Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

he's sure sharing power now isn't he

syria partition seems like the only viable end game that doesn't involve genocide at this pt

how would that work? just gonna give a bunch of territory to ISIS and tell them to chill out?

every now and again i flip through a big thread like this just to get a sense of what the momentum of the year was, just came across this gem:

seriously tho what are they going to do with these attack helicopters? like, who are Egypt's enemies that they require attack helicopters?

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:09 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

their own people, I suppose?

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:09 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they're going to keep buying parts and ammo for the attack helicopters, i think is the deal

― goole, Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:11 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lighting up mexican tourists is what, turns out

ISIS def the wildcard (and it seems pretty clear that Assad tacitly supports them bc they make a cohesive Sunni coalition so improbable). i'd think it would look something like - Alawite / Kurdish / Sunni partition (actually think Druze state would be fantastic as well but these 3 are pretty much already in existence), and then supporting Kurds, Iraqi military, and non-ISIS Sunni actors to push back on ISIS. i don't see a power sharing resolution that includes ISIS so unless we're okay w/ either the status quo or genocide, ISIS is gonna have to go. xp

but who knows really i mean corbyn-style doves are fond of saying that we should negotiate with our enemies so maybe we should give ISIS a chance to legitimize themselves internationally in exchange for control of Sunni partition in Syria. i obv think that's insane but

Nobody has ever suggested a power sharing agreement with ISIS afaik. The idea would be to create a coalition to defeat them.

LOL, Corbyn even getting a kicking from M

ordy now

oh that shouldn't be surprising if u know anything about me

Waiting for the Pope to have a go at him next, or the Dalai Lama.

ISIS is gonna have to go

atm, the west is trying to use containment. but that is leading to a flood of refugees. it's hard to deal effectively with a ruthless and violent enemy without resorting to limitless violence yourself.

Refugees have much less to do with ISIS than the underlying civil war.

imho the west - ie the US and NATO as a proxy for US policy - should formally recognize the Kurdish Regional Government and arm them. presumably this will make Turkey unhappy but idgaf about Erdogan's hard-on for bombing Kurds.

the US and NATO as a proxy for US policy

NATO of which Turkey is a member.

it's not like they have a veto

They have US air bases.

trade incerlik for a war in kurdistan

betcha KRG would be happy to provide US air bases in exchange for arms

Not sure Iraq would be massively thrilled either.

Or the Syrian government the US had already recognised as legitimate for that matter.

it will take some courage to recognize the Kurds but i think it's a. the right thing to do and b. one of the few things that could help the situation

Idk how creating a statelet opposed by all its neighbours would help solve a crisis in which they are not the main protagonists whether it's the right thing to do or not.

The YPG has taken back more land from ISIS than all the other military groups combined.

It's not all about ISIS though. They are a symptom of the crisis not the cause.

it's not about whether they're a symptom of a cause. it's that any kind of resolution needs to have ISIS out of the picture to be successful. just spitballing here but the way it would work in a perfect world is IS gets squeezed between YPG + Iraqi army, both buttressed by NATO airstrikes on ISIS positions. shut down ISIS' power + economic oil base in Iraq and arm FSA to make a big push against them in Syria. broker a deal w/ Putin to partition Syria - give part to Kurds, carve out Alawite stronghold to let Assad stay in power and protect his ppl, and the rest goes to FSA.

That's the scenario other countries in the region like Iraq, Turkey and Jordan are specifically trying to avoid. Even though an Alawite state might be plausible, there is a huge risk of the "Sunni" segment fragmenting further with continued civil wars and an obvious knock-on effect in other countries with large Kurdish populations. Iraq would probably fragment, the Turkey / Kurdistan war could reignite fully, etc. etc.

^^^

Kurds are attractive to the west for p obvious reasons but heavily arming them so that they could take on Turkey, ISIS and Iraq just seems crazy. like pouring gasoline on a fire

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34300223

Syrian government war planes have launched one of the heaviest bombardments yet on the city of Palmyra, which is held by Islamic State (IS) militants, activists say.

So is the Syrian government now attacking Isis more, because Russia has encouraged them to do so

http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2015/09/Russia-Israel_Horo-635x357.jpg

Putin pressin' the flesh like nobody's business these days.

probably sees US backing off the middle east as a good opportunity to relitigate some of these cold war relationships

They have always had a fairly good relationship iirc.

http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=61218

When no good options remain, tough decisions have to be made. Hard ethical judgment calls, too. Is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a murderous dictator who has waged unbelievably brutal war on his own people to stay in power? Yes. Would anyone be better off if the so-called Islamic State were residing in Damascus instead of him? Certainly not. So is it possible that maybe, just maybe, Russia is doing the right thing by contemplating air strikes against the Islamic State to support Assad? Well, perhaps.

Thx rumsfeld

I'm not so sure that Russia will be attacking IS on behalf of Assad though. Winning by air strikes would be just as tough for Russia as anyone else (although they might ignore complaints of civilians casualties even more than others do)

US air strikes seem to have been most useful in support of Kurdish ground troops so Russia may take the view that supporting the Syrian Army in the same way would be an idea.

I thought I read that they're sending artillery and tanks too?

That's to persuade the Syrian army to attack, I guess

http://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-to-allow-israeli-strikes-on-syrian-arms-transfers-pm-says/

not sure if bibi is representing the agreement completely accurately but dayum if true

wow
yet not surprised
from israel’s perspective (& saudi arabia’s too), prospect of dealing with/ managing/ stabilizing syria situation effectively & ‘responsibly’ (with view to their national interests) is more likely if done in cooperation with russia

in light of iran deal & current convoluted & chaotic ME situation— in flux— it’s unavoidable for regional actors to engage in some redrawing/ refining of ‘friend’ & ‘ally’ definitions (& of course putin sees opportunity here)

from related/ linked article

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-king-wont-attend-camp-david-meeting.html

But, he added, “there’s a growing perception at the White House that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are friends but not allies, while the U.S. and Iran are allies but not friends.”

?

― drash, Tuesday, May 12, 2015 7:34 PM (4 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

…“Saudi Arabia needs Russia in the Middle East, not to destabilize countries but to be a friend.”…

― drash, Friday, September 11, 2015 5:07 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

nb not saying what's at issue here involves choice between us & russia!
it's def postcoldwar world

& these u.s. alliances are v deeply-entrenched (imo israel's is like bedrock, despite iran deal)

but (for good and/or ill) u.s. has signalled willingness to withdraw somewhat from region; russia willingness to engage

i was just thinking yesterday that the US spent way too much to pull saudis + israel into US orbit to just jettison them to Putin.

that's of concern; one reason why iran deal (even if one deems it necessary/good) was, inescapably, gamble

It's pretty funny though, that the Saudi's praised Putin for standing by his allies, and immediately Israel get Russia to allow for them to bomb one of Russias allies. Heh.

Also, Iran deal is gamble, indisputably, but so would no Iran deal have been.

that is true

kinda feel like loyalty is more important to US-ally relationships bc so much of what US offers is protective umbrella, so if you're going to fail to make military moves (ie europe greatly decreasing military budget, ukraine giving up nukes, israel not bombing iranian reactors) you need to trust that the US is going to have yr back. has anyone discussed japan's new military decision in light of worldwide skepticism of the US's willingness to project power on their behalf? by contrast does anyone really /trust/ putin or are his relationships a lot more cynical realpolitik?