|
The biased abridged version of current events in the middle east from a western perspective.
I put this in a blog because much of the information is my own personal opinion. I welcome any comments or misunderstanding that I may need help with clarifying.
Here my goal in creating this blog is to consolidate information about the middle east and discuss what I believe is happening and what will happen of the course of time.
I start with some background on Islam, in the context of politics. Next I go on to discuss some of the history of the middle east. I pick a few post 9/11 events and current events. Based off of these events, I surmise what will happen.
Basically, in current events there is a lot of talk of events in the middle east with no particular source that addresses everything as an overview. My goal here is provide a quick overview of events for the TL community. I will try to be as unbiased as I can, but I do have to say that I get my information from books and media outlets. If my information is incorrect please feel free to correct me. I do not pretend to understand everything. I"ll try to cite my sources as best I can remember.
First, to understand the middle east, I want to point out that religion and politics are intermixed. The NSA and the US have been somewhat anti-religion for a long time. (http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/#wrapper, http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/nsa-faces-new-threat-religious-gun-and-pot-groups/67232/) A lot of this has to do with the fact that religion confounds politics. This is a common starting point of controversy in what foreign countries dislike about the Democracy agenda. (BBC documentary: Putin and the west, BBC documentary:Iran and the West) This stirs up a lot of controversy. At times, the US is pro-religion as well such as lobbying for israel. (BBC documentary Israel and Palestine the truth) A sentiment which is being challenged currently with our democrat leaders.(http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-meets-with-anti-israel-pro-hamas-groups-before-trip-to-israel/)
To decipher the consequences of that fact i need to explain some things about Islam as I understand them.
1. The beautifully written Koran(Qur'an) (spelling like port) states that Allah promises the people the land. (http://www.meforum.org/2462/the-quran-israel-not-for-jews)
2. There are two main religions that had a heavy split. (Sunni and Shia) Shia follow the Ayatollah, which is mildly comparable to the pope in Christianity. Sunni's are mildly comparable to evangelicals in Christianity. Usually they have local leaders and not a single centralized
3. Many political parties cross multiple countries and have varied leadership such as the Muslim brotherhood, a Sunni based religion.
4. Historically, Islam countries Have very very strong legal systems which base most of their laws on the Qur'an.
5. In addition to the Qur'an, there are edicts such as the Hadith, which is sort of a collection of writings about Mohammed, and shariah law which has been adapted over time. The inclusion of these is selective depending on groups which splits beliefs in Islam.
Brief history of the middle east-
Beginning of Islam-
Before Mohammed, Judaism and Christianity has many similarities. Early works leading into Islam were teachings by Rabi Hillel, where he simplified the laws of the bible into love your neighbor like your self and stepped away from the eye for an eye mentality. He was followed by Jesus(Isa), whom is mentioned heavily in the Qur'an. Muslims take the gospels to be somewhat accurate, but like the gospel of Barnabas, which refutes Jesus claim to divinity.
The Roman empire Had decline from roughly 250-500 AD. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire) A lesson in history shows that wherever there is a void in central political power, it will be filled by the next victor, and in this case it was a somewhat bloody beginning for Islam. Mohammed received revelations from Allah, bringing an end to the gospels and a uniting of religious though which happened around 600 AD. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad)
After this Islam lead to a strong peaceful presence and many modern advances in medicine and literature were kept. The unfortunate happened when Temujin, Genghis Khan invaded China then the middle east Killing nearly 20% of the worlds population. (about 1.2 billion in modern day standards) After this much of the information was lost, and the pathway for information brought through trade from the East to the West was broken, leading to the dark ages.
During the Dark ages, the time when both Christianity schismed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism) and Muslims further split, while the first recovery came at Damascus (BBC documentary Syria), the middle east was ruled mostly by the ottomans who flourished under religious freedoms, but frequently were at war with the Russians and french.(ottoman empire documentary) The Americas were discovered and imperialism flourished. The ottomans declined(http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/asia/6/FC49) and the world wars happened, while the US didn't fight the middle east, Russia did heavily.
During the second world war, Israel was formed via the removal of Palestinians from their homes.(The birth of Israel:Occupation of Palestine BBC documentary) This was largely unaddressed by the west given their interests. The land precedent was set via the India-Pakistan separation. This precedent implies that having a majority rule is extremely important in politics, and often this is done at the expense of genocide. (India-Pakistan Partition BBC documentary)
Besides the land precedent, another in place was unilateral aid in middle eastern conflicts, mostly from the cold war. Two such events mostly results from the sales of weapons to one side and not the other. (1967 Israel 6 day war, and the weapon sales to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran Conflict.) The idea of sanctions arises from this.
During the Cold war, the emphasis was on controlling assets to secure military might such as oil pipelines. US support for Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, and Israel vs. Russian support for Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Lebanon. During these conflicts another precedent arose, asking for support from the UN peacefully was often ignored or observed without intervening in religious conflicts(Iran, Serbia, Sudan, Palestine, Lebanon pleas for help), meanwhile violent aggression was often rewarded. (I.e. Hamas defeating Israel, Afghanistan defeating Russia, Georgia Russian conflict)
Thus from history, some take home messages are-
1.Since the time of Genghis Khan, Wherever there is a void in power, it is often filled by the most violent group.
2.The west unilaterally intervenes in certain conflicts and has proxy groups the protected their interests.
3.The Middle east had served as a proxy in the cold war.
4.The current constant war between middle eastern groups arise from a precedent of land rights, and differing support of various groups in the middle east.
5.There is a lot of inconsistency in diplomacy with the middle east, which makes it difficult to judge sides.
