|
Best way to counter Iran's growing hegemony is to alienate all my allies and non-aligned countries. *Taps head three times.*
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
Aurubin posted:MBS wants puppet states, not diplomatic allies. He is the epitome example of an old time empire monarch that are too spoiled and high on his royal blood to accept anything less than total obedience from anyone not of such a grand standing and lineage as himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:If that's true what on Earth is the end goal of deposing King Abdullah? How does it benefit Saudi Arabia to potentially destabilize neutral Jordan? Maybe Abdullah wasn't ready to sign on to the MBS plan to betray Palestine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:Yemen stuff Thanks for this update, good information on the situation in Yemen seems hard to come by.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Maybe Abdullah wasn't ready to sign on to the MBS plan to betray Palestine. His wife the Queen is Palestinian so lol at Jordan backing that plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:Mohammad bin Salman is a loving moron. starfleet doesn't gently caress around
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
There are protests spreading in Iran, seems primarily economic but with some political chanting starting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42512946 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/29/iranian-police-disperse-anti-government-protests I'd be very surprised if these led to anything significant, but we'll see. Revolutionary Guard may take them as reason to clamp down harder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:His wife the Queen is Palestinian so lol at Jordan backing that plan. There are millions of Palestinians in Jordan too, hundreds of thousands of whom are living in refugee camps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:Consider me in the same group as Saudi Arabia in that I have no clue how they're going to end this war. Military victory is off the table due to its terrain and a lack of commitment by the Saudi's to send in decisive numbers of their own soldiers (are they waiting for the US to get involved?), without seizing most of the territory under Houthi control they can't starve them into submission and the Houthi's have no reason to negotiate or give in for the same reason the Taliban is still fighting the United States almost twenty years after our invasion of Afghanistan. Iran has committed relatively little to the Houthis and yet have ensnared the Saudi's in a quagmire that they can neither escape from nor break without ramifications that the Saudi's seem unwilling to commit to and so we have the perpetuation of this opaque conflict that is, by and large, out of sight and out of mind. A good post, though I can't resist a bit of nit-picking. Firstly "Iran. . . [has] ensnared the Saudi's in a quagmire" is a terrible way to frame the conflict. Iran does not control the Houthi anymore than the US controls the Syrian rebel opposition, or Jordan or Saudi Arabia. There's not much information on Iran's position towards the Houthi's original coup d'etat against Hadi but the analysts I've read suggested Iran probably disapproved of the operation. Presumably because they foresaw the chaos that came of it. Probably the war would be not much different even without the aid provided by Iran, although that is difficult to judge. Don't strip agency from the players in these conflicts. Saudi Arabia and the Houthis got themselves into this mess all by themselves. To comment on how Saudi Arabia thought it could end the war successfully, I suspect there was literally no serious planning at all. Which is kind of shocking looked at from the perspective of Western Europe or North America, where militaries have legions of professional staff who write contingencies for just about everything, and states have professional bureaucrats prepared to implement complicated schemes. For example before WWI the German General Staff literally planned the movements of every single unit of the German army for an advance into France years before the war ever occurred. However for example during Iraq's invasion of Iran there was virtually no plan at all after the first several days, just a few general operational goals like threaten Tehran which were probably completely unrealistic. Saddam was too suspicious of his generals even to permit them to do serious planning, as it presented opportunities to threaten his rule. There was no real preparation for serious resistance, the expectation was just that the Iranian regime would collapse. So knowing the way this kind of dictatorial regime operates, if I ask "should I assume there is a serious strategy at work here?" I can say no. There's no reason to give the Saudis the benefit of the doubt. This all probably just vanity and wishful thinking. Much like everything MBS has attempted lately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:Mohammad bin Salman is a loving moron. Man you'd think he'd succeed on some of these just by luck. Jordan is a pretty darn friendly country to KSA, this is a pretty crazy move if true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Where do you guys go for ~good~ geopolitical analysis? this thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
