Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

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.”

I was just trying to remember the last time two countries with air forces actually had a dogfight

Possibly the NATO / Serbia war?

Erdogan has a good relationship with Putin and iirc opened the giant new mosque in Moscow during Ramadan so it's unlikely to escalate beyond rhetoric.

turkeys duty as a nato partner is to hate on the russians by proxy

I was just trying to remember the last time two countries with air forces actually had a dogfight

Pretty sure it's during the Ethiopia/Eritrea war.

Background: http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=47

ET you are up there with sanpaku as a purveyor of wildly detailed websites i'd never heard of in my life ever

really makes me feel like i move through a basic-ass internet, props

Was just reading neo-con Richard Cohen editorial in Washington Post saying if US can't train rebels in Syria, then we should put US spotters on the ground and go after ISIS better ourselves. Maybe a no-fly zone. He hints but hedges regarding sending in troops to fight on the ground. Maeanwhile a liberal Eugene Robinson Washington Post editorial says Syria is a mess and the US should stay out

If the US sent troops into Syria, what could they accomplish other than help to unite the factions that want us out of Syria?

accomplish giving haliburton another trillion dollars

xxxp: thanks!

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.

― Terry Micawber (Tom D.), Saturday, October 3, 2015 1:12 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

high ground even

― Terry Micawber (Tom D.), Saturday, October 3, 2015 1:12 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, they're only backing a dictator who barrel bombs his own civilians. Honestly focusing on "moral high ground" in this clusterfuck is almost absurd. It's Assad, ISIS or magically materialize a "moderate" rebel army strong enough to challenge both, or just stay out of it and let things shake out as they may. Good luck.

I don't see a good outcome from US intervention. I also don't see a good outcome from Assad winning or from ISIS winning and I have no clue how to select the least bad outcome of these. I guess staying out of it is the least bad for the US, in the short term, but hard to see how it's any better for Syrians than anything else.

"During [my] recent visit to Paris, French President Francois Hollande expressed an interesting idea, saying it is worth trying to unite the efforts of [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's army and the so-called Free Syrian Army,” Putin said during a meeting with Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu.

He said, however, that Russia does not know where exactly the FSA is or who heads it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bsRJDx5hM4

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/world/middleeast/yemen-airstrike-said-to-kill-23-at-a-wedding.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-4&action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article

Here's what the Saudis are up too

So is there really a third intifada starting?

Good question. Much like the Second Intifada the current spate of stabbings seem partially motivated by Jewish access to the Temple Mount/al-Ḥaram al-Šarīf and concerns over the status quo being changed there - currently it is illegal for Jews to pray on the Temple Mount (nb that there are certainly Israelis who want to change the status quo to allow Jewish visitation and prayer - but Bibi has repeatedly said that the status quo will not be changed)*. Unlike the Second Intifada, which gained a lot of steam from Arafat's encouragement (and releasing a ton of Hamas terrorists from PA jails), Abbas - despite some pretty terrible incitement imo - is trying to taper things down. The low body count so far and lack of suicide bombings also suggest that this isn't quite the Second Intifada (some ppl argue that it is due to the Security Wall and that the situation would currently be much worse without it). Obv the question of whether something is an Intifada or not is mostly in the eye of the beholder - but I just don't see it. This is nothing like the Second Intifada in means, execution, impact, etc. Things could continue to get worse though, and I could see it easily becoming a Third Intifada.

* Sorry if I'm spelling out the obvious, I know you know a lot about this issue.

Good summary in any case.

Four Russian cruise missiles fired at Syria from the Caspian Sea landed in Iran, unnamed US officials say.

also landis is normally reliable:
https://twitter.com/joshua_landis/status/652197235300528128

if true- crzy.

do you know what he means by "South" there?

southern front i assume

Four Russian cruise missiles fired at Syria from the Caspian Sea landed in Iran, unnamed US officials say.

Any of them land on a hospital?

Mr. Hypocrisy Nonsequitur everyone

did mr. hypocrisy nonsequitur bomb a hospital tho?

lol

"Did we bomb a hospital? Of course not. We bombed three."

http://www.newsweek.com/ngo-says-russian-airstrikes-hit-three-syrian-medical-facilities-two-days-380657

Iran and Russia have both denied it happened but idk if we will ever find out for sure.

Unlike certain other countries, Russia hasn't really been bombing other people for a long time and they're using new missiles that have never been tested in live environment before so it's not implausible some might have exploded in mid air, etc.

the choice content from that conference with the loathsome carter was the claim that involvement in the syrian civil war would lead to attacks in russia, which may or may not be true (dagestan and ingushetia are in a permanent low level war with the fsb anyway) yet would apply in the same measure to the usa

also worth noting:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/syrias-second-front/in-recent-months-isis-targeted-hospitals-doctors-journalists/

Regardless, the US's hospital bombing in Afghanistan really has fuck-all to do with what strategies/outcomes/roles of foreign powers would be best in Syria, I mean it really is a non-sequitur.

Similarly with respect to whether Russia has accidentally or intentionally struck targets in Iran. This isn't about a moral scoreboard.

Don't tell me, tell my government and your government.

prof i took Foreign Policy in the Middle East with posted this on facebook today

Syria really isn't so complicated. ISIS is fighting unbelievers (by mainly killing Muslims), the Turks are bombing ISIS (but really bombing Kurds), the Russians are attacking ISIS (but actually attacking the anti-ISIS opposition), Hizbullah is confronting Israel (by killing Syrians), the Saudis are fighting extremism (by backing extremists), and the Syrian regime is bombing terrorists (by slaughtering civilians with barrel bombs).

ha otm but he does not explain what usa is doing

the US is selling weapons to everyone