The US and Russia Meddle at a different rate-In the 80's Israel Bombarded Lebanon, and Russia could no longer afford to support its proxies. This ultimately led to a decrease in bilateral support for the proxies of the middle east. A peculiarity in balance started around the time of the fall of the Berlin wall, the Cold war wrapped up and Russia and the US slowed their aggression towards one another. The Russians reformed their government into a society which communicated more openly with the west. The US companies had tried to exploit the many gas reserves in Russia, which caused a huge political divide. (Putin and the West BBC documentary) This led to the Rise of the Iron Fist of Saddam Hussein.
Many proxies were setup in the middle east to support Saddam Hussein such as Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. Meanwhile, Conditions in Iran and Afghanistan deteriorated quickly. These conditions led to the belief that the Iran Shah, and his relationship with the west was a cause of the suffering of the Iranian people. The ayatollah was forced to France and from there Iman Ali Khamenei led a revolution in Iran following the lessons learned above as take home messages. The precedents from the West caused a more violent driven group independent of western influence, driven on revenge for the unilateral support of the west. At this time they took hostages, upon which President Carter Tried to free. Unsuccessful, a proclaimed act of god ruined the mission, empowering the Ayatollah.
Saddam decided to wage war vs another us Proxy, Kuwait. This time consistent with the point 2. The US prevented Kuwait's invasion fearing it would turn out like Iran and the use of chemical weapons would occur against the Geneva convention. This was the first gulf war. After the gulf war, the Us realized that it had supported too much one side and tried to support other groups. This military support, in fact supplied Hamas and Al-Queda.
Can the middle east have peace? The answer is no. At least for a while. There are too many precedents in international politics preventing this.
The Last 12 years-
The US was warned by Russia that Afghanistan and the Taliban were supporting Al-Queda and they were going to have retribution for the Israel invasion of Lebanon.(http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/0143034669/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375830432&sr=1-1&keywords=ghost+wars) Attacks on the World Trade Center, changed US policy from having proxy wars to sending troops actively abroad. In addition, the US tried to take advantage of having resources in the region to invade Iraq.(the reasoning being false information about chemical weapons) This was done so and Saddam's Iron fist was removed. The people who the US turned to for support against Al-Queda were the Iranians. Hamas took advantage of the freedom and attacked Isreal in 2008. Israel invaded and lost to Hamas. The fall of Saddam and Israel, following the principle from above a void was made, and the idea of an unfightable dictatorship was gone. This led to a strong civil war in Iraq that continues to this day. Both sides violently trying to fill a void of power.
After the initial wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, a huge release of information revealed that the US turned a blind eye on its proxies. Wikileaks (Wikileaks:The secret life of a superpower), exposed weaknesses and regrettable acts. In Tunisia after the exposure a man burned himself alive, which lead to the event known as the Arab spring (http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/mar/22/middle-east-protest-interactive-timeline). The three most ruthless proxies, Syria, Egypt, and Libya's people defied leadership and fought to gain control of their governments. After elections some strong groups became even more powerful, such as the Sunni Muslim brotherhood. Syria particularly took the longest and is still in active conflict with the Shia Alowite minority trying to retain power.(Syria BBC documentary)
The last Few days-
Since 2012, the Sunni Al-Queda based mostly in Yemen and Pakistan are fighting to slow down Iran's ascension into power. Iran has a Trump card, its relationship with Pakistan and Russian military arms dealers has given them the opportunity to develop nuclear arms. This would mean that the void of power would be filled with a nation that believes that peaceful negotiations do not work with the west(Iran and the west,BBC documentary ). Al-Queda is doing anything and everything to try and muster up support to beat Iran to the punchline. In the past fews weeks they have freed many of their militants from prisons and attacked heavily during Ramadan (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/05/world/yemen-us-drone-strike/index.html?hpt=hp_t2). (a holiday which Muslims fast during daylight and usually stay up later and gather) Politically,Edward Snowden is being used to put more emphasis on how poorly the US handles international and domestic affairs, suggesting that they are as bad as the Stasi were at spying.
The next 5 years-
The Us will finish pulling out of Afghanistan. Iran is continuing development of Nuclear arms and likely will have/detonate one. If it does a public test, possibly Israel will invade Iran within 2 years. If this happens the Sunnis will likely come into power, and possibly could be one of the bloodiest conflict of the next 50 years. (~8-20 million killed) More likely Iran will do a private underground test to show that they have the capacity. This will probably make Shiites emboldened and probably they will gain the majority control of the middle east. The US or its allies probably will not invade Yemen, but will send 1-2 aircraft carriers there. I think the conflict in Syria will still go on, until a nuclear weapon is developed. If the Iranian nuclear weapon is developed the current Syrian Alawites will stay in Syria. If not, I believe it will fall. If a nuclear weapon is developed it will results in an arms race int he middle east. If there is no war before nuclear arms, I hope that they are not used.
Considering all of the jail breaks. Its in a way a counter statement to Guantanamo. Notwithstanding, Guantanamo will not close, unless us citizens put excessive pressure on the government to do so. Iraq will be in civil war until that time. Egypt's conflict will worsen as well. Turkey will likely get involved soon as well, but their apprehension is noted. Russia and China will dominate the worlds economy. Gas prices will probably exceed 6 to 7 dollars a gallon if there is intercountry war in the middle east.
I really really hope I'm wrong tho and like Hillel wanted people will calm down, try to focus more on good deeds, realize what is going on politically, and stop this madness.
 
|
United States24488 Posts
"During the second world war, Israel was formed via the removal of Palestinians from their homes.(The birth of Israel:Occupation of Palestine BBC documentary) This was largely unaddressed by the west given their interests. "
This (and the aftermath) is a very important part of what's happening in that area, but you did not discuss why this happened.
|
On August 07 2013 08:58 micronesia wrote:
"During the second world war, Israel was formed via the removal of Palestinians from their homes.(The birth of Israel:Occupation of Palestine BBC documentary) This was largely unaddressed by the west given their interests. "
This (and the aftermath) is a very important part of what's happening in that area, but you did not discuss why this happened.
