• news
  • THURSDAY NOVEMBER 30 2006 2:00 AM

Let The Regional Sunni Shiite War Begin!

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sunni, Shiite

When the US inevitably backs out of Iraq, Saudi Arabia plans to jump right into the fight and back the Sunnis. According to the Washington Post, Iraq’s southern neighbor will send money and weapons to help out the Sunnis who are in a civil war with the Shiites. Saudi Arabia fears the Iranian backed Shiites will attack Sunnis in full force once the US bails.

The battle will not just be on the ground in Iraq, but also in the oil markets. Saudi Arabia may flood the oil market in order to drop prices so Iran cannot fully fund the Iraqi Shiites. For Americans this would be the greatest turn of events ever. While Iraqis fight to the death with their hands, we can drive bigger and bigger cars. Time to reserve a Hummer.

Of course there are drawbacks to the Saudi plans.


"To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks—it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.”


Saudi Arabia is concerned because the Shiite have gained power since the US invaded Iraq in 2003. Being the major Shiite power in the world, Iran now has a strong foothold in a nation they were at war with fifteen years ago. Oops.

The Saudi Arabian government is considering three options:


-providing "Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance," including funding and arms.

-establishing new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias;

-or the Saudi king "may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half...it would be devastating to Iran...The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shi'ite militias in Iraq and elsewhere."


This should end well.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Comments
Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

NOV 30, 2006 05:22 AM

No lie, the entire region should erupt in flames, at leastthis will distract them from attacking Israel for a while..............

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

NOV 30, 2006 06:13 AM

THie history of nation states is a history of larger, more powerful nations occupying and partitioning smaller ones. Look at the history of Poland for example. We do not know what the outcome of this will be.

But hey, let's be clear about one thing: we started this fire, we are therefore responsible for whatever it consumes.

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

NOV 30, 2006 09:15 AM

NickFaust said:
THie history of nation states is a history of larger, more powerful nations occupying and partitioning smaller ones. Look at the history of Poland for example. We do not know what the outcome of this will be.

But hey, let's be clear about one thing: we started this fire, we are therefore responsible for whatever it consumes.



Yeah, you forgot poland!

wink

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

NOV 30, 2006 09:38 AM

Colinism said:
No lie, the entire region should erupt in flames, at leastthis will distract them from attacking Israel for a while..............



Think this one through... If war erupts in the region, then no one is immune. This Summer's war in Lebanon would look like a fire cracker compared to the brewing conflict. In fact, there are several possible end game scenarios (all bad) where Isreal is the match that lights the powder keg... (The fuse is already burning). One might include a premptive Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program, this would likely give Iran support throughout certain regions of the muslim world. Iran might also be bold enough to take a swipe at Isreal if the region erupts into all out war - they will likely suspect that Kurdistan will be Isreal's key ally in the region, with the U.S. as it's proxy, so KABOOM! Jews, Muslims, Kurds, Christians & anyone else dumb enough to throw in their lot will all have a chance to die a glorious death. skull Brave new fucking world we live in Colinism, brave new fucking world...

MrStitches

MrStitches

Brooklyn, NY
November 2003

NOV 30, 2006 09:40 AM

la la la la la la la la la la I caaaaan't hear yooooou. everything is sunshine and lollipops.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

NOV 30, 2006 09:49 AM

FellOnEarth said:

Colinism said:
No lie, the entire region should erupt in flames, at leastthis will distract them from attacking Israel for a while..............



Think this one through... If war erupts in the region, then no one is immune. This Summer's war in Lebanon would look like a fire cracker compared to the brewing conflict. In fact, there are several possible end game scenarios (all bad) where Isreal is the match that lights the powder keg... (The fuse is already burning). One might include a premptive Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program, this would likely give Iran support throughout certain regions of the muslim world. Iran might also be bold enough to take a swipe at Isreal if the region erupts into all out war - they will likely suspect that Kurdistan will be Isreal's key ally in the region, with the U.S. as it's proxy, so KABOOM! Jews, Muslims, Kurds, Christians & anyone else dumb enough to throw in their lot will all have a chance to die a glorious death. skull Brave new fucking world we live in Colinism, brave new fucking world...



