In Syria

[bojan]

.

 

It is the Turks who are thinking, at least, medium term.

.

It is their thinking that is fundamentally incompatible with anything West tries to pass as their intention in Middle East.

If someone in Europe had plans even close to Erdogan's everyone would scream bloody murder.

Edited October 23, 2014 by bojan

[Colin]

They old saying, can't see the forest for the trees can apply to the locals in this fight.

[JWB]

Top Iranian Adviser: Obama is 'Weakest of US Presidents'

 

 

"Americans witnessed their greatest defeats in Obama's era: Terrorism expanded, [the] U.S. had huge defeats under Obama [and] that is why they want to compromise with Iran," Younesi said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-weak-president-iran/2014/10/23/id/602803/?ns_mail_uid=68526796&ns_mail_job=1592053_10232014&s=al&dkt_nbr=drresi6j

[firefly1]

They old saying, can't see the forest for the trees can apply to the locals in this fight.

.

 

I didn't know that the USA was "a local".

 

You have noticed the HUGE car-crash that Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria has turned to under US (and NATO) masterplans ?

 

/

[Juan Sosa]

Some nice ISIS people get a nice sprinkle of JDAMs after claiming a hill near Kobane

 

Edited October 24, 2014 by Juan Sosa

[Paul G.]

 

They old saying, can't see the forest for the trees can apply to the locals in this fight.

.

 

I didn't know that the USA was "a local".

 

You have noticed the HUGE car-crash that Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria has turned to under US (and NATO) masterplans ?

 

/

 

 

There is no "masterplan". That's part of the problem. Its just a series of short term band aid attempts of crisis managment based on a 2-4 year decision (political) cycle.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Paul G.

[Adam Peter]

Top Iranian Adviser: Obama is 'Weakest of US Presidents'

 

He has a point, Putin's floorwashing with Mr. Peace Prize over Syria, and later over the Crimea was humiliating.

[Colin]

 

They old saying, can't see the forest for the trees can apply to the locals in this fight.

.

 

I didn't know that the USA was "a local".

 

You have noticed the HUGE car-crash that Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria has turned to under US (and NATO) masterplans ?

 

/

 

Afghanistan was a mess before the US and the west got involved, we gave them a chance to get better, some are trying , others are trying to get back to the 12th century again. Iraq was a festering sore since 91, sooner or later something had to happen. Syria can't blame nada on the US, Syria's problems were created by it's nutbar first family and it's nutbar Islamic MB/AQ/ISIS types.

[firefly1]

 

Afghanistan was a mess before the US and the west got involved, we gave them a chance to get better, some are trying , others are trying to get back to the 12th century again. Iraq was a festering sore since 91, sooner or later something had to happen. Syria can't blame nada on the US, Syria's problems were created by it's nutbar first family and it's nutbar Islamic MB/AQ/ISIS types.

 

 

.

 

You have read at least some newspapers in the last 25 years, have you ?

 

That is one of the most ill-informed posts I have seen recently, it makes Pontius Pilate look like "Mr Responsibility".

 

( P.S. never did understand all the criticism of Mr Pilate.)

 

.

[Rod]

I do not agree in regards to how Iran has fared under Obama. Under President Bush, Iran got rid of the Iraqi threat, and the U.S. helped create a government system to where the Sunnis became weaker than the Shiites and Iranian influence expanded. In Afghanistan, the U.S. got rid of the Taliban who was a radical Sunni problem on their doorsteps. With Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran had a Shiite Crescent.

 

Under Obama, Iraq is disintegrating and Obama is just doing the minimum possible and just to help the Kurds and the Yazidis (due to public pressure). In Syria, Assad is in trouble and Obama is happy to let rebels and regime just grind each other while giving token support to Lebanon who is getting hit around Hezbollah areas. Iran now has to spend significant resources to prop up the Assad regime as well as their own losses in manpower and material in Iraq and Syria. To top it off, under Obama, sanctions have really squeezed Iran financially.

 

So Obama may be weak but Iran had it better under his predecessor.

