The West Has Lost The Middle East

[dyingtoknow]

if by west you mean the west's traditional allies like the Saudi royals, Qatar royals etc then yes, they're losing, losing in Syria, Iran is rising and will be the regional hegemon with greater influence in Iraq. The region's being reshaped, and the power balance is tilting away from the US-Saudi nexus.. and that's a good thing.

There's nothing to "win" in Syria, the place is a wreck and will be for a generation. I don't think America wants a presence in that country and it has done everything possible to avoid direct involvement in the conflict. Only ISIS forced them to intervene and it is only with air power.

The traditional American allies, Israel, the Saudis etc are the only countries besides Iran left intact and with any discernible power . Iran is really the only power left not under American influence, and even that is debatable.

Iran simply doesn't have the power to stand up to the West alone, it's only the diplomatic approach of Obama who is leaving office soon that has opened up the crippling sanctions Iran has faced. No doubt if Iran starts to threaten America interests or a more hawkish American administration is around these sanctions will be reapplied. It's hard to see how Iran will be a regional hegemon.

by reshape I meant that the balance of power is tilting away from the Saudis with the emergence of Iran.

In Syria, the SAA have made significant advances since the Russian intervention while Saudi and Turkish etc backed jihadists have taken a beating.

In Iraq the US has far less influence now than during the occupation, they're Shia majority so after the US introduced democracy, they voted on sectarian lines and they've grown closer to Iran and Russia. Low oil prices isn't some gulf states conspiring to drain Russia, it's hurting everyone:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...axing-people-for-the-first-time-a6768206.html

The west, as the OP says, hasn't lost anything, it's just the regional dynamics in the ME are changing.

What is the evidence that the balance of power is tilting away from the Saudi-US axis? If anything we're now seeing the power of this axis in action with the oil price war that has crippled Russia and will slow down an Iranian resurgence.

Sure Iran has a presence in Iraq and Syria but that is not something that is a positive - these countries are burning wrecks, perhaps irreparably so. Being in these countries is a burden as Russia will find out.

It's really a case of the last man standing, and that man is the US-Saudi coalition. America may have lost wars but it left the battlefield so charred that it ended up winning (or will win) by default as its enemies are left with nothing but burdensome ruins with no strategic or economic value (see Iraq/Syria).

In contrast America and its allies, their homelands are left intact. The only ones left.

The only way to change the dynamics will be the introduction of a peer to America's power, China perhaps. But China is still 20 years away from being ready. Then we will see.

 

[T-72M1]

There's nothing to "win" in Syria, the place is a wreck and will be for a generation. I don't think America wants a presence in that country and it has done everything possible to avoid direct involvement in the conflict. Only ISIS forced them to intervene and it is only with air power.

The traditional American allies, Israel, the Saudis etc are the only countries besides Iran left intact and with any discernible power . Iran is really the only power left not under American influence, and even that is debatable.

Iran simply doesn't have the power to stand up to the West alone, it's only the diplomatic approach of Obama who is leaving office soon that has opened up the crippling sanctions Iran has faced. No doubt if Iran starts to threaten America interests or a more hawkish American administration is around these sanctions will be reapplied. It's hard to see how Iran will be a regional hegemon.

True, Syria is FUBAR but in the context of the current conflict on the ground, the SAA, helped along by hezbollah and Iranian forces on the ground and Russian air have begun to make military gains against the opposition.

Iran isn't opposing the west in the region, in fact their interests converge when it comes to fighting groups like ISIS and qaeda/nusra. Post sanctions, and with this deal they're also opening up for business with the west. They're nicely poised to really take off economically as more foreign investment flows in to Iran.. the 600 billion from China is only the tip of the iceberg.

Their growing influence in Iraq, a military victory in Syria, diplomacy, not war with the west.. all these things add up. I'm bullish on Iran.

What is the evidence that the balance of power is tilting away from the Saudi-US axis? If anything we're now seeing the power of this axis in action with the oil price war that has crippled Russia and will slow down an Iranian resurgence.

Sure Iran has a presence in Iraq and Syria but that is not something that is a positive - these countries are burning wrecks, perhaps irreparably so. Being in these countries is a burden as Russia will find out.

It's really a case of the last man standing, and that man is the US-Saudi coalition. America may have lost wars but it left the battlefield so charred that it ended up winning (or will win) by default as its enemies are left with nothing but burdensome ruins with no strategic or economic value (see Iraq/Syria).

