The Middle East is going to explode

Great Debates
1

The developments of the last few days have convinced me that we are headed for a massive conflict in the Middle East. For those who haven’t been following the details, here’s what’s been happening:

[ul]
[li]A massive suicide explosion in Israel kills 16 and wounds over 100. Hamas takes responsibility.[/li][li]A Palestinian ambulance is discovered trying to cross into Israel with a large bomb strapped under a stretcher holding a sick child.[/li][li]The Arab league summit, rather than being a negotiation for accomodation and peace, has turned militant. Arab nations refused to broadcast Arafat’s speech, they approved 150 million dollars in arms shipments to Hamas and Hizbollah, and word is that the Saudi peace proposal is dead because other Arab nations are demanding that the unconditional right of return be added to it.[/li][li]Iran has stepped up its support for Hamas, after already being caught once trying to ship 50 tons of arms to them.[/li][li]Hassad of Syria has called upon the entire Arab world to support the intifada, and has said that the Palestinians should stop negotiating at all with Israel and instead should seek Arab support to scale up the attacks.[/li][li]Saddam Hussein has increased payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Not many people knew this was even going on, but ever since 2000 there have been Iraqi officials with checkbooks going to the families of each bomber and handing them $10,000 US. They have now increased that to $25,000 US, which means that bombers won’t just be fanatics, but people who are just generally suicidal or in dire financial straits and want to get money for their families. Expect to see the number of bombings go up dramatically.[/li][/ul]

So, what happens next? In my opinion, Israel is going to respond to this last attack dramatically, and they should. This is going to polarize the Arab world. In the meantime, something has to be done about Saddam. This direct flaunting of the U.S.'s “support no terrorists” rhetoric by increasing these payments can’t go unpunished, plus the U.S is planning to attack him anyway.

And Iran has thrown itself right into the middle of this by stepping up support for Hamas and Hizbollah dramatically.

How does all this play out?

2

Well… given that the Israeli’s can go nuclear I would say
BOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!

3

Remember the last “OMG they’re on the brink of war!” crisis? In the fall of 2000?
http://www.addameer.org/september2000/developments/chronology.html

And the crisis before that, in 1997?
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9703/11/mideast.summit/

And the crisis before that, in 1996?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/september96/israel_9-27a.html

Are you starting to see a pattern here? :smiley:

4

The pattern I see from Duck Duck’s links is an incremental rise in tensions which has recently begun to rise exponentially. Why? Because our present president is asleep at the switch!! The previous crises were tempered by a president who remained personally and passionately involved in the mideast talks. People are blowing themselves up because they no longer see any real hope for peace.

5

DDG: There’s a difference this time: Sept. 11. The whole equation has changed. For one thing, Israel’s hands aren’t nearly as tied as they were before. For another, the Palestinians seem emboldened. There hasn’t been this much violence there for a long time. Also, the last time around, Barak was in power and he was much more of an appeaser than is Sharon. And as agressive as Sharon is, he’s actually a moderate in Israel right now. A lot of people expect to see Netanyahu replace him, and he’s already on record as approving of a final solution to the Palestinian situation. Not a Nazi-style ‘final solution’, but perhaps an agressive military takeover, total destruction of the PA, closed borders, and a police state in Palestine.

The Bush administration risks humiliation if its lets flagrant support for terrorism continue indefinitely in the the face of the line they drew in the sand.

Saddam is going to be attacked, and soon (months, not years). And unlike the last time, he knows unequivocably that this time the U.S. won’t stop until he is dead or in exile somewhere. That means that he’s probably going to bring his weapons of mass destruction into play. If he fires scuds at Israel again, and this time they are loaded with VX, Sarin, dirty nuclear material, or biological material, Israel is going to launch an offensive against him, IMO.

That in turn could embolden other Arab nations into thinking that they finally have their opportunity to attack Israel while it fights two fronts.

That would, in turn, draw the U.S. into a war with other Arab nations.

