Likely Scenario of a Regional MidEast War

[RenMan]

Scenario: The US withdraws from Iraq, or draws down its military presence sufficiently to let events take their course.

Now supposing the Shia militias in Iraq stage a long-prepared power-play, attempting to capture Baghdad and menacing the Sunni provinces.

Questions:

1. Does the "Shia Alliance" (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah) send in their forces to help, or do they provide support from the background (as they are likely doing now?), or perhaps wait until foreign Sunni armies intervene.

2. Who might join a Sunni military alliance against Iran? Would the Saudis fight? Egypt and Jordan?

3. Finally what role might Israel and Turkey take in such a conflict? Would Israel attempt to stay as far out of it as possible, or might they provide covert or open support to the Sunnis? Would the Turks take the opportunity to tangle with the Kurds in northern Iraq?

[BrainGlutton]

1. Does the "Shia Alliance" (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah) send in their forces to help, or do they provide support from the background (as they are likely doing now?), or perhaps wait until foreign Sunni armies intervene.

I would expect Syria to stay out of it, at any rate. The president and ruling elite are Alawi Shi'a but the majority of the population are Sunni -- getting involved in a Sunni-Shi'ite conflict would be just too hot to handle. As for Iran, I hope Ahmadinejad is too smart to actually send Iranian troops into Iraq overtly, that would be like begging the U.S. forces to come back in. Covert aid remains an option.

2. Who might join a Sunni military alliance against Iran? Would the Saudis fight? Egypt and Jordan?

I would expect all of their governments to be profoundly allergic to getting into a Sunni-Shi'ite conflict. The Saudis are Sunnis, all right, but their Wahhabi royal family has to deal with opposition from ultra-Wahabbi dissidents who consider the royals too corrupt and Westernized. Why stir the pot? Egypt's government likewise has its own ultra-Islamist dissidents (as well as democratic dissidents). And Jordan has too many troubles of its own.

3. Finally what role might Israel and Turkey take in such a conflict? Would Israel attempt to stay as far out of it as possible, or might they provide covert or open support to the Sunnis? Would the Turks take the opportunity to tangle with the Kurds in northern Iraq?

I doubt Israel would find any Muslim faction anywhere willing to accept its aid. As for Turkey -- don't they still want to join the EU? Why remind the world they have their own Kurdish problem?

If, on the other hand, the U.S. invades Iran -- that could lead to a general regional conflict. In fact, wargame (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows) scenarios suggest there would be no way to avoid it.

[chappachula]

Iran and Iraq fought a decade- long war that killed over a million people in the 1980's. Vast numbers of civilians were killed as Sunnis and Shiites fought each other. And nobody in the western world cared.

I find it interesting that so many Americans now get so terribly emotionally upset over the concept that Sunnis and Shiites might fight each other again.
The other countries in the region will defend their own borders, but not take an active part.

It didn't affect us then, and it won't affect us now. . But we will get to see lots of color pictures on TV.

[Anne Neville]

Iran and Iraq fought a decade- long war that killed over a million people in the 1980's. Vast numbers of civilians were killed as Sunnis and Shiites fought each other. And nobody in the western world cared.

I find it interesting that so many Americans now get so terribly emotionally upset over the concept that Sunnis and Shiites might fight each other again.

It wasn't our fault the last time around. This time, it is- if we hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, we probably wouldn't be facing the possibility of a Sunni-Shiite war now.

[madmonk28]

Iran and Iraq fought a decade- long war that killed over a million people in the 1980's. Vast numbers of civilians were killed as Sunnis and Shiites fought each other. And nobody in the western world cared.

I find it interesting that so many Americans now get so terribly emotionally upset over the concept that Sunnis and Shiites might fight each other again.
The other countries in the region will defend their own borders, but not take an active part.

It didn't affect us then, and it won't affect us now. . But we will get to see lots of color pictures on TV.

