Do you see the big picture? Help me put this jig-saw puzzle together.

[Dover]

This is my take on what's happening in the Middle East.

Obviously there are alot of players (beyond the Middle Eastern countries) and it's a complex situation, so my thoughts are admittedly overly simplified and incomplete, but here goes...

Iran's economic and geostrategic power is growing, and their global partnerships are expanding.
Many of these new partners are nationalizing their resources, rather than opening them up to 'free markets' and sharing ownership with what is mainly Western corporate interests.
Due to Iran's prime location they have pipeline opportunities and access to a resource (Oil/gas) that is much in demand. They also have a new bourse that is due to open this September (after many delays). "Aside from strategic interests...(Iran) is a Shi'ite state, whereas Sunnism is the predominant school of Islam in the world. Moreover, the Persians are a distinct minority in the predominantly Arab Middle East. Through its activism on this issue, Iran is portraying itself as a committed leader -- more Palestinian than the Arabs, and more Muslim than the Sunnis *2.(see article link below).

Syria has linked arms with Iran....they are close siblings in the M.E. family of countries.
In recent months, Syria and Iran have signed sweeping economic, trade and defense agreements, consolidating one of the most enduring relationships in the Middle East. But some western observers worry that this cooperation between two nations widely seen as pariahs may lead to a transfer of Iranian nuclear technology.
http://www.voanews.com/english/NewsAnalysis/Iran-Syria2006-07-11-voa5.cfm

The U.S. clearly is threatened by all this. In fact the current U.S. administration abandoned long term efforts to promote change from within Iran through the cultivation of pro-Western and pro-democracy reformers inside that country. They've also shown little inclination for any real diplomacy on the nuclear issue. They have, instead, painted a target on Iran's back by including them in the "Axis of Evil" and have accused them of supporting "terrorists". The U.S. considers Iran not only a threat to our economic dominance but a "destabilizing force in the Middle East" (that's a quote from Kissinger/see his interview with Charlie Rose). And apparently simply creating a regime change will not satisfy these concerns or restore this administration's own sense of security or economic health. I think that was made clear to Iran by the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Israel has a symbiotic relationship with the U.S. and some European nations and is vulnerable due to it's location, sharing borders with what they see as hostile countries. Of course they have their own unique set of issues with Iran/Syria/Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries that has a long history I won't go into here. But suffice it to say that they would benefit from the U.S.'s plans to 'dismantle' Iran/Syria/Lebanon, and are preparing the way for that now in Lebanon. In fact they have been providing intelligence and other support while also having a hand in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy & strategy.

Iran, fully understanding the threat to their sovereignty and growing economic strength have sought nuclear capability for their security. I personally don't buy their stance that they intend to use their nuclear facilities for energy use only. But I can hardly argue with their desire for security, given the threat. They have also managed to create a greater buffer zone by supporting a front of resistance in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine that is further from their borders. To this end, it's no secret they support/fund Hamas and Hezbollah and probably have supplied them with the weapons to defend themselves. Pushing one's 'frontline' as far from one's borders as possible is something the U.S. does tacticly as well, so there is nothing unusual in this. And the U.S. has also made use of rogue resistance groups to serve their ends (such as with the Taliban). That could also be construed as linking up with "terrorists", but it's really about using whatever resources one can gather to protect and defend whatever one's interests are. Pick a side.
Anyway, this article might help clarify the rationale behind some of Iran's partnerships.

*2 http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/04/a6170638-c079-4af1-b441-75dbba236340.html

Iran is also partnering up with countries that have historically and do currently express a distaste for Western global hegemony and power, free markets, IMF tactics, etc. Partners like Russia and China I'm sure give the U.S. pause as well, both as competition for resources and contracts globally, but also due to historical ideological/economic/governance differences.


At any rate, I think Israel/U.S./other allies have entered Lebanon via a weak public excuse (the kidnapping of soldiers), in order to ready their eventual entrance into Syria and Iran. They have taken out Lebanon's infrastructure and main roads and bridges to Syria (their supply line), they dominate the skies overhead, and may have put enough of a dent in Hezbollah strongholds to greatly reduce them as a frontline resistance to their larger plans.

I don't know where other Middle Eastern nations stand regarding these maneuvers, though they seemed more than willing to shut out Syria/Iran from recent discussions at the summit in Rome. At the same time they are getting a lot of pressure from their people who are outraged at Israeli and U.S. invasions, so are...at least publically...voicing this outrage.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11169/

There are many other details I've left out, but that seems to be the gist of it to me.
Anything to add?

Another link re: oil/Lebanon
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824


Seems to me we could have avoided all this by expanding into other energy sources and renewables, eh?