Of course, there are other scenarios that could play out, but I think there is an actual risk of seeing something like this:

The U.S. starts a huge troop buildup in Turkey and Bahrain, bypassing Saudi Arabia as a base of operations. U.S. and whatever coalition forces go along (Canada and Britain certainly, Turkey, Australia probably, perhaps a handful of smaller nations) attack Saddam. Saddam launches weapons of mass destruction against Israel. Israel attacks Saddam. Syria, Egypt, and Iran attack Israel. United States declares war against them. Other coalition forces now join the battle.

That may be a long shot, but some variant of that could happen, in my opinion.

The real, real longshot is that North Korea uses the opportunity to attack South Korea. Then we’re in an honest-to-god world war.

6

I’m looking forward to roasting my marshmallows by a nuclear flame.

7

Well, I’ve felt like doomsday is right around the corner for a really long time. However I am not about to speculate on what particular form it will take. There always seems to be a voice for moderation in the least likely place. Kind of like Pakistan cracking down on militants attacking India in recent months. Who knows. Nobody wants a world war. Also, in the past two world wars there was a powerful nation excercising it’s imperial might (germany) that the rest of the world united against. Right now the only player in the game that can be compared is the US. So if it is a given that a World War needs a powerful imperialist to unite against, then I’m going to have to worry because it will mean that the US went too far.

Erek

8

At this moment I’m so upset that I feel like a total hawk. Israel cannot respond too dramatically for my taste.
I hope the US takes military action in the middle east – against Iraq, Iran, or vigorously attacking specific terrorist organizations like Hizbollah.

My guess is that big-time military operations by the US and Israel may have a better chance of leading to peace. The current policy allows organizations to attack Israel with little cost, and allows various countries to support these terrorists with no costs at all. They have no reason to stop their continuing attacks.

Obviously the situation is totally horrible. I feel sorry for innocent Palestinians, who are likely to be dispossessed or worse, although they’ve done nothing wrong.

9

What needs to happen in order for this situation to defuse:
Arafat needs to go on TV and renounce terror strongly, in Arabic, on PA TV.

That’s it.

IMHO – he won’t do it. If he had already, he would be in Beirut now. Israel would have withdrawn its troops farther.

Hamas, Fatah, all these others, believe that they are actually furthering the Palestinian cause by blowing up Israelis celebrating Passover. The PA appears to be going right along with them. There is absolutely no negotiation if you have an enemy intent on blowing you up.

All Israel wants here is security. Just some sign of a pledge for Israeli security from the Palestinians will do, and they won’t even commit to that.

Israel has a number of options and none of them are pretty. It can sit by and wait for the next suicide bomber in a massive display of restraint. They can go in and outlaw the PA and attempt to demilitarize the territories. Or they can just withdraw and unilaterally declare Palestinian statehood. Build a wall and let the Palestinians negotiate for water, power, port, and travel rights. Of course I think the last option is the best, but I can’t realistically see Israel going for it.

I’m holding my breath for the next few days.

10

Agreed. Sam Stone , gives a brief line up of nations but I do wonder where the rest of the players would end up. What about the Saudis? India? former Soviet states? China?

11

Frankly, I think Arafat is an irrelevancy. The reason he hasn’t fought against the terrorism is simply because he has a highly developed sense of self preservation. Arafat has been walking a tightrope for decades. In an area so besieged, it is amazing that he is still alive. Most of his peers and enemies are dead or long retired.

The way he stays alive is to tell Palestinian militants what they want to hear in Arabic speeches and by operating revolving-door jails and porous borders, and by telling the west what they want to hear by making them believe he is a beacon of peace who’s trying the best he can. In reality, all Arafat is interested in is Arafat.

So I don’t think you’re going to hear a peep from him. Now that we’re actually paying attention to what he says in Arabic he’ll probably have to tone that rhetoric down, and that’s about all he’ll do.

As far as Israel goes, as of two days ago I thought that there was a chance that they would unilaterally withdraw and declare a Palestinian state as you suggest. But I’m afraid that the people in Israel now want retribution.

And what do we and they do about Iran? This attack was carried out by Hamas, which is Iranian sponsored and just received new funding from Iran.

Then there’s Saddam, who’s strategy is actually very smart - he’s buying smart bombs for $25,000 a piece, and launching them at Israel, while being able to maintain at least a fiction of deniability. But how can the U.S. allow him to do this to an ally after claiming that ANYONE who harbors or sponsors terrorists will be destroyed? How does the U.S. ignore Iran’s scaling up of support for Hamas?

