Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

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?

I dont know if Japan's decision is based as much on the US' willingness to intervene as much as it is part of Abe's nationalist platform?

I also dont know how the GOP is supposed to think about israel and putin sitting in a tree k-i-s-s-i-n-g..

xp otm imo
hmm re japan-- imo, plausible
& re putin, i sure don't know

for sure it's bc of abe's platform but i guess i meant in a more general sense in terms of the political power of a militaristic right-wing to pass such a huge legal change. fwiw i just saw that the nyt seems to think so:

Japan has accepted American protection for ever since the end of the United States’ occupation, and today there are more than 40,000 United States military personnel stationed in the country. Yet the arrangement has come at the cost of Japanese independence, many here believe. The trade-off has taken on new significance now that Japan could be asked to risk the lives of its own soldiers and sailors for the United States in return.

“Japan is caught between fear of entanglement and fear of abandonment,” said Tsuneo Watanabe, a senior fellow at the Tokyo Foundation, a policy research group. “It’s partly about public distrust of Japan’s own government. People think Japanese leaders are too weak to say no to the U.S.”

Mr. Abe argues that Japan needs to play a more active role in the alliance in order to strengthen it against threats like the growing military power of China and a nuclear-armed North Korea. His legislation has won support from United States policy makers, who have welcomed a larger role for Tokyo in regional security at a time when American resources are increasingly stretched.

GOP probably thinks bibi talking to putin is pragmatic - for one they love bibi they'd forgive him anything, two i think they kinda secretly admire putin, and three i mean like israel plans to bomb syria weapon transfers to hezbollah i think even GOP thinks they should make sure they don't start ww3 by accidentally cratering a russian general.

Another few things worth remembering while wondering about all the complications and alliances and macro-strategies: Keeping weapons away from Hezbollah and Hamas is indisputably a good thing, and Russia agreeing to help with that, even though their ally Syria is helping arming those terrorists, is simply a good thing. And actually, Russia gaining closer ties to Israel and Saudi Arabia might not be too much of a bad thing either. The US has done business with some pretty bad dictators as well (our sunni allies, for example), and Russia's consistent support to Syria has been linked to a lack of other strategic options in the middle east.

^agree

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/21/moscow-relishes-revamped-role-in-mideast-as-israel-seeks-assurances-in-syria/

considering that russia is the primary arms supplier of the syrian govt to what extent should we read the current influx of the russian military apparatus as putin airdropping sales reps? maybe that's why they don't care about israel bombing govt weapon transfers - it's good for business.

The Russian soldiers in Syria overtly are specifically sales support. There was speculation at one point that Russia would stop training the Syrian army and servicing its weapons but that hasn't been the case. Unless there's something more solid over the last few days, the 'influx' of Russian military apparatus claimed by the US amounts to 6 tanks. They took 1800 into Afghanistan in 1979. Other than that, it has been reported 'sightings of trucks' coming from the Syrian opposition. It looks like the air base might be happening and they will deploy soldiers to man and defend it but there still hasn't been a single credible claim of Russian ground troops fighting alongside Assad's. It might happen in the future but it doesn't seem to be happening now.

Part of the justification for air support might well be that Russia feels it needs to do something to show backing for Assad but doesn't want to commit ground troops who'd immediately become a high-priority target for ISIS.

Putin agreed that Syria had provided apparatus to Hezbollah in the past but claimed they were much too occupied with other things to bother doing it at the moment. He also specifically denied that they were providing Russian-made missiles so it's worth seeing the agreement with Netanyahu in that context. Russia can't assent to Israel bombing transfers it claims it has nothing to do with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/with-fight-against-the-islamic-state-in-iraq-stalled-us-looks-to-syria-for-gains/2015/09/21/0c473098-607e-11e5-9757-e49273f05f65_story.html

With the offensive to reclaim territory from the Islamic State largely stalled in Iraq, the Obama administration is laying plans for a more aggressive military campaign in Syria, where U.S.-backed Kurdish forces have made surprising gains in recent months.

"relaxing vetting standards" sounds interesting.

always a great time to be a war profiteer, dang

Hezbollah militants fighting alongside Syrian troops say they plan to shift to a defensive posture after helping President Bashar Assad win back a key border town, Lebanese media reported Tuesday.

Officials from the Lebanon-based Islamist organization informed Damascus that they would no longer help Assad with offensives against rebel groups, according to the Beirut-based Daily Star.

Aha, things are moving along.

We're really bad at this:

Second Batch of 75 US Trained Fighters Immediately Defect And Hand Weapons Over To Al-Qaeda Upon Entering Syria

Couldn't make it up etc

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/pilgrims-killed-hajj-stampede-mina-mecca-150924082302232.html

So Jeb Bush tweeted out some sympathy for the victims of the horrendous tragedy among Hajj pilgrims in Saudi Arabia yesterday:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_09/not_praying_for_the_guilty_one057787.php

Praying for the hundreds of innocent Muslims who suffered a tragic death in the stampede in Mecca during the Hajj pilgrimage.
— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) September 24, 2015
Brian Beutler supplies the appropriate commentary:

Even here "Muslims" needs a qualifier https://t.co/vtHXbFdWVA
— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) September 25, 2015

meh. so all the times i refer to 'innocent civilians' i'm secretly alluding to all the non-innocent civilians? i think it's just an adjective designed to accentuate the injustice / tragedy of the event.

Could be

well we all know the idiom 'innocent victims' is meant to malign all those guilty victims

Given that this was accident, I'm not sure why you would be talking about 'innocent victims' anyway. I think? I haven't heard the term used in any news reports over here.

this is overdeterminate in that there are other reasons for writing 'innocent x's' eg not being able to write properly, even so when x is 'muslim' rather than such other classic innocents as 'women and children', the less salubrious inference is reasonable

fair, just think it's a mistake to respond to the mainstream republican candidate for president expressing sympathy for muslim victims by pointing out a speculative unsympathetic reading.

if u look at the wingnut response they don't seem relieved that jeb! insinuated that most muslims are not innocent. they're angry that he expressed any sympathy whatsoever

sympathy or lack thereof has nothing to do with it, specifying an aspect of the victims that is not a directly indicative (innocent pilgrims, innocent cinemagoers) is atypical and probably not arbitrary

This doesn't seem particularly well sourced but it looks like Russia, Iran, Syria and Iraq are setting up a joint information centre in Baghdad to coordinate attacks on ISIS. Russia, Syria and Iran working together is no surprise but Iraq participating is interesting.

http://www.rt.com/news/316592-russia-syria-islamic-state/