Honestly, you need to go even farther back to WW1 and the creation of British-owned Mandatory Palestine in order to get a good sense for how things came to be in the area. In other words, OP, there is a lot more to the equation.
|
Read into the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
|
United States24488 Posts
On August 07 2013 09:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 08:58 micronesia wrote:
"During the second world war, Israel was formed via the removal of Palestinians from their homes.(The birth of Israel:Occupation of Palestine BBC documentary) This was largely unaddressed by the west given their interests. "
This (and the aftermath) is a very important part of what's happening in that area, but you did not discuss why this happened. Honestly, you need to go even farther back to WW1 and the creation of British-owned Mandatory Palestine in order to get a good sense for how things came to be in the area. In other words, OP, there is a lot more to the equation.
Well it started thousands of years ago... that's the problem haha.
|
On August 07 2013 09:59 ChunderBoy wrote:
Read into the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
Excellent read. I appreciate this XD
|
On August 07 2013 08:42 tokinho wrote:
The next 5 years-
The Us will finish pulling out of Afghanistan. Iran is continuing development of Nuclear arms and likely will have/detonate one. If it does a public test, possibly Israel will invade Iran within 2 years. If this happens the Sunnis will likely come into power, and possibly could be one of the bloodiest conflict of the next 50 years. (~8-20 million killed) More likely Iran will do a private underground test to show that they have the capacity. This will probably make Shiites emboldened and probably they will gain the majority control of the middle east. The US or its allies probably will not invade Yemen, but will send 1-2 aircraft carriers there. I think the conflict in Syria will still go on, until a nuclear weapon is developed. If the Iranian nuclear weapon is developed the current Syrian Alawites will stay in Syria. If not, I believe it will fall. If a nuclear weapon is developed it will results in an arms race int he middle east. If there is no war before nuclear arms, I hope that they are not used.
Considering all of the jail breaks. Its in a way a counter statement to Guantanamo. Notwithstanding, Guantanamo will not close, unless us citizens put excessive pressure on the government to do so. Iraq will be in civil war until that time. Egypt's conflict will worsen as well. Turkey will likely get involved soon as well, but their apprehension is noted. Russia and China will dominate the worlds economy. Gas prices will probably exceed 6 to 7 dollars a gallon if there is intercountry war in the middle east.
I really really hope I'm wrong tho and like Hillel wanted people will calm down, try to focus more on good deeds, realize what is going on politically, and stop this madness.
These predictions are not only illogical, but run against common sense.
US out of Afghanistan? Okay.
Iran having a nuclear weapon within 5 years? Far less likely. Israel "invading" Iran within 2 years? No. Israel INVADE Iran? Really? Airstrike, maybe. Invade? not a chance.
If Israel invades, why the fuck would Sunnis come into power and why would there be some hugely bloody conflict? Like...what? Based on what evidence?
Iran nuclear test leading to Shiite "control" of the Middle East? Control of...what? Does having a nuclear weapon mean Iran now controls the middle east? Does it mean it controls the internal affairs of Iraq? of Syria? Of Turkey? Of the Saudis?
Why would an Iranian nuclear weapon mean the Alawites stay in power? What the hell kind of logic is that?
Nuclear weapon leads to an arms race in the middle east? between WHO?
What do you mean, Iraq will be in civil war? between who?
What conflict in Egypt? There is no conflict in Egypt. There is an internal dilemna over the direction the state should go (Islamist or not), it's hardly a "conflict".
Turkey will "get involved". Get. Involved. In what? The "Middle East?"
Russia and China will dominate the world's economy? Russia? Within a few years? Better tell Putin! No mention of...India? Brazil?
I admire the effort here, but when you started making predictions you left the realm of sanity and started the plot of a Tom Clancy novel. Your predictions and claims about the future seem...grandiose, and you off-handedly include world-shaking changes in the world's balance of power with no justification or rationale, even to the point of excluding the rational interests of states in favor of a prediction that has no substance.
Again, the background is nice, but I will be honest and tell you the rest cannot be taken seriously.
|
The thing about the middle east is that those people, those countries, and those religions in that region always have been, and always will be at war with each other. I'm not going to speculate on exactly why that is (actually I will, it's probably a vicious cycle of bad family systems), but they are constantly fighting, arguing, and doing fucked up things to themselves and others. The people there are just angry all the time.
In other words, nothing is news from there unless they actually stop fighting and doing fucked up shit. That would be news.
|
To OP:
Ok, let me be honest and blunt with you, before you start spreading your ideas in other places, stop it. You have very limited knowledge outside of what media presents. Which means close to none.
There are things you should understand:
1. Your post about middleeast is starting with explaination of religion and how its related to middle east. This the first sign of wrong direction. Media tries to relate these things closely middleeast-islam-terrorism-no-democracy. Its all bullshit. Religion has nothing to do with problems they have and don't try to ever bring it up.
2. Middleeastern people don't care about democracy, they don't need it. Because they lived like this for 2000 years and happy the way it is.
3. The real problem is money, oil and gas. whatever. Middleeast is sitting on a huge bank and they don't wanna share it with anybody, or namely, their leaders, who know what wealth is, hence dont wanna share it. Therefore with some special tactics and provocations other countries try to get rid off those leaders.
4. Media presents it as if there is no freedom, people suffer, government shooting people, bla bla bla... bulshit again.
5. If you really want to understand whats happening there, you should go there and live for atleast a year.
|
|
|
On August 07 2013 09:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 08:58 micronesia wrote:
"During the second world war, Israel was formed via the removal of Palestinians from their homes.(The birth of Israel:Occupation of Palestine BBC documentary) This was largely unaddressed by the west given their interests. "
This (and the aftermath) is a very important part of what's happening in that area, but you did not discuss why this happened. Honestly, you need to go even farther back to WW1 and the creation of British-owned Mandatory Palestine in order to get a good sense for how things came to be in the area. In other words, OP, there is a lot more to the equation.
