to the first 6 months of last year.

N. Korea is only rattling their saber right now because we are occupied with Iraq and they perceive weakness. It is better for them, and they have more to gain by causing trouble now then after Iraq is under control.

Sadly, so much money is made on the conflict in the Middle East right now that the powers-that-be won't let peace have a chance (even though peace might be just as profitable - just not for them).

I agree with JonInMiddleGA.


Holy crap, my keyboard just exploded! :D

That will have to do. The US military can keep the current level of violence from escalating. We can continue to keep the civil war from starting (which would have started a long time ago had we been forced to leave due to political pressures). That gives the Iraqi Army one more year of on the job training.

The more experience those boys get, the tougher they get, the smarter they get, and the less reliance the Iraqi's will need on our boys.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Is it even possible to have a global war anymore?

Are you implying that the statistics show that attacks in Iraq are at the same level in the first six months of this year compared to the first six months of last year?

I believe it's very possible...the biggest wars seemed to have been tipped off by the smallest of nations.

I believe this new escalation is different though.

First off, and not to blame Bush, but the destabilization of Iraq was one of the checks against Israel. Let's face it, if there was one thing that would nearly unite all the Muslim nations, it would be battling against Israel.

But now, Iraq is the process of new developments. Iran is being held at bay asserting influence on Iraq as well as dealing with pressure for nuclear weapons (a good reason for Israel to reassert the playing field now before Iran has anything tipped on their missles yet). Egypt is a peacemaker this time round. Turkey is too busy trying to keep a good face with the EU. Saudi Arabia is dealing with its own internal violence plus it's largely influenced by US money. So now is Israel's time to wipe out enemies in Palestine, Lebanon and possibly Syria (which the U.S. was eyeing anyway).

Now compound that with the recent terrorist attack leaving 185 plus dead in India's business district of Mumbai (Bombay) and the possible Kashmir link (again Muslim fundamentalists). And you have the makings of a Pakistan-India escalation, which is far more potent and devestating in what could happen because they both have nuclear weapons. Now the U.S. has been playing both sides now (Pakistan with the war on terror and keeping Afghanistan stabilized) and India which is a potent growing world power that isn't communist like China that has resources and people (outsourcing).

Then you have Asia--North Korea may be a joke, but it's got two big allies thanks to communism in Russia and China...because North Korea is like our Cuba. If they don't get what they want, they'll let refugees flood into China and Russia causing issues. Japan is nervous enough to consider militariziration (when's the last time they did that, oh yeah, WW2). South Korea would be the first strike area, so they're not happy. If the U.S. were to do anything to North Korea outside of sanctions, I foresee this to be the powderkeg first to explode into global conflict. China and Russia are very pissed at the U.S. right now, and have been consolidating power and relations because against of the U.S. influence in the Middle East. China has the manpower and industry, Russia has the resources and connections to Europe...makes for a hell of an enemy.

Africa- like I said before should be a main target of U.S. influence, and it's still a haven for corporations and coups. Somalia is now in fundamentalist Muslim hands, and Nigeria isn't much better off. Zimbabwae is a mess. Libya is actually the poster child for a decent nation, which is scary. South Africa is crimeridden. This is a destabilized area that is going to get worse.

South and Central America- Not much I've read that causes concern save for Venezuala's anti-American rhertoric. Crime and drugs are prevalent, but the governments seem stable if not leaning to the left. Not a major concern, in conflict...though I would surmise that if there was a global conflict, we'd have few allies then just in name in this region.

There are many probablities for global war. This is just my view and I'm not an expert.

While I agree with this mostly I think a close eye should be kept on Indonesia. Not the leaders of the state but some of the radical groups there. In the past few years the terror attacks there have been getting worse and I wouldn't be surprised if one of those groups is be responsible for the next really big terror attack.

