NY Times Hints: Attack on Syria could Lead to a Regional War

[Meengla]

@Juice: This article by NY Times elaborates on what I mentioned to you in one of my recent posts. I'd go even farther and say that even a world war is possible beyond a regional war. Never underestimates the follies of human beings. What this article does not mention is the potential involvement of Pakistan if Iran gets being destroyed with horrible tales of misery and refugees pouring to Pakistan and/elsewhere.

A regional war starting from Syria is probably the most dangerous situation for humanity since the Cuban Missile Crisis over 50 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/w...-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?hp

...

¶ Iran’s and Syria’s defense ministers threatened on Friday to unleash attacks on Israel if Mr. Assad was in danger. While Hezbollah has said it would wait to see the scale and nature of the attacks before responding, in practice, analysts close to the organization said, it is probably prepared for any contingency.

¶ There is also concern that Shiite-led Iraq could send thousands more militants to help Mr. Assad if it believed he was truly threatened, and that such a step would in turn further rally and embolden Sunni jihadists on both sides of its border with Syria.

¶ Many diplomats and analysts consider retaliation unlikely, but the consequences could be grim. Israel has vowed that if Hezbollah attacks it again, it will respond forcefully, drawing Lebanon into war. And if Syria lobbed missiles into Israel and it responded with airstrikes through Lebanese airspace that threatened Mr. Assad further, Hezbollah would consider that further justification to attack Israel.

¶ Even without such a direct entanglement, Lebanon could be very vulnerable. It has recently suffered its worst sectarian violence in years: a car bomb in Shiite Hezbollah territory in the Beirut suburbs, and two at Sunni mosques in the northern city of Tripoli. Lebanese authorities accused Syria on Friday of involvement in the Tripoli attacks, and intelligence officials fear such bombings could increase.

 

[[Bregs]]

what else can we expect, where ever US pokes its nose, the result are always horrific fo the man kind and for world peace at large

 

[Juice]

@Juice: This article by NY Times elaborates on what I mentioned to you in one of my recent posts. I'd go even farther and say that even a world war is possible beyond a regional war. Never underestimates the follies of human beings. What this article does not mention is the potential involvement of Pakistan if Iran gets being destroyed with horrible tales of misery and refugees pouring to Pakistan and/elsewhere.

A regional war starting from Syria is probably the most dangerous situation for humanity since the Cuban Missile Crisis over 50 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/w...-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?hp

...

And if Pakistan gets involved, who would they attack, exactly? The US?

 

[KingMamba]

And if Pakistan gets involved, who would they attack, exactly? The US?

Probably Israelis, Pakistan has no capability to attack US mainland.

@Meengla where is the bit about Pakistan in the article or is that your view of things?

 

[Meengla]

@Mamba and @Juice,
As I said, the article does not mention Pakistan but clearly alludes to so many countries, including Iran, getting involved.
Pakistan's involvement is my **guess**; neither a wishful thinking nor a rejection of that idea. I have casually followed Pakistani generals' statements since the 90's and my understanding is that, due to the Saudi link, Pakistanis downplay working with Iran. But in case of a humanitarian disaster in Iran Pakistan will come to Iran's aid in some form--perhaps by launching Western/Israeli targets with missiles.
A 'regional war' is the Times is talking about. And I REALLY think Obama's asking for the Congressional approval before launching any attack is because of the fear of the unknown--starting with the regional war.

 

[HRK]

@Mamba and @Juice,
As I said, the article does not mention Pakistan but clearly alludes to so many countries, including Iran, getting involved.
Pakistan's involvement is my **guess**; neither a wishful thinking nor a rejection of that idea. I have casually followed Pakistani generals' statements since the 90's and my understanding is that, due to the Saudi link, Pakistanis downplay working with Iran. But in case of a humanitarian disaster in Iran Pakistan will come to Iran's aid in some form--perhaps by launching Western/Israeli targets with missiles.
A 'regional war' is the Times is talking about. And I REALLY think Obama's asking for the Congressional approval before launching any attack is because of the fear of the unknown--starting with the regional war.

Sorry to say......u r thinking to much..... IMHO "only Humanitarian" aid is possible not a single step further than that.....

 

[KingMamba]

@Mamba and @Juice,
As I said, the article does not mention Pakistan but clearly alludes to so many countries, including Iran, getting involved.
Pakistan's involvement is my **guess**; neither a wishful thinking nor a rejection of that idea. I have casually followed Pakistani generals' statements since the 90's and my understanding is that, due to the Saudi link, Pakistanis downplay working with Iran. But in case of a humanitarian disaster in Iran Pakistan will come to Iran's aid in some form--perhaps by launching Western/Israeli targets with missiles.
A 'regional war' is the Times is talking about. And I REALLY think Obama's asking for the Congressional approval before launching any attack is because of the fear of the unknown--starting with the regional war.

Obama is asking for Congressional approval because of the British pullout, if the British hadn't turned down a joint strike he would have tried to bypass Congress with an executive order but since they did pull out of any strikes the public opinion has shifted to a more pro no involvement as people reckon if the British are refusing to participate there must be more than it seems. Anyway Obama never wanted to get involved anyway he was just forced into making a decision of a strike reluctantly because of his past statements and he didn't want to eat his words. Most likely congress will strike down any involvement now and Obama can say, "Hey I tried but my hands were tied".

There is no fear of the unknown, the problem is it is hard to decipher who really used the chemical weapons, especially since it was done in Damascus which is being hotly contested and territory being swapped frequently. If there was enough proof that it really was Assad this would be a non-issue, the fact that some of the rebels are nut cases probably doesn't help things either.

