The Wider Middle East War in 2012 ?

[mongers]

So will the standoff over the Iranian nuclear program and the civil war in Syria result in a wider war across the Middle East in 2012 ?

By wider war I mean something more than a US/Israeli air campaign against Iran and limited effective retaliation by Iran in the Gulf and some confrontations on the northern and western borders of Israel. 


My own guess is it's a 50-50 possibility if two of the three key players acts rashly. Maybe the US and/or Israel are counting on developments in Syria will enable them to strike at Iran without HibzAllah being able to react massively against Israel, because it's been cut off from Assad's support as that country spirals into civil war ? 

Saudi Arabia seems to be very active, promoting a peacemaking/regime change force and/or agenda for Syria, I've even heard rumours of Saudi money and arms being sent to the rebels. 

So what do you guys think ?

Care to paint a picture of how the Middle East might look at years end ?

[PDH]

I give it even odds of a 50/50 chance that there are actions of a nature requiring substantive reactions of like force.

[mongers]

I give it even odds of a 50/50 chance that there are actions of a nature requiring substantive reactions of like force.

Biblical, network worthy or are you just planning a holiday in Dubai ? 

[Siege]

Nothing gonna happen.

[Ideologue]

I hope so.  I need a new war to make me feel better about being an American.

[alfred russel]

One key country is led by netanyahu, another by ahmadinejad. I'm confident no one will do anything stupid and rash.

[jimmy olsen]

One key country is led by netanyahu, another by ahmadinejad. I'm confident no one will do anything stupid and rash.

We're so boned

[mongers]

One key country is led by netanyahu, another by ahmadinejad. I'm confident no one will do anything stupid and rash.

Well I was considering the US and Israel as acting as one, so assuming the tail doesn't wag the dog, one would guess Obama might be a moderating influence, but then again it is election year. 

[alfred russel]

One key country is led by netanyahu, another by ahmadinejad. I'm confident no one will do anything stupid and rash.

Well I was considering the US and Israel as acting as one, so assuming the tail doesn't wag the dog, one would guess Obama might be a moderating influence, but then again it is election year. 

If Israel rings up Washington and says, "we're going to bomb Tehran tomorrow, you in?" Obama is in quite an election year quandry. Join in, and you are being dragged into a stupid war. Sit it out, and much of our electorate goes crazy that you are abandoning Israel trying to save itself from a madman, probably because you are a secret muslim.

This is quite a turnaround from the previous administration, when we had the leader dragging the saner portions of the world into stupid wars.

[Ideologue]

Awesome wars of liberation.  Stop supporting dictatorships and theocracies.

Actually, seriously, wars?  Afghanistan was a stupid war?

[mongers]

Awesome wars of liberation.  Stop supporting dictatorships and theocracies.

Actually, seriously, wars?  Afghanistan was a stupid war?

I think the issue isn't it was, but that it is or might be ie they dropped the ball after the invasion and now it appears perhaps to be unwinnable.

[alfred russel]

Awesome wars of liberation.  Stop supporting dictatorships and theocracies.

Actually, seriously, wars?  Afghanistan was a stupid war?

Not at the outset. But wtf are we doing there? Are we going to build Afghanistan into a stable democratic country? When 5% of the effort makes sense, and 95% is pointless, I think stupid is a fair assessment of the overall operation.

[Ideologue]

Awesome wars of liberation.  Stop supporting dictatorships and theocracies.

Actually, seriously, wars?  Afghanistan was a stupid war?

I think the issue isn't it was, but that it is or might be ie they dropped the ball after the invasion and now it appears perhaps to be unwinnable.

Oh, it was always winnable.

Anyway, yeah, I misunderstood you, Al.

[alfred russel]

Oh, it was always winnable.

Anyway, yeah, I misunderstood you, Al.

No problem.

Regarding "winnable", I think by any reasonable standard we won a long time ago--both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted this is difficult because our objectives didn't get laid out at the beginning, but in Iraq what did we want to do other than get rid of WMDs, get rid of Saddam, and give them a shot at democracy? As I see it, we achieved all three (of course there weren't WMDs, so we had success on that score from the start). In Afghanistan did we want to do more than displace Al Qaeda, displace the Taliban, nuetralize Osama Bin Laden, and give them a chance at democracy? All those have been achieved as well (with Bin Laden running to Pakistan years ago).

I think part of the reason there is an urge to stay is because we know democracy won't stick, and that means the recent past was a waste, since the other aims were long ago acheived.

[Ideologue]

I will say you are the most persuasive anti-war advocate I have ever seen.