The New Cold War?

[KSaiyu]

This is an interesting read.

Lebanon and Palestine are the most dramatic examples of the new ideological battle that now defines much of the Middle East, where local players and medium-strength regional powers often interact with one another in parallel with foreign powers' interests and goals. While tensions were increasing in Beirut last weekend in anticipation of Tuesday's nationwide strike action by the Hizbullah-led opposition against the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, in Damascus the leaders of the two leading Palestinian political groups, Hamas and Fatah, were meeting under Syrian auspices to try and solve their dispute over who rules Palestine and defines its foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel.

If you were too young to remember the Cold War, study this dynamic closely, because it is a miniature version of the former global contest. It is possible that the Middle East-anchored new cold war we are living through these days may persist for many years, or it may be over in two or three years, depending on how both sides harness and use their competitive assets. For now, we can only identify some of the new rules and realities of the regional confrontation.

The two core powers who confront each other in the Middle East today are the United States on one side, and the Iran-Syrian tandem on the other. Major supporting actors and local allies include Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Europeans. Lebanon and Palestine are the two most interesting proxy wars in this battle. Iraq is, of course, also important, but the domestic tensions that have been unleashed there are more likely to determine the country's fate than actions by foreign powers. What makes Lebanon and Palestine so fascinating today is how they have rewritten the rules of Cold War proxy warfare, in which local actors fight ideological battles on behalf of their more powerful patrons and allies.

During the Cold War, rival ideological powers usually confronted one another from neighboring states, such as North and South Vietnam, Syria and Jordan, Iraq and Iran, Somalia and Ethiopia, and dozens of other such pairs of ideologically antagonistic states. In the Middle East

today, the competing political forces are usually found within the same country, and often share local legitimacy. Just as in the Cold War, they fight on many fronts, including the occasional clash or local insurrection, but more often via competing political ideologies and economic policies.

In Lebanon the Siniora government and the Hizbullah-led opposition are fighting an intense battle on many fronts, just as the Hamas and Fatah camps square off in Palestine. They do so as part of a local political power struggle, but also explicitly as part of the wider confrontation between the US and Iran-Syria. The fact that these face-offs now occur within Arab countries, rather than between different countries, reflects a bizarre reality: Most Arab countries - in some cases half a century or more after their birth - still have not achieved stable statehood based on the collective allegiance of satisfied citizens. Different groups not only compete for political control of the government, but for the even more basic ideological definition of the state and its policies.

The Fatah-Hamas talks in Damascus last weekend were perhaps most interesting for their location: in the Syrian capital. The substance and outcome of the talks are less dramatic matters, because they are largely known and also perhaps slightly irrelevant, sadly so. This is because the Palestinians will almost certainly agree on a national unity government based on the principles in the agreement reached last year by leading Palestinians in Israeli jails; yet a unity government will not have any serious impact on the burning issue of whether to make war or peace with Israel. There is simply too large a gap between Hamas' refusal to recognize and deal with Israel and Fatah's insistence on resuming peace talks with Israel for this to be bridged by a vague national unity government agreement whose main advantage is diplomatic imprecision.

Holding the meeting in Damascus also was significant because it highlighted the role that Syria hopes to play as a broker among different parties in the region, especially those who oppose the US and some of its Arab allies. Earlier this month Syria hosted Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and now it wants to show that it can achieve results on Palestine that are beyond the reach of the US, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel or any other third power. Syria's links with Hizbullah and other smaller Lebanese opposition groups give it continued influence in Lebanon.

Syrian and Iranian attempts to score points in their contest with the US by using their influence and alliances with junior partners in the region, such as Hamas, is classic cold war-type behavior.

This is why I kept going on about Iran and Syria in past threads here (the Lebanon war, Iraq) and it's interesting to see how far this influence is spreading. Imagine if they held control of Lebanon and Palestine - it would only be the beginning. Next there would be strikes on Israel. How about after that there would be increased pressure on European countries where more radical muslims are spreading to at this moment. Then next could be America.

This also explains why I was against the action in Lebanon - who do you now think the Lebanese will turn to? We already have strikes led by Hezbollah trying to oust the President. Tackling the "minor" battlegrounds will not help out the cause in the long ground - instead it will only lead to increased support for the true enemy by proxy of these groups in Lebanon/Palestine etc.

 

[Sureboss]

I think the coalition would get involved before/in retaliatioin to a strike on Israel. I think it'd ahve to be very unusual circumstances for the US to be a real threat of international military action rather than terrorist attacks.

If that's what you mean?