https://streamable.com/r3pqp my fear is that trump will see this as an opportunity for intervention. Especially if it gets increasingly violent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
rear end struggle posted:https://streamable.com/r3pqp For what it's worth, war with Iran isn't something you can do at the drop of a hat. It takes a lot of preparation we would have seen coming for a while if it was going to happen any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:For what it's worth, war with Iran isn't something you can do at the drop of a hat. It takes a lot of preparation we would have seen coming for a while if it was going to happen any time soon. American naval and ground strength is always prepared and in the area.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
rear end struggle posted:American naval and ground strength is always prepared and in the area. We're not invading Iran overnight with standby forces, especially while Trump's trying to stare down North Korea. Plus I strongly suspect even Afghanistan would say no to an invasion from their territory, and certainly all of Iran's other neighbors would (and Iraq would itself very quickly become a total disaster and very dangerous for US forces again), so it would be a fully naval invasion, which would be insane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
rear end struggle posted:American naval and ground strength is always prepared and in the area. This isn’t remotely true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Haystack posted:I mean, it's the Saudi's war. The the fact that they've bought US support doesn't mak charge that. Of course it doesn't. Just as it doesn't change the fact that it's the SDF doing the majority of the heavy lifting in Syria, when I see "US-backed force" instead of their name on every headline.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:We're not invading Iran overnight with standby forces, especially while Trump's trying to stare down North Korea. Plus I strongly suspect even Afghanistan would say no to an invasion from their territory, and certainly all of Iran's other neighbors would (and Iraq would itself very quickly become a total disaster and very dangerous for US forces again), so it would be a fully naval invasion, which would be insane. And lmao at the thought of anyone in the region okaying, in the remotest sense, a naval invasion via the persian gulf.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Squalid posted:A good post, though I can't resist a bit of nit-picking. Granted, the Houthis also didn't have many choices, Saleh was vastly overstepping his control over the situation and there really was no reason to crush him when they knew they could crush him. Also for putting the bounty on his head, maybe that was too much but I think their goal was to shatter his complete political lineage and keeping him as a hostage wasn't going to be enough. There is an argument to "cutting the head off the snake" after Saleh was already attempting to mobilize his supporters against him. For the Houthis, I think the status quo at the moment is essentially the closest they can get to victory, they don't have the supply lines or the equipment to really do much else. (Admittedly, the Houthis almost certainly inherited some decent equipment from Saleh's Republican Guard.) MbS never disappoints, but Jordan is between a rock and a hard place, but I think Abdullah's only choice is to try to keep the peace until eventually, something happens to MbS. Obviously, MbS goal at the moment is to essentially use whatever influence he has to bully Palestine into a peace plan in order to solidify his alliance with Israel, but I don't know if it is going to be possible. As for the Iranian protests, I do think inflation must be part of the issue, 9.6% inflation is still high. I wonder how much of it is also colored by the growing social divide in Iran, especially with the recent announcement about the religious police stepping back. I could see how Rouhani could be a lightning rod for criticism from religious conservatives. ---------------------------------- As far as military action against Iran, the most we probably could do is some cruise missile strikes and maybe some airstrikes on particularly vulnerable targets. In no way do we have the troop strength in the region for an invasion, and arguably we may not have it period unless we were limited to raiding the coast. Yemen would also take a while to prepare for beyond cruise missile/airstrikes (which honestly probably wouldn't do that much if the Houthis have already been shrugging them off for years). I can see Trump getting antsy, his 3 choices (NK/Iran/Yemen) so horrendous that he really doesn't have a clear route to play with his toys. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Dec 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Man you'd think he'd succeed on some of these just by luck. Then again, after what happened in November with that abduction...I can't help but see this as anything but a reaction to that. After all, if one head of state could have that done to him, who's next?