Middle East and North Africa 20 - The End of the Beginning in Syria? SPECIAL BONUS RUSSIAN JET CRISIS EDITION

[Wouter]

Some points in reply to various posts above:

-The Soviet Union had massive tank armies and a large arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at us (Europe) from the 50s through the 80s. They also were actively working on spreading their ideology, with the Korean war standing out as one example. They were not harmless and the US protection of Europe and other places was very much needed. Without NATO, I would be typing Russian now.

-Iran is indeed less dangerous to Europe and the US than the Sunni terror organisations and the underlying ideology. But that doesn't mean the Iranian, clerical regime is any better than their Sunni opponents. Iran/Persia itself is relatively modern, but the powers in Iran (the various powerful clerics and the Revolutionary Guards) are cut from the same cloth as Saudi-Arabia and the militant Sunni groups. A nuclear-armed Iran would not be good for the West - taking into account that Israel also has nukes and that nobody is going to enjoy the day that state gets wiped out, as they will retaliate with any means available. Also, Hezbollah and the various Shi'ite militant groups are Jihadis and fanatics, not too far from the likes the groups that make up the "Islamic Front" fighting around Aleppo and Hama, even if they don't use suicide tactics unlike Al-Nusra and ISIS.

-There are a lot of Kurds in ISIS, but in other forums I have heard this being used as an argument against the YPD. The YPD is very much not with ISIS though; they are probably the group that fights ISIS hardest relative to their capabilities. And they have defeded Kobane and, in association with some more or less US-backed Arab rebel groups, have been on the offensive against ISIS for the last few months.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

I don't quite get why Shia Iran is seen as the big evil by America, when it is really the Sunnis who are causing most of the shit for the West. Saudi Arabia, ISIS, Al Quaida, yes, even frigging Erdogan's Islamist nationalism, all Sunni caused.

While I'm sure there is plenty of Shia caused mayhem doing the rounds, the likes of Hezbollah and Iran appear mostly focused on Israel and don't really care much about launching terror attacks in the West.

It's the Sunnis that are the real threat to Western interests, led by the Saudis themselves.

Unfortunately politicians love arbitrarily picking sides in international conflicts, America loves Saudi Arabia because they can buy Saudi oil and sell them expensive weapons. Supporting the Saudi monarch is almost a necessity at this point, since the population is so indoctrinated into Wahhabism that the monarchy is the only thing keeping it from becoming a full out terrorist state. Something like 90% of Saudi Arabians have a positive opinion of Abu Bakr (Caliph Ibrahim), who is someone that believes their king is an apostate who should be killed.

Ultimately the problems in the Middle East and in much of the world are made worse because industrial nations such as the US, Russia and China love selling weapons to rival factions. Think how much money arms manufactures would lose if Jews and Muslims and Sunnis and Shi'ites could live in peace.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

-Iran is indeed less dangerous to Europe and the US than the Sunni terror organisations and the underlying ideology. But that doesn't mean the Iranian, clerical regime is any better than their Sunni opponents. Iran/Persia itself is relatively modern, but the powers in Iran (the various powerful clerics and the Revolutionary Guards) are cut from the same cloth as Saudi-Arabia and the militant Sunni groups. A nuclear-armed Iran would not be good for the West - taking into account that Israel also has nukes and that nobody is going to enjoy the day that state gets wiped out, as they will retaliate with any means available. Also, Hezbollah and the various Shi'ite militant groups are Jihadis and fanatics, not too far from the likes the groups that make up the "Islamic Front" fighting around Aleppo and Hama, even if they don't use suicide tactics unlike Al-Nusra and ISIS.

Hezbollah is a terrorist group, however it is one that, to my knowledge, has criticised every major attack on the West in the last 2 decades, so to put them in the same league as Al-Nusra, ISIS and other major Jihadi groups is a bit disingenuous.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Some points in reply to various posts above:

-The Soviet Union had massive tank armies and a large arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at us (Europe) from the 50s through the 80s. They also were actively working on spreading their ideology, with the Korean war standing out as one example. They were not harmless and the US protection of Europe and other places was very much needed. Without NATO, I would be typing Russian now.

I said the rationale was the same, not that the circumstances were. Iran is actively working to spread its interests as well, isn't it? They have more proxies than I can count and interfere in neighboring governments regularly. They will grab as much power as they can but they won't cause the apocalypse on purpose. You think they would go through the massive headache of those negotiations if they're just gonna nuke us anyway? Lol. 

