Because I would have taken the debate waaaay off topic I will bring psyclist's response to my comments in the Iraqi election thread here and respond to them.

The question for debate is...
Is Iran's current positioning and action in the region destabilizing to the ME and do you feel that other Arab nation's not only fear her but will choose to take the current international stand against Iran...and condemn and further isolate her? Will they break the silence?

Or do you think that what Iran does is little or no consequence to the region and her nation/states and that for the most part they don't care?





You don't think Iran's actions bother anyone at all in the region because they just don't care? I think if you are going to assert the idea that Arab nations don't care if Iran provokes Israel in hopes of appearing to advocate going to war with her that you should at best provide some kind of comments or statements from these nation's representatives stating such.

I will provide some to prove the opposite:

From KSA ambassador to the US
But Turki said the Arab world has "made our peace" with the creation of Israel. He noted that in 2002, the Arab League adopted a Saudi plan that committed Arab nations to a peace process that would result in the creation of Palestine and an acceptance of Israel, including normalization of relations, once it leaves territory occupied after the 1967 Six-Day War.

"It is a done deal for us," he said. "We are not going to go back on that."
source

Or see what Hizbullah has to say about Iran's comments and explain to me how this is not an affront to the Arab Leagues commitment to the peace process ...
Mediator: "You mean, reviving the motto of erasing Israel from the map."

Hisham Sham'as: "Israel should be completely wiped out, so the Palestinians will have a country to return to."

Mediator: "If someone tells you this motto is unrealistic, how would you respond?"

Hisham Sham'as: "There is no such thing as unrealistic. Just as Israel... Just like Hitler fought the Jews - We are a great Islamic nation of Jihad, and we too should fight the Jews and burn them."
source

See that little part about reviving the motto? Who exactly do you think is the biggest proponent of such a revival?

And it is not that I claimed Iran is planning on invading every Arab nation...I think who she threatens the most is quite obvious. What I am arguing is that her actions are extremely destabilizing to the region...why would the countries of that region not care about Iran going to war with Israel? Do you remember the six day war...did that have lasting effects on many of the nations of the ME? Why do you think the KSA ambassador made mention of that particular war?

And you seem to be under the perception that Iran is not very meddling in the region except ......

She tries to dictate who makes trade negotiations with who in the region with threats, she is alleged to be suppling Zarqawi with military support and Syria with manpower, she is seeking nuclear weapons, she is said to have purchased missiles from North Korea that can reach as far as Europe, completely disregards the peace process that Arab states have been actively pursuing with Israel and basically hopes to revise a past failed approach to Israel and basically the entire region itself. How could anyone claim no one in the ME "cares what Iran is up to"!?

First let's put my comments in perspective. I was responding to your comment:


To think that America's military presence is wanted by those in the Middle East is pretty hard for me to believe. You said that, "And it is not that I claimed Iran is planning on invading every Arab nation." Well, then why do you think America's military presence would be legitimate and wanted? If Qatar felt they were going to be attacked by Iran and they knew they had no way of defending themselves, then yes, they would want America's presence. But, since you and I don't think that Iran is going to be invading them anytime soon, I don't see why a US presence would be wanted.

So why is their an outcry coming from the GCC countries? Well, the GCC's concerns about Iran's actions are based on Iran's ability to usurp their influence from the Middle East. Iran is economic competition in the oil industry for the GCC countires. The GCC is going to make a whole lot of noise about Iran's actions because if the UN or US puts sanctions on Iran, they stand to benefit the most.

As for Israel, while the rhetoric coming from Ahmadinejad is crazy and scary, I don't think Israel is Iran's focus (though Iran is certainly Israel's main focus). As I pointed out in my other post, Iran has the ability to influence Iraq. Iran wants a stable, pro-Iranian government in Iraq. I never claimed that Iran doesn't have "little or no consequence to the region" in fact I gave a basic, general overview of how they can influence Iraq. Iran stands to gain a lot from the Iraqi conflict so their focus is going to be there. With the fall of Saddam, both Iran and Israel lost the two biggest threats to their country. So, after Iraq, Iran's biggest threat is US/Israel and Israel's biggest threat is Iran. What I believe we're going to see is a mini cold war between the two countries and Iran is going to try and "talk up" their military capabilities now while they're vulnerable (as they probably don't have nukes yet) and are well aware that both Israel and the US are capable of a pre-emptive attack.

Its hard for me to understand how the middle east will respond to things like this, and even harder to try to explain it without being accused of taking an extremist view or having a 'nasty streak'.

I honestly don't think the majority of Muslims are scared of Iran or the rhetoric coming from Iran's president because I don't believe they believe in, or care much about, regional stability all that much. Islam teaches acceptance of Allah's will and the devout, when confronted with calamity must say Ynsha Allah and just accept it.

