West Asia News and Discussions

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Mar 2011 03:36

^^ Yup. To give Assad some credit he has done well so far to keep the protests at bay. He's got a good system in place. Lets see what happens.

Meanwhile... Prince Turki al Faisal (former head of GID in KSA and ambassador to UK &US)
I find this article hilarious. He knows the truth and is slowly hinting at everyone whats going on. He's playing a game with the public's views. He carefully obfuscates the truth.

Arab World has been hit by political quake : Prince Turki

2011-03-21 19:09:55
WAM Abu Dhabi, 21 March 2011 (WAM) -- ''The Arab world has been hit by a political earthquake; Sudan was divided, regimes collapsed in Tunisia and Egypt, Libya is in turmoil, and Bahrain has been on the verge of chaos, H.R.H. Prince Turki Al Faisal Bin Abdel Aziz Al Saud said today.
Periods of change, he affirmed, must be confronted wisely so as to both utilize their positive aspects and avoid their negative effects. The unipolar world order which has reigned since the collapse of the Soviet Union is not eternal; new powers are emerging, such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa, the European Union, Russia, and even the GCC, thanks to its wealth.
''This confirms that we are witnessing a redistribution of power, moving toward a multi-polar world order. Natural disasters and climate change are also at work, and contribute to shaping the future of our world.
''The Arab world has been hit by a political earthquake; Sudan was divided, regimes collapsed in Tunisia and Egypt, Libya is in turmoil, and Bahrain has been on the verge of chaos. In the GCC, we are facing vast challenges which we must overcome in order to lead. An analysis of the current situation shows that we are vulnerable politically, economically, culturally and in terms of security, and we cannot afford to assume that the stability and growth we have enjoyed so far will continue unabated,''Prince Turki said while speaking at the 16th annual conference of the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research (ECSSR) on Global Strategic Developments: A Futuristic Vision.
'' Change is a fact of life; therefore, these strategic vulnerabilities must be curtailed, and greater efforts should be made to secure our future.
I would like to stress that we have reached the stage where we must rethink many of the axioms which were appropriate in the past, and which enabled us to face challenges such as the Iranian Revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, and the occupation of Iraq. The wealth of the region alone is not enough to secure its stability. We should be active in relation to all international issues and should not allow others to impose their will on us under the pretext of vulnerability. (keep this in context with what I said earlier about KSA not being afraid to use force and then being proactive.)
''We should seek to unite and unify our political and security-related decisions, and reconsider the goals and aims of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Why not seek to turn the GCC into a grouping like the European Union? why not have one unified Gulf army? why not have a nuclear deterrent with which to face Iran - should international efforts fail to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - or Israeli nuclear capabilities? (hehehe...Keep in mind what I said earlier about them integrating to face the shia threat. ) ''We must also reconsider the nature of national sovereignty, which could result in the failure of joint initiatives. We in the GCC deeply believe that the security of one country contributes to the security of others, and a danger which threatens one is a threat to all. This means that we share a collective sovereignty. We have recently witnessed how the GCC countries responded to the challenges facing some of its members - namely Oman and Bahrain - just as they responded in the past to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
''We need to proceed as one regional bloc. We must overcome our differences - including those related to monetary union and a GCC central bank - through dialogue and mutual understanding. We should remember that we share the same future,''he stressed.
''We must also consider regional conditions and make reforms as required to enhance our domestic stability; we cannot be strong externally if we are not strong internally. We need to review our economic policies which have made us a market for international labour while our citizens are unemployed. We need to review our cultural policies, enhance the concept of citizenship and promote Gulf citizenship.
''The problems and challenges facing us are vast, but they are not insurmountable,''he added..
WAM/TF

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 22 Mar 2011 03:49

I am unable to understand the Libyan crisis.
1.Gaddafi.
a) After reining in his activities against the West, why did he not accept the people's demands and go Mubarak's way?
b) Did he think he could quell the rebels?
2. GCC or whatever. Why did these folks not support Gaddafi the way they are supporting Bahrain ?
3. West. They influeneced Gaddafi enough earlier. So why did they side with the rebels this time?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Mar 2011 03:55

shyamd ji,
the Bahrain situation is going to continue and develop into a protracted conflict if the monarchy does not go for politically intelligent gestures. Yemen is sort of breaking back into the old tri-partite war, and as soon as Saleh goes its going to be fun. But crucially then Yemen becomes a political no-mans land from which Bahraini and other regional uprisings can be supplied with "resources" - especially as far as I know the Houthis are already in total control of the north again. Bahrain being an island helps the monarchy to an extent, but you must realize that it also makes the monarchy vulnerable to an extent. Islands like Bahrain - in the geo-strategic reality of the Gulf cannot really be sealed off completely.