-Iran is indeed less dangerous to Europe and the US than the Sunni terror organisations and the underlying ideology. But that doesn't mean the Iranian, clerical regime is any better than their Sunni opponents. Iran/Persia itself is relatively modern, but the powers in Iran (the various powerful clerics and the Revolutionary Guards) are cut from the same cloth as Saudi-Arabia and the militant Sunni groups. A nuclear-armed Iran would not be good for the West - taking into account that Israel also has nukes and that nobody is going to enjoy the day that state gets wiped out, as they will retaliate with any means available. Also, Hezbollah and the various Shi'ite militant groups are Jihadis and fanatics, not too far from the likes the groups that make up the "Islamic Front" fighting around Aleppo and Hama, even if they don't use suicide tactics unlike Al-Nusra and ISIS.

But the issue isn't whether Iran getting nukes would be a "good thing." We're discussing how Iran is different than ISIS as a threat and how their behavior is different. ISIS is far more severe, more hateful, and more bloodthirsty than Iran. Even Hezbollah operates pretty much like a militia or non-state army, rather than kill-crazy fanatics. They don't proudly massacre people just for having the wrong faith. Which is another important point - Iran, Hezbollah, and Shia "extremists"  don't target people just for having different beliefs, like ISIS and other Sunni groups do. Iran has friendly relationships with all sorts of "infidel" states. You really can't compare them to an apocalyptic group like ISIS just because the country has repressive laws.

To say ISIS is the worst of all does not mean someone is defending/supporting Iran. Its not about perfect vs bad in the Middle East. Its about really bad vs demonically bad. From an American POV the Shiites are a lesser evil and there's no reason to call Iran our "greatest threat"

[Wouter]

 

Hezbollah is a terrorist group, however it is one that, to my knowledge, has criticised every major attack on the West in the last 2 decades, so to put them in the same league as Al-Nusra, ISIS and other major Jihadi groups is a bit disingenuous.

The Islamic Front is an umbrella name for the various Turkish and Qatari-supported islamist factions who fight Assad in the northwestern part of Syria. They are not ISIS, allthough they are allied (for the moment) with Al-Nusra. I compared Hezbollah to them.

One could also make a comparison with Hamas: allthough those are only tangentially involved in Syria, they are also part of the "muslim brotherhood" and thus enjoy support from the Turkish and Qatari governments. 

 

Ramsay Gimp; 

ISIS is a dire threat that needs to be checked, even by cooperating with such actors as Putin and Iran. However, that does not mean we should look at those through rose-tinted glasses, either. 

 

[Darzin]

But the only reason they are a threat is because we make it one. We oppose Iran because of the revolution and because of Israel and Saudi Arabia's influence. It's also worth pointing out that Saudi Arabia is worse than Iran by every conceivable metric, and yet we have a solid alliance with them. I think that us picking a side in this fight is stupid but if your going to support on Iran is better than the Saudis.

Also for why US politicians must pledge undying loyalty to Israel? Because American Christianity has some kooky notions about Israel and politicians pander to that. 

[Ramsay Gimp]

 

Also for why US politicians must pledge undying loyalty to Israel? Because American Christianity has some kooky notions about Israel and politicians pander to that. 

That plays a role, but it doesn't explain the Democrats

[jarl the climber]

 

Hezbollah is a terrorist group, however it is one that, to my knowledge, has criticised every major attack on the West in the last 2 decades, so to put them in the same league as Al-Nusra, ISIS and other major Jihadi groups is a bit disingenuous.

I don't even really consider Hezbollah to really be a terrorist group at this point, basicly they are the military wing of the political party that rules Lebanon or maybe vice versa. They are an Iranian client and they are heavily involved in the Syrian war. Its a little complicated because the Lebanese opposition party is backed by the Saudis but for all intents and purposes Lebanon is backing Assad but these actions have exposed the sectarian differences in Lebanon which I am sure that we are all aware of. Most Western governments wont admit this because they don't want to give Hezbollah that sort of recognition. 

[Ramsay Gimp]

I don't even really consider Hezbollah to really be a terrorist group at this point, basicly they are the military wing of the political party that rules Lebanon or maybe vice versa.

Terrorism is completely useless as an objective term for militant groups. It means "any militant faction that is hostile towards the United States." 

Even with ISIS its not completely appropriate due to their size and scope. They commit terrorist acts, but does that really define their organization? I'd argue that terrorists who commit things like the Paris attack are the "special forces" wing of ISIS, but they're not its core function.