12

War in the sense of country v. country is extremely unlikely for several reasons.[ul]
[li]Who would fight it? You can count Egypt and Jordan out right off the bat. You can count out Lebanon as well since they haven’t got even a pretense of an effective military. That leaves Syria.[/li][li]Even if everyone of its neighbors ganged up on it, Israel would win without breaking a sweat. Without superpower backing, there’s no six militaries in the region combined that could hope to take on the Israelis. Certainly Syria isn’t going to do it by itself. That’s one good reason, by the way, that we needn’t fear Israel using the bomb. Why should they bother? [/li][li]No upside, plenty of downside. The Arab states aren’t about to start a full-scale war on behalf of the Palestinians. They haven’t anything to gain. On the other hand, if, or rather, when, they lose, they would expect the Israelis to be ferocious. The only thing that bailed the Arab states out in the last unpleasantness was Soviet backing, a factor on which they can, obviously, no longer rely.[/li][/ul]
In any event, Israel’s biggest problem is that they’ve got no one to fight. While virtually all Palestinians bitterly resent their current status, the vast majority just want to get on with their lives. The “collateral damage” Israel causes when it tries to go after the militant minority does enormous damage to Israel’s position. It’s a losing game for the Israelis that, at this point, it looks very much like the Palestinians are going to win. My bet is that, fairly soon now, the Israelis will climb down from their refusal to “reward” suicide bombing and their avowed policy of miltary retaliation and begin serious discussions. Israeli public opinion while furious about Israeli casualties, finds the carnage on both sides unacceptable and is desperately looking for way out. Palestinian public opinion is a)pretty jaded given the amount of violence and unpleasantness they experience as an ordinary part of their daily lives and b)not really consulted by the people who are sending out suicide bombers. That, BTW, is likely one of Arafats biggest problems. It’s not so much that he won’t control violence, it’s that he can’t.

So my prognosis for the mid-east is that, after some more senseless violence, some deal will be cobbled together that will calm the situation without actually permanently curing it. Remember, it’s quite common in a negotiation for the tension to ratchet up considerably just before a deal is reached. Granted, that in an ordinary negotiation the two sides are actually talking. Nonetheless, perhaps something similar will happen here.

I see, by the way, on preview, that people are concerned about a world war. The chances of that are nil, just at the moment. If it came down to a real shooting match, who would be re-supplying the other side?

Moreover, everyone in the region is perfectly aware what would happen if they got into a conflict with the U.S. and Israel. After the salutory lessons in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, no one, including the Iranians, would be daft enough to even consider attempting to invade Israel, especially the Iranians, since they’d have to transit their close ally and all-around good friend, Iraq, (not to mention Syria) to get anywhere near the theater.

13

If it’s any consolation to all the Cassandras out there, global markets aren’t showing much consternation. I think everyone assumes that Saddam will not be having a Merry Christmas, but I don’t get the impression that many people see much credibility in the doomsday scenarios (Iraq lobs WMDs at Israel, which flings nukes back, North Korea invades the South, etc). The US president can’t be that negligent.

Can he?

14

Sweet Willy: Well, I’m just not sure. The only clear dividing lines right now seem to be: Allies: U.S., Canada, Britain, Australia. Probably a couple other western nations in Europe, and probably Russia, Turkey, and Japan.

Axis: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, possibly Egypt.

Unknowns: Jordan, a number of eastern european states, and the EU.

If the conflict widened into the east with say, North Korea attacking South Korea, you have a real interesting situation. Because India and Pakistan are both technically on our side, but enemies with each other. And both are nuclear powers. China’s a complete wildcard, and my money would be on their staying out of it.

Clearly if it ever came to an all-out mid-east blowout, the ‘axis’ would be severely outmatched. So we’re not talking about a repeat of WWII or anything. But that doesn’t consider the fact that I don’t think the U.S. would wage all-out war against them. We’re not about to bomb their cities and destroy their infrastructures and topple all these regimes. More likely, you’d be looking at isolated strikes against strategic targets, embargoes, military incursions to wipe out terrorists, etc. That’s a much harder game for a superpower to play, because it takes many of its tools off the table.