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa/mattis-sees-larger-u-s-civilian-presence-in-syria-idUSKBN1EN1H8quote:U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Friday that he expected to see a larger U.S. civilian presence in Syria, including contractors and diplomats, as the fight against Islamic State militants nears its end and the focus turns toward rebuilding and ensuring the militants do not return. Does the United States really intend to stay inside Syria? According to the man who actually sets US strategy: Yes. We'll see for how long (probably forever). Let's put aside the ~~~~geopolitics~~~~ of this decision for a minute. I think that it's inarguable that the US's hasty retreat from Iraq during Obama's first term set the stage for Maliki's crackdown which restarted the Sunni resistance against Baghdad that transformed into ISIS storming Mosul and declaring their caliphate. If Assad were to regain control of Syrian territory east of the Euphrates he would inevitably crackdown and attempt to annihilate any and all organizations outside his control and drive the population towards radicalism. An American presence wouldn't just prevent his ability to do so but it would also allow a platform for America to help rebuild and restore Syria's infrastructure and provide critically needed funding and assistance in a region that has seen some of the most ferocious fighting against ISIS. Doing this might actually help stabilize not just this portion of Syria but, potentially, the region if it causes Saudi Arabia and Israel to calm the gently caress down over Iran. We're not going to see direct military action against Iran but we are going to see dedicated US efforts to mitigate Iran's ascent. Think of that what you will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:Doing this might actually help stabilize not just this portion of Syria but, potentially, the region if it causes Saudi Arabia and Israel to calm the gently caress down over Iran. You sort of answer that point, it isn't going to stabilize the region but rather simply be another move in the broader chess game. Also, the US staying in Kurdish territory puts it in direct opposition with Erdogan, and while he may gripe about Assad, his priority is always going to be against the Kurds (and he has admitted it as much). It is pretty much a binary choice at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Mattis is speaking militarily, but politically things change all the drat time. Right now the US staying there seems feasible and a good idea, to deny the geopolitical goals of Iran for as long as they can. But if someone like Turkey applies enough outside pressure, or poo poo forget outside pressure, if a change in presidents happens or if Trump decides to actually make boneheaded foreign policy decisions that are part of a newly developed boneheaded foreign policy strategy of his, then all of a sudden this promise of Mattis goes up in a puff of smoke and a withdrawal will happen as fast, if not faster, as the one that did in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
I cannot believe how dumb MBS is. He's seriously giving Trump a run for his money in the 'should never have been put in charge of a country' category. Every single thing he's done, with the exception of some small social reforms that seem designed primarily to look good for Western cameras, seems to have totally failed to improve Saudi Arabia's geopolitical situation and just lay bare the country's awful, oppressive systems and its ruling class's medieval sense of entitlement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:You sort of answer that point, it isn't going to stabilize the region but rather simply be another move in the broader chess game. Also, the US staying in Kurdish territory puts it in direct opposition with Erdogan, and while he may gripe about Assad, his priority is always going to be against the Kurds (and he has admitted it as much). It is pretty much a binary choice at this point. If the East Euphrates region gets aid for rebuilding and security to help accomplish it that helps them and they can act as a brick of stability in the broader region. And if MBS is acting as wildly as it appears getting him to calm down would help stabilize the region as well. I personally believe that the Yemen fiasco is an over reaction by Saudi Arabia on the perceived Iranian threat and everything that they have done in the past year reflects the same mentality. And while Rouhani's public position is that the countries in the region need to work together because not one can dominate all of the others I'm not so certain if the Revolutionary Guard feels that way considering how Syria has turned out. Preventing them from achieving a decisive victory and forcing negotiations on reforms to the Syrian government could be a very productive step towards stability. So, yes, it's one move in a broader game but that doesn't mean that the game's goal can't be for stability as well. As for Turkey they seriously can't turn against the United States in the present term. I just don't buy it and Erdogan is eternally posturing to the point of parody. He is a wild and unpredictable partner and no one in the world will trust him or can even offer what the West can offer him. And if he does decide to turn against the West he would just be fulfilling the dreams of his arch nemesis, THE DREADED KURD, by giving the United States no option but to support them if it wants to retain influence in the region. It's just like how the US stopped manpads from being sent to the opposition in Syria but instead its the Turks preventing greater support from flowing to the Kurds. Israel (and Saudi?) are openly hostile towards Turkey at this point and making overtures towards the Kurds so, seriously, Turkey should not even be considering cutting off its relationship with the United States.