The Next Phase of Middle East Conflict

[Unusual Tournament]

The Next Phase of Middle East Conflict

With the battles of Mosul and Raqqa dislodging the Islamic State (ISIS) from its strongholds in Syria and Iraq, and the Syrian civil war becoming a war of attrition, the Middle East’s most acute conflicts are evolving fast. But that doesn’t mean they will soon be resolved.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/next-phase-of-middle-east-conflict-by-shlomo-ben-ami-2017-07

[Unusual Tournament]

An interesting article that basically say's that you cannot destroy ISIS cause they are a movement and not a nation. A movement that will look for friendly areas to continue the struggle. Basically expect to see more Libya's and Syria's in the Middle East. 

 

[bmk1245]

2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

An interesting article that basically say's that you cannot destroy ISIS cause they are a movement and not a nation. A movement that will look for friendly areas to continue the struggle. Basically expect to see more Libya's and Syria's in the Middle East. 

 

Sad, but true.

[Farmer77]

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

An interesting article that basically say's that you cannot destroy ISIS cause they are a movement and not a nation. A movement that will look for friendly areas to continue the struggle. Basically expect to see more Libya's and Syria's in the Middle East. 

 

Endless war. Maybe im too cynical but doesnt that sound like the perfect scam?

A nebulous enemy based in a far off land who doesnt even have to have an army for us to devote billions of dollars to destroying. All the while knowing the billions spent is laying the perfect groundwork to force billions more to be spent. 

As Goebbels said , all they have to do is tell us this enemy who cant be destroyed  wants to attack us and then decry those who question the narrative as unpatriotic. 

Its an absolutely brilliant scam. 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Endless war. Maybe im too cynical but doesnt that sound like the perfect scam?

A nebulous enemy based in a far off land who doesnt even have to have an army for us to devote billions of dollars to destroying. All the while knowing the billions spent is laying the perfect groundwork to force billions more to be spent. 

As Goebbels said , all they have to do is tell us this enemy who cant be destroyed  wants to attack us and then decry those who question the narrative as unpatriotic. 

Its an absolutely brilliant scam. 

The perfect scam indeed. Start a civil war and negotiate from a position of nothing. In this instance, who ever is controlling ISIS can in effect institute regime change. Sounds an awful like whats been happening in the west since 911.  

[bmk1245]

Nice. Sliding into conspiracy bog...

[The Caspian Hare]

 

Quote

“The ideology that ISIS has spawned and has advanced is already, in a sense, a genie that is out of the bottle. Many of the individuals I’ve spoken about who are inspired, motivated or mobilized to act by that ideology are in a sense already in motion,” Rasmussen said.

http://wtop.com/j-j-green-national/2017/06/exclusive-isis-genie-nctc-chief/

ISIS "genie out of the bottle" says US counterterrorism chief

ISIS is/was a state that could be attacked but the ideology it create will survive its physical destruction.

[The Caspian Hare]

Quote

This is all the more true, given those coalitions’ incoherence and fragility. US President Donald Trump has based his entire Middle East strategy on Saudi Arabia’s fears not just of ISIS, but also of Iran. The region’s Sunni powers, emboldened by Trump’s approach, have now closed ranks against both ISIS and Iran, even though they themselves are often mortal enemies.

Iran again! Yuuuuuuge distraction to my mind. There is no point to making them the enemy, they are the natural hegemon of the Gulf region. Iran is not the one storming the streets of Europe slaughtering people.

 

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, The Russian Hare said:

Iran again! Yuuuuuuge distraction to my mind. There is no point to making them the enemy, they are the natural hegemon of the Gulf region. Iran is not the one storming the streets of Europe slaughtering people.

 

They control Iraq.  They have a strong presence in Syria.  They are openly committed to the destruction of Israel.  They want a reinforced position on the Golan.  They already have de-facto control of Lebanon through Hizballah.  Finally, they are SHIA.  What you see as a "natural hegemon", I see as a potential catalyst for global war. 

I have no preference between Sunni or Shia Islam.  Their doctrinal differences mean nothing to me but one cannot ignore the bloody history of their struggle for dominance in Islam.  S.A. will not simply allow a Shia "Crescent" of influence in their back yard.  They will fund the newest head of the Hydra, whatever it's called and there will be constant war.  Should Iran's proxies be tasked with putting military pressure on Israel, through increasing attacks on its population, it will eventually spin into a war that will devastate the region and possibly bring the U.S. and Russia.