There are a number of reasons why the two wars are not comparable. As Anne Neville pointed out, the United States is largely responsible for this conflict and will therefore be held accountable in the court of global opinion. If you do not think that is a significant setback for the US, I would invite you to examine the period after the US' loss in Vietnam.

Also, the Iraq-Iran war resulted in a stalemate. This war already features a failed Iraqi state. If one of the two nations had collapsed during the fighting, I don't think you could make the argument that it would have no affect on the world.

Of course 9/11 demonstrated definitively that destabilized and radicalized populaces with a grudge against the United States can have a great impact without much in the way of technology or funding. An entire region engulfed in sectarian conflict and in withboth sides radicalized and blaming the Unites States is obviously not in our interests.

Needless to say, the region also contains vast amounts of oil which is literally fuel for the global economy. A major disruption of the flow of crude woud most certainly have an impact on not just the US economy, but also the economies of China, India, Europe and ultimately the rest of the world.

An additiona point: the Iran-Iraq war was fought at a time when the Soviet Union and the US wielded great influence in their respective spheres of influence. Now the US has a greatly diminished standing in the world and the Soviet Union has collapsed, allowing for the spread of dangerous material and technology from its weapons programs. Which leads me to my final point.

Iran is now pursuing nuclear weapons and has clearly established that it expects to be considered a regional power. The balance of power has been disrupted in the Middle East because of the collapse of the Iraqi state and Iran is showing every inclination to fill much of the void in the power structure and sees the pursuit of nuclear weapons as the way to do so.

[John Mace]

This article in the NYT (written in Feb, after the mosque bombing in Samara) offers a good summary, with some comments from several M.E. experts:

Civil war in Iraq? Big threat to Mideast (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/26/news/war.php)

The greatest fear of leaders throughout the Middle East is that an unrestrained civil war, if it ever comes to that, would not only give birth to warring Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish enclaves inside Iraq, but that the violence could also spread unpredictably through the region.

Some experts have advocated a negotiated breakup of Iraq into three main sectors for the main ethnic and religious groupings. But a violent crackup could not easily be kept stable.

It might well incite sectarian conflicts in neighboring countries and, even worse, draw these countries into taking sides in Iraq itself. Iran might side with the Shiites. It is already allied with the biggest Shiite militias, some of whose members seemed to be involved in the retaliatory attacks on Sunnis after the bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra last week.

And Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait might feel a need to defend Sunnis or perhaps to create buffer states for themselves along Iraqi borders.
I don't want to quote much more than that, but I do encourage anyone interested to read the entire article, not just a few snippets. I don't think anyone is saying a regional confilct is certain, just that the risk is high:

If Iraq were to sink deeper into that kind of conflict, Baghdad and other cities could become caldrons of ethnic cleansing, bringing revenge violence from one region to another. Shiite populations in Lebanon, Kuwait and especially Saudi Arabia, where Shiites happen to live in the oil-rich eastern sector, could easily revolt. Such a regional conflict could take years to exhaust itself, and could force the redrawing of boundaries that themselves are less than 100 years old.

"A civil war in Iraq would be a kind of earthquake affecting the whole Middle East," said Terje Roed-Larsen, the special UN envoy for Lebanon and previously for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "It would deepen existing cleavages and create new cleavages in a part of the world that is already extremely fragile and extremely dangerous. I'm not predicting this will happen, but it is a plausible worst-case scenario."

[Anne Neville]

the United States is largely responsible for this conflict and will therefore be held accountable in the court of global opinion.

I think it's natural for people to feel worse about a bad thing happening if they feel they (or a group that they belong to) were somehow responsible for it happening.

If a person dies in a car accident, it's tragic, but I'm not going to pay much attention unless I knew them or their family or friends. If a person dies in a car accident that I caused, I'm going to feel guilty about causing their death, even if I didn't know the person before the accident. See the difference, chappachula?

