Originally posted by jlbetin
Hi,
On TV this evening we had had a director of the High Strategic Studies school who was presenting a possible evolution of the conflict.
1st) Saddam will try to drive fights in the holy Shiits towns, in the way to have a great numbet of colateral damages, and imply Schiits in the hatres of US and UK, to push some "Martyrs" as human bombs against coalition.
Shiits? May I assume you mean Shiites? If so, then I highly doubt this. Most of so-called suicide bombers are Saddam's loyalists rather than a part of any religious group, except perhaps Arab Sunnis, which make up a majority of Baghdad's population. Nearly all Shiites live in southern Iraq and near Iran's borders. So, as far I can discern, there has only been one incident involving suicide bombings. If these Shiites indeed do hate the US, then we would have seen more in the opening hours of the invasion. Obviously this has not happened yet.
2nd) It seems real that both Iran and Syria give indirect or direct help to IRAK, and that can push US to act against them, so it will go within Saddam strategy to imply Chiits in the conflict as active oponents
Irak? It's Iraq, not Irak.
Again, it's unlikely Syria or Iran will be drawn into Iraq conflict for very reasons they fear the US respisals. Syria and Iran may have used indirect means, however, in most likely scenario, they are merely jacking for more power in the post-war Iraq or at least satisfy the general Arab population whose feelings are hotly anti-USA.
It wouldn't surprise me if Syria and Iran do this in secret, using the indirect means to sell weapons, then informing the US to blow the cover and drag it out into open, this will show that the Arabs in their respective countries are doing something to alleviate Saddam's "apparent" sufferings.
However, to me, it's utterly stupid to even try that sort of thing.
Plain dumb politics just like France, no offense, kid.
3nd) If Schiits follow this direction, even if Saddam die, the conflict will continue with the possible entry of IRAN in the conflict. Especially as Mollah won't accept a pro-american governement in this region . don't forget that US is the great Satan. So the conflict could shift to an reaction against coalition seen no more as liberators but as Cruzaders against Muslim.
It's unlikely Iran will even want to enter the conflict because it knows it cannot stand very well against the US armed forces. If it does that, then it wouldn't last very long, and will likely incite these young people which make up a majority of Iran's population want to revolt and instill a moderate government.
You need to understand that Iran is currently being led by hard-line Islamistic supporters whose stance is decidedly based on Koran, and don't allow moderation in Iran. Many young people are getting restless, and want to see better changes. Iran has failed to satisfy these young people, and soon, perhaps within 10 or 20 years, there will be a revolution taking place.
Iran's ultra-religious conservatives failed to solve the growing economic problems and facing the US wrath over its nuclear programs. It's unlikely they will last very long.
If that occurs it will the opening of the Pandora box
Your Opinion Gentlemen
Best Regards
Der Wanderer
I doubt this will open up a pandora box, Syria and Iran don't want to double-cross the USA any more than is already necessary.
Both are registered to giving up any dreams or hopes of having a purely pro-Arab Iraq, more than likely it will be a pro-US Iraq. Since Syria and Iran have rejected any idea of cooperating fully with the US in the war with Iraq, thus, they have lost any political capital or clout in shaping the post-war Iraq.
It goes the same for Turkey whose future is already shakey since it rejected the US economic aid amounting to $24 billion, and could see its stock market crashing. Turkey will never be able to shape Iraq the way it wants because of delays and blungeoning diplomacy with the USA.
More than likely, the Kurds will get a greater say in the post-war Iraq because they have proven to be more cooperative then most of the countries, and many Iraqi exiles who lived in America, and influenced by democratic principles will be more than happy to work with them in order to ensure a new Iraq with Kurdish areas given autonomuous self-government will emerge peacefully.
The real losers are Syria, Iran, Turkey, Saundi Arabia, and Jordan. They all failed to capitulate or exploit the advantages of supporting the US-led coalition in invading Iraq. The biggest loser is probably Turkey simply because it failed to satisfy USA in the Kurdish matters.
No matter what happens, Kurds will get their wish in getting a big chunk of Iraq as a new Kurdistan.
Dan