Senate Revolution in the Muslim World

There's no real reason it would become a nuclear conflict. Neither Iran nor Syria has them to use, and Israel couldn't justify their usage. Nor, in that instance, could even the US be enough of a shield to protect them from international backlash. Especially when there's such a manifest lack of need for them; Israel dominated both countries militarily even before the revolution weakened one.

 

There's still the potential, though. Israel dominates the region militarily precisely because of it's nuclear arsenal; none of the other countries have recourse against that.

 

What Iran would like, and what Iran can do are two separate matters. Iran would probably like to aid Syria against Israel if a war broke out between them, but it would likely decide that it isn't worth it. Let's not forget that although Syria verbally took Iran's side during the Iraqi invasion of Iran in the eighties, it didn't lift a finger to help its ally either.

 

Untrue. Israel dominates the region militarily thanks to decade of superior military assistance (in terms of both training and armaments) from the United States. Its conventional forces easily best those of its neighbors.

 

Really? Yeah, nobody is going to take the potential of getting nuked into their military planning. I'm quite aware that Israel's conventional forces trump their neighbors, but their nuclear arsenal is a factor that cannot be ignored. Tell me, do you think other nations with similar imbalances (say, Taiwan and China) also ignore the possibly of getting nuked?

 

Turks, Arabs, Iranian/Persians(what they are called depends on the Iranian/Persian), Berber, Sudanese who are culturally Arabised unless they are not, Is it odd that when I look at the Middle East i see the America's future. where ethnicity and culture are so complexly interwoven it is nearly indecipherable to outsiders.

 

It's not a plausible contingency. If you're simply saying nuclear weapons could be used by merit of the fact that they exist (and therefore are not impossible to use), then fine. But what actual scenario could you imagine where they come into play? There isn't one.

 

About Iranian vs Persian: I'm going to attempt to give as easy an explanation as possible. In Iran, there are multiple ethnic groups, of which Persians are the largest. So, anyone from Iran is Iranian, but not everyone is necessarily Persian. Every American is American, but not all Americans are Italian Americans or African Americans.

However, because Iran was known as Persia to the Western world for so long, there's a tendency to use Persian and Iranian interchangeably to mean the same thing, but that's technically inaccurate.

Additionally, Persians are not limited to Iran, although most of them are there. A significant minority in Afghanistan are Persians, although they go by the term Tajik over there, which is a term that Turk conquerors designated for Persians centuries ago when they invaded the place and it stuck. It means "someone who wears a crown", so I guess they didn't mind the designation. There are far worse things to be called than a crown-wearer, after all. The impoverished country of Tajikistan, which is to the north of Afghanistan and borders China is also majority Persian. There's even a tiny minority of Persians in China, in the Turkish-speaking province of Xinjiang.

 

Hopefully this is just bluster, but a Syrian minister has called the 3 new airstrikes around Damascus as a "declaration of war" that "opens the door to all possibilities"

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/20135514958573633.html
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/05/world/meast/syria-violence/index.html

 

Really? All the invasions and mini - wars they waged in the 60's and 70's was all the work of US assistance alone? They didn't get Gaza and the West Bank all those years ago on their own?

Please go look at a history book or two, or you know a brief glance here. Wocky.

 

Assistance doesn't just mean joining in actual battles. Buying weapons of superior quality, having instructors of greater experience, and more resources to support the entire infrastructure. This effect snowballs as all these advantages help soldiers to survive, boosting their experience and making them even more skilled combatants relative to challengers.

Obviously, no one can fight for you. I'm not trying to take anything away from the Israelis. But the help they've received is significant, and Jewish children aren't born some unrivaled gods of combat that can destroy anyone single-handedly. There are reasons why all these conflicts have come out the way they do, and this is one of them.

 

Israel's nuclear program was first revealed in 1960 (full production probably started in the late 1960's), yet that did not prevent a couple major wars with its Arab neighbors. I'd say Egypt, the largest and most powerful of the Arab countries, dropping out was one of the more significant factors preventing a war in the last four decades.

 

So apparently it wasn't government forces that have been using chemical weapons but rather the rebels, according to a UN Investigator. She doesn't rule out use of such weapons by government forces, but there's no evidence to support that claim at this point.

 

Assad regains Qusayr, which is bad news. Maybe we should stop allowing ourselves to be played by the Russians? Assad and the Russians want peace talks, which the US has agreed to, but Assad has openly said the peace talks are just a distraction and the Russians continue to ship missiles and arms to the Assad regime.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/2013655429874831.html

Also, just about everyone is now involved in Syria... North Korean military officers are on the ground. Other powers already involved include Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, Russia, France, UK, Israel, and somewhat the US.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4387732,00.html

 

Senator John McCain announced in the Senate that the White House was about to make a very important announcement on Syria... and they did. It's been confirmed that the Assad regime did use chemical weapons, on multiple occasions, and that we will give military support to trustworthy rebel groups and take further military action too (No Fly Zone being considered).

