This AP story (thanks to Mackie), "Gulf Nations Urged to Stay Neutral on Iran," raises an important question for Muslim states that are putatively allies of the United States: which side are you really on? We may soon find out.
KUWAIT CITY (AP) - A top Iranian leader said that if the United States ever attacked his country, he was certain that Kuwait - a key U.S. ally in the Gulf that hosts thousands of American soldiers - would not take sides.The comments by former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani drew no immediate public response from Kuwaiti officials, who have reacted to his visit with caution.
Rafsanjani has said he is in Kuwait to allay Gulf nations' fears about Iran's intentions. Instead, Rafsanjani seemed to be signaling Gulf nations that they should not take sides in the U.S.-Iran standoff.
He said any concerns in the region about the aftermath of a military confrontation were the work of "Zionists and imperialists."
Our other allies, like the United Arab Emirates, the people who were to have operating functions at our ports, are now financially supporting Hamas.
Doesn't it make one feel warm and fuzzy all over to think how enlightened our politicians are ?
The Islamic nations understand only power, and our choices are limited but clear.
Bless the West and our fighting men and women.
Kuwait, Qatar and other sheiklets, and the Other Big Bad Wolf of the region, Saudi Arabia, are less likely to scream in feigned outrage over an attack on Iran if it takes place while large-scale Sunni-Shi'a hostilities are taking place. And if those hostilities should include signs of Iranian intervention in attacks on Iraq's Sunnis, and if further Hezbollah forces from elsewhere (e.g. Lebanon) were to join the fray, and if it were clear that fears of Shi'a loyalty to Iran, the kind expressed so helpfully by Mubarak last week ("Shi'a are not loyal to Arab regimes, but are loyal only to Iran"), at the very least the Americans might have to endure a slightly less shrill pan-Muslim outcry, as Sunnis take grim satisfaction in the damage done (after all, those potential Shi'a bombs might have someday been used to blackmail or actually be used, on them --there's no telling with those wild-and-crazy Iranians, is there?
One more reason to get out of tarbaby Iraq, as if even one more were needed. Obstinacy, a refusal to change policy, an inability to see that Shi'a-ruled Iraq could never, will never be a "Light Unto the (Sunni Arab) Muslim Nations," and the colossal waste of men, materiel, money, and of morale, both that of the military, and that of civilians who need to have their enthusiasm for war, war using all kinds of instruments, carefully husbanded rather than recklessly squandered -- all this needs to be articulated by someone in public life.
Someone, anyone -- Tancredo, Weldon, or a Senator or two.
What about those generals? Well, there one must be careful. Zinni did not serve in Iraq, and Zinni hates Rumsfeld, and Zinni is a long-time self-promoter of the Scowcroft appeasement-of-the-Arabs school. He in fact wants to get rid of Rumsfeld, but like the silly Lawrence Wilkerson, wants the American forces to remain in Iraq to ensure "stability." The other five generals are different in their criticisms. But all of their criticisms are, and because they are generals, must be, about tactics: how many men were sent, whether the Iraqi army should have been disbanded, etc. Those generas have been taught that they have no role in discussing strategy, so none of them do -- they do not say, as they should: We who served in Iraq now realize that the idea of an "Iraqi" army or an "Iraqi" police force is a will-o'-the-wisp, that will keep receding as we keep marching toward it; that the hostility felt by Kurds for Arabs, and Shi'a for Sunni, and Sunni Arabs for everyone who wishes to take power from them, ought rather to be exploited for the aims of Infidels.
No, they can't say that, those generals.
But we can. And so can those in Washington who become aware of -- as they should -- what has appeared, without change, and with the validation of developments in Iraq and outside Iraq, at every single step -- as both prediction, and as prescription.
There is no other place where one can scroll back in time and find such a record. Surely that entitles those making such predictions, and suggesting such prescriptions, to be at least read, and possibly -- if obstinacy in oursuing a policy based on ignorance both of Islam and of Iraq can can be seen not as virtue but as vice --even heeded.
There will be no charge for saving this country another trillion dollars in Iraq, and allowing the armed services to be used more wisely.
That would appear to be a bargain.
From the article,
"The commements by former Iranian President hashemi Rafsanjani drew no immediate public response from Kuwaiti official, who have reacted to his visit with caution."
Uh oh!, said the Bush Administration. And after all that we did for them in 1991 during Desert Shield/Storm.
Brings to mind the actions of the new nazi German regime in the 1930s seeking to extend its power among its neighbours by diplomacy, threats, coercion - 'bow down to us or else'.
Verminous.
Muslims will side with Muslims.
Period.
When it comes to the actions of "infidel dog Crusaders", they know who their ultimate enemies are.
They will kiss your cheek before their slice your throat.
Just like all Mafia clans.
Well, no, Profitsbeard. And it is exactly your mafia comparison that shows the fallacy. The mafia sides with whoever wins; they were liberals before 1922, Fascist from 1922 to 1943, separatists from 1943 to 1946, Christian Democrats from 1946 on. By the same token, the tiny and fragile "kingdoms" of the Gulf will be eager to encumber with support whoever wins: Iranian, American or Antarctican.
