Comments on: A New Middle East, Part II: Iran http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/08/21/a-new-middle-east-part-ii-iran.html High-minded, fanatically malthusian perspectives Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: phil jones http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/08/21/a-new-middle-east-part-ii-iran.html/comment-page-1#comment-14700 phil jones Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/08/21/a-new-middle-east-part-ii-iran.html#comment-14700 <p>Compare and contrast ;-)<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.nooranch.com/synaesmedia/wiki/wiki.cgi?PlanForIraq" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.nooranch.com/synaesmedia/wiki/wiki.cgi?PlanForIraq</a></p> Compare and contrast ;-)

http://www.nooranch.com/synaesmedia/wiki/wiki.cgi?PlanForIraq

]]> By: Dan tdaxp http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/08/21/a-new-middle-east-part-ii-iran.html/comment-page-1#comment-14701 Dan tdaxp Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/08/21/a-new-middle-east-part-ii-iran.html#comment-14701 <p>Phil Jones,<br /> <br /> Thanks for the link to your July 2004 thoughts. Below is a short critique<br /> <br /> "The west has a lot of diplomatic hold over Turkey, as it's a major ally, NATO member and EU wannabe."<br /> <br /> Turkey has been a fair weather ally for 20 years, supporting neither the Gulf nor Iraq wars. Likewise Turkey's EU aspirations are increasingly questioned [1]. The West's hold over Turkey is shakier than it seems.<br /> <br /> "The Kurds won't like it, but are they likely to be treated worse by the Turks than by the Iraqis? Might they not be better off with this deal, than part of an Iraq in turmoil? The Kurds get security, the Turks get some oil fields."<br /> <br /> This is the surest way to drive the Kurds to the Iranians. They were poorly treated by Iraq, but that treatment mostly ended after 1991. Since then Kurdistan has been a de facto free state. Putting Kurdistan under Turkey (a state fighting its only Kurdish rebellion) would be disastrous. Of the four states with significant Kurdish minorities, Iran has treated Kurds the best.<br /> <br /> "But the US is really in no position to enter into anything other than a diplomatic solution with Iran anyway."<br /> <br /> Disagree. The US has the ability to veto any regime. Iran appears to be a progressive element, so it makes sense to work with it now, but the military option is available.<br /> <br /> "Jordan gets the west. Not sure how this plays, but I seem to remember that the royal families were related, so there maybe that can be exploited there.<br /> <br /> In the south, I haven't the faintest what trouble will be caused. But Saudi may be going down in flames anyway. It might as well absorb a bit of Iraq along the way. If it doesn't want that bit of Iraq, it can leave it free as an independent state. "<br /> <br /> Jordan's experiment with annexation ended in its disastrous rule over the West Bank, which had some blowback [2]...<br /> <br /> Saudi Arabia is the worst force in the region, so it doesn't make sense to make her more powerful.<br /> <br /> Interesting reading!<br /> [1] <a href="http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/02/16/turkey-in-europe-or-turks-out-of-europe.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/02/16/turkey-in-europe-or-turks-out-of-europe.html</a><br /> [2] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan</a></p> Phil Jones,

Thanks for the link to your July 2004 thoughts. Below is a short critique

“The west has a lot of diplomatic hold over Turkey, as it's a major ally, NATO member and EU wannabe.”

Turkey has been a fair weather ally for 20 years, supporting neither the Gulf nor Iraq wars. Likewise Turkey's EU aspirations are increasingly questioned [1]. The West's hold over Turkey is shakier than it seems.

“The Kurds won't like it, but are they likely to be treated worse by the Turks than by the Iraqis? Might they not be better off with this deal, than part of an Iraq in turmoil? The Kurds get security, the Turks get some oil fields.”

This is the surest way to drive the Kurds to the Iranians. They were poorly treated by Iraq, but that treatment mostly ended after 1991. Since then Kurdistan has been a de facto free state. Putting Kurdistan under Turkey (a state fighting its only Kurdish rebellion) would be disastrous. Of the four states with significant Kurdish minorities, Iran has treated Kurds the best.

“But the US is really in no position to enter into anything other than a diplomatic solution with Iran anyway.”

Disagree. The US has the ability to veto any regime. Iran appears to be a progressive element, so it makes sense to work with it now, but the military option is available.

“Jordan gets the west. Not sure how this plays, but I seem to remember that the royal families were related, so there maybe that can be exploited there.

In the south, I haven't the faintest what trouble will be caused. But Saudi may be going down in flames anyway. It might as well absorb a bit of Iraq along the way. If it doesn't want that bit of Iraq, it can leave it free as an independent state. “

Jordan's experiment with annexation ended in its disastrous rule over the West Bank, which had some blowback [2]…

Saudi Arabia is the worst force in the region, so it doesn't make sense to make her more powerful.

Interesting reading!
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/02/16/turkey-in-europe-or-turks-out-of-europe.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan

]]>