[QUOTE=Malthus]
Is IS a bunch of radical hicks who have scored easy victories over unchallenging opponents, or is IS really threatening to explode into a significant ME unifier-by-force? Or something inbetween? Truth to tell, I have no idea. I’d have though the first when they were routing the Iraqi army - I just assume the military potential of the Iraqi army post-reconstruction is limited - but they are also beating up on the Kurds, who I would have thought tougher customers.
[/QUOTE]
I think your initial assumption is correct. As to the Kurds, they ARE tough customers…but they don’t have any sort of unified and contiguous territory or logistics, so they are fighting (and dying) sort of piecemeal instead of in a unified fashion. So, IS is basically doing the whole divide and conquer thingy with them, using their massed strength against disparate groups of Kurds fighting without support from other groups. I was watching a video the other day about fighting in Kobani where Kurds in Turkey had to basically sit and watch while their fellows across the border were being slaughtered because Turkey had their military there to prevent them from crossing into Syria to fight. Couple that with the fact that the Kurds are tough and all, but they are hardly equipped as heavily as IS is and it’s a wonder they have done as much as they have managed to do, even with US and allied air strikes helping out.
Further guesswork: The Turks figure that the Americans know - or are at least slowly beginning to realise - that in order to really “destroy” ISIS, as they have after all promised to do, they’re gonna need ground troops. So the Turks say, “hey, we have ground troops, we can help - if you guys promise to x and y and z.”
If the Americans refuse, and just continue with the air strikes? Fine. The Turks bide their time. They lose nothing by waiting. IS fighting YPG? Good. YPG fighting IS? Also good (to a point). And if the Americans say “fuck it” and pack up and go home? That’s fine too. IS won’t attack Turkey, as others have already pointed out. Instead, they’d probably turn their guns against either Assad, or some of his supporters, be it in Syria, Iraq (the Shi’ite militias), or even in Lebanon (Hezbollah) - all of which would have Ankara leaping with joy.
If, however, IS decides to go against the Iraqi Kurds, who the Turks have come to see as allies, that might force their hand. But until then…
Definitely (ii).
Davutoglu is one sharp motherfucker. They don’t call him “Turkey’s Kissinger” for nothing.
I’m seeing the same thing. Erdogan doesn’t like ISIS and wants to help, but is worried about being seen as another George W. Bush-esque international troublemaker who ends up causing more trouble than he solved. So he’s biding his time for the right time when he can fully justify his actions in the Court of Public Opinion.
How about this - the US, for political reasons, needs allies willing to put boots to the ground, agreed. The Kurds are all that but are way too weak; ditto with the Iraqi government. The US has too much invested politically to defeating IS but no appetite for further ground wars on its own.
The Turks are the natural choice for a partner but are playing too hard to get - they want committment to destroying Assad before they will fight. They are also making life difficult for the Kurdish allies.
What about a reallignment/normalization “Nixon going to China” moment with Iran and its various Sh’ite allies, together with the Kurds? Say, Iran to get improved relations/less pressure about that whole making nukes thing, in return for co-operation in crushing IS; Iran to tone down anti-US/anti-Israeli rhetoric. Then, leave the Turks to their own devices.
All of this will leave Iran much strengthened, together with its allies, which would not fill Turkish hearts with glee. The politics of it all may make it highly unrealistic (imagine US airstrikes in support of Iranian troops in Iraq!), but it certainly would be a possible “Kissinger-like” counter to Turkish gamesmanship - even if only as a threat of negotiations.
According to the survey cited here, some 52% of the Turkish population approved of Turkey joining “an international military operation against IS,” as of Sept. 24. Presumably the number is even higher today - and it’s probably a safe bet that the country’s sizeable Kurdish minority (some 15-20% of the population) is especially passionate about the matter.