Top Iranian Adviser: Obama is 'Weakest of US Presidents'

 

 

"Americans witnessed their greatest defeats in Obama's era: Terrorism expanded, [the] U.S. had huge defeats under Obama [and] that is why they want to compromise with Iran," Younesi said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-weak-president-iran/2014/10/23/id/602803/?ns_mail_uid=68526796&ns_mail_job=1592053_10232014&s=al&dkt_nbr=drresi6j

[Colin]

 

 

Afghanistan was a mess before the US and the west got involved, we gave them a chance to get better, some are trying , others are trying to get back to the 12th century again. Iraq was a festering sore since 91, sooner or later something had to happen. Syria can't blame nada on the US, Syria's problems were created by it's nutbar first family and it's nutbar Islamic MB/AQ/ISIS types.

 

 

.

 

You have read at least some newspapers in the last 25 years, have you ?

 

That is one of the most ill-informed posts I have seen recently, it makes Pontius Pilate look like "Mr Responsibility".

 

( P.S. never did understand all the criticism of Mr Pilate.)

 

.

 

I read all sorts of stuff and not just papers and talk to people who have fought there, lived there and I also get to see Islam from the inside out. Afghanistan got the short end of the history and geography stick, yet a lot of people worked hard over the last decade to make it a better place and some Afghan's are trying hard to by educating the next generation. Iraq was going full retard and something had to be done, China, Russia and France were owed billions by Saddam, they wanted the oil reserves in exchange. Syria was France and the Ottoman's stepchild. They had a chance to work towards an acceptable balance that the west could live with, but they drank the Baathist koolaid and with the ever burbling threat by the MB/AQ and now ISIS they weren't going to let up.

[Colin]

I should add that we have discussed the mistakes of the US ad nauseam and no one who post regularly here would be unaware of it. However the Afghan's, Syrians and Iraqi's are adults, the US spent blood, sweat, money and tears to make things better, all with the idea of leaving a functioning country behind. The US may not be perfect but they are by far the most benign conquers in history.

[Simon Tan]

Tony!

[JWB]

 

I do not agree in regards to how Iran has fared under Obama. Under President Bush, Iran got rid of the Iraqi threat, and the U.S. helped create a government system to where the Sunnis became weaker than the Shiites and Iranian influence expanded. In Afghanistan, the U.S. got rid of the Taliban who was a radical Sunni problem on their doorsteps. With Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran had a Shiite Crescent.

 

Under Obama, Iraq is disintegrating and Obama is just doing the minimum possible and just to help the Kurds and the Yazidis (due to public pressure). In Syria, Assad is in trouble and Obama is happy to let rebels and regime just grind each other while giving token support to Lebanon who is getting hit around Hezbollah areas. Iran now has to spend significant resources to prop up the Assad regime as well as their own losses in manpower and material in Iraq and Syria. To top it off, under Obama, sanctions have really squeezed Iran financially.

 

So Obama may be weak but Iran had it better under his predecessor.

Top Iranian Adviser: Obama is 'Weakest of US Presidents'

 

 

 

 

"Americans witnessed their greatest defeats in Obama's era: Terrorism expanded, [the] U.S. had huge defeats under Obama [and] that is why they want to compromise with Iran," Younesi said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-weak-president-iran/2014/10/23/id/602803/?ns_mail_uid=68526796&ns_mail_job=1592053_10232014&s=al&dkt_nbr=drresi6j

 

Iran considers Obama's pullout of Iraq as surrender and retreat.

[Ken Estes]

Retreat from Iraq was US policy as of 2004.

[Mr King]

 

Top Iranian Adviser: Obama is 'Weakest of US Presidents'

 

He has a point, Putin's floorwashing with Mr. Peace Prize over Syria, and later over the Crimea was humiliating.

 

 

But pretty predictable.

