The current status quo for me is far more acceptable than any direct confrontations between nuclear nations. No good can come out of what you're suggesting
Changes in Arabia
- Thread starter 2cents
- Start date
- Status
How did the Assad family get into power initially? How was Syria formed? How were its borders drawn? (This is more in tune with the West, rather than the US specifically).
Thanks, but no thanks. Despite the widely-held views we are not happy to jump into regional clusterfecks unless our national secuity is under direct threat. You also forgot in the heat of the battle that Arab coalitions dismantle at the faintest of hints of collaborations with Israel. That's why Uncle Sam did his best to stop Israel from retaliating to Saddam's Scuds during the first gulf war.
Israel will get involved in Yemen only in the event that its economic interests take a hit in the form of Bab el Mandeb blockade. Considering the effect that such developments would have on global economy it is fair to say that this will not be allowed to happen regardless of Israel's interests. Therefore I would think that Israel's interests will be best served if Iran's growing regional hegeony is halted, but it wouldn't be totally against both "Death to Israel" sides kicking shit out of each other for some time.
...or since the Obama administration is in the process of providing international legitimacy to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran in 10 years is OK with Obama according to media reports, because the regional prophet is absolutely sure that by then Iran would be a peaceful nation rather than a terrorism-expoting theocracy.
There is no status quo, though.
I have no doubt that there are some ties between Iran and the Houthis, but there is little to no reason to believe, that Iran plays a significant role in this specific conflict. They dont benefit from it. This conflict follows an internal logic. In any way, if SA decides to intervene with ground troops, they´ll destroy any Houthi regime in a minute. Obviously that wont create stability and AQAP will take over major parts of the country.
lol
As opposed to Bibi being a peace loving, non prejudiced 'man of the people'.
You're one of the few posters on this board that always brings a smile out of me.
The US also provides international legitimacy to Israel's occupation of the West Bank, can't have it both ways HR.
Besides, for once a US administration has opted to pursue diplomatic initiatives instead of going with the reckless confrontrational option Nutty-Yahoo would advocate, something not even his ex-Mossad directors could endorse.
No, it doesn't. Never has.
I think we can debate on the Iran issue without resorting to childish name-calling. You may well be aware that some ex-Mossad directors have political aspirations. Others are potentially bitter about not having their term in office extended. Still refreshing that you turn to Israeli intelligence officers for responsible advise.
If I recall correctly you experssed an opinion here that mixing Iranian mullahs and nuclear weapons is a terrible idea. Considering that this is a terrible idea which could potentially have catastrophic effects, efforts must be made to make sure that this mix doesn't happen. Brushing aside the danger because its them Zionists who worry most is mental.
Last edited:
Nutty yahoo. I like that
As Les Dawson used to say, as funny as bleeding piles.
Anyone and nuclear weapons is a terrible idea, frankly.
And honestly the one thing that would have more catastrophic effects than a new nuclear nation is another military confrontation in the middle east. Diplomatic initiatives may only delay Iran's nuclear aspirations, but they're at least in scrunity. Nothing good will come out of Bibi and the Gulf Arab states' longing to lock horns with them militarily.
We have to consider the reason why Iran allegedly feels compelled to develop a nuclear program - no doubt its largely down to Western policy towards them in the last century and so - coupled to the military adventures in the middle east in recent decades. Put all that together and you can see why they'd feel inclined. Exercising diplomacy over military force may, just may start to swing that perception the other way.
I wonder why current Mossad operatives also have political aspirations and are so bitter, it must be worrying for Israel that all Mossad cares about is undermining Netanyahu who is the personal embodiment of true Israel.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad
We'll continue to walk in circles here, I'm afraid. Iran wouldn't have to worry about military adventures on its soil if it didn't sponsor terrorism
Security agencies here don't necessarily agree with one another here, so I'm not sure what's so dramatic in a PM and Mossad chiefs having different interpretations of the facts regarding the threat of the Iranian nuclear program. There is nothing even semi-dramatic in those Al Jazeera/Guardian "leaks".
39 Civilians killed as Saudi airforce stars bombing the Yemeni capital.
On the plus side, this means they could divert their funding away from ISIS for the time being.
On the plus side, this means they could divert their funding away from ISIS for the time being.
So the arab league supports the rebels in syria while opposing the rebels in yemen because hadi is the legitimate president 
What funding for ISIS ?
Its the worst kept secret that a lot of ISIS' funding comes from rich, influential members of the Saudi Wahabi elite.
Those are random individuals though aren't they ? Not the actual government.
Random individuals with enough power and leverage to force the government's hands. The same powerful individuals responsible for channeling funds to ISIS have coerced Riyadh to intervene in Yemen, just as they had in Bahrain a few years ago.
Well that's just how the Saudi power structure works isn't it. There are nutters with influence over policy decisions, just like in Israel, the US, Russia, and a good number of other countries.