Indeed, there is a lot more to it than what he writes.
Media biased text.
Like 1947, 1/3 of "Palestine" population were already jews and many of them had bought up land for a huge portion of what is considered Israel, during the last 50 years. Even if they didn't get sanctioned the land, sooner or later, jews would have been the majority and bought majority of the land. There is still lot more to it than this, but you are writing something that is very biased, BBC media focused, that does not give the full picture.
|
To the posters before me, the OP states he has bias, and asks for correction. So simply stating the fact the bias exists adds nothing to the discussion here.
This really is a very complex topic which involves many sub-topics and a vast amount of history. I can add a little bit of insight concerning the 5th paragraph:
"First, to understand the middle east, I want to point out that religion and politics are intermixed. The NSA and the US have been somewhat anti-religion for a long time. A lot of this has to do with the fact that religion confounds politics. This is a common starting point of controversy in what foreign countries dislike about the Democracy agenda. This stirs up a lot of controversy. At times, the US is pro-religion as well such as lobbying for israel. A sentiment which is being challenged currently with our democrat leaders."
The key statement I want to address is "religion and politics are intermixed." This is a concept which fundamentally alienates the east from the west. Separation of church and state is a uniquely western and christian idea, with its beginnings in the 15th and 16th centuries in Europe. It's not even a Jewish idea. A greek philosophy known as 'Epicureanism' pre-dates christianity and can be considered a pro-genitor of church-state separation.
So it goes like this: Henry the 8th wanted a divorce, and the catholic church wouldn't give it to him.
Later on a guy called John Locke argued that governments can only legislate actions, not opinions, beliefs or morals.
Then finally, you get Thomas Jefferson in the 1800's promoting the idea that religion is solely between mankind and god alone, outside of the state.
The OP makes another insightful observation, but unfortunately doesn't develop it: pp6 "3. Many political parties cross multiple countries and have varied leadership such as the Muslim brotherhood, a Sunni based religion."
I think this, combined with the history of 'who is supporting who at this time,' is key to understanding the motivations for conflict.
So you at least have to know:
1: history of conflict in the middle east prior to western involvement
2: the interwebs (!) of political groups and Qu'ranic interpretations across different nations
3: history of which western nation supported which middle eastern nation at which conflict and time
Thanks OP. I'm all for the progress of understanding.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 07 2013 15:51 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 08:42 tokinho wrote:
The next 5 years-
The Us will finish pulling out of Afghanistan. Iran is continuing development of Nuclear arms and likely will have/detonate one. If it does a public test, possibly Israel will invade Iran within 2 years. If this happens the Sunnis will likely come into power, and possibly could be one of the bloodiest conflict of the next 50 years. (~8-20 million killed) More likely Iran will do a private underground test to show that they have the capacity. This will probably make Shiites emboldened and probably they will gain the majority control of the middle east. The US or its allies probably will not invade Yemen, but will send 1-2 aircraft carriers there. I think the conflict in Syria will still go on, until a nuclear weapon is developed. If the Iranian nuclear weapon is developed the current Syrian Alawites will stay in Syria. If not, I believe it will fall. If a nuclear weapon is developed it will results in an arms race int he middle east. If there is no war before nuclear arms, I hope that they are not used.
Considering all of the jail breaks. Its in a way a counter statement to Guantanamo. Notwithstanding, Guantanamo will not close, unless us citizens put excessive pressure on the government to do so. Iraq will be in civil war until that time. Egypt's conflict will worsen as well. Turkey will likely get involved soon as well, but their apprehension is noted. Russia and China will dominate the worlds economy. Gas prices will probably exceed 6 to 7 dollars a gallon if there is intercountry war in the middle east.
I really really hope I'm wrong tho and like Hillel wanted people will calm down, try to focus more on good deeds, realize what is going on politically, and stop this madness. These predictions are not only illogical, but run against common sense. US out of Afghanistan? Okay. Iran having a nuclear weapon within 5 years? Far less likely. Israel "invading" Iran within 2 years? No. Israel INVADE Iran? Really? Airstrike, maybe. Invade? not a chance. If Israel invades, why the fuck would Sunnis come into power and why would there be some hugely bloody conflict? Like...what? Based on what evidence? Iran nuclear test leading to Shiite "control" of the Middle East? Control of...what? Does having a nuclear weapon mean Iran now controls the middle east? Does it mean it controls the internal affairs of Iraq? of Syria? Of Turkey? Of the Saudis? Why would an Iranian nuclear weapon mean the Alawites stay in power? What the hell kind of logic is that? Nuclear weapon leads to an arms race in the middle east? between WHO? What do you mean, Iraq will be in civil war? between who? What conflict in Egypt? There is no conflict in Egypt. There is an internal dilemna over the direction the state should go (Islamist or not), it's hardly a "conflict". Turkey will "get involved". Get. Involved. In what? The "Middle East?" Russia and China will dominate the world's economy? Russia? Within a few years? Better tell Putin! No mention of...India? Brazil? I admire the effort here, but when you started making predictions you left the realm of sanity and started the plot of a Tom Clancy novel. Your predictions and claims about the future seem...grandiose, and you off-handedly include world-shaking changes in the world's balance of power with no justification or rationale, even to the point of excluding the rational interests of states in favor of a prediction that has no substance. Again, the background is nice, but I will be honest and tell you the rest cannot be taken seriously.
I see what you say. and I appreciate why you feel my speculation of right now being a battle to try to repartition the middle east is grandiose and somewhat like a Tom Clancy novel. I should probably read some Tom Clancy. I have never got to his stuff, but I heard Red Storm Rising is amazing. I'll try to address each one of the things you say with more sources.