If you have a functioning a DMV in the cities you control  (which ISIS does, for real) you've passed the "terrorism" stage and reached the even scarier "bureaucracy" stage  

[Dofs]

Hizbollah and Iran are all sectarian without a doubt. But they are Shia and the one thing I've learned during this war is that Shia sectarian organizations are perfectly fine with working and living with people of other religions like Christians and others. Sunni sectarian organisations, on the other hand, treat people of other religions as infidels that either have to be ruled by Sunnis or expelled or killed. The Sunni - Shia conflict for the most part comes from the Shias being persecuted by Sunnis as not true Muslims and Shias hating them for that. So as Hezbollah and Iran might be bad, they are not even close to the likes of ISIS, al-Qaeda, Islamic Front, Saudi Arabia.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Hizbollah and Iran are all sectarian without a doubt. But they are Shia and the one thing I've learned during this war is that Shia sectarian organizations are perfectly fine with working and living with people of other religions like Christians and others. Sunni sectarian organisations, on the other hand, treat people of other religions as infidels that either have to be ruled by Sunnis or expelled or killed. The Sunni - Shia conflict for the most part comes from the Shias being persecuted by Sunnis as not true Muslims and Shias hating them for that. So as Hezbollah and Iran might be bad, they are not even close to the likes of ISIS, al-Qaeda, Islamic Front, Saudi Arabia.

Right, that's what I was trying to say. Shia militant groups are a threat, but you can deal with them on a level that you just can't with ISIS. They're not irrational apocalyptic cults. I wonder if the Shia's willingness to play nice with other religions (compared to Sunnis) purely comes down to the fact that a small minority can't afford to provoke people. Does their doctrine differ very much from Sunni doctrine on things like submission, jizya, jihad, etc? Even if it did, it might just show how practical concerns can morph into dogma

[TheKitttenGuard]

That plays a role, but it doesn't explain the Democrats

Democrats can be quite religious even if not as overt as Republicans get on occasions. 

Israel does have many "Western Secularism" elements that can be rally around. Zionism has been viewed as Secular, Non-religious, Socialist ideology even as the goal is a "Jewish State:.  The more religious presentation is really a dominant theme in the U.S for Evangelical consumption,  though Israel has been adopting more that view in the past 25 years (and you can argue the religious element since Herzel  first choice was around modern Zaire was poorly received, and interest did not catch on until he switch to the Middle East).

Many Democrats are fine with others being mean and nasty.  They are willing to turn a blind to it.  They will even give great praise to the others for doing what is needed.  Just do not think they are mean and nasty.

Jewish voters have voted overwhelming for the Democratic Party since FDR and are very active in the party.  It can be stated that many Jews are active in having the Democratic party to reexamine Israeli relations.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Democrats can be quite religious but most of the time but do not as overt as Republicans get.  

Israel does have many "Western Secularism" elements that can be rally around. Zionism has been viewed as Secular, Non-religious, Socialist ideology even as the goal is a "Jewish State:.  The more religious presentation is really a dominant theme in the U.S for Evangelical consumption,  though Israel has been adopting more that view in the past 25 years (and you can argue the religious element since Herzel  first choice was around modern Zaire was poorly received, and interest did not catch on until he switch to the Middle East).

Many Democrats are fine with others being mean and nasty.  They are willing to turn a blind to it.  They will even give great praise to the others for doing what is needed.  Just do not think they are mean and nasty.

Jewish voters have voted overwhelming for the Democratic Party since FDR and are very active in the party.  It can be stated that many Jews are active in having the Democratic party to reexamine Israeli relations.

There's probably more criticism of Israeli policy in Israel than there is here. 

The Republicans are more uniformly dedicated to Israel, but its not getting them many votes as you point out. So the reason has to be money, because there's no way our politicians really care that deeply about a country they have no connection to

[MerenthaClone]

That plays a role, but it doesn't explain the Democrats

"Judeo-Christian" morality shit, plus a perpetual fear of Islam and the general idea that Israel is some bastion of democracy in a hive of unwashed barbarians.  There is a ton of pandering to Israel because vague Islamophobia.  I also think some of it exists from the Cold War, where it eventually stabilized out that Israel was our semi-client state being attacked by neighboring states with USSR equipment and occasional training.

Plus think its hard to understate the power of institutional inertia.  The GOP fetishizes Israel and the Dems want to be competitive and draw moderates, so they try to do so as well.  This leads everyone to fetishizing Israel, which means that that just becomes seen as a Thing to Do.  It's probably not even critically examined by any major part of the electorate.  After all, if both parties do it, it must be right, yeah?