[Rod]

That was when Iran thought that the Shiites won and the Sunnis would succumb to the new Shiite overlords. Now they wish the U.S. was there. The Iranian Shiite Crescent is collapsing: Iraq is disintegrating into a Kurdistan (no good for Iran since Kurds there also want autonomy), a bad-ass Sunni no-go lands and an ineffective Iraqi Shiite area but where they are Arabs and many distrust Iran. In Syria, Assad's is stuck in an insurgency whose demographic reality does not bode well for the Alawite minority who despite closeness to Shiites are secular. Syra itself is a big drag on Iran in financial terms. Then you have Lebanon, where their best project Hezbollah is in trouble as they are being grinded by an insurgency, with rising costs to maintain their campaign and internal security and intervention by Hezbollah backfired as Sunnis are slowly radicalizing in Northern Lebanon and won't be before long that ISIS-type attacks by Salafists follow in Lebanon itself.

 

 

 

I do not agree in regards to how Iran has fared under Obama. Under President Bush, Iran got rid of the Iraqi threat, and the U.S. helped create a government system to where the Sunnis became weaker than the Shiites and Iranian influence expanded. In Afghanistan, the U.S. got rid of the Taliban who was a radical Sunni problem on their doorsteps. With Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran had a Shiite Crescent.

 

Under Obama, Iraq is disintegrating and Obama is just doing the minimum possible and just to help the Kurds and the Yazidis (due to public pressure). In Syria, Assad is in trouble and Obama is happy to let rebels and regime just grind each other while giving token support to Lebanon who is getting hit around Hezbollah areas. Iran now has to spend significant resources to prop up the Assad regime as well as their own losses in manpower and material in Iraq and Syria. To top it off, under Obama, sanctions have really squeezed Iran financially.

 

So Obama may be weak but Iran had it better under his predecessor.

Top Iranian Adviser: Obama is 'Weakest of US Presidents'

 

 

"Americans witnessed their greatest defeats in Obama's era: Terrorism expanded, [the] U.S. had huge defeats under Obama [and] that is why they want to compromise with Iran," Younesi said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-weak-president-iran/2014/10/23/id/602803/?ns_mail_uid=68526796&ns_mail_job=1592053_10232014&s=al&dkt_nbr=drresi6j

 

Iran considers Obama's pullout of Iraq as surrender and retreat.

 

[JWB]

 

That was when Iran thought that the Shiites won and the Sunnis would succumb to the new Shiite overlords. Now they wish the U.S. was there. The Iranian Shiite Crescent is collapsing: Iraq is disintegrating into a Kurdistan (no good for Iran since Kurds there also want autonomy), a bad-ass Sunni no-go lands and an ineffective Iraqi Shiite area but where they are Arabs and many distrust Iran. In Syria, Assad's is stuck in an insurgency whose demographic reality does not bode well for the Alawite minority who despite closeness to Shiites are secular. Syra itself is a big drag on Iran in financial terms. Then you have Lebanon, where their best project Hezbollah is in trouble as they are being grinded by an insurgency, with rising costs to maintain their campaign and internal security and intervention by Hezbollah backfired as Sunnis are slowly radicalizing in Northern Lebanon and won't be before long that ISIS-type attacks by Salafists follow in Lebanon itself.

 

 

 

I do not agree in regards to how Iran has fared under Obama. Under President Bush, Iran got rid of the Iraqi threat, and the U.S. helped create a government system to where the Sunnis became weaker than the Shiites and Iranian influence expanded. In Afghanistan, the U.S. got rid of the Taliban who was a radical Sunni problem on their doorsteps. With Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran had a Shiite Crescent.

 

Under Obama, Iraq is disintegrating and Obama is just doing the minimum possible and just to help the Kurds and the Yazidis (due to public pressure). In Syria, Assad is in trouble and Obama is happy to let rebels and regime just grind each other while giving token support to Lebanon who is getting hit around Hezbollah areas. Iran now has to spend significant resources to prop up the Assad regime as well as their own losses in manpower and material in Iraq and Syria. To top it off, under Obama, sanctions have really squeezed Iran financially.

 

So Obama may be weak but Iran had it better under his predecessor.