Also, I completely agree with Jon about the state of the middle east in the short-mid term. I really thought progress was being made there with the israelis leaving a good percentage of their settlements and Abbas taking over but, obviously, things have regressed again.

Sorry, incomplete thought on my part. Attacks, US deaths, car bombings, etc. are down across the board. The one question I did have about the statistics though was regarding car bombs because they were only over a 3 month period.

I'll see if I can find the link...

Thanks. I am really curious about this; not trying to call your out.

Qwik-

I realize there are tensions everywhere in the world, but the whole idea of a global conflict breaking out simultaneously like WWII seems improbable to me. Many of these tensions have been building for years, and the thought that everyone would decide to act on them because of a large regional conflict in the Middle East is just too much for me to accept as a realistic scenario.

Here's the link, I am trusting the data is correct. Basically, kidnappings and multiple bomb fatalities are up, many of the other measurables are down.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...lieberman.html

In general, I agree with you. But, we are also looking at those earlier global conflicts in hindsight. Clearly, the writing was on the wall a couple years ahead of WWII that there would be a large-scale conflict at some point. But what about at five years? Ten? Did people then think such a conflict would be possible down the road? For that matter, did people think that something like WWI would occur due to the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand?

I really think there are a number of factors at work in Iraq:

1) We've been over there for several years, and there is no date for withdrawl.

Personally, I see no reason for having a date because the job will be done when it is done. Additionally, if our presence in Iraq over the long run stabilizes the region, then it is worth it. If democracy can take hold in Iraq, there is hope for the region. Saudi Arabia is unstable because of the repressive government there. The same holds true for Egypt. The key is to have a true democracy in Iraq.

2) Creating bad news creates readers and viewers.

No one is very interested in good news. The news networks focus on the negative, or create a negative atmosphere to gain readership and viewers in an attempt to increase advertising revenues.

3) As a country, we have grown soft.

This is something that really bugs me. Anytime anyone gets hurt, dies, etc. someone feels the need to sue, because someone should have ensured that they weren't going to get hurt. Sure, product XYZ wasn't designed for ABC activity, but it was possible to do, and so the manufacturer needs to be sued, etc.

When we enter the realm of war, anytime someone dies we cringe. Unfortunately, death is part of war. If we are willing to go to war, we must be ready to accept the consequences. If the press reported WWII as they report Iraq, and as they reported Vietnam, I question whether we would have had the stomach to win WWII. Would there have been the outcry over Tokyo and Dresden fire bombings that we have had over civilian deaths in Iraq, which are probably still a fraction of the death toll of the Dresden and Tokyo fire bombings.

The result of all this is an electorate that wants to get out of Iraq.

1 year, 3 years, 12 years, 50 years, a century. It will always be a mess as ancient hatreds and lack of economic prosperity continue to destabilize the region.

But in WWII, we had one power bent on conquering Europe and Asia through military conflict. Other than North Korea, none of these countries with their regional conflicts has designs on occupying an entire region. I'm not even sure anyone would want the job, after what happened to the USSR. So the thought of all of these countries rising up and needing to defend themselves against a dark and sinister power is a very remote possibility. Now, you put the USSR back on the map, with their stated goal of occupying all of Europe, and I could see a global war.

CNN reporting that "Israel's foreign ministry says it has information that Lebanese guerillas are trying to transfer the captured Israeli soldiers to Iran."

Yeah, this is gonna end well.

I saw something on the news this AM about conflict moving to Iran, Seria and Lebanon. Anybody see anything in more detail on this? As I walked out the door, the President was on TV and it looked like it was broadcast from Germany.

That would be amazing. I am amazed there isn't more international pressure for resoluation. Bush basically gave support to Israel. This gonna be big. The beautiful thing is Israel is like a Cat's Paw for the U.S. in this...the U.S. will be able to come right in and set up shop.

Hopefully, trying is the key word and the phone call consisted of..

"Hey, we would like to transfer Israeli soldiers to your country"

"Ahh.. are you kidding me?"