In contrast to the Revolutionary Guards who offer government-sanctioned support throughout the Middle East for Shiite militias and extremists throughout the region, including Yemen.
Yes it does. Which is why I think the world is approaching the so-called fight against terror in the wrong manner - for starters they're not targeting the right people or institutions. Like I've always said - follow the money.
Of course they do, its a buffering act. If you have Israel and practically every Arab nation conspiring against Iran, some of which are funding the extreme elements like ISIS, then its hardly a surprise they'd reciprocate in a similar manner.
Yemen looks like an absolutely stunning place:
More amazing pictures here - http://mashable.com/2015/03/27/yemen-photos/#:eyJzIjoidCIsImkiOiJfcm5pMWtmNG04aGxuNXY4aiJ9
More amazing pictures here - http://mashable.com/2015/03/27/yemen-photos/#:eyJzIjoidCIsImkiOiJfcm5pMWtmNG04aGxuNXY4aiJ9
Now Pakistan and Sudan of all nations are getting involved
Typical Arab (+Pakistan) states, its OK if ISIS go around butchering religious minorities, but the second some Shia rebels stir some trouble, the entire region mobilises all the way from Riyadh to Timbuktu. At this rate all these planes will probably crash into one another as they scramble for their turn to bomb Yemen.
Typical Arab (+Pakistan) states, its OK if ISIS go around butchering religious minorities, but the second some Shia rebels stir some trouble, the entire region mobilises all the way from Riyadh to Timbuktu. At this rate all these planes will probably crash into one another as they scramble for their turn to bomb Yemen.
Now Pakistan and Sudan of all nations are getting involved
Typical Arab (+Pakistan) states, its OK if ISIS go around butchering religious minorities, but the second some Shia rebels stir some trouble, the entire region mobilises all the way from Riyadh to Timbuktu. At this rate all these planes will probably crash into one another as they scramble for their turn to bomb Yemen.
I'm sure you may understand Saudi anxieties of Yemen going Shi'a.
@Kaos that's being a bit selective. They didn't mobilise for Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria either.
Oh I understand the Saudi perspective, I just find it amusing how countries like Sudan, Pakistan and the rest of the pathetic Arab league have all rushed to this crusade of theirs. If these countries channeled half the enthusiasm and resources to combat ISIS, they'd cease to exist.
That's because Arab nations don't care for the Palestinians or Iraq. In fact, the Arab league almost unanimously supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They only started to show concern in the latter when the power vacuum was filled by the Shia. Their biggest nemesis has always been Shia Iran, so much that they'd be willing to turn a blind eye to an ISIS infestation in the region if it weakens Iran's influence.
They have got invovled in Syria though, not directly but definitely with arming and funds towards groups like the FSA and Al-Nusra.
Now Pakistan and Sudan of all nations are getting involved
Typical Arab (+Pakistan) states, its OK if ISIS go around butchering religious minorities, but the second some Shia rebels stir some trouble, the entire region mobilises all the way from Riyadh to Timbuktu.
That's just ignorance. Saudi is an ally of Pakistan - has been for years. And for your information Pakistan is already fighting against Taliban for the past 10 years and was one of the biggest U.S ally against the war on terror.
Well that's just wonderfully convincing, just unfortunate that Osama Bin Laden happened to be chilling a few hundred meters away from a military base in Pakistan.
Obviously. You wouldn't enter big brother USA's battle grounds without permission.
"After the raid, U.S. forces took bin Laden's body to Afghanistan for identification, then buried it at sea within 24 hours of his death, in accordance with Islamic tradition."
Oh yes, that's way more convincing.
Oh snap, illuminati confirmed.
What the hell are you two talking about ?
This is spot on. A large part (majority) of Middle Eastern problems currently stem Wahhabism. It's a root cause and has propped up the Al-Saud family for centuries. The problem is that they don't consider Shia Muslims as Muslims. Before Saddam was ousted, Shias were slaughtered. Before Iran backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, they were second class citizens. In Yemen, they were second class citizens. In Bahrain, they are second class citizens.
So it's only natural that they appeal to Qom for help and that Iran, as the main Shia country, offers it in the same way that the Gulf states bank roll Isis.
I'm not condoning any interference in any country, but I wish that the West and UK in particular (as I'm from there) did not share a bed with the truly totalitarian and authoritarian Arab kings and treated them in the same way that they treat other brutal countries, such as regimes like Iran.
Israel is often the excuse for the Middle Eastern problems, but in my opinion, it is the continual support for Wahabbism from the 1st world, while simultaneously spending trillions to combat it with the "war on terror" that has perpetuated the current entrenched and deepening crisis.
What the hell are you two talking about ?
We were discussing Pakistans invaluable role in the war against terror and how Bin Laden's death was obviously a cover up since the Seals didnt make a pit stop at Islamabad For Shawarma and Lassi.
Superb analysis, especially the last paragraph.
- Status