Iran wants this to be Shia-Sunni conflict, and the Saudis may pretend so too - as a tactic of "integration". But I dont think turning what is happening into such a straight conflict will be that easy for either the Ayatollahs or the house of Saud. Call to Sunni unity may not work to that absolute an extent unless the monarchs concede more to their "Sunni" dissenters too.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 22 Mar 2011 04:40

@SwamyG

1. a) because he is insane
b) yes, because of above
2. Because Bahraini regime did not kill 8000+ people yet like Qaddafi regime which was also about to commit genocide by killing another tens of thousands. Also Libya is far away in North Africa, while Bahrain is right next door to KSA
3. Because the Libyan rebels want to overthrow the dictator and establish a democratic govt., and the West wants to ensure that they don't loose influence over Libya once this democratic govt. is in place and because there is oil and money to be made in Libya

Some general observations:

In time, Brazil, Russia, India, China and Germany will regret their abstention vote and overt opposition in the mostly humanitarian inspired NFZ effort in Libya. Sovereignty should not allowed to be used as a license to commit crimes against humanity by any madman or group of madmen.

GCC integration is a way to strengthen Sunni rule of GCC, where there are pockets of Shia minority, but Sunni are majority overall. But even with this move or focusing on Shia-Sunni sectarian divide, both of which are diversionary, GCC regimes may not be able to survive or avoid fundamental reform in the long run.

African Union, dominated by African strongmen and dictators, and some financially dependent and involved in business with Qaddafi, objects to no-fly-zone in Libya. I think it is a cross road for African Union and the Maghreb (Arabic speaking North Africa) part of Arab League, where the Arabic speaking public opinion might be for the formation of a Maghreb that may opt itself out of African Union. In this scenario AU may remain a Union minus the North African Maghreb, mainly a collection of nations of black sub-saharan Africans.

But Nile river's source is in the South and considering the dependence of Egyptians on Nile and its source, it may be wiser for Arabs in North Africa to keep the spirit of a united Africa alive in an African Union with all of Africa from North to South, despite ethnic, linguistic and religious divisions. Also as I made a point many times earlier, a larger system has advantages over smaller ones, if it can be kept together and united.

I guess the above are OT in a West Asia thread.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Mar 2011 06:16

SwamyG wrote:I am unable to understand the Libyan crisis.
1.Gaddafi.
a) After reining in his activities against the West, why did he not accept the people's demands and go Mubarak's way?
b) Did he think he could quell the rebels?
2. GCC or whatever. Why did these folks not support Gaddafi the way they are supporting Bahrain ?
3. West. They influeneced Gaddafi enough earlier. So why did they side with the rebels this time?

SwamyG, while waiting to be called for jury duty I did a decision tree on Gaddafi / despot options after Egypt. What I find he shouldn't have used his air force on the rebels. It reminded West of Saddam's Basra campaing and transfer of malice.
That allowed the UN resolution for NFZ an West opportunity for a bombing campaign.

Will convert to ppt and jpeg it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Mar 2011 08:19

imo yemen ruler Saleh will be in exile in KSA before end of april.

but Assad wont go down without a strong fight.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 22 Mar 2011 09:59

Akalam and ramana: Thanks. So the West would not have supported the rebels, if Gaddafi had not ordered air strikes against his own people. Nothing happened in Egypt, because it was almost peaceful. If that is the case why is West not doing anything in Yemen or Bahrain. Is it because Yemen's Saleh is a key ally of USA?