[DSeid]

Also, the Iraq-Iran war resulted in a stalemate. This war already features a failed Iraqi state. If one of the two nations had collapsed during the fighting, I don't think you could make the argument that it would have no affect on the world.
A very important point this one. During the first Gulf war Kissinger was being interviewed and made the point that we did not want to get rid of Saddam. That we needed a strongman there to keep a powerful enough Iraq as a counterweight to Iran. We just needed his power reduced some. I hate that he was right.

Political boundaries in the Arab world are much more fragile than ethnic and sectarian identities.

[slaphead]

Political boundaries in the Arab world are much more fragile than ethnic and sectarian identities.
That's not an Arab phenomenon - it's more of a general rule, as has been quite exhaustively established in Europe, Africa, India and so on over the last hundred years.

[FRDE]

I heard a rumour that Israelis have been involved with the Kurds
- also the Kurds are pretty pro American

I'm not so sure that Iran really wants to take over Iraq, they are mostly non Arab

Probably both Syria and Iran would be pleased to have the USA out of the area.
The major problem seems, to me, to be the breakdown in Central Iraq.

[tagos]

It wasn't our fault the last time around.

No we just explicitly armed Saddam, gave him credits, cheered him on, gave him satellite intel and denied he'd gassed anyone. One nation among us secretly armed Iran also, provided naval escort for Iraq oil but not Iranian and swatted a civilian Iran airliner from the skies.

Nope, nothing to do with us squire.

[Evil Captor]

Any war that's fought in the Mideast will ultimately be about oil, because oil is the only real source of money and power that the place has. The Kurds are sitting on by far the majority of oil in Iraq. If the Americans were to just leave, the Iraqi Shias would probably wipe out or otherwise disesmpower the Iraqi Sunnis, then if there's no one stopping them, go after the Kurds to get their oil. I don't know of much animus between the Kurds and the Shias, but the Shias would definitely want to be the ones to get all that lovely oil revenue for themselves.

The Iranians would probably support the Iraqi Shias with the idea of having a puppet state, or at least a friendly state. Long range, I bet the Iranians are looking at a new Caliphate centered in Iraq, which would be a nuclear power and control all of the Middle East, especially the part with oil fields. They are probably the major power to contend with right now.

[Evil Captor]

Long range, I bet the Iranians are looking at a new Caliphate centered in Iraq, which would be a nuclear power and control all of the Middle East, especially the part with oil fields. They are probably the major power to contend with right now.

Should be, "centered in Iran" of course.

[BrainGlutton]

Iran is now pursuing nuclear weapons . . .

That remains to be proven and the CIA doubts it. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061120/pl_nm/iran_usa_report_dc_3)

[Ludovic]

And I'm Queen of the Moon.

[BrainGlutton]

And I'm Queen of the Moon.

Your Majesty's palace is being prepared. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=399138)

[Evil Captor]

That remains to be proven and the CIA doubts it. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061120/pl_nm/iran_usa_report_dc_3)

I loved the vicious attack on Sy Hersh. He's been right about just about everything to date. "Prisoners tortured" Hersh said. "Liar!" screamed the Bush admin.

I know who the fucking liar is. And it isn't Sy Hersh. It's the Liar in Chief.

[ralph124c]

I say, let chaos rule! let the Iranians try to dominate Iraq-they will have no more success than we have had. Iran is chock full of ethnic minorities as well (Arabs in the south, Afghans in the east, Kurds in the west), and isn't anxious to stoke those fires as well. Or Syria-Syria has a pretty tenuous grip on hamas-and the (Alawite) Assad regime in Damascus won't last 30 seconds if Hamas becomes the power in Lebanon.
Face it: the ME always has and always will be unstable. the only thing that will make it stable is;
-ruthless dictators
-reactionary, backward looking theocracies (like Saudi Arabia)
The ME needs about 300 years of Western-style renaissance and enlightenment!

