MENA, MENA, Tekel, Parsin (Middle East, North Africa & other Geopolitical Hotspots) 2018

Modern history’s saddest recurring theme: The Kurds are expendable in the Great Game. https://t.co/GNdhQGxCPu

— David Ignatius (@IgnatiusPost) March 18, 2018

more doom and gloom coming to Yemen...

In another vote of confidence in the Saudi military, the Trump administration told Congress on Thursday it planned to approve an arms sale to Saudi Arabia valued at more than $1 billion. The State Department said the package includes up to about 6,700 U.S.-made anti-tank missiles, along with servicing, maintanence and parts for helicopters and tanks already in the kingdom's arsenal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/palestinian-journalist-in-vest-marked-press-shot-dead-by-israeli-troops-in-gaza/2018/04/07/ac57b524-3a30-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html?utm_term=.4c7612cf30df

terrible

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/saudi-prince-mohammed-us-tour-hollywood-harvard-silicon-valley-dwayne-johnson-rupert-murdoch-oprah-a8293456.html

Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles was one of the few Americans who met with Prince Mohammed and in public stressed human rights issues. In a statement, the mayor said he “urged the Crown Prince to continue his efforts to advance women’s rights, and raised concerns about human rights and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen.”

In Los Angeles, Prince Mohammed’s visit drew a smattering of protests. “He’s coming here under the guise that he’s some great reformer and changing the country,” said Michelle Modglin, 67, a retired nurse, demonstrating outside the Beverly Hills office of the William Morris Endeavor talent agency, which recently received a $400m (£283m) investment from Saudi Arabia. “But we know that’s not true as long as he’s bombing Yemen and killing innocent people.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/08/syrian-government-accused-of-chemical-attacks-on-civilians-in-eastern-ghouta

more chemical attacks

Will just Russia, Iran, and Assad make the calls re the future of Syria (with a bit of input from Turkey) while Trump and his generals and whomever at the State Department bicker among themselves? Kurds are still hangin in there in a part of Syria despite the Turks

But chemical attack bothers 45 so who knows what’s next. Retaliatory attack a year ago hasn’t concerned Assad

49 killed in the attack on Douma. UN Security Council to meet today.

not meaning to be "mr tankie lion of damascus lover" over here but the people reporting the chemical attacks are "rebel" islamist activists. what they say has to be taken with a grain of salt - not that that will stop Trump from starting the great middle-eastern war over this whether or not there is independent verification.

Assad is barring anyone from getting access and you are blaming the motives of “rebel “ activists. You never question the motives of the other players in the region though in that posting other than Trump. Assad’s history does suggest a few things. It’s a mess, yea I know many of the fighting groups are bad with their own motives , and not necessarily better than Assad, Russia or Iran. However, if Russia, Iran, and Turkey are gonna continue negotiations on the future of Syria, without the US or UN , that seems questionable motives-wise as well. Yes, I know including current US and UN leadership is also problematic.

I'm sure Assad would use chemical weapons on his people. I'm not sure that Jaysh-Al-Islam are the most trustworthy folks

The White Helmets and rescuers have provided some photos. Do you think they photoshopped?

White Helmets are islamist affiliated. The pictures are of dead bodies. I don't know how they were killed or by who.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-trumps-threat-to-make-assad-pay-a-big-price-rings-hollow?mbid=nl_Daily%20040918&CNDID=39876153&spMailingID=13279562&spUserID=MTMzMTg0Njc0MTUzS0&spJobID=1380774260&spReportId=MTM4MDc3NDI2MAS2

New Yorker article quotes folks who say it would take lots of bombing to get stubborn Assad to stop chemical attacks. Article also suggests Russia and Iran now control much of Syria and they’re fine with Assad.

Every plant was standing upright. Every home decoration was up. Photos hanging on the wall like nothing happened. But the people in the bunkers are dead. It wasn't a bombing. It was a chemical assault.

Dismayed by the lack of interest in this story. Dismayed by the disinterest here on ilx. Can't watch the stories about this on the telly. Just can't. Sick to my stomach.

I think people are interested. It's just that there's not really much that can be done. Assad has basically won the civil war, regime change is off the table at this stage.

(barring a trump/bolton full on war, which i don't think many will have the stomach for and would be also catastrophically bloody)

I'm interested, but as a typical westerner my opinion on foreign conflicts is most unwarranted.

Also, LBI I have no idea where you gather your news but the chemical attacks are front page of lots of leading publications.

Dismayed by the lack of interest in this story. Dismayed by the disinterest here on ilx.

I could make a strenuous denunciation of Assad here, if you like, but if such a denunciation were somehow to lead to a deeper direct engagement in the Syrian War on the part of the USA, I think that result would be more harmful than helpful at this stage. Further, I think it is doubtful that there have ever been any good options available to the USA in that war. As with Libya, just removing Assad was, and still is, an incomplete strategy and there was never a chance of a secular democracy rising in his place. There are clear limits on western power in such countries. We can't steer it.

