Assad allies Russia, Iran in Mideast resurgence
news.yahoo.com/assad-allies-russia-iran-midea...
news.yahoo.comPosted Dec 21, 2015, 3:56 PM UTC
812
news.yahoo.comI just struggle to see how committing your resources to prop up a country in civil war, in order to maintain one of your few allies, is considered any type of 'resurgence'.
2
Agreed. The people that subscribe to the CHESSMASTER PUTIN theory are missing the reality laid bare: Russia's aggressive moves are necessarily desperate attempts to preserve key pieces of its rapidly dwindling sphere of influence.
It lost Ukraine. UKRAINE.
And now it's acting to preserve one of its two remaining interests left in the Middle East. Iran is slowly opening up to the West (EU in particular) and Syria is hanging on by a thread with Russia's ally Assad facing a significant diminishing of his power, assuming he's even still in power 5 years from now.
Meanwhile Central Asia is being openly courted by China and the US and Russia has virtually no influence over what's happening in the Far East these days.
I think what Putin is doing is largely necessary but it's not out of some kind of advantageous positioning or outmaneuvering of his opponents.
3†
I like the article because it highlights something that isn't often talked about. The incredibly rapid decline of the US in the Mid East. However I disagree with the guy from the Institute for International and Strategic Affairs. It's the same line used by all of those who advocate American intervention in Syria to topple the government. To me the reason why this occurred isn't because of American inaction but as an blow-black for what the US did.
Until 2011 the Russians were always willing to take a step back in the region to US interests. The Libyan NFZ was the end of it. It wasn't supposed to be regime change but NATO took advantage and went with it. It wasn't just the Russians who were angry, so were the Indians, South Africans, Brazilians and Chinese who all felt as if they were lied to.... and they were. The Russians and Chinese went from being cooperative to being intransigent when it came to Syria. They vetoed every single resolution that even had the hint of allowing the US to engage in regime change. They sent their military there when it looked like the government was going to lose. They have never been present in Syria with this level of force and they never intended to do so. However they've been forced to act.
The attempt to topple the Syrian government was a stupid mistake and Obama just went on to digg a bigger hole. The Syrians previously were always willing to oppose the US in the region but also willing to work with them when interests collided. The kept the Iranians at an arms length and would ignore them if both sides didn't have the same interests. However the rebellion forced the Syrians to depend on the Iranians and the balance in their relationship changed. What was even better for the Iranians was the use of jihadists by our allies and Western governments turning a blind eye. It wasn't much reported on our media and even to this day there is a lot of white washing with the talk of "moderates".
However you only have to go to Youtube and Liveleak to see the type of groups we support. ISIS happens to be the worst of the bunch but our "moderates" are no better. Jihadists are an existential threat to Shias and Iran has been leading the fight against them. To countries such as India and China that have their own issues with islamic extremists, that makes the Iranians look like a legitimate force. Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia basically helping people who engage in suicide bombings, beheadings, massacres and desecrations and us helping them out is incredibly damaging.
The mixed treatment the US gave to Baghdad and the Kurds have also meant that America is barely tolerated in Iraq. With Baghdad we dragged our feet in providing arms sales, blamed them all the time and barely gave them airstrikes. The Iraqis have had to fight and gain territory and rescue thousands of people from being massacred with the US giving them airstrike. The Kurds meanwhile have gotten a lot of weapons and every single battle they engage in invovles western airstrikes. They are worse fighters than Iraqi soldiers and volunteers but the level of airstrikes we given them allow them to basically clean up ISIS territory.
Now that the Russians are there the US is changing the way it approaches its relationship with Baghdad. However it's too late. The belief amongst many Iraqi Arabs that the US wants a weak country and actually supports ISIS is deeply held. It's not true but it has a damaging effect.
Great read!
The article and your analysis talk much about Russia but what will happen to Iran in your opinion in the next years or even decades?
I'm not 100% sure. But keep your eye on Hassan Khomeini. Grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini and a moderate Shia cleric. A potential challenger to the hardliners.