Many Bahrain protesters angry with USA

I sense there is double standards, and think it is wise for India to play it slow and steady. I think the action against Libya is primarily led by France and UK.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 22 Mar 2011 10:50

The only reason Bahrain regime cannot be touched and no democarcy for Shia is that it is extremely inconvient for the Pentagon, SD and House of AL-Saud. The House of Al-Saud in order to maintain internal resentment, makes sure that the US 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain and American Command center, Air force Bases are in Qatar and in Oman( not well known),

If a Democratic SHia government comes, a new base will have to be taken by the US in Saudi or Kuwait. This would be a great proganda victory for the Opponents of the Ruling Monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Mar 2011 12:59

SwamyG wrote:I am unable to understand the Libyan crisis.
1.Gaddafi.
a) After reining in his activities against the West, why did he not accept the people's demands and go Mubarak's way?

He's slightly deluded. He wants power and he thinks his people love him to bits.

b) Did he think he could quell the rebels?

Of course he did.

2. GCC or whatever. Why did these folks not support Gaddafi the way they are supporting Bahrain ?

Very different. They didn't have a good relationship is another factor.

Lots of people asking why Arabs/GCC not sending a serious force. 2 reasons:

1) Iran threat currently due to Bahrain unrest.
2) He's a shia supporter.

Keep this in mind too when you ask that question. Even if they did, KSA eastern borders are priority at this time.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Mar 2011 13:12

brihaspati wrote:shyamd ji,
the Bahrain situation is going to continue and develop into a protracted conflict if the monarchy does not go for politically intelligent gestures.

I've asked the same questions. But to be fair, the government really did open all doors and tried to solve the problem. The opposition refused all chances for dialogue. In fact the govt gave into every demand of the opposition. They asked for constitutional monarchy, crown prince said okay, we'll have referendum. Then the opposition didn't agree to this. Ultimately its sunni v shia control under the cover of democracy. Thats the way they feel. In fact, King Abdullah and King Hamad both agree that violence will play into Iran's hands. So, the police violence that was caused was the only option left.

Yemen is sort of breaking back into the old tri-partite war, and as soon as Saleh goes its going to be fun. But crucially then Yemen becomes a political no-mans land from which Bahraini and other regional uprisings can be supplied with "resources" - especially as far as I know the Houthis are already in total control of the north again. Bahrain being an island helps the monarchy to an extent, but you must realize that it also makes the monarchy vulnerable to an extent. Islands like Bahrain - in the geo-strategic reality of the Gulf cannot really be sealed off completely.

This is exactly what the princes/royals are fearing. The houthi's are on the arms smuggling routes to Gaza, and at the time of the war between the Houthi's, the KSA embassies were telling all the diplomats that Iran wants to create a crescent across from north yemen to eastern KSA, Bahrain all the way to Iraq. But obviously this is met with a lot of scepticism.
Its vulnerable to a certain extent, but make no mistake, these guys are ready for a fight. They are not going to let the shia's come to power in any way. Period.

Iran wants this to be Shia-Sunni conflict, and the Saudis may pretend so too - as a tactic of "integration". But I dont think turning what is happening into such a straight conflict will be that easy for either the Ayatollahs or the house of Saud. Call to Sunni unity may not work to that absolute an extent unless the monarchs concede more to their "Sunni" dissenters too.

Iran wants it because its going to play into their hands, they want violence in bahrain and a polarization of society there - this is why the dialogue took place in the first place. But if there is no deal, then the GCC together will put down this unrest.

The sunni's are by in large in support of the King. They mobilized massive support for the King in the stadiums and other places. So, there is enough sunni support - they reckon close to 50% of the population are in support of the King.
There is a lot of obfuscation of the population figures.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Mar 2011 13:50

shyamd wrote:King Abdullah and King Hamad both agree that violence will play into Iran's hands. So, the police violence that was caused was the only option left.

I think it is the other way round!

If Iraq had its illusive WMDs for inviting a war onto itself, Iran would have its own "secret" hand in the Bahrain uprising!

Iran is still a relatively isolated country with the Hezbollah, Syria, may be Hamas, may be Iraq, as its only supporters, who don't really have an international voice. China may hedge its bets.

Actually Iran just needs to do one little thing, which helps the West portray a war on Iran as something other than a West against Islam war, they will take it. Bahrain gives the Saudis a perfect opportunity to rally Sunni opinion against Iran. I think they are itching to portray this as Iran having sponsored "terrorism" and "proxy attacks" on Bahrain.

Any civil war in Bahrain may put the 5th Fleet in jeopardy, but it would give USA a big hammer to pound Iran with!