[John Mace]

I say, let chaos rule! let the Iranians try to dominate Iraq-they will have no more success than we have had. Iran is chock full of ethnic minorities as well (Arabs in the south, Afghans in the east, Kurds in the west), and isn't anxious to stoke those fires as well.
An interesting point. Most people assume that Iran is pretty homogeneous because it is almost all Shi'a, but the ethnic breakdown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_peoples.jpg) is quite surprising, especially this first category:

Persian: 51%
Azeri: 24%
Gilaki and Mazandarani: 8%
Kurd: 7%
Arab: 3%

Only the slimmest majority are ethnic Persians, although I'm not sure that Galaki and Mazandarani see themsleves as significantly distinct. Still, there are large minority groups in Iran.

[Anne Neville]

No we just explicitly armed Saddam, gave him credits, cheered him on, gave him satellite intel and denied he'd gassed anyone. One nation among us secretly armed Iran also, provided naval escort for Iraq oil but not Iranian and swatted a civilian Iran airliner from the skies.

But the war would still have happened if we hadn't done that. It might have been shorter, or gone differently, but it still would have happened. This time around, that's not the case. I think that gives us more responsibility for it this time than last time.

[Evil Captor]

I say, let chaos rule! let the Iranians try to dominate Iraq-they will have no more success than we have had. Iran is chock full of ethnic minorities as well (Arabs in the south, Afghans in the east, Kurds in the west), and isn't anxious to stoke those fires as well. Or Syria-Syria has a pretty tenuous grip on hamas-and the (Alawite) Assad regime in Damascus won't last 30 seconds if Hamas becomes the power in Lebanon.
Face it: the ME always has and always will be unstable. the only thing that will make it stable is;
-ruthless dictators
-reactionary, backward looking theocracies (like Saudi Arabia)
The ME needs about 300 years of Western-style renaissance and enlightenment!

Depends on what you mean by "success." I think back to the Iran-Iraq war and remember that the Iranians sent unarmed troops who were basically children in human wave assaults in which thousands were killed -- well, if they're so willing to waste the lives of their OWN kids, I kinda suspect that Iran might be kinda ... unconcerned about the lives of ... anyone else at all. So, I'm thinking if the Iranians get the idea they can take Iraq by mililtary force now that we've so conveniently destroyed the Iraqi army (and should we just bugger out) ... that when they get around to occupying the country, genocide might be just around the corner.

[BrainGlutton]

Depends on what you mean by "success." I think back to the Iran-Iraq war and remember that the Iranians sent unarmed troops who were basically children in human wave assaults in which thousands were killed -- well, if they're so willing to waste the lives of their OWN kids, I kinda suspect that Iran might be kinda ... unconcerned about the lives of ... anyone else at all. So, I'm thinking if the Iranians get the idea they can take Iraq by mililtary force now that we've so conveniently destroyed the Iraqi army (and should we just bugger out) ... that when they get around to occupying the country, genocide might be just around the corner.

So much the better! The more they kill each other now, the fewer we'll have to kill later! :)

What? That doesn't meet your definition of "success"? After all, the oil will still be there! ;)

[BrainGlutton]

An interesting point. Most people assume that Iran is pretty homogeneous because it is almost all Shi'a, but the ethnic breakdown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_peoples.jpg) is quite surprising, especially this first category:

Persian: 51%
Azeri: 24%
Gilaki and Mazandarani: 8%
Kurd: 7%
Arab: 3%

Only the slimmest majority are ethnic Persians, although I'm not sure that Galaki and Mazandarani see themsleves as significantly distinct. Still, there are large minority groups in Iran.

True. But the consensus of this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=370464) thread is that they have a much stronger sense of "Iranian" national identity than you might expect.

[Gorsnak]

Face it: the ME always has and always will be unstable.
I take it that you aren't best described as a student of history.

[ralph124c]

I take it that you aren't best described as a student of history.

