Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not nearly as much as if there was an armed conflict between two national armies. While there is a lot of fighting going on, its not on the same scale or same amount of disruption.

Bets on those countries in conflict getting pulled in somehow?

Who knows. Everyone hates each other over there for one reason or another. Borders are more and more just lines on a map with no meaning.

I would not be surprised if the whole area just descended into a post-apocalyptic scene of tribe warfare with no real governments eventually.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Who knows. Everyone hates each other over there for one reason or another. Borders are more and more just lines on a map with no meaning.

I would not be surprised if the whole area just descended into a post-apocalyptic scene of tribe warfare with no real governments eventually.

I wonder if this would spread deep into Africa.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not nearly as much as if there was an armed conflict between two national armies. While there is a lot of fighting going on, its not on the same scale or same amount of disruption.

Total war is not the norm, and it is weird that Americans tend to think of it that way.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not nearly as much as if there was an armed conflict between two national armies. While there is a lot of fighting going on, its not on the same scale or same amount of disruption.

Total war is not the norm, and it is weird that Americans tend to think of it that way.

Nobody mentioned total war at all. Regular non-total war is plenty devastating enough. Though I wouldn't put it past the Saudis and Iranians to engage in total war with each other.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not nearly as much as if there was an armed conflict between two national armies. While there is a lot of fighting going on, its not on the same scale or same amount of disruption.

Total war is not the norm, and it is weird that Americans tend to think of it that way.

Nobody mentioned total war at all. Regular non-total war is plenty devastating enough. Though I wouldn't put it past the Saudis and Iranians to engage in total war with each other.

I was actually thinking something along the lines of Iran/ Iraq with the added bonus of an already destabilized region.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Nobody mentioned total war at all. Regular non-total war is plenty devastating enough. Though I wouldn't put it past the Saudis and Iranians to engage in total war with each other.

You didn't outright mention it, but your implication was heavy. Your comment discounted Afghanistan, Iraq 2 and 3; all instances of national militaries going up against one another.

So. Basically we have a diplomatic conflict between Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia), who wage a proxy war in Yemen.

Should this conflict escalate into a real war, ISIS could take over huge territories, functioning factories, power plants and oil wells. However, ISIS is Sunni (If I Remember Correctly), and taking over Iran would be difficult for them, (No support from the locals).
Saudi Arabia would be their main target then, but they don't have nuclear reactors/weapons (Correct me if I'm wrong, I only searched for that quickly on Wikipedia).

Thus, Iran would be the main target for ISIS should the region destabilize itself even more, but it is the most difficult to take and hold.

We can take into consideration that ISIS can probably shift its beliefs and propaganda accordingly to the needs of their leaders, although I doubt they want to upset their soldiers, which probably are the only fanatics of the organization.

(Take into consideration as well that I just woke up, so there might be gaping holes in my "analysis". Plus I'm far from being a specialist)

It's almost as if the entire Middle East is a cluster-feth of a region that makes Game of Thrones look tame by comparison, and we should just leave it the feth alone because there is literally nothing a western nation can do in said region that won't just make the situation worse.

 LethalShade wrote:
So. Basically we have a diplomatic conflict between Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia), who wage a proxy war in Yemen.

Should this conflict escalate into a real war, ISIS could take over huge territories, functioning factories, power plants and oil wells. However, ISIS is Sunni (If I Remember Correctly), and taking over Iran would be difficult for them, (No support from the locals).
Saudi Arabia would be their main target then, but they don't have nuclear reactors/weapons (Correct me if I'm wrong, I only searched for that quickly on Wikipedia).

Thus, Iran would be the main target for ISIS should the region destabilize itself even more, but it is the most difficult to take and hold.

We can take into consideration that ISIS can probably shift its beliefs and propaganda accordingly to the needs of their leaders, although I doubt they want to upset their soldiers, which probably are the only fanatics of the organization.

(Take into consideration as well that I just woke up, so there might be gaping holes in my "analysis". Plus I'm far from being a specialist)

The Saudis are one of ISIS suppliers, so yes they could well turn against them, but in the short term just who do you think (other than the West) is funding those guys?

So Iran chose the convict's life over International affairs? If the U.S.A. fails to defeat Komeini regime, then Sunnii neighbours may have some more chances.

What will Russia do with this game? fully support Iran 'till the end? or doubledealin'?

I can't wait for the oil economy to diminish to the point where we can ignore Saudi Arabia.

It all smacks of the Balkans in 1914. Foolish me who thought we would instead have another go at 1936 (Spanish Civil War).

 Da Boss wrote:
I can't wait for the oil economy to diminish to the point where we can ignore Saudi Arabia.

I'm starting to think that might happen within my lifetime, as long as I don't eat another Baconator.

 Ouze wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I can't wait for the oil economy to diminish to the point where we can ignore Saudi Arabia.

I'm starting to think that might happen within my lifetime, as long as I don't eat another Baconator.

I was 60 the other day, and I'm thinking it might happen in my remaining life time. So you could be right.

 Da Boss wrote:
I can't wait for the oil economy to diminish to the point where we can ignore Saudi Arabia.

Until then we get to watch these developments with baited breath, especially when shipping through the Strait of Hormuz may be affected.

Sooo are they pro or anti isis? I am so lost in all this.

