Middle East conflict

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Ok this is my own little conspiracy theory... I have nothing to back this up, but the logic does seem to flow. Assume the following:

 

1) Israel and the Palestinians have been at odds since 1948.

2) Full fledged war in the Middle East has been close several times since then.

3) Israel has had the grounds to strike at Hezbollah, Hamas, etc virtually the entire time.

4) Iran is presently developing Nuclear weapons

5) No nation is more threatened by Iran's development of WMD than Israel.

6) Any military action by Iran would almost certainly be met with overwhelming defense by Israel.

7) Iran has sworn to defend Syria, Hezbollah, etc.

8) An unprovoked assault on Iran by the US or Israel would be met with great resistance internationally.

 

If Isreal can literally provoke a war with Hezbollah, Syria, etc, Iran will probably jump to their defense. Israel's acts are "self-defense" and therefore justifiable. Once Iran is inevitably drawn in, Iran can be struck by Israel (and possibly the U.S). Thus ending the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran.

 

Is Israel's real objective to stir Iran into this skirmish so that they have the international grounds to strike Iran? I don't know... but it seems plausible.

 

 

Actually I think the reverse is true.

 

Iran is developing nukes.......the U.S. is lining up support to severely punish Iran.

 

Iran gets their puppets ( Hezbollah and Hamas ) to stir up the pot and attack Isreal.

 

Isreal responds and the world attention re-focuses on the Isreal Palestine conflict and away from Irans nukes.

 

That's Iran's goal anyhow but it's pretty obvious to all the players here that Iran and Syria are calling the shots in this latest dustup.

 

 

What's really sad in this whole affair is the complete and utter ineptness of the U.N. They just dither around and try to condemn Isreal of all people while Iran and Syria ( Who I believe are the masterminds of this war ) continue to throw gas on the fire. I believe that sometime in the near future we'll be at war with Iran and Syria with Isreal on our side. It will be ugly, it will be bloody but I think it's necessary to finally clean out the cesspool of Islamo-fascism that is those 2 countries.

Edited July 14, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Balta1701]

Sadly, I'm not sure either of those are actually right, but out of the 2, the one which makes more sense is Nuke's. Why? Because it's not Israel's fault that other groups decided to take their soldiers hostage.

 

Anywho, I don't think any of those are really true personally. Seems more like these are local/regional groups which found the opportunity to grab people and did so, not some grand conspiracy to gain supremacy. Way too much to risk on the part of either one. Iran would take no action until they actually had the bomb if they were rushing ahead on a bomb program, as they'd have nothing for defense without it, and Israel is risking the lives of a great many of its people, and possibly its own survival, if this operation goes forwards more.

 

Anyway, this mess seems to be getting worse by the hour. Maybe I should wait on buying that first car I was thinking about buying until I know it won't cost me $5/gal.

[southsider2k5]

Actually I think the reverse is true.

 

Iran is developing nukes.......the U.S. is lining up support to severely punish Iran.

 

Iran gets their puppets ( Hezbollah and Hamas ) to stir up the pot and attack Isreal.

 

Isreal responds and the world attention re-focuses on the Isreal Palestine conflict and away from Irans nukes.

 

That's Iran's goal anyhow but it's pretty obvious to all the players here that Iran and Syria are calling the shots in this latest dustup.

What's really sad in this whole affair is the complete and utter ineptness of the U.N. They just dither around and try to condemn Isreal of all people while Iran and Syria ( Who I believe are the masterminds of this war ) continue to throw gas on the fire. I believe that sometime in the near future we'll be at war with Iran and Syria with Isreal on our side. It will be ugly, it will be bloody but I think it's necessary to finally clean out the cesspool of Islamo-fascism that is those 2 countries.

 

Judging by the religious leanings of Iran's President I think you are probably on a better path here, except I think the purpose here would be to attempt to justify Iran's need for nuclear weapons (what a better time to announce that they have them, but when Israel is attacking people "for no reason") to defend themselves, and at the sametime protect their Islamic bretheran.

[AbeFroman]

I understand the many points made against my previous post. Frankly, I don't think it has much credibility either. I was kinda just posting it cause I think it made some logical sense....

 

Basically I am surprised as the large scope of Israel's military action. There has obviously been large/suicide attacks against Isreal before... And, its been no secret that lebanese, syrians, and iranians have supported those attacks in some way. WHILE I HAVE NOTHING TO BACK THIS UP IN ANYWAY, i do find the timing of the decision to blockade Beirut and destroy its airport unusual in light of the fact that Israel has never take such decisive steps before when faced with terrorism supported by regional foes.

 

Edit: As a note, I'm inclined to believe that Nuke's theory, the one being perpetuated by the administration and media, is probably more accurate....

