As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
The Middle East Thread: Now Featuring a Primer in the OP
Jacobkosh
Gamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
Gamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
This is the thread for talking about ongoing political changes in the Middle East. So far Tunisia and Egypt have ousted their long-time dictators and are in the midst of a revolution. There are demonstrations throughout the arab world and beyond. This is, historically speaking, huge. These revolutions will totally change politics throughout the region and the world. Will revolutions spread to other nations? Will protests be suppressed? Will there be war? Foreign interventions? Terrorism? We'll be talking about all of that. Share your thoughts, experiences, and wild predictions about what will happen next.
What follows is a bit of a primer I whipped up.
The Middle East
What do we mean by this? Well I stole a map from wikipedia which I think does an excellent job:
The dark green is the "traditional" Middle east. The lighter green in the North of Africa indicates nations that are mostly Arabic and Muslim; this region is called the Maghreb. Somalia is on there for its proximity to the Arabian Peninsula, and it is also Muslim. The lighter greens in Asia are not Arabic, but are all Muslim. Calling Pakistan or Kazakhstan part of the Middle East is frankly absurd, but current conflicts mean that you hear the term come up. The Caucuses (light green, the small region north of Turkey and Iran, south of Russia) is the only region that has Christian nations, though plenty of Muslims are there as well.
Fallen Regimes:
Tunisia
Egypt
Upcoming:
Libya
Yemen
Bahrain
Others:
Syria, Jordan, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Algeria and more have all been seeing protests as well. We'll be keeping an eye on them. Special attention should be kept on Algeria and Syria, in my opinion.
So far Saudi Arabia has been very quiet. Keep your ear to the ground for that one.
Some assorted notes of interest:
-So far all of these uprisings have been secular. No burning of US flags, no calling for the creation of a caliphate.
-So far none of these uprisings have had leaders, nor any political ideology aside from nationalism.
-All have started peacefully, and most have remained fairly peaceful despite various levels of state violence against protesters.
-The entire region has an extremely young population, with around two thirds of the population of the region being under 30 years old.
-The uprisings have been largely organized via the internet, with heavy use of facebook, twitter, youtube, Web 2.0 in general. Internet censorship has not been sufficient to quell protests.
-The protests are campaigning largely towards foreign media, printing signs in english, talking to reporters. They want their message heard throughout the world.
What follows is a bit of a primer I whipped up.
The Middle East
What do we mean by this? Well I stole a map from wikipedia which I think does an excellent job:
The dark green is the "traditional" Middle east. The lighter green in the North of Africa indicates nations that are mostly Arabic and Muslim; this region is called the Maghreb. Somalia is on there for its proximity to the Arabian Peninsula, and it is also Muslim. The lighter greens in Asia are not Arabic, but are all Muslim. Calling Pakistan or Kazakhstan part of the Middle East is frankly absurd, but current conflicts mean that you hear the term come up. The Caucuses (light green, the small region north of Turkey and Iran, south of Russia) is the only region that has Christian nations, though plenty of Muslims are there as well.
Fallen Regimes:
Tunisia
A geographically small nation at the northern-most tip of Africa. Population of 10 million, virtually all Arabs. Its capital, Tunis is on the Mediterranean and is the site of Carthage of old. For the last 23 years it has been run by Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. He ruled his country with an iron fist, violently stifling any dissent, and censoring communications. He was secular, with a pro-Western stance.
All this was changed by a man named Mohamed Bouazizi, who sold fruit from a small stall. He was very poor, and was routinely harassed by police. When they stole his fruit and insulted him in late december, he finally had enough. On December 17th he lit himself on fire in protest. He died a very painful death 18 days later.
The resulting protests were totally unprecedented. The masses of people took to the streets peacefully and demanded the president step down. The security response was botched, and Ben Ali fled the nation on January 14th. He's currently in Saudi Arabia, having taken millions in gold and loot with him.
Tunisia currently is in a state of flux. Former government ministers have made attempts to take power in interim governments, but the population has been wary of people who served the previous regime. Lacking any opposition political parties (since they were banned), Tunisia is a country without direction, with street protests ongoing.
All this was changed by a man named Mohamed Bouazizi, who sold fruit from a small stall. He was very poor, and was routinely harassed by police. When they stole his fruit and insulted him in late december, he finally had enough. On December 17th he lit himself on fire in protest. He died a very painful death 18 days later.
