[DesertBear2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zoidberg', '
')And of course the US would blow up everything in the middle east, barring nuclear weapons. It may also be assumed hundreds of thousands of civilians would die, as any humanitarian pretense would evaporate in a serious struggle.

[evilgenius]

Does anyone see a victor other than the US should there be a defeat? What everybody seems to be saying is that in the event of defeat the US will simply redouble its efforts and make sure that it comes out on top.

I see Russia winning. They are in play right now in a limited way by way of their proxy the Iranians. They are no longer distracted by the Caspian Sea region because it just doesn't have the oil. The US took Iraq from them, though that wasn't much of a loss as the sanctions prevented them from exploiting it via their contracts with Saddam. They can make a new play for Iraq via siding with the Shiite side in the Iraqi civil war. By also sending out feelers to the Saudis, offering control of all or some of the Iraqi fields to them, they might be able to engage the Saudis as well. If Russia wins and they can't restrain themselves from overt dominance (that is what happens if they pursuade the Saudis to come into their camp vis a vis availability of oil and that availability is strictly limited) what then? Does that mean war beyond the borders of the region? Would that war be contained in another cold-war style long term engagement or would it be a quick and total blow up?

Is there a mitigating role for the Euro-bourse in this?

Maybe it doesn't matter as much as we think because the peak is closer than previously thought and the next step isn't what happens in the Middle-East but what happens locally throughout the globe?