You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Kissinger: End of Islamic State Could Lead To ‘Iranian Radical Empire'
2017-08-07
[Breitbart] TEL AVIV ‐ If the Islamic State is destroyed, the situation in the Middle East could end up being even more dire with the emergence of an "Iranian radical empire" in its wake, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger warned in an article published by CapX this week.

Kissinger cautioned that in the case of IS and Iran, the old aphorism "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" no longer holds water, since driving out the Sunni terror group would leave a "territorial belt reaching from Tehran to Beirut" that Iranian-trained Shia forces could occupy.
Across large areas of Iraq and Syria, an ideologically radical religious army, Isis, has declared itself a relentless foe of modern civilisation, seeking violently to replace the international system’s multiplicity of states with a single Islamic empire governed by Sharia law. In these circumstances, the traditional adage that the enemy of your enemy can be regarded as your friend no longer applies. In the contemporary Middle East, the enemy of your enemy may also be your enemy. The Middle East affects the world by the volatility of its ideologies as much as by its specific actions.

The outside world’s war with Isis can serve as an illustration. Most non-Isis powers -- including Shia Iran and the leading Sunni states -- agree on the need to destroy it. But which entity is supposed to inherit its territory? A coalition of Sunnis? Or a sphere of influence dominated by Iran? The answer is elusive because Russia and the Nato countries support opposing factions. If the Isis territory is occupied by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards or Shia forces trained and directed by it, the result could be a territorial belt reaching from Tehran to Beirut, which could mark the emergence of an Iranian radical empire.

The 94-year-old former secretary of state has in the past warned that the Middle East will "explode" if the "domination of the region by an Iran that is both imperial and jihadist" is allowed to continue.
Posted by:Besoeker

#14  If the Islamic State is destroyed, the situation in the Middle East could end up being even more dire with the emergence of an “Iranian radical empire”

There's been a Iranian radical empire in place since 1979. More recently, they were aided and abetted by our boy wonder, Obumble.
Posted by: JohnQC   2017-08-07 18:36  

#13  They need to put that dude back in his coffin nail it shut and bury it!
Posted by: Crinegum Ulaigum2776   2017-08-07 17:01  

#12  The region can be peaceful, rjschwarz.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2017-08-07 14:52  

#11  As if the region would suddenly be peaceful with Iran as the overlord. Let them conquer the area and pass the popcorn.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2017-08-07 14:19  

#10   a territorial belt reaching from Tehran to Beirut, which could mark the emergence of an Iranian radical empire.


IIRC this is the same "belt" which the Shiite Assassins controlled until the Mongols kicked butt and took names. More Shiite v. Sunni battles might be a good thing.
Posted by: AlanC   2017-08-07 13:44  

#9  Can't trust Henry. But I remain an advocate of disengagement with the Middle East. We don't go there and they don't come here. Sell 'em guns if they wanna fight each other but stay the hell out of it. The history of our meddling in that part of the world is not good.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2017-08-07 09:48  

#8  The Middle East will not explode. There will be peace at last in our time!

FIFY
Posted by: CrazyFool   2017-08-07 07:44  

#7  The Middle East will not explode. There will be peace at last.

It will explode. Just needs the right trigger.
Posted by: phil_b   2017-08-07 04:23  

#6  The Middle East will not explode. There will be peace at last.

What will explode is the globalists desire to control the Middle East. This must be prevented at all costs, even if it means continuous war for the next 100 years.
Posted by: Harcourt Angoluting9366   2017-08-07 02:19  

#5  When he's right, he's right.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2017-08-07 02:09  

#4  Archaic.
Society is permeated with activists and sleepers.
There are no land mass or paper treatys that will constrain them.
Posted by: Skidmark    2017-08-07 01:22  

#3  bombing nk is the answer
Posted by: Daniel   2017-08-07 01:18  

#2  kissinger is probably being paid by the saudis or the uae to write this

the end of isis does not mean the end of sunni terrorism (there is still al q)
Posted by: lord garth   2017-08-07 00:43  

#1  The 94-year-old former secretary of state has in the past warned that the Middle East will "explode" if the "domination of the region by an Iran that is both imperial and jihadist" is allowed to continue.

Is bombing Cambodia the answer ?
Posted by: Besoeker   2017-08-07 00:19  

00:00