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-u-syria-rebels-military-aid-chemical-220823223.html





We should bomb the Assad regime and their loyalists, and bomb the rebels affiliating with known terrorist organizations or committing inhumane acts. The Assad regime must fall, and the WMD's destroyed... without American boots on the ground, and without arming rebel groups (or only some to the groups we absolutely trust). That would be quicker and more effective than simply arming them or a strict NFZ.

 

Why do you and John McCain presuppose that we're trying to topple the Assad regime? The only thing we're "trying" to do is express displeasure about the use of chemical weapons by the regime. I think the current step suits that goal fine.

It's already an openly declared regional sectarian war. Nothing good comes of substantial US involvement, for us or them.

 

You said if the US got involved, it would only turn into a civil war, and then Iran and Hezbollah and Russia would get involved. Well, that happened without us getting involved. Nearly a hundred thousand Syrians have died. Assad's allies are already intervening, and it's already destabilizing the entire region. Russia in particular has ben trying to play us for fools, and Hezbollah is now quite openly involved. Israel has already been dragged in. It's destabilizing Lebanon and Iraq. We need to get involved and bring this to a swift, decisive end.

And it has been U.S. policy for almost 2 years to get Assad to leave. The Obama administration has said that several times. And it has said more recently that Assad remaining in power is not an acceptable outcome
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...yrian-president-bashar-al-assad-syrian-people
http://www.voanews.com/content/kerry-sees-transitional-syrian-government-without-assad/1657515.html


Also, Syrian warplanes are bombing their own capital of Damascus... and US puts F-16 jets and Patriot missiles in Jordan:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/2013615135515186708.html
http://news.yahoo.com/u-considers-no-fly-zone-syria-crosses-nerve-005608864.html

 

Why would you want to jump headlong into an active regional war? If Iran, Hezbollah, and Iraqi militias are deeply involved, how do you "decisively" defeat the regime without also waging war against all these parties? And if it starts there, where exactly does it stop? Also, on exactly whose behalf are we intervening? While we can effectively do the fighting for the most moderate faction of the Syrian rebels, its always been the case that the best and most capable of them is Al-Nusrah Front/Al-Qaeda in Iraq. In anything like the current state of play, power would either devolve directly to them upon Assad's collapse, or (more likely) things would just segue into another phase of civil war with them as dominant players. That's more or less asking for perpetual involvement.

You don't intervene every time something bad happens. You intervene when you think you can do some good. Here, I don't see how we can. Things can get much worse than what we've seen so far.

 

Funny side note on my trip home.

In the vein of "You bloody Yanks can do whatever you want, but we'll do what we want!" my flight home on American Airlines from LHR was at the gate basically directly next to Iran Air to Tehran.

Which just drives home the fact that our allies will continue to do any and all things that continue to benefit themselves, even if we're totally against it.

 

Hardly doing anything is how it got so bad.

Plus it serves our geopolitical interests, by taking Syria out of its alliance with Iran/Hezbollah. Their increasing involvement (Iran is sending in 4000 of their Revolutionary Guards) just raises the stakes, and gives us more reason to get more heavily involved. Like I said, I'd rather just bomb Assad's forces and his allies there in Syria. We're already a little involved, we cannot afford to lose.

We'd be intervening on behalf of the Syrian people. And there are people fighting back who aren't terrorists. We should bomb the Syrian rebels who are affiliated with terrorists, or committing inhumane acts, as I said above.

This isn't Iraq. The people of Syria are currently in revolt, asking for help, and being butchered. We wouldn't need perpetual military involvement there... it's already broken, so it's the Syrians who will have to fix it, with our nonmilitary guidance if they ask for it when this is all over.

 

Back to Egypt...

The military has said that the protests against Morsi are essentially a big and destabilizing as the protests were against Mubarak.

They've basically said Morsi has 48 hours to appease the protesters, or else they'll take action. Presumably ousting Morsi, and having new elections.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/201371145513525182.html


Is it right for them to oust a democratically-elected leader, even if his leadership failure is destabilizing the country? Or is it ok as long as new elections are held soon?

 

There's precedent-the Portugese military led the 'Carnation revolution' against a deeply unpopular government in 1974.

 

>Is it right for them to oust a democratically-elected leader,

What makes ousting a democratically elected leader any less justifiable than ousting a dictator if we already believe it's justified to out a leader in the first place?

 

They overthrew a fascist (almost literally) government and instituted a democracy that still survives (more or less). It's also the only example of a military-led coup (that I can think of) where the military government handed over power to civilians and never took it back. Morsi abuses his position heavily and he should be thrown out of office. But if the leaders of the Egyptian armed forces (the same people or the successors of people who supported Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak) remain the power brokers, the country is never going to get better.

 

The supreme military council in Egypt has said they don't want to take over but merely want to help "supervise"the transition from Morsi to someone else.

If you're supervising, aren't you in control essentially?