Sure; it was stable from the heyday of the Ottoman Empire. but after 1918 (when the whole welter of arificial nation-states was created by the French and British at Versailles), the whole place began to unravel. How stable was Iraq?Lessee;
-founded 1918 by British, Hashemite Monarchy installed
-1920's : uprisings by Kurds, Arabs, put down by British Army
-1930's Baathist Party starts fomenting revoltion-put down by British
-1957: Monarchy deposed (king Ghazi killed), Baathist government installed
-1958-1974 : various military rulers, constant internal unrest (Kurds, Arabs, etc.)
-1975: Saddam Hussein comes into power, suppresses Kurds, marsh arabs
-1979-83? (Correct me if I'm wrong": Hussein launches war against iran, possibly 1.1 million killed
--1991-93: constant conflict with West, invasion of Kuwait, Desrt Storm
-2002-present: US invasion, constant internal conflict
Does that qualify as "stable"? :confused:

[Gorsnak]

Sure; it was stable from the heyday of the Ottoman Empire. but after 1918 (when the whole welter of arificial nation-states was created by the French and British at Versailles), the whole place began to unravel. How stable was Iraq?Lessee;
-founded 1918 by British, Hashemite Monarchy installed
-1920's : uprisings by Kurds, Arabs, put down by British Army
-1930's Baathist Party starts fomenting revoltion-put down by British
-1957: Monarchy deposed (king Ghazi killed), Baathist government installed
-1958-1974 : various military rulers, constant internal unrest (Kurds, Arabs, etc.)
-1975: Saddam Hussein comes into power, suppresses Kurds, marsh arabs
-1979-83? (Correct me if I'm wrong": Hussein launches war against iran, possibly 1.1 million killed
--1991-93: constant conflict with West, invasion of Kuwait, Desrt Storm
-2002-present: US invasion, constant internal conflict
Does that qualify as "stable"? :confused:
So by "always has been" you meant "always has been since 1918"? Pardon me for thinking you meant what you said.

[John Mace]

True. But the consensus of this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=370464) thread is that they have a much stronger sense of "Iranian" national identity than you might expect.
Sure. But that's what they said about Yoguslavia before the breakup. Remember how Sarajevo was this international city where everyone got along famously? You never know what might happen when things get dicey.

Now, I don't think there's much of a possiblity that an unchecked Iraqi civil war will precipitate an Iranian civil war, but it could spill over the border where allegiances are mixed-- Kurds in the north and Arabs in the South. And if Iran sets itself up as a major presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabia is going have a serious problem with that. Those two countries do not get along, but at least they don't share a border right now.

[slaphead]

Sure. But that's what they said about Yoguslavia before the breakup. Remember how Sarajevo was this international city where everyone got along famously?
Who said that? Sarajevo was where a fanatical serb nationalist triggered WW1, and was the capital of a made-up country used as a dustbin to stop the post-war map being too cluttered with funny little nations. And that's not even mentioning the brief interlude when one side fought for mainly for the Nazis and the other for the Soviets. People with a clue knew Bosnia was a powderkeg and started prohesying its doom as soon as the Slovenes started their secession.

[FRDE]

@ralph124c

What Gorsnak means is that the Middle East was highly civilized long before America was 'discovered' and while the Europeans were ... well somewhat primitive.

Actually the Roman Empire merged into the Greek Empire of Constantinople, abandoned Europe and was going strong until 1400.

We in Europe, and I think you in the USA, are not taught much about the history of areas outside our ancestry.

I have a strong suspicion that the European Renaissance was actually down to the pillaging of Constantinople.

Possibly part of the problem in the region is that due to oil, some fairly primitive nomads became rather dominant. Also, Western technology made us take a different path, so we tend to ignore or discount some pretty impressive cultures.

What is interesting is that quite a lot of cultures regard us (the West) as jumped up oiks with little history.

