EPTOn August 07 2013 22:19 tokinho wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
I see what you say. and I appreciate why you feel my speculation of right now being a battle to try to repartition the middle east is grandiose and somewhat like a Tom Clancy novel. I should probably read some Tom Clancy. I have never got to his stuff, but I heard Red Storm Rising is amazing. I'll try to address each one of the things you say with more sources.
- I'm sorry I didn't cite my speculation on this. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-unlikely-to-attack-iran-before-summer-senior-officials-say.premium-1.502969, http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/04/17/298706/israel-again-threatens-to-invade-iran/)
These two articles state that Israel was waiting for Obama to come before considering aggression. Obama visits and shortly after they threaten aggression in the form of an invasion.
I think that if Isreal attacks Iran, that country has been flooding money into syria. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/31/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBRE96U0XN20130731) They do not have a lot of money, and I don't think that they can come fund a war at the current time. Iran is the country that stands to lose the most in a war right now, but stands to gain the most with sectarian violence.
Also, Turkey's involvement. That Iranian expansion being opposed by Turks, Saudi, and Iraqi's as not as far fetched IMO. The Turks tend to favor a kurdish state. I do not know much about the kurds and tried to keep them out of the discussion. Since I don't know much about turkey other than a lot of them are moving to Germany, Instanbul has amazing architecture and has a lot of Kurdish influence. I still believe that Turkey will push for a kurdish state in negotiations, but I doubt that they will get. (http://www.todayszaman.com/columnists-304517-do-the-kurds-want-a-state.html)
One of the differences in terms of middle eastern politics is that political parties span multiple countries. Its hard for me to say all of the exact Sunni political parties. There is no democrat and republican party outside of the US. So I'm pointing to that as the source of Sunni control spanning mulitiple countries in an electoral system. A big part of this I think is the Muslim brotherhood. (A large portion of my information comes from talks with two sunnis, one from egypt and one from Jordan, hence why i put so much emphasis on my bias in this regard.)
In syria, I think there are three possibilities. 1. Alawites stay in power. 2. The country is partitioned to alawite and non-alawite segments. 3. The alawites are forced out of power. The push from the US is for scenario 3. The push from Russia and Iran is scenario 1. Scenario 2 would be part of the larger partition scheme which I think is what will eventually be was Iran will want. The common logic I seem to hear is that the alawites will eventually be ousted if they cannot afford to keep the war going, since the US is dumping arms to the rebels.
Historically, the relationship between the alawites and the russians is strong(BBC documentary Syria), and China's position in terms of economy implies the nature of being that they will dominate bidding for oil and trade in the region economically filling the void from the European financial crisis(http://www.amazon.com/When-China-Rules-World-Western/dp/0143118005, Chapter 4; figure 83; and pages 555-560). I do not mean that Europe or US is insignificant. I do not mean that other growing countries like brasil or India are not significant economically either. They are countries that I believe do not rely on the middle east as much, nor are as involved in politics there.
As far as a nuclear arms race, I should address that one specifically. This is the most far fetched scenario within 5 years, and that this would be the beginning of it. I think that it would still be another 20-30 years before that actually would be a realistic scenario. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/20/us-nuclear-iran-report-idUSBRE91J0G820130220)
As far as Shia expansion into Egypt I believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is the majority in the middle east. You asked who- As far as countries in the middle east to get nukes, there are a few that I think would be inclined to do so if Iran gets one. Specifically, They would be Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Libya who are heavily involved are other possibilities, in the long long run. (~200 years)
Iran control in the middle east- What is my definition of this. Not all territories can be changed right now. The ones that are in question with sectarian violence and religious spheres of influence are Tunisia, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. These are the ones that are being debated and fought over. I think Iran is trying to gain influence in those countries. (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20111121-syria-iran-and-balance-power-middle-east) These are the countries that I think that are trying to be partitioned I think shiites will try to force out as many non-shiites as possible to make that possible.
Jordan also will also mildly increase in sectarian violence with the number of refugees there, but I think that there is no threat to their government.