Considering how spread out USA is around the periphery of Iran, any Iranian adventure would mean, Iran losing out on all its oil fields in Khuzestan, not to speak of other land areas like Sistan-Balochestan, Iranian Kurdistan, and even occupation of areas like Bushehr and Hormozgan and their oil fields!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Mar 2011 14:27

RajeshA wrote: I think it is the other way round!

Bhailog, that is straight from Horse's mouth.

If Iraq had its illusive WMDs for inviting a war onto itself, Iran would have its own "secret" hand in the Bahrain uprising!

This is exactly why they don't want Iran to go nukulear.

Actually Iran just needs to do one little thing, which helps the West portray a war on Iran as something other than a West against Islam war, they will take it. Bahrain gives the Saudis a perfect opportunity to rally Sunni opinion against Iran. I think they are itching to portray this as Iran having sponsored "terrorism" and "proxy attacks" on Bahrain.

Yes they are overplaying the Iran hand. Which is why I said there is total paranoia in Riyadh and Manama of Iranian hand. Everything is being looked at from an Iran perspective/lens.

Any civil war in Bahrain may put the 5th Fleet in jeopardy, but it would give USA a big hammer to pound Iran with!

5th Fleet is no big deal. Trust me, they'll just go back to how they were operating in the Gulf. 5th Fleet is not CRUCIAL to american interests there. In fact they don't even need it. All they need is a place to re-fuel etc. That, they can use Jebel Ali and so on as they are doing so now anyway.

Considering how spread out USA is around the periphery of Iran, any Iranian adventure would mean, Iran losing out on all its oil fields in Khuzestan, not to speak of other land areas like Sistan-Balochestan, Iranian Kurdistan, and even occupation of areas like Bushehr and Hormozgan and their oil fields!

Precisely why Iran is not interested in having war with the arabs or the US. They know they are going to lose in a direct conflict. So they use their long arms and assets e.g. Hezbollah, Hamas, Shia's in GCC, Sadr in Iraq etc. It maintains plausible deniability. Trust me when I say, these guys are going to go after Iran, all guns blazing before they go nuclear. Its a case of better to deal with this now rather than after Iran goes nuclear. Even post nuclear, KSA isn't worried. THey have the maal.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 22 Mar 2011 15:54

shaardula wrote:paging swamy...

Powered By Ahimsa
Bahrainis look to Gandhi’s non-violent means in the face of mounting repression

Why it always stops with Mahatma Gandhi, why not say took to Gautama Buddha's ways.
Nowadays the term Gandhigiri is used. I don't think even Gandhiji must have approved of such a term, since it's similar to Gundagiri. The correct term being Ahimsa.

Gandhiji was a disciple of this great ideology of Ahimsa or non-violence propogated by Gautama Buddha and the sages.
So the Indic civilization is on the rise in Bahrain.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 22 Mar 2011 19:14

shyamd wrote:Even if they did, KSA eastern borders are priority at this time.

That is a very pregnant sentence. The obvious question is "to whom?".

Attacking Libya reminds me of the classic joke, a guy loses his key in a dark area of the park. Because he does not have any flash-light, he searches for the key just under a lamp-post - because that is all he can do. Gaddafi attacking his citizens provided the perfect reason for the European powers to lead the charge.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Mar 2011 19:41

SwamyG, for KSA.

The mood is very very anti IRan at the moment in all major capitals. I get the feeling they want to deal with IRan once in for all. Its coming soon folks - mark my words.

Bahrain FM is currently in Turkey building up their deterrence.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 22 Mar 2011 19:51

Shyam: The major players are SA, France, UK, USA and Iran. Rest of them are minor pieces and pawns.

shaardula wrote:paging swamy...

Powered By Ahimsa
Bahrainis look to Gandhi’s non-violent means in the face of mounting repression

Yeh hui na baat. The biggest help India can do for people in West Asia is to send loads of Bollywood videos. Arts & Culture is the traditional means of conquering mind.

Uddu: Yajnavalkya Smriti lists "ahimsa" as one of the components of Sadharana Dharma.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Mar 2011 21:24

SwamyG, its not as simple as that. When trouble comes they integrate.

Source says Kuwaitihezballah stopped at Bahrin border.Posing as medical team. they had many "suspicious equipt". Apparently mainly bulk sets of camcorders and other sort of legal stuff, which raised a lot of questions.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Mar 2011 21:59

msnbc:

SANAA, Yemen — A spokesman for President Ali Abdullah Saleh said Tuesday that the Yemeni leader is willing to step down by the end of the year as part of a "constitutional" transfer of power.

