It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Broader Middle East strategy.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 04:50 AM
I am opening this thread to do two things
1) To explain my hypothesis of what I believe to be the Broader Middle East srategy devolped by the Bush administration.
2) To ask the rest of you what you think the broader Middle East strategy is.

Having recently reviewed the events in the WOT since 9/11 I believe I am beginning to perceive a bigger picture which if my theroy is correct is stunning in its scope and ambition.

After the now infamous events of 9/11 it quickly became clear to the U.S. government that the attacks on the WTC were the work of Al queda. Based on the support of the Taliban regime of Al queda in Afghanistan the decision was made to take down the Afghani Taliban government and install a government more in line with ours, which would as a result (hopefully) make the area a less fertile recruitment center for terrorist organisations. In addition due to Pakistans support of the taliban regime and the diffuculty of direct millitary force beng applied in Pakistan (due in no smal part to Pakistans possesion of Nuclear weapons) It was necessary to turn an enemy into an ally. This was accomplished by using the massive groundswell of international support to allow the U.S. to apply pressure to Pakistans government to become more compliant with U.S. doctrine.

However the removal of the Talban regime alone would not be enough to ensure American security. The Middle East as a whole is hotbed of terrorist sympathies and supporters. What was (and still is) needed to ensure the safety of the American populace was a fundamental change in the politics of the region. The only way this can be done is through the elimination of the most dangerous regimes in the area. The greatest supporter of Islamic extremist terrorism worldwide in recent historical time has been the nation of Iran. However moving into Iran directly from Afghanistan would have been difficult from both a tactical and logistical pont of view. What was needed was a power base which could be used to allow a multifront attack on Iran while at the same time improving the overall stabillity of the region as a whole.

The contiuned refusal of Saddam Hussein to comply with international weapon inspectors, as well as his rather well known tendacies torwards brutal supression of disidents, coupled with his history of agressive invasions made Iraq a perfect target. The Intelligence that he was attempting to procure weapons of mass destruction provided the rationale the Bush administration needed to begn the second stage of thier broader middle east strategy. The other obvious advantage to regime change in Iraq was the vast oil reserves the country has coupled with the fact that the creaton of a flashpoint in the region would (and has seemed to) draw a great deal of the terrorist who had been forced out of afghanistan by Coaltion forces into a local area as opposed to them spreading into Europe and the United States. In addition the U.S presense in Iran allows the U.S. intelligence services to more easily contact anti-government opposition in Iran. A further advantage has been placing Iran into the unenviable position of being surrounded on two sides by potentially hostile forces. Iran's understanding of the tactically dangerous position they are in can be illustrated by thier support in both an advisory and supply capacity of Al Sadr, and thier attempts to further destabilise the fledging Iraqi government. It seems that thier only hope is to keep the Coalition forces in Iraq too busy to begin the next stage of what I believe to be the Bush adminstrations overall policy.

The history thus established I wish to make predictions based on my Hypothesis.
1) In order to progress to the next stage it will be necessary to transfer the burden of the security operation in Iraq and Afghanstan to either international forces or local security forces. The Bush adminstration appears to be taking both courses of action, Askng for international support in Afghansistan, while engaging in intensive training of and with the fledging Iraqi security agencies. We should begin to see a broader transfer of duties from the U.S. to Iraqi forces, allthough if my hypothesis is correct we will not see a reducton of troops there. If we observe that the Iraqi security forces begin to take over more and more duties from the U.S. led Coalition, while troop numbers remain static or increase it may be a proof of the valdity of my hypothesis. By the same token If we see more international troops move into Afghanistan without a corresponding reduction in troop numbers there, or a basing/concentration of those forces in areas whch border with Iran this may also be interperted as proof of the valdity of my hypothesis.

2) In order for ths plan to progress it will be necessary for both Iraq and Afghnistan to hold elections and begn to truly self govern thier populaces. It is interesting to note that allthough we invaded Afghanistan nearly 1 year prior to Iraq, both governments will be engaged in elections at approximately the sme time.

3) After the elections in both countries I would expect to see a formal declartion of both governments becoming responsible for thier own security concerns, probably entailing some ceremonial handover of responsibility coupled with the establishment of treaties creating permanent U.S. (not NATO or U.N.) millitary bases in both countries most likely near the border of Iran in both instances.