The saudies i mean. Hell who is pro and anti isis in the debate?

Both parties are officially anti-ISIS, Iran more so I guess because as Shia muslims they are more directly at risk from ISIS.

Unofficially, ISIS gets a lot of support from Saudi Nationals, including elements of the royal family acting without official sanction.

In a military conflict, without intervention from outside, my money would be on Iran as it's about three times the size of Saudi Arabia and has a much bigger military with more experience.

Relapse wrote:
I do worry about terrorist attacks in each country, though, eventually, boiling over into a real war.

Well, for the moment, I think both of those countries suffer less terrorists attacks than countries like France, or the U.S.A., so… it seems pretty well under control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Borders are more and more just lines on a map with no meaning.

That's not really true…
It may be for a few countries, but certainly not for all.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I do worry about terrorist attacks in each country, though, eventually, boiling over into a real war.

Well, for the moment, I think both of those countries suffer less terrorists attacks than countries like France, or the U.S.A., so… it seems pretty well under control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Borders are more and more just lines on a map with no meaning.

That's not really true…
It may be for a few countries, but certainly not for all.

More true in africa than in the middle east.

rather big escalation

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3388499/Saudi-jets-hit-Iranian-embassy-Yemen.html

Short hand, Saudi jets bombed Iran's embassy in Yeman.

You know in the 80s or 90s that would send the price of oil up $20 - $30 a barrel today. Things are just crazy now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 godardc wrote:
I really don't know which one I prefer.
Maybe they can send each other to oblivion, and let a safer world ^^

Indeed, they used to call this the Reagan Doctrine. Anyone have a cake and some Bibles? We have a business opportunity here.

An before Reagan slapped his name on it, it was the Carter Doctrine lol.

Looks like the US has a chance to tilt back to Iran. Forever playing Iran against Saudi Arabia because reasons.

I think Iran might be the better choice these days anyways. They have been working toward our benefit somewhat recently when it comes to Iraq and Syria. Where as Saudis have been working against.

The West has 'screwed the pooch' when it has come to creating compatible ideals between the secular West (well sorta) and Islamic world. Generally speaking destabilizing governments and propping up dictators has not helped the image much.

Maybe if we pulled our little money backed pet projects and stopped playing one against the other they could sort things out European style (open war). Then once the sand has settled they will have a better idea why the West has tried to knock it off (barring the US cuz we love a good scrap). Or best case scenario they learn to resent theocratic governance an try there hand at democracy again. Which hopefully the West wouldn't block, scuttle and outright destroy this time lol.

A better idea is not to tilt towards anyone. Buy the oil when we need it and stay out of their internal business. What a concept.

I fully agree with you. I just don't see US policy makers able to make good decisions with the M.E. So you sort of get stuck trying to speculate on best case scenarios within the likely terrible decisions that will be made.

Our best decision would indeed stay out of their business completely and let them choose to come to us for help or diplomacy.

Seriously.... the EU is already under critical levels of pressure to house the existing immigrant and asylum seeker crisis. This will create even more - this would be the wave that sinks the EU

Why can't the Middle East and North African countries (all who share a religion that *should* give them common ground instead of driving a wedge between them) stop trying to kill each other?

You look at the list of current terrorist organisations and what they stand for and nearly all of then follow this religion and kill people for stupid reasons... ie: against western education, especially educating women - so they kill children and teachers. Maybe I'm too Northern European, Westernised and Libral to understand these fething stupid ideas. And now countries that follow these similar views are tilting at each other - except they have better weapons.

Does anyone know what the cleric was beheaded for ?
What was his crime ?

 loki old fart wrote:
Does anyone know what the cleric was beheaded for ?
What was his crime ?

Well he had the gall to call for free elections in Saudi Arabia, an end to sectarian violence, and independence of the peninsula's Shia minority if the Saudi government continued to oppress them. Clearly he was history's greatest monster

Iran accuses Saudis of hitting Yemen embassy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35251917

Iran has accused Saudi-led coalition warplanes of damaging its embassy and injuring staff in an air strike on Yemen's capital, Sanaa.

State media quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying planes had deliberately targeted the site.

But some later reports in Iran said missiles had struck only in the vicinity of the embassy.

Residents and witnesses in Sanaa reported there was no damage to the main embassy building.

Although the incident may turn out to be less serious than initially feared, the BBC's Arab Affairs Editor Sebastian Usher says the growing row between Saudi Arabia and Iran could derail peace efforts in Syria and Iraq, as well as in Yemen.

 Asherian Command wrote:
More true in africa than in the middle east.

Indeed .

 Frazzled wrote:
A better idea is not to tilt towards anyone. Buy the oil when we need it and stay out of their internal business. What a concept.

That's a great idea. Oh, wait, they suddenly decided that they would rather sell their oil to someone who buy for the same price AND support them politically. Who could possibly have foreseen that?
(Not to even mention that, who are you buying the oil from? Who are you giving money? Well, you are supporting those people; because you give them money. So you are involved.)

 Wulfmar wrote:
Why can't the Middle East and North African countries (all who share a religion that *should* give them common ground instead of driving a wedge between them) stop trying to kill each other?

You implied religion has something that would keep people from trying to kill each other. Certainly you must be joking, you joker!
The more religious a population is…