In contrast America and its allies, their homelands are left intact. The only ones left.

The only way to change the dynamics will be the introduction of a peer to America's power, China perhaps. But China is still 20 years away from being ready. Then we will see.

The whole region is a mess but Iran/Iraq combined, trump Saudia for oil reserves, resolution of conflicts and stability in the region is in the interests of all the major powers, US, Russia and China.

True about those few countries left relatively or pretty much completely unscathed from all the surrounding chaos but ethno-religious and cultural divisions run so deep in some of these 'stable' countries' societies too (case in point, Bahrain)

One has to wonder how long this stability can be maintained, they're all sitting on a tinderbox.

 

[500]

Quite on contrary. 5 years ago Iran controlled 100% of Syria. Today it barely controls 30% and needs to invest billions and swarms of cannon fodder each year to keep these 30% afloat.

Once America allows weapons to rebels (not 30 TOWs a month, but real weapon supplies) Assad will collapse within half year,

 

[dyingtoknow]

True, Syria is FUBAR but in the context of the current conflict on the ground, the SAA, helped along by hezbollah and Iranian forces on the ground and Russian air have begun to make military gains against the opposition.

Iran isn't opposing the west in the region, in fact their interests converge when it comes to fighting groups like ISIS and qaeda/nusra. Post sanctions, and with this deal they're also opening up for business with the west. They're nicely poised to really take off economically as more foreign investment flows in to Iran.. the 600 billion from China is only the tip of the iceberg.

Their growing influence in Iraq, a military victory in Syria, diplomacy, not war with the west.. all these things add up. I'm bullish on Iran.

The Syrian war has had its ebbs and slows, the recent gains from Assad's forces are not indicative that they will win militarily any time soon. The Syrian army has proven itself to be incompetent and even with Russian and Hezbollah help, they remain the main ground force and hence the terminal weakness for any kind of resolution in favour or Assad.

Iran can only grow as much as America and to some extent Israel wants it to. If Iran starts to threaten American interests you can bet America will intervene, at minimum economically via sanctions and perhaps even militarily if a hawkish administration is in power. Iran simply can't get powerful because America (and Israel won't let it). Iranian attempts at regional dominance will result in war and I would back the enemies of Iran in such a conflict. Iran is too outnumbered and too out-gunned.

As a side note, Israel and the Saudi seem to be warming to each other no doubt in response to any Iranian regional ambitions.

The whole region is a mess but Iran/Iraq combined, trump Saudia for oil reserves, resolution of conflicts and stability in the region is in the interests of all the major powers, US, Russia and China.

True about those few countries left relatively or pretty much completely unscathed from all the surrounding chaos but ethno-religious and cultural divisions run so deep in some of these 'stable' countries' societies too (case in point, Bahrain)

One has to wonder how long this stability can be maintained, they're all sitting on a tinderbox.

The Shiite area of Iraq is barely able to contain ISIS, it can forget about being a useful regional ally to Iran. It's a charity case, not a force to be feared.

As for stability being in the interest of the major powers, well that's debatable and a very complex question. Stability is only good when the status quo suits your interests. If the status quo doesn't suit your interest then upheaval is better (in other words conflict). Since the major powers all have different versions of what the status quo should be in, especially in the Middle East, there will always be conflict. That's why you have the majors powers all creating these proxy armies rampaging throughout the world. The vast majority of the world's conflicts are proxy wars of some kind, or at the least can be linked back to the interests of the major powers. The major powers collectively don't want peace.

Quite on contrary. 5 years ago Iran controlled 100% of Syria. Today it barely controls 30% and needs to invest billions and swarms of cannon fodder each year to keep these 30% afloat.

Once America allows weapons to rebels (not 30 TOWs a month, but real weapon supplies) Assad will collapse within half year,

I actually don't think America wants Syria to collapse - they have their enemies stuck in a war of attrition, right where they want them. Iran and Russia can't do much else while they are stuck in this war, and each day brings a greater escalation.

Not to mention the end of the war will be catastrophic and risky in itself: something the risk-adverse Obama administration no doubt worries about. (eg, think about all these well-armed proxy armies, the weapons, the men, the refugees, they will all have to go somewhere when there is no one left to fight). It's just a mess and so long as this war is in a holding pattern you don't have to worry about it.

