The House of Saud is pragmatic enough to know their power is principally economic at this time, and also pragmatic enough to tolerate the Iranian views of the Prophet and his succession as long as there are no threats to themselves. Addition of the Iraqi oilfields and the [more important] refining capacity might interfere with that sangfroid. So, I would still assert that while they aren’t going to actively cheerlead or send troops (hahahahaha [go read the official Saudi history of the retaking of Khafji in GW 1]), the House of Saud will not be too unhappy if the Iranian Shia threat is knocked back a step or two, especially if the US does the fighting for them.

I find it significant that no message from the King has been sent over to W about not doing an attack on Iran [at least not reported anyway, and I'm sure Al-Jazeera would carry it if CNN doesn't], the last I heard was a warning about how Saudi Arabia was going to arm the Sunnis if the US didn’t stop the Shia, and did you all notice a wall being built on the Iraq - Saudi Arabia border for the last several months? Why do that with no threat or concern about a Shia-dominated Iraq?

Wall: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/01/wirq01.xml
Arming Sunnis (12/06): http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1971581,00.html

Yeah, well…

“makes the Saudis happy (purging the infidel Shia as well as eliminating a regional rival)”

I am not at all certain of that. As a matter of fact a number of regional experts - experts who are FROM the region - say the exact opposite. It happens that for the last couple of decades or so relations between Iran and the Saudis have been very reasonable, and the word is that the Saudis, who had no enthusiasm for the aggression against Iraq (no one in the region did, outside of Israel), have even less for attacking Iran.

As for the “infidel Shi`a” bit, I do not think the Saudi rulers are driven by religious motives at all, but by political and economic ones. Politically and economically, it is not really in their best interest to add even more to the chaotic mess the Bushies and their pals have created in the ME.

One of my oldest and most loyal American friends is an evangelical Christian. Though we rarely see each other anymore, she and her mother visit me every Christmas time without fail (and we always swear we will get together during the year). They despise Bush, and are mortified by what so-called “Christians” are doing to this country.

I am with you, and for a number of reasons. For one, the groups Iran allegedly supports are nothing like Al Qa`eda and the other “jihadist” groups. They are local groups involved in their own specific causes. they are certainly not a threat to the United States. Nor are they really all that extreme. Hizbullah, and Hamas in particular are quite moderate as Islamist groups go with, as I said, very specific agendas, and particularly in recent years they have depended far more on social and political means to achieve their goals (not that this has helped them - look how the Palestinians have been punished for exercising their democratic right to choose their government!).

It is also very questionable whether Hizbullah can accurately be called a terrorist organization at all. They are a homegrown resistance movement that came into being in response to the 18 year brutal Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Their focus has always been mainly on Israeli military or state targets, and not on civilian ones. I know a number of Israelis who served in the occupation of Lebanon who emphatically do not buy the designation of Hizbullah as a terrorist group.

“Actually, the United States is.”

You could make a case for that, but do not forget Israel.

“We only support democracy in other countries when we get to pick the winners for them - at least nowadays.”

Just ask the Palestinians about that! They are being literally starved to death (”put on a diet” is how one oh, so humane Israeli official put it) for not making the correct “democratic” choices.

The great experiment is dead. I will not hesitate to say it. Life among Americans is emptiness and confusion. War gives them a clear purpose.

Do them a favor, let it be.

Bandar Abbas is both a military and civilian airfield, and while I was in the Gulf prior to GW1, the Iranians would try to find the “bubble” distance. We’d just tell them to turn. Now. Never mind the distance.

If I’m Vincennes’ old man, and I have an air contact out of Bandar that is not obeying my bridge team’s instructions, even with a civilian transponder it must be assumed that the plane is in fact military. As the old man, he has the total responsibility and authority to protect his ship. And, he will do so.

I neglected to mention the other Gulf players in a previous comment, so I will add some context here as to why the WH can’t be taken at face value. The Saudis via the UAE bankrolled the operation. Whether the king was aware I cannot say for certain, but I can say that W never did follow the money which is the easiest way to pinpoint responsibility. And, I observe that the Saudis (whether or not the government is officially involved, I find it hard to believe their secret services aren’t fully aware of this) still supply the Sunni insurgents.

So, an attack on Iran makes Israel happy, makes the Saudis happy (purging the infidel Shia as well as eliminating a regional rival), and helps shore up their northern border since a presumed Shia Iraq will not have as powerful a friend. I’d also look at whether the Saudis are bankrolling Allawi indirectly (remember Maliki is Shia with close ties to Tehran’s rulers). It’s a no-brainer for the Halliburton WH.

I’ll agree that Afghanistan (where OBL who still has safe haven with WH approval was and is) needed to be taken out, and we all should have realized 3/13/02 when W made the “I don’t care where he is anymore” comment (less than six months after the “bullhorn moment” at Ground Zero) that 9/11/01 was the PNAC ticket to mayhem. Why else call off the dogs at Tora Bora and then disband the special forces unit hunting down OBL to send them to Iraq? Because they need the OBL bogeyman to trot out to sell something else.

The troops have done amazingly well given the tools the WH has deigned to provide, such as no plan, bad food, bad water, and political interference. FWIW no war run as a political operation has ever succeeded. Ever. The distraction in Iraq means we will not be ready when the Chinese and Russians flex their muscles again, and their recent joint exercises tell me it will be as an alliance. And while our armed forces are very good, it will be way too much for them to fight both countries even with our NATO allies (and I’d give it 50-50 based on how much “Old Europe” is pissed at us). It will be a question of numbers.

The soldiers were never to be cannon fodder for a vanity war that the Bushies won’t fight, even the draft age ones (like Piercy who bitched about the Dubai Ports criticism). They’re brave, good at what they do, and deserve the best leadership from DC on down. We also owe them the care in injury (Walter Reed, and the general responsible is being kept on to retire as a three-star) and respect for when they die (like going to funerals and laying wreaths at the Tomb of the Unknowns instead of making a political speech in PA like W did in 2005 on Veteran’s Day).