Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

The so called "benevolent dictatorship" is based on Confucianism (which is atheist), and is not something which Arabs can understand so I do not think it will work in the Middle East, not to mention, Islamic culture is very different.

The relationship between the Confucian King and the people is that of parent and children. The relationship goes both ways, and both parties have their duties, it is not a one-sided deal like in Syria or Saudi Arabia or Saddam Iraq where the king can slaughter anyone who disobeys at will and without mercy.

The Confucian system sounds good but is very difficult to implement in reality. It requires a very strong leader that is altruistic enough not to abuse his authority.

In my opinion, a constitutional monarchy system might work for the Middle East, where the King doesn't have absolute power but has the authority to abolish parliament and call for elections and has the power to veto any death penalties meted out a trigger happy government.

The great shame is that Saddam could have been the shining light of "Middle East success", albeit still highly oil wealth leveraged, if he'd only checked himself, or had domestic external checks on his power.

More benevolent(and secular) and less malevolent(fundamentalist crazy).

Shame....absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Is it fair to say that the US is shifting from a kind of preferred-source arrangement with Saudi Arabia to a more competitive oil market, playing the house of Saud off of Iran?

I found this piece, which seems to be fairly well-researched. If it rings true here, perhaps a decent interpretation of recent events is to see the US's turn to Iran as a deliberate shift, intended to weaken the ability of any one party in the region to sponsor terrorism, as each tries to compete to be friendly with their customer. I'm uncertain of the long-term wisdom of such a move, and am curious to hear what others might think.

I strongly believe Iran should be the natural ally of the US past, present, and future.

Unfortunately, a whole bunch of bad things happened over quite a few decades by all sides to delay it.

Not too indifferent (in limited respects) from US relations with Vietnam that are slowly, slowly, slowly returning to some semblance of normality and mutual benefit(if only to counter China and allow Vietnam to choose to sit on the geopolitical fence but ally issue by issue with whom it chooses) as the horrifically costly missed opportunity post WWII.

I suspect future relations between the US and Iran in a post theocracy environment will be similar to how things developed with Vietnam.

Cool to slowly warming relations.

Engaging in trade, and "friendly" by mutual convenience issue by issue...but not broadly aligned across the board.

But before we get to that someday, I think we will have some very serious bumps in the road!

Maybe the post Vietnam War relations example is also relevant when you consider Vietnam's invasion and stabilisation of Cambodia(to remove the Khmer Rouge) in December 1978(lasting into the late 80's)and the massive border conflict between Vietnam and China immediately following in Feb-March 1979.

Maybe Saudi Arabia could be a "Cambodia" analog if it fell in a horrific bloodbath, Iran could be a "Vietnam" analog to stabilise the eastern oil producing regions, and the US could be a "China" analog trying to teach Iran/"Vietnam" a lesson but ultimately failing in substance if enough indigenous Shia population mass exists thats is resilient and persistent enough to survive Saudi Sunni attempts at mass deportations/genocide to retain the endless money under the sand.

Post Vietnam War invasion of Cambodia and border conflict with China were both conventional wars with combined arms and all the bells and whistles.

I suspect IF an analogy exists with Iran/Saudi/US it will be largely unconventional/irregular.....like almost every war....because the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia and the Vietnam/China border war were the exceptions.

-----

Back to the "post whatever happens" part:

I suspect Iran will have far more options to choose in geopolitical allies and trading partners than just the US(as per post WWII rules).

I think it will require a fair bit more humility and acknowledgement of relative power shifts and realignment.

The US should be able to eventually sell and lot of products and services to Iran, especially in core "best in the world" global competencies, but I'm guessing it will be a more competitive global environment with the likes of long term quiet trading partners like France and China and India putting up some pretty big fights.

When you take the crazy theocracy and radical literalists out of both countries' power structures(Iran's leadership and Saudi royal family bribing it's radicals) the choice of long-term trading partner and potential ally is crystal clear:

The Persian culture can make stuff(even if it's reverse engineered or last gen stuff), the Arab culture cursed with oil pays others to make stuff for them.

Saudi Arabia, to me, is like the rich kid with all the money and toys. Kids only want to be friends with him because he has all the money and toys.

When the money and toys goes away, so do the fair weather friends.

It's not a lasting relationship built on solid and shared foundations or even just mutual respect.

-----

But don't believe a word I've written.......I'm still trying to get my head around how secular-ish global islamic successful story Turkey is slowly sliding into the abyss.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

But don't believe a word I've written.......I'm still trying to get my head around how secular-ish global islamic successful story Turkey is slowly sliding into the abyss.

i think ataturk and his military successors tried to play the benevolent strongman role that's been discussed here, but majoritarian "democracy" has made secularism and human rights go out of style. erdogan looks more and more like morsi. "democracy" means one election, and one election only. of course morsi was deposed by the military, but erdogan has been slower and more clever in expanding his role.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I wouldn't make that conclusion so quickly just based on just outdated equipment. Equipment is does not alone determine who wins the war. The Russians were more badly equipped in WWII than today but still won the Germans that had the best military hardware.