The US or any western country.

Also, LBI I have no idea where you gather your news but the chemical attacks are front page of lots of leading publications.

― Van Horn Street, Monday, April 9, 2018 6:35 PM (thirty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

For sure. But it's not a talking point. The atrocity is reported, and after that: total silence. A tweet by mr 45 can be a convo piece for days on end. These atrocities are reported but then just... die in silence. No-one is stepping up to the plate, no-one is doing anything. Yeah, Russia says "hmm well there's no evidence for it to be a chemical attack!". The west is eerily quiet and self-indulged.

I could make a strenuous denunciation of Assad here, if you like, but if such a denunciation were somehow to lead to a deeper direct engagement in the Syrian War on the part of the USA, I think that result would be more harmful than helpful at this stage.

Don't bother.

Disagreed, too, the Kurds are in dire need of US' help. But Trump doesn't even know what "Kurds" are, so yeah...

I'm sure Assad would use chemical weapons on his people.

As far as conspiracy theories go, I do think it's strange that Assad was apparently on the cusp of victory, with the support of the usual suspects and little in the way of interference by the likes of the US ... and then uses chemical weapons again.

Yeah, I don't really want to get into that territory too much because conspiracy theorizing is silly and who knows what is in Assad's head but seems weird that in long, drawn-out battles like Deir ez-Zor, while the war was in the balance, chemical weapons were not used. Now, with only pockets of rebel areas left and the end of the war imminent, Assad decided "oh I'll do some atrocities to give legitimacy to my rivals and prompt further western intervention".

Was reading a piece in Haaretz that theorized that this was might be Assad thumbing his nose at the U.S. and claiming ownership over the country, like "ha ha, I'll gas civilians if I want, you can't do anything about it, na na na na", which I think is a not completely outlandish theory.

xps - We've been using the Kurds' troops in Syria against ISIS, but that's pissing off the Turks, so there are obvious limits there, too. otoh, the Kurds have an autonomous region within Iraq now, where the Kurdish independence referendum provoked Iraq into seizing the previously Kurdish-controlled oil fields. That's really where the US needs to exert whatever influence it has to assist the Kurds - maintaining their autonomy inside Iraq.

No-one is stepping up to the plate, no-one is doing anything.

― lbi's life of limitless european glamour (Le Bateau Ivre), Monday, April 9, 2018 3:14 PM (forty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the lessons might be learned.

Ah yes. Like humanity continues to learn lessons from past mistakes and do things better all the time, you mean?

what would you like to see done besides more news headlines?

A notion of actual interest from EU/America in this sordid tragedy would be nice. The headlines will be written after that.

It's pretty obvious Trump is clueless. The US army is more or less acting on its own within this conflict, for better or for worse. I'm equally disappointed in the EU though. They're absent from the plate.

so what are you specifically proposing? what does EU stepping up to the plate means to you? what solutions are believes are the best?

If you contest that US/EU looking away is in some way ok, then I won't bother anymore, too tired for that shit. I don't have the answers, but both continents can apply much more pressure to the opposing parties than they are currently doing. US should be deeply ashamed for letting the Kurds fight their battle against ISIS and now leaving them to die in Syria.

yeah and a lot of us are tired of the western savior complex.

Tell that to the Kurds - some of mine, family - begging the US to stay in Iraqi Kurdistan and Syria, because their presence has been a life preserver.

By applying pressure I suppose you mean military pressure. You can say it; its okay, this discussion is only theorical.

...

i probably agree w/ you but it's hard to tell since you're speaking very vaguely. i don't know what "A notion of actual interest from EU/America in this sordid tragedy would be nice." would mean. do you want heavier investment in kurdish military? (i'm in favor of that.) do you want direct military engagements between US or NATO forces in Syria? i don't think the West has the stomach for that post-Iraq. more investment in arming rebels? just calling out Assad in front of the UN more? there aren't a ton of options that i can see that span the gap between paying lip service (which is what i assume you're not interested in) and direct military engagement (which i'm not sure if you're interested in). if yes to military engagement - aerial engagement? boots on the ground? missile strikes?

I don't see how I could be interpreted as speaking "vaguely". Yes, I want heavier investment, especially in Kurdish forces, from the west. They need backing. They deserve backing, having done all the hard work in the first place, fighting ISIS.

"The west" might not have "the stomach" for post-Iraq, or for anything for that matter. But it should. That's my whole point. Very convenient to bow out at the worst possible time. "The west" shouldn't have been there in the first place, agreed. But they were, and are, so take responsibility and deal with the mess you helped create. (btw Kurds are not "rebels", but I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant, as I know you understand the situation really well).