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I cannot believe how dumb MBS is. He's seriously giving Trump a run for his money in the 'should never have been put in charge of a country' category. Every single thing he's done, with the exception of some small social reforms that seem designed primarily to look good for Western cameras, seems to have totally failed to improve Saudi Arabia's geopolitical situation and just lay bare the country's awful, oppressive systems and its ruling class's medieval sense of entitlement. If you anoint Muhammad as crown prince, a great nation will fall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:If the East Euphrates region gets aid for rebuilding and security to help accomplish it that helps them and they can act as a brick of stability in the broader region. And if MBS is acting as wildly as it appears getting him to calm down would help stabilize the region as well. I personally believe that the Yemen fiasco is an over reaction by Saudi Arabia on the perceived Iranian threat and everything that they have done in the past year reflects the same mentality. And while Rouhani's public position is that the countries in the region need to work together because not one can dominate all of the others I'm not so certain if the Revolutionary Guard feels that way considering how Syria has turned out. Preventing them from achieving a decisive victory and forcing negotiations on reforms to the Syrian government could be a very productive step towards stability. So, yes, it's one move in a broader game but that doesn't mean that the game's goal can't be for stability as well. To stabilize the YPG's territory and rebuild it's economy it's going to have to have access through one of it's neighboring countries. If they can't move money and goods in and out it won't matter how much support the US/Saudis/Israel give. If it's economy stagnate the Arab population of the YPG territory is going to be harder and harder to keep inline. The problem for the YPG is they need one of their neighbors to actively help it. If Turkey, Assad and Iraq close their borders to it then it will slowly strangle and die. At the same time I'm not sure the US occupying Eastern Syria hurts Iran at all. If anything the continual friction between the US and Turkey and keeping Assad dependent may out weigh all negatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:Mohammad bin Salman is a loving moron. Are the gulf royals completely coddled or do they have enough self awareness to realize how despised they are even by their allies? The day their poo poo comes crashing down no one's going to lift a finger to help them and I wonder if people like bin Salman are going to get the Shah treatment and denied the chance to flee to the USA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:and just lay bare the country's awful, oppressive systems Speaking of which, we haven't seen Al-Saqr in a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Speaking of which, we haven't seen Al-Saqr in a while. He stopped posting (at least in this thread) after everyone called him an rear end in a top hat for making GBS threads all over that Iraqi woman who took a pic with Miss Israel and posted it. I think / hope it’s an issue of feels got hurt and not MbS being a goon who saw this thread and doxxed al saqr.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I cannot believe how dumb MBS is. He's seriously giving Trump a run for his money in the 'should never have been put in charge of a country' category. Every single thing he's done, with the exception of some small social reforms that seem designed primarily to look good for Western cameras, seems to have totally failed to improve Saudi Arabia's geopolitical situation and just lay bare the country's awful, oppressive systems and its ruling class's medieval sense of entitlement. I kinda getting a sick kick out of it all, considering people have been saying for years that if a Saudi ruler ever got serious, they could dominate the region, and instead it is just all falling apart because MBS are incapable of comprehending the concept that people can reject his commands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
