I don't think anyone is even considering this. USA isn't much of a player anymore anyway. To me, the big question is if Iran will talk to Saudi-Arabia. I don't think KSA will fund Sunni militants even unofficially, in spite of the noise recently, but there's bound to be many moneyed Saudis who will. Iran has supported some Shia factions and will continue to do so, but I'm just hoping the two together would have sense enough to stop the downward spiral.

"but I'm just hoping the two together would have sense enough to stop the downward spiral.
"

This is sarcasm, correct? I mean the spiral is down only for one of them. I think the other one thinks it's winning, at least while the US is in the region. So I am assuming it must be sarcasm to think these two forces (Assyrian and Persian) are even closely in agreement.

Dubaiwalla,

“Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine- all states Iran has some influence over- are in turmoil.”

Are you suggesting that Iran should negotiate from a position of strength before the US pulls out and the “turmoil” increases? This would seem to mark a new relationship between the forces inside the Middle East.

“…how much would the terms have changed now that Iran is in the ascendant?”

That would definitely be the question. Would Iran actually have to recognize Israel if the US were to pull out? Of course it is easier to make those tough choices, like recognizing Israel, if you’re negotiation from strength. Recognizing Israel would be a small compromise considering the power received.

It still baffels me that everyone on the outside looking in continues to believe that Iran, a non arab country that most arabs completely dismiss, has this power of influence over all these sunni arab countries. If sunnis and shi'as hate each other so much, which I believe they do, then why would a sunni country like Syria take orders from Iran, a shi'a country. Influence over who in lebanon, The government? The government with a christian president and a sunni prime minister?! Iran is guilty of alot but the world gives them WAAAAAAAAAAY too much credit. In the middle east leadership comes down to Race and Religion and Iran is an outcast in both!

First, mate, Syria is not a "Sunni" country any more than Lebanon or Iraq is.

It's a Alaouite run state - the Alaoui are at best "not-Sunni" even if their appartenance to the Shi'a world is also dodgey.

Your simple minded sectarian analysis gets lots of things wrong, included a simple minded identity of sect and political motivation.

Now, I doubt Iran and Syria can really tamp down what is going on in Iraq, any more than outside parties could do so with Lebanon in 1980. On the other hand, they might be able to manage the edges, tamp down on the margins.

At the very least trying something different is highly recommended, since Iraq has now descended into hell, and it is worth trying to at least not let Iraq plumb the very depths of hell itself.

The best thing to try at this point would be to contain the disaster. But one cannot factor out arrogant stupidity in political equations, of course. It appears to me Iran is downplaying its Shi'ism, to court the Sunni Arab mainstream, much like Hizbollah. The Aardvark had a few posts on this a while back. But the Sunni jihadists won't ever let them forget they're Shia scum, even if the Sunni mainstream doesn't give a toss. Count on al-Qaeda to fuck up everything, that's their act, after all.

Larry: Assyria? Que?

What's the deal with the Alawi, anyway? Lots in Turkey. Can't build mosques, slightly persecuted, but not an issue one hears about at all, really.

What's the deal with the Alawi, anyway? Lots in Turkey. Can't build mosques, slightly persecuted, but not an issue one hears about at all, really.

Alawi ( mostly Syria ) vs. Alevi ( concentrated in Turkey ) - not the same thing. Different offshoots of Shi'ism. Wikipedia does a reasonable job of setting some basics.

ah. thx.

This actually drew a chuckle: "What does Iran stand for? Iran stands for disrupting states, disrupting peace and solving everything through the barrel of a gun."

oh the humanity.

Are you suggesting that Iran should negotiate from a position of strength before the US pulls out and the “turmoil” increases?
I believe that it is in US interests to negotiate with Iran. Each side would gain from a deal, and both could really use relief from trouble they've created- and are creating- for themselves. The fact that Iran is in a position of strength right now means that America will not get as good a deal as it once might've done if it does reach an agreement.

Whether any agreement can be reached remains to be seen, but all the US stands to lose from an unsuccessful offer to talk is a little face- and even this will be mitigated by increased international support for its position that Iran is not serious about peace. By contrast, the US has a fair deal to gain, enough so that negotiations are worthwhile, even if the odds of success are not great.

Would Iran actually have to recognize Israel if the US were to pull out?
Recognition would be nice. Is it a realistic short- or medium-term goal at present? I rather suspect not, I'm afraid. But I don't see that as a major obstacle. An end to support for militant groups operating against Israel, combined with a tamping down of rhetoric, and quiescence about a two-state solution would be plenty. In short, for a deal to work, Iran doesn't have to like Israel, merely tolerate its existence.