As mentioned, Erdogan seems ready to rock’n’roll (given the right circumstances), but not all members of his party (the AKP) are quite as gung-ho. This article speaks of misgivings within the ranks. Apparently, there are “shared concerns” about how “Turkey’s image among the region’s Islamic masses” might be “severely harmed.” One prominent pro-government writer opines that “every intervention in this region by coalitions led by the United States or the West has resulted in serious reactions and, whatever the reasoning behind them, was met with hatred.”
If the Turks want a commitment to destroying Assad, why not give it to them? If they’ll go into Syria on the ground and also fight ISIS to boot, with our air support and military aid, what’s the downside for us?
ISIS is Sunni so is implicitly supported by most of our Arab allies, also Sunni. ISIS is opposed by the Shi’ite Iran and Syrian regime – U.S.'s proclaimed enemies. Turkey is mostly interested in fighting Kurds. AFAIK only Iran and the U.S. have sent foot soldiers to aid Iraq, and the numbers are small.
When Obama announced a coalition I had the naive hope that Iran and Arabia had set aside their differences and formed an Alliance for Sanity. Instead most of U.S. “allies” are paying lip-service while rooting for ISIS to settle old scores. What a mess.
I think the U.S. is correct to use its air power to degrade ISIS. But unless the region’s powers get very serious, the situation can only get worse. It’s easy to look back and find U.S. mistakes. But starting from now, the situation seems hopeless.
The Turks (well, a faction of them) are holding out for a package deal. They don’t just want to join a limited coalition aimed simply at stopping (or impeding) ISIS/ISIL…they want to be part of a coalition aimed at dealing with ISIS/ISIL AND Assad et al. I doubt they would be willing to go in as the foot soldiers while the US and allies fly about giving them support, especially if the wider aim isn’t to deal with what they see as the root issue.
The Western coallition allies right now have no cause to commit to war against what remains the government of a sovereign country; it would be a hard sell politically to go to war, just to please the Turks.
But here’s the thing: Iran is already deeply involved in the anti-IS fight. Not through the US-led coalition, of course, but through their very own “coalition of one” (and their various proxies throughout the region).
But even if this was not so, what would be the least painful option for America: Partnering with Turkey, or partnering with Iran?
The concessions involved if America partnered with Turkey would be fairly modest, relatively speaking: A no-fly zone over Syria, whatever the fuck the second demand is (I still haven’t figured it out!), and promising to train and arm whatever Syrian fraction the Turks support. The fallout of this would be that it would piss off Assad; it would piss off Iran; and it would piss off Hezbollah. But those weren’t really America’s friends anyway, right?
On the other hand, if you partner with Iran, the concessions would be much, much, much higher, what with the “whole making nukes thing” and all. This fallout of this would be that it would piss off Israel, and it would piss off Saudi Arabia. And those are some of America’s closest and most important allies.
So, from that perspective, partnering with Turkey would seem the least painful option.
One might imagine that Erdogan & Davutoglu already know all this, of course - which might, perhaps, explain just exactly why they’re playing so damn hard to get!
And far from simply “paying lip-service while rooting for ISIS to settle old scores,” plenty of Sunni-majority states have joined the American coalition. That’s gotta count for something, no?
Yup there would be costs and it may be unrealistic. And it would certainly piss off the Saudis no end. It will scare them, too, which may not be such a bad thing from the US perspective.
On the Israeli side - there are some countervailing issues. No doubt the Israelis would rather the Iranians not get nukes, but they may be prepared to live with it, if the Iranians are brought into the fold - after all, the Iranians getting nukes may, unless some diplomatic solution is at hand, be inevitable anyway: better they get them with a government prepared to make nice with the US. In short, they may have no choice but to live with it now, or later; the Israelis (or someone - let’s call them “Israelis” for short) has proven they can harrass and delay Iranian nuke production with sabotage and assasinations, but they can’t prevent it forever.
The Israeli relationship with the Turks is fraught - over more than just the usual Israeli unpopularity over treatment of Gaza on the one hand, and Turkish Islamicism on the other, but over matters far more significant