View original postThe statement comes from a person who actually is working in the government in the UAE right now: "I used to think the Sunni-Shia tensions in the Gulf States were about power. The more time I spend here, the more I realize how much Gulf Arabs just hate Persians, and it has a lot to do with religion. It's deeper than I realized."
then that means that in Lebanon it's not like that, doesn't it?
As a non-religious outsider I'm probably badly placed to have an opinion on the subject, I guess, but it just doesn't make much sense to me.
View original postAs destructive as it may be, a Sunni-Shia regional war (or even just the Syrian Civil War, which is a regional war by proxy over the corpse of Syria) is the next logical step from a historical perspective. The first step involves a heightened level of self-awareness in the region. This led to Arab nationalism, which failed. That led to Salafism and jihadism, which certain people in the region thought worked because with billions of US dollars in military aid they were able to continue a guerrilla war that made it too costly for the Soviet Union to want to bother staying in Afghanistan. However, global jihadism has failed as well, and even though fanatics may continue to blow themselves up, anyone with half a brain realizes that the West cannot be defeated or converted.
I'm afraid I'm not so sure that global jihadism is on the way out now, compared to thirty years ago. Then they were only really active in the one country, now they are still active in that same country plus a bunch of others.
View original postNow the Muslim world has turned inwards, just as Christendom did when it realized it reached its geographical limits, and it's enjoying its wars of religion. Syria is very much like the Thirty Years' War, and I suspect the analogies will continue because the regional players all want to make sure their side wins without being directly involved, but each setback makes them increase their commitment. If ISIS is really crushed in the North, the rebels can expect more support from the West again, and Assad will start to lose again, which will prompt Iran to provide more support, which will see the Saudis try to push Lebanon or Iraq into civil war, which will increase the stakes again.
I know quite little about the Thirty Years War, but as luck would have it I just bought a history book about it, so I'll be able to comment more on the similarities after I read that...
View original postObviously, it can all stop if a negotiated peace can be had, but I don't see any sides ready to sit down and talk. Even then, the Middle East is notorious for inconclusive talks. It'll probably be over by 2017, though.
I don't, either - not while the takfiris (to borrow Nasrallah's description that I came across yesterday) are running the show for the rebels, they have no interest in talks. The others do, though - many moderate Syrians and other Arabs in the media or in my personal acquaintance, who were once also clamouring for Assad's fall, are now simply clamouring for peace. I do think Assad and Iran would be willing to talk, but only if it's clear from the start that Assad can stay on...
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
491 Views
Watch it burn. It was going to happen sooner or later anyway. *NM*
- 06/01/2014 02:09:22 PM
181 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
573 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
You know, I hadn't thought of that... the struggle between Tribalism and Nationalism.
- 07/01/2014 05:14:08 AM
486 Views