Thread: Redrawn Middle East

This map is FAR beyond being overly optimistic.

1) Arab Shia state. A) Saudi-Arabia is doing anything necessary to hold this area, since it has about 240 billion barrels of oil. In order this area might be separated from Saudi-Arabia, it needs US invasion to Saudi-Arabia and that might not be enough also, since that area, even it has Shia tribes, it has also large amount, perhaps 30-50% Sunni Arab population (lika Dammam, biggest city of the region with 70% Sunni). They would do anything possible to cling into Saudi-Arabia.

B) Iran. In order that Khuzestan province and these other areas, which has huge amount of oil and gas resources, about 50% of all Iran to join into Shia Arab state, Iran has to be attacked. Iran is ready to quell any uprising in this area. And even after that Iran is doing aggressive re-localization policy in the area. And the result is that Khuzestan has about 30% Persians, maybe 60% Arabs and 10% others. And again those 30% Persians would not want Khuzestan to join any other country, than Iran. And among Arab Shias there is also strong support to stay as part of Iran. So even to get majority of people wanting independence in this province is a problem.

And just to remind, how hard it would be to defeat Iran. If USA would ever attack Iran, it would be in two-prolonged guerrilla-modern warfare also with revolutionary corps taking every Irani major city as a battle ground with US forces along with every conquired city having excessive amount of insurgency, probably similar to that of Ramadi and Fallujah of Iraq. And Iraqi Shias would stand against USA, if it attacked against Iran.

When US attacked Iraq, they made pre arrangements that there will not be battle. That is how they managed to take Iraq, had Iraqi army defended themselves, US losses would have been too extensive. And in insurgency they faced mainly only less, than 4 million people, Sunni Arabs. If there would be similar fight in Iran, USA would have to deal with insurgency from base of about 70-80 million people (Iraqi Shias and all Iran) along with Irani revolutionary corps and Basij, which would make probably in war against US above 2 million soldiers.

Important thing to understand in any incursion of USA against Iran is that even Iran has big opposition. It is not Ateist-opposition, but very much Shia-Muslim opposition with many Shia clerics being it's leaders. And their leader, Mir Hussein Musawi defends Iranian nuclear program. If Iran was attacked by USA, the Irani opposition would not consider US armed forces as liberators, but as invaders. And in any armed attack against Iran USA would absolutely be poised against very popular insurgency. Since they would promise paradise for anyone, who would die in such a war.

US aerial attack would not destroy Iran, it would just make the government stronger and Iran nuclear program is too big to be destroyed. If US would not be able to destroy Iran, the world, including Europe would consider it invader. So large aerial attack against Iran would be political and military victory for Iran. Small aerial attack only against nuclear program would possibly lead Irani retaliation against Tel Aviv and most definitely lead to retaliation against US resources all over the world, possibly political standoff with disrupted oil supply from middle east. And it would lead Irani nuclear program going underground and make them determined to gain nuclear weapons.

Land attack against Iran would be a disaster. USA weakness in war is well known everywhere. If they get too much casualties, they leave. Under such circumstances I see 0% probability of successful US land attack against Iran. It would be street to street fight with HUGE country with massive army and insurgency. Such attack would probably lead to millions of civilian casualties.

And above all, not Kuwait, not Turkey and not Iraq, or Pakistan would give their country as a staging point for such an attack. USA would need to use ships. Any country, which USA has bases in, if USA used them to attack Iran, they would demand USA to leave their military forces from there. It is huge political risk for any Middle-East country to attack Iran. Especially Bahrain (biggest US base in the area) with 70% Shia majority. Turkmenistan gave US bases only by Russian consent to attack Afghanistan, but would not do the same for Iran.

Any scenario of US attack would probably be that they would try to take strait of Hormuz, simply stage aerial campaign, try to destroy as much of Iranian nuclear program and possibly army, as they could. But US generals would never try to conquer Iran by land. They would only try to cause as much damage to Iranian government, as possible and end it to a stalemate.

So to get Arab Shia Republic, USA would need to attack Iran AND Saudi-Arabia at the same time. I think, this whole state is not possible considering Iran and Saudi-Arabian intresses in the area. And the outcome of such attack would probably be that Shia-republic joining with Iran, which would probably buy Iranian Islamic clerics another 20 years in power and they would get massive amount of oil resources into their control. US sanctions could after that do even less harm to Iran.

2) Then Kurdistan. First of all, Syrian Assad regime would never give up Kurdistan of Syria. And they have necessary firepower to hold into that area. Also Turkey would be reluctant to give up their areas. And Iran would need to be attacked and militarily defeated to make them give up Irani Kurdistan, which also has oil. So it again would For this idea USA would need to defeat Iran militarily, which is close to impossible. Iran can not be defeated from air and to defeat Iran by land USA would have to be ready to losses somewhat similar to that of Vietnam war and along with it be prepared to pay trillions of dollars. USA would be in Iran with Hezbollah-style and structure insurgency, which however would have perhaps about 100 times more manpower, than Hezbollah of Libanon. Who is saying that USA will walk into Iran just like they walked into Iraq and Afghanistan is just dreaming.

3) The idea of Afghan Persians joining to Iran is as well absurd. That is, because Afghan Persians are Sunni and Iranian Persians are Shia. Only thing in common with them is the language. But Afghan Persians are better off in Afghanistan of today, than in Iran and until today there is none whatsoever movements of Afghani Persians joining with Iran. And Pashto (the tribe in the map) - Afghanistan is absurd for the same reason.

4) To take Balochistan you would have to attack Pakistan, which is absurd. Pakistan has army of 800000 men, which is very organized. Irani Balochistan and Sistan would want to leave Iran, but that is not possible without attack on Iran. And Pakistani Balotchistan has gas and other natural resources, which Pakistan would not want to give up without defeat in war.

5) Saudi slicing, as it did must be a joke. There would be no sacred republic. If Saudi were to be divided, it would divide into Shia east and Sunni west. But there is no political will whatsoever for any part of Saudi-Arabia to join with Yemen. Or to make Saudi-Arabia into two, sacred lands and Arab Republic. Also there is no historical, cultural, etc reason why Hijaz would possibly join with Jordan, as it did in this imaginary map.

6) Syria would not give up to Kurd parts of the country and coastal border, except by war.

To achieve this US would have to attack at least four countries and it would need massive civil war in Pakistan. And after this, the whole area would be one huge breeding ground for insurgencies like Al-Qaeda, since creation of a map like this would need massive wars and destruction in the region.

This is a dream map, which is not possible to attain. I don't see, how any of these new countries in the map would be possible, or probable. Some people in these areas have will to form their own countries, but this is not Balkan and Yugoslavia.

Kurds in Iraq might have the power to gain their independence. But if they did that, they would have hostile Turkey in the North with their own Kurd problem, hostile Iran in the east, hostile Iraq in the South and hostile Syria in the west. So even they are far more likely to accept political autonomy for their region and concessions rather, than trying to gamble over bigger Kurd republic in the area. Such Kurd state would be both politically and economically isolated and probably sanctioned by nearby states, which would lead to isolation and vast problems. Kurds of Iraq are far more likely to accept what they have, than trying to gamble against the whole region.