Tweet
Re: WWIII: Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf
Don't be too quick about that. I am just making educated guesses like most everyone else. Middle East politics, even for those intimately immersed in it, is murky at best.
Relations between Israel and Jordan are to this day heavily influenced by the Israeli military "show-of-force" during the September 1970 civil war between Arafat's Palestine Liberation Army (PLA) and the Jordanian Army loyal to King Hussein.
Syria sent troops and armaments in support of the PLA's effort to overthrow the Hashemite Kingdom. However the Syrian air force was unable to provide air cover because the Israeli Air Force was flying "precautionary" exercises in support of Hussein's army. Historians believe that Syria did not want to engage the Israelis in aerial combat given the outcome of the 1967 war. No air cover meant that, within days, Syria lost more than half its armour to the Jordanians before withdrawing from the conflict, a move that put the PLA fedayeen on the defensive. The Jordanian's, who were at that time being isolated by the other Arab states, have never forgotten that.
So you may be correct that a routing over Jordan and Iraq is possible. However, Jordan is still an Arab nation and needs to continuously walk a fine line. If the Saudis were not to grant permission to Israel, I find it hard to believe Jordan would allow passage without a quiet nod from King Abdullah.
What I am hearing from my associates supports your last statement above. Now is the most optimistic tone I have heard from those I speak with in the Middle East since the US started dropping explosives on Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11.
Although cynics legitimately point out that every American President feels compelled to try for a Middle East peace deal in his last 6 months in office, the word I am getting out of the Gulf is that the Turkish-brokered, French/Egyptian sponsored actions that brought together the Israelis, Syrians and Palestinians this weekend in Paris are deadly serious.
Everything in the Middle East is interconnected. An arrangement with the Syrians means stability in Lebanon. Stability in Lebanon in turn has implications, not all of them positive, for Iran. If Iran senses a real potential for agreement and collaboration among Arab nations [yes, I know that sounds oxymoronic] that may in turn pressure it to make some accomodation wrt. Iraq.
Who knows, maybe peace will break out throughout the Middle East, the price of oil will collapse, and we will all live happily ever after. Certainly the level of political and social crisis in the region brought about by inflating food and fuel costs, and consequent public dis-order and threat to regimes [both Arab and otherwise] everywhere in the region, is the most powerful collective motive they have had in recent decades.
Just an aside, last week I corresponded with a long time American-resident business associate who is a Lebanese national. He was in Beruit looking to buy a luxury flat as he now truly feels more optimistic about the future of his home country than he does of the USA.
Originally posted by ASH
View Post
Originally posted by ASH
View Post
Syria sent troops and armaments in support of the PLA's effort to overthrow the Hashemite Kingdom. However the Syrian air force was unable to provide air cover because the Israeli Air Force was flying "precautionary" exercises in support of Hussein's army. Historians believe that Syria did not want to engage the Israelis in aerial combat given the outcome of the 1967 war. No air cover meant that, within days, Syria lost more than half its armour to the Jordanians before withdrawing from the conflict, a move that put the PLA fedayeen on the defensive. The Jordanian's, who were at that time being isolated by the other Arab states, have never forgotten that.
So you may be correct that a routing over Jordan and Iraq is possible. However, Jordan is still an Arab nation and needs to continuously walk a fine line. If the Saudis were not to grant permission to Israel, I find it hard to believe Jordan would allow passage without a quiet nod from King Abdullah.
Originally posted by ASH
View Post
Although cynics legitimately point out that every American President feels compelled to try for a Middle East peace deal in his last 6 months in office, the word I am getting out of the Gulf is that the Turkish-brokered, French/Egyptian sponsored actions that brought together the Israelis, Syrians and Palestinians this weekend in Paris are deadly serious.
Everything in the Middle East is interconnected. An arrangement with the Syrians means stability in Lebanon. Stability in Lebanon in turn has implications, not all of them positive, for Iran. If Iran senses a real potential for agreement and collaboration among Arab nations [yes, I know that sounds oxymoronic] that may in turn pressure it to make some accomodation wrt. Iraq.
Who knows, maybe peace will break out throughout the Middle East, the price of oil will collapse, and we will all live happily ever after. Certainly the level of political and social crisis in the region brought about by inflating food and fuel costs, and consequent public dis-order and threat to regimes [both Arab and otherwise] everywhere in the region, is the most powerful collective motive they have had in recent decades.
Just an aside, last week I corresponded with a long time American-resident business associate who is a Lebanese national. He was in Beruit looking to buy a luxury flat as he now truly feels more optimistic about the future of his home country than he does of the USA.
Comment