axelord posted:To stabilize the YPG's territory and rebuild it's economy it's going to have to have access through one of it's neighboring countries. If they can't move money and goods in and out it won't matter how much support the US/Saudis/Israel give. If it's economy stagnate the Arab population of the YPG territory is going to be harder and harder to keep inline. Yes but I take issue with the notion that Turkey, Assad and Iraq will cut off land routes or that Turkey will separate entirely from the West and do something do drastic. It should be remembered that the Kurds have had an overall neutral, if fluctuating, relations with Assad during this entire conflict and have never made open bids of independence like their counterparts in Iraq. With a Turkish threat to the north, the referendum debacle to their east and no access to the coast there is no concrete reason for the Kurds to want to remove themselves from Syria. Instead, they should use their position to gain self rule in a national framework and that has consistently been their express goal. Speaking of: https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/7n14pc/kurdish_official_from_sm_in_aleppo_us_dont/ quote:We are against the issue of separation, and we are with the unity of the Syrian territories, and what we are trying to do is to turn Syria from a central state into a state," said Mohammed Sheikho, head of the Kurdish Community Movement in Sheikh Maksoud neighborhood north of Aleppo, in an interview with Tasnim. Note that this is an official from the Kurdish area inside Aleppo and they are much more at the mercy of Assad than anyone east of the Euphrates but I think the overall point is correct.The United States is going to act in its perceived self interest but that doesn't mean it can't contribute to the region and, as you said, they can only go so far because they can be locked out of Syria if it came to that extreme level. Not that my wishes amount to anything but I would like to see US presence offer concrete protection for the Kurds and necessitate a restructuring of the Syrian to state to prevent another future SCW by decentralizing power way from Damascus (or more accurately, Latakia) while keeping the country's territorial integrity intact. I feel that's the best way forward to prevent both a future repeat of the civil war and reduce the chance for regional conflicts. Turkey walks away with the Kurdish separatist movement solved in both Iraq and Syria, the Syrians themselves live under a less expansive police state and the regional players accept that they can't destroy their enemies and need to settle their disputes without relying on the United States. When I think of US foreign policy in the ME I think of how the British unwound their colonial empire after WWII. The point isn't just to leave the region but to leave it in such a way that it doesn't drag us back into the conflict (ala ISIS) or, perhaps worse, just stay in a state of perpetual anarchy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Endemic22/status/947080408339963904
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Brother Friendship posted:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa/mattis-sees-larger-u-s-civilian-presence-in-syria-idUSKBN1EN1H8 Gotta be honest this is pretty funny after everyone and their mother was prepared to bitch at the United States for abandoning their Kurdish/SDF allies after the fight against ISIL is "complete." In all honesty, I'm actually fairly surprised that we're ramping up our presence and therefore support in this fashion. Not the worst move, if only because it's a rare example of us keeping our promises to the local groups we're working with and that makes it easier to deal with other groups in the future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 17:33
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:Gotta be honest this is pretty funny after everyone and their mother was prepared to bitch at the United States for abandoning their Kurdish/SDF allies after the fight against ISIL is "complete." In all honesty, I'm actually fairly surprised that we're ramping up our presence and therefore support in this fashion. The trick is never to admit the fight against ISIS is "complete"  I'm surprised that we're supporting them because I felt that Trump would dump the Kurds once Raqqa was sacked. Overall I think our interaction with northeast Syria is the one bright spot in an otherwise miserable 21st century of US foreign policy. It's just a question of where it goes from here but, ideally, we have an eye towards the exit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
I doubt it. Mission creep is only plan the US military follows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
MBS must be Grouchio then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/worldonalert/status/947177124191928321 I'm going to guess the army doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:https://twitter.com/worldonalert/status/947177124191928321 *waggles hand* (Smaller) elements of the military routinely get purged for suspected disloyalty to the regime. Of course, this does mean that any actually disloyal muckety mucks either got purged at some point or are playing their cards very close to their vests. I've heard this batch of protests was actually started by hyperconservative elements to beat on Rouhani but it turns out an awful lot of people are unhappy with the economic situation (which is supposed to be prosperous in exchange for the regime's dominance) and don't just blame Rouhani.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
Iran protests go violent in Lorestan. Three killed and the city council burned. https://twitter.com/mobarez_nastooh/status/947150986593951744
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2017 20:14
|
|