• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Syria, Iran, and the balance of power in the ME

Nonsense. Syria is irrelevant on the global stage.
 
Syria is what it has always been. Israel's bitch if they get too far out of line.

The Saudi/Iran power balance is really all that counts.
 
Thanks for posting. The Middle East dynamic truly is interesting, to say the least.
 
TR1982 said:
Nonsense. Syria is irrelevant on the global stage.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Very interesting article, but it's a too paranoid take on Iranian intentions, and it significantly overstates Iranian political muscle, IMO. Syria is not an axis of influence that Iran can exploit to much benefit beyond a mild "thorn in the side" effect, even should they want to, as Syria is folded neatly between Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia (which is not going to get pushed around in the region), and a wishy-washy Iraq (heavily seduced by Western money). Syria is too far toward unrest/reform to suddenly becomes a unified extension of Iranian intention in the face of western disapproval. They aren't the ultra-valuable tool implied in this piece. These worries only apply if you believe in the Iranian boogeyman rhetoric, which is largely a right-wing fiction designed to foster a militant perspective on America's interaction with the ME (which is, in turn, solely governed by energy hegemony policy).

It'd be great if Syria can evolve, but I'm not putting dollar one of US money into the process, if I'm running things. We have more pressing concerns.

Good article though.

TR, are you pushing for intervention?
 
Last edited:
ArlingtonDeac said:
Pretty much. Very interesting article, but it's a too paranoid take on Iranian intentions, and it significantly overstates Iranian political muscle, IMO. Syria is not an axis of influence that Iran can exploit to much benefit beyond a mild "throne in the side" effect, even should they want to, as Syria folded neatly between Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia (which is going to get pushed around in the region), and a wishy-washy Iraq (heavily seduced by Western money). Syria is too far toward unrest/reform to suddenly becomes a unified extension of Iranian intention. They aren't the ultra-valuable tool implied in this piece. These worries only apply if you believe in the Iranian boogeyman rhetoric, which is largely a right-wing fiction designed to foster a militant perspective on America's interaction with the ME (which are, in turn, are solely governed by energy hegemony policy).

It'd be great if Syria can evolve, but I'm not putting dollar one of US money into the process, if I'm running things. We have more pressing concerns.

Good article though.

TR, are you pushing for intervention?
Click to expand...

I was hoping you would comment. Thanks.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Pretty much. Very interesting article, but it's a too paranoid take on Iranian intentions, and it significantly overstates Iranian political muscle, IMO. Syria is not an axis of influence that Iran can exploit to much benefit beyond a mild "thorn in the side" effect, even should they want to, as Syria is folded neatly between Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia (which is not going to get pushed around in the region), and a wishy-washy Iraq (heavily seduced by Western money). Syria is too far toward unrest/reform to suddenly becomes a unified extension of Iranian intention in the face of western disapproval. They aren't the ultra-valuable tool implied in this piece. These worries only apply if you believe in the Iranian boogeyman rhetoric, which is largely a right-wing fiction designed to foster a militant perspective on America's interaction with the ME (which is, in turn, solely governed by energy hegemony policy).

It'd be great if Syria can evolve, but I'm not putting dollar one of US money into the process, if I'm running things. We have more pressing concerns.

Good article though.

TR, are you pushing for intervention?
Click to expand...

Sure, depending on how viable the opposition is. Assad is far more hostile to the United States than Qaddafi was. When these opportunities present themselves, generally speaking, you take them.

As for the whole "Iranian boogeyman" thing, I think it's easy to be lulled into a false sense of security because we've been so overwhelmingly powerful in recent years, but it certainly isn't impossible for Iran to achieve regional hegemony. In 1990, Saddam Hussein had conquered Kuwait, and there was evidence that he was going to push into the eastern Saudi oil fields. At that point, he would have controlled 50% of the world's oil reserves. Not fun. Saudi Arabia certainly couldn't have fought him off on its own, and if Saddam had struck while we were still deploying for Desert Shield, it is even possible that he could have handed us a military defeat.

Iran is even more dangerous, because if they obtain a nuclear weapon, then regime change is out of the question as a policy option. We cannot risk provoking a nuclear state to the point where they think their existence is at stake. If Iran gets a nuke, and somehow gains control of Iraqi/Kuwaiti oil fields, all of the sudden we are reckoning with a potential great power.
 
But they will never gain control of the Iraqi/Kuwait oil fields. What's ironic is that our misguided adventure in Iraq has likely made Iranian regional hegemony a near inevitablity already. We kicked over their powerful, secular neighbor and left a lemonade stand in its place, and it only cost us north of two trillion. Brilliant.

But frankly, we could just buy Iranian oil if they ever did come to dominate the region in a direct sense. Which they won't--even with a nuclear weapon, Iran doesn't have the capacity to take and hold more territory in the ME without military, political, and economic backlashes that would topple the current regime. They aren't cable of militarily contesting anything near a security council-level force, or a regional alliance back by Saudi money, nuclear bomb or no bomb. Such an offensive would result in the complete annihilation of their government, and they understand this as well as anyone. We might not win occupations, but we win wars, and those wars end with the ruling cabal we attacked in decimation. The ruling cadre of Iran isn't some up-jumped junta of limited political capacity--Iran has slowly but effectively enlarged its power base in the face of Western opposition for the last three decades. They aren't suddenly going to up and get themselves incinerated immediately after achieving a seat at the nuclear table. That means no overt invasions, thanks.

More frankly, I see no real difference between the Saudis and the Iranians, except we like one and not the other. The fanatical religion smokescreen is just one more front in the fight for regional energy hegemony. But whoever emerges will simply be the flavor-of-the-week oil dealers, selling to the West. Same as it ever was.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top