With the War on Iraq in its final chapter, the battle that is the Global War on Terror is far from over. As a reason of why I believe Syria to be next I reproduce the following analysis which i replied in another discussion:
Syria is next. Why is Syria next? Because of the need to re-open the Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline) from Iraq to Haifa in Israel, via Syria. A quick search on the history of this pipeline will tell you it was constructed in the 1940’s when the now Israeli port city of Haifa was part of Palestine with a capacity of 500 000 bbl/d. But with the establishment of the State of Israel, the oil was diverted to Sidon in Lebanon through Syria. The pipeline has been closed for a couple of decades now (probably due to the refusal of Arab nations, including Iraq to officially recognise Israel). At a time when oil stocks are at their lowest in US, it is imperative to reopen this pipeline because according to one report, “the Tapline remains an attractive export route for Persian Gulf oil exports to Europe and the United States. At least one analysis indicates that oil exports via the Tapline through Haifa to Europe would cost as much as 40% less than shipping by tanker through the Suez Canal.”
At present the Syria leadership is not very friendly and therefore is a “rouge regime” that will, according to forthcoming US rhetoric (stay tuned), need to be removed on the pretext that it supports “terrorists”. The interesting twist will come later with the realisation of the fact that Syria has defense pact with Iran. Ideologically Syria, Lebanon and Iran are very close and have extremely close political ties. Now to add another twist, IF as the US is repeatedly stating the Iraqi people get to rule and form their own government, it will constitute of, yes you guessed it, an overwhelming majority of Shias again all inclined more towards all of these three countries (Iran Syria Lebanon) vis-à-vis Israel or any of its Arab neighbours. Incidentally other Gulf countries with sizeable Shia populations such as Bahrain (the majority of which is Shia) and the oil-rich regions of Saudia Arabia (again with a huge and very oppressed population of Shias) will be profoundly affected.
IMHO the US is already deeply mired into something that is above and beyond its reach and that it cannot get out of; It’s inevitable. Feel free to add your own views.
:-)
i knew it. they way USA is pointing fingers at syria for helping iraqi government and supplying them weapons and hiding iraq's WMD [as reported by isreal], USA definately will target syria after iraq. when? that is yet to be known.
:-)
Have fun with that one! Every other day when you turn on the news a year from now, all you'll see will be reports of that thing getting another hole blown into it...
Then again that makes more contract work for the likes of Haliburton..
US seeks change of govt in Jordan without military action
(Updated at 0415 PST)
WASHINGTON: The Bush administration has said that the government in Jordan should be changed without a military action, a report said
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sherrybaba: *
6. India( I wish)
[/QUOTE]
keep wishing ... those banyas are way too cool to invite any trouble ... they know the art ... woh kaya kehtay hain difficult time may khotay ko bhee kaya bana laitay hain? ;-) [btw ... our mush boy practiced that art a few times in the recent history]
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoon: *
Have fun with that one! Every other day when you turn on the news a year from now, all you'll see will be reports of that thing getting another hole blown into it...
Then again that makes more contract work for the likes of Haliburton..
[/QUOTE]
Spoon, I’m sorry but I could not figure out your comment. Does it mean you agree Syria is next or you don’t think it can be next or do you believe Syria will be targeted but not for those reasons given?
NK is making threatening (more attention seeking?) noises such as test firing over Japan and pulling out of the Nuclear Treaty but all is not lost on the diplomatic front. I’m guessing despite the rumbling, after many decades of isolation sanctions and what not NK is desperate for links to the outside world. I think this can be seen in its thawing relations with South Korea. IMO according to the US there wont be any need for military action against it. Yet.
As for Pakistan and India there are no sufficient gains for the US to be significantly involved military or otherwise. Its enough for the two of them to occasionally abuse each other without actually engaging in a full blown war. It is more in the interest of the US to help develop India in both economic and military terms so it can keep China in check. Pakistan as usual will be the overall loser if it thinks it can or tries to engage and “win” India. Pakistan needs to keep its head down and get on in sorting out its own internal problems. IMO it will be in Pakistans own interest to take this opportunity while Big Bully Brother US is busily engaged elsewhere at present to develop further and stronger ties (eg defense agreements etc) with China Russia and Iran and try to with India instead of continuing it weird relationship with the US.
