Article

2005-02-03 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2005-02-03 00:00:00|| || Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Clear. Just like the Mullah declaration that they will not give up their desire for nukes.

Rock, meet Hard Place.

Tick... Tock... Mothermullahs.

Posted by .com 2005-02-03 12:36:09 AM|| 2005-02-03 12:36:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I wonder if "W" will give the clerical regime 48 hours to ~~get out of Dodge~~ comply with nuclear proliferation demands, when the fat hits the fan (the point of no return)?

Posted by smn 2005-02-03 1:08:37 AM|| 2005-02-03 1:08:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Why? You do know that Arabs live by colorful and very visual speech - empty speech - recall Saddam in Gulf I - "mountains of bodies and rivers of blood", etc., right? One of the things you'd learn living in an Arab country is how totally amazed and shocked they are when you do precisely what you say you'll do. Even people who've worked with Westerners a long time, such as at Aramco, still never quite grasp that we are not full of bullshit - and talking just to hear ourselves, as they commonly do.

So I'd say they've had more than enough notice and they wouldn't "get it" anyway. When the time is right, just do it.

Posted by .com 2005-02-03 1:17:52 AM|| 2005-02-03 1:17:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I thought Iranians were Persians? Do they act the same as Arabs? I want to know becaue I don't know.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-03 2:19:33 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-02-03 2:19:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Absolutely - the Iranians are Persians, not Arabs, but their "leaders" exhibit the same penchant for hyperbole. Who started it (lol!) I dunno, heh. I'll readily admit that the Iranians I know personally are "Americanized" and do not follow this - and a friend who toured Iran (backpacker style) for a month last year didn't comment on whether this is common among them in Iran. I'll ask him and get back to you when he deigns to reply, heh. But the Mad Mullahs certainly have the trait, no? Here's the link to the last May Day style parade where they showed off their Shahab-3 missiles with all sorts of anti-Israeli and anti-US epithets and declarations as an example...

Posted by .com 2005-02-03 2:53:09 AM|| 2005-02-03 2:53:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 A bare majority of Iranians are Persians. The other half are Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Turkmens, etc.

Posted by phil_b 2005-02-03 3:09:07 AM|| 2005-02-03 3:09:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Well I know the MMs talk alot of crap. But 20 years of "Death to American" and "Death to Isreal" lends it's self to thinking you are right .com. I just think unlike most Arabs, they don't talk trash. I actually expect the MMs to try and deliver on their promises. I just wonder if your typical run of the mill Iranian is more like and Arab than not.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-03 3:48:35 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-02-03 3:48:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Putting the hurt on Syria and Iran is good, but IMHO the world's primary sponsor of terror is Saudi Arabia. They have the money and desire to spread their poison around the world. Those jerks need a whoopin' too.

Posted by Spot 2005-02-03 8:53:16 AM|| 2005-02-03 8:53:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 I can't really disagree with you, Spot, but I can see reasons for going after them last. Syria and Iran are unstable, but possess enough weaponry to make a big mess if they have the initiative. They've been doing enough damage in Iraq as it is. If you take out Syria, that gets rid of a big terrorist staging area. It also strengthens Israel, which can concentrate its defenses on the east and south. Toppling the Iran regime (provided the opposition can do it with only indirect help from us), blows out the most powerful terrorist-supporting regime.

The Soddies spend lots of money, but cannot do anything directly. It's safe to turn our backs on them to clean out Syria and Iran. It is notsafe to go after Saudi with Syria and Iran free to act as they want.

Of course, that's just My opinion. I only know what I read in Rantburg.

Posted by jackal 2005-02-03 11:00:15 AM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-02-03 11:00:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 At the end of âHigh Noonâ Gary Cooper drops his badge in the dust and drives out of town. Guess what Syrians and Iranians? OUR âGary Cooperâ still has his badge (for FOUR more years!)

So it isnât that thereâs a NEW Sheriff in townâ¦itâs the SAME Sheriff!! And he just flat out doesnât like bad guys!!

Posted by Justrand 2005-02-03 11:09:06 AM|| 2005-02-03 11:09:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Jackal-
You may be right about the order, but I can't help but wonder that the Soddies have a nuke or two hidden away (gotten from the Paks whose bomb development they helped finance). The Mad Mullahs are a wild card because they're, well, mad (in the crazy sense) and bent on nukes. But if you look at whose money and influence feed radical islam look no further than the Magic Kingdum.

Posted by Spot 2005-02-03 1:09:43 PM|| 2005-02-03 1:09:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Order of precedence, feasibility of success, and economic reality all dictate Syria and Iran before Saudi Arabia. Syria is non-oil-producing with a decrepit military, a weak no-chin Baathist {facist} dictator, and an open sore militarily in Lebanon. Iran is cracking up due to demographic and ideological divisions, has a more capable military than Syria, and is actively supporting Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.
The big problem with Saudi Arabia is the muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina, and the oil shock that a disruption of their pumping would cause. We would need the backing of the Hasemite royals to re-establsh their control of those holy sites along with agreements of the local Sufi/Shiaa populations - eg, Republic of Eastern Arabia. Saudi Arabia becomes much easier if Syria and Iran are out of the way.

Posted by Spemble Whains2886 2005-02-03 2:50:50 PM|| 2005-02-03 2:50:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 So Iran is between Iraq and a hard place?

(sorry...)

Posted by Anonymous6035 2005-02-03 7:26:32 PM|| 2005-02-03 7:26:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Spot, I'm sure they've got one, but which of them knows how to maintain or detonate it?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-02-03 7:45:13 PM|| 2005-02-03 7:45:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Syria and Iran are unstable, but possess enough weaponry to make a big mess if they have the initiative. They've been doing enough damage in Iraq as it is. If you take out Syria, that gets rid of a big terrorist staging area. It also strengthens Israel, which can concentrate its defenses on the east and south. Toppling the Iran regime (provided the opposition can do it with only indirect help from us), blows out the most powerful terrorist-supporting regime.

The Soddies spend lots of money, but cannot do anything directly. It's safe to turn our backs on them to clean out Syria and Iran. It is notsafe to go after Saudi with Syria and Iran free to act as they want.

Good assessment, Jackal. The Saudis are among the few Mideast Arab "allies" we can turn our backs on. Better that we first clean out the other hornets' nests in Syria and Iran before addressing such momentous power-shifts as with Saudi Arabia. Yes, they are a major terror lever, but they are also more stable per se. Better to denude the region of its favorite safe havens before closing down the biggest whorehouse of all.

Posted by Zenster 2005-02-03 11:40:08 PM|| 2005-02-03 11:40:08 PM|| Front Page Top

11:19 peggy
11:19 peggy
11:18 peggy
11:18 peggy
09:30 Liberalhawk
09:30 Liberalhawk
00:51 Gluper Angaiting8683
00:00 Zenster
23:59 .com
23:59 lex
23:57 lex
23:54 .com
23:54 lex
23:53 .com
23:53 Zenster
23:52 .com
23:51 Pappy
23:49 .com
23:47 lex
23:43 .com
23:40 God Save The World
23:40 Zenster
23:36 lex
23:31 Frank G