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.