When you truthfully state that Iran isn't the one storming the streets of Europe, you seem to infer a  better choice between the two sects.  Neither Islamic sect will be content to coexist with the West.  The Shia of Iran want to control the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz and effectively dictate oil prices to the West.  The Sunnis, under the loose control of S.A. are invading Europe and already are strong enough a force in France, the Scandinavian states, Germany and Belgium, to require a concerted military campaign or open civil war to remove them.  There is no stomach for that from the governments or a majority of the people so IMO, Europe is lost.

There is no negotiation with an ideology that demands submission.  If people in the West don't wake up to that fact, they will lose their civilization, such as it is these days, to a barbaric 7th-century death cult ideology.

[spartan max2]

9 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Endless war. Maybe im too cynical but doesnt that sound like the perfect scam?

A nebulous enemy based in a far off land who doesnt even have to have an army for us to devote billions of dollars to destroying. All the while knowing the billions spent is laying the perfect groundwork to force billions more to be spent. 

As Goebbels said , all they have to do is tell us this enemy who cant be destroyed  wants to attack us and then decry those who question the narrative as unpatriotic. 

Its an absolutely brilliant scam. 

Are you saying it's a conspiracy and ISIS dosent exist ? Lol

What about the terror attacks that happen and also get prevented all the time.

Not to mention that fact that in today's world to cause damage you don't need a army you just need a fanatic with a wepon

[RoofGardener]

12 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

An interesting article that basically say's that you cannot destroy ISIS cause they are a movement and not a nation. A movement that will look for friendly areas to continue the struggle. Basically expect to see more Libya's and Syria's in the Middle East. 

 

I'd - "kind-of" agree with that. You can't destroy ISIS, because ISIS is .. not a movement... but an interpretation of religious texts. 

And - I'm sorry - despite the soothing voices from Al-Azhar university - the "ISIS" interpretation of Scripture is NOT an "extreme" one. It is - in fact - orthodox. 

ISIS - the political construct - might be destroyed by military action. But it will re-emerge. It cannot be destroyed. 

Edited July 9, 2017 by RoofGardener

[+and-then]

9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I'd - "kind-of" agree with that. You can't destroy ISIS, because ISIS is .. not a movement... but an interpretation of religious texts. 

And - I'm sorry - despite the soothing voices from Al-Azhar university - the "ISIS" interpretation of Scripture is NOT an "extreme" one. It is - in fact - orthodox. 

ISIS - the political construct - might be destroyed by military action. But it will re-emerge. It cannot be destroyed. 

That's true, RG, but that Orthodox interpretation has been around for about 1400 years and as long as there is a will to deny it dominance, it has been suppressed.  One thing is certain, it cannot be allowed space and time to grow.  It has to be fought even if it takes centuries because to attempt to ignore it or somehow make common cause would be the end of our civilization.  Ultimately, this kind of unhinged hatred would lead to the use of nukes.  They simply would be unable to restrain themselves.

[The Caspian Hare]

1 hour ago, and then said:

They control Iraq.  They have a strong presence in Syria.  They are openly committed to the destruction of Israel.  They want a reinforced position on the Golan.  They already have de-facto control of Lebanon through Hizballah.  Finally, they are SHIA.  What you see as a "natural hegemon", I see as a potential catalyst for global war. 

I have no preference between Sunni or Shia Islam.  Their doctrinal differences mean nothing to me but one cannot ignore the bloody history of their struggle for dominance in Islam.  S.A. will not simply allow a Shia "Crescent" of influence in their back yard.  They will fund the newest head of the Hydra, whatever it's called and there will be constant war.  Should Iran's proxies be tasked with putting military pressure on Israel, through increasing attacks on its population, it will eventually spin into a war that will devastate the region and possibly bring the U.S. and Russia.

When you truthfully state that Iran isn't the one storming the streets of Europe, you seem to infer a  better choice between the two sects.  Neither Islamic sect will be content to coexist with the West.  The Shia of Iran want to control the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz and effectively dictate oil prices to the West.  The Sunnis, under the loose control of S.A. are invading Europe and already are strong enough a force in France, the Scandinavian states, Germany and Belgium, to require a concerted military campaign or open civil war to remove them.  There is no stomach for that from the governments or a majority of the people so IMO, Europe is lost.

There is no negotiation with an ideology that demands submission.  If people in the West don't wake up to that fact, they will lose their civilization, such as it is these days, to a barbaric 7th-century death cult ideology.