The resulting protests were totally unprecedented. The masses of people took to the streets peacefully and demanded the president step down. The security response was botched, and Ben Ali fled the nation on January 14th. He's currently in Saudi Arabia, having taken millions in gold and loot with him.
Tunisia currently is in a state of flux. Former government ministers have made attempts to take power in interim governments, but the population has been wary of people who served the previous regime. Lacking any opposition political parties (since they were banned), Tunisia is a country without direction, with street protests ongoing.
Egypt
Egypt is the heart of the Middle East. With 80 million people it is the most populous Arab nation. Its one of the very few nations that measures its history in thousands of years. Like in millennia past, almost the entire population of the country lives around the Nile Delta. The capital Cairo is a huge city of many millions. Egypt is the center geographically, culturally as well. Pop music, movies and literature spread from Egypt to the rest of the region. Politically and diplomatically it has often acted as a bigger brother to other Arab nations, especially under the rule of Nasser who promoted a pan-arabism.
Of late though, Egypt hasn't looked so bright. During the rule of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt has been stagnant, weak, and poor. People have been tired of it for much of these 30 years he ruled. Mubarak insured he stayed in power though, through rigging elections, intimidating and jailing dissenters, and banning opposing political parties. Corruption was rampant, and a very young population had fewer and fewer jobs. With the uprising in Tunisia as inspiration, the young tech-savvy and the old alike took to the streets of Cairo and other cities on January 25th. Their rallying point was the now famous Tahrir (Liberation, Freedom) Square.
A strong police response followed. Using water cannons, thugs with steel bars, and even live ammunition they attacked the peaceful crowds without mercy. The headquarters of the ruling party were set alight. All of this was being broadcast live via al-Jazeera and other channels, Tahrir square being in view of TV stations and hotels frequented by journalists.
The police were routed by the crowds, and fled from the streets. The military was called in, and the internet was shut down in the entire country. It did not stop the demonstrations.
On February 11th, Mubarak finally resigned and fled Cairo. Egypt is currently under the control of a military council. They have promised to hold free and fair elections.
Of late though, Egypt hasn't looked so bright. During the rule of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt has been stagnant, weak, and poor. People have been tired of it for much of these 30 years he ruled. Mubarak insured he stayed in power though, through rigging elections, intimidating and jailing dissenters, and banning opposing political parties. Corruption was rampant, and a very young population had fewer and fewer jobs. With the uprising in Tunisia as inspiration, the young tech-savvy and the old alike took to the streets of Cairo and other cities on January 25th. Their rallying point was the now famous Tahrir (Liberation, Freedom) Square.
A strong police response followed. Using water cannons, thugs with steel bars, and even live ammunition they attacked the peaceful crowds without mercy. The headquarters of the ruling party were set alight. All of this was being broadcast live via al-Jazeera and other channels, Tahrir square being in view of TV stations and hotels frequented by journalists.
The police were routed by the crowds, and fled from the streets. The military was called in, and the internet was shut down in the entire country. It did not stop the demonstrations.
On February 11th, Mubarak finally resigned and fled Cairo. Egypt is currently under the control of a military council. They have promised to hold free and fair elections.
Upcoming:
Libya
Libya is a pretty weird place. Located between Egypt and Algeria, Libya is very rich in oil, but is extremely isolated. It has a population of 6 million or so, almost all Arabs. While a traditional enemy of the West and known sponsor of terrorism (see the Lockerbie bombing) Libya has in the past few years softened it's rhetoric and has made arms deals with France and has been getting diplomatically close to Italy. It has virtually no foreign journalists in the country, making it very hard to get news out.
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi runs the show, as he has done for the past 40-odd years. Right now, his days look numbered. Mass protests started in the east of the country (ie the part that borders Egypt) and have since spread to the capital Tripoli. This round of protests has by all accounts been extremely violent, with Libyan troops or hired mercenaries firing into crowds with machine guns and mortars. Casualties are in their hundreds. Several Libyan officials and ambassadors have resigned and are openly joining the revolution. There is talk of army units defecting, and of Gadaffi fleeing the country. Almost none of this can be verified.
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi runs the show, as he has done for the past 40-odd years. Right now, his days look numbered. Mass protests started in the east of the country (ie the part that borders Egypt) and have since spread to the capital Tripoli. This round of protests has by all accounts been extremely violent, with Libyan troops or hired mercenaries firing into crowds with machine guns and mortars. Casualties are in their hundreds. Several Libyan officials and ambassadors have resigned and are openly joining the revolution. There is talk of army units defecting, and of Gadaffi fleeing the country. Almost none of this can be verified.
