OK, that sounds reasonable. It also sounds like the bulk of the US
foreign
policy with regards to working with Arabs and Persians. Let's look at
a
list of Mid-East oil producers...their 2000 production capacity and our
policy towards them:
Saudi Arabia 9.48 For
Iran 3.77 Against
Iraq 2.58 Against
UAE 2.57 For
Kuwait 2.20 For
Oman 0.97 For
Qatar 0.87 For
Syria 0.55 Against
Yemen 0.44 Mixed
The ones we are against do not have a track record of using their oil
revenues peacefully. The ones we are for generally do.
> the fact that it is ALREADY IS a war between shi'ite and sunni is why
> we should never have invaded, or remain...
The war between Iraq and Iran was the only war between a Shiite and a
Sunni run country that I can remember from 1900 on. Hussein was
secular, and
wasn't interested in theological disputes. He saw the fall of the Shah
as an opportunity to grab disputed territory (and a bit extra). Also,
the
fact that the Ayatollah Khomeini called for the Shiites in Iraq to
overthrow
Hussein, as well as Shiite minorities to do the same in Kuwait,
probably hadsome influence on him.
This war went on for eight years, and at one point it looked as though
Iran was gaining a major advantage...with a good chance of Basra
falling.
At that point, by many reports, the US supplied Iraq military
intelligence
that was very helpful in repelling the Iranian attack.
This is the famous "alliance with Hussein" that folks talk about. This
is
what is considered proof that he was our ally. However, the actions in
the
war, and the timing of the intervention (which was late in the war)
indicated that our objective was more modest. After all, the ideal
time to
get Hussein to attack the Ayatollah for us was early on...when he was
on the
offensive.
The best explanation for this rather limited involvement was that we
really
didn't want an Iranian victory. The Khomeini explicitly stated that he
was
interested in broad Islamic Republic founded on what we now call
radical
Islam. If Iraq fell, no other Arab state was even close to matching
Iran in
capacity.....especially after it had the resources and Shiites of Iraq
at
its disposal.
So, we follow the policy of "hands off" and Iran wins the war with
Iraq.
Then what? Do we use the US military to defend Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,
the
UAE, etc.? Or do we continue with a hands-off approach? Given the
arguments against Gulf War I, staying out of disputes be Mid-East
dictatorships seems pretty logical. Why lose American lives defending
one
dictator against another?
An Islamic Republic, which controlled over 20 million barrels/day of
oil
would have a big hammer in dealing with the Western world. It would be
in a
very strong position to blackmail Europe....and I think it would not
find it
hard to buy the arms needed to become a strong power. Given the fact
that
Iraq was only about a year away from an A-bomb when Gulf war I started
(according to the findings of the inspectors after the war), I see this
as
an extremely dangerous scenario....one that would be far worse than
what we
faced today.
Now, we have a repeat of that potential. Unless internal politics in
Iran
changes, Iran will have a nuclear weapon in 3-7 years. If we withdraw
our
military from the mid-East, and declare a hands off policy, there are
some
very dicey scenarios possible.
It is highly probable that, if we pull out quickly, there will be much
more
extensive ethnic cleansing in Iraq, with the Sunni population confined
to NW
Iraq. The Iranians will step into the power vacuum...having enormous
influence who governs Iraq...somewhere between having a puppet
government
and being a kingmaker for the government.
I'd rate the chances of genocide as better than even in this scenario.
It
would be hard for the Sunni governments to not intervene at this
point...with money and weapons. AQ is a natural for spearheading the
Sunni
defense.
Now, what I am listing above is, probably, the least worse evil...I
favor a
timetable for withdraw...not a immediate pullout. In this scenario, I
hope
we can successfully push for a non-genocidal ethnic cleansing of the
Sunnis
into the NW of Iraq...but I don't think we can be assured of this.
Maybe we
will still have enough influence to keep the murder rate to under
50k....I
hope so.
Then, as I said, Iran will have a lot of influence in Iraq. And, then,
we
have a question for US policy. Do well tell all the governments in the
region that the US will respond to Iranian incursion into Sunni
countries by
defending those countries with it's own military? I'd guess you'd say
no,
right? That would lead, in my opinion, to a very unstable situation.
I'd
say yes, which would lead...as far as I see it....to a new status quo.
One
in which Iraqi Arab Shiites will remember that they are Arab, and the
Iranians are Persians....and that they really don't need to be ruled by
Persians....and the Iranian influence will gradually diminish....and a
fairly independent Shiite Arab dictatorship will emerge as the
governing
power through most of Iraq....with the N staying Kurdish....and the
Sunnis
allowed to keep the impoverished NW.
Dan M.
certainly a hands off policy is not tenable in the mideast, but if we
must get involved, all i am saying is doing things like invading and
occupying iraq was a huge folly. bush senior started the mess by
giving saddam the green light to invade kuwait, but he had the sense to
stop at regime change...
jon
____________________________________________________________________________________Ready
for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
