Instead of attacking Yemen

I personally believe that Saudi Arabia has made an enormously erroneous move by attacking the Houthis in Yemen and being stuck in a war that only benefits Al-Qaeda.

But I understand that sometimes countries need to exert their influence to make the world a better place. So the question therein lies: what would have been a better alternative for Saudi Arabia than attacking Yemen?

Well, attacking Syria would have been even more disastrous. Russia would have stepped in and completely pushed back Saudi Arabia from overthrowing the Assad Government.

In order to decrease Iranian influence in the region, it would have better served Saudi Arabia to exert an enormous amount of air power in Iraq against ISIS - maybe even send troops there. Such a move could have been supported with the opening of a Saudi Embassy in Baghdad, high level meetings between their two governments and Saudi promising to invest in Iraqi infrastructure after ISIS' defeat.

ISIS represents an even greater threat to Saudi Arabia than Iran does. So it is in Saudi's interest to destroy ISIS at all costs, especially when Iraq borders Saudi Arabia.

But in addition to this, Saudi Arabia could strengthen Iraq as a sovereign nation to get it out of Iranian influence. It could push for the Iraqi Shi'ites to be less obedient to Iran and more obedient to Ayatollah Ali As-Sistani and, subsequently, help fund Sistani's Iraqi Shi'ism against the Iranian Shi'ism, because they are different.

Not only so, but Saudi could have sent its own Shi'ites on scholarship to study Iraqi Shi'ism in Iraq, to stop them being radicalised by Iran. Iraq could have even been invited into the GCC. That would be one way to certainly make Iraq more balanced between Iran and the Gulf states.

If strengthening relations between Iraq and Saudi Arabia wasn't enough, Saudi could have perhaps done an air campaign in Libya on the side of Haftar Al-Khalifa. This would have also strengthened Saudi's position in the region far more than an attack on the Houthis has.

Correspondingly, Saudi could have withdrawn from the ISIS campaign in Syria and cut off all diplomacy with the Houthi-occupied Yemen. That way Saudi would have still been seen as "sticking it" to Iran while also helping make the region more stable.

There are more ways to defeat Iran than just by bombing their allies.

Why North Korea Debacle is great for the Middle-East

Trump ran on an non-interventionist campaign, but the Establishment hates him for it.

There has been enormous pressure on Trump to act in a wide variety of Middle-East conflicts, such as in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan. For the most part, Trump has resisted pressure of unwise escalation, with the exception of an airstrike on a Syrian Government airbase a couple weeks ago.

But the risk is that the Washington Establishment (or, as Trump calls it, the Swamp) will want him to escalate more Middle-East wars to keep the Establishment going. Obama succumbed to the pressure from the Establishment in Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia - whereas in Iraq he made his own decision: pulling out. (As for Obama-Establishment tensions on Syria, it is more complicated than a simple one or the other.)

While refusing to exit from any of the Middle-East conflicts thus far, Trump has so far mostly escalated the conflicts against terrorist networks rather than against governments in any area. As of now, Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, Iran and Haftar Al-Khalifa in Libya are all still standing, and Trump has not attacked any of them - with the exception of one airstrike two weeks ago against Syria.

North Korea only increases the likelihood that Trump will not escalate against Bashar Al-Assad, the Houthis, Iran or Haftar Al-Khalifa. With North Korea looking so incredibly unstable and with war between the US and North Korea looking possible, the Establishment would be satisfied with a Korean War over and above many of the piecemeal conflicts in the Middle-East.

This gives Trump the gateway through which he may be able to withdraw from several conflicts in the Middle-East. He has stated that he will give Prime Minister Abadi "strong, firm support" calling them "important partners", so it is unlikely Trump will withdraw from Iraq. He is also unlikely to withdraw from Afghanistan, as winning the Afghan War would make Trump go down in history as a great President. And it is possible that Trump could win this war before he leaves the Presidency.

However, regarding Libya, Trump has shown incredible resistance to interfering with Russian/Egyptian plans in the country, which has caused frustration for Europe but popular support from Americans. Trump has also shown resistance to attacking the Houthis in Yemen. He is also not interested in invading and overthrowing the Syrian Government. In addition to all this, Iran has quietened down in the face of being put "on notice" by the US government.

North Korea, therefore, presents a piecemeal offering Trump may offer to the Establishment, in exchange for withdrawal from Syria after the destruction of ISIS, as well as non-interference against Libya, the Houthis in Yemen and Iran. Because of this, the Middle-East might be spared more regime change madness and be given a chance at some sort of recovery after the disastrous Obama years.

If John Waver had done an Iraq War

I would never have done it in 2003. For what I would have actually done in response to 9-11 if I had been in George Bush's shoes, see the following article:

http://jwaverterror.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/if-john-waver-had-been-george-w-bush.html

But let's just say that George W. Bush invaded Iraq, took control of Baghdad, had a heart-attack and John Waver happened to be the Vice President. What would have I done to limit the Iraqi debacle?

Of course I would've found Saddam Hussein and I probably would have exiled him rather than execute him.

I would not have handed Iraq over to the Shi'ite Arab population, as Bush did. Nor would have I kept another Sunni Arab Ba'athist dictator in power.

I would have formed a Kurdish government to control Iraq.

Iraq is a completely unstable nation. That is why someone like Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the lid on it. The only force capable of keeping Iraq together - other than the Arab Ba'ath party - is the Kurds. They may not be the most populous group on the ground, but they are certainly the most driven group on the ground.

I would have let the Iraqi Army still serve, under the Kurds - together with their Peshmerga. The advantage of having Kurds control Iraq is that the Kurdish problem in Iran, Syria and Turkey would almost be solved overnight - they would emigrate to Iraq and not stay in the other countries. It would mean borders would not need to be changed for the Kurds to control a country.

Kurdish populations would have moved into Baghdad and would have moved the Sunni Arabs out of historically Kurdish regions, like Kirkuk - called the Kurdish Jerusalem - and into other Iraqi regions. The Kurds would have kept tight control on the Sunni and Shi'ite Arab populations and would have restricted immigration to just Kurds from Syria, Iran and Turkey to balance out the population in favour of the Kurds.

It would have sent a shockwave of enormous proportions throughout the Middle-East. Under the Kurds Iraq would have established public ties with Israel. Also, Saudi Arabia and Iran would have funded terrorism in Iraq like crazy - but instead of one terror group controlling the country - Iran-backed militias - and the other treated the enemy - Al-Qaeda in Iraq/ISIS - both would be seen as the enemy, making Iran-backed militias and ISIS-minded jihadists less popular than they are today.

It would have caused outrage from the other Arab nations, as well as Turkey and Iran. But it also would have solved the Kurdish issue, given Israel an ally, protected the Yazidi and Christian minorities, and prevented terrorism from spreading as far and wide as it did in Bush's Iraq War and in Obama's Syria War.

It would not have been perfect, nor would it have been as stable as under Saddam Hussein. But it would have been one of the best scenarios in what was the epic debacle of the Iraq War.