Just pulled this off the newsline, pretty much covers the recent events. Kinda long, but again it is all there.

If those captured soldiers do get sent to Iran, they will become the modern day versions of Archduke Ferdinand.

We may see World War 3 yet.

In statements, USA backs Israel (shock!), Russia and France condemn Israel's attacks.

What's so beautiful about that?

Crap... gas prices are going to go through the roof...

And why in the world is Isreal attacking north Lebanese areas when the Lebanese government isn't exactly fans of Hezbollah in the first place (remember the anti-Syrian guys took over fairly recently)?

From another version of the same basic story, I noticed the most encouraging thing yet


If that's an accurate reading (and who knows whether it is or not), sounds as though there's a chance that some of the potential players are willing to sit this one out.

edit to add: ... although that could just as easily be what everyone is supposed to think until it serves a purpose to reveal otherwise.

Uh...if Israel should attack Syria and/or Iran, the U.S. will not look as the direct instigator. And could in fact, stay out of the battlefield entirely, than invading and occupying other Middle East countries with force.

Gotcha. I didn't quire understand what you meant.

Depends on what Isreal does to Lebanon. Seeing as how Syria are the guys who directly support Hezbollah and the fact that the Lebanese parliament is very anti-Syria currently, Isreal would have done better to bomb Syria's airports.

What can be said? Israel gave up Gaza settlements and they were used against them to launch raids. Why won't this situation continue forever? As my father-in-law says they will be fighting each other until they run out of rocks.

Did he give mad props to Einstein?

???

i was refering to the rocks comment. thought your dad might be as well.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

I believe that the Lebanese government has not taken any action to disarm and take out the Hezbollah, and Isreal does not want them on its border. Hopefully this is correct.

Isreal city of Haifa has been hit by two rockets from Lebanon?

An trivial question, but isn't Lebanon a very mixed country of Muslims and Christians?

Thanks for the post. China is the "darkhorse". North Korea may not look like a serious threat, but's it a good pong that could be kicked. China may be looking at Tibet, Taiwain, and fully bring Hong Kong (it's part of China, but not under its complete control) to take back. Also, I believe Iran and North Korea have a good relationship as well.

Wars are usually build over a few years, like a game of chess.

Yeah, the gas price issue is going to suck. I’m hearing people are panicking about the possibility of gas prices doubling in areas like California. I'm sure a lot of this is just panic.

Pretty much from the article, the Israeli’s said the air field was being used to transport weapons and supplies to Hezbollah and was in a Hezbollah controlled suburb. The article also indicated Hezbollah operates with total autonomy in Southern Lebanon, but the Lebanese have refused international pressure to disarm Hezbollah. The Israeli defense minister indicated they are deploying forces because Lebanon will not and Israel will no longer let Hezbollah remain along the border. I think they are pretty much concerned about the new longer ranged rockets Hezbollah is using.

The fact Abbas is asking the foreign powers to intervene is pretty telling as well. He is afraid a full scale regional war is about to erupt. He is no fool, he knows were that leaves him. I think this is quite a bit different from the norm.

I say we give Israel all the hardware it wants, and turn them loose. Seriously. If Canada and Mexico refused to acknowledge the right of the USA to exist, and were constantly sending suicide bombers over the boarder, we'd have blown them back to the jurassic by now.

Latest News:
An extremist organization called the “Gilad Shalhevet Brigades” claimed it kidnapped two Palestinians, residents of the Jerusalem area. In a statement issued by the groups it was said that the hostages will be released only in exchange for the Israeli soldiers abducted in Gaza and Lebanon.

The Lebanese government isn't strong enough to disarm and take out Hezbollah. It moves against them and there is a long, drawn out civil war, which would probably end with a stalemate peace with Hezbollah in more control of Southern Lebanon.