Syria is definitely the next target I’ve explained before the reasons and Iran as well as Lebanon could be drawn in and become involved at a later stage. The one I can’t understand is Jordan. What does the US get out “regime change” in Jordan? Removing the monarchy in Jordan will only strengthen the “Islamists”.
Agreed. During the last Gulf war BBC ran a documentary outlining the military capability of the Syrian regime. Whether it will be considered wise to ignite the region even further will have to be taken into account though.
I Don't think Pakistan or India come into the equation this soon,
if it took a month to win from Iraq, a country which has suffered 12 years under sanctions, it will be a bit more difficult to win from a country who has reasonable modern weaponry........and i doubt it if the US risk attacking a nuclear country.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rhia: *
Spoon, I’m sorry but I could not figure out your comment. Does it mean you agree Syria is next or you don’t think it can be next or do you believe Syria will be targeted but not for those reasons given?
[/QUOTE]
I think it will be targeted by America, if not militarily then by some other means. It is only natural. They will control Iraq; what sense does it make to leave Syria on the border, able to cause trouble?
The rest of my comment was about the tapline. Once/If America controls Syria, any such pet projects are going to be the outlets for the people's frustration - can't take on their military, we see how far that goes in Israel, so take out their toys. Pretty much all I'm saying is that should America play around any further, they will only gain a Pyrrhic victory.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NeSCio: *
I Don't think Pakistan or India come into the equation this soon,
if it took a month to win from Iraq, a country which has suffered 12 years under sanctions, it will be a bit more difficult to win from a country who has reasonable modern weaponry........and i doubt it if the US risk attacking a nuclear country.
[/QUOTE]
You are forgetting something. Iraq also had WMDs, though they are invisible, but US did invade Iraq "knowing" that it has WMDs. But I agree that Pakistan does not come into equation so soon.
What is the strength of Syrian army? I don't think they can provide more resistance than Iraqis. May be they have some fighter jets, but who made them? :)
Syria should be more alarmed by the exportation of democracy. Whether the US likes it or not, the Turks are exercising their democracy. The Iranian Democracy movement should benefit from having a less threatening democracry next door. It should rattle the Saudi's more than a little too!
Pakistan and India are technically only somewhat more modern than Iraq was. They are both still light years behind the USA.
The main difference in conventional fighting is that India and Pakistan use entirely volunteer armies, unlike Iraq and Syria.
Volunteer armies have higher morale, are better trained and skilled and have greater staying power in a fight. As long as they have good leadership (unlike the Republican Guard, who were a volunteer force but forced by the Iraqi leadership to fight in a manner that was to their disadvatange), volunteer armies will always perform better than conscripted armies will.
You are forgetting something. Iraq also had WMDs, though they are invisible, but US did invade Iraq "knowing" that it has WMDs. But I agree that Pakistan does not come into equation so soon.
[/QUOTE]
There is a difference. Iraq only had Chemical WMDs (or so the USA claims). It is technically very simple to protect your troops against these - even Iraq has the technology to protect its forces from these WMDs. Chemical WMDs also disperse relatively quickly after an attack.
But there is nothing in the world that can protect a soldier from a nuclear detonation. And the aftermath of a nuclear detonation renders the whole area dangerous for a long time to come.
Quite simply, if Iraq used its WMDs, US troops had everything they needed to be safe.
Pakistan, on the other hand, only has nuclear WMDs. US troops carry absolutely nothing that can protect themselves from these.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *....
Pakistan, on the other hand, only has nuclear WMDs. US troops carry absolutely nothing that can protect themselves from these.
[/QUOTE]
But that would be equal to burning your house alongwith yourself while you get "some" enemy troops.
It is more in the interest of the US to help develop India in both economic and military terms so it can keep China in check. Pakistan as usual will be the overall loser if it thinks it can or tries to engage and “win” India. Pakistan needs to keep its head down and get on in sorting out its own internal problems. IMO it will be in Pakistans own interest to take this opportunity while Big Bully Brother US is busily engaged elsewhere at present to develop further and stronger ties (eg defense agreements etc) with China Russia and Iran and try to with India instead of continuing it weird relationship with the US.