If Israel invades, why the fuck would Sunnis come into power and why would there be some hugely bloody conflict? Like...what? Based on what evidence?
- I'm sorry I didn't cite my speculation on this. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-unlikely-to-attack-iran-before-summer-senior-officials-say.premium-1.502969, http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/04/17/298706/israel-again-threatens-to-invade-iran/)
These two articles state that Israel was waiting for Obama to come before considering aggression. Obama visits and shortly after they threaten aggression in the form of an invasion.
If Israel invades, why the fuck would Sunnis come into power and why would there be some hugely bloody conflict? Like...what? Based on what evidence?
I think that if Isreal attacks Iran, that country has been flooding money into syria. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/31/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBRE96U0XN20130731) They do not have a lot of money, and I don't think that they can come fund a war at the current time. Iran is the country that stands to lose the most in a war right now, but stands to gain the most with sectarian violence.
Also, Turkey's involvement. That Iranian expansion being opposed by Turks, Saudi, and Iraqi's as not as far fetched IMO. The Turks tend to favor a kurdish state. I do not know much about the kurds and tried to keep them out of the discussion. Since I don't know much about turkey other than a lot of them are moving to Germany, Instanbul has amazing architecture and has a lot of Kurdish influence. I still believe that Turkey will push for a kurdish state in negotiations, but I doubt that they will get. (http://www.todayszaman.com/columnists-304517-do-the-kurds-want-a-state.html)
One of the differences in terms of middle eastern politics is that political parties span multiple countries. Its hard for me to say all of the exact Sunni political parties. There is no democrat and republican party outside of the US. So I'm pointing to that as the source of Sunni control spanning mulitiple countries in an electoral system. A big part of this I think is the Muslim brotherhood. (A large portion of my information comes from talks with two sunnis, one from egypt and one from Jordan, hence why i put so much emphasis on my bias in this regard.)
Why would an Iranian nuclear weapon mean the Alawites stay in power? What the hell kind of logic is that?
Nuclear weapon leads to an arms race in the middle east? between WHO?
In syria, I think there are three possibilities. 1. Alawites stay in power. 2. The country is partitioned to alawite and non-alawite segments. 3. The alawites are forced out of power. The push from the US is for scenario 3. The push from Russia and Iran is scenario 1. Scenario 2 would be part of the larger partition scheme which I think is what will eventually be was Iran will want. The common logic I seem to hear is that the alawites will eventually be ousted if they cannot afford to keep the war going, since the US is dumping arms to the rebels.
Historically, the relationship between the alawites and the russians is strong(BBC documentary Syria), and China's position in terms of economy implies the nature of being that they will dominate bidding for oil and trade in the region economically filling the void from the European financial crisis(http://www.amazon.com/When-China-Rules-World-Western/dp/0143118005, Chapter 4; figure 83; and pages 555-560). I do not mean that Europe or US is insignificant. I do not mean that other growing countries like brasil or India are not significant economically either. They are countries that I believe do not rely on the middle east as much, nor are as involved in politics there.
As far as a nuclear arms race, I should address that one specifically. This is the most far fetched scenario within 5 years, and that this would be the beginning of it. I think that it would still be another 20-30 years before that actually would be a realistic scenario. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/20/us-nuclear-iran-report-idUSBRE91J0G820130220)
As far as Shia expansion into Egypt I believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is the majority in the middle east. You asked who- As far as countries in the middle east to get nukes, there are a few that I think would be inclined to do so if Iran gets one. Specifically, They would be Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Libya who are heavily involved are other possibilities, in the long long run. (~200 years)
Iran control in the middle east- What is my definition of this. Not all territories can be changed right now. The ones that are in question with sectarian violence and religious spheres of influence are Tunisia, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. These are the ones that are being debated and fought over. I think Iran is trying to gain influence in those countries. (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20111121-syria-iran-and-balance-power-middle-east) These are the countries that I think that are trying to be partitioned I think shiites will try to force out as many non-shiites as possible to make that possible.
Jordan also will also mildly increase in sectarian violence with the number of refugees there, but I think that there is no threat to their government.
My worst case scenario number of ~8-20 million people dying due to displacement, hunger and violence over the next 5 years if Isreal, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia went to war, is purely a speculative number. You are completely right with that.
I hope that this adequately addresses my sources and really appreciate your honest lack of belief in the repartitioning of the middle east, reasoning for an increase in sectarian violence, and the escalation of Isreal-Iran relations.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 07 2013 17:36 saddaromma wrote:
To OP:
Ok, let me be honest and blunt with you, before you start spreading your ideas in other places, stop it. You have very limited knowledge outside of what media presents. Which means close to none.
There are things you should understand:
1. Your post about middleeast is starting with explaination of religion and how its related to middle east. This the first sign of wrong direction. Media tries to relate these things closely middleeast-islam-terrorism-no-democracy. Its all bullshit. Religion has nothing to do with problems they have and don't try to ever bring it up.
2. Middleeastern people don't care about democracy, they don't need it. Because they lived like this for 2000 years and happy the way it is.
3. The real problem is money, oil and gas. whatever. Middleeast is sitting on a huge bank and they don't wanna share it with anybody, or namely, their leaders, who know what wealth is, hence dont wanna share it. Therefore with some special tactics and provocations other countries try to get rid off those leaders.
4. Media presents it as if there is no freedom, people suffer, government shooting people, bla bla bla... bulshit again.
5. If you really want to understand whats happening there, you should go there and live for atleast a year.
Thanks, as far as points 1, 2, and 3 do you have some good sources I could look at.
