Blackhatjack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 12:30 PM
Original message |
What Would 'Regional War' Look Like in the Middle East? ... |
|
Would the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia be in danger of overthrow? How would Kuwait be affected? Would there be a 'stoppage of the flow of oil' out of the Middle East? Would Iran gain or lose power? Would militant islamic groups come to power and control flow of oil?
How would Israel react, and would Israel survive?
And how would a 'Regional War' ever come to an end, with so many countries and parties and interests set against one another?
|
itsmesgd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 12:49 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Unfortunately, I believe that we are on the brink of seeing this play out. The house of Saud is hosting Dick this weekend- that's never a good sign. Is he telling them about any plans that we have in the works or is he trying to judge their position? Is Dick trying to count friends and determine enemies? Kuwait is trying to keep a low profile and not draw attention to itself (being one of the smallest players in the region). They are probably also feeling "heat" for hosting our bases. Oil...who knows, but we can be assured that it would not be pretty. Would price go up, supplies dry up, or reserves become a target of attack? Iran, I predict would be set to gain power in the region. This especially after hosting Syria and Iraq meetings. A wildcard in this scenario would be, as always, Israel. Isreal and the US would be the big question marks to a regional war.(or would we call it "regional strife"?)
|
Blackhatjack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. US v. Venezuela b/c of Mutual Cooperation & Defense Initiative w/Iran? |
|
The impact of reduced oil availability to the US would be ratcheted up if Chavez cut off oil deliveries to the US at the time the Middle East flow was stopped.
Makes you wonder if the US would take 'military action' against Venezuela for national security purposes in such an environment.
|
Blackhatjack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. If you were Kim Il Jong, what would you do re; South Korea? China v. Taiwan? |
|
There would be global implications caused by the uncertainty of Regional War in the Middle East, and the United States' inabililty to react militarily.
Both N.Korea and China would most likely take advantage of the circumstances.
|
itsmesgd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. I don't believe "we" could |
|
In the event of a middle eastern "distress" we could not afford to attack Venezuela. How could the government sell it to us, national security? I don't think that it would happen. The admin would smile, shut up, and pay for oil at highly inflated prices. They would be upset that they could not get any profit from it as they do now from mid east oil, but they would face a domestic disater if they tried to strike.
|
Blackhatjack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. I think the problem would be that oil would not be available for the US to buy... |
|
Think about limited supply. China and other countries would be better choices for ME countries to sell to than the US. It might not be 'available' to the US at all at any price, (unless we bought it from China and these other countries at astronomical prices).
The dollar would be supplanted as the world currency.
It might be a 'fix' that the US could not manage in the short term.
Therefore, any response in that environment would be possible.
|
Richard D
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
. . . that if the US attacked Venezuela, at least a couple other SA countries would join in. He's pretty popular down there. This wouldn't be pretty at all.
|
Blackhatjack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. The US already has bases and troops in SA, so likelihood is increased ...n/t |
leftofthedial
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 12:51 PM
Response to Original message |
2. if the repukes remain a viable political party in the US |
|
for another decade, we certainly will find out
|
Swede
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 02:38 PM
Response to Original message |
9. How will the west react when Turkey attacks the Kurds. |
|
That will be an interesting day.
|
independentpiney
(966 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. That imo is the likely nightmare waiting to happen |
|
And hardly anyone I talk to has any idea of the history and what's going to likely go down there.
|
Blackhatjack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. The US problem there is we staked both sides on that issue... |
|
... I believe it will happen because of the autonomy of the Kurds in the North post-Saddam. Turkey is not going to allow that to be the final resolution, and the Kurds are not going to give up now that they have control of a 'homeland.'
That could in fact force the US to 'choose' between protecting the Kurds and supporting a key ally.
|
independentpiney
(966 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. Exactly, and 50% of the +/- 20 million Kurds live in Turkey |
|
with more in Syria, Iran and Azerbaijan. Kurds are not going to give up Kirkuk, which the Sunnis want and Baker is supposedly offering to them. They''ll secede before that happens, and the 11 Turkish provinces that are majority Kurdish are going to fight to unify with them, and Turkish repression will be brutal. It may well even be a larger problem for the EU than for the US. Israel also is likely to be pulled in as well imo.
|
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 05:03 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Is this some phrase that's being trotted around on cable?
If you're simply talking about everybody going to war against each other, I'd see it as Iran invading Iraq, Syria invading Lebanon, Iran possibly going after Kuwait, the Saudis dealing with their own insurrection, maybe Israel and Egypt going at it, and Jordan trying to remain neutral.
|
Blackhatjack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-26-06 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. War-gaming has pointed out the impossibility of defining exactly what would happen |
|
There are lots of shifting alliances and conflicts that are dependent upon the timing of events, and the parties allied with one another.
I think you put a possible scenario on the table. However, I would say Israel is the wild card. You never know what Israel will do, and what arab responses will be to certain events.
There are no 'moderate' US allies in the Middle East that do not have opposition forces within their borders which could be pushed to attempt an overthrow of their present government and/or rulers.
Kuwait is basically defenseless to its neighbors. The Royal Family in Saudi Arabia could go the way of the Shah of Iran under the right circumstances. And there is no way you reach a solution that does not include Israel, the PLO, the Kurds located in Iraq and Turkey, and Turkey's opposition to the Kurds itself.
The whole region is a powder keg just waiting to explode.
|
Imagevision
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-26-06 12:26 AM
Response to Original message |
15. Poppy Bush and Cheney found it necessary to do some splainin to the Saudi's |
|
this week, Bush is doing a lot worse then is being reported.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 09:50 AM
Response to Original message |