The Middle East and Western Asia: Bit of a hot spot?

Aussiejeff said:

Here's an interesting read regarding the possibility of the US opening Pandora's Box in Iran during GWB's watch.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSDAH71986920071107

One question the correspondents failed to mention (rather surpisingly I thought) was the COST to the US and Western economies of going to war with Iran, since this would open up a THIRD concurrent front (Afghanistan & Iraq already underway) in the so-called endless "War On Terror". Can the US in particular REALLY afford to go down this path, considering the state of their slumping economy right now?

Then again, history clearly shows us over and over again that the usual rule of thumb for world dominating empires with declining economies (or for leaders whose popularity has plummeted) is to GO ON THE ATTACK and open up as many wars/conflicts/conquests as possible against declared "enemies", in order to boost flagging morale and business activity in the home economy. So from that point of view, maybe GWB is on a potential "winner" and really can't lose with that strategy?

On the other hand, history also shows us that in the end, this foreign policy strategy of "the best form of defence against economic and popularity decline is to attack" has also eventually failed to save most of those world dominating empires from eventual collapse and even ruin, due to the exorbitant cost of the campaigns draining the treasury coffers to the point of virtual or even actual bankruptcy.

So, I wonder how deep the US Treasury pockets really are at this point in time? Then there is the possibility of attacking Somalia? Venezuala? etc etc...

Anyone care to guess what the price of a barrel of oil might reach if George pulls the trigger on Iran? Hitler and Hirohito both tried to take on multiple fronts and collapsed in the end. Can a "champion of democracy" like GWB succeed, where all others have eventually failed? How long can the US keep this foreign policy approach up (ie: creating military spending induced "dead cat" bounces in the US home economy) before the coffers are over-extended and the final economic point of collapse is reached?

AJ

Click to expand...

kennas said:

I don' think the US is strong enough to open up another front, especially that is not supported by their people. (I saw a graph somewhere that said 25% supported ground troops in Iran)

At this point, I think the only thing they could realistically do is bomb them from a distance and hope they submit. We know how well that tactic worked in the past, and Iran is not Iraq. They are a much more serious outfit. Plus, on any eventuation of conflict, there is a real possibility that Iran will launch missiles (that work) against Israel which will be the start of the end in the region IMO. I think the US will need NATO backing them for anything to be successful, and I can't see the Germans, Spanish and Italians jumping on board. The newly conservative France has obviously jumped into bed with GWB. Not sure about Gordon Brown, could go either way I think. Perhaps because he has just started his job he won't want to be too unpopular with the electorate and will say 'peace!'

Interesting that the Iran sabre rattling has only really gone into full swing after N Korea went off the boil?

Click to expand...

arminius said:

the really scary thing is that america is getting backed into an economic corner. it is essentially broke, and its primary money earner is weapons export, and treasure raiding of course.
even if 80% of americans dont want anything to do with attacking iran, the nutters in the white house might convince themselves that theres no other way out of their economic poo.
then theres the rise of china and its links to iran.
a preemptive v iran? dent chinese domination? show russia whos the boss?
after all, the yanks nuked hiroshima and nagasaki to warn off Russia, and dont let anyone tell you otherwise.
btw, they also knew pearl was gonna get smashed but they wanted in on the war....

Click to expand...

OPEC members discuss ditching $US

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says OPEC's member countries have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a currency other than the depreciating US dollar, which he called a "worthless piece of paper."

His comments at the end of a rare OPEC summit exposed fissures within the 13-member oil cartel - especially after US ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the falling dollar in the summit's final declaration.

The hardline Iranian leader's comments also highlighted the growing challenge that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, faces from Iran and its ally Venezuela within the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

"They get our oil and give us a worthless piece of paper," Ahmadinejad told reporters after the close of the summit in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

He blamed US President George W Bush's policies for the decline of the dollar and its negative effect on other countries.

"All participating leaders showed an interest in changing their hard currency reserves to a credible hard currency," Ahmadinejad said.