Wow, I thought you had misedited what I wrote, then I realized that I had mistyped it. IT should have read. No lie, the entire region COULD erupt in flames. That and the part about Israel were both sarcastic and pessemistic. Tho What I accidently typed Wow dude I am glad you saw that. smile

gridburn

gridburn

Green Mountain Falls, CO
September 2003

NOV 30, 2006 10:43 AM

"one muslim kid turns to the other and asks "what do you call 140,000 dead american soldiers" the other replies "a good start."

this is my WHAT IF outcome, when Iran gets attacked

the US soldier in Iraq won't have a chance to get out if this goes up while our troops are on the ground

we will be fighting our way to Turkey

interpolantic

interpolantic

Indianapolis, IN
May 2006

NOV 30, 2006 11:24 AM

For Americans this would be the greatest turn of events ever. While Iraqis fight to the death with their hands, we can drive bigger and bigger cars. Time to reserve a Hummer.

This made me ROFL.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

NOV 30, 2006 11:40 AM

gridburn said:
"one muslim kid turns to the other and asks "what do you call 140,000 dead american soldiers" the other replies "a good start."

this is my WHAT IF outcome, when Iran gets attacked

the US soldier in Iraq won't have a chance to get out if this goes up while our troops are on the ground

we will be fighting our way to Turkey



It'd be another Anabasis. Eventually. But we'll probably just keep throwing our kids into the Great Middle Eastern Meatgrinder for the next thirty years or so before we finally suffer a total breakdown of civil society at home. At least that's my guess.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

NOV 30, 2006 12:47 PM

gridburn said:
"one muslim kid turns to the other and asks "what do you call 140,000 dead american soldiers" the other replies "a good start."

this is my WHAT IF outcome, when Iran gets attacked

the US soldier in Iraq won't have a chance to get out if this goes up while our troops are on the ground

we will be fighting our way to Turkey



Yeah, that is why I have always thought the idea of bombing Iran is crazy. Our troops would be sitting ducks.

ChopperJones

ChopperJones

Deltona, FL
September 2005

NOV 30, 2006 02:10 PM

My dad always told me as a kid that World War 3 was inevitable. I guess he was right.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

NOV 30, 2006 02:35 PM

I think it might be a good idea for us to be a little more concerned about this than we are appearing to be. A regional war between Saudi Arabia and Iran? And I doubt it would stop there. Sunni and Shiite dominated countries would align in kind even if only in material or financial support. The US really needs to think things through before they start removing troops just to placate domestic anti-war sentiment. This article highlights the complexities of foreign policy decision making: when you dabble in global politics you affect the world. Thanks for bringing this to my attention FearTheReaper.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

NOV 30, 2006 02:40 PM

To be fair, the title of the thread is pretty alarmist. The content of the article itself refers mostly to a possible scenario for expansion of the present conflict, not to any currently contemplated military operations.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

NOV 30, 2006 04:14 PM

oyaji said:

emotedcreations said:
I think it might be a good idea for us to be a little more concerned about this than we are appearing to be. A regional war between Saudi Arabia and Iran? And I doubt it would stop there. Sunni and Shiite dominated countries would align in kind even if only in material or financial support. The US really needs to think things through before they start removing troops just to placate domestic anti-war sentiment. This article highlights the complexities of foreign policy decision making: when you dabble in global politics you affect the world. Thanks for bringing this to my attention FearTheReaper.



It's an absurd idea, though. Saudi is not in a position to be a regional superpower. Iran has a much larger population - about 3 times the size of Saudi's - and a much, much larger military. Saudi is essentially dependent on the United States for military security while Iran has defended itself succesfully from external agression even though it has not been a client state of any other power since 1979.

Saudi can posture all it wants but Iran is on the verge of being a bona fide regional "superpower" while Saudi is universally hated, more or less, by all of its neighbors.



You're right considering the last real balance of power to Iran has been destroyed. But can you totally disregard the notion that Sunni's are not going to take this lightly? In the end, and I am actually of this opinion, taking out Saddam makes Iraq too unstable to balance Iran thereby making them the regional superpower. However, we have people talking about going to war with Iran. This scares me. But yes, you're right there will not be an all out war. I think an economic struggle is much more likely. However, I was trying to make the point that there is more at stake then whether or not more American troops are going to loose their lives.

And Zarth, I agree, and I fell for it to. But again, and not to be overly redundant. I think it's good to highlight the fact that things aside from US pride are at stake.

ThisIsWhoWeAre

ThisIsWhoWeAre

Oakland, CA
July 2004

NOV 30, 2006 04:27 PM

NickFaust said:
But hey, let's be clear about one thing: we started this fire, we are therefore responsible for whatever it consumes.



We didn't start the fire! It was always burning, since the world's been turning...

Or so I hear.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

featured interviews