Is anyone else astounded by the realignment going on in the Middle East? We now have a Shiite group consisting of Iran, the government of Iraq, the government of Syria, and Hezbollah. Facing them are the Sunnis including ISIS, Saudi Arabia, and much of the Arab world. Meanwhile the U.S. supports the government of Iraq but opposes the governments of Syria and Iran. Isis also threatens Jordan, a Sunni country.

In addition, 3 other regional powers (Turkey, Israel, and Egypt) have their own distinct interests which don't align fully with either bloc..

The U.S. is committed to not allowing Iraq to disintegrate; as a result we are finding common interest with Iran and Iraq, even though we are still opposed to the Syrian government and allied with Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, the Kurds are going their own way, even getting a green light from the Turks who have been keeping them down for 100 years (and before that they were kept down by the Ottomans). Kurdish oil is flowing through Turkey and landing in Israel, even though the U.S. doesn't want the Kurds to sell their oil independently from Baghdad.

I find the U.S. strategy to be the most puzzling. We seem to be pursuing a policy that makes no sense on 3 different levels. The U.S. policy seems to be that we hold Iraq together with a new leader who can work with Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. However, (1) None of the regional players expect Iraq to hold together. (2) It is rare that quasi-dictators step down from power. (3) We are not pleasing any of the regional players. Sure Iraq wants to use our military capability, but the reality is that Maliki will not step down until the Sunnis make him, and it is not logical to assume that some other leader can hold these people together.

Can we have this conversation without resorting to bashing Bush or Obama?

I doubt it...

Ray Jay wrote:I find the U.S. strategy to be the most puzzling. We seem to be pursuing a policy that makes no sense on 3 different levels. The U.S. policy seems to be that we hold Iraq together with a new leader who can work with Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. However, (1) None of the regional players expect Iraq to hold together. (2) It is rare that quasi-dictators step down from power. (3) We are not pleasing any of the regional players. Sure Iraq wants to use our military capability, but the reality is that Maliki will not step down until the Sunnis make him, and it is not logical to assume that some other leader can hold these people together.

Can we have this conversation without resorting to bashing Bush or Obama?

Um. Let's see. US strategy is "puzzling."

Who is responsible for the puzzling strategy?

I don't think you have to "bash" anyone to point out that "strategy" is the job of the President.

I suspect that the ultimate outcome of all this will be a complete realignment of US interests which will see a thaw in relations with Iran and much frostier relationships with some of the more traditional allies, who are the guys funding the sunni insurgent groups and by extension most responsible for supporting islamic terrorism. It's been made possible by the fracking revolution, which is freeing the US from a crippling reliance on Saudi oil.

Of course, a lot of things will have to happen along the way which may derail this process, but I do think that already we're seeing that the Middle East is no longer central to US interests, and the consequences that follow from that.

Sassenach wrote:I suspect that the ultimate outcome of all this will be a complete realignment of US interests which will see a thaw in relations with Iran and much frostier relationships with some of the more traditional allies, who are the guys funding the sunni insurgent groups and by extension most responsible for supporting islamic terrorism. It's been made possible by the fracking revolution, which is freeing the US from a crippling reliance on Saudi oil.

I hope you're wrong re Iran. They're going to go nuclear and, frankly, the leadership is nuts.

On the other hand, we cannot cozy up to the Sunnis either. I think there's a certain sensibility to Israel's approach: let's you and him fight.

Of course, a lot of things will have to happen along the way which may derail this process, but I do think that already we're seeing that the Middle East is no longer central to US interests, and the consequences that follow from that.

I'm not sure that's the case--and no amount of solar panels is going to solve that in the near term.

The US is only a couple of years off becoming a net exporter of fossil fuels. That's a geopolitical game changer in all kinds of ways and I think we're possibly failing to comprehend them right now.

As for Iran, Khamanei is an old man and can't go on forever. Change is coming there and at some point we're likely to decide that we have more to gain by working with the Iranians than against them.

