Analysts: The Gulf Is a Powder Keg That Could Go Off at Any Time

Many of the United States’ allies in the region were wrong if they believed that the plans which Washington prepared and carried out with the assistance of local allies would not be garbed in defeat and failure, and the payment of an exorbitant price over a long time. The evidence for this conclusion is the fact that the American military invasion of Iraq in 2003 was huge, the largest with regards to concentration of troops and the arsenal placed at their disposal, and despite this it didn’t even achieve 80 percent of its goals. Two great nations, America and Britain, participated in the ground operations of this war along with Australia, Poland and the rest of NATO. In the end, these countries failed in all their goals, despite the destruction and the calamitous human losses suffered by Iraqi troops and civilians. Washington, London and the rest of NATO still cannot safeguard their interests in the Gulf and Arab Middle East, and dangers have increased for American troops, more of whom are spread throughout the Gulf than before the invasion. In particular, Iraqis, Arabs and Muslims have settled this war’s finances, human casualties and physical destruction; the war whose goals were supported by Washington, NATO and many Arab countries.

Today, during the summer of 2012, there is increasing talk and threat of a shared American-Israeli-NATO war against this region. After Syria has been internally exhausted by military, financial and media incitement from abroad, the region has been brought to the brink of war, saying it may be necessary for Tel Aviv and Washington to destroy Syria and divide it with an occupying force, to destroy anyone who stands alongside the countries of the region, particularly Iran.

On account of this American-Israeli summons, analysts have laid out various scenarios for this war. Most, particularly in European think tanks, do not conceal the fact that this time, it will be the Gulf countries who pay the highest price, because Washington will plunge into this war using the Gulf seas and territories in particular. The region has become a powder keg. It would have almost set alight a few days ago, if the boat on which an American warship opened fire off the UAE coast had been Iranian and not Indian. The story of how this civilian ship was bombed, one of its Indian crew murdered and three others wounded, demonstrates (as the Americans have admitted) the strength of fear which gripped the American navy; it was a civilian ship, but American naval officers lost both their nerve and their ability to distinguish civilian from military.

The timing of this announcement came after Iran carried out military and missile maneuvers in the Gulf and officially threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz in order to defend itself from the danger of an American military attack, or if it escalates the sanctions which aim to choke Iran.

Analysts postulate that a similar episode might occur between American and Iranian naval forces; if Iran responds forcefully to the murder of several Iranians in the Gulf, Washington will be forced to choose between silence and humiliation, or an even more violent response. This is what will ignite a war, analysts presume, in which “the Strait of Hormuz will be closed and surface and sea-surface missiles will be launched onto the coast of the Arabian Gulf as Washington will use its territories and naval bases against Iran.”

Those who are prepared for this scenario expect that the biggest losses in a war like this will be borne by the Arab Gulf countries who participate in the war against Iran. As for the Syrian front, this very scenario is guaranteed to take place should Washington and NATO launch a military invasion of Syria with the support of the Arab League, because one side, either Iran or NATO, will accuse the other of naval provocation to war. When the region flares up in a widespread war such as this, no one will attach any importance to who instigated the provocation, or who clashed with whom; reckoning will focus on who dominates in the end, or (at a push) who stops firing. The Arab nations allied with Washington must come to know this well-known fact of every war, whether compelled or not.