This idea that no matter how strong a government is (and the new anti-Syria government was just getting starting) it should control guerillas or terrorist groups in their territory (no matter how strong that group is) is utterly ridiculous.

If Isreal just went after Hezbollah and their leadership in Southern Lebanon, the Lebanese government would probably be privately thankful. No country likes to have a power goverment-like group in its borders. If they could have gotten rid of the Syria backed Hezbollah (as they did with Syrian forces a year ago) they would.

Yes, because that's exactly what happened. :rolleyes:

Hmm ... I don't think they thought this move through very well. I'd say there's a better chance of the Israeli soldiers being released because FOFC said to do it than there is of them being exchanged for a random pair of Palestinians.

That's what should have been done years ago, but since it hasn't happened already I'd say there's about zero chance of it happening now.

Uh - Israel's been able to buy everything they wanted from the US for quite some time - I believe the only restrictions are on them transferring stuff to other countries (like pre-apartheid South Africa). They're also the no 1 reciever of US aid - which is absurd for a first world country.

Buying it and being cleared to use it are two dramatically different thing, and you know that as well as I do.

They aren't lacking the materials, they're lacking the "turned loose" part.

A defensive war is a losing war. That's the problem Israel has had. They only break out the big guns when they're invaded... it's all reactionary, and generally kept within their own borders.

Their military is superior to any other in the middle east, excluding our own. If they weren't so restrained, they could be doing a lot of damage over there.

How about we just let Israel solve it's own problems? They have plenty of hardware and their government runs on a surplus.

2 Israeli soldiers captured
45 civilians killed in Israeli attacks. Restrained?

Yes. Extremely restrained.

The fact that there's been two stones left stacked together for the past several decades is more restraint than I believe is warranted.

Oh well. To be honest I really wouldn't care if we would just stay out of it. Unfortunately, we'll probably meddle.

I don't think those numbers are correct, at least not anymore. I think there are more of both and Israeli citizens have been killed as well. If not just today.

I would support that wholeheartedly.

We share mutual enemies, and the Israeli's are far more palatable as allies than were, say, the Soviets in the 40's.

I have heard that quote from him before but there's no way my father in law was quick enough to pull that one off. Not sure if he would have ever read a thing about Einstein.

Israel would wipe the floor with the small nations that are over there and I agree with what some have said. If the world didn't hold them back, often times we're the ones that convince them not to do anything, they very well could run the majority of that area.

Never said it was what should happen, just was is happening, with the expection I mispoke on the government was doing being forced to do it themselves, but that they were resisting international pressure.

Could Israel take on a multi-Arab nation force?

Fair 'nuff.

---

Anyway, the one thing the US should REALLY watch out for is if Isreal decides to go after Syria and this thing total explodes into a Pan-Arabian war. The reason is because the Iraq government will not go the way we wish. It could go even worse for us in Iraq as a result.

Reference 1967 for proof of this ability.

I was going to say the same thing.

The abused child becomes the abusive parent. How ironic.

Rowech, Cartman. 1967 was a long time ago. The multi-arab force could be more than just conventional forces that were defeated. I am not confident that Israel could survive a dogfight by itself (ex. without US help) if it came to a full-fledge fight.

Israel still has the technological advantage. The Arab states have mainly 15 to 20 year old Soviet technology like the T72 and MiGs. The Israelis have basically a mini stockpile of American technology, and they watched closely how we used the stuff in both Iraqi conflicts over the past 15 years.

And the Israeli's now have pushed the ante by bombing the highways - in effect, civilian targets at this point.

Damn war. My 401K/IRA going down the tubes.

No doubt the war is unsettling the markets.

Any financial advisors here? I'm not optimistic that the market will move up and will continue going down until the Middle East situation stabilizes.

Things will always change, both for the worse and for the better. So far, the moderate Arab states are basically shrugging their shoulders, which is really pissing off the hard-liners (esp. equating them with being in league with the Zionists). Israel has done this before (making a statement) but this time they don't want land - just a buffer zone and a big sign that says leave the fuck alone.