Yemen
A small, mountainous and poor country at the southern tip of the Arabian Pininsula. Despite its small size is has a sizable population of 20 million, and rather little to show for it. Yemen has been a top contender for "faliled state" status for some time. Recently the central government has been fighting a civil war against Houthi tribes in the north of the country, with violence spilling over the Saudi border and the Saudi airforce conducting airstrikes on rebel positions. While a truce of some sort was signed a while back, all the grievances are still there; though despite what you may hear, it isn't really because the Houthis are Shia. More recently, and more widely known is that Yemen is the home of some attempted terrorist attacks and has al-quada operating in the country. This means the US has been conducting special forces missions and drone strikes on Yemenese soil for some time now. The central government denies this, but the central government is very weak and has a hard time exerting control over the country at large.
The capital Sanaa in the south has seen demonstrations calling for the president of 30 years, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to step down. Protesters have met a violent response at the hands of police.
The capital Sanaa in the south has seen demonstrations calling for the president of 30 years, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to step down. Protesters have met a violent response at the hands of police.
Bahrain
The minuscule state of Bahrain is an island in the Persian Gulf, connected to Saudi Arabia by a causeway. It has slightly over a million people living in it, and while it technically has a capital, the entire country is small enough to be a city state. Despite its tiny size, Bahrain much like its neighbours is obscenely rich from oil money.
Bahrain is a bit of a unique case in the uprisings we've seen so far. This one has a very large sectarian element. Bahrain is a monarchy (it has a parliament occasionally, but it has virtually no power) which is Sunni. Most of the population though is Shia. There is a rather large disparity of wealth, with the Shia middle class having little compared to the highly affluent Sunnis.
Because of this sectarian element, other nations will be watching Bahrain with particular interest. Namely (Sunni) Saudi Arabia and (Shia) Iran. A change in power from Sunni to Shia would be a big deal; Iran would call it a victory and try to support the new government, while Saudi Arabia and other nations would look worryingly at their own (often oppressed) Shia minorities. Bahrain is also home the US 5th Fleet and so is of huge strategic importance.
Bahrain is a bit of a unique case in the uprisings we've seen so far. This one has a very large sectarian element. Bahrain is a monarchy (it has a parliament occasionally, but it has virtually no power) which is Sunni. Most of the population though is Shia. There is a rather large disparity of wealth, with the Shia middle class having little compared to the highly affluent Sunnis.
Because of this sectarian element, other nations will be watching Bahrain with particular interest. Namely (Sunni) Saudi Arabia and (Shia) Iran. A change in power from Sunni to Shia would be a big deal; Iran would call it a victory and try to support the new government, while Saudi Arabia and other nations would look worryingly at their own (often oppressed) Shia minorities. Bahrain is also home the US 5th Fleet and so is of huge strategic importance.
Others:
Syria, Jordan, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Algeria and more have all been seeing protests as well. We'll be keeping an eye on them. Special attention should be kept on Algeria and Syria, in my opinion.
So far Saudi Arabia has been very quiet. Keep your ear to the ground for that one.
Some assorted notes of interest:
-So far all of these uprisings have been secular. No burning of US flags, no calling for the creation of a caliphate.
-So far none of these uprisings have had leaders, nor any political ideology aside from nationalism.
-All have started peacefully, and most have remained fairly peaceful despite various levels of state violence against protesters.
-The entire region has an extremely young population, with around two thirds of the population of the region being under 30 years old.
-The uprisings have been largely organized via the internet, with heavy use of facebook, twitter, youtube, Web 2.0 in general. Internet censorship has not been sufficient to quell protests.
-The protests are campaigning largely towards foreign media, printing signs in english, talking to reporters. They want their message heard throughout the world.
Jacobkosh on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Isn't it. No doubt Iran are just trying to shit stir. That and as pointed out in the report, Iran has full right to enter it as they please. Only in a situation of War could Egypt stop them.
...Also, wasn't someone all excited about having a fancy new OP for the new thread?
At this point, however, I'm pretty sure that's going to do jack-shit to mollify the enraged populace.
Besides of all the things you could pick to condemn Iran for, sending a bearly armed, battered old frigate and a supply vessel through the suez canal is a lousy choice.