Top Iranian Adviser: Obama is 'Weakest of US Presidents'

 

 

 

 

"Americans witnessed their greatest defeats in Obama's era: Terrorism expanded, [the] U.S. had huge defeats under Obama [and] that is why they want to compromise with Iran," Younesi said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-weak-president-iran/2014/10/23/id/602803/?ns_mail_uid=68526796&ns_mail_job=1592053_10232014&s=al&dkt_nbr=drresi6j

 

Iran considers Obama's pullout of Iraq as surrender and retreat.

 

 

The inability of Obama to exploit that power vacuum explains how weak Obama truly is.

[ScottBrim]

Suppose the Assad regime falls to a "moderate" Islamic faction. How soon would that victory last before the new regime came under serious attack from ISIS and from various other Islamic factions now fighting in Syria and was itself eventually defeated?

[Simon Tan]

There is no peace without the Assadists buy in. There will be no peace as long as Obama is around. No peace either if Hillary gets in.

 

Syria will have to be divided between rump Syria and a UN mandated territory.

 

Iraq is probably more tractable but it will have to become a far more federal entity. Kurdistan will be de jure as well as de facto, though nominally federated with the rest of Iraq.

The Shia will be a marginalized puppet entity running Baghdad and the SE.

[Yalmuk]

Iraq and Syria are already in Iran's pocket (Iranians are fighting in both countries) and if next US president will be weakling like Obama then Iran will become a nuclear weapon state. If Syrian regime wins and restarts it's WMD programs with help of a nuclear armed Iran? Can you imagine if Shia Iraq does same too?

 

It's crazy but I think that even Al-Nusra controlled Syria would be less of a risk to world and middle east.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Yalmuk

[JasonJ]

Great Britain also gets Qatar funding? Maybe that has something to do with weak calls against Qatar.

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/10/29/world/qatar-emir-face-questions-jihadist-funding-u-k-state-visit/#.VFBi6ngay0d

 

Qatar is one of the world’s richest countries and has invested heavily in British firms and property. Among its investments are London’s tallest building, the Shard, which was funded by the Qatari royal family, and the upmarket Harrods department store, which is owned by sovereign wealth fund Qatar Investment Authority.

[Ken Estes]

There is no peace without the Assadists buy in. There will be no peace as long as Obama is around. No peace either if Hillary gets in.

 

Syria will have to be divided between rump Syria and a UN mandated territory.

 

Iraq is probably more tractable but it will have to become a far more federal entity. Kurdistan will be de jure as well as de facto, though nominally federated with the rest of Iraq.

The Shia will be a marginalized puppet entity running Baghdad and the SE.

Since you insist on politicizing this forum, pray tell what sage right wing US messiah will bring this about? How is it that any M.E. entity 'will have to become' anything of which you assert?

 

Is this the value added of the FFZ in TN? Spare us.

[Simon Tan]

I dunno Ken. I must say that even the British government has buy in on Team Sunni and the enemy in Doha even if you insist it is not. Why does the messiah need to be American or right wing? What is a fact is that the current administration is unable to even conceptualize an end game and I guess neither can supplicants.

[Colin]

It's a 1400 year old war, the endgame may not exist, this may be the perpetual state for this area, with the war going from hot, warm, cool, warm, hot, warm, cool, etc,etc for generations. What we might see is ethnic groups like the Kurds slowly isolating themselves from the nutbars which may be geographical possible for them. Within a generation there will be nobody alive from the 1948 war and the Palestinian situation will slowly lose it's ability to draw support. The Sunni-shiite fight will grind down the resources of all involved, you might see an Alwaitte enclave nestled up against Druze and Israel fending off Sunni nuttery. Iran and Pakistan may face other issues with a resurgent NWF problem and growing Baluchistan Movement drawing their attention away. Saudi might suffer a serious cival war with it's Shiite population who just happen to occupy the oil rich region and if the Saudi's can't fund the world wide Whabbi push, things in the other parts of the Islamic word might settle down.