As far as point 1 saying that religion has nothing to do with the problems, I guess I don't see the link. As far as saying, the Eastern ideology does not explicitly separate religion and politics and having multinational political parties with premises based on religious beliefs, like the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus the idea of treating countries independently is difficult because not all people necessarily associate with a single country. Could you clarify my misunderstanding here?
My main suggestion why people support causes as partially being religion based being wrong, I would like to know more about the cultural aspects. For example, the idea of stating that there has been no democracy, which I interpret as the ability to vote for 2000 years, I think its hard for me to grasp. As well as the idea that all middle eastern people are happy with the way things are. The idea that the current battle is over land and resources is a key point in the thread and I try to give reasons why its justified. Or the media saying things like there are no specific freedoms like gay rights, people aren't suffering, or that the syrian or egyptian regimes are shooting people is BS again is hard for me to grasp.
Secondly, as far as point 5 I do agree that it would be beneficial to live there, but I do have other ambitions that preclude such cause.
Aside, as far as telling me to stop trying to understand the middle east, its a little different as I work with two awesome people from there, and having an open discussion of it with an international community is what i'm enjoying.
My idea in posting predictions would be to understand the current reasoning why politics are as they are. I do ask many questions, for example-
1.If the main reason that Iran wants a nuclear weapon is so that no country invades them, why would Israel threaten to stop that by invading them?
2. Why is there so much sectarian violence in Iraq?
3. Who is supporting Morsi in Egypt and why are there riots there?
4. Why is there so much violence during Ramadan when its supposed to be a celebration for peace?
5. If Islam, a religion about submitting, is the centerpiece, why would a Muslims feel the need to kill other Muslims?
6. What similarities between countries like Russia and China, who have strong different opinions about religion in their governments support governments of another religion like Syria?
7. In the next few years, what is the current possible future that is being debated with the talks between governments, and how is that influencing political decisions?
8. Was the cause of the so called Dark Ages actually the fall of Islam societies from the mongols?
9. How did the world wars separate the countries?
While you say that I should not discuss things I don't understand, that is the one point I disagree with. I do not have great polished answers. Its like an SC2 build order, I summarize the BO then asks whats wrong with it. The best I can do is to look at sources. TL is multinational and full of bright people, and I was hoping to get more of a global perspective.
|
On August 07 2013 21:31 ftm wrote:
To the posters before me, the OP states he has bias, and asks for correction. So simply stating the fact the bias exists adds nothing to the discussion here.
This really is a very complex topic which involves many sub-topics and a vast amount of history. I can add a little bit of insight concerning the 5th paragraph:
"First, to understand the middle east, I want to point out that religion and politics are intermixed. The NSA and the US have been somewhat anti-religion for a long time. A lot of this has to do with the fact that religion confounds politics. This is a common starting point of controversy in what foreign countries dislike about the Democracy agenda. This stirs up a lot of controversy. At times, the US is pro-religion as well such as lobbying for israel. A sentiment which is being challenged currently with our democrat leaders."
The key statement I want to address is "religion and politics are intermixed." This is a concept which fundamentally alienates the east from the west. Separation of church and state is a uniquely western and christian idea, with its beginnings in the 15th and 16th centuries in Europe. It's not even a Jewish idea. A greek philosophy known as 'Epicureanism' pre-dates christianity and can be considered a pro-genitor of church-state separation.
So it goes like this: Henry the 8th wanted a divorce, and the catholic church wouldn't give it to him.
Later on a guy called John Locke argued that governments can only legislate actions, not opinions, beliefs or morals.
Then finally, you get Thomas Jefferson in the 1800's promoting the idea that religion is solely between mankind and god alone, outside of the state.
The OP makes another insightful observation, but unfortunately doesn't develop it: pp6 "3. Many political parties cross multiple countries and have varied leadership such as the Muslim brotherhood, a Sunni based religion."
I think this, combined with the history of 'who is supporting who at this time,' is key to understanding the motivations for conflict.
So you at least have to know:
1: history of conflict in the middle east prior to western involvement
2: the interwebs (!) of political groups and Qu'ranic interpretations across different nations
3: history of which western nation supported which middle eastern nation at which conflict and time
Thanks OP. I'm all for the progress of understanding.
Thank you for adding on the discussion of what led to separation of church and state.
|
On August 07 2013 23:44 tokinho wrote:
My idea in posting predictions would be to understand the current reasoning why politics are as they are. I do ask many questions, for example-
1.If the main reason that Iran wants a nuclear weapon is so that no country invades them, why would Israel threaten to stop that by invading them?
Israel will never "invade" Iran. Israel won't parachute 20'000 soldiers to Iran nor would they drive their tanks across Jordan and Iraq to march into Iran.
At most they can do is air strikes, and if there is any sort of land invasion, it will be the US doing it.
|
On August 07 2013 22:19 tokinho wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 07 2013 15:51 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 08:42 tokinho wrote:
The next 5 years-
The Us will finish pulling out of Afghanistan. Iran is continuing development of Nuclear arms and likely will have/detonate one. If it does a public test, possibly Israel will invade Iran within 2 years. If this happens the Sunnis will likely come into power, and possibly could be one of the bloodiest conflict of the next 50 years. (~8-20 million killed) More likely Iran will do a private underground test to show that they have the capacity. This will probably make Shiites emboldened and probably they will gain the majority control of the middle east. The US or its allies probably will not invade Yemen, but will send 1-2 aircraft carriers there. I think the conflict in Syria will still go on, until a nuclear weapon is developed. If the Iranian nuclear weapon is developed the current Syrian Alawites will stay in Syria. If not, I believe it will fall. If a nuclear weapon is developed it will results in an arms race int he middle east. If there is no war before nuclear arms, I hope that they are not used.