Klaus
“Larry: Assyria? Que?”

I happen to read “Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini awhile back. After reading about the Sunni and Shia relationships in the book, I concluded that this conflict of the region is probably about something even older than Sunni and Shia. It is hard for me to believe two groups could have grown so far apart while they were reading the same book, so to speak. While this could be just some Western wanking on my part, I thought it wouldn't hurt to read some more history. I heard something about an Assyria and Persian conflict and thought, ya, it probably started at least that far back in time. While “Kite Runner” was about Afghanistan and I am not sure that was a part of the Assyrian empire, it seems to me that Afghanistan represents the condensed version of what going on in the Middle East, at the roots an Asian against non-Asian or East meets Middle East conflict. I threw the name out to see if I would get a response. Thanks for the link; I’ll do some more reading.

Pretty odd thought that, actually interesting for its oddness. I'm really not favourable to the idea of conflict rooted in 'century-old hate' that won't go away ever, like the explanations of the break-up of Yugoslavia as enmity deeply rooted in the Balkans. I think it's deluded, these conflicts are always due to recent stuff. For example the Sunni-Shia rift, which really isn't that big an issue elsewhere, but is becoming more so. It wasn't an issue in Iraq before Saddam made it so, a divide-and-conquer approach, and also following heavily in the wake of outbreak of the war with Iran. Same is true about his persecution of Kurds, whom he suspected of collaborating. So it's an issue if it's an issue. Otherwise it isn't. Otherwise a Danish-Swedish war is long overdue.

“I'm really not favorable to the idea of conflict rooted in 'century-old hate' that won't go away ever, like the explanations of the break-up of Yugoslavia as enmity deeply rooted in the Balkans.”

I am not favorable to the idea either, but I am not necessarily talking about century-old hate. It doesn’t have to be hate, only a reality that doesn’t exist any more.

“I think it's deluded, these conflicts are always due to recent stuff.”

I hate to say it but I agree with you on this point also. However, what causes this recent stuff could have been the same thing that caused the old stuff. I think of history as a potential in reverse. If you think of future as being blank, because we can’t see it, then the past contains something because we know it existed, sort of. In physics terms (meta physics?) the past would be a negative potential and the future a positive potential. The negative and positive sign only designates the direction of flow. I know this is really odd, but when I am talking about a negative or positive potential, I am really talking about potential energy. In electrical terms, potential energy is voltage. So, what I am suggesting is that there is a little background voltage carried from the past to the future and resides in the present. We can’t see it or feel it but it is enough voltage to cause problems at times.

“For example the Sunni-Shia rift, which really isn't that big an issue elsewhere, but is becoming more so.”

This kind of underlines my point. Why does it keep showing up, when it’s not that big of issue. I think it’s just a potential from the past that hasn’t been grounded properly, a voltage that is still open, so to speak. We can’t see it because voltage contains no mass, but it can hurt when a person comes in contact with it. I agree it is an odd way of thinking, I hope you find it interesting. It serves no real purpose, but it enables me to think of the past in less complex terms.

“Otherwise a Danish-Swedish war is long overdue.”

Perhaps there would be war if all that hash didn’t keep them properly grounded.

Larry: Where do you think they get the hash FROM? Sadly insufficient as a means of making cultures chill out, as witness the current situation in Lebanon.

"Perhaps there would be war if all that hash didn’t keep them properly grounded."

Ironic mention of hash considering the trippy stuff that came before.

Larry, as the saying goes, I don't know what you're smoking, but I'm having some. Now why isn't your analysis in the Baker report?

klaus - ...a Danish-Swedish war is long overdue.

Got that right, southerner. Payback for Kristian the Tyrant is long overdue.

Hey, Skåne-Halland-Blekinge belongs to Denmark. You stole it, we want it back. We are right to want it back. It's good Danish soil defiled by swarty Swedish peasant sweat and manure. O Malmö! How I pine for thee! I pine for Gotland too, but not as much.

But you Swedes can just retake Finland, they're not really a sovereign nation anyway. It's either you or Russia, don't deny you know that!

And who gets control of the Tuborg brewery? And will they get rid of those swastikas on the elephants already?

We shall fight them in the breweries. That's what we prefer anyway.

Yeah, those swastikas. So many monocles littering the ground around the elephants. But it's a great conversation opener, you know. Breaks the ice.