<This is what the Saudis fear most, a Shiite state that might cause their own Shiite population (some 10 million) to attempt to overthrow the royal family. And Iran might feel some need to support the Shiites against the Sunnis and Wahhabists.
Thus, if we fail in Iraq, it sets the possibility that we'll support the re-establishment of an authoritarian ruler who can quash the various elements of the society.>
Wow Hawk, that seems to me like a lead up to World War 1, with paragraph 2 the lead up to Hitler's attempt at unifying Europe.
With various alliances springing up to defend their interests and align with allies in Iraq, it looks like the positioning before WWI. Now we just need the archduke to be assassinated [maybe that Sadr guy] and it'll be all on.
The analogy with WWI fails in that Nato, the USA, the Cow, the UN, a possible NUN didn't exist at the time, so there is a lot of counterbalance to a WWI style event. But that's what the political shenanigans in the region look like to me.
I don't imagine the USA would want total conflagration across the vast oil producing areas of the region, so in the grand scheme of things, I suspect the current disturbances in Iraq are too small to cause serious disruption to continuing Cow activities in conjunction with Iraqi political development.
Mqurice |