Considering all of the jail breaks. Its in a way a counter statement to Guantanamo. Notwithstanding, Guantanamo will not close, unless us citizens put excessive pressure on the government to do so. Iraq will be in civil war until that time. Egypt's conflict will worsen as well. Turkey will likely get involved soon as well, but their apprehension is noted. Russia and China will dominate the worlds economy. Gas prices will probably exceed 6 to 7 dollars a gallon if there is intercountry war in the middle east.
I really really hope I'm wrong tho and like Hillel wanted people will calm down, try to focus more on good deeds, realize what is going on politically, and stop this madness. These predictions are not only illogical, but run against common sense. US out of Afghanistan? Okay. Iran having a nuclear weapon within 5 years? Far less likely. Israel "invading" Iran within 2 years? No. Israel INVADE Iran? Really? Airstrike, maybe. Invade? not a chance. If Israel invades, why the fuck would Sunnis come into power and why would there be some hugely bloody conflict? Like...what? Based on what evidence? Iran nuclear test leading to Shiite "control" of the Middle East? Control of...what? Does having a nuclear weapon mean Iran now controls the middle east? Does it mean it controls the internal affairs of Iraq? of Syria? Of Turkey? Of the Saudis? Why would an Iranian nuclear weapon mean the Alawites stay in power? What the hell kind of logic is that? Nuclear weapon leads to an arms race in the middle east? between WHO? What do you mean, Iraq will be in civil war? between who? What conflict in Egypt? There is no conflict in Egypt. There is an internal dilemna over the direction the state should go (Islamist or not), it's hardly a "conflict". Turkey will "get involved". Get. Involved. In what? The "Middle East?" Russia and China will dominate the world's economy? Russia? Within a few years? Better tell Putin! No mention of...India? Brazil? I admire the effort here, but when you started making predictions you left the realm of sanity and started the plot of a Tom Clancy novel. Your predictions and claims about the future seem...grandiose, and you off-handedly include world-shaking changes in the world's balance of power with no justification or rationale, even to the point of excluding the rational interests of states in favor of a prediction that has no substance. Again, the background is nice, but I will be honest and tell you the rest cannot be taken seriously. I see what you say. and I appreciate why you feel my speculation of right now being a battle to try to repartition the middle east is grandiose and somewhat like a Tom Clancy novel. I should probably read some Tom Clancy. I have never got to his stuff, but I heard Red Storm Rising is amazing. I'll try to address each one of the things you say with more sources. Show nested quote +If Israel invades, why the fuck would Sunnis come into power and why would there be some hugely bloody conflict? Like...what? Based on what evidence? - I'm sorry I didn't cite my speculation on this. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-unlikely-to-attack-iran-before-summer-senior-officials-say.premium-1.502969, http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/04/17/298706/israel-again-threatens-to-invade-iran/)These two articles state that Israel was waiting for Obama to come before considering aggression. Obama visits and shortly after they threaten aggression in the form of an invasion. Show nested quote +If Israel invades, why the fuck would Sunnis come into power and why would there be some hugely bloody conflict? Like...what? Based on what evidence?
I think that if Isreal attacks Iran, that country has been flooding money into syria. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/31/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBRE96U0XN20130731) They do not have a lot of money, and I don't think that they can come fund a war at the current time. Iran is the country that stands to lose the most in a war right now, but stands to gain the most with sectarian violence. Also, Turkey's involvement. That Iranian expansion being opposed by Turks, Saudi, and Iraqi's as not as far fetched IMO. The Turks tend to favor a kurdish state. I do not know much about the kurds and tried to keep them out of the discussion. Since I don't know much about turkey other than a lot of them are moving to Germany, Instanbul has amazing architecture and has a lot of Kurdish influence. I still believe that Turkey will push for a kurdish state in negotiations, but I doubt that they will get. (http://www.todayszaman.com/columnists-304517-do-the-kurds-want-a-state.html) One of the differences in terms of middle eastern politics is that political parties span multiple countries. Its hard for me to say all of the exact Sunni political parties. There is no democrat and republican party outside of the US. So I'm pointing to that as the source of Sunni control spanning mulitiple countries in an electoral system. A big part of this I think is the Muslim brotherhood. (A large portion of my information comes from talks with two sunnis, one from egypt and one from Jordan, hence why i put so much emphasis on my bias in this regard.) Show nested quote +
Why would an Iranian nuclear weapon mean the Alawites stay in power? What the hell kind of logic is that?
Nuclear weapon leads to an arms race in the middle east? between WHO?
In syria, I think there are three possibilities. 1. Alawites stay in power. 2. The country is partitioned to alawite and non-alawite segments. 3. The alawites are forced out of power. The push from the US is for scenario 3. The push from Russia and Iran is scenario 1. Scenario 2 would be part of the larger partition scheme which I think is what will eventually be was Iran will want. The common logic I seem to hear is that the alawites will eventually be ousted if they cannot afford to keep the war going, since the US is dumping arms to the rebels. Historically, the relationship between the alawites and the russians is strong(BBC documentary Syria), and China's position in terms of economy implies the nature of being that they will dominate bidding for oil and trade in the region economically filling the void from the European financial crisis(http://www.amazon.com/When-China-Rules-World-Western/dp/0143118005, Chapter 4; figure 83; and pages 555-560). I do not mean that Europe or US is insignificant. I do not mean that other growing countries like brasil or India are not significant economically either. They are countries that I believe do not rely on the middle east as much, nor are as involved in politics there. As far as a nuclear arms race, I should address that one specifically. This is the most far fetched scenario within 5 years, and that this would be the beginning of it. I think that it would still be another 20-30 years before that actually would be a realistic scenario. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/20/us-nuclear-iran-report-idUSBRE91J0G820130220) As far as Shia expansion into Egypt I believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is the majority in the middle east. You asked who- As far as countries in the middle east to get nukes, there are a few that I think would be inclined to do so if Iran gets one. Specifically, They would be Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Libya who are heavily involved are other possibilities, in the long long run. (~200 years) Iran control in the middle east- What is my definition of this. Not all territories can be changed right now. The ones that are in question with sectarian violence and religious spheres of influence are Tunisia, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. These are the ones that are being debated and fought over. I think Iran is trying to gain influence in those countries. (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20111121-syria-iran-and-balance-power-middle-east) These are the countries that I think that are trying to be partitioned I think shiites will try to force out as many non-shiites as possible to make that possible. Jordan also will also mildly increase in sectarian violence with the number of refugees there, but I think that there is no threat to their government. My worst case scenario number of ~8-20 million people dying due to displacement, hunger and violence over the next 5 years if Isreal, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia went to war, is purely a speculative number. You are completely right with that. I hope that this adequately addresses my sources and really appreciate your honest lack of belief in the repartitioning of the middle east, reasoning for an increase in sectarian violence, and the escalation of Isreal-Iran relations.
