Trump seeks to revive 'Arab NATO' to confront Iran

[Peter1469]

How would Israel figure into this? Any pact in that region is going to need to include Israel. That’s unlikely to happen.

Israel and several Arab states are secretly cozy. Israel will remain busy with its Palestinian, Hamas, and Hezbollah problem. It will have time to strike Iranian targets in Syria if needed.

[Ransom]

It blocked Iranian ambitions in the region- correct?

Yes, it did. And kept the entire region in an absolute mass of chaos and destruction. Remember, these are the days Saddam is the buffer against Iran providing 'stability' rather than the trench warfare reality that was the result where millions would be killed. The US would be forced to reflag oil tankers, the price of gasoline skyrockets. The 'stable' Middle East so often referred to in here.
Three things distinguish the Iran-Iraq War. First, it was inordinately protracted, lasting longer than either world war, essentially because Iran did not want to end it, while Iraq could not. Second, it was sharply asymmetrical in the means employed by each side, because though both sides exported oil and purchased military imports throughout, Iraq was further subsidized and supported by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, allowing it to acquire advanced weapons and expertise on a much larger scale than Iran. Third, it included three modes of warfare absent in all previous wars since 1945: indiscriminate ballistic-missile attacks on cities by both sides, but mostly by Iraq; the extensive use of chemical weapons (mostly by Iraq); and some 520 attacks on third-country oil tankers in the Persian Gulf-for which Iraq employed mostly manned aircraft with antishipping missiles against tankers lifting oil from Iran’s terminals, while Iran used mines, gunboats, shore-launched missiles, and helicopters against tankers lifting oil from the terminals of Iraq’s Arab backers.

[Peter1469]

Yes, it did. And kept the entire region in an absolute mass of chaos and destruction. Remember, these are the days Saddam is the buffer against Iran providing 'stability' rather than the trench warfare reality that was the result where millions would be killed. The US would be forced to reflag oil tankers, the price of gasoline skyrockets. The 'stable' Middle East so often referred to in here.
Three things distinguish the Iran-Iraq War. First, it was inordinately protracted, lasting longer than either world war, essentially because Iran did not want to end it, while Iraq could not. Second, it was sharply asymmetrical in the means employed by each side, because though both sides exported oil and purchased military imports throughout, Iraq was further subsidized and supported by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, allowing it to acquire advanced weapons and expertise on a much larger scale than Iran. Third, it included three modes of warfare absent in all previous wars since 1945: indiscriminate ballistic-missile attacks on cities by both sides, but mostly by Iraq; the extensive use of chemical weapons (mostly by Iraq); and some 520 attacks on third-country oil tankers in the Persian Gulf-for which Iraq employed mostly manned aircraft with antishipping missiles against tankers lifting oil from Iran’s terminals, while Iran used mines, gunboats, shore-launched missiles, and helicopters against tankers lifting oil from the terminals of Iraq’s Arab backers.

It provided stability for the West. Iraq blocked Iran's ambitions. Sure, it was bloody for them.

[Ransom]

It provided stability for the West. Iraq blocked Iran's ambitions. Sure, it was bloody for them.

As bloody for us.