"Some said producing countries should designate a single hard currency aside from the US dollar ... to form the basis of our oil trade."

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez echoed this sentiment on the sidelines of the summit, saying "the empire of the dollar has to end".

"Don't you see how the dollar has been in free-fall without a parachute?" Chavez said, calling the euro a better option.

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah had tried to direct the focus of the summit toward studying the effect of the oil industry on the environment, but he continuously faced challenges from Ahmadinejad and Chavez.

Iran and Venezuela have proposed trading oil in a basket of currencies to replace the historic link to the dollar, but they had not been able to generate support from enough fellow OPEC members - many of whom, including Saudi Arabia, are staunch US allies.

Both Iran and Venezuela have antagonistic relationships with the US, suggesting their proposals may have a political motivation as well.

While Tehran has been in a standoff with Washington over its nuclear program, left-wing Chavez is a bitter antagonist of Bush.

US sanctions on Iran also have made it increasingly difficult for the country to do business in dollars.

During Chavez's opening address to the summit on Saturday, the Venezuelan leader said that OPEC should "assert itself as an active political agent".

But Abdullah appeared to distance himself from Chavez's comments, saying OPEC always acted moderately and wisely.

A day earlier, Saudi Arabia opposed a move by Iran on Friday to have OPEC include concerns over the falling dollar included in the summit's closing statement.

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister warned that even talking publicly about the currency's decline could further hurt its value.

But by Sunday, it appeared that Saudi Arabia had compromised. Though the final declaration did not specifically mention concern over the weak dollar, the organisation directed its finance ministers to study the issue.

OPEC will "study ways and means of enhancing financial cooperation among OPEC ... including proposals by some of the heads of state and governments in their statements to the summit," OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem el-Badri said, reading the statement.

Iran's oil minister went a step further and said OPEC would form a committee to study the dollar's affect on oil prices and investigate the possibility of a currency basket.

Oil is priced in US dollars on the world market, and the currency's depreciation has concerned oil producers because it has contributed to rising crude prices and has eroded the value of their dollar reserves.

Click to expand...

UN fears for Pakistan nuke arsenal

Bruce Loudon, South Asia correspondent | January 10, 2008

THE head of the UN atomic watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei warned yesterday that al-Qa'ida could use the deepening political and security crisis in Pakistan to seize the country's nuclear arsenal.

"I fear that chaos ... or an extremist regime could take root in that country, which has 30 to 40 warheads," the Egyptian-born Mr ElBaradei told the pan-Arab daily al-Hayat.

There has been worldwide concern over the security of Pakistan's nuclear warheads since President Pervez Musharraf imposed a national state of emergency in November.

Mr Musharraf said in December that Pakistan's nuclear weapons were under control.

But in unusual public comments, Mr ElBaradei said he was "worried that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of an extremist group in Pakistan or in Afghanistan".

Click to expand...

Satellite exposes Iran rocket site
Michael Evans, London | April 12, 2008

A SECRET site where Iran is suspected of developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets in Europe has been uncovered by new satellite photographs.

Click to expand...

US threat to 'protect troops' from Tehran

US President George W. Bush yesterday warned Iran that if it refused to stop arming and training Shia militia in Iraq then "America will act to protect our interests and our troops".

During a speech in which he ordered an indefinite halt to US troop withdrawals from Iraq this northern summer, Mr Bush called Iran one of the two greatest threats to the US in this century, together with al-Qa'ida.

His words echoed testimony from General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, to Congress this week in which he described Iranian-backed Shia groups and the "malevolent" influence of Tehran as the biggest long-term threat to a viable Iraq.

"If we succeed in Iraq after all that al-Qa'ida and Iran have invested there, it would be a historic blow to the global terrorist movement and a severe setback for Iran," Mr Bush said.

Click to expand...

Bush Hypes Threat from Iran in Surge “Success” Speech
By Matthew Rothschild, April 10, 2008

In his speech on Thursday, Bush wasted little time before getting to the ominous subject of Iran.

