AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Rise of iran a good thing?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
When I was posting in another thread about how all the Arab states secretly oppose Hamas, I was reminded of another thing. And that is, because of the rise of Iran, the Arab states have a huge incentive to cooperate with both Israel and the U.S. By making Iraq Shiite, did America somehow change the balance of power in the region to force the Arab states to accept ally status to both us and Israel?
I think it has nothing to do with shiite/non-shiite considerations, although this may seem to make sense with regard to the fundamentalist Islamic furor in the ME.

It is simply the fear of Iran becoming dominant in the ME, politically and militarily. The Saudi princes want to cling to their power, and so does Mubarak, and so do all the other small potentates there.

Granted, Iran is not so powerful economically or militarily, but it has the propaganda edge among malcontents and the will to cause trouble. Militarily, Iran is probably stronger militarily than the other Arab countries in the ME, but not strong enough to indulge in overt lebensraum.
Anon,

It's a good question. I would answer NO,if by "ally" you mean semi- permanent. However,obviously it has caused this temporary alliance. Israel is no threat to Egypt or Saudi Arabia,but,radical Islam is.

We tend to look down on these Arabs,but,they're as shrewd as anyone else.
Palladin Wrote:Anon,

It's a good question. I would answer NO,if by "ally" you mean semi- permanent. However,obviously it has caused this temporary alliance. Israel is no threat to Egypt or Saudi Arabia,but,radical Islam is.

We tend to look down on these Arabs,but,they're as shrewd as anyone else.

I think I like the word "clever" better Patrick.
I agree with Palladin. Bing West has said on several occasions he has seen Shiites working with sunnnis whenever it fit eachother's purposes. they will be united if they have a common enemy, but once that enemy is finished they turn on eachother. Saudi Arabia has no reason to fear anybody, really. they have the most rabid Sunni Islamisofascists out of anyone.
That's true, ghoullio, but none of the Arabs see *any* common purpose with Iran. They're scared of Iran because Iran actually has aspirations to rule the region, unlike Israel. So I don't see their interests 'converging' with Iran anytime soon.

And here's the second thing: we can't invade Iran or stop them, no matter what anyone else says. All we can do is contain them. this means that most Arab governments are being forced into an *indefinite* alliance with Israel.
I don't know if any arab potentate havean interrest to cooperate with Israel. But they secretely fear Iran as much as Israel does.

Doesn't make them ally or friend.
If the Arabs ever evolved culturally beyond 1100AD, then we might see Bismarkian politics played out again in the ME. So, while some Arabs may tacitly be glad Israel is there as a counterbalance, they will not go so far as to make any mutual defense or other treaties with Israel.

Was it Martin Luther who actually freed the West so it could invent the industrial revolution and (re)invent democracy? What was it that let the West get beyond tribalism, tyrants and religious fundamentalism?
jt Wrote:What was it that let the West get beyond tribalism, tyrants and religious fundamentalism?

The Medieval Warm Period.
jt Wrote:If the Arabs ever evolved culturally beyond 1100AD, then we might see Bismarkian politics played out again in the ME. So, while some Arabs may tacitly be glad Israel is there as a counterbalance, they will not go so far as to make any mutual defense or other treaties with Israel.

Was it Martin Luther who actually freed the West so it could invent the industrial revolution and (re)invent democracy? What was it that let the West get beyond tribalism, tyrants and religious fundamentalism?

Industrialized economy.
Which is the same reason why Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel were able to achieve rational values despite not being Christian, whereas the whole of Latin America is mired in tyranny and primitive social customs despite being deeply Christian.

As for Martin Luther, his ideals also 'freed' Germany to partake in 30 years of sectarian slaughter.
Anonymous24 Wrote:That's true, ghoullio, but none of the Arabs see *any* common purpose with Iran. They're scared of Iran because Iran actually has aspirations to rule the region, unlike Israel. So I don't see their interests 'converging' with Iran anytime soon.

And here's the second thing: we can't invade Iran or stop them, no matter what anyone else says. All we can do is contain them. this means that most Arab governments are being forced into an *indefinite* alliance with Israel.

an interesting article from Bill Roggio. it seems Osama's son was ferrying messages beyween Ayman Alzawahiri, AQ's second in command, and Suileman, leader of Al Qods forces in Iran. Zawahiri was concerned about ticking off Iran wanted their continued support.

Bill Roggio Wrote:Osama bin Laden's son coordinated communications between al Qaeda's second-in-command and Iran’s Qods Force, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Sa'ad bin Laden facilitated communications between Ayman al Zawahiri and Qods Force, the notorious special operations branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, in September 2008 after the deadly attack on the US embassy in Yemen.

