True enough, and what energy they do have to spare is largely going to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Which, for once, seems largely separate from the main conflict of the moment in the Middle East - Hamas is not fool enough to get involved in conflicts in which they have allies or potential allies on both sides, while Israel has only enemies on both sides and no interest in helping either side win.

I'm inclined to agree (especially if the Turks drop out due to Erdogan having his hands full fighting for his political life domestically), but not so sure what the end result will be - the Kurds will not just meekly return to the fold. Do you figure a real independent Kurdistan is finally on the cards now?

Is Hezbollah really making that much of a difference on Assad's side, you think? I do hope the Lebanese might still step back from the brink, with the experiences they've had - perhaps you'll think me overgenerous, but somehow I do think Nasrallah has such a thing as patriotism and a desire not to let his country go completely to the dogs.

Iran could play a more positive role and use its influence in the region to cool things down instead of heating them up, holding back the Shi'ites in Iraq and cooperating with the West to reach peace in Syria. It's hard to see how letting both countries tear themselves apart is in their interest, while showing themselves to be more responsible than previously thought certainly is. But that might be overestimating Rohani's ability to make Khamenei and the Guardians see sense.

People always talk about Sunni-Shia enmity, and of course it exists. But I don't really feel that it's a religious thing, that the two have to be hostile to each other. There were countless wars between Sunni and Shia states or groups, sure - but for the most part they were wars between political rivals using religion as a propaganda tool, nothing else. Same with Saudi Arabia and Iran - it's primarily about a simple rivalry for regional hegemony, and Saudi (and Bahraini) fear/guilt about its Shi'ite citizens that it's been repressing. In Lebanon, that bizarre division of the government between all the sects put extra focus on those religious fault lines, while Saddam and the Assads played it all up in order to prevent their political opponents from uniting against them, and in order to ensure that a part of the population felt strongly tied to them, even if it was the minority. Sunni-Shia enmity in the modern Middle East exists because it's in the interest of some recent or current key players to feed and encourage it, not because it's some unavoidable eternal law.

Yeah, I read that too. I do not agree about the "greatest victory yet" for Israel because that implies that the Arab countries, if united, would somehow be a threat or a problem for Israel. If you look purely at the Middle East in isolation that might be true, but with things being the way they are, the Arab countries can't afford to ever gang up on Israel in military terms - and as for diplomatic terms, they could perhaps achieve some things there by being more united, but then I am of the opinion that such achievements would ultimately be beneficial for Israel as well. But then, perhaps the author was no fool and merely made the silly Israel argument to get some people's attention.

I don't think the central struggle is Sunni vs. Shia, either - that's just another mirage, another ploy from those in power to keep their population distracted, just like the Palestinian cause. Albeit a bloodier one. The central struggle is between those who continue to believe in tribalism and factionalism, along with those who don't believe in that but encourage it for cynical purposes, and those who want to embrace modernity and strive for "multicultural" states in which people can be proud simply to be Lebanese, or Syrian, or Iraqi, or Libyan, or Egyptian, without having to submit to the tyranny of the army in the process. Some are further down that road than others, but it's where all of them will have to go. Some changing borders, such as an emerging Kurdistan, would not be a bad thing necessarily, but that's one of the few cases where a minority is sufficiently geographically concentrated that separation is a viable option.