 

[YSSMAN]

...I know I've talked about this book before, but America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It by Mark Steyn pretty much exemplifies the situation in question. I have yet to complete it (school makes it hard to wrap up spare-time readings), but a bit more than halfway through and it is touching on the topics at hand.

Simply put, people go on and on about how America and it's allies are a greater danger to world security when they cannot see beyond the vail that protects nations like Iran and Syria, as well as their growing allies in South America (namely Venezuela). What it comes down to is that there will eventually be a growth in the conflict between the side of "good" (Allied Powers) and the "bad" (Middle-East and South American fascists).

We must maintain pressure on the evil-doers who are in power around the world. But with growing Musilm Extremism in Europe, with governments basically held hostage by their own immigrants, nations like America and Australia may be some of the last fighters who are able to maintain a position of power over our enemies. China won't act, Russia is getting too old and is far too corrupt to get anything done, Europe is standing on it's last leg...

Eventually there will be a powder-keg moment, and my guess is that it will involve Israel and Iran. From then on, it is World War III, and don't be surprised to see nuclear weapons used once again. I had to sound pessimistic, but the future continues to look bleak when it comes to the Middle-East.

 

[SS69]

I probably shouldnt say this. And I'm probably going to sound like a horrible person by saying this. But I honestly would not feel bad if the entire middle east just got nuked. My only concern would be the fall-out that would reach Asia, Europe, and less likely but possibly North America. I am so sick of this ****. I am so sick of hearing about it, reading about it, talking about it. It's rediculous. I am sick of these piss countries with penis envy toward America. I'm sick of the suicide bombers, I'm sick of the anti-american crap, I'm sick of this ****. I'm done paying attention to it. At least for the rest of the night.

 

[kennythebomb]

I probably shouldnt say this. And I'm probably going to sound like a horrible person by saying this. But I honestly would not feel bad if the entire middle east just got nuked. My only concern would be the fall-out that would reach Asia, Europe, and less likely but possibly North America. I am so sick of this ****. I am so sick of hearing about it, reading about it, talking about it. It's rediculous. I am sick of these piss countries with penis envy toward America. I'm sick of the suicide bombers, I'm sick of the anti-american crap, I'm sick of this ****. I'm done paying attention to it. At least for the rest of the night.

I know exactly what you mean, and I've felt the same sentiment myself before. It would solve a lot of problems for sure, but then every single respectable country on earth would boycott us, which would spell economic disaster for us because we don't produce **** anymore.

Besides, they're people too. Even if a whole bunch of them are also animals. It is important to remember that there are peaceful Muslims there that don't chant 'Death to America' at every chance, but they don't have the loudest voice.

 

[YSSMAN]

...Look at it this way. Let them nuke themselves, and we won't have to deal with it. Then we can clear the hole place out, pump out the oil, and build a gigantic Disney Land. Everyone loves Disney Land, so then everyone will love the Middle-East....

 

[Philly]

...Look at it this way. Let them nuke themselves, and we won't have to deal with it. Then we can clear the hole place out, pump out the oil, and build a gigantic Disney Land. Everyone loves Disney Land, so then everyone will love the Middle-East....

*AHEM* Dubai. No bombing needed.

Not to spoil you guys' fun, but conflict really is nothing new. Most of us here have grown up in a period of stability, no major alliances that could cause mass war. A little earlier, the USSR and US were enemies. From the end of the Roman Empire until 1945, Europe was almost constantly at war. This is not the first time we have looked at war from the outside, either. During the 1800s, the US saw European wars and did little.

And I am also sorry to say that us Westerners have a lot to do with the Middle East tumult. *COUGH* UK, France *COUGH*. They are also the reason we have problems in Africa and South America. Why? The imperialists have done a poor job putting those areas back together. Isreal? Western state that was built on someone else's land.

What do I say about the conflict? Let them duke it out. Screw out "national interests." With the Iran-China oil connection, we very well could face a world war. So what if the Middle East decends into a big dictatorship, if they are relatively happy, we have won.

Of course, that may result in one big anti-US group instead of several little ones. We have really cornered ourselves here, haven't we?

 

[DuckRacer]

I probably shouldnt say this. And I'm probably going to sound like a horrible person by saying this. But I honestly would not feel bad if the entire middle east just got nuked. My only concern would be the fall-out that would reach Asia, Europe, and less likely but possibly North America. I am so sick of this ****. I am so sick of hearing about it, reading about it, talking about it. It's rediculous. I am sick of these piss countries with penis envy toward America. I'm sick of the suicide bombers, I'm sick of the anti-american crap, I'm sick of this ****. I'm done paying attention to it. At least for the rest of the night.

