General Middle East & North Africa Thread

Eh, I dunno why the Iranians have to be assumed to be any more irrational with nukes than the rest of the nuclear club.

And again, Saudi Arabia is already pursuing confrontation, which would then justify them having nukes. It's only a matter of who gets it first. But it will happen, especially now that Iran seems to be winning the Fertile Cresent.

You dont want a three-way MAD. That's sounds inherently unstable.

US-UK-France, Soviet Union, China. We've been fine, mostly because its more like three two way contests. And that there are usually enough nukes for all situations at once.

Thing is the more players in an area that have nukes the more likely mistakes will be made. For that matter Isreal doing a first strike Iran if they do get them is far from impossible.

Then focus on getting rid of Israel's nukes to keep the region nuke free. Because otherwise, regardless of the problems with it, a three way MAD contest is inevitable.

Not gonna happen, they've got the nukes already and we can't exactly take them away. But yeah, that's another reason to sanction Iran's program, it's not a choice between Iran having nukes or not having nukes, it's a choice between Iran not having nukes or Iran and Israel going to war as Israel goes full out to destroy the program.

As for why Israel will never allow Iran to have nukes, because even if they're wrong nobody in Israel is willing to take the (as they see it high) chance that Iran is suicidal enough to nuke Israel regardless of MAD (or give a nuke to Hez and let them do it).

And thats why I say it's inevitable. Tehran at least will see it as an insult that THEY have to be punished while Israel gets away with it scot free, nevermind that they too would feel insecure at the prospect of an increasingly hawkish Israel having nukes and they don't. Insanity goes both ways, if it truely exists at that level.

Not saying its a good thing but it's idiocy to assume Iran won't protect itself.

Israel never agreed to not pursue nuclear weapons, Iran did. Plus if Iran wants nukes than it should make a case for it to be allowed them, not pretend it's not trying to build them.

I'm only saying if they did, I'd get and understand why. Not saying there aren't problems with it.

Comparing Israel to Iran in regards to nukes is a bit of n equivalency red herring, IMO.

Of the two, which country...

• ... has a leadership has stated that they want to destroy the other country entirely?
• ... provides training and materiel support to terrorists around the world?
• ... is democratic (in the broad sense of the term) In Name Only, with the real power held by a very small group of theocratic fanatics that don't have to answer to the general populace and believe that any atrocity is justified because of the writings of a warlord from centuries ago?

Hint: The answer doesn't end in an "l".

You got a source for this that isn't Ahmadinejad or simply an Israeli group claiming that this is what Iran wants?

Okay this one is true, though I think it's more regional than worldwide, either way the point stands.

Yes Iran isn't the most democratic of places but it's far from democratic in name only. Yes the Guardian Council blocks people with certain beliefs from running for office, but that's not that different from how the US's two party system block people, one system is just more honest about it.

Plus Israel has a lot of power focused on the small parties that make up the constantly shifting coalitions, and that's before you get into the situation of Arab Israelis or Palestinians, so Israeli democracy is far from squeaky clean. Hell they've even got their own religious fanatics bent of ethnic cleansing.

edited 21st Mar '14 4:14:39 PM by Silasw

This.

Also its not a question of "which country is better", which is irrelevant. It's a matter of "my enemy has nukes, I better get nukes too in order to keep the balance of power (which is already skewed in Israel's favor) from being ridiculously onesided." By Israel having nukes, it ensures the Arabs and Iranians will pursue them. I only mentioned Israel getting rid of theirs because of the effect on said arms race, not that I think it will or even should happen.

edited 21st Mar '14 4:25:53 PM by FFShinra

Iran is building a fake US aircraft carrier. No-one seems to know why. Leading theory is they'll tow it into the ocean and then blow it up for some good telly. New York Times put it best: "presumably for some mysteriously bellicose purposes".

Given a recent step down in Iranian anti-Americanism, this seems incongruous. One commenter on Slate suggested they're planning on filming a new version of Top Gun.

Also, Khamenei is on twitter. I think it might actually be him sending the tweets, too. A highlight.