Ahmed al-Sufi told The Associated Press that Saleh informed senior Yemeni officials, military commanders and tribal leaders of his intention in meetings on Monday night.

He said the president also vowed never to hand over power to the military.

Saleh's comments are a reversal of his rejection earlier this month of an opposition proposal demanding his resignation by the year's end.

It is not clear whether the opposition movement calling for Saleh's ouster will accept his latest offer, especially after his security forces shot dead more than 40 protesters on Friday

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 23 Mar 2011 00:26

uddu wrote:Why it always stops with Mahatma Gandhi, why not say took to Gautama Buddha's ways.

Buddha did not use ahimsa as a method of organized protest to achieve goals. He proposed ahimsa as a way a life. These two are different things.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 23 Mar 2011 07:56

shyamd wrote:SwamyG, its not as simple as that. When trouble comes they integrate.

Yup. Hence, I did not see much value in India sticking its head into their business. Europe, America and Arabs want something, India would be just used. Moreover, what is in it for India. What if tomorrow, the UN decides there is civil war and human rights violations in J&K. It is not that Pakistan, Europe and USA won't try that trick.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Mar 2011 10:17

Iran will not go down without a serious fight. sure the coalition can impose a air war on them and destroy their AF and infra in say 4 months, but boots on the ground is a different matter. and in exchange, Iranian oil production will be halted and they will launch missiles all over and activate all their assets in the gulf and lebanon to cause trouble.

Iran shares a border on caspian sea with CAR states, which in turn are economically linked with Rus and China. the views of these two will matter a lot , unlike in isolated libya.

I personally do not think Obama has the political capital or interest to impose a war on iran. the euros would have a heart attack at the cost and political chaos and refuse outright...voters will take all of them to task.

the only good option would have been Saddam in place to use as a cats paw against iran and just supply arms and political cover for a new war to bleed iran white. but GW1/2 kinda closed off that option.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Mar 2011 13:52

unlike the gulf states, iran actually has a credible military capability

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Mar 2011 14:15

Lalmohan, how much of what you just said is based on research? That will answer your question.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Mar 2011 14:18

Lalmohan wrote:unlike the gulf states, iran actually has a credible military capability

All the more targets of opportunity!

The only Iranian military capability that really does matter as a deterrent for USA is

Iran's second strike (conventional) capability regard to American, Coalition and GCC fixed targets, possibly using missiles. Since America can make its forces mobile pretty quickly, America has little to fear, but GCC countries do.
Iran's capacity to disrupt Oil transport through the Straits of Hormuz and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, using mines, swift boats, etc..
Iran's capacity to indulge in guerrilla warfare, once parts of Iran are occupied, e.g. Khuzestan, Sistan-Balochestan, Iranian Kurdistan, Bushehr and Hormozgan.
Terrorism against Western targets through various Iranian and Shi'ite expatriates.
Hezbollah and Hamas attacking Israel with missiles, etc.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Mar 2011 14:52

RajeshA wrote:
All the more targets of opportunity!

The only Iranian military capability that really does matter as a deterrent for USA is

Iran's second strike (conventional) capability regard to American, Coalition and GCC fixed targets, possibly using missiles. Since America can make its forces mobile pretty quickly, America has little to fear, but GCC countries do.

^^ GCC want to avoid war, but are not afraid of it - as a last resort. Iran can't touch GCC, the assessment is UAE alone can take on Iran.

[*] Iran's capacity to disrupt Oil transport through the Straits of Hormuz and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, using mines, swift boats, etc..

Read the Omani assessment ofthis. They call Iran's threat to blockade straits as a joke.

[*] Iran's capacity to indulge in guerrilla warfare, once parts of Iran are occupied, e.g. Khuzestan, Sistan-Balochestan, Iranian Kurdistan, Bushehr and Hormozgan.

who wants to occupy them?

[*] Terrorism against Western targets through various Iranian and Shi'ite expatriates.

This is an issue, but not as big too worry massively about. It can be a big problem though.