So, I'm almost convinced that the majority of Muslims would be either indifferent or pleased to see an escalation of violence against Israel. The muted response of the Muslim world to the recent outbursts of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks volumes about the mind set of contemporary Islam.

Link.


Link.

Like the author of this latter article, I've reached the end of my tether. I can't make excuses, or think up explanations for the behaviour of the Muslim population any more. I want to see some evidence that Islam really is the 'religion of peace' that so many western politicians claim it is because at the moment I'm not seing anything at all to back this up and a lot to refute it.

I'm watching one of the most dangerous, fanatically religious nations on the planet aquiring nuclear weapons mounted on rockets capable of hitting Israel whilst their crack pot president talks about wiping Israel off the map and yet I'm hearing nothing but empty rhetoric from the west and nothing much at all from the Middle East.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is setting up a case against Israel. He is presenting a logical argument against Israel's presence in the Middle East. Very clever approach, but unfortunately, Iran does not have the military power to do anything about it. You can disect Pres. Ahmadinejad's arguement by quickly reviewing his comments. Using the same source provided by bucket, in that article, Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post writes:



First it is "wiped off the map" then he says "send them back to Europe" finally he issues the ultimate insult "Holocaust is a myth." The final statement got a serious rebuke from German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Jaeger when he suggested the UN should summon the Iranian envoy and formally protest these comments.

Now, this is where the Pres. Ahmadinejad wins his argument; if the Holocaust was a crime committed by Europeans against Jewish people, then the Europeans should have to bear the burden of creating a Jewish nation on European soil, not Middle Eastern lands. The Europeans cannot deny the Holocaust happened. They must accept the guilt of the Holocaust. One would think that the Europeans are in between a rock and a hard place, but this goes back to my previous statement saying that Iran doesn't have sufficient military power to do anything other than make statements.

But this does give the United States the ability to invade or bomb Iran, claiming they are a threat to US soveriegnty. This idea is preposterous but the American public just might be stupid enough to buy this argument. Washington is probably upset at the timing, it would have been far more digestable to the American public to invade Iran first, following the 9/11 tidal wave of American jingoism, and save Saddam Hussein for later.

Iran poses a great threat to the region in which they occupy. With any kind of tactics Iran deems fit, be it biological, nuclear, chemical, terrorist attacks, state-sponsored take-over, any neighbor of Iran could be in serious danger. More specifically, Israel. With a leader who seems to believe that Israel has no right to be in the Middle East, Iran seems to threaten quite a bit more than just a neighbor but also a superpower with interests heavily invested in Israel.

President Ahmadinejad presents the same political mask as Kim Jong-Il and Hugo Chavez, the "dare to defy me" position. He is attempting to garner support and create chaos among the international community for something- what it is, I do not know nor would I claim to know. However, this cannot just be careless comments, there is an underlying cause to this which makes this man all the more more dangerous for Iran's neighboring states. It will all come down to alliances, some nations may ally with Iran and others may befriend Israel or the United States. Whatever the outcome, I doubt it will be pretty.

Well believe it. KSA has always welcomed American military protection. So has Kuwait..we have bases all through out the ME and have had our military presence there for over 50 yrs...in fact we used to even maintain a military alliance with ME nations. Take the tanker wars for example..the US has always been a welcomed force for stability in that region.

I would suspect that most ME governments would prefer to have to deal with or rely on US military presence in the region over Iran's any day.


I disagree ..I think the last thing Iran wants is a stable Iraq. She would be competition and a dangerous influence to the pro democratic elements in Iran today. Nearly 60% of Iran population is under 25 years of age and sooner or later the children of Iran (I am hoping for sooner) are going to rise up and take their nation into the future.

Iraq is currently to Iran a means of distracting and tying America down. It is a means to humiliate and discredit America's rhetoric on democracy not just for Iraqis but Iranians, Syrians and the whole Middle East. This is without question a war of idealogy and having Iraq come out nice and stable even if you believe it is or would be pro-Iranian is not enough because Iraq on her own is too powerful and too much of an important player on the international stage to have Iran control her. Iraq would not be in any sort of a position to be submissive if she was stable and democratic...even pro-Iranian democratic. The only means Iran has in keeping Iraq submissive and weak is by sending in her death troops and weaponry to keep her as chaotic as possible.

I don't believe for one moment that other Arab states...except Syria...support Iraq continuing like she is. They all know the violence will not remain contained. The all know too well what advantage Iran would take because they have a perfect example..Lebanon. No one wants their state to have to live and exist like Lebanon.
American forces and military supremacy is their only hope. Who else in the ME can confront Iran? Israel. So who do you personally believe most ME govts feel comfortable in dealing with and relying on? Israel or US?