Israel is just looking for excuses to bomb the Iranians nuclear plants, the jury is still out on weather that would be a bad thing.
Whereas Iran gaining nuclear weapons would do wonders for regional stability?
No but MAD occurs.
Well....i'd hope MAD occurs. Sadly it's more likely madness would occur in Israel, and they'd shoot anyway.
I don't see how what Thetheroo said could be taken as a comment on a Nuke equipped Iran. It's pretty safe to say that with the current revolutionary fever gripping the ME, adding military vs military action wouldn't help the people there at all.
Everything is happening so quick with so little warning (says the ignorant white guy living the sweet life in Canada) that I wouldn't put it past the leaders of the region to take this time to do something really nuts.
One of the more tin-foil-hat suggestions I've heard about the situation in the middle east recently is that some of the mercenaries running amok in Libya are North Korean. Given that I can't find a single source backing this up, I suspect the guy in question was talking out of something other than his mouth. Still, what if guys, what if?
I can't even what if that since it's too impractical/stupid. Why bother bringing in NK mercs when you have mercs closer to home (which I would imagine are cheaper)?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Well simply put educated guesses put Iran ~5 years from developing nukes. Clearly they aren't going to be persuaded to just stop and the government doesn't look like it's going to change. Forcefully depriving them of the facilities to produce nukes would seem to be the only way of preventing a nuclear equipped Iran.
If Israel wants to be the one to do it than more power to them.
Anyway I feel like I'm in danger of being misread here. I'm not trying to say it would be a good thing if it were to happen soon what with the current state of the area. My point was that I was unsure if Israel attcking Iran was worse than allowing Iran to get nukes. Neither option is desirable but one is the lesser of two evils.
Sources on Egypt-#Libya border say that Libyan troops have retreated, only the Egyptian Army on patrol. Thousands trying to get out.
And I should go to bed. Night all.
That is basically a negligible possibility, though. The plan to send the ships through the Suez formed in January and Iran has military ties with Syria so it's not like the ship is that much of an oddity. Plus that could backfire in so many ways I can't see anyone trying it other than a deranged lunatic like Kim Jong Il. Ahmadinejad may be a power-hungry, zealous demagogue but I don't think he's that crazy.
No it's not.
You can't really postpone Iran's nuclear program by any good measure unless you strike at like 5-10 different sites around the country. That would require a bombing mission involving probably ten times the aircraft in the strike at Syria to almost ten times the distance. Iran has underground facilities, quite effective anti-aircraft weaponry and even modern S-300 SAM systems from Russia. This wouldn't be Osirak or Operation Orchard by any measure. It would be more close to a full on air war the likes not seen for a long time. A successful strike pushing back Iran's nuclear program would require a massive death and material count that no place in the world wouldn't count as an blatant act of war. That would risk an Hezbollah backlash right at Israel's doorstep and actual attacks from Iran, and they would have justification that nobody could deny. The two between them have an crappy excuse for an air force, but they could still rain fire on Israel with their ridiculously insane missile and rocket forces, especially if Syria decides to chip in too. Hell, Hezbollah alone could do it.
I guess they could make a symbolic strike at one location, but what would that help? They would have it back running in couple of months and they would still have the same justification for an response attack.
Iran having nukes is not a good thing but let's face it, Iran is never going to use it's nukes and Israel, the far more belligerent of the two already has nukes. Actual war is not preferable to that situation. Iran's leadership is quite sane. There is not a single time Iran has invaded or attacked it's neighbors since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, only war it has fought was in self-defense.
Of course I'm one of those people who think that nuclear weapons are pretty much the best thing that has ever happened for world peace...
Or maybe it really is just a training exercise that was scheduled months ago *shrug*. But that isn't as much fun to think about 10mins to 4am.
I'm really going to bed now.
It was overblown out of proportion like hell. I think only place it made any sort of impact in was Natanz. Iran’s enrichment capacity actually grew during 2010.
I wish I was as sure about that as you are. And while I hate to take Israels side, Iran is the one that has publicly stated the destruction of the state of Israel is one of its goals. If that isn't belligerent I don't know what is.
Besides I don't see the US being willing to tolerate a nuke equipped Iran under any circumstances. I don't blame them, proliferation on nuclear weapons is not the way to peace.
I'd lime this entire post, but that would be gauche.