EDIT: About those Iranian threats. Khamenei's twitter is weirdly compelling. It's almost as bizarre as Gerry Adams.

edited 21st Mar '14 4:40:43 PM by Achaemenid

That tweet (well the quote) indicates a willingness to destroy Israel, not some massive desire. If anything it says that Israel has to do something wrong for Iran to try and destroy it, rather than the idea that Iran would destroy Israel the moment it could.

The lolface was intended to show I didn't take it seriously, and neither should anyone else; twitter is not a forum of diplomacy.

To be honest, I'm more concerned about Saudi Arabia than I am about Iran.

I mean, who is arming and funding the Islamists, including the Al Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front? Saudi Arabia. They're threatening a region-wide sectarian conflagration that dips into Lebanon and Iraq.

Damn Wahhabists.

edited 30th Mar '14 4:54:06 AM by Sledgesaul

I sincerely doubt that it has anything to do with loyalty/love/obsession with Wahhabist fundamentalism, considering that in the last one or two decades, they (or at least a significant portion of their number) have been pretty much turning a blind eye (and by some indications, secretly supporting) to increasing decadence and impiety within the country and among the students that it sends to study in foreign universities. Most likely it's just a case of pragmatically supporting the faction(s) that are in opposition to the one faction that promote values of actual democracy and/or republicanism, which obviously pose a direct threat to the stability of their absolute-monarchic rule (and the shadow oligarchy that is comprised of government bureaucrats and major plutocratic moguls, too).

edited 30th Mar '14 3:15:05 PM by MarqFJA

Hell, the royal family only turned to the Wahhabists to impose order on the Chaotic Neutral tribes back in the day and give something to unify around. I hear Ibn Saud was personally religious, but no fundamentalist in the Wahhabist sense (I've even heard he was tolerant for his day, though I dunno about that bit).

New Saudi Law labels all atheists as terrorists.

Polandball's take.◊

The stupid, it burns.

That Polandball is brilliant.

Afghans say "fuck your threats" and turn out to vote.

Whilst Western nations post sub-50% turnouts, Afghans try to vote in the teeth of Taliban aggression.

Well, that's bold. Most Britons would stay home because of rain, let alone the Taliban.

But it's not all sunshine and roses: violence has killed three people and wounded several others, and this is only the first round of a long electoral process - runoff votes could drag the election out to Ramadan, which will mean it has to be put in stasis for a month. And while the fraud that marked the 2009 vote that re-elected Hamid Karzai is expected to be far less, if not gone, there is still the inherent challenge of arranging elections in a country unused to them. Nor are any of the three frontrunners expected to bring truly transformative change to Afghanistan.

Still, whatever one's opinion of the war, or of the credibility and effects of this election, people turning out to use their inalienable rights when people with guns tell them not to is always inspiring.

Depends on the people in question. If we're talking about the Pashtun, that would be quite correct (though there have been reports that the Taliban was considering going into the elections themselves, if only to strengthen their own position). If we're talking about everyone, it would also be correct. But if it's to the exclusion of the Pashtun, then it's a farce.

I'm reserving my judgment until I see a more detailed breakdown of the results.

Also, I'd like to point out that Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. But then I also think there needs to be a South Asia thread, so there you go...

Then by all means make one.

Hey, you know how North Korea is the world's most oppressive country? Even wondered who was second? Eritrea - Africa's North Korea.

Polandball: Eritrea is batshit insane.◊

If the mods would let me....

What keeps Eritrea propped up anyway? It can't be any of their neighbors....

Well, they did get a lot of money from the USA to keep them opposed to the Soviets, then Sudan, and Al-Qaeda after that, but then their chronic villain complex got the better of them and they decided it would be a jolly good wheeze to fund Al-Shabaab to fuck over Somalia, so their relations are pretty strained now. They get on OK-ish with Italy and the EU.

I'm not really sure anyone "props them up" per se: you can get away with running an African state with less because their neighbours are often in just as dire straits; they don't have to worry about their citizens looking over the border at the lights of South Korea or Manchuria. Also, they have a kinda-sorta market economy which is growing at warp 10 thanks to their exports of natural resources and agriculture.