In my opinion, Russia has no strategic value other than using it as a fear factor. It is too vast to conquer and too difficult to hold. Therefore not worth the effort. However, as a fear factor, it is very useful because you can use it to scare Europe into submission.

No one would ever invade Russia via conventional warfare means.

Why bother?

It would be akin to an expensive hostile takeover of a publicly traded 100 year old steel mill that has had its share price explode on leaks of the news. It would be a nightmare.

Unconventional takeover of the culture over generations in a slow demographic war? That's a different story.

-----

As far as warfare goes there's a few key points most seem to miss:

Almost every war ever fought has been irregular/unconventional.

"Regular" or conventional wars that the majority of resources(and words written about it) are invested, are the rare exception/anomaly.

But even irregular/unconventional wars require resources, often substantial, and often compel conventional military capability as an effective deterrent to achieve objectives.

Russia's military is suffering from considerable overstretch due to concurrent campaigns.

Is the US overstretched?

Yes and no.

Yes in that many of its modern systems have aged in a highly accelerated fashion WELL beyond planned training/operational use when those systems were procured decades ago.

No in that outside of it's specialist forces, the US operational tempo has dramatically reduced in recent years, but so has it's staffing and training levels due to funding cuts.

In the end, both the US and Russia are shadows of their former selves in terms of military force projection capability.

Russia is struggling to support Syrian operations on top of Ukrainian operations.

And while the US could conventionally destroy North Korean and Iranian nuclear infrastructure and delivery capability very quickly if compelled to do so, the US would seriously struggle to put 25,000-30,000 proper combat soldiers(support personnel tail often 6-10x that is seperate) on the ground for a conflict/occupation/stability/handover of 2-3 years duration.

Russia wouldn't be able to do anything like that.

Both are a shadow of their former 1989 peak selves.

Which is a good thing(less folks and resources GDP% wise unproductive), and a bad thing(global maritime security).

[astonas]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I don't see a link between the geopolitics and the oil purchases.
Oil is fungible, a barrel from Suadia Arabia is the same as a barrel from Venezuela or one from Iran or one from Nigeria.
All oil producers sell oil into a global market and all oil buyers pull oil out of that market.

You're right. I shouldn't have characterized the relationship as just "customer" and "source". Perhaps "geopolitical partner" more closely represents the relationship I was trying to get at, complete with petrodollar, OPEC influence, and arms sales.

The core question, however, remains. Is the US now actively working toward a more multipolar power structure in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia playing a less dominant role in ALL of those "partner" elements than previously, and is this in part due to its tracing financial support to radical ideologies back to Saudi Arabia?

Thanks for helping me clarify.

[touchring]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

But don't believe a word I've written.......I'm still trying to get my head around how secular-ish global islamic successful story Turkey is slowly sliding into the abyss.

Greed, as it is the same all over the world.

http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_...ys_371002.html

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

...But don't believe a word I've written.......I'm still trying to get my head around how secular-ish global islamic successful story Turkey is slowly sliding into the abyss.

i think ataturk and his military successors tried to play the benevolent strongman role that's been discussed here, but majoritarian "democracy" has made secularism and human rights go out of style. erdogan looks more and more like morsi. "democracy" means one election, and one election only. of course morsi was deposed by the military, but erdogan has been slower and more clever in expanding his role.

I believe that "secular" and "Islam" are ultimately irreconcilable. And the Turks have discovered that at this moment in history.

It is also the starkest contrast between Christians and Muslims, and a source of much of the ongoing conflict. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" is a uniquely Christian concept. Islam makes no distinction between "church and State".

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I believe that "secular" and "Islam" are ultimately irreconcilable. And the Turks have discovered that at this moment in history.

It is also the starkest contrast between Christians and Muslims, and a source of much of the ongoing conflict. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" is a uniquely Christian concept. Islam makes no distinction between "church and State".

but surely there are secularized muslims who make that distinction, just as the u.s. is known for its "cafeteria catholics" - i.e. they pick and choose among the policy positions taken by their church.

[astonas]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Greed, as it is the same all over the world.

http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_...ys_371002.html

Thanks for all the responses, guys, there's a lot to chew on here! I tend to side with lakedaemonian that Iran has a lot of potential as a prospective ally, though I clearly need to learn more before I can achieve such certainty.

And thanks also for this link, touchring. I am coming to think of religion in the ME as just another narrative used primarily to rationalize underlying baser motivations, and protecting a billion or more dollars in stolen cash makes a lot more sense as a true motivation for a rising dictatorship, than the Turkish population suddenly and sincerely "getting religion" by reading the Koran. This article filled in several gaps in that line of thought.