4) Some time in the first six months of next year an incident with Iran will provide the rationale necessry for the Bush adminisration (or the kerry adminstraton if elected) to begin an invasion of Iran (hopefully supported by antigovernment rebels within the country)

While many may consider this strategy to be unecessary, warlike, or imperialitic, the fact is that a stable middle east is vital to the national security of the United States as well as the welfare of our economy, and though it will be brutal, bloody, and very difficult to establish a zone of democracy in this region if we stick to this course the whole world will benefit from it in the long run.

Well thats my theroy now please share yours.

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 06:04 AM
I agree that military action against ALL Islamic states is probably a good thing. But it is not going to happen - political and economic cost is far too great.

These festering holes of barbarian filth will just continue as they are for many years to come.

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 06:10 AM
Well you've been brainwashed. 9/11 WAS NOT CARRIED OUT BY AL-QAEDA!!!

As for your theory on the middle-east it is indeed warlike and imperialist. The US cannot go around invading and occupying the whole middle east, and it will not for very longer.

Now I have a question for you. If you knew someone who said years before the Iraq invasion that Iraq would be invaded again under false pretences, and also said 14 months before it happened that Al-Sadr would open up a new front in Iraq, would you believe anything else he said?

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 06:28 AM
Eddie999 I started this thread to discuss this subject with people who lve in the real world, not the "we never landed on the moon, 9/11 was planned by bush, my tin foil hat protects me from the government/alien reptiloid mind rays" crowd. I'm not interested in your paranoia so please dont pollute this thread with it. This wil be the last time I respond to you on this thread and I would ask anyone else interested in serios discussion to do the same.

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 06:57 AM
I believe that the eventual plan is for every Islamic state to be given the same choice that Libya so wisely took.

Renouce terrorism or be destroyed along with the terrorists. It's really pretty simple. I don't know why people don't understand this, but few seem to look at the really big picture. Afganistan and Iraq are just the beginning. Iran is next, but I think we are hoping that having the US Military camped on both sides of Iran will cause internal presure there to trigger a revolution there.

Saudi Arabia is the final opponant in this conflict being the center of Islam and the origin of Wahhabism. I don't think we have too much confidance that the current rulers of Saudi Arabia can keep a lid on the religious fanatics there and I think we should expect the Saudi Royal Family to be overthrown soon.

The big picture is that Fanatical Islam pretty much has to take over the world or lose it's power. Interaction with Western Civilizations can only bring Islam's downfall, unless it destroys Western Culture first. People who do not think this is a Holy War aren't listening to what the people attacking us are saying.

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 07:11 AM
Saudi Arabia IMHO will not be attacked, I believe the strategy there is to create a climate which will force the saudis to create a more U.K. like Constitutional Monarchy through citizen pressure. Once those in the region see the benefits which U.S. actions will eventually bring to the Iraqis and Afghanis, the citizens of Saudi Arabia will do the work for us.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by mwm1331]

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 07:59 AM
sorta sounds like you think Iran was the 'prize' since the begining. i would agree that afgan, iraq and iran are probably the biggest supporters of terrorists...well, so is s.korea.....there's another question..but the prob with your picture is that iran will be a much harder nut to crack...especialy since it has seen 2 of it's neighbors invaded...and there is and would be no international support for a u.s. invasion of iran. Iran is a much larger country and the u.s. military is just not larger enough right now to do the job.

that said, i do think the u.s. powers that be, are looking for an excuse to go into iran. i wonder how much support in iran would there be for a u.s. invasion?? a sucsesfull in vasion could not be done without real support from anti-govt forces in iran.. think that is the wild card in this situation.

the u.s. seem to be a dangerous path of world colonialism, once the u.s has invaded a country, it will always have GREAT influence in that country. a failed forgein policy that treats other countries as resources for u.s consumption needs. the u.s. rumaging through an ant hill now..................

and as far as those of us that that live iin the real world.......some quotes for your beloved pres....

"GOD told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem of the Middle East."

and who can forget......

"I'm the commander; I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I own anybody an explanation. There will be no more protests if body bags return home. You don't get everything you want. A DICTATORSHIP would be a lot easier. If this were a DICTATORSHIP, it would be a heck of a lot easier. A DICTARTORSHIP would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the DICTATOR."