Here’s an article I just read over at National Review that says pretty much the same thing: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson.asp

15

Oh, and you heard it here first… I just finished saying that the U.S. was going to bypass Saudi Arabia and launch its attack from elsewhere.

Well, here’s an article from The Guardian, saying that the U.S. is moving its base of operations in the Gulf from Saudi Arabia to Qatar: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,674670,00.html

The same article also says this:

16

Truth Seeker: I sort of agree with you. Remember, I said that these were longshot scenarios, and that an escalated ‘world’ war was a long, long shot.

I’m not so sanguine that the Arab countries will stay out of this conflict. Logically, you are absolutely correct. But wars are not logical. WWI was a bloodbath that didn’t need to start and accomplished nothing. Japan was insane to attack the United States. Germany was insane to attack Russia and open up a second front in that war.

The problem is that the countries we are talking about are not democracies, and therefore are subject to totally different pressures than we’re used to thinking about. A country like that can start a war simply because the leader is losing grasp on power internally and needs a distraction, or needs to appease hardliners in his government to forestall a coup. The middle east is a powder keg because it’s NOT particularly rational. It is a land full of tribal struggles and radical fundamentalism that, because it happened to be sitting on oil, was showered with hundreds of billions of dollars and the trappings of modernity, including modern militaries. There have been wars in the middle east for thousands of years, and very few of them made any logical sense. Iran and Iraq waged one of the most brutal wars of the last 50 years, including the use of chemical weapons and ‘human wave’ attacks. Insanity. And Israel’s overwhelming military superiority didn’t prevent it from being attacked multiple times in the last 50 years.

If Sept. 11 hadn’t happened, I think there would be a good chance for exactly the scenario you suggest - a buildup of violence leading to a new round of peace talks. But the U.S. IS going to invade Iraq, and that is going to polarize the Arab world and cause terrorism and militancy to rise. Even if the PA agrees to stop the violence, Hizbollah and Hamas aren’t going to stop, and Saddam isn’t going to stop paying young men and women to blow themselves up. I don’t see a way to negotiate out of this.

17

Sam, I know you have put some thoaght into this, and provided very logical reason’s for why you think things may play out this way, and I agree that it is possible, but I have to say rather unlikely.

First, an invasion of Iraq will not necessarily polarize the Arab world - remember we’ve been there once before, and some of the Arab world were on our side. Granted, this time things are a bit different, but…

Second, even if the Arab world were polarized, how many of those nations are foolish enough to go to was with Israel, much less the U.S.? After the U.S. military and allies swept though the Taliban/Al Qeda-held teritorries, without breaking a sweat, most of the nations in the region would be smart enough to avoid an all out war with the U.S. Terrorism, yes;war doubtful.

Third, as much as the U.S. and Europe depend on Oil from the Middle East, those who supply the Oil depend very heavily on the money they receive. This is a major reason why the Saudis are “friendly” with the U.S. - otherwise they would have nothing to do with us.

Well, maybe I’m a bit too optimistic, but I think (and hope) was is unlikely on the scale you describe. But either way, no happy endings for far too many people.

18

While I do think that you have been relatively well thought out in this thread. I think you’ve been holding your breath on the issue too much to really think of all the factors.

Europe almost unilaterally would not offer any support in this issue. Russia and Germany may provide some support because they have ties with Israel and I think Russia is looking for a show of solidarity with the US. Turkey would be a staging ground but I don’t know that they would be too keen on lending troups in support of Israel. After all they are still an Arab country. I can’t see Japan even being interested unless, like you said North Korea gets uppity. Europe as a whole generally condemns Israeli action in this issue. However I do think that Canada, England and Australia will always side with the US when push comes to shove, us anglo-saxon nations tend to stick together.

As far as the enemy. We are going after Iraq currently therefore Iraq is a default. Iran will probably only provide weapons or money same with the Saudis. Syria might actually join in. Lebanon would probably offer what meager support it could, which would most likely be limited to keeping the border in check. I don’t think Egypt will want a whole lot to do with it. Jordan will probably be in about the same position as Egypt.

