Almost missed this little tid-bit. I wonder how the US will get dragged in to such a war if they don't have the resources necessary? [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aFNEog9CDI[/youtube] If they do get dragged in and they can't fight a protracted war with Iran, I wonder how they will engage? I wonder what that will mean for the economic recovery we are all so profoundly experiencing? :/
I can see this thread heading the way of many before, that being a shade of light grey whenever I click on "Show new posts since last visit". Hopefully we'll see a change in the mentality of those in power, in the US Ron Paul is already on record as stating that the US should butt out of external conflicts. I'm sure the last thing the average sane Israeli and Iranian mother/father/uncle etc wants is a war. In all honesty, why would the press publish this type of news story - it just inflames public opinion and scares the bejeesus out of everyone. No offence intended gino, but I would sleep better at night if this crap was not reported.
De ja vu. Remember the Yom Kippur back in '73? The OPEC embargo after the U.S backed Israel? Adjusted for inflation, doesn't that mean a gallon of gas for US$5? Really pushes the case for precious metals. Granted, this is not the same world as '73, just drawing a historical comparison.
read this one yesterday too. Interesting read, not entirely convinced though - particularly the bit about Iran attacking Iraq.
I understand completely. Global compounding impacts, disrupted supply chains, desperate governments needing even more money, potential for nuclear war . . . the implications are scary enough to drive people off the grid. Interestingly though, I've heard September mentioned as a watershed month a few different times now.
Cheers mate, I'm going to bed inthe next 10 minutes, wake me up when September ends. Sorry bout the offsync lips. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNJmwwf7QA[/youtube]
May I? Iran will not attack Iraq and certainly not Al Basra the city directly. Iran holds all the influence it needs in Al Basra province with the Al Sadre political block firmly cemented down there. The only reason I could see Iran hitting Basra is if the US fails to pull out of there (the Air Base) at Basra International Airport and a US attacks Iran from there first. I doubt that is going to happen. September is significant because US forces will be almost completely out of Iraq by then. Only training and HQ staff will remain to assist the Iraqi forces. Nori Al Maliki certainly doesn't want to be in the middle of the US and the Republic of Iran. He is backed by both sides. Iran V Israel is another thing. Iran hitting Basra or Baghdad is not going to happen.
The differences are Sunni vs. Shia and not by country. You need to differentiate between the Shia southern Iraq and the rest of Iraq.
Basra was its own fiefdom until the creation of Iraq post WWI. The joints were not carved along the lines of ethnic enclaves. Basra, Bagdad and Najaf were the three main original components, from recall. Mosul and others added later. In the North, Kurds were included in the new country, but have fomented for secession ever since. In the south, Basra area, Shia predominate, as in Iran. Moqtada Al Sadr (son of a very prestigious cleric) has a stronghold. Iraq's previous elite were Sunni, but in the minority overall. As for a regional conflict, take note that Germany is now openly selling tanks to Saudi Arabia, lifting a decades long ban. Israel does not fear these tanks. But Iran might, and there is a lot of history between SA and Iran.
note that Sunni and Shia are a bit like the Catholics and Proddies of old. none too fond of each other in pious times of yore different imams and to an extent holy sites
so, if you now (sort of) control one of the largest oil producing countries, and are slated to pull your last 50000 official troops out end of december 2011, what next? it may help to know that Iraq is largely unexplored. an unverified figure is that Iraq has wells in the thousands whereas Texas alone has 1 million (sounds a bit far-fetched I admit) it wouldn't matter so much if the other two big regional producers shut down a few derricks then, I suppose, should they take the gloves off
I am not sure how that is relevant to my post but thanks for the history lesson. Basra is a very significant place between Sunni and Shia. Google the battle of Basra to see. Kurdistan in northern Iraq is pretty much now self governed and the president of the whole country is a Kurd. I have been to every major town in Kurdistan (including Halabja) and I can say they are now a lot better of as they are now than if they secede. I don't see that on the horizon any time soon. They are more worried about DIBS (disputed internal boundaries) and in particular the oil rich Kirkuk. What any of this has to do with Iran attacking Iraq I still don't know.
a lot of it is just rambling, pay no heed. I would expect a proxy war which wouldn't start with Israel. It might end with it, after other protagonists are depleted. Kurdistan is the name the Kurds would choose for their own region, but it is still part of Iraq for now, not a sovereign country last time I looked. My read of the 20th century history is that a lot was done to prevent autonomy in the region, in part to appease the Turks.
I think it is relevant that Germany is selling Leopards directly to the Saudis. That seems like a significant shift in policy. And Israel has very sophisticated battlespace platforms - the tanks are no threat to them. Given the support of Iran to the Arab Spring uprisings and in particular, that in Shia Bahrain, it seems an important development.
It was known as Kurdistan well before WW1 and is still known as that today. It is not a sovereign country but is an autonomous state within Iraq with it's own Parliament and political system. They have their own flag that is flown in prominence in most areas and in other along side the Iraqi national flag. Turkey would probably invade if they became a sovereign country. There is constant conflict along the border between Kurdistan, Turkey and Iran where the millions of Kurds on the other sides of the border are largely victimised and are fighting to secede from Turkey and Iran. The PKK are the ones doing the fighting.
We are in the great recession, so this war = WW III and then after a few years of war, 60 years of good times??
Unless Israel can organise basing in Saudi Arabia or Iraq, or airborne refueling over them, her Air Force CANNOT deliver a full war-load all the way to Iran. OC
Iran trading oil directly, independent of US dollar hegemony. Things never go too well for those countries that try to do that, Iraq and Libya for example. The Petro Dollar will be pretty ugly without the Petro part! When the US$ is not required for energy trading, it has no roll and its value and the power of those who print it will be seriously deminished. More fuel for the fire perhaps.
I'd say the PKK are the epiphenomenal adjutants of Kurdistan. They can be, as Turkey can accommodate it. The lands known as Kurdistan are clearly understood amongst Kurds but outside of "Kurdistan" it is a divided area The reasons for and history of the division of Kurdistan are not known to me, other than what I have read of the British-French Sykes-Picot Accord All human motivation is complex Kurdistan, as it was, is splintered into Iranian, Iraqi and Turkish zones of influence It does appear that the most vocal group are the Iraqi Kurds, but at the same time, the most militant are in the Turkish sphere. Kurdistan only exists as a nation in the sense that East Turkestan (now Xin Jiang) or various Aboriginal nations exist. They are not recognised sovereign states.