We have no 'allies' in the Middle East other than Israel. The Muslims are just 'opportunists' waiting to drive the dagger home at the right time.
Why, unless it is clear that there will be direct and damaging consequences to that state, would any Muslim principality or power side with Infdidels? Even Saddam Hussein, after having started and continued for eight years a war of aggression against Iran, during the Gulf War did not hesitate to fly 80 or so planes out of Infidel harms' way and to park those planes in Iran, an enemy -- but not an Infidel enemy. His move was telling (of course, Iran -- which was then not threatened by Infidels -- failed to demonstrate the appropriate solidarity; instead of returning the planes, it simply kept them.
Agree with Hugh. It was a realy eye opener to me when Kuwait was invaded by Saddam in the first Gulf War. I saw first hand how the majority of Muslims in my country and the neighboring countries were up against the coalition liberating Kuwait from Saddam. And mind you, those were supposedly moderate Muslims where I was. This is the sense of justice among Muslims. The Ummah bond is stronger than justice.
So, yes. We all know the answer to the question.
Anyway, Muslims expect al-Mahdi to come and establish "justice" throughout the world. Guess what kind of justice that will be?
al-mahdi.50megs.com
"Would Muslim 'US allies' side with Iran or America?"
Do chickens have lips?
Ironman Hondo said
[Note: to be explicit, this is not intended as criticism in any way towards Ironman Hondo or the other soldiers that put their lives on the line and fought/fight for our freedom every day.]
Whenever our goal is to receive the admiration of the Islamic nations, or their respect or their love or their loyalty, we will fail miserably. It happened again in Iraq with the predicted "tossing of rose petals" that materialized as "tossing of IED's".
Whenever our goal is to punish and kill the terrorists, or to disrupt their ability to operate, we have succeeded and we will succeed.
We should stick with what we can be successful. Protecting ourselves: yes. Nation building: no. We should not be spending billions to improve the Iraqi infrastructure, we should not be sending any money to the "Palestinians" either directly or indirectly through NGO's, we should not be "forcing" the Afghans to live in freedom and democracy.
Would Muslim "US allies" side with Iran or America
This is a very intersting question, and is not easily answered, but as the intra-Muslim politics are made more complex by the type of individual regime and the economics of the region are shifting, a pattern of alliances can be seen to be forming.
I believe that the middle east is driven by two important things, religion and economics.
Going a little back in time , I was suprised that Iraq invaded Kuwait and attacked Iran, because one would think that like faiths do not attack each other.
However here lies Islams hypocrasy, they are driven as much by economics as we are in the west.
It was clear Iraq Attacked Iran because they saw an opportunity to obtain the very Nuclear technology that the Iranians had been given (by the U.S. under the Shah) but which had been curtailed in Iraq by sanctions (1991).
It is interesting to note that Iraq had been playing exactly the same game with the IAEA as the Iranians do today.
Saddam attacked Kuwait because he needed "sea front property" i.e. (access to ports and shipping), this would give him even more flexibilty in undermining Irans position.
But the question is :
Would Kuwait and/or Saudi Arabia support a U.S. strike against Iran ?
This can be answered by looking at the who is doing what with whom, business wise.
China has a very fast growth rate ( > 9%), and a population base almost twice that of Europe and the U.S. combined (the numbers ar staggering)
Its oil consumption (and therefoer its oil imports from M.E.) is growing geometrically as it shifts into even higher gears of industrial production.
I believe that with China and Russia, doing even more business, the middle east has more than one horse it can back and in the future will not need Europe or the U.S.
With the Mullahs ofcourse.Sutaly but none the less .The growing problem we face in the mideast is we are being challenged.The US postion is not one of pemanent strength.So when War breaks out with the Mullahs its going to be tough tough tough.Frankly we may see warfare the likes not seen to a generation.Its almost certain to be this way.So in all warfare sides are taken and the fellow muslum nations will side with Iran.In one degree or another.Just in case Iran is on to somthing IE the destrution of Isreal is within reach the US is weakend and the radical Islamic agenda is within strong postion.This is of course analasis.But none the less genraly a likely limted outcome to the ? posed.
Just who cares. Expand the war as needed to stop terrorism in all of its forms.
I believe that China has ambitions in the ME, far more than just "business as usual." I believe the Chinese would like to eventually become the dominant people and nation on Earth, and among their strategies is to control (i.e. take over) that entire region.
When China invades Pakastan, Afghanistan, and all of the other "stans," with tens of millions of troops (upwards into the hundreds of millions), what will they be able to do about it? Iran can be belligerent with our few thousands of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when millions upon millions of Chinese come pouring over their borders, you'll see some quick capitulation.
Iran is a danger, of course, but they are but a gnat compared to China. China is the REAL threat. Mark my words.
On 9-11, most of the Muslim world was openly cheering that Americans were being slaughtered en masse --the Indonesians reportedly were particularly thrilled. The Muslim world was clearly NOT on our side that day.
If Iran attacks it will almost certainly be the same thing all over again. The Muslim world will align itself AGAINST the "infidels."
I think we had better base our assumptions on that rather than risk having the rug pulled out from under us if and/or when our "Muslim allies" fail to support us in an upcoming confrontation.