Edited July 14, 2006 by AbeFroman

[southsider2k5]

I understand the many points made against my previous post. Frankly, I don't think it has much credibility either. I was kinda just posting it cause I think it made some logical sense....

 

Basically I am surprised as the large scope of Israel's military action. There has obviously been large/suicide attacks against Isreal before... And, its been no secret that lebanese, syrians, and iranians have supported those attacks in some way. WHILE I HAVE NOTHING TO BACK THIS UP IN ANYWAY, i do find the timing of the decision to blockade Beirut and destroy its airport unusual in light of the fact that Israel has never take such decisive steps before when faced with terrorism supported by regional foes.

 

Edit: As a note, I'm inclined to believe that Nuke's theory, the one being perpetuated by the administration and media, is probably more accurate....

 

Well to be fair there is also a large difference between terrorist attacks, and some crappy rocket fire from the Palestian territories, and an invasion from another country. To be honest, I feel that Israel always has erred on the side of overreaction versus underreaction, and that is another reason that some of this has the feel of being coordinated vs just random in my eyes.

[Balta1701]

Judging by the religious leanings of Iran's President I think you are probably on a better path here, except I think the purpose here would be to attempt to justify Iran's need for nuclear weapons (what a better time to announce that they have them, but when Israel is attacking people "for no reason") to defend themselves, and at the sametime protect their Islamic bretheran.

Well, your logic would make sense, if it was not for 1 key fact: as far as everyone knows and believes, Iran is still multiple years away from a nuclear weapon. If they were close, then this concept would be believable, but right now, Iran doesn't have them, so they can't announce they have them. But if Iran doesn't have them, having Israel lash out randomly against groups that Iran has assisted is very risky for that country, as an Israeli strike against Iran would at the least likely delay their nuclear program (even if it would significantly strengthen their government).

 

Well to be fair there is also a large difference between terrorist attacks, and some crappy rocket fire from the Palestian territories, and an invasion from another country. To be honest, I feel that Israel always has erred on the side of overreaction versus underreaction, and that is another reason that some of this has the feel of being coordinated vs just random in my eyes.

On that you are correct. I think it's probably also worth pointing out that Hamas and Hezbollah on their own both have reasons to desire the Isreali over-response. Hamas in that it strengthens their government and its insistence on Isreal's demise, and Hezbollah in that the Israeli response totally destroys the momentum that was building since the last Lebanese elections which would have forced that group to begin disarming now that it had become a key part of the government.

[southsideirish71]

The rhetoric has stepped up from Iran's president

 

Iran pledges support to Syria

 

More on Satan, I mean the Iranian president

 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a telephone call that there would be a "fierce response" to any Israeli attack on Syria.

Edited July 14, 2006 by southsideirish71

[southsider2k5]

The rhetoric has stepped up from Iran's president

 

Iran pledges support to Syria

 

More on Satan, I mean the Iranian president

 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a telephone call that there would be a "fierce response" to any Israeli attack on Syria.

 

Well so far there hasn't been any attacks out of the Golan Heights region, so I wouldn't expect there to be any response towards Syria. Israel hadn't even thought about Lebanon until Hezbollah invaded and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Until then the Israeli response had been contained to Palestian territories where they were the orginal kidnapped soldier was supposed to be.

[Balta1701]

Well so far there hasn't been any attacks out of the Golan Heights region, so I wouldn't expect there to be any response towards Syria. Israel hadn't even thought about Lebanon until Hezbollah invaded and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Until then the Israeli response had been contained to Palestian territories where they were the orginal kidnapped soldier was supposed to be.

Syria is supposedly one of Hezbollah's patrons just as much as Iran (although Iran has more money and better arms). Syria also is much more closely involved in Lebanon than Iran, having only pulled their troops out of Lebanon recently. Israel is probably more likely to wind up striking Syria than Iran over these actions.

[Rex Kickass]

I understand the many points made against my previous post. Frankly, I don't think it has much credibility either. I was kinda just posting it cause I think it made some logical sense....

 

Basically I am surprised as the large scope of Israel's military action. There has obviously been large/suicide attacks against Isreal before... And, its been no secret that lebanese, syrians, and iranians have supported those attacks in some way. WHILE I HAVE NOTHING TO BACK THIS UP IN ANYWAY, i do find the timing of the decision to blockade Beirut and destroy its airport unusual in light of the fact that Israel has never take such decisive steps before when faced with terrorism supported by regional foes.

 

Edit: As a note, I'm inclined to believe that Nuke's theory, the one being perpetuated by the administration and media, is probably more accurate....

 

That's not entirely true, Israel once occupied a good portion of Southern Lebanon.