Time and time again, he lumped the alleged threat from Iran in the same breadth as the one from Al Qaeda, once again fusing enemies in the minds of the American people.

“Serious and complex challenges remain in Iraq, from the presence of Al Qaeda to the destructive influence of Iran,” he said, even before declaring that the surge has “renewed and revived the prospect of success.”

A little later, he said, “Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century: Al Qaeda and Iran.” (Bush has now elevated Iran over China as the looming threat of the century!)

And in the next paragraph, he said, “If we succeed in Iraq after all that Al Qaeda and Iran have invested there, it would be a historic blow to the global terrorist movement and a severe setback for Iran.”

Al Qaeda-Iran, Al Qaeda-Iran, Al Qaeda-Iran. That is the chant emanating from the White House.

But Bush was not content to be subtle about his belligerence toward Iran.

Listen to the saber rattle:

“The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make,” Bush said. “It can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties. Or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups, which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners.”

By “America will act,” Bush is making damn clear that he intends to go ahead and bomb Iran.

Click to expand...

DJ Israel Developing Consensus In Favor Of Iran Strike -Spiegel

17/06/2008 12:00AM AEST

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

The Israeli government no longer believes sanctions can stop Iran from building nuclear weapons and a broad consensus in favor of a military strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities - without the U.S., if necessary - is beginning to take shape, according to an article in Spiegel Online. The report cites recent comments by Israeli officials, including comments by deputy prime minister Shaul Mofaz, which were widely dismissed, by the U.S. and others, as electioneering.

"In truth, however, there is now a consensus within the Israeli government that an air strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities has become unavoidable," Spiegel Online writes.

The magazine writes that U.S. President George W. Bush, however, has recently been sending out signals reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq war. He repeatedly insists "all options are on the table." He sought to appease the Europeans by saying that all diplomatic channels would be exhausted first. But during his recent visit to Slovenia, Bush said: "There's a lot of urgencies when it comes to dealing with Iran, and the Israeli political folks ... if you go to Israel and listen carefully, you'll hear that urgency in their voice."

Full story at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,559925,00.html

-Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5500

Click to expand...

Aussiejeff said:

Would I be right in thinking that "The Patriot Act" (adopted after 9/11) would allow Great Wally Bush to stay in office during "a declared war"?

Shirley, no-one in their right mind would invoke this option to retain P-O-Doubleya-E-R??



AJ

Click to expand...

In addition to the 50 US bases, the deal calls for long-term American supervision of the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and Defense (no less than 10 years). It gives the Americans almost exclusive right to rebuild Iraq, train Iraqi forces and maintain personnel on Iraqi territory - with immunity from the Iraqi courts.

It gives the US the right to arrest or persecute any Iraqi working against its interests, within Iraq, and pledges to protect Iraq from any war, coup or revolution. It also gives the US control of Iraqi airspace. Barhan Saleh, the deputy prime minister, said that the Americans threatened to freeze no less than US$50 billion worth of Iraqi hard currency, and keep all of Iraq's monetary debts to the US, if an agreement is not signed before December (the date that the United Nations mandate for the American presence in Iraq expires).

Click to expand...

haunting said:

Iraq takes a turn towards Tehran



Let me repeat what I know about the Iraq war back when Saddam was still alive - it was about WMD and the removal of a tyrant, and nothing else!

It's not about oil or American interest. Not at all. I voted for JH... twice, because I believe that was a "just" war. A war for the poor suffering Iraqi people living under a tyrant.

And now, with Saddam gone, all I want is to see every other foreign soldier out of that country and leave the yanks to fight their own war. It's only fair - they want the Iraqi oil then pay for it with their own soldiers' life.

Click to expand...

Israel's dry run 'attack on Iran' with 100 jet fighters

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
Saturday, 21 June 2008

Israel has mounted a major long-range military air exercise – involving more than 100 F15 and F16 fighters – as a rehearsal for a potential strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, American officials have indicated....

Click to expand...