Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (151425)	11/10/2004 4:33:57 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

That is the easiest part. The Kurds will be happy to sell their oil. To make the Turks happy, they can run a pipeline through Turkey to the Black Sea and share some revenue. The Shia province already has access to the port city of Basra so there is no access problems there. BTW, as an added bonus, having another Shia state will create competition for the Mullahs in Iran. They can no longer claim exclusive leadership of Shia Islam. In a not too distant past, Najaf was the center of Shia scholars instead of Qom.

To: carranza2 who wrote (151425)	11/11/2004 9:59:39 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Upon further reflection on splitting Iraq into 3 parts (two independent and one in alliance with Syria), the idea has a lot of merits to it. Note that the Sunni part has minimal, if any, oil: Firstly, I think it is inevitable. You expect separate nations to form a single country willingly. You can force them into one if you have someone like Tito or Saddam in power. But as soon as the pressure is gone, they will explode, often with tragic results. This way at least they split under better conditions. Secondly there is something in it for everyone: Left on their own as a small land-locked country, the Sunnis would make an alliance with Syria (and possibly Jordan). So as a first step, I'd say give that province to Syria (with whom they are ethnically and ideologically very close) and in return get Syria to be very cooperative in the middle east peace process and perhaps even give the small portion of it Kurdistan it controls to the Kurds. As to the Shia, they have a lot of oil that they now don't have to share with half the country. Their standard of living will improve and they won't have to put up with all the political headaches of having the Sunnis and the Kurds in the mix. It will be a much more stable and prosperous state. They can export their oil via Basra in the Persian Gulf or via pipelines to Jordan. Furthermore, having an Arab Shia state that is home to Shia's holiest sites will diminish the theocracy in Iran. Now on to the issue of Kurds. The biggest obstacle to their independence is Turkey. Turkey's fear is that an independent Kurdistan will flame the fans of separation of its own Kurds. There are two solutions to this: (1) Turkey should make its own population happy enough that they'd rather live as part of Turkey than on their own. This is already starting to happen due to the changes that Turkey has to make to join EU. (2) Turkey needs to be assured that the independent Kurdistan will discourage (or at least will not encourage in the smallest bits) the Kurdish rebels in Turkey. This should be a natural deal as the Iraqi Kurdistan will be a small land-locked country with no way to export its oil. The best route will be via pipelines through Turkey to the Black Sea and share the oil revenue. In the end, I think grudgingly Turkey will accept the offer if there is enough diplomacy and assurances from all sides. As to Iran, there will also be something in it for them. Namely that threat of an Iraqi invasion will be highly reduced. I think they can be persuaded to support the deal. All in all, I think this is the best possible solution for everyone and will make the region much more stable than it is. Sun Tzu