My worst case scenario number of ~8-20 million people dying due to displacement, hunger and violence over the next 5 years if Isreal, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia went to war, is purely a speculative number. You are completely right with that.
I hope that this adequately addresses my sources and really appreciate your honest lack of belief in the repartitioning of the middle east, reasoning for an increase in sectarian violence, and the escalation of Isreal-Iran relations.
+ Show Spoiler +
On August 07 2013 15:51 Elegy wrote:
These predictions are not only illogical, but run against common sense.
US out of Afghanistan? Okay.
Iran having a nuclear weapon within 5 years? Far less likely. Israel "invading" Iran within 2 years? No. Israel INVADE Iran? Really? Airstrike, maybe. Invade? not a chance.
If Israel invades, why the fuck would Sunnis come into power and why would there be some hugely bloody conflict? Like...what? Based on what evidence?
Iran nuclear test leading to Shiite "control" of the Middle East? Control of...what? Does having a nuclear weapon mean Iran now controls the middle east? Does it mean it controls the internal affairs of Iraq? of Syria? Of Turkey? Of the Saudis?
Why would an Iranian nuclear weapon mean the Alawites stay in power? What the hell kind of logic is that?
Nuclear weapon leads to an arms race in the middle east? between WHO?
What do you mean, Iraq will be in civil war? between who?
What conflict in Egypt? There is no conflict in Egypt. There is an internal dilemna over the direction the state should go (Islamist or not), it's hardly a "conflict".
Turkey will "get involved". Get. Involved. In what? The "Middle East?"
Russia and China will dominate the world's economy? Russia? Within a few years? Better tell Putin! No mention of...India? Brazil?
I admire the effort here, but when you started making predictions you left the realm of sanity and started the plot of a Tom Clancy novel. Your predictions and claims about the future seem...grandiose, and you off-handedly include world-shaking changes in the world's balance of power with no justification or rationale, even to the point of excluding the rational interests of states in favor of a prediction that has no substance.
Again, the background is nice, but I will be honest and tell you the rest cannot be taken seriously.
These predictions are not only illogical, but run against common sense.
US out of Afghanistan? Okay.
Iran having a nuclear weapon within 5 years? Far less likely. Israel "invading" Iran within 2 years? No. Israel INVADE Iran? Really? Airstrike, maybe. Invade? not a chance.
If Israel invades, why the fuck would Sunnis come into power and why would there be some hugely bloody conflict? Like...what? Based on what evidence?
Iran nuclear test leading to Shiite "control" of the Middle East? Control of...what? Does having a nuclear weapon mean Iran now controls the middle east? Does it mean it controls the internal affairs of Iraq? of Syria? Of Turkey? Of the Saudis?
Why would an Iranian nuclear weapon mean the Alawites stay in power? What the hell kind of logic is that?
Nuclear weapon leads to an arms race in the middle east? between WHO?
What do you mean, Iraq will be in civil war? between who?
What conflict in Egypt? There is no conflict in Egypt. There is an internal dilemna over the direction the state should go (Islamist or not), it's hardly a "conflict".
Turkey will "get involved". Get. Involved. In what? The "Middle East?"
Russia and China will dominate the world's economy? Russia? Within a few years? Better tell Putin! No mention of...India? Brazil?
I admire the effort here, but when you started making predictions you left the realm of sanity and started the plot of a Tom Clancy novel. Your predictions and claims about the future seem...grandiose, and you off-handedly include world-shaking changes in the world's balance of power with no justification or rationale, even to the point of excluding the rational interests of states in favor of a prediction that has no substance.
Again, the background is nice, but I will be honest and tell you the rest cannot be taken seriously.
I see what you say. and I appreciate why you feel my speculation of right now being a battle to try to repartition the middle east is grandiose and somewhat like a Tom Clancy novel. I should probably read some Tom Clancy. I have never got to his stuff, but I heard Red Storm Rising is amazing. I'll try to address each one of the things you say with more sources.
- I'm sorry I didn't cite my speculation on this. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-unlikely-to-attack-iran-before-summer-senior-officials-say.premium-1.502969, http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/04/17/298706/israel-again-threatens-to-invade-iran/)
These two articles state that Israel was waiting for Obama to come before considering aggression. Obama visits and shortly after they threaten aggression in the form of an invasion.