I think you are overestimating what a war in the middle east would mean for Pakistan, even if refugees pour in a couple of things will happen, one there won't be as many as the Afghanistan crisis, and secondly whatever amount of Iranians do come will just use Pakistan as transit to get asylum in other nations. The same happened in 1979 where Iranians came to Pakistan and then the vast majority left.

I would like to see some current statements from Pakistani generals on Iran if you got any though?

 

[Meengla]

Sorry to say......u r thinking to much..... IMHO "only Humanitarian" aid is possible not a single step further than that.....

It is not my wishful thinking.
But what is certain is that there are deep religious, historic, and cultural ties between Iran and Pakistan. 20% of Pakistanis are Shias. The links between Pakistan and Iran have been downplayed since 1979. But they ARE there. Also, we can be assured that a 'regime change' in Iran by the West will prop up another Karzai on Pakistan-Iran front--which is a VERY peaceful front, relatively speaking, in Pakistan's 65+ history. Iran is a bulwark against a free Baluchistan.

You could even Google senior Pakistani military officials' statements about Pakistan coming to Iran's aid.

Again, I am guessing but I don't think we can ignore the upcoming regional war, should that happen.

 

[Meengla]

@Mamba,
I don't think I ever meant to say that 'regional war' was the only reason--the British rejection is a big factor for sure. But in my understanding Americans would have still gone through the strikes with the Brits had there been a more assured chance of victory. The Brits are two-bit players--fig-leaf--in America's wars; the first brick in the 'coalition of the willing' but not the most essential brick. America can technically do it all alone. I believe the fear of a regional war is the most dominant factor.

About Pakistan's involvement, I don't think you can compare a few thousand refugees escaping the 1979 Islamic Revolution--which was an INTERNAL MATTER--to widespread massacre in Iran in 2013--and that too by Americans who Pakistanis have come to despise in huge numbers and now believe to be even bigger threat then the Indians. We shall see on that.

I don't have statements of generals. Not current ones anyway. I could try to Google some--so could you. There is not much there but I think a lot of that is because of the Saudi-Pakistan alliance.

 

[KingMamba]

@Mamba,
I don't think I ever meant to say that 'regional war' was the only reason--the British rejection is a big factor for sure. But in my understanding Americans would have still gone through the strikes with the Brits had there been a more assured chance of victory. The Brits are two-bit players--fig-leaf--in America's wars; the first brick in the 'coalition of the willing' but not the most essential brick. America can technically do it all alone. I believe the fear of a regional war is the most dominant factor.

About Pakistan's involvement, I don't think you can compare a few thousand refugees escaping the 1979 Islamic Revolution--which was an INTERNAL MATTER--to widespread massacre in Iran in 2013--and that too by Americans who Pakistanis have come to despise in huge numbers and now believe to be even bigger threat then the Indians. We shall see on that.

I don't have statements of generals. Not current ones anyway. I could try to Google some--so could you. There is not much there but I think a lot of that is because of the Saudi-Pakistan alliance.

Unless Iranians are living by the thousands in their military bases there will be no slaughter, you think there will be a ground invasion and/or occupation? It ain't going to happen bro.

Pakistani people may be anti-US today but GOP is still pro US.

 

[TruthSeeker]

That wise American woman, Sarah Palin, has this advice for President Obama: "Let Allah sort them out."

So, What do you think? If Syria is a Shiite vs. Sunni confrontation, maybe Allah should be responsible for sorting it out. Right? After all, its Allah's communities that are at each others throats.

 

[livingdead]

There is zero percent chance of pakistan getting involved... even iran will not directly fight but use its proxies.

 

[Meengla]

@Mamba,
Unless, behind the scenes, all powers agree to allow Obama a 'face saving' strike which allows Assad to stay in power at least to 'negotiate' a peace there WILL BE a regional war. This ain't no Vietnam war. The region is full of religious and sectarian conflicts--kept under control by various dictators for decades. There are many countries involved. Iran has been in target for 30+ years. The 2006 Hezb-Israel conflict was watershed event for which Iran must be kicked out of M.E and contained, if not regime change. Even the Israelis have a 'Samson Option' in place.
What I find surprising is not enough debate about who gets involved in this regional war and when. Pakistan is a certainty in case of a disaster in Iran.

 

[KingMamba]

@Mamba,
Unless, behind the scenes, all powers agree to allow Obama a 'face saving' strike which allows Assad to stay in power at least to 'negotiate' a peace there WILL BE a regional war. This ain't no Vietnam war. The region is full of religious and sectarian conflicts--kept under control by various dictators for decades. There are many countries involved. Iran has been in target for 30+ years. The 2006 Hezb-Israel conflict was watershed event for which Iran must be kicked out of M.E and contained, if not regime change. Even the Israelis have a 'Samson Option' in place.
What I find surprising is not enough debate about who gets involved in this regional war and when. Pakistan is a certainty in case of a disaster in Iran.

I think you are underestimating Saudi influence in Pakistan. IMO there will not be a war but even if there is, Pakistan will not get involved hell I doubt Pakistan will even issue a statement.

 

[Juice]

@Mamba and @Juice,
As I said, the article does not mention Pakistan but clearly alludes to so many countries, including Iran, getting involved.
Pakistan's involvement is my **guess**; neither a wishful thinking nor a rejection of that idea. I have casually followed Pakistani generals' statements since the 90's and my understanding is that, due to the Saudi link, Pakistanis downplay working with Iran. But in case of a humanitarian disaster in Iran Pakistan will come to Iran's aid in some form--perhaps by launching Western/Israeli targets with missiles.
A 'regional war' is the Times is talking about. And I REALLY think Obama's asking for the Congressional approval before launching any attack is because of the fear of the unknown--starting with the regional war.

Launching missiles at western targets? You are aware "western targets" have missiles too? You think perhaps we would not fire back?