What if the archduke was assassinated tomorrow?

[Marsh]

If you stayed awake during your high school history class, you will of course remember how one single act of assassination became the spark that ignited the First World War. No doubt the tense conditions in the modern Middle East are equal to, if not exceeding, those of Europe in 1914. What if, tomorrow, an event happened that caused war to break out in the Middle East? What do you think would happen within the first year of war? Also, what do you think that spark might be?

 

[iBrian]

No, I don't think we have a comparable situation to 1914. The problem then was a multi-faceted Europe of nations aggressively competing against one another.

The biggest point of note is that as a result of that there was a whole network of treaties in place that saw different elements of Europe allied with one another. Political, religious, and commercial tensions were already extremely volatile. That's why an Austrian shot by a Serb in Yugoslavia was able to send Britain, Germany, France, and Russia plummeting into a war they were eager but unprepared for.

The Middle East is a seat of great tensions, but these are an entirely different dynamic, IMO. The Arab League will not rise against the USA, and frankly has often used the Palestinian issue as something to posture about while not actually doing much about it themselves - especially not letting the refugees have any status within their own borders.

The Palestinians have no real ally in the world with any form of political and military force. Not in national terms, anyway.

 

[Nogodnomasters]

If you stayed awake during your high school history class, you will of course remember how one single act of assassination became the spark that ignited the First World War. No doubt the tense conditions in the modern Middle East are equal to, if not exceeding, those of Europe in 1914. What if, tomorrow, an event happened that caused war to break out in the Middle East? What do you think would happen within the first year of war? Also, what do you think that spark might be?

In case you haven't noticed Marsh, there is already a war in the Middle East. What would cause a major war, and one that wouldn't last long if the US is involved, is if OPEC cut off oil to the US. This war would then be part of the "national interest." However we can't just go to war for oil. The US will break out the files and prove Saudi Arabia had something to do with 9-11 or something similar to justify our invasion of yet another nation who has the gall to but their land on top of our oil.

Ironically, the world seemed so much simplier when we were happy to just let Saddam gas the Kurds.

The problem is democracy will not take hold in Iraq. There are too many who desire a theocracy like Iran. This will keep US forces in Iraq for decades gaurding our oil at the cost of billions to taxpayers so oil companies can make millions. Our forces in the Middle East have proven to be a black hole for terrorists, being sucked in from all sides.

The dance is just starting. What is Al- Qaida going to do if they see a US soldier parading around with bin Laden's head on a stick?

If I can't drive there, I ain't going.

 

[Marsh]

World War vs worldly war

In case you haven't noticed Marsh, there is already a war in the Middle East.

Great take, guy. And yes, I have noticed that there is a war going on already... kind of. However, I don't think the situation had reached the stage of total war like it did after Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary. But I like what you said about OPEC.

I've also noticed that your country has slowly but surely surrounded Iran, which is the country I see as the powder keg: it's strong (likely with nukes of its own, judging from what came out of the Libya affair), it's got a big population, and plenty of gripes against the West in general, and America in particular. Germany was like that at the turn of the century: strong, big (having just unified), gripes against the colonial giants... and then surrounded with the Triple Entente agreement made in 1904. Ten years later, they were at war.

I wasn't there, but I'll bet in the months leading up to the First World War the average citizen didn't ever think that a war of such magnitude would ever happen. One assassination later the most powerful militaries in the world were slugging it out in Europe. Today, I think this attitude prevails in all the homes that receive western media: sure there are skirmishes and stand-offs, and maybe the occasional peacekeeping or peacemaking mission, but in the end the United Nations or some other organization will rise up to save the world.

What do you think Israel would do to Gaza if Sharon was killed by a Hamas suicide bomber? I know Brian disagrees, but to me the relationship between Gaza and neighbouring Arab states is similar to Russia and Serbia.

 

[Nogodnomasters]

With the scandal in Israel, Sharon isn't that popular as he once was. Israel would do its normal retaliation. From a practical point of view they really can't do a whole lot more than they are doing now. Iran being surrounded is just a coincedence. Our troops are spread too thin to support another major campaign and occupation.

There was an interesting news piece that Israel was searching for tunnels in Gaza in which weapons from Egypt are being smuggled into Palestine. Pardon my geography ignorance- but wouldn't that make it the longest tunnel on the planet?

Brian is correct in that the power curve is different. The combined power of all of Arabia is no match for even the state of North Dakota. This means civil uprisings such as we are seeing today would be the retaliation- not an official government response. The poorest nation on earth can defeat the richest and most powerful nation by this method as demonstrated in Vietnam.

The US will end it war on terrorism when it goes broke and can no longer service its debt- about 2010 if Bush gets re-elected.

I would like to thank Russia for its hyper-sonic missles which should kill our Starwar's project. That's about a trillion dollars we saved.

 

[iBrian]

Iran's not actually as bad a situation as you may think - the British had been fostering ties with the then liberal government under President Khatami. But Bush's sabre rattling and naming Iran an "axis of evil" has helped empower the far right in Iran - so much so that they are busy entrenching themselves and dismantling various state apparatus that can leave them even more vulnerable to the US advances. The removal of masses of liberal MPs from the electoral lists for one.

The problem with Iran, IMO, is the heavy handed manner with which the US is approaching it. Europe actually had been developing good relations with it, and just before the silly Bush axis speech Iran had actually been helping fight the Taliban from its borders on our behalf, especially to prevent the herion trade from using Iran as a major base to move out supplies.

Europe was able to coerce Iran to at least comply with the IAEA demands for inspections on their nuclear program, but US diplomats simply derided the Iranian position - the result of which is for Iran to again withdraw as the far right clerics dig in against American threats.

I'm not sure what particular beef the US has against Iran - is it the arms affair from the 1980's? Either way, carrying on some form of national vendentta against Iran for the sake of it, will only entrench resentment against the USA in the region.

It's quite astonishingly, really, when you think what a potentially useful ally Iran could be in shouldering up the Middle East - especially as it borders Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not as if we need expect another Shah - God forbid there ever be another one - just to make Iran listen to the West. A little less diplomatic vindictiveness could go a long way,