New???

Dude, without patting anyone here on the back too hard, YOU brought this "cold war" posturing between the superficially pro-Western Sunni nations (Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt, Morocco, Fatah and Lebanon) and the fundamentally anti-Western Shi'ite nations (Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas) into our discussions as early as 2009... just go back and look at some of the older posts.

I see the parallels between the two examples, but I hesitate to endorse what the author of your article seems to say 100%. Obviously, we must support the Saudis and their allies... but they are NOT entirely the good guys here. There is every bit as much support and initiative being given to fundamental extremists within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its allies as anything the Iranians are doing with Hamas, Hezbollah, and any other anti-Western organization. Strict fundamentalist adherence to sharia law is the norm now in the Kingdom, when it was the extreme exception only 25 years ago.

However, the article is right about several important points. First is that there is no "democratic" surge sweeping the Middle East. There are lots of protests and violence, yes... but little of it is based on a desire for democracy within and across the region. Radical governmental change is the only goal I see forming from the North African coast to the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Secondly, the disparity between the military might of the two camps (Saudi and Iranian) is very, very distressing... even for us, but mainly for the Saudis. Iran alone has more and better tanks then the entire combined armies of all the Gulf States, and any fighting in the Middle East is going to be dominated by armored and mechanized warfare. Should Iran actually build a functional nuclear weapon and delivery platform, Saudi Arabia might have no choice but to either build their own (a bad thing in its own right) or admit to having to depend on Israel and the US for protection under their umbrella.

Ryan is right that the only thing standing between a shooting war of Saudis and Iranians/Syrians is the four divisions of US troops still in Iraq (for the time being), and once those are gone, enough instability in a stand-alone Iraq will allow Iran and/or Syria to feel they can count enough on the support of Shi'ite Iraqis to allow them to roll right through the Iraqi frontier on their way to the Arabian Peninsula. Perhaps that is what has allowed Obama to give pause to his "plans" to have every US soldier, sailor, airmen and marine out of Iraq within the first 18 months of his Presidency? I'd bet my bottom dollar on it.

One thing the article touched on but didn't delve into is the FACT that there is going to be, within the next few years, some very large and sweeping changes within the Saudi regime. King Abdullah is well over 85 (no one knows for sure how old he is) and his immediate successor is only 6 years younger than him. In fact, ALL the next five successors to the throne are over 75 years of age. Even if the transfer of authority is smooth, if it happens often enough a sense (real or otherwise) of serious instability can only result... and Iran will not let that pass without taking advantage of it.

So, having read the article, what are your thoughts on where the US policies regarding the region need to change?