Sa'ad entered Pakistan’s northwest to meet with Zawahiri in Pakistan sometime in early September, according to Mike McConnell, the outgoing Director of National Intelligence. Sa'ad's whereabouts is currently unknown, but he is still thought to be with al Qaeda’s senior leadership inside Pakistan. Sa'ad, his brother Hamza, and other senior al Qaeda leaders are known to routinely travel back and forth between Iran and Pakistan.


Qassem Suleimani, the commander of Qods Force. Click image to view.

Zawahiri spoke directly to Qods Force commander Brigadier General Qassem Suleimani, a senior US intelligence official told The Long War Journal, confirming the account in The Wall Street Journal. "Zawahiri was concerned that the al Qaeda-manned militia fighting on the side of the government against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels might threaten Iran’s interests in Yemen," the official said. Yemen swells the ranks of the militia by inviting Arabs to willing to fight in the north.

i guess its no surprise to anyone keeping up with the WOT. its a no brainer that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Well, AQ friend of Iran is a little bit like Israel is friend of Saud.

But IMO neither Israel nor SA needs a bilateral defense treaty or be allied. There is very little chances that they fight on the same battlefield one day.
If a conflict escalates and encompasss the whole region, Israel and SA will be too busy protecting their own border to care about a jewish-wahabi agreement.
i think we are about as likely to see a Jewish/Whabbi allegiance in our lifetime as we are likely to be visited by aliens.
Anonymous24 Wrote:
jt Wrote:Was it Martin Luther who actually freed the West so it could invent the industrial revolution and (re)invent democracy? What was it that let the West get beyond tribalism, tyrants and religious fundamentalism?

Industrialized economy.
That did not happen until quite some time after the West began its upward spiral.

Yes, there were long periods of war after the Reformation, but there followed the the Enlightenment, then the scientific and industrial revolutions. This was all preceded by the Renaissance, and perhaps the cultural discontent with the Catholic church generated then was a stimulus for Luther. But, for whatever reason, the West went through a period of cultural discontent, re-evaluation and emerged quite ahead of everyone else. Naturally, such fundamental change involves wars and power struggles.

So, it is no surprise to me that Latin America, long and still Catholic, has not yet participated in modernity.

The Arabs also have (mostly) not been able to shake of ancient ideas, culture and religion. They have not had their renaissance or reformation.

The Asians, for the most part have done quite well, after WWII for Japan and after the VN war for the other successes. I suggest that this could not have happened without the destruction WWII created in their societies and culture. That destruction short circuited the process the West went through from 1400-1650 (approximately).
It's because there was something in Christian and Western reasoning.

Like I dunno, like science and reasoning going toward understanding what people saw was God's Earth? What is there in the New Testament that runs against "science"? If I missed something, let me know.

As compared to some warlord who wants his wives to live in servitude, kill his enemies/conquer places with the promise of women in heaven to his men, and bans all *art*, and anything else deviates from what Muhammed the Warlord said is unholy. This according to radicals supposedly, but I think there is a bigger picture.

Chinese and Asian civilization went down the same path Western Civ did, but through differing means. Obviously not the same that the Muslim World used.
Gunnen4u Wrote:Like I dunno, like science and reasoning going toward understanding what people saw was God's Earth? What is there in the New Testament that runs against "science"? If I missed something, let me know.
No problem. There's nothing in there that encourages science. There's nothing in there that encourages any insight but 'there is but one God and He wants you'. Any more questions? The rise of the West started when it started to vanquish religion. You are part of the last desperate countermove of that religion.
the advance of science is specifically stated in our Constitution, moron. That's right, the same guy who pledges "Under God" has a direct interest in advancing Science.

uh-oh, did your brain just go KA-Blooey?!?
Not really. Rather the advance of copyrights.
Quote:"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
You constitution does not privilege the religion of Christians. Your little does. And I feel you're off topic.

John, could you call that lunatic to order? Name calling is frowned upon, isn't it?
hear hear! i would like to present exhibit A for the people's amusement:

QuadRAT Wrote:I join you. John is cowardly and childish, but at least not a moron. Some of the new folks such as ghoullio and JohnWho are substandart however, overburdened with muttering more than three words in one post. Too trivial.

as well, Exhibit B:

QuadRAT Wrote:And you're an idiot. We established this before.

Your honor, i rest my case before the court. Wink1
Pages: 1 2