Did you not read the direct quote from the KSA ambassador to the US that I had in my first posting? Did not sound very muted to me at all. And there have been plenty of Arab opinions published in papers that again are not in the least bit muted. Iran is making them uneasy and politics in the ME are changing so naturally the response we see is now different.

So I assume the bombing of the Kumar towers and the USS Cole were their way of checking up on our military prepardness? I don't believe that the general populous welcomed a military presence as much as the those in power did. In fact, I don't even think the leaders wanted us there. First of all, the military alliance with the Middle Eastern nations are not 50 years old. Most of the officail military alliances between the Gulf States and the US started in the early 90s. Kuwait and Bahrain officially allied with the US Sept. 18th, 1991. Along with Britian and France. Qatar and Saudis came along the same time. Prior to that, the US relation to the Gulf states (save for Oman) was characterized by an "Over the Horizon" and last resort approach (The US called it their "two pillar" approach) Most of the Gulf States dealt with the threat of Iran and Iraq and other inter-Arab conflicts themselves through diplomacy (Not US support; and when I say diplomacy, I mean pay offs.) As for the Tanker Wars that you allude to, the American's role in that was fairly minimal. The US navy escorted around some GCC state tanker's with minimal support from the states. They didn't dock at any of the State's ports and it was understood by both parties and the UN that this was an international policing action...not US/GCC support. Then once the Iraq-Iran war was all over, Kuwait tried to give the boot to the US forces.

The bond between the US and Gulf states changed after 9-11 and especially after Bush's infamous "You're either with us or against us" speech. The GCC, already rife with interal problems and their own terrorists had no middle ground. The GCC was dragged into a fight in Afgahanistan against their own kind, with a power that had a media lambasting their religion and increasing their support for regional state that was "fighting terrorism" by knocking off 14 year old children. Relations deteriated further at the Iraq war as all states tried to politically prevent a war in Iraq. The support to the US was minimal at best.

Things seemed to be going quite the opposite with Iran. Ties between Iran and the GCC countries began to improve at the beginning of 2000. The Saudi's signed a security agreement in April of 2001 and Qatar signed one in 2002. With Saddam no longer their to pressuer the GCC states, ties between the two groups are expected to improve. The GCC has taken a rather passive role since Iran made the world aware of its nuclear ambitions. The concerns of countries for Qatar and Kuwait are if Iran decides to bomb some of the US bases located in their country.

So I have to assume you believe that the general population of the Middle east is in support of militant actions against the US? I disagree I don't believe that at all...this is what a minority and more extreme grouping believes.

When I was a kid and the US was over in Iraq the first round we had friends from the KSA who came to Orlando Florida where I once lived. We spent a day with them and their teenage daughter was so excited to show off her cool new outfit she had brought with her. It was a replication of the the American military desert fatigues .... so I have to admit my own experience with the people of the region is not represented by the actions of a few in regards to the USS Cole bombing etc.



Well look up what CENTO was. And then once CENTO dissolved you will see that the US made independent agreements with those nation/states she considers allies. Turkey is in NATO. Also We are the largest supplier of arms and our biggest clients are ME nations. Are you suggesting aide and military cooperation is not a form of alliance?




The tankers flew American flags. Not UN flags but American flags. Why? Why would they do that? Because they wanted the message to be clear..attack these tankers and you will be attacking the United States of America. Sorry I don't think that is minimal..in fact I think our role was major....far more than any other nation or collection of nations.


You want to complain about minimal meaningless roles...and yet you keep using the acronym GCC like it means something. It doesn't. Not to mention it seems to be missing a few key figures.

I'm not sure what you mean by




The GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council made up of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman (Yemen is not a member but seems to follow their policies normally). It's a a large, oil rich, influential group of countries that make a sort of voting bloc in the Arab League. One if not the primary reasons they formed was so they wouldn't have to rely on countries like the US for protection. (This was in 1981 just after Iraq-Iran war started.) What do you mean it doesn't mean anything? I decided to try and focus our debate on those countries in the middle east who would most likely be impacted by Iran and my original statement that caused this whole mess was "I don't think the GCC is expecting Iran to invade them any time soon." And your quotes were supplied by the Saudis (a GCC member).

I'll address the other points later but I guess we have to pick which countries we're going to care about. Is Israel and Turkey worried about Iran? Yes. Are the GCC countries? I don't think so (UAE is still upset about their islands though). Are the Comoros Islands, Djibouti, Algeria, Mauritania, Somalia etc etc really afraid of Iran? My guess is no but I'm up for a debate if you feel they are.

Oh, and none of the GCC countries were part of CENTO.