 

I was listening to On the Point on WNYC yesterday and a very interesting theory was launched. The last time they did this sort of thing, it backfired on Israel because they occupied Lebanon. So instead of creating a wedge between Lebanon and Hezbollah, Hezbollah was seen more and more as freedom fighters rather than armed thugs.

 

However, with Israel out of Lebanon - public opinion in Lebanon has changed severely and air attacks over Lebanese targets may acheive their goals from the 1990s, to isolate Hezbollah and make them give up their armed wing and be better neighbors. It is commonly seen that the most divisive issue within Lebanon is regarding Hezbollah and the armed wing of their political party... and whether or not unregulated militias should be permitted.

 

Hezbollah's attack on Israel is giving her the opportunity to utilize the regional influence it seeks.

[Rex Kickass]

63 Lebanese dead. 2 Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah rocket attacks which are now hitting the center of Haifa. Hezbollah also hit an Israeli navy ship currently blockading Lebanese ports. The US brokered an emergency repair deal on a Beirut runway allowing several private airline jets to leave Beirut without damage to their planes.

[Balta1701]

Aside from a few minor details, I think This piece is probably right on.

[Rex Kickass]

That's really good.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I think the biggest wildcard here is Syria. If Isreal gets a wild hair up its collective ass and decides to hit targets inside Syria then that will draw Syria and Iran into a war against Isreal and that will force the US to come in on the side of the Isrealies. That's the worst case scenario as I see it and I don't think it's too much to say that there's a 50-50 shot of it happening at some point.

[Balta1701]

I think the biggest wildcard here is Syria. If Isreal gets a wild hair up its collective ass and decides to hit targets inside Syria then that will draw Syria and Iran into a war against Isreal and that will force the US to come in on the side of the Isrealies. That's the worst case scenario as I see it and I don't think it's too much to say that there's a 50-50 shot of it happening at some point.

Either Syria or Iran could be a wildcard. If the Isreali leaks yesterday about the soldiers being moved to Iran are true, it would be the same result, except Israel would strike Iran first and Syria would join in.

 

Right now, I think the only thing we're banking on is the Isrealis not being stupid enough to launch a full scale regional war in the Middle East. That has to be why they've only committed air and sea forces thus far but no ground forces.

 

Syria also may decide at some point to stick its head up its ass and provide more aid to Hezbollah in Lebanon, or may even send troops back in if these attacks destabilize the Lebanese government, which they may well do. Or Syria may act to stop the flood of refugees coming over its border, with similar results.

 

Basically, we're sitting in a room filled with gasoline holding a burning matchbook. Anyone waits too long or does anything stupid, and the room explodes. The only real option is to get both sides to start backing down immediately, and the only nation with enough strength to arrange that is the U.S. Right now, every option other than a gradual pullback on each side seems to me to be a terrible one.

Edited July 14, 2006 by Balta1701

[WCSox]

I think the biggest wildcard here is Syria. If Isreal gets a wild hair up its collective ass and decides to hit targets inside Syria then that will draw Syria and Iran into a war against Isreal and that will force the US to come in on the side of the Isrealies. That's the worst case scenario as I see it and I don't think it's too much to say that there's a 50-50 shot of it happening at some point.

 

Unfortunately, it's definitely going to happen at some point. Both Israel and the U.S. are going to war with Iran at some point in the not-too-distant future. Tehran's support of terrorisim in the Middle East was tolerable for the U.S. back in the '80s and '90s, but the combination of 9/11, the Iran-supported insurgency in Iraq, and Tehran's defiant pursuit of nukes has rendered them too dangerous to America. Sanctions won't get the job done anymore.

[Rex Kickass]

The US has to take a leading role in bringing peace here. The Bush administration has to walk a fine line between supporting Israel, which it can and really should do - but also appearing even handed. Although it's understandable, the Israeli strategy with Lebanon is really hard to defend.

 

This is a Democratic State attacking a Democratic State for the actions of an unregulated militia in its southern region - that is financially supported by other state actors from outside its borders. Were they provoked? Hell yeah, but the provocations aren't much different than the ones that started the Iran/Iraq war and few people see that as a just war.

 

The US was able to broker a deal to help get some foreign owned assets (passenger jets) out of the country through Beirut's airport which is admirable. I hope that this spirit of being an honest broker can continue and prevent a worsening of tensions and open hostilities in the area.

 

This is Condoleeza Rice's moment and I wish her well. If her leadership can stand up here, this could be a historic opportunity for peace in the mid-east, or it could blow up into a bad situation for a lot of people. Ourselves included. But only with an active show of diplomacy can we keep that opportunity open. If we work hard and show ourselves to be an honest broker and more interested in peace than who's right or wrong in the immediate moment, we can radically change the viewpoint of many governments and people in the mideast and radically change the direction that the mideast seems to be headed towards.

