Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

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/

if iraq = al-abadi govt that's not too surprising

interesting
a russia-led coalition

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/25/russias-game-plan-in-syria-is-simple-putin-assad/

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/565949-pro-hezbollah-daily-says-party-in-syria-pact-with-russia

BEIRUT – A leading pro-Hezbollah daily claimed on Tuesday that the party has joined a new counter-terror alliance with Moscow and that Russia will take part in military operations alongside the Syrian army and Hezbollah.

Al-Akhbar’s editor-in-chief Ibrahim al-Amin wrote that secret talks between Russia, Iran, Syria and Iraq had resulted in the birth of the new alliance, which he described as “the most important in the region and the world for many years.”

“The agreement to form the alliance includes administrative mechanisms for cooperation on [the issues of] politics and intelligence and [for] military [cooperation] on the battlefield in several parts of the Middle East, primarily in Syria and Iraq,” the commentator said, citing well-informed sources.

“The parties to the alliance are the states of Russia, Iran, Syria and Iraq, with Lebanon’s Hezbollah as the fifth party,” he also said, adding that the joint-force would be called the “4+1 alliance” – a play on words referring to the P5+1 world powers that negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran.

“The Russians have also set up a coordination process with Kurdish forces and parties,” the article said.

“A Russian military delegate paid a secret visit to a number of Kurdish military commanders in Hasakeh and inspected areas of confrontation between the YPG and the armed groups.”

I'm still confused, but apparantly Russia saw what America has done over the last decade+ in MENA, and decided the proper cause of action was to commit troops to fight a sunni uprising? How well do we think that will work out?

Also, do we think Bibi was informed that Hezbollah would be a partner in what Russia would do in Syria? Because that doesn't seem all that smart to me. They've railed and railed against US having anything to do with the shia-alliances, and now they support Russia allying themselves with them?

This whole chess game takes place in way too many dimensions to me, right now.

if they can get iraq/syria back to the level of security/stability it had in 2009 before gwb left office it'll be a huge fp coup for putin i'd think worldwide and i assume they'll have more of a stomach for the ugly stuff than the US does

Well, sure, but do we actually believe that can be done? The former dictatorship in Russia lost power to a large extent getting caught in a quagmire in the area, so, y'know. And they're intervening on the part of the alawites, most refugees in Europe are sunni (right??) so a Russian victory would mean they wouldn't want to go home.

There is still no indication that Russia is committing troops. They might be providing air support but that's very different to the 115k soldiers in Afghanistan.

One way or another, Sunnis are going to have to have a role in government. Even with support from outside, Alawites have never been able to run Syria without them.

Putin's gonna explain it all to Obama in NY at their meeting...

I guess they did not work it all out...

http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/politics/2015/10/1/the-stakes-are-high-for-russias-gamble-in-syria

Lots of completely unsourced speculation masquerading as fact on all sides atm. Unsurprising to see it coming from Qatar's version of Russia Today.

It certainly looks like Russia has hit several ISIS positions but they seem to also be going after al-Nusra Front, which is where it gets messy. Al-Nusra (effectively Al Qaeda in Syria) is aligned with the Jaish al-Fatah umbrella group. Jaish al-Fatah seems to have coordinated a lot of activity with rebel groups on decent terms with the U.S. and probably contains a fair few CIA trained fighters who switched from more palatable organisations. Throw in the fact that it's not clear who is bombing what and it is horribly complicated. Lavrov claims that Russia isn't bombing the core FSA and doesn't see an end to the conflict without bringing them in, but there is always the danger with any air strikes that it unites opposition behind more radical banners.

Iraq chipped in to say they'd rather like Russia to start bombing there too, earlier today...

which ISIS positions has Russia bombed? lol vox says nope: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423229/russia-bombing-isis-syria tbh i don't know why they would - assad has also mostly left ISIS alone

i'm sure putin came to the same calculation that assad did. for the time being they're an asset in fighting the rest of the syrian rebellion and they pose no risk to seriously challenging assad's international legitimacy as sole sovereign in syria

another cute map here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/30/world/middleeast/syria-control-map-isis-rebels-airstrikes.html?_r=0

Loathe as I am to question the veracity of Vox, Russia has supposedly hit positions in Palmyra, which is ISIS controlled, but more broadly, the idea that there is a clearly delineated "ISIS territory" isn't necessarily true, particularly in Homs province. There is a lack of clarity over which sites are being hit and who holds what.

afaik only acc to Russia which hopefully we can all agree has earned some skepticism

this is like when turkey 'entered the war' by bombing the shit out of the PKK

Xp, Obviously Russian claims have to be treated sceptically, but can anyone point to a single credible source for anything at the moment? There isn't any reliable information coming out of the country which makes all the 'here's the REAL truth' stuff, whether it's from Vox or from the Russian press, equally ridiculous.

The attacks on Palmyra have been reported by some anti-Assad commentators as hitting civilian areas and there had been reports previously that areas in Homs definitely hit by Russia had been the sites of ISIS outrages last month but I don't think anyone knows anything for sure.