Greed, and corruption, seem to dominate whenever they are allowed to do so, regardless of which particular ideology or religion claims to be restraining these impulses in the minds of men. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The biggest difference seems to be which ideological language is used to sell that corruption to the masses, but certainly any ideology will serve. Imperialism was one, communism another, religion another again, and (in reversing bank regulation, at least) freedom of markets was yet another.

It makes me idly wonder if any system could even exist without ideology - just pragmatism. It's certainly been claimed many times before, but I think the only reasonable conclusion is that all such changes ever achieved in practice is the replacing of one corruptible religion or ideology with another.

[Southernguy]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Cherchez l'argent

[llanlad2]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

but surely there are secularized muslims who make that distinction, just as the u.s. is known for its "cafeteria catholics" - i.e. they pick and choose among the policy positions taken by their church.

Not as many as you'd think. GRGs Caesar quote is more relevant than most western commentators can possibly imagine in my opinion. Turkey is the only Muslim country that has managed more than one democratic election. In a way I believe its democracy will cause the end of its democracy. It's the will of the people. Westerners don't get that. I think the west became more secularist after a horrendous non religious war(ww1). Many Muslim countries are now fighting in the name of religion even if they didn't mean to. The winners will feel the chosen ones. I know many Arabs and Muslims. Even the moderate ones seem fundamentalist to my western mind. Evolution is a western myth to the majority. This is whether they are military, scientists or bankers. It takes some getting used to.
The Iranians I've met are an exception.

[touchring]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Not as many as you'd think. GRGs Caesar quote is more relevant than most western commentators can possibly imagine in my opinion. Turkey is the only Muslim country that has managed more than one democratic election.

Do you really mean the only Muslim country in the Middle East?

Indonesia a 90% Muslim state also has more than 1 democratic election - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Indonesia

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

IRGC seizes 2 US Navy small boats and crews:

http://www.navytimes.com/story/milit...rned/78698018/

http://pzfeed.com/2-navy-boats-in-iranian-custody/

US Navy might have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

But it could be a genuine mechanical issue.....but I would think unlikely as most small western navy boats will have engine/system redundancies as well as the organic ability for 1 boat to tow the other well away from the navigational no-go boundaries.

Farsi Island sounds like an entirely IRGC controlled island in the Gulf.

-----

I suspect the western side of the Persian Gulf in proximity to Farsi Island is going to seriously heat up.

With diplomatic, commercial, and holiday travel/trade shutting down between Saudi Arabia and Iran it's probably going to shift any Iranian unconventional war efforts to logistically support Shia underground/auxiliary in Bahrain and Eastern Saudi Arabia towards more small boat infiltration efforts.

The US Navy small boats may have simply been at the wrong place(including open uncontested waters) at the wrong time on interdiction patrols.

I don't know what happened, but I suspect that area of water is going to become a hot spot, if it isn't already.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

IRGC seizes 2 US Navy small boats and crews:

http://www.navytimes.com/story/milit...rned/78698018/

http://pzfeed.com/2-navy-boats-in-iranian-custody/

US Navy might have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

But it could be a genuine mechanical issue.....but I would think unlikely as most small western navy boats will have engine/system redundancies as well as the organic ability for 1 boat to tow the other well away from the navigational no-go boundaries.

Farsi Island sounds like an entirely IRGC controlled island in the Gulf.

-----

I suspect the western side of the Persian Gulf in proximity to Farsi Island is going to seriously heat up.

With diplomatic, commercial, and holiday travel/trade shutting down between Saudi Arabia and Iran it's probably going to shift any Iranian unconventional war efforts to logistically support Shia underground/auxiliary in Bahrain and Eastern Saudi Arabia towards more small boat infiltration efforts.

The US Navy small boats may have simply been at the wrong place(including open uncontested waters) at the wrong time on interdiction patrols.

I don't know what happened, but I suspect that area of water is going to become a hot spot, if it isn't already.

Last reports I saw the USA did not have a carrier group in the Gulf or Indian Ocean. Has that changed?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Last reports I saw the USA did not have a carrier group in the Gulf or Indian Ocean. Has that changed?

I have not seen carrier battle group rough locations in quite some time.

Personally, I don't think a CBG would bring much to the table in the irregular war being fought between Saudi/Iran.

Persistent surveillance(aerial/surface) and interdiction of the Persian Gulf, as well as filtering traffic from mutual trading partners of Saudi/Iran(3rd party/country smuggling) would be areas of greatest concern to me.

Carrier battle groups are not going to save Saudi from implosion, with an Iranian fan(facilitating and supporting any Internal Saudi Shia unrest) for the flames.

I think the CBGs will absolutely deter any conventional Iranian action, but I don't think the Iranians would ever be that silly again as in the late 80's.

Just my 0.02c