[Werthead]

Eh, this is an interesting backdrop but it doesn't explain why politicians pledge undying fealty to Israel at debates, in interviews, etc. It doesn't explain why they want to call Netanyahu as soon as they get to the White House. Before your own mother, guys, really?

 As a democracy in the Middle East, Israel is seen as something of an example other states in the region can aspire to (which hasn't worked out so well). There's also the fact that Israel defeated several enemy nations militiarily and then forged strong peace ties with several of those same nations (particularyl Egypt and Jordan). Some Americans respond to that kind of show of force and then strongarm diplomacy, even if it doesn't work so well in the world any more. More to the point is the USA's strong Jewish and Jewish-sympathetic vote, which is huge.

Certainly Obama has been way more Israel-skeptic than previous American administrations, but even the White House's admonishments to Israel have been pretty mild compared to the near-complete reversal of sympathy for Israel in places like much of Europe.

Israel's astonishingly positive ties with Saudi Araba (even if they are restricted to Saudi Ababia giving the Israelis tactic permissin to overfly their territory to bomb Iran) have resulted in an American-friendly client list in the Middle East consisting of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, some of the Gulf States and (sort of) Iraq. This administration does seem to have belatedly realised this isn't the best alliance to forge if you want to forge better relations with the majority of the population of the region, which may have informed the (if only relatively) more positive attitude towards Iran recently.

But yeah, geopolitical relations across the whole region are monumentally fucked up.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Something like 90% of Saudi Arabians have a positive opinion of Abu Bakr (Caliph Ibrahim)

Citation needed. 

[Ramsay Gimp]

I think these ideological and historical factors are valid explanations for why the public supports Israel. I include myself in that vague category

But it seems like our elected official's political devotion to Israel really does stem from Israel's lobby corrupting our political process. These campaign donors don't try to hide their quasi-treasonous agenda; in an interview Sheldon Adelson openly said "When they ask for money, the first thing I ask is their position on Israel."  If you were running for President and desperately needed cash to stay afloat, what would you say? And what effect would that have going forward? And once they get enough politicians to say the words, not saying them becomes controversial and the Lobby has won. 

Plus think its hard to understate the power of institutional inertia.  The GOP fetishizes Israel and the Dems want to be competitive and draw moderates, so they try to do so as well.  This leads everyone to fetishizing Israel, which means that that just becomes seen as a Thing to Do.  It's probably not even critically examined by any major part of the electorate.  After all, if both parties do it, it must be right, yeah?

This is also a big part of it. Once a meme gets going it takes a life of its own. I'm sure plenty of politicians talk about their deep love for Israel but have no clue why they have to talk about it to get elected. It's just part of the game now. 

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

 

Citation needed. 

Unfortunately I can't find an online source for the claim, I read it in "Islamic State: The Digital Caliphate" by Abdel Bari Atwan, though unfortunately he doesn't say where he got the figure from (it may have been his own research).

[TheKitttenGuard]

 

There's probably more criticism of Israeli policy in Israel than there is here. 

The Republicans are more uniformly dedicated to Israel, but its not getting them many votes as you point out. So the reason has to be money, because there's no way our politicians really care that deeply about a country they have no connection to

Probably but Israel is getting oppressive on those views and a view of comment section have a clear streak of darkness going through them.

My pointing out of Jewish voters and political activity was in context of the Democratic Party and Israeli policy.

You most likely have more Evangelical Christians who cast their vote as it relates to supporting Israel than a Jewish voters.  So it is not attracting Jewish voters but getting those Evangelicals who vote on that issue.

[Free Northman Reborn]

The main threat posed by the Soviet Union was their communist ideology. Now that they are no longer communists, Putin is really correct that the geo-strategic goals of the United States and Russia are largely similar.

Instead of one picking the Shias and the other picking the Sunnis, and then splitting those allegiances down further faultlines depending on which particular local conflict we are talking about, all of the West and Russia should just unite against the encroaching threats that are constituted by China and the Muslim world.

But, because the West continues to live in the past and continueously try to isolate Russia, Russia is forced to align themselves with guys they don't really like, such as the Chinese - who they fought bloody wars with in the past - and the likes of Iran and Assad.

A Northern Alliance stretching around the world from Alaska to Kamchatka would be the best hope of the European based civilizations to hold off the inevitable rise of the rest of the world for as long as possible.

Alas, I don't see it happening, so instead we have Russia cozying up to China and India, and aligning themselves with Iran, when they really would be joining with the West instead.