Saturday, December 09, 2006
Comment-o-rama: Will it be a "warm spring"?
Cardinalpark's "Win the region" post yesterday generated a couple of particularly interesting speculative comments from a pair of TigerHawk regulars. First, K. Pablo:
It's not hard to make a few assertions that are fairly supportable, and then draw some conclusions:
1. For the foreseeable future, U.S. needs to stay in Iraq, protecting oil fields and the Kurds, securing Baghdad and the central government.
2. Iran will soon undergo upheaval as Khamenei dies, probably within the next three months given what sounds like colon cancer metastatic to the spine. The degree of the upheaval is difficult to predict.
3. Sunni Arab refugees will continue to pour out of Iraq, mostly into Syria and Jordan. Assad won't be able to handle this, and the Iranians won't be able to help him. Syria likely to be destabilized.
4. Hezbollah is likely to cause the downfall of the Siniora government, and has built up an excellent Sturmabteilung with which to replace it.
5. Saudi Arabia and Israel are "re-aligning" at the moment, which will place Hamas in an untenable position. Other re-alignments include Qatar cozying up to Iran, and Turkey and Iran cooperating against their Kurdish populations.
6. al-Maliki and al-Hakim are likely to be drawn into conflict. al-Hakim's SCIRI brethren are more useful to Iran than are al-Maliki and his Sadrist street gangs.
7. Saudis have dropped hints about boosting oil production to depress Iran's economy. Iran can blockade the straits of Hormuz but this is likely to be temporary and at the cost of Iran's navy (until they get a nuke).
My forecast is for a very warm spring, featuring explosions and regime change.
Dawnfire82's response:
Only a few comments.
"2. Iran will soon undergo upheaval as Khamenei dies, probably within the next three months given what sounds like colon cancer metastatic to the spine. The degree of the upheaval is difficult to predict."
The vibes I've always gotten from Iran was that Khamenei was a mitigating force on their crazy, messianic President. If the next Supreme Leader is not of Khamenei's caliber, Iran might get even more bellicose and aggressive. In the end, that could be good for us.
"4. Hezbollah is likely to cause the downfall of the Siniora government, and has built up an excellent Sturmabteilung with which to replace it."
I don't think that the other factions will allow this. If the Christians and Sunni are standing together (as they are now) then they must feel strongly about opposing Hezb Allah. Another civil war seems likely to me, rather than a simple coup.
"7. Saudis have dropped hints about boosting oil production to depress Iran's economy. Iran can blockade the straits of Hormuz but this is likely to be temporary and at the cost of Iran's navy (until they get a nuke)."
A blockade is an act of war, and would again be good news for us. In my opinion, what we need most is a clear cassus beli to do some house cleaning.
Unleash your own thoughtful speculations in the comments. I'll be back, once I've cleaned up the attic.
4 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Dec 09, 03:44:00 PM:
Dems believe they have a mandate for surrender in Iraq and the ME. Pelosi, Murtha, etc. are committed to withdrawal from Iraq AND Afghanistan, general isolationism and appeasement.
IMHO this will only encourage Ahmadinejad (post-Khameni) to nuke Israel (to the general joy of Euros and Leftists everywhere) and also several American cities to "achieve" our surrender and conversion to Islam. Hence Ahmadinejad's "call to Islam" letters to Bush.
This will provoke a realignment inside the US, with Dems and centrist Reps falling away like the Whigs or Know-Nothings right before the Civil War and a clear "national survival war party" and those openly calling for conversion to Islam and surrender.
You'll see this process repeated in the West. Essentially the political problem is the "Davos Man" who has mobile capital in great quantities and would rather surrender since his active passport and great wealth means he can move anywhere. Think Bill Clinton who earns millions speaking to Saudis telling them what they want to hear or George Clooney and his Italian and Swiss villas.
But to me clearly we are seeing Hezbollah simply destroy Lebanon as anything but a Syrian-Iranian possession (Hezb can simply crush the rest and get the OK from the Baker-Pelosi gang). Iranian nuking of Israel if Israel does not act first. And of course nuking of US cities as Iran becomes over-confident.
Just as Andrew Jackson avert civil war for a generation by threatening to hang South Carolina seccessionists, and his work undone by weak Buchanon who sought appeasement, so too with GWB and Pelosi, only accelerated.
By 
William, at
Sat Dec 09, 06:24:00 PM:
I have good news for you Anony: you're wrong. The main message I've heard from dems is that the war in Iraq has meant too little focus on Afghanistan, thus I have no idea where you've gotten this notion to the contrary from.
Beyond that, I've argued this argument against Islamic-fatalism too many times to think you're going to change your mind. The civil war analogy was a nice twist. Just come back to me in five years. We can trade "told you so's" albeit I'll bet I'll be doing most of the giving.
My predictions:
1. Iraq is always difficult, because I never stop hoping for something much better than the reality. We will be there into the foreseeable future, the government will get stronger and less democratic, and violence will begin to decrease as internal migration lessens day-to-day friction between sects and armed neighborhood groups (mostly militias) provide effective security.
2. Lebanon needs a new form of government not based around sects. It will either get that or a civil war. The former and Hezbollah will emerge with more influence, the latter and Hezbollah will do badly.
3. The Iranian government will get nuclear weapons. Its aggression will also spark a backlash that will unite most of the Sunni states against it, with questionable results.
4. Most importantly, within 5-10 years, a blunted demand and a greatly increased supply will bring about an oil glut and price plunge. The Iranian gov. and all the oil states will then be forced to reform, and states like the UAE (ie Dubai) will enjoy a more affluence (at least as a model) with their diversified, non-oil dependent economies.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sat Dec 09, 08:09:00 PM:
William, I partially concur. I have regarded the Democrat focus on Afghanistan as mostly for show to this point, but recent events seem to have provided cover for many of them to make good on their rhetoric. The other half I believe remain as anonymous claims.
Still, that is better than I feared. In a long-term information war, it may be that having 60-70% of American support for an adequate plan is better than having 40% support for a good plan. Our ability to follow through is what is in question at this point, not our military skill.
And who knows? Attention on Afghanistan might prove a wiser choice anyway. We could start by buying up their poppy crop, selling it at a loss for genuine pharmaceutical needs.
By , at
Sun Dec 10, 11:10:00 AM:
"Davos Man". Interesting.
Reminiscent of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., who stated his willingness in 1940 (privately) to part with half his fortune to NAZI Germany (encouraging other millionaires to do the same), to prevent our involvement in the European War, and write off Great Britain (he was Irish, remember?). And he was at the time the Ambassador to Great Britain.
See the book "The Founding Father".
History repeats itself, and time marches on. da- da- da.
David