Okay well I don't like any Islam but Shia are a bit more reserved because they await the Mahdi, and Iran more occupied with its Sunni neighbors who outnumber it. Basically I think for doctrinal and political reasons Iran is more contained. Because of their unique theocratic/democratic hybrid structure they more susceptible to public pressure than the Arab and sunni countries. Then add to that heavily outnumbered by religious rivals, if let alone I think their time would be consumed dealing with their regional disputes rather than provoking the wrath of distant superpowers. They have power plays in the region and I am no fan of religious government but they do not generally cause problems outside of Mideast or immediate neighbors. As for Israel... that is another thread. Basically one cannot take on the whole world, so pick and choose the battles and enemies.

[Farmer77]

6 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Are you saying it's a conspiracy and ISIS dosent exist ? Lol

What about the terror attacks that happen and also get prevented all the time.

Not to mention that fact that in today's world to cause damage you don't need a army you just need a fanatic with a wepon

No im not saying they dont exist. I am saying they're a great PR tool for the folks making money off of war to keep war going , whether its actually good for us as a nation or not. 

[Unusual Tournament]

6 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Are you saying it's a conspiracy and ISIS dosent exist ? Lol

What about the terror attacks that happen and also get prevented all the time.

Not to mention that fact that in today's world to cause damage you don't need a army you just need a fanatic with a wepon

...no one is denying the terror attacks. But think about it... bin laden spent $250,000 attacking America and America has spent over 4 trillion and counting fighting back. Someone is making a chit load. Someone is using this as a pre-text to curb citizen rights and intrusive technology is here to stay. A well oiled machine like ISIS didn't just happen. Funding and intelligence came from somewhere. Someone is using the ISIS momentum to further their own agenda.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Captain Risky

[RavenHawk]

On 7/8/2017 at 10:17 PM, Captain Risky said:

An interesting article that basically say's that you cannot destroy ISIS cause they are a movement and not a nation. A movement that will look for friendly areas to continue the struggle. Basically expect to see more Libya's and Syria's in the Middle East.

The invasion of Iraq is now looking pretty good eh?  If we had stayed, none of this would be happening (of course if we had supported the Shah, none of this would be happening).  We know that eventually, Saddam would have been overthrown and something ISIS-like with WMD capabilities would be bad news.  But I think it looks like ISIS is being hung out to dry as its primary backer is being isolated.  But the Salafist movement is here to stay now.  With ISIS gone from the region will cause more unrest.  Iran will continue to establish its “crescent”.  My thinking was if ISIS had actually become a real state, they would take on Iran and cutoff their conduit.  Now Saudi Arabia will have to do it themselves.  Since there will be no rouge state in ISIS, we will have to place nuclear weapons in SA just to counter Iran.  That is just going to be a headache nobody wants.  Then with the turmoil the Kurds bring will not set well with the Turks or Iran.  Will the Muslim Brotherhood begin a comeback?  I don’t think that Salman is ready to let the dream of Pan-Arabia die.  A lot of unknowns and who’s going to grab the initiative?  We may be moving into a new phase but it’s just the same old $-hit.

[RavenHawk]

On 7/9/2017 at 2:00 AM, Farmer77 said:

Endless war. Maybe im too cynical but doesnt that sound like the perfect scam?

A nebulous enemy based in a far off land who doesnt even have to have an army for us to devote billions of dollars to destroying. All the while knowing the billions spent is laying the perfect groundwork to force billions more to be spent. 

As Goebbels said , all they have to do is tell us this enemy who cant be destroyed  wants to attack us and then decry those who question the narrative as unpatriotic. 

Its an absolutely brilliant scam. 

And sometimes it’s not a scam, but real.  When it’s no longer a sound bite, it’s usually too late to deal with it without expenditure of more blood and treasure.

[+and-then]

I believe that someone will use a nuke before this conflict is ended.  It may be the only means of cutting this Gordian Knot.  I don't advocate for this, I just think it will take an act THAT extreme to finally bring some fearful sanity back into the picture.  For awhile, anyway.

[Only_]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

The invasion of Iraq is now looking pretty good eh?  If we had stayed, none of this would be happening (of course if we had supported the Shah, none of this would be happening).  We know that eventually, Saddam would have been overthrown and something ISIS-like with WMD capabilities would be bad news.

 

It's the removal of Saddam Hussein that created ''something ISIS-like''. You know, the top ISIS commanders were former, alienated Iraqi officers. They gave a military stucture to this group which they simply couldn't have before.

