Kuwait airport. ablaze

[VitaMan]

Who has the background why Iran has poor relations with all of its neighbors ? They are attacking all of them.

The UAE wants the USA to continue the offensive and go further. They are considering joining the conflict.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Who has the background why Iran has poor relations with all of its neighbors ? They are attacking all of them.

The UAE wants the USA to continue the offensive and go further. They are considering joining the conflict.

Good question—there's a ton of history here. Bottom line: Iran's been the biggest troublemaker in the region for decades, and its neighbors have the evidence to prove it.

At the heart of it is a religious divide—Iran's the main Shia powerhouse in a mostly Sunni area. After the 1979 revolution, the new regime didn't just take power; they made it their mission to spread their revolution everywhere. The neighbors saw that as a straight-up threat, and who could blame them?

For the last 40 years, Iran's been methodically building and bankrolling proxy militias all over: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, Shia groups in Iraq and Syria. Iran spins it as "strategic depth." Everyone else calls it what it is—armed thugs right on their borders, paid for by Tehran.

The UAE's got an extra beef that goes way back: Iran grabbed three of their islands in the Persian Gulf in 1971 and has zero plans to hand them over.

One key detail you don't always hear: The US has huge military bases across the Gulf—Al Udeid in Qatar, Al Dhafra in the UAE, plus spots in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. When Iran lobs missiles at these countries, it's not just hitting allies—it's targeting American bases directly.

That's why the UAE's pushing the US to keep the pressure on. These Gulf states have wanted Iran neutered for generations. This feels like their best shot in forever.

[futbolhead]

The shot was always there for 47 yrs. But, none of the other US presidents were stupid. Then the fat, orange, deaths edge dude showed up and needed to change the lead stories away from Epstein.

Those Epstein files must be a horror show for him.

[Yssup Rider]

Wait! I thought they were obliterated!

[VitaMan]

Muslims 90% Sunni 10% Shia. Most Shia stay in Iran, following their current holy men teachings and interpretations, similar to the Pope. Sunni follow traditional teachings.


Other than that, not much difference except for folding arms differently during prayer.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by fd-guy

Good question—there's a ton of history here. Bottom line: Iran's been the biggest troublemaker in the region for decades, and its neighbors have the evidence to prove it.

At the heart of it is a religious divide—Iran's the main Shia powerhouse in a mostly Sunni area. After the 1979 revolution, the new regime didn't just take power; they made it their mission to spread their revolution everywhere. The neighbors saw that as a straight-up threat, and who could blame them?

For the last 40 years, Iran's been methodically building and bankrolling proxy militias all over: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, Shia groups in Iraq and Syria. Iran spins it as "strategic depth." Everyone else calls it what it is—armed thugs right on their borders, paid for by Tehran.

The UAE's got an extra beef that goes way back: Iran grabbed three of their islands in the Persian Gulf in 1971 and has zero plans to hand them over.

One key detail you don't always hear: The US has huge military bases across the Gulf—Al Udeid in Qatar, Al Dhafra in the UAE, plus spots in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. When Iran lobs missiles at these countries, it's not just hitting allies—it's targeting American bases directly.

That's why the UAE's pushing the US to keep the pressure on. These Gulf states have wanted Iran neutered for generations. This feels like their best shot in forever.

I think Israel beats Iran in the troublemaker department. After all this War was initiated by Israel.

[lustylad]

fd-guy's summary in post #2 is on point.

Most Americans don't understand the history of the Sunni-Shia schism. When Bush Jr invaded Iraq in 2003, one of his goals was to bring democracy to the country. After ousting Saddam, we helped Iraq write a Constitution and hold free elections. Up to 2/3 of Iraq's population is Shia. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim. The Sunnis ruled even though they were in a minority. Once we got rid of Saddam, it opened the door for the Shia majority to take over. However, this doesn't mean they are 100% sympathetic to Iran, which is over 90% Shia. Most Iraqis are Arabs, not Persians. They identify as Iraqis and don't necessarily let their religious beliefs override their nationalist/ethnic sentiments. Let's just say - it's complicated.

Until recently, Syria had the opposite situation. The Assad family belonged to a minority (Alawite) Shia clan, even though the majority of Syrians are Sunnis. The new ruler in Damascus (since Jan. 2025) is Sunni.

As I said, the Middle East is complicated.

[ICU 812]

Whatever the outcome in the short run, long-term . . .the Gulf states will collaborate to gig a canal through the mountains of the horn of Oman. This would let tankers bypass the Straights of Hormuz.

It would be like doing the Panama Canal, but the need and the money would be there for that project.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Whatever the outcome in the short run, long-term . . .the Gulf states will collaborate to gig a canal through the mountains of the horn of Oman. This would let tankers bypass the Straights of Hormuz.

It would be like doing the Panama Canal, but the need and the money would be there for that project.

You ready to pony up?

[jcv521]

The Middle East is complicated but I prefer to keep it simple.
Letting Iran get a nuke and more missles would have been the worst idea ever!
What is happening now should have happened a long time ago.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by jcv521

The Middle East is complicated but I prefer to keep it simple.
Letting Iran get a nuke and more missles would have been the worst idea ever!
What is happening now should have happened a long time ago.

Well, the reason why it didn't happen a long time ago is because is because Israel didn't have enough leverage on a President at the time. When the Epstein fiasco started circulating Israel gives Trump an ultimatum, "Hey Donald attack Iran for us or else we'll expose the Videos and pictures" So here we are.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Well, the reason why it didn't happen a long time ago is because is because Israel didn't have enough leverage on a President at the time. When the Epstein fiasco started circulating Israel gives Trump an ultimatum, "Hey Donald attack Iran for us or else we'll expose the Videos and pictures" So here we are.

Call me crazy, but I'm not willing to totally dismiss that out of hand. lol

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Whatever the outcome in the short run, long-term . . .the Gulf states will collaborate to gig a canal through the mountains of the horn of Oman. This would let tankers bypass the Straights of Hormuz.

It would be like doing the Panama Canal, but the need and the money would be there for that project.

Actually not a bad idea in principle—and you're not the first to suggest it. Dubai floated a $200 billion canal to bypass Hormuz back in 2008, but it quietly fizzled out once engineers took a closer look at the challenges. Here's why it keeps hitting roadblocks.

The Hajar Mountains tower up to 2,000 feet above sea level. For comparison, the Panama Canal's highest lock is just 85 feet—and that took six pairs of locks. A Hormuz bypass would need hundreds. Plus, you'd have to keep it filled with water in one of the driest spots on Earth—no lakes or rivers nearby—so you'd be pumping seawater uphill at massive cost every time a tanker went through.

That 2008 estimate was $200 billion. Adjusted for today, it'd be considerably higher. One engineer analyst put it bluntly: it'd be cheaper and easier to just make peace with Iran.

Even if built, you'd create another narrow chokepoint that one stuck ship or missile could easily block, just like Hormuz. Pipelines are a more practical short-term option—Saudi Arabia and the UAE already have some—but even at full tilt, they handle only a fraction of the 20 million barrels a day through Hormuz.

Long-term? Cool vision, worth chasing. Realistic timeline? Decades away at best. The current crisis can't wait that long.