I think it has been a calculated move by the Obama administration to disengage from the Middle East. I see the support for a nuclear deal with Iran as a way to bolster Iran's influence so that the Middle East becomes a three way tug of war between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran. Obama seemed to want to put all his chips in Asia, but Ukraine and Syria kept dragging him back to regions he saw as becoming less and less relevant. We'll see what the next administration does. But I'm sure most Americans would be more than happy to say good riddance to the Middle East.
Source for this part? r/syriancivilwar has painted a picture to me that the Kurds are generally kicking ass against ISIS.
Syriancivilwar is full of Kurds and leftists/anarchists who are kind of in love with their politics which I think is bullshit.
People keep saying that Kurds kick the ass of ISIS .... in battles where they get intense western air support. The only battles the Kurds have had without airsupport have ended in them crumbling quicker than the Iraqis. The Yazidis only became victims of ISIS because the Peshmerga didn't even bother to tell them they were running away and they even left some of their fighters behind.
Their tactics when it comes to fighting ISIS is basically to identify their positions, get western airstrikes to pummel them and then clean up. Rinse and repeat. The Iraqi Army and Hashd have been fighting for a year in multiple battles where they got little if any airsupport. When they do get it they never get it at the same level that the Kurds do. Until recently they didn't even have the ability to take out those massive suicide bombs.We gave the Kurds the ability to do that last year.
That is how I judge the Iraqis to be better. I was impressed by their willingness to take thousands of casualties in Tikrit and Baiji. What was impressive is how they isolated Tikrit and took most of the city center before they get really bogged down and needed a few american airstrikes to loosen ISIS. That city is massive. In Kobane the Kurds were getting airstrikes every single day and the entire town was utterly ruined, yet it took them four months to take it.
I'm not sure how true this is - even if we omit the examples of the soldiers fleeing their posts from a few thousand ISIS troops during the initial invasion.
And so did the Kurds. Hell the Kurdish Peshmega abandoned the Yazidis and their own fighters and left their capital exposed. Yet we still give them plenty of help and intense air support that the Iraqis have never gotten. We gave them the ability to take out ISIS sucide car bombs from a distance last year. We didn't do the same for the Iraqis that have had to endure those massive blasts. Ramadi was essentially ignored as ISIS tried to take it over for months and the Iraqi troops stationed there were barely helped. When they buckled and ran away all we did was mock them. When the Iraqis are going on offensives and taking massive casualties, the best they can expect from us is one or two airstrikes. The Kurds get multiple strikes a day in their battles.
Now the US gov is changing tact. Now when the option of Russians is available to the Iraqis, suddenly they're finding out that the US is willing and capable of helping them out a little bit more.
Hmm - that's actually really interesting. I'll have to be on the lookout for information like this, because I've basically heard the complete opposite, but what you say is very plausible and thanks, if you turn out to be right.
What you hear about the Middle East is incredibly simplistic. In fact I did it as well by saying "the Kurds". They are an ethnic group who despite what western media reports are not united, not liberal, not western and kind of hate each other.
The main group in Syria is called the YPG. They're basically the Syrian front for the Turkish terrorist group PKK. However for legal reasons we consider them to be separate, even though they aren't. So basically we help them in Syria fight against ISIS and help the Turks kill them in Turkey. Iraq has a Kurdish region and supposedly a Peshmerga army. In reality they are more like tribal/political militia that are split in two. The ones we support and who are known for being corrupt and useless are the KDP. They are the ones who ran away and left the Yazidis. However their leader is our favourite ally. He's also pro-Turkish and suspicious of Iran so they get the best stuff. The other one is the PUK which is more leftist, pro-Iranian/PKK. We support them more than we support the Iraqis but most certainly not to the level that we give to the KDP.
The one thing that Kurdish groups have going for them is their saavy way of spreading their message and convince western media to report things that are utterly not true. For example its often reported that they are western. In reality they are more conservative than Arabs and Turks. It's always reported that they all want an independent Kurdistan which isn't even true. Some want it, most Kurds don't care. Barzani is always on the media asking for more weapons and complaining about how the Iraqis are stiffing him. He has more weapons than the Iraqis and he refuses to provide Baghdad with weapons that they need. He won't even give the PUK Kurds weapons. In fact he's sitting on arms waiting to use them in the future for some potential post-ISIS conflict.