I think that if Isreal attacks Iran, that country has been flooding money into syria. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/31/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBRE96U0XN20130731) They do not have a lot of money, and I don't think that they can come fund a war at the current time. Iran is the country that stands to lose the most in a war right now, but stands to gain the most with sectarian violence.
Also, Turkey's involvement. That Iranian expansion being opposed by Turks, Saudi, and Iraqi's as not as far fetched IMO. The Turks tend to favor a kurdish state. I do not know much about the kurds and tried to keep them out of the discussion. Since I don't know much about turkey other than a lot of them are moving to Germany, Instanbul has amazing architecture and has a lot of Kurdish influence. I still believe that Turkey will push for a kurdish state in negotiations, but I doubt that they will get. (http://www.todayszaman.com/columnists-304517-do-the-kurds-want-a-state.html)
One of the differences in terms of middle eastern politics is that political parties span multiple countries. Its hard for me to say all of the exact Sunni political parties. There is no democrat and republican party outside of the US. So I'm pointing to that as the source of Sunni control spanning mulitiple countries in an electoral system. A big part of this I think is the Muslim brotherhood. (A large portion of my information comes from talks with two sunnis, one from egypt and one from Jordan, hence why i put so much emphasis on my bias in this regard.)
In syria, I think there are three possibilities. 1. Alawites stay in power. 2. The country is partitioned to alawite and non-alawite segments. 3. The alawites are forced out of power. The push from the US is for scenario 3. The push from Russia and Iran is scenario 1. Scenario 2 would be part of the larger partition scheme which I think is what will eventually be was Iran will want. The common logic I seem to hear is that the alawites will eventually be ousted if they cannot afford to keep the war going, since the US is dumping arms to the rebels.
Historically, the relationship between the alawites and the russians is strong(BBC documentary Syria), and China's position in terms of economy implies the nature of being that they will dominate bidding for oil and trade in the region economically filling the void from the European financial crisis(http://www.amazon.com/When-China-Rules-World-Western/dp/0143118005, Chapter 4; figure 83; and pages 555-560). I do not mean that Europe or US is insignificant. I do not mean that other growing countries like brasil or India are not significant economically either. They are countries that I believe do not rely on the middle east as much, nor are as involved in politics there.
As far as a nuclear arms race, I should address that one specifically. This is the most far fetched scenario within 5 years, and that this would be the beginning of it. I think that it would still be another 20-30 years before that actually would be a realistic scenario. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/20/us-nuclear-iran-report-idUSBRE91J0G820130220)
As far as Shia expansion into Egypt I believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is the majority in the middle east. You asked who- As far as countries in the middle east to get nukes, there are a few that I think would be inclined to do so if Iran gets one. Specifically, They would be Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Libya who are heavily involved are other possibilities, in the long long run. (~200 years)
Iran control in the middle east- What is my definition of this. Not all territories can be changed right now. The ones that are in question with sectarian violence and religious spheres of influence are Tunisia, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. These are the ones that are being debated and fought over. I think Iran is trying to gain influence in those countries. (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20111121-syria-iran-and-balance-power-middle-east) These are the countries that I think that are trying to be partitioned I think shiites will try to force out as many non-shiites as possible to make that possible.
Jordan also will also mildly increase in sectarian violence with the number of refugees there, but I think that there is no threat to their government.
My worst case scenario number of ~8-20 million people dying due to displacement, hunger and violence over the next 5 years if Isreal, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia went to war, is purely a speculative number. You are completely right with that.
I hope that this adequately addresses my sources and really appreciate your honest lack of belief in the repartitioning of the middle east, reasoning for an increase in sectarian violence, and the escalation of Isreal-Iran relations.
Adding more information on predictions-
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/2013816163421338342.html Turkey and egypt separate as the Turks demand justice for the ~600-2000 people killed on wednesday in Egypt.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/2013615155229420816.html Iran chooses Rouhani as president. Rouhani is a scientific expert who is needed to help the government acquire resources for more nuclear work.