[Evil Captor]

@ralph124c

Possibly part of the problem in the region is that due to oil, some fairly primitive nomads became rather dominant. Also, Western technology made us take a different path, so we tend to ignore or discount some pretty impressive cultures.

What is interesting is that quite a lot of cultures regard us (the West) as jumped up oiks with little history.

To be honest, much of the history of those other cultures isn't overwhelmingly impressive.

[RenMan]

Originally posted by FRDE

Possibly part of the problem in the region is that due to oil, some fairly primitive nomads became rather dominant. Also, Western technology made us take a different path, so we tend to ignore or discount some pretty impressive cultures.

How can you use a blanket statement like "some fairly primitive nomads became rather dominant"?

Maybe that's true for Saudi Arabia, but Iraq is the cradle of civilization!! There has supposedly been urban life there longer than anywhere else in the world. And the region hasn't been a backwater; it's been part of important empires for most of its history.

Let's remember how Western politics and civilization played a role in this disaster, and I'm not just talking about the Fumbler in Chief. I'm talking about the way lines on a map were drawn after the Ottomans collapsed in 1918. If the lines had been drawn differently, the 20th century might have gone very differently for the Middle East. There might, for example, be a Kurdistan.

But the British and the French drew lines how it suited them to (according to short term political issues and local alliances), and we have the Middle East of today.

Are we looking, then, at something similar to the Thirty Years War that took place mostly in Germany in the 17th century? Where there was a religiously divided, politically fragmented country (northern Germany) and lots of empires surrounding it (Hapsburg Austria, France, Sweden, etc.) that were more than happy to choose sides and take their share of territory?

Can such a conflict be avoided at this time?

Here's another interesting question: could anything happen in such an all-out war between Shia and Sunni powers (and maybe Kurds, etc.) that might draw in larger world powers? Who would the United States side with, or would they just try to get their forces out of the way? What will Israel and Turkey do?

More importantly, could Russia and China be drawn in to take a more active role? Their informal alliance (the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or something like that) has formed to challenge the US's primacy in the world. So far, they seem to have backed Iran. Will they begin to provide more active assistance? Could this war herald the beginning of another bipolar standoff of superpowers?

I realize some of this might sound alarmist and fantastical, but in a war as big as this, a lot of constants might become variables.

[FRDE]

I don't think that there is anything to worry about from China and Russia, they are both nervous of Moslem fundamentalism - which was, from my view, the reason for the break up of the USSR.

They are not taking the official USA line with Iran, but that does not mean that they are trying to use Iran to get one over the USA.

To be honest I reckon that the best solution now is for the USA (and our enlightened UK government) to simply announce 'we were wrong' - and to carry out a lightning evacuation.

Currently the Iraqis are worrying about how they'll survive when the 'alliance' pulls out, bringing that event forward would concentrate their minds - they'll probably initially gang up to wipe out the criminal elements.

You have a good point with Turkey, they would spit blood if they lost their bit of Kurdistan, which is tricky as they are allies with the USA.

I reckon Israel will simply sit on its hands, they only tend to attack when attacked first or an attack is imminent (eg: 1967 - well 1956 was a special case).

Frankly I reckon that if the UK and the USA eat a bit of crow, it will give the neighbouring states quite an incentive to demonstrate that they can sort out the situation.

Incidentally, Saddam is a Bedouin. There is probably more tribalism than religious conflict at work in Iraq.

[slaphead]

I don't think that there is anything to worry about from China and Russia, they are both nervous of Moslem fundamentalism - which was, from my view, the reason for the break up of the USSR.
Hang on - the various previously independent countries conquered by Stalin deciding to bail from the Soviet Union, followed by couple of countries conquered by the Tsars giving russia the kiss-off at the same time Russia decided to tell the layer of useless Soviet apparatchiks to STFU, was all due to Moslem fundamentalism?

I never realised the Lithuanians were such hard-core muslims, and I wonder how Yeltsin managed to reconcile his prodigious vodka consumption with the Koran.