If you, too, don't see an option in progressing this, then who does? That's my whole point. "We" don't know. "The west" is doing fuck all. Yet Assad is gassing and killing people hiding in bomb shelters. Children.

So: yes to "military engagement". To end Assad's crimes. To liberate the Kurds, the Syrian population who wanted none of this. But it won't happen, because Syria/Kurds/Middle East in general has become a chess board for USA and Russia to play a game over.

Interesting piece on Syria from the lrb by Patrick Cockburn https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n07/patrick-cockburn/survivors-of-the-syrian-wars

I agree with you and I think ending Assad’s regime would be just. I just don’t see a practical route to getting there. Even if Trump agreed to commit more resources and forces it would be done in such a shit thoughtless way it would almost certainly make things worse. POTUS Hillary was the only shot at a potentially valuable intervention from the US. France could intervene (they did in Mali) but they won’t with Russian involvement. Israel won’t explicitly open that front into full blown war but that border situation is volatile. Saudis are over extended and tapped out and probably standing over their own precipice. Turkey I don’t even have to mention to you.

Btw it makes perfect sense to me why Assad would use chemical weapons now. When his rule was more precarious he needed to make sure direct intervention didn’t happen. Now he can probably do what he wants. And what he wants is to pacify the rebellion and he’s apparently decided to do it by brutalizing them in a gruesome and horrible way to totally break the will. This is an alternative to indefinite occupation. Xpz

But {military intervention} won't happen, because Syria/Kurds/Middle East in general has become a chess board for USA and Russia to play a game over.

Your idea that intervention is only off the table because the US and Russia feel like playing with their cat's paws instead of getting serious and ending the war is rather too simplistic to capture what is going on. The fighting would be happening without the participation of either the US or Russia. It is fierce because it is a civil war, and the intervention of Iran and Hezbollah is inspired by local interests, not global politics.

If you think the US and EU could simply walk in, "win" the war and impose a peace, perhaps you may have noticed the sterling results we've obtained somewhat recently through western military intervention in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, you may have noticed that bombing the shit out of a country, or pouring in troops and heavy armaments, or both, is not only expensive in terms of money and lives, but has repercussions far outside the borders of the country being destroyed. And more than a few civilians get killed in the process, in ways just as deadly and dreadful as chemical weapons or barrel bombs.

Agreed w/ everything Mordy said.

If you think the US and EU could simply walk in, "win" the war and impose a peace, perhaps you may have noticed the sterling results we've obtained somewhat recently through western military intervention

This isn't what I think, nor have I said it was simple.

Nothing is simple. But if we want to learn from the past, we must also admit that Syria has gone about as bad as it possibly could.

I mean, read that Cockburn-piece jiv just posted. It should quite clear that the US has made decisions that has been disastrous, and not all of them are on Trump and Tillerson.

there's def going to be some sort of bombing campaign with the U.S., U.K., France, GCC maybe in the next couple days it feels like.

some sort of bombing campaign

performative acts of war are not very effective at anything but blowing up some things and killing some people who might not have otherwise died. to the degree such a bombing campaign is not performative, it would be an escalation of the violence, so that even more things are destroyed and still more people are killed, but with what end in view?

in the context of a raging civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions, this bombing campaign is likely to be the wartime equivalent of hitting a dog on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. Assad will not desist from atrocities, because they serve his war aims. It will not matter if our goal is noble, if we lack the means to achieve anything but a surge of meaningless violence.

oh yeah i agree it is not going to be a good thing, but it seems it will be a thing. would be incredibly surprised if it doesn't go ahead.

Does Iraq provide a good model for what wd happen in Syria as a result of a western intervention? Some differences are striking, like Saddam sitting on all the sects (factions?) then with him gone they erupt into civil war, meaning more violence overall in the country ... whereas in Syria the sects are already in a civil war

Not really the same though, because of demographics. Syria is a majority Sunni country, ran by an Alawite dynasty that, due to the small number of Alawites in the country, does not act in a sectarian manner.

In Iraq the majority are Shia and Saddam's regime was primarily Sunni-led and engaged in sectarian oppression of the Shia majority.

The only really sectarian element to the Syrian Civil War is the fact that the rebels are extremely sectarian Sunni islamists

In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, there were uprisings in Iraq, both Kurds in the north and Iraqi Shiites in the south. Saddam squashed them quickly and violently and iirc, only after that was a no-fly zone imposed over much of Iraq.

My memory tells me a similar no-fly zone was contemplated at the early stages of the Syrian Civil War, but was not instituted, in part because of political pushback in the USA. My assessment is that Assad's early survival and present ascendancy has mainly been due to air power, now supplemented greatly by Russian warplanes.

But the short answer is probably 'no', viewing Iraq as a model for Syria is not especially helpful. For one thing, there's no sizeable US army presence on the ground there.