Hardly a purely civilian target.

Agreed, but the photos seem to show it being chok full of cars trying to leave the country and what not.

This situation is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And surely we're going to add fuel to the fire at some point, so we can just raze the entire middle east, assuming we'll get what we want in doing so.

Which of course, isn't true.

I had a friend who's studying here and was home visiting for a month. He managed to get out of Beruit, just before they bombed the airport coming in yesterday at like 3am or something.

Maybe so, but it also serves as a way for supplies to enter the country. Textbook war strategy. The good part,for Israel, is that the enemy cannot get new weapons and such, but the bad part is that the civilians cannot get food, medicine, etc. I hope that they find a way to bring humanitarian aid to the one that need it.

That came out of no where.

I chuckled reading the first line of this post and glancing at your username. :)

Galaxy. Yeah, I know. I'll start another thread.

I also think they tend not to want to go over to a purely offensive mode because they always end up with more land full of Arabs that hate them. They could probably take most of Syria under their control if they felt like it, but that's more annoyance then help in their eyes.

Fill up tomorrow. This fucking blows.

Frankly, I'm not sure where the first half of that attitude serves any real purpose.

If you fill up, okay, that's a half a tank of gas (or whatever) for $3.35 (or whatever your current gas price is), and just further encourages the station owner to raise the price of gas. If there's a run, after all, why risk selling it all at a lower price if you can get more for it?

Then, of course, when you buy your second tank of gas, and you pay $3.50 or $3.55 for it, that's 20 cents a gallon. On a 20 gallon tank, that's an extra 4 bucks you're spending.

Nothing against you personally, but filling up tomorrow to save two bucks (half a tank) just strikes me as behavior that plays directly into the hands of the oil companies. If the price of gas is going up anyway, wouldn't you be better off making lifestyle changes to reduce your consumption of gasoline, such as carpooling, than going for a knee-jerk fill-up of your gas tank?

The terrorists probably should have thought about that before they instigated with acts of war. Do you at least agree with that?

Oil's gone up 200% in two years, and the last 2 years really haven't been THAT eventful, relative to potential. When Ahmadinejad makes a pointed comment, prices go up $3/barrel. If the next two years have sustained actual conflicts involving Iran/Israel, what then?

Oil prices are either a speculative bubble subject to collapse (which inventory numbers seem to dispute), or our economy and society could dramatically change very, very quickly.

Regardless to the history of Israel/Lebanon/Palestine et al. and who started this latest conflict etc... I've always thought that clear cut military is fair game but never clear-cut civilians.

Ex. Attack on Israeli military/reserve unit is fair game. Attack on Hamas rocket positions and Hamas leadership is fair game.

Ex. Attack on an Israeli pizza parlor or bus is not. Attack on Lebanese civilians (or at least a high potential of hurting them) is not.

I can't help but believe Israel has lost the 'high moral ground' so far. This is not to say they are wrong in wanting to get their military troops back, but the damage they are inflicting on clear-cut civilians hurts their image.

I guess the argument is that Hamas and Hezbollah hide within the ranks of the civilians and therefore there will be unevitable collateral damage. I can see this argument but the latest Israeli reaction/offensive seems pretty indiscriminate to me.

:rolleyes:
you've just got all the answers there big guy.

I have never heard of carpooling or reducing consumption, I haven't been trying to do anything of that nature at all

:rolleyes:
The price is going to go up regardless of whether i fill up my car tomorrow or not, but I will at least feel somewhat better about a situation I have no control over with my finite resources.


I live in buttfuck egypt, and don't make a lot of money, unfortunately to drive to my shit job is pretty costly right now. And it's going to be 5 dollars or some shit within a few months most likely.

And rolling your eyes negates the point. Powerful debate tactic, that. I'm going to have to remember it the next time Jon and I get into a scrap!


