Irvine511 said:
sadly, it appears as if "vs. the Rest of the Middle East" is quite accurate. and who is in ever increasing control of the Middle East?
Iran
but everything's just fine, of course. we should simply ignore how Iran has successfully infiltrated and now controls a large chunk of Iraq. such success has emboldened the mullahs not only to charge ahead in acquiring nuclear weapons, but also to attack Israel via Hezbollah:
it's going to be 111 degrees in Baghdad all week. and 130,000 American soldiers are caught in the middle of everything, a war that was always a regional conflict.
for all the talk about what a regional menace Saddam was, it now appears as if Iran and Syria are just as dangerous to the region, if not worse.
Wow, Iran talks to Hezbollah and a few Israely soldiers are captured. Now were claiming that Iran controls the middle east?
Iran and Syria have been involved with Hezbollah and Humas for decades! Iran has influence in Iraq, but they do not control any part of Iraq. There are foreign countries that do control parts of Iraq, but Iran is not one of them.
The fact that several dozen people died throughout Iraq on Tuesday does not show that the Iraqi government is in crises. The Iraqi government rather has successfully formed despite all the claims that Iraq was in or would soon be in a full blown civil war.
Yes, lets compare Syrian and Iranian actions to Saddam's actions over the past couple of decades. Which is more menacing, giving approval for small terrorist attacks through a proxy like Hezbolah, or invading another country with your own military and launching ballistic missiles at other countries? Threatening the planets energy supply with siezure and sabotage through ones attacks and invasions, or using a proxy to launch what are relatively small attacks against another country?
When was the last time Syria or Iran directly invaded or attacked another country? When was the last time either one of those countries used WMD?
When Saddam wanted to attack Iran he did not use a terror proxy, he used his own military to invade the country. When Saddam wanted to attack Israel, he launched dozens of his own ballistic missiles, he did not need to use a proxy like Hezbollah.
So lets keep things in perspective here. Syria and Iran play no greater role in Hezbollah and Humas actions than at any time over the past decade. Israel occupied Southern Lebanon for 18 years up until 2000. Shelling and airstrikes should not come as a surprise. This is not a new conflict.
In terms of military equipment, Iran still only has half of the amount of tanks, armored vehicles, artillery pieces, aircraft etc. that Iraq had prior to the removal of Saddam. Much of the equipment also dates back to when the Shah was in power and is very outdated. The primary motivation for Iran's nuclear and other WMD programs that were started two decades ago, was Saddam's capabilties in these area's and the casualties Iran suffered from WMD during its war with Saddam.
Syria is far better equiped than Iran is, but its also to far from the Persian Gulf to invade or attack the vital energy resources in that region. Its forces are mainly deployed along its border with Israel and Lebanon and its unlikely they would be used in any other role except for a conflict with Israel.
Everything is far from being fine, but this is not another doomsday senerio. Its not World War III as many in the media suggest, nor is a escalutating totally out of control situation. The Middle East has not collapsed. Its faced far more serious crises in the past.