I highly suggest reading some very basic international relations and foreign policy literature. You seem to have some passiom for it, but your ideas are largely...well, what is your education level? Would I be wrong in assuming high school or younger? (if you're American)
Try Kissinger's "Diplomacy" as a good starting point. Off the top of my head, throw in "The Globalization of World Politics" as well. I'm sure you can find the PDFs online if you don't want to buy them.
|
On August 07 2013 16:25 MarlieChurphy wrote:
The thing about the middle east is that those people, those countries, and those religions in that region always have been, and always will be at war with each other. I'm not going to speculate on exactly why that is (actually I will, it's probably a vicious cycle of bad family systems), but they are constantly fighting, arguing, and doing fucked up things to themselves and others. The people there are just angry all the time.
In other words, nothing is news from there unless they actually stop fighting and doing fucked up shit. That would be news.
You need to consider the fact that history extends beyond your own life. The middle east has been far far more peaceful and has done a lot less "fucked" up shir in comparison to the USA and in particular Europe. Most mass extermintions of ethic groups was done by Europeans in history such as Australia, north America, and south America. I also don't need to get into the history of European wars/crimes amongst themselves because I think they are pretty clear.
|
On August 08 2013 17:53 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2013 16:25 MarlieChurphy wrote:
The thing about the middle east is that those people, those countries, and those religions in that region always have been, and always will be at war with each other. I'm not going to speculate on exactly why that is (actually I will, it's probably a vicious cycle of bad family systems), but they are constantly fighting, arguing, and doing fucked up things to themselves and others. The people there are just angry all the time.
In other words, nothing is news from there unless they actually stop fighting and doing fucked up shit. That would be news. You need to consider the fact that history extends beyond your own life. The middle east has been far far more peaceful and has done a lot less "fucked" up shit in comparison to the USA and in particular Europe. Most mass exterminations of ethnic groups was done by Europeans in history such as Australia, north America, and south America. I also don't need to get into the history of European wars/crimes amongst themselves because I think they are pretty clear.
Oh you mean how they have fair rights for people, especially women, children, and minorities? I didn't mean war in the literal sense of the word exactly, I mean it in the way USA is in a 'war on drugs' or 'war on terror'. It's never ending. Although it could be argued that the people there are constantly trying to rid the jews, and Armenians were mass genocided by Turks worse than what Hitler was trying to do. So I don't really get what you are trying to argue.
The people there are crazy retarded religious zealots, and people need to judge them as such and stop paying attention to them until they actually calm the fuck down.
edit- You have to be trolling, USA is only 200+ years old and the middle east countries have been there for thousands of years. These people have been fighting and arguing with each other and anyone who disagrees with them for thousands of years.
|
On August 08 2013 18:31 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 17:53 sekritzzz wrote:On August 07 2013 16:25 MarlieChurphy wrote:
The thing about the middle east is that those people, those countries, and those religions in that region always have been, and always will be at war with each other. I'm not going to speculate on exactly why that is (actually I will, it's probably a vicious cycle of bad family systems), but they are constantly fighting, arguing, and doing fucked up things to themselves and others. The people there are just angry all the time.
In other words, nothing is news from there unless they actually stop fighting and doing fucked up shit. That would be news. You need to consider the fact that history extends beyond your own life. The middle east has been far far more peaceful and has done a lot less "fucked" up shit in comparison to the USA and in particular Europe. Most mass exterminations of ethnic groups was done by Europeans in history such as Australia, north America, and south America. I also don't need to get into the history of European wars/crimes amongst themselves because I think they are pretty clear. Oh you mean how they have fair rights for people, especially women, children, and minorities? I didn't mean war in the literal sense of the word exactly, I mean it in the way USA is in a 'war on drugs' or 'war on terror'. It's never ending. Although it could be argued that the people there are constantly trying to rid the jews, and Armenians were mass genocided by Turks worse than what Hitler was trying to do. So I don't really get what you are trying to argue. The people there are crazy retarded religious zealots, and people need to judge them as such and stop paying attention to them until they actually calm the fuck down. edit- You have to be trolling, USA is only 200+ years old and the middle east countries have been there for thousands of years. These people have been fighting and arguing with each other and anyone who disagrees with them for thousands of years.
The middle east/ north Africa has been colonized for the past 100 years or so. Which is why I'm saying these past 50-100 years is not an indication of their history. So it's naive for you to say "these people are fucked up" and judging them on a period where they don't even have control of their own nation state. 90% of the people in the middle east/ north Africa don't accept the type of rule over them especially since dictatorial rule is not in accordance with the Islam. Islam advocates meritocracy and a type of public agreement on who should rule them(similar but different to democracy voting). Most of the dictators in the middle east are there because of US/European countries.
A similar scenario is the events in Latin America. You should read about what the US did to them because it's very similar to what is happening in the middle east. That is, until oil becomes a non-factor and then they will leave the middle east to themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