 

If we remain passive and don't take a keen interest in creating a peace (i.e. resisting calls to pressure for truce), any conflagration becomes partially our responsibility. Whether we like it or not, we're the 800 lb gorilla in the world now. And if we want to be viewed as the fair, honest, upstanding 800lb gorilla, sometimes we gotta do the right thing - even if it doesn't seem in our immediate best interest.

[WCSox]

If we work hard and show ourselves to be an honest broker and more interested in peace than who's right or wrong in the immediate moment, we can radically change the viewpoint of many governments and people in the mideast and radically change the direction that the mideast seems to be headed towards.

 

I seriously doubt that. We've been down this road before and the fundamentalist Islamic nutcases aren't going to "change their viewpoints." It's unfortunate, but it's the reality.

 

If we remain passive and don't take a keen interest in creating a peace (i.e. resisting calls to pressure for truce), any conflagration becomes partially our responsibility.

 

Agreed with the first part, but the actions of the Islamafascists in Iran and Syria are not "our responsibility." We should do what we can to stabilize the region, but we can't force the Israelis and militant Muslims to peacefully coexist.

[Rex Kickass]

If we give an effort, an honest full-hearted effort, and it fails - there's nothing we could do. If we half ass it and it fails, we do bear some responsibility for it.

 

Small events can change minds abruptly. Will every islamofascist change their mind? Of course not. The idea is to change the minds of the people in the governments across the world. To change the minds of the people that are in the street too, that aren't islamofascists either - but just people.

[Balta1701]

4 more Israeli soldiers missing after an attack by an unmanned kamikaze-type boat on an Israeli warship.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Saw this one coming from 10 miles away.

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203814,00.html

 

 

Isreal hits Iran in 5.............4............3.............2............1...............

[WCSox]

If we give an effort, an honest full-hearted effort, and it fails - there's nothing we could do. If we half ass it and it fails, we do bear some responsibility for it.

 

Small events can change minds abruptly. Will every islamofascist change their mind? Of course not. The idea is to change the minds of the people in the governments across the world. To change the minds of the people that are in the street too, that aren't islamofascists either - but just people.

 

Oh, I agree that we should do what we can to win the hearts and minds of "Ahmed Average" in the Middle East. However, that's not going to change the fact that the Islamofascists that run Iran and Syria will use their state-controlled media outlets to spin whatever good effort we make into an anti-Muslim act. We're better off trying to change the minds of other governments - especially those that are UN members.

 

I hate to say it, but somebody's going to have to force a regime change in Iran at some point (and I hope that it's the UN, not just America). This latest conflict was instigated by them (it's no coincidence that it came at a time that the UN was considering taking action against Iran for their nuke program). Hitler Jr. cannot be allowed to support terrorists and pursue nuclear weapons - that's a potentially-catastropic combination. The fact that we've set up a U.S.-friendly regime next door in Iraq suggests that it's been part of the long-term plan anyway. I just hope that it's not a unilateral effort. Europe REALLY needs to get on board with our efforts to contain rogue, terrorist-supporting nations in the Middle East.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Oh, I agree that we should do what we can to win the hearts and minds of "Ahmed Average" in the Middle East. However, that's not going to change the fact that the Islamofascists that run Iran and Syria will use their state-controlled media outlets to spin whatever good effort we make into an anti-Muslim act. We're better off trying to change the minds of other governments - especially those that are UN members.

 

I hate to say it, but somebody's going to have to force a regime change in Iran at some point (and I hope that it's the UN, not just America). This latest conflict was instigated by them (it's no coincidence that it came at a time that the UN was considering taking action against Iran for their nuke program). Hitler Jr. cannot be allowed to support terrorists and pursue nuclear weapons - that's a potentially-catastropic combination. The fact that we've set up a U.S.-friendly regime next door in Iraq suggests that it's been part of the long-term plan anyway. I just hope that it's not a unilateral effort. Europe REALLY needs to get on board with our efforts to contain rogue, terrorist-supporting nations in the Middle East.

 

 

I just hope it doesn't take a nuclear blast over Tel Aviv, or London, or Paris, or NYC to make them realize the error of their ways.

[Pale Hose Jon]

Saw this one coming from 10 miles away.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203814,00.html

Isreal hits Iran in 5.............4............3.............2............1...............

 

 

I read the articel and i don't see how this is proof that the iranians helped fire the missle. The article just said that 100 revolutionary guard helped fire the missle. I didn't see any proof of that claim.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I read the articel and i don't see how this is proof that the iranians helped fire the missle. The article just said that 100 revolutionary guard helped fire the missle. I didn't see any proof of that claim.

 

 

It doesn't matter if Isreal can prove it or not. The very idea is that much more incentive for them to take a whack at Iran......as if they didn't have enough already.