Inside ISIS: ex-officers of Saddam now commanders with Islamic State

ISIS Top Brass Is Iraqi Army's Former Best and Brightest

The rise of ISIS in Iraq - beside the incompetent new Iraq Army - was facilitated by the support it gained among sunnis tribes, which Saddam Hussein had firmly under his grasp. Needless to say, none of this would have happened if the U.S. didn't invade Iraq, disband the iraqi army and create instability. It's certainly not looking good at all. Neither is Lybia. Let's not do the same with Syria.

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Be.cause

[RavenHawk]

2 minutes ago, Be.cause said:

which Saddam had firmly under his grasp.

And this is your miscalculation.  Anytime a dictator has someone firmly under his grasp, they usually end up over throwing him.  If we hadn’t invaded when we did, Saddam would have gone back to rebuilding his arsenal.  And those Iraqi officers would still have joined the rebels against Saddam and then Assad.  If they joined ISIS then they were Muslim Brotherhood in the first place and they would have a fully structured military to attack Assad to the west and the Shia to the east.

[RavenHawk]

36 minutes ago, Be.cause said:

It's the removal of Saddam Hussein that created ''something ISIS-like''.

It wasn’t the removal of Saddam, it was Obama pulling us out of Iraq that created ISIS.  ISIS didn’t start to show up until 2014.  If we had stayed, ISIS would have only remained an insurgency and we had gotten very skilled with dealing with those.

[ExpandMyMind]

On 2017-7-9 at 9:00 AM, Farmer77 said:

Endless war. Maybe im too cynical but doesnt that sound like the perfect scam?

A nebulous enemy based in a far off land who doesnt even have to have an army for us to devote billions of dollars to destroying. All the while knowing the billions spent is laying the perfect groundwork to force billions more to be spent. 

As Goebbels said , all they have to do is tell us this enemy who cant be destroyed  wants to attack us and then decry those who question the narrative as unpatriotic. 

Its an absolutely brilliant scam. 

The war on drugs laid the groundwork for it.

[Only_]

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

And this is your miscalculation.  Anytime a dictator has someone firmly under his grasp, they usually end up over throwing him.  If we hadn’t invaded when we did, Saddam would have gone back to rebuilding his arsenal.  And those Iraqi officers would still have joined the rebels against Saddam and then Assad.  If they joined ISIS then they were Muslim Brotherhood in the first place and they would have a fully structured military to attack Assad to the west and the Shia to the east.

 

Iraq is essentially under Iranian influence ever since Saddam Hussein was toppled. The Shiite government in Baghdad is more loyal to Terhan than it will ever be to Washington. Period. How you manage to call that an ''improvement'' is beyond me. And we know how it works by now, each time the West attempts to topple secular strong men, secular dictators, we get in chaos in the rise of radical Islam. That is a fact.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Be.cause

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Be.cause said:

Iraq is essentially under Iranian influence ever since Saddam Hussein was toppled. The Shiite government in Baghdad is more loyal to Terhan than it will ever be to Washington. Period. How you manage to call that an ''improvement'' is beyond me. And we know how it works by now, each time the West attempts to topple secular strong men, secular dictators, we get in chaos in the rise of radical Islam. That is a fact.

That has proven to be accurate but that doesn't mean it is a natural progression.  Other decisions were made that led to this chaos and as RavenHawk pointed out, had we stayed the course in Iraq, it is very likely that ISIS would never have been a major player.  The problem is that Americans aren't willing to stay focused on such goals.  We will pay a steep price, nationally, for that lack of focus.

[Only_]

15 hours ago, and then said:

That has proven to be accurate but that doesn't mean it is a natural progression.  Other decisions were made that led to this chaos and as RavenHawk pointed out, had we stayed the course in Iraq, it is very likely that ISIS would never have been a major player.  The problem is that Americans aren't willing to stay focused on such goals.  We will pay a steep price, nationally, for that lack of focus.

The invasion of Iraq seems to be the starting point, but I would also add to this the destabilization of Syria by the U.S. and it's allies (through funding and arming of rebel groups) that created fertile grounds for ISIS to grow and eventually overrun parts of Iraq. If the U.S. had kept troops in Iraq, maybe this would have prevented the current situation. I agree. But who's to say Lybia - another failed state - would not have been the jihadists' next destination of choice? Interventionist policies have created such a mess it's hard to predict.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Be.cause