The true wild cards would be North Korea/South Korea and China/Taiwan. You never know if some of the African middle eastern nations like Libya would lend a little support, but it’s always possible, though highly improbable. I think the most likely support that they would get would be a wave of immigration of guerillas from the neighboring countries. Probably a step up of terrorist operations on US soil that would not end when the fighting stops.

Also, you never know what the reaction in Ramallah will be when Tomahawks start falling on Baghdad. Saudi Arabia could be a very powerful enemy, though I do not think they have the will.

I’d say the largest threat to the Allies would be a dirty nuke in Times Square or Hollywood.

I don’t think World War is imminent on this one. Just a really nasty regional battle that will be another violent mark on world history.

On a positive note, why do we never look at Europe and the idea that an area that constantly warred with each other throughout history until just over 50 years ago is now one of the most peaceful regions in the world, and we couldn’t possibly imagine ancestral hatred causing a war between England and France ever again? That has to count for something right?

Erek

19

mswas: I don’t think we’re very far apart on this. I’m being rather pessimistic in many of these scenarios. But the Arab world is extremely hard to read because they are so duplicitous, even with each other and inside their own governments. You saw plenty of that during the Arab Summit, where they would fight bitterly amongst each other, then pretend it didn’t happen in order to make a public statement, then fight some more. What any of these countries would actually do when push comes to shove is an open question.

20

No they’re not :slight_smile: . Did you mean a Muslim country?

Iran will offer money to whom? No, actually I don’t think they’ll do anything but raise a wracket of protest. In some odd ways their leadership is pragmatic and they won’t intervene in a struggle between their two biggest enemies, especially since they lack the capacity to do so effectively. They will however shower the one with the huge edge, the U.S., with opprobrium.

The Saudis are going to be conflicted, but at the very worst they will simply deny the use of their territory facilities to the U.S. . It’s not even certain they’ll do that.

Hard to figure what Syria might do - They’re a cipher at times. But it is unlikely they will do anything concrete. They would probably love to attack Israel, but they know they haven’t a snowball’s chance in hell to go it alone, so they won’t. They despise the Iraqis, but given current tensions are unlikely to join the U.S. .

Lebanon is irrelevant, really, and Syria controls its borders.

Maybe, maybe not. If the U.S. were clever enough in building a case, they might actually offer vocal support. Probably, though, you’re right.

The chance of them attacking Israel is probably nil.

Jordan will be in a much worse position. Internally, any attack on Iraq is going to cause enormous strain, much as it did last time. Of all the countries involved, they are the most likely to be compromised. I’d have a hard time seeing them offer support for the U.S. - On the other hand, they are highly unlikely to directly engage in any combat with the U.S. ( it would just be futile ) and any support they give Iraq would be semi-covert and negligible.

And again, the chance of a Jordanian attack on Israel would approach zero.

The only thing that would offer even a potential threat to Israel ( and not a huge one at that ), would be a coordinated assault by Syria, Egypt, and Jordan - I’m pretty confidant in saying that’s just not going to happen. The latter two are simply too deeply tied to, and dependant on, the U.S. and there is no alternative for them, like the old U.S.S.R., to fall back on.

Never can tell here, I agree. North Korea is unstable. But the South Koreans would whup ass. Even going it alone. At this point they’re better armed, have a larger manpower pool, and ready access to logistical support from Japan ( which they would get ) .

Extremely doubtful. At this point China simply lacks the naval capacity, including amphibious capacity, to force the strait and attempt to breach Taiwan’s defenses. A decade or three from now, maybe. But not today. The U.S. could fight a full-on war in Korea and the Middle East and still have enough naval assets left over to cripple any such attack.

Agreed.

I don’t either. Not even close.

Pretty unlikely, but possible I suppose.

Quite.

I’m not quite as sanguine as Truth Seeker about the possibilities of peace, but my position is close to his. I think the diplomatic and political ( in terms of regional instability ) fallout in the region from any Iraqi campaign might be severe. But I think a World War-type conflagration is very, very remote. There simply isn’t any Great Power opposite the U.S. to trigger such an event.

  • Tamerlane