911 was not carried out by al-qaeda...there were no wmd's...
is the broader middle-east stategy a new crusade..............

[edit on 13-8-2004 by clearmind]

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 08:41 AM
Brilliant post clearmind. I especially like this phrase:

911 was not carried out by al-qaeda...there were no wmd's...
is the broader middle-east stategy a new crusade..............

Also it is surprising that an American Christian fundamentalist like mwm1331 supports the policies of an American Christian fundamentalist like Bush? No it is not.

If America attempts to invade Iran it will be shooting itself in the head. It will be America's suicide. And about time.

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 09:31 AM
MWM, great thread!

I have been trying to point these facts out for a while.

The Bush Administration NEVER said Iraq was in 9/11. It just wanted to remake the face of the Middle East.

This is a make or break gamble for Bush. Syria is an annoyance but a serious one.

Iran is the fountainhead of terrorism. Shut down the Taliban. Clean up their playground.

Next go to Iraq and eliminate the money to the suicide bombers and get rid of the threat to the Arabian sea oil flow. We now have 200,000 soldiers surrounding Iran. They already have a growing democratic insurgency.
We might not need to invade. Just a hard push might do it.

The problem is if this fails then ... uh oh. If it works Bush and the EVIL neocons will be hailed as insightful geniuses.

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:39 AM
I would agree that Bush would like to "remake" the middle east into a stable democratic region. I don't think he will be able to do it for the following reasons...

1) Cost - the war on terror is already costing hundreds of billions of dollars. To invade Iran would cost hundreds more.

2) Man power - The US does not have enough soldiers over there to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq and also invade/occupy Iran.

3) World opinion - It is strained right now. Invading Iran would put the US in a position of being disliked by the rest of the world. We would probably lose some allies over it. Also, don't forget middle east opinion of us would go down even more, and that is the last thing we need. It is in our intrest to gain the support of moderate Islam.

4) Congress - Bush will not be able to gain the support of enough of te senate ad house in order to go in (unless Iran attacked us)

Over all, your theory is probably right on, but as you said it has a broad scope. Ever think that this might be the over all Republican strategy?

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 12:40 PM
the problem with your theory is in not going into Saudi Arabia. I had a long conversation recently with a business associate who is originally from Lebanon. He said the Saudi gov't is the head of the snake and many (I'm assuming his friends and family back home) non-wahabbi muslims don't understand why the US doesn't roll thru SA and cut the head off the snake.

I agree that Iran is very likely to be the next step in our "war on terror" but only if Bush is still in office. Kerry is not going to follow the path of war. Or he is. Well, he might, if the people want it but only if it is the right thing to do at the right time. And the people and congress agree that it is the right time.

If you go start at the bottom with these nations, introducing schools that remove the wahabbi koran teachings, you will slowly move the minds of the young in the right direction. By invading these countries and forcing broad and sweeping changes in their society, you will only cause unrest and violent rejection, like you are seeing in Iraq.

or, you can go the bomb your family route which seemed to have worked with Qaddafy. By hitting the very top, the necessary changes are introduced from the top (same as with knocking on the Saudi door).

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 01:40 PM

Originally posted by crossfire
These festering holes of barbarian filth will just continue as they are for many years to come.

Unless you have been to the middle east i suggest shuting your mouth. I am half iranian and have been to iran, its not a bunch of nomads running around killing people you racist. Infact my aunt who i stayed with there has a house probably 8 times the size has a house built for a family of five, has 2 new computers, One dell and one Gateway and Satelite TV, and guess what they watch and seeall the same TV you do. Now im not saying that all of them are fine countrys, there not all fine, and you are either very rich or really poor in these countrys, but you sound like a complete idiot making a genral statement that broad about the middle east. Thats like some one from Germany saying "some one should go in to North america and get rid of all those damn fat ass greas eating american pigs" Not all americans or North Americans Or western countrys follow this discription.

Dont talk about places you have never been to, only places you have seen on a 60" box and watching only what they want you to see. Next time think before you post.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by zi2525]

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:11 AM
Does anyone else see this troop redeployment as a way to create the manpower for a move on Iran without having to institute a draft?

new topics

top topics


log in