Active Users:1203 Time:01/11/2024 01:01:11 AM
I'm with you on Kerry. But don't you think the Sunni-Shia thing is an effect, not a cause? Legolas Send a noteboard - 06/01/2014 11:27:04 PM

View original postI also doubt that the Obama Administration is capable enough to implement any strategy it may formulate (through Kerry or otherwise). Obama is too distracted by trying to make sure that his signature piece of legislation doesn't collapse entirely that I also doubt other Western nations can get his ear on the Middle East, so to speak.

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.
View original postThe result is that Obama will let the regional powers expand their proxy war. Tacitly, that means that Obama will let Assad remain in power. With support from Hezbollah and Iran Assad is likely to win the civil war, though it may be well into 2015 (or even later) when that happens given the numbers of jihadis in the north.

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?
View original postOf course, if Lebanon and Iraq get sucked in then I don't see an Assad victory even in 2015, because Hezbollah support will have to be withdrawn from Syria as a second Lebanese civil war starts. There may even be Christian parties on both sides of the new Lebanese war, which is ironic because Assad in Syria is all that stands between Syrian Christians and the radical jihadis of ISIS and Al-Nusra. If the Sunnis of Iraq decide that this is their time to break the central government, then Iran will have to support two civil wars financially at a time when it has few resources to spare due to sanctions. Direct Iranian involvement would likely spark Turkish and Saudi involvement and a full-scale regional war.

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.

View original postI will admit that I think the region has been building to this for quite some time; it seems that one of the side effects of the US invasion of Iraq was to expose Sunni-Shia enmity that had been papered over for decades by dictators who hid behind pan-Arab nationalism and support of the Palestinian cause.

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.
View original postAs The Economist wrote (quoting al-Hayat): We should admit that the Arab spring’s toppling of dictators has simply split our flimsy nations into clashing sects and tribes. We should admit that the struggle for Palestine has faded from our thoughts, that our own squabbling has granted Israel its greatest victory yet without the loss of a single soldier, and that the central struggle for us now is the one between Sunnis and Shias. After all this blood and slaughter, from Iraq to Syria and beyond, we should admit that we Arabs no longer want to live together.

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.

Reply to message
Al-Qaeda-linked force captures Fallujah - 05/01/2014 04:36:48 AM 666 Views
Does "caring" always have to mean sending in troops/firing weapons? - 05/01/2014 09:17:43 AM 492 Views
Agreed that intervention would lead to a biggest mess! *NM* - 06/01/2014 05:01:45 PM 175 Views
Watch it burn. It was going to happen sooner or later anyway. *NM* - 06/01/2014 02:09:22 PM 181 Views
That is very true..... - 06/01/2014 05:00:51 PM 451 Views
Things are certainly becoming, er, interesting. - 06/01/2014 06:22:58 PM 464 Views
I doubt John Kerry has the capability to effect any cohesive strategy. - 06/01/2014 09:55:04 PM 598 Views
I'm with you on Kerry. But don't you think the Sunni-Shia thing is an effect, not a cause? - 06/01/2014 11:27:04 PM 574 Views
You know, I'll tell you what a Lebanese friend in Dubai told me - 07/01/2014 05:08:37 AM 506 Views
Okay, but if said friend is Lebanese... - 07/01/2014 06:25:45 AM 441 Views
Lebanese-American, really - 07/01/2014 02:22:57 PM 444 Views
You know, I hadn't thought of that... the struggle between Tribalism and Nationalism. - 07/01/2014 05:14:08 AM 486 Views
It depends on the country, of course. - 07/01/2014 06:46:54 AM 443 Views
How exactly was Czechoslovakia a disaster? *NM* - 07/01/2014 02:37:57 PM 186 Views

Reply to Message