Even if Russia has bombed a token ISIS site or two it's obvious that their main actions have been against non-ISIS rebels, including probably US-sponsored groups.

If the reports are correct most of the strikes have been in a belt around the area of the north west held by the Syrian army where they are fighting with Jaish al-Fatah and others rather than ISIS. Lavrov mentioned earlier that it's being coordinated with the Syrian army and isn't just targeting ISIS so they are being pretty open about that.

Again, it comes back to the complexities around who is fighting and who should be considered a legitimate target. It's absurd to group Al-Qaeda (who have also been bombed by the U.S.) into a box marked "more moderate rebels" as some press reports have today, but attacks on the FSA would probably be a huge retrograde step.

according to the economist, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21669950-danger-russias-intervention-syria-and-americas-timidity-afghanistan-putin-dares

The idea of creating a unilateral no-fly-zone without UN approval in an area that Russia has jets seems to be quite popular with Obama's critics but idk whether there might be some short-to-medium term issues with shooting MiGs out of the sky.

It's easy to criticise Obama for inaction but it would be interesting to know, beyond vague ideas of 'setting out a new vision' what the Economist and others are actually asking for.

agree re vagueness/ certain facileness of exhortation here

the key missteps (recognizable in hindsight) are in the past; much more difficult to see what to do now

tbh don’t see obama taking much new/different action (unless his hand is forced— by what though). think he sees vaunted (by some) iran deal as his lasting fp legacy in ME; running out clock (if he can) fp-wise for rest of term
putin complicates that

remarkable to see, in span of relatively few years, what seems tectonically shifted/shifting ME geopolitics

palpable desperation for a single clear narrative in that economist article

a single clear narrative

url’s almost worthy of tracksuit-clad-mila-kunis

idek what Obama is meant to have done in hindsight. Bomb Assad out of office and Khoja in? Invade? It's not as though the US has done nothing.

for me main one was decision to withdraw all troops from iraq, leaving power vacuum

not in favor of syria invasion, but ‘red line’ was undeniable fuckup: salient case in which u.s. lost (& putin gained) credibility (which translates into power)
takeaway (for putin & others, allies & adversaries): u.s. word/ statements/ conditions/ warnings carry no weight; no consequences to flouting them

(jury’s out on iran deal; i’m prob alone here in thinking the thing maybe misconceived)

lol u kno that's not true [about u being alone in concern re the iran deal]

in Israel news, Fatah's armed wing, Abdel Qader al-Husseini Brigades claimed responsibility for the shooting of those two parents yesterday. I had quipped elsewhere that Abbas rejecting the Oslo Accords probably just meant he thought it was okay for him to support violence against civilians again but I don't feel good that I was right.

xp :) (glad ur back mordy)

at this point i'm still not convinced iran accord is a done deal. khamenei wants the iranian parliament to vote on it (rouhani wanted his own supreme national security council to ratify it instead) and head of parliament ali larijani thinks it'll be a tougher deal to pass in iran than it was in the US - not to mention that the congress had the POTUS leaning hard + whipping to get over the veto threshold and the supreme leader of iran has not been a particularly enthusiastic supporter of the deal. ot how come everything in iran is 'supreme'?

this is from the 8th: Iran Parliament Chief: Nuclear Deal Is 'Acceptable,' U.S. Interpretation Is Not -- i was concerned about this before the deal was signed - it's one thing to get everyone to agree that a deal was signed, but it's a totally other thing to get everyone to agree about what is actually in the deal.

interesting
def one of weird aspects of deal, both before & after it was struck (wd be amusing if not so serious)
not just diffs of interpretation, but e.g. claims by iranian officials 'for domestic consumption' that u.s. officials misrepresenting elements of deal 'for domestic consumption'
complications of domestic politics on both sides

Even if Russia has bombed a token ISIS site or two it's obvious that their main actions have been against non-ISIS rebels, including probably US-sponsored groups.

― Mordy, Thursday, October 1, 2015 8:39 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

afaik, they haven't bombed any hospitals yet. Moral ground ceded and no mistake.

high ground even

Give em a few days

https://medium.com/@vvanwilgenburg/breaking-us-to-directly-arm-syrian-kurdish-and-arab-fighters-use-kurdish-controlled-territories-7155f4b0209f

What could possibly go wrong

Now Russia has Turkey mad at them, with Kerry expressing his usual concern

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/turkey-warns-russia-over-airspace-violations-as-syria-airstrikes-widen/2015/10/05/19d2e7b0-6b47-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b

Russia claims its airstrikes target the Islamic State and other militant groups, but most of Moscow’s attacks have taken place in areas controlled by a range of anti-Assad factions, including U.S.-backed rebels.

“We’re very concerned” about the Russian warplane pass into Turkey, said Secretary of State John F. Kerry during a trip to Chile, the AP reported. “It is precisely the kind of thing we warned about.”