Sassenach wrote:The US is only a couple of years off becoming a net exporter of fossil fuels. That's a geopolitical game changer in all kinds of ways and I think we're possibly failing to comprehend them right now.

As for Iran, Khamanei is an old man and can't go on forever. Change is coming there and at some point we're likely to decide that we have more to gain by working with the Iranians than against them.

I think Iran, geopolitically, makes a lot more sense than the Saudis, Iraqis, etc. But, they've got to undergo a fundamental paradigm shift before that would be remotely palatable in the USA.

sass

The US is only a couple of years off becoming a net exporter of fossil fuels. That's a geopolitical game changer in all kinds of ways and I think we're possibly failing to comprehend them right now

not really.

http://nsnbc.me/2014/03/13/fracked-usa- ... as-bubble/

fate

But, they've got to undergo a fundamental paradigm shift before that would be remotely palatable in the USA

.
You mean they have to someone forgive and forget that the US through the CIA and its involvement in the over throw of the democratically elected government and the installation of the desptotic Shah? Forgive and forget the CIA's involvement in the establishment and training of Savak?
Forgive and forget the US involvement in funding and arming Saddam during the Iran Iraq conflict, and forget and forgive the destruction of flight 655 by the Vincennes in 1988.
I suppose that might be possible. After all, in the period after 9/11 Iran was instrumental in providing intelligence that aided the American invasion of Afghanistan. Only to be lumped in as a member of an Evil alliance with North Korea and Iraq (as if) right after that help was provided.

The US has supported the Saudis, Saddam and a number of other despotic regimes in the region for years. Holding ones nose seemed and seems to be all that is necessary to make a regime palatable if the strategic interests warrant,

rickyp wrote:You mean they have to someone forgive and forget that the US through the CIA and its involvement in the over throw of the democratically elected government and the installation of the desptotic Shah? Forgive and forget the CIA's involvement in the establishment and training of Savak?Forgive and forget the US involvement in funding and arming Saddam during the Iran Iraq conflict, and forget and forgive the destruction of flight 655 by the Vincennes in 1988.
I suppose that might be possible. After all, in the period after 9/11 Iran was instrumental in providing intelligence that aided the American invasion of Afghanistan. Only to be lumped in as a member of an Evil alliance with North Korea and Iraq (as if) right after that help was provided.

No, but I do appreciate you proudly putting forth an accurate portrait of yourself.Only a true idiot would write that.

Iran would have to stop being the leading sponsor of terror. Furthermore, it would be swell if they'd stop all the "Great Satan" stuff.

The US has supported the Saudis, Saddam and a number of other despotic regimes in the region for years. Holding ones nose seemed and seems to be all that is necessary to make a regime palatable if the strategic interests warrant,

Not so. We have never supported a nuclear, terrorist-supporting, wipe-Israel-off-the-map Islamic regime before.

So, maybe you could stop being a jackass for a minute?

Oh. Sorry. I forgot--you can't change.

Ricky does have a point. It's all very well trying to say "we've never supported this kind of homicidal maniac before", but ultimately this is simply splitting hairs. The US government over the years has been guilty of supporting some pretty horrible people and at least tolerating a lot more. Every government in history has done the same to a greater or lesser extent. Sometimes it's necessary in the national interest to be willing to deal with nasty regimes. Iran is not really any worse than, say, Maoist China, but that didn't stop America normalising relations and building bridges with Mao (with profound consequences for the whole world). If Iranian interests come to align with American interests then alliances will shift. It'll probably happen slowly but ultimately I see it happening. The demographics of Iran make it virtually inevitable.

