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

[curioususer]

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

The don't have a choice but to be friendly towards US.

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

You aren't understanding what Meegla is implying. He thinks Syria will be a launch pad for Iran. If such a thing happens it may even go to the proportion of world war.

 

[KingMamba]

The don't have a choice but to be friendly towards US.

They do have a choice they can disassociate with US today and go the route of Iran but the facts are both governments still have very friendly ties despite the animosity of the peoples, intelligence agencies still cooperate, generals of both armies are friendly and some may have even trained together (a lot of Pakistani troops have trained in the US), and most importantly it is not in Pakistan's interest to create a hostile environment with US.

 

[Meengla]

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

Of course I know that. And it is not my wishful thinking.
The Fog of War is very thick. Blinding. Who does what, against whom, and when, and to what extent. To what intent.

One thing is for sure: A 'regime change' in Iran engineered by the West is not going to be good news for Pakistan. Pakistan had to reluctantly dump the Talibans in 2001 and the result was huge a strategic loss. The vast border between Pakistan and Iran has been silent, peaceful for over six decades and Pakistani generals would like to keep it that way.

 

[livingdead]

The don't have a choice but to be friendly towards US.



You aren't understanding what Meegla is implying. He thinks Syria will be a launch pad for Iran. If such a thing happens it may even go to the proportion of world war.

even then it wont be world war... there is no security pact equivalent to NATO there.... every nation will avoid conflict. As long as it happens in step by step fation... it wont escalate.

 

[Meengla]

even then it wont be world war... there is no security pact equivalent to NATO there.... every nation will avoid conflict. As long as it happens in step by step fation... it wont escalate.

I hope you are right but don't be too sure.
Indeed, NATO works like a 'pack of wolves' most of the times--something the Asians seem to utterly lack. Perhaps it is because of NATO's 'Western Civilization' role (mostly). However, for over three decades Iran has been a thorn on the side of the West and that thorn has grown more powerful since 2003, despite the economic sanctions. Arab regimes are in mortal fear of that. So are Israelis--the 2006 Hezb-Israel conflict was a watershed event.

There is no doubt in my mind that neutralizing Syria is the first step toward neutralizing the 3-decade old 'nuisance' of Iran. To prevent that even Hezbollah had to fight inside Syria--the first time that force played international role other than clashes with Israel.

So the stakes are very high. Iran is going to throw everything it has at the West/Israel. The NY Times article is pointing toward that. In my opinion Iran is courting a disaster. But I also think Pakistani generals will not like another Karzai in Tehran.

 

[livingdead]

I hope you are right but don't be too sure.
Indeed, NATO works like a 'pack of wolves' most of the times--something the Asians seem to utterly lack. Perhaps it is because of NATO's 'Western Civilization' role (mostly). However, for over three decades Iran has been a thorn on the side of the West and that thorn has grown more powerful since 2003, despite the economic sanctions. Arab regimes are in mortal fear of that. So are Israelis--the 2006 Hezb-Israel conflict was a watershed event.

There is no doubt in my mind that neutralizing Syria is the first step toward neutralizing the 3-decade old 'nuisance' of Iran. To prevent that even Hezbollah had to fight inside Syria--the first time that force played international role other than clashes with Israel.

So the stakes are very high. Iran is going to throw everything it has at the West/Israel. The NY Times article is pointing toward that. In my opinion Iran is courting a disaster. But I also think Pakistani generals will not like another Karzai in Tehran.

For a world war to happen you need the opposition to NATO, currently even russia is unwilling to do it. In worst case this might become a regional conflict drawn on sectarian lines.

USA and KSA will try to avoid that, and saudis will try their best to avoid direct conflict with iran. smaller arab state like qatar might get involved. Saudis will probably pump in money.

About pakistan, most probably it will be a muted response. They are not exactly fond of iran. However pakistani generals are smart, they will sit out the war.

 

[Mercenary]

If USA attacks Syria, Syria could respond by attacking Israel and even Hezbollah could fire Katusha Rockets at Israel which will cause Israel to attack Lebanon and Syria.

Which would mean USA, Europe, Israel, Al Qaeda, Sunni Rebels, Saudis and Turks vs Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah.

Things haven't been this interesting in the Middle East since Napoleon invaded in 1799.

 

[Beerbal]

If USA attacks Syria, Syria could respond by attacking Israel and even Hezbollah could fire Katusha Rockets at Israel which will cause Israel to attack Lebanon and Syria.