 

[T-72M1]

Quite on contrary. 5 years ago Iran controlled 100% of Syria. Today it barely controls 30% and needs to invest billions and swarms of cannon fodder each year to keep these 30% afloat.

Once America allows weapons to rebels (not 30 TOWs a month, but real weapon supplies) Assad will collapse within half year,

sure hope not, because with fall of Assad's government will go whatever little bit of Syria that still remains.

 

[ebrahym]

whether intentional or not.

the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the toppling of government like Libya and the attempt on Syria has created such a vacuum of chaos that the West can't fill nor it's Sunni neighbor that it has all been given it to Iran and Russia.


now the West has turned it's back on the Kurds which doesn't surprise me since the West says one thing and does another at the end, and I believe Turkey is a huge reason for this as well, but let's ignore that Turkey and Israel are both giving aid and shelter to IS and Al-Qaeda our sworn enemies.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pyd-kurds-wont-invited-syria-talks-riyadh-opponents-083539269.html

the West has betrayed the Kurds. If I was the Kurds I would drop the West for Russia,Iran,Syria alliance. the Kurds are fighting for their family,land, and freedom. I think it would only be befitting when IS is wiped off the face of the Earth that Kurds get their own country called Kurdistan stretching across 3 countries Syria,Iraq, and Iran.

and the West can't do a thing to stop it without causing WW3.


now with the power vacuum and chaos left in Iraq and Afghanistan is where Iran is stepping in and taking over!!

Trump was right as he has been for years on such issues concerning the Middle East

http://globalnews.ca/video/2057339/...aking-over-iraq-isis-building-hotels-in-syria

i have been crying out on this fact .... look at south sudan which is entirelt formed due to oil ...... same thing is with kurds the kurd areas have oil wells and that is the only reason west wants it for on the other hand the kurdistan will be bordering syria iran iraq and turkey and west can use it as a check to region like US wanted to use afghanistan to disturb pro-russia central asia.. that was the only reason US denied mujahideen and then the taliban their own creation the power in afghanistan

 

[T-72M1]

The Syrian war has had its ebbs and slows, the recent gains from Assad's forces are not indicative that they will win militarily any time soon. The Syrian army has proven itself to be incompetent and even with Russian and Hezbollah help, they remain the main ground force and hence the terminal weakness for any kind of resolution in favour or Assad.

Iran can only grow and much as America and to some extent Israel wants it to. If Iran starts to threaten American interests you can bet America will intervene, at minimum economically via sanctions and perhaps even militarily if a hawkish administration is in power. Iran simply can't get powerful because America (and Israel won't let it). Iranian attempts at regional dominance will result in war and I would back the enemies of Iran in such a conflict. Iran is too outnumbered and too out-gunned.

As a side note, Israel and the Saudi seem to be warming to each other no doubt in response to any Iranian regional ambitions.

It's been that way for years but so far since the Russian intervention, it's only flowed in their favour, so if that trend is anything to go by, who knows..

I believe Iranian theocracy and their mullahs are holding them back, once they stop with the very counterproductive anti Israel rhetoric, all will be well. Besides, it's not like the Palestinians want them anyway, they took sides in the broader ideological and military conflict when the SHTF in Syria not that long ago.

If they stop threatening Israel, they can scuttle this very strange bedfellowship going on between Israel and the Saudis.

The Shiite area of Iraq is barely able to contain ISIS, it can forget about being a useful regional ally to Iran. It's a charity case, not a force to be feared.

As for stability being in the interest of the major powers, well that's debatable and a very complex question. Stability is only good when the status quo suits your interests. If the status quo doesn't suit your interest then upheaval is better (in other words conflict). Since the major powers all have different versions of what the status quo should be in, especially in the Middle East, there will always be conflict. That's why you have the majors powers all creating these proxy armies rampaging throughout the world. The vast majority of the world's conflicts are proxy wars of some kind, or at the least can be linked back to the interests of the major powers. The major powers collectively don't want peace.

The demographics in Iraq suggest that Iranian influence in Baghdad is inevitable, once/if there's peace, that influence will grow further still.

The major powers might not have an agreeable solution the many problems plaguing the region atm region but we can still hope that common sense prevails eventually, how long can this madness go on ? something will have to give at some stage.