[*] Hezbollah and Hamas attacking Israel with missiles, etc.[/list]

This is an issue.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Mar 2011 15:33

shyamd wrote:
Iran's capacity to indulge in guerrilla warfare, once parts of Iran are occupied, e.g. Khuzestan, Sistan-Balochestan, Iranian Kurdistan, Bushehr and Hormozgan.
who wants to occupy them?

If there is an Iranian-GCC War, what would be the mission? Sure there can be a regime change, but for a regime change, one needs an occupation - something nobody in Washington would really be keen on, considering that Iraq and Afghanistan proved such a drain on USA. So Americans can shut down Iranian nuclear program, but then that can be restarted. The expertise remains, the scientists go underground. Without occupation, all that is possible.

What everybody would be keen on, is to see Iran a weak state, which cannot pose any further danger to the Gulf! For that it would be divested of all that, which are the low-hanging fruit - Kurdish Iranian Kurdistan, Oil-rich Arab Khuzestan & Hormozgan, Baluch Sistan-Balochestan, which could provide alternative route to Central Asia. These are also regions which would see ethnicities sympathetic to the invasion and it also allows the American invasion on Iran to proceed from Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the Americans occupy mostly Persian Bushehr, then Iran ceases to have access to Persian Gulf as well. Bushehr also has several Oil fields and its population is pretty low.

Without its Oil fields, access to Persian Gulf, and much reduced in size, Iran does not really pose the same level of threat of disrupting Oil supplies, or has the resources to restart a nuclear program or has the ability to support Hezbollah and Hamas.

So if GCC+West does go to war with Iran, there can be changes made to the geography of Iran.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Mar 2011 16:32

shyam-ji
my assessment is based on interaction with gulf and other arabs and some awareness of relative military systems (Not pretending to be an analyst here, just an amature observer). seems to me that despite all the bravado and shiny new kit, most of the gulf folks are shivering in their dish-dashes and practicisng downhilling in the dubai ski dome
ofcourse, i may be entirely mistaken

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 23 Mar 2011 16:53

shyamd wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
All the more targets of opportunity!

The only Iranian military capability that really does matter as a deterrent for USA is

Iran's second strike (conventional) capability regard to American, Coalition and GCC fixed targets, possibly using missiles. Since America can make its forces mobile pretty quickly, America has little to fear, but GCC countries do.

^^ GCC want to avoid war, but are not afraid of it - as a last resort. Iran can't touch GCC, the assessment is UAE alone can take on Iran.

[*] Iran's capacity to disrupt Oil transport through the Straits of Hormuz and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, using mines, swift boats, etc..
Read the Omani assessment ofthis. They call Iran's threat to blockade straits as a joke.

[*] Iran's capacity to indulge in guerrilla warfare, once parts of Iran are occupied, e.g. Khuzestan, Sistan-Balochestan, Iranian Kurdistan, Bushehr and Hormozgan.
who wants to occupy them?

[*] Terrorism against Western targets through various Iranian and Shi'ite expatriates.
This is an issue, but not as big too worry massively about. It can be a big problem though.

[*] Hezbollah and Hamas attacking Israel with missiles, etc.[/list]
This is an issue.

From the above points it seems that Iran is the weaker side compared to GCC, but how can the ddemography be co related with the power equation, the demography heavily favours the Iranians even combining the all the GCC powers.. the same factor which resulted in the defeat of Baath Party Iraq.
One more important point is that this time around its for sure that Russian weaponary and even may be some Indian one can actually flow to the Persians...so i will be very interested to know who will stop Op Badr Redux, surely not UAE!!!

Interestingly GOI is going with the Persians, so the assasement is that Iranians will be the victor in the game.....may be the Gurus can explain....

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Mar 2011 17:01

Samudragupta wrote:Interestingly GOI is going with the Persians, so the assasement is that Iranians will be the victor in the game.....may be the Gurus can explain....

Can you please provide some links to that?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Mar 2011 17:07

without american forces on the ground , none of the potential 'breakaway ex-Iranian republics' can survive for more than a few days. the iran army will roll in and hang everyone concerned.

the problem will then reduce to what it does in libya - nobody is willing to put boots on ground, but willing to provide air cover. can they help the rebel republics to stay alive that way - maybe - but the cost will be huge and the iranians will be stoking the fire all the time.

maybe someone as enthu as rumsfeld and wolfowitz might have convinced POTUS GW2 but the obama admin has no such people and obama himself seems willing to take some calls himself.

