I found this thread interesting shame it stalled I am watching Egypt and am interested in the out comes a great deal depends on what happens here in the next 6 months.

Sorry, was off doing some things...

Yeah the situation in Egypt is of extreme interest, I note the Armoured and Heavy Armoured Forces on the Streets, which seem to be, more than anything else, reducing the worst of the excesses of the Police (from whom the Gestapo could have learned a lot). The President has lost control, not only of the Streets and the People, but more tellingly, of the military.

Of particular interest, despite the Iranian Cleric's calling it an Islamic Revolution, this doesn't appear to have major overtones of that. In fact, with the heavy weapons under the firm control of the military, I'd strongly suspect that a Military Interim Government is more likely than an Islamic Republic.

As the Military is predominantly opposed to the Islamic Fundamentalists (strongly so in fact), the chances of this turning into an Islamic Revolution are slim indeed. Then again, the Shah of Iran was provided with the latest in weaponry, F14 Tomcats, Challenger Mk.1's, etc. (actually, the British Army got the Challenger by default after the embargo of Iran, which it was designed to be sent to). The parallels with Egypt which has had "favored nation" status since Anwar El Sadat toppled Nasser and entered into negotiations with Israel, are apparent and I'm sure they are being closely watched. Then again, deserts aren't kind to high-tech weaponry/systems, so a stop on all parts/replacements, would degrade the same (as it has with Iran).

Interesting time, but the level of corruption is devastating. However, what effect this will have on other Countries in the region? Syria would be a VERY interesting case to watch, the most influential families (ie. the Richest) come from a very small minority (Alawite), which is also Shi'ah (whereas the majority of the Country is not). The regime is every bit as cruel (if not more so) as the Egyptian one and corruption is so endemic as to be accepted business practice.

Ulis, how exactly is any part of this misinformed? The only really stable Moslem Country in the Region is Jordan under the Hashemite King Abdullah II (having taken the name from His Grandfather, King Abdullah I - who was shot by a Palestinian in 1951). The Hashemite line are the hereditary rulers of much of the region, which is why they garnered the support of the Bedouin Clans during WWI, in the rebellion against Turkey by Sheik Hussein bin Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemite). Their hereditary enemies are the Shi'ah (claiming a direct line to Mohhamed's Grand-father & daughter Fatima, puts them directly at the center of the rift between the followers of the non-direct line via Ali, and the followers of the bloodline of the Prophet), the al-Saud's, and the al-Husseini clan.

This discussion is based upon the familial hatreds of, quite possibly the oldest ruling family in the region and whether they should return to ruling the Sunni part of Iraq and/or even Syria. They are actually, in their eyes, the legitimate rulers of both. The only way to stop the internecine bloodletting in Iraq is for it to split upon ancient lines, it is quite interesting in fact, whether the Sunni Iraqi's would prefer a Sunni Ruler from a powerful clan, or to live under the rule of the Shi'ite majority (which means Al-Sadr).

In terms of regional stability, that would be the best possible outcome from a lot of viewpoints. It would allow the Kurds to declare independence (the Hashemite's aren't overly fond of Turkey either, having been suborned by the Turkish Empire for several centuries), which is a valuable plus, while stopping the worst of the incipient civil war in Iraq. It would also isolate Syria and Hezbollah, which is no small benefit.

Finally, Ulis - how is allowing Iraqi's to choose imposing anything on anyone? Granted their choices are limited, but that is the way of the Middle East. In terms of personal freedom & quality of life, Jordan is streets ahead of the "Arab" Countries.

It has a stable legislature, strong support for most basic rights (with exceptions, but less so than Saudi Arabia) and is probably the only way that Sunni Iraqi's have any hope of real peace in this lifetime. They certainly cannot count on the munificence of Muqtada Al-Sadr, or of the dominant Sadr-ist Militia's. Then again, that's payback for what the Sunni minority did (under Saddam) to the Shi'ah majority.

I honestly do not believe that he ascended the throne with his murdered grandfather's name with any lack of knowledge, or absence of understanding, of how the same would be viewed in the region. As a result, I strongly doubt that King Abdullah II has any more interest in "Palestinian" self-determination than that shown by his Grandfather and Father (who between them annexed the bulk of the territory mandated to the Palestinian's by the UN in 1948).

As for imposing an "Arab" ruler on the Palestinian's, that will not be the problem of the Western Allies. Immediately the Palestinian's try and declare independence on the West Bank I'd be expecting to see Jordan reclaim the same, militarily if that is required. Launching an intifadah against Jordanian troops would result in massacres reminiscent of those carried out after the death of Abdullah I, or of those carried out in September 1970 (after a failed Coup by the Palestinian Fedayeen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_%28group%29). The media really won't get the access to report it, which means it will go away rather rapidly (Jordanian troops aren't exactly known for being light-handed in their response to Palestinian protests).