Which would mean USA, Europe, Israel, Al Qaeda, Sunni Rebels, Saudis and Turks vs Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah.

Things haven't been this interesting in the Middle East since Napoleon invaded in 1799.

Keep dreaming, Nothing will happen ...

If NATO attacks Syria, Regime will change, Iran can't do anything. Iran has never win a conflict, leave war aside. Pakistan is puppet of USA. Indian Govt has not guts to speak against NATO. China is opportunist communist, Russia is weak, Iran only make big sound no action..

So all togather (if) USA will attack Syria, it will go away like Iraq and Afghanistan. No one is there to stop USA..

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The Middle Eastern region will go into a state of war?

Wait, wasn't the Middle Eastern region already in a state of war?

 

[HRK]

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.

thnx to explain your part in detail......but my dear plz try to understand two ground realities here.

1) Pakistan is having trouble borders with Afghanistan (In other words we are neighbouring with US) & India.

2) Any approach of Syrian problem based upon 'religion' would lead another Afghanistan type situation. (spillover of sectarianism and extremism in Pakistan)

so based upon these two basic factors I believe Pakistan role would be limited......though we can't ignore the Syrian issue as you said......but "the best we can do, is to support international diplomatic efforts".

BTW for us 'Iran is more important then Syria'....... thnx again.

 

[Genesis]

world war, no way. China is not ready. By the way the Chinese military has been upgrading and training as well as announcing, they got a clear plan, no major conflicts or any conflicts if avoidable before 2030ish.

That looking at the current programs, and spending as well as economic growth, and many other factors would show that 2030 would be the time Chinese military reaches maturity.

 

[HRK]

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.

so you think 'Christians are out of God's community'......

 

[Sher Malang]

Of course I know that. And it is not my wishful thinking.
The Fog of War is very thick. Blinding. Who does what, against whom, and when, and to what extent. To what intent.

One thing is for sure: A 'regime change' in Iran engineered by the West is not going to be good news for Pakistan. Pakistan had to reluctantly dump the Talibans in 2001 and the result was huge a strategic loss. The vast border between Pakistan and Iran has been silent, peaceful for over six decades and Pakistani generals would like to keep it that way.

If Pakistani generals couldn't stand against west's interest in 2001 ignoring completely Pakistan's interest, how could they go against it in 2013 if such thing happens?

 

[Maler]

They do have a choice they can disassociate with US today and go the route of Iran but the facts are both governments still have very friendly ties despite the animosity of the peoples, intelligence agencies still cooperate, generals of both armies are friendly and some may have even trained together (a lot of Pakistani troops have trained in the US), and most importantly it is not in Pakistan's interest to create a hostile environment with US.

Wrong, Pakistan has no choice other than being friendly with USA. If this choice would have been available for Pakistan, It would have been happened since long. Pakistan is no Iran. Iran has vast reserves of oil & gas, a backbone of Iranian economy and that can feed Iranians many more decades. What is Pakistani option?? Continuous aid from china for decades?? nothing more than wishful thinking, or remittances from Pakistani expatriates?? Not a possiblity, because western govt. has rules to stop flow of remittances from west to unfriendly or enemy countries. If Pakistan ever think about opposing west, already ruined economy of Pakistan will be in gutter. There will be no aid or loan from IMF, world bank or any other international financial institute. Even Saudies would not be able to extend helping hand to Pakistan.

So, I don't think Pakistan has any option other than comply with western demands considering current situation

 

[Meengla]

If Pakistani generals couldn't stand against west's interest in 2001 ignoring completely Pakistan's interest, how could they go against it in 2013 if such thing happens?

I can't speak for the Pakistani generals. None of us can.
But a comparison to 9/11 is simplistic and perhaps even dangerous. On 9/11 America was a raging bull ready to destroy anyone in its path. Pakistan had no choice.

I don't think similar circumstances exist now. I ALSO think Pakistanis will be suffer a lot because of Western sanctions but there will not be mass-starvation. It would unite people. Perhaps setting back the country by a few decades. But it will not be a North Korea or Iraq.

I think you and all other need to study some events which lead to the follies of WW 2; how nations joined-in as if driven by madness. One by one, marching to their destruction even if they were not really involved in the core conflicts.

I keep repeating about the follies of human nature. I don't think cornered nations or perceived existential threats to nations make them behave rationally.

ANY THING is possible in case of the Syrian war becoming regional. I hope I am wrong though.