I think in the long run, that would do more harm than good. And not everyone is some terrorist suicide bomber.

Imagine this: you live in Iran. You're innocent, you do not condone suicide bombing, etc etc. Now, if you heard America will nuke the entire region back into glass, killing your friends, family, everything you've known when you were growing up as a child, everything, how would you feel?

Not to mention, everyone that somewhat dislikes America will hate us with a burning passion. Most of our allies would cut ties. Like kenny said, China, Indonesia, and other exporting countries would likely boycott us, even if they don't have anyone else to export their goods to. And then we'd have to rebuild the entire Middle East anyway, and the people who survived the nuking would give us hell.

 

[KSaiyu]

...I know I've talked about this book before, but America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It by Mark Steyn pretty much exemplifies the situation in question. I have yet to complete it (school makes it hard to wrap up spare-time readings), but a bit more than halfway through and it is touching on the topics at hand.

Funnily enough I was looking at the synopsis and reviews of that book just before I read that article.

According to the latest poll I reckon we're getting closer and closer to something major - be it with Iran, Syria or muslims in the UK

LONDON: Young British Muslims are more likely than their elders to support Sharia law and admire Al Qaeda, but three-fifths of 16-to24-year-olds say they have as much in common with non-Muslims as with Muslims, according to an opinion poll published on Monday.

The poll conducted on December 4-13 by Populus for the Policy Exchange, an independent think tank, found that 37 percent of the 16-24 age groups would prefer Sharia law, compared to 17 percent of those over 55. There was a nearly identical split between age groups on those who would prefer to send their children to Islamic schools supported by the state.

Thirteen percent of the younger group expressed admiration for organisations such as Al Qaeda that “are prepared to fight the West,” compared to three percent of those over 55.

 

[Touring Mars]

I find it ironic that the very same 'young Muslims' who support the idea of Sharia law really have no concept of what it would actually be like, having spent their entire lives living in the UK... a friend of mine recently confronted a group of Muslim youths who were flyposting banners encouraging a move towards Sharia Law for the UK. He made a rather good point that flyposting is considered like vandalism here in London, which is illegal - and thus, under Sharia law they could all face losing a limb/appendage or two... of course, this went down about as well as Boy George at a Klan rally, but it hopefully made them think a bit more about what reality under Sharia Law would actually be like...

 

[YSSMAN]

Well I think the problem is that their "teachers" are basically promoting a self-imposed level of ignorance among all of these young people when it comes to the reality of life. I know that the overwhelming majority of Muslims all across the world would prefer a peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims, but it is the minority that scares both sides... I think what it comes down to is that there really aren't any good outlets for learning for these people by which they can fully understand what they want may not necessiarily be good for them.

...Take for example the Muslim population in America. For the most part they are well-trained, well-educated citizens who make wonderful contributions to our society, and they have fully-realized that life in America is far better than the nations that they have come from (Iraq, Lebanon, etc). However, just like in the UK there is a minority grouping of people that would prefer to live under Islamic law despite the fact that it would never occur in America. They pretty much have to deal with facts in that situation, and thus they continue to live their lives peacefully, and of course give us non-Muslims entertaining stories that are good for intellectual debates.

The problem with Europe is that they are being overrun by these Muslim immigrants, and generally don't have any kind of control over not only who is entering the country, but what the people who have are doing. I have noted before in different threads that birthrates are setting Europe up for what basically amounts to an implosion based on that of the Anglo-Saxon versus that of the Muslim immigrant. In Spain for instance, where birth rates are as low as 1.2 children per household, whilst being off-set by rates as high as 4+ per household for their Muslim neighbors, there is no telling what Spain may look like in the next 50 years. It is the same story in France, in Italy, and in Greece as well.

Civil responsibility will likely define the "moderate" Muslims versus that of the "radical" Muslim population, and I would not only hope, but presume that eventually moderation will win out. But either way, even a small minority of these people equipped with as little as a few AK-47s and some pipe bombs just to establish their own system of laws is indeed very dangerous. With much of Europe basically bending-over for the Muslim community in some circumstances (we are guiltily of it in America too), there is no telling what direction we are to go in without some kind of level-headed leader at the helm of the respective nations.

...We are at war with ideas, but I think that if we talk things through with these "enemies" I would believe that we could create a greater understanding between the two. Nations of the west likely won't change for these immigrants based on our strong Christian and Jewish beliefs, but with weaknesses already evident, things could change in the near-future...