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 23 Mar 2011 17:09

RajeshA wrote:
Samudragupta wrote:Interestingly GOI is going with the Persians, so the assasement is that Iranians will be the victor in the game.....may be the Gurus can explain....
Can you please provide some links to that?

RajeshA Ji,

Isn't it NSA's visit is for the "Reset" button....
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... -with-iran

Samudragupta · Post by **Samudragupta** » 23 Mar 2011 17:12

Singha wrote:without american forces on the ground , none of the potential 'breakaway ex-Iranian republics' can survive for more than a few days. the iran army will roll in and hang everyone concerned.
.

If GCC won't be able to stop them then who????Do the answer lies in the Hindukush?

Looking the other way round if the GOI knows that Iran will be the looser then are they trying to milk the weker one to gain permanant strategic allignment in the Hindukush from the Persian Gulf? The buzzword is "Alternate Route"

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Mar 2011 17:21

the USN base in Bahrain and the AF base in Qatar is basically what stops unneccesary dish-dash shivering in the Gulf

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Mar 2011 17:40

lalmohan, they don't want war. hence why everyone thinks the arabs are weak and scared etc. As you know, in our hindu philosophy, war is always last resort. So on similar lines here, arabs are being looked at as weak.

But they have the muscle to obliterate the iranian military, not just that, research the security agreements in place. That will also give you further assurance as to why the GCC are sitting comfortably.

The US are there for their own interests and to secure oil for themselves and some level of security. The US, France etc is a mixture of integration and deterrence wrt Iran.

No one is interested in ruling Iran or anything of that sort. They just dont want their interference. Also keep in mind that the iranian threat is something that has been faced since the 1980s. The RSAF shot down Iranian jets heading to Ras Tanura back in the 80's.

RajeshA, simple. Weaken the Iranians and stop them from going nuclear. So that they'll leave the peninsula alone.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Mar 2011 17:52

shyamd wrote:RajeshA, simple. Weaken the Iranians and stop them from going nuclear. So that they'll leave the peninsula alone.

I was trying to speculate on what "weakening the Iranians" and "stopping them from going nuclear" really entails!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Mar 2011 17:54

Destroy their naval and air force capability. As well as obviously striking their nuclear facilities.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 23 Mar 2011 17:55

shyam-ji, i am aware of the GCC agreements, also on the military systems and organisations in place in some of these places, not just the equipment lists. lets just say that parades and shiny toys do not a fighting force make

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Mar 2011 18:04

I respectfully disagree. We'll leave it at that.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Mar 2011 18:11

shyamd wrote:Destroy their naval and air force capability. As well as obviously striking their nuclear facilities.

If that is all, the GCC+USA plan on doing, then they might as well let it be!

Without any concrete loot to take home, without any long-lasting benefits to show for after war, the GCC would only lose face, and end up being considered as hand-maidens of the West and Israel who helped undermine an Islamic nation. This would in fact give a boost to Shi'ism over Sunnism, as a mark of solidarity.

Besides, wounding a tiger without giving it the fatal blow, would just make the tiger all the more dangerous. It would coalesce the whole of the Iranian society behind the Mullahs. Iranian pride would have been hurt.

As long as Iranians have Oil, they can pretty much stand up again pretty quickly. PRC and even Russia would join in in providing new weaponry. Even nuclear facilities can be rebuilt, especially if all of them are not busted, being hidden deep underground.

Only next time, the Iranians would have revenge in mind, and it is going to be much tougher living next door to Iran for all those who clapped and partook in the assault on Iran.

Also war cannot be declared again and again on Iran on a whim. There is going to be just one chance against Iran, one war against Iran, and I presume the GCC+USA coalition would be looking at some sort of permanent solution.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Mar 2011 18:19

Yes, Iran can rebuild it, but it would take a lot more time etc. Not that straight forward. I mean it would delay them by another 3 to 4 years at most. Hence why the cost effective way right now is killing scientists and using attacks like Stuxnet (and other assorted experiements). Also why the only real way to solve this is regime change, which is what they are trying to do.

The GCC isn't about to take interference in their backyard lightly. Thats what the war is about, having a nuclear weapon will give them implicit ability to - so preventing this needs to be done first at all cost. Better to deal with this now than later - is their PoV. Regime change is long term stuff - which needs to be done.