Let me make it simple for you. The single biggest religious threat is Wahhabism, which in case you have missed, runs rampant in Saudi and Pakistan.
Let me make it simple for you.. One of the reasons that the Saudi royal family is required to cozy up to the Wahhabists is because 1/2 of their population is Shiite.
And the Iranians have been trying to stir up Shiite discontent in the Arabian peninsula for years now.. So the Saudis permit the Wahhabist militants to have their way, using them to suppress and exclude Shiism from becoming a recognized sect Arabia..
Now if Iran's hardline clerics are removed from political and military leadership, they will no longer possess the major national means to forment Shia unrest in SA. Which means the Saudis will lose one of their biggest excuses for why they continue to waffle in dealing with their own intolerant religious sect.
And then, if they fail to deal with their intolerant extremists, then we'll be required to deal with them as well.. But we'll have both Iraq and Iran hopefully fully capable of replacing any lost oil production.. And we'll hopefully have Iranian support in positively influencing the Shiites who live amongst the most productive oil fields in Arabia from doing any damage to the facilities.
I fully acknowledge that Saudi Arabia is the head of the snake.. I've said that numerous times. But we also have a global economy to keep stabilized while we isolate SA from potential areas where their clerics have sought to evangelize their Wahhabist intolerance.
As for Iraq, it will not be just a Shia government. That would be sure recipe for civil war, or partitioning of the country. And few people have an interest in seeing that occur. The Shiites will not be permitted to dominate over the minority ethnicities in Iraq.
Most of the troubles in Iraq have either come from the Sunnis or from Sadr and his ilk, both of whom are anti-Iran. So Iran cannot have been the source of the termoils.
You can either accept my position or not.. I cannot go into details. But suffice it to say that there has been extensive attempts to infiltrate Iranians into Iraq to influence the Shiite community here.
Witness how the reformers have been defeated in Iran since the invasion (quite contrary to what the Neocons were predicting) and how the anti-Iranian rehtoric has died down compared to a year ago.
Defeated? No.. merely repressed even further.. And that's not a defeat for the reformer, but for the hardliners who have to sacrifice even more of their limited popular legitimacy in order to quell dissent..
I am patient..
As for Al-Qaida and Iran, I know what the media is saying.. And I know that is what Iran wants the media to believe.. And I hope that it's true.. But I have reasons to believe it's not...
But hey.. we'll all know soon enough, won't we?
As for reasons to target Iran, there are currently no binding UNSC resolutions standing against Iran. There were over a dozen outstanding resolutions against Saddam and Iraq, all of which were supposed to be enforced by "all necessary means".
Iran will have it's time... There people have known nothing but the oppression and intolerance of their own Islamic state. It's failure, and downfall, will hopefully break the back of the Shiite militant movement (or at least dry up much of its funding)..
Hawk |