Not suggesting you haven't been. Only saying that doing that is probably going to do you more good than filling up tomorrow as a knee-jerk reaction. Gas prices are going to go up regardless, and filling up to save a couple of bucks almost ensures that you're going to give that couple of bucks back faster than otherwise you might.


Yes, precisely, they will. So contributing to a more rapid increase in that rise, which will drain your resources more quickly, makes you feel better about a situation over which none of us have any control? I'm not sure I follow.


Welcome to my life, except for the bit about living in buttfuck, egypt.

I don't make much money either, and yeah, driving to work costs one hell of a lot more than I'd like.

But that still doesn't help me see how a knee-jerk fill-up is going to make that situation any better for me in the long run.

Again, I'm not aiming at you specifically when I say these things. I'm addressing the mindset behind an attitude that you are not alone in expressing.

When someone cries this enough time, it might actually be right. Aren't we supposed to have been there already?

I have a suggestion: Stop going to the news sites and their BIG FONT headlines.

And if it is ... it is.

Not one damned bit of positive impact will come from you worrying about it, and not really one damned thing you can do prevent it.

Tis true, I'm in a bad mood right now, got a lot of shit going on, can't get my fucking calipers off the front of my car, looks like I'll have to take it in for pads. Wife had a good job interview on monday, might be carpetbagging(bristol TN) again in august, will have to get my shit together to move very quickly and it's stressing me out badly.

Dude, I kinda had a feeling it was something beyond gas prices ;)

You've got plenty on your plate already, so my unsolicited advice is to focus on the stuff you can do something about & leave the other shit alone for a while, no sense in borrowing extra worries when you ain't got no shortage.

Uhh, no.

Lebanese launched missiles at the nearest big city across the border, indiscriminately aiming into a densely populated civilian target. The Israelis are more than justified in making sure it's a little more difficult to drive additional truckloads of them within range again by surgically removing a piece of highway.

Franklinnoble. There's no doubt who was attacked first in this latest round of Lebanon/Israeli conflict. Regardless, there needs to be a distinction between Lebanon and Hezbollah.

There is a distinction but it doesn't matter. Israel is concerned about self-preservation. If Iran gets the bomb, then Israel will be in serious trouble. Syria has supported the Hezzbollah in Lebanon and they've done their best to incite. Hamas in Palestine is no better. Has Israel invited some of this with their actions in the past few months, I would say yes, but once it's on, it's on. If they destroy Lebanon and Syria, then they only have a few outlets to fear, and Palestine will have to comply because there will be little backing support from anywhere, save Iran.

Like all good terrorists, these guys are cowards. Hide amoung civilians, don't come out and fight, hold their own people hostage with threats of killing, etc. Yet, they are the hardest group to fight for these exact reasons. The wars being fought today are not being fought against traditional "here's our border, there's your border" countries.

As for gas...I never understand this...certainly it sucks but you have to have it. There's nothing else most of us can do short of riding a bicycle/walking so if that's not an option, we have to fill it up and accept that it is what it is.

Blame car companies for continuing with this crap. If they would hurry up and figure something out our dependence on this volitaile region would all but be gone.

Not everyone lives in civilization. It's just not an option for a lot of people to carpool and public transportation is non-existant in most of the country. At least, in a worthwhile manner anyway.

Problem is this, the current Lebanese government is fairly new (like a year old). It is the one that kicked Syrian troops out after the assasination of a prominant anti-Syrian Lebanese politician who also happened to be the Prime Minister (the "Cedar Revolution"). It is also a pro-US government. If Isreal destroys Lebanon, then the result is going to be a pro-Iran, anti-US force taking over the governance of the area, which in the long run is not good for Isreal.

Isreal, if they'd been thinking, should have said in the beginning, that they are just going after Hezbollah, not Lebanon and maybe even gotten Lebanese help (they don't really like Hezbollah, but they live with them because they have to).