The only avenue that leads to a non-nuclear Iran is diplomatic. Using air strikes to cripple a project of that scale happens only in neocons' wet dreams.
In any case, the current revolutionary attitudes are not something the current Iranian government likes at all. Even if this is a veiled threat, the odds of it being directed at Israel aren't nearly as high as Lieberman would like you to believe.
No, it hasn't. Ahmadinejad is not Iran, and even he has never said anything like that. He said that the regime must be wiped off the map, not the state. It was a translation error that for some reason seems to be continued to be repeated. He's still an asshole and I'm sure in reality he wouldn't mind if Israel was erased from the map, but saying that Iran has threatened Israel with destruction isn't factual. Especially when he said all the following afterwards:
Either way, Israel has made similar threats to Iran, such as threats of actual literal attacks and war if it continues it's nuclear program. They are at the least at the same page when it comes to belligerence through words.
Israel becomes way more belligerent when you realize that it has invaded it's neighbors twice as many times as Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded it's neighbors.
It's already tolerating nuclear equipped North Korea. What's it's going to do, invade Iran?
Also NK and Iran are very different situations. For a start the US won't have to worry about Chinese reprisal if they invade Iran.
Starting a war is a pretty poor path to peace.
Of course I doubt the viability of global peace
No, but I don't think it's something worth going to war over. In the end you can't stop Iran from having nukes unless you periodically carpet bomb them every six months with massive civilian casualties or invade their country and put another regime in charge.
If NK attacks SK, U.S. won't have to worry about Chinese reprisal either, China won't go to war over their shitty neighbor. They will do their damnedest diplomatically to prevent war, but they won't sacrifice one soldier over Kim Jong-Il if he is dumb enough to start one. Mao isn't in charge anymore and it isn't 1950.
And U.S. would have their hands quite full with Iran if they would invade Iran. Look at what a clusterfuck happened with countries that are not all that much compared to it. Hezbollah would still rain death on Israel out of pure spite and take Lebanon with them when IDF turns it into a parking lot, since U.S. invasion of Iran is basically their version of Ragnarok. Syria would probably do something crazy and suicidal too, since all it's allies would be picked up one by one. And the Iraq War made Iraq pretty much an ally of Iran too so it would explode once again as soon as footage of Qom on fire would appear on television...
No, they'd have to worry about Russian reprisal. Ten times worse.
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=580641&vId=
Nice for it to work out this way for once...?
So, gonna work on getting Israel to give up those bombs? Yeah?
http://newsmap.jp/#/w/uk,us/view/
No it doesn't. It's precisely what the neo-conservative 'conventional wisdom' was in 2001-2003 with Iraq and Afghanistan - i.e. the domino theory that one regional country gets dermocrahsee and everyone else will get jealous and want it too. Only it didn't work like they predicted then because we fucked up the way we went about making it happen.
Quite interesting to see the theory panning out now though - not, of course, that any of the talking heads I've seen dare make the conceptual link and say "damnit, they weren't quite so wrong after all". I notice that Wolfowitz and his crowd are suddenly popular again in the media and lecture circuits though.
hell there's been protests in Iraq in recent days too.
I think these protests are a natural reaction to the area's economic stagnation coupled with very young populations.
And social media/internety type things.
Yeah, al-Maliki has already announced that he won't run for another term. So yay progress.
Not particularly, though neither Russia nor China would be be particularly happy about it. Would they go to war over it? Potentially, but it's by no means a act of uncertainty. There's an enormous amount of bluffing--remember, up to 2008, from as early as the mid-90s, the United States and other NATO states guaranteed Georgia direct military assistance (i.e. boots on the ground) if Russia so much as thought of intervening in Abkhazia or southern Ossetia. Come August, Georgia pounds the areas in question with artillery, Abkhazia and Ossetia respond (unsurprisingly), following by Russia's response (also unsurprising, though not as much), and Georgia is on its own.
There's a laundry list of options before "war", which are of limited effectiveness, sure, but cost the orchestrator literally nothing.
The fundamental differences between the way we 'brought democracy to Iraq' versus the course of events in MENA over the past month make the invocation of neoconservative orthodoxy irrelevant. Invasion and occupation by a foreign power isn't even remotely comparable to a popular uprising sparked by domestic policy. Comparing 2011 to 2003 instead of 1989 is ludicrous; the only common factor between the regime changes in Tunisia/Egypt/Libya and Iraq is the fact that they're all in the greater Middle East.