To be fair, the US policy in the Middle East has always been a little confusing. With Saddam's Iraq it was all quite positive as long as their dirty war against Iran and the Kurds aligned with US interests, but as soon as he started to threaten Kuwait and the Saudis it all switched. Saudi itself is a very dodgy regime with dubious views and a network of interests. Iran is part of the axis of evil, but under Reagan it was fine to treat with them and sell them arms to get hostages released

To an extent the regimes in the Middle East were less religious and more nationalistic than they are today, and of course we no longer have the simplistic dynamic of the Cold War as a lens to view who the enemies/friends are.

One good reason for not intervening in Syria, as far as I can see, is that it would have been in some ways a means to assist one set of bad guys at the expense of another set. Does this mean that intervention in Iraq is just as foolish? I think less so, on the "you break it, you bought it" principle.

Sassenach wrote:Ricky does have a point. It's all very well trying to say "we've never supported this kind of homicidal maniac before", but ultimately this is simply splitting hairs. The US government over the years has been guilty of supporting some pretty horrible people and at least tolerating a lot more. Every government in history has done the same to a greater or lesser extent. Sometimes it's necessary in the national interest to be willing to deal with nasty regimes. Iran is not really any worse than, say, Maoist China, but that didn't stop America normalising relations and building bridges with Mao (with profound consequences for the whole world). If Iranian interests come to align with American interests then alliances will shift. It'll probably happen slowly but ultimately I see it happening. The demographics of Iran make it virtually inevitable.

1. Yes, we've been "in bed" with bad people. However, Iran has no upside at the moment. Mao was never so directly involved with killing Americans WHILE we were proposing to do business with him. Plus, the Cold War was a vastly different scale than the Middle East.

2. That demographic shift is exactly what I'm talking about. As long as Iran remains a theocracy with a twist of terrorism and a side order of nihilism, it won't happen.

danivon wrote:To be fair, the US policy in the Middle East has always been a little confusing. With Saddam's Iraq it was all quite positive as long as their dirty war against Iran and the Kurds aligned with US interests, but as soon as he started to threaten Kuwait and the Saudis it all switched. Saudi itself is a very dodgy regime with dubious views and a network of interests. Iran is part of the axis of evil, but under Reagan it was fine to treat with them and sell them arms to get hostages released

I track with everything you said here until the "fine to treat with them" nonsense. If it was "fine," there would have been no hubbub. It wasn't.

One good reason for not intervening in Syria, as far as I can see, is that it would have been in some ways a means to assist one set of bad guys at the expense of another set. Does this mean that intervention in Iraq is just as foolish? I think less so, on the "you break it, you bought it" principle.

I think we stay out unless/until we are 100% sure there is a "good" side to be on. Right now, that means we sit on our hands.

1. Yes, we've been "in bed" with bad people. However, Iran has no upside at the moment. Mao was never so directly involved with killing Americans WHILE we were proposing to do business with him. Plus, the Cold War was a vastly different scale than the Middle East.

Vietnam ended in what, 1973 ? Nixon's famous visit to China took place in 1972, and the groundwork for that must have been happening for a while beforehand.

More on U.S. incoherent policy:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ... ncoherent/

The thing we’ve got to remember is that we think of the Middle East in terms of borders that are real and hard. And we think of it in terms of dictators and democrats. What's really happening in that part of the world is a sectarian war between the Shias and the Sunnis.

This crosses all borders, so that ISIS is battling the Shia government in Baghdad. It's battling what it regards as essentially a Shia government in Syria. It's an Alawite regime, but it's basically considered a heretical regime. So they’ve got the same enemy. The Iranians, the Syrians and the Iraqi government all see ISIS as their enemy. We are the ones who come in with the complication. We say, well, we sort of like the Iraqi government because it's sort of democratic, but we don't like the Syrian government because it's a dictatorship, and we don't like the Iranians.

But our position is incoherent. And I don't mean this about the Obama administration. I mean it about U.S. policy, because we’re trying to overlay this idea that we bring to the party, which is, there’s going to be democracy and pluralism.

My only edit is to put the quote in -- not easy to do from my laptop.