vs. this:
vs. this:
and, remember: the russians are the cultural descendants of this:
the conflict points are the substantial overlaps in these maps.
what is happening in the middle east right now is probably world war three.
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
it's not about iran. it's about turkey.
see, what most of the media coverage missed is that there were actually three sides in the syrian conflict.
1) syria-iran-russia-hezbollah
2) saudis-israelis-isis-nato
ok...but...
3) turkey-qatar-al nusra
(& of course you had the kurds as a purely american front, and break-in-case-of-emergency plan)
it's the third faction that everybody assumed was just an arm of the second, but that was actually at the crux of the conflict. most of the fighting was between turkish/qatari-backed forces and saudi-backed forces, in a race to depose assad.
as it turns out, the russians stepped in and put an end to this. isis is now done; this is closing down. and, assad is still in power.
who is responsible for this failure?
well, you could reasonably argue that the saudis are responsible because they backed the most barbaric group of fighters you could comprehend might exist, and in the process united the syrian people against regime change. that's the correct narrative: the syrian people saw the alternative to assad, and firmly decided upon assad. they needed the russian muscle to finish the job, but that's what actually happened. had the saudis backed less extreme revolutionaries, the syrian people may have picked a revolution over the status quo.
but, trump is instead choosing to back the saudi argument that it was the qataris that prevented isis from deposing assad, and must be punished for their insolence and treason. this comes amidst a growing turkish alliance with russia, which is subsuming the third faction in the first one, rather than the second.
it is not clear what russia's long term plans are with syria. assad does not want to be dictator, and the russians have made it clear that they are willing to help him stand down, so long as he is replaced with a friendly faction. but, if the fundamental conflict was between arabs and turks for control over a region they've fought over for a thousand years, it's valid to wonder if the russians may in the end back turkish claims to the region, as it would serve their interests to have an expanded turkish buffer state to contain the clearly expansionist saudis with.
not iran. turkey.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/gulf-tension-more-threats-qatar-russia-us-dragged-crisis-892649938
see, what most of the media coverage missed is that there were actually three sides in the syrian conflict.
1) syria-iran-russia-hezbollah
2) saudis-israelis-isis-nato
ok...but...
3) turkey-qatar-al nusra
(& of course you had the kurds as a purely american front, and break-in-case-of-emergency plan)
it's the third faction that everybody assumed was just an arm of the second, but that was actually at the crux of the conflict. most of the fighting was between turkish/qatari-backed forces and saudi-backed forces, in a race to depose assad.
as it turns out, the russians stepped in and put an end to this. isis is now done; this is closing down. and, assad is still in power.
who is responsible for this failure?
well, you could reasonably argue that the saudis are responsible because they backed the most barbaric group of fighters you could comprehend might exist, and in the process united the syrian people against regime change. that's the correct narrative: the syrian people saw the alternative to assad, and firmly decided upon assad. they needed the russian muscle to finish the job, but that's what actually happened. had the saudis backed less extreme revolutionaries, the syrian people may have picked a revolution over the status quo.
but, trump is instead choosing to back the saudi argument that it was the qataris that prevented isis from deposing assad, and must be punished for their insolence and treason. this comes amidst a growing turkish alliance with russia, which is subsuming the third faction in the first one, rather than the second.
it is not clear what russia's long term plans are with syria. assad does not want to be dictator, and the russians have made it clear that they are willing to help him stand down, so long as he is replaced with a friendly faction. but, if the fundamental conflict was between arabs and turks for control over a region they've fought over for a thousand years, it's valid to wonder if the russians may in the end back turkish claims to the region, as it would serve their interests to have an expanded turkish buffer state to contain the clearly expansionist saudis with.
not iran. turkey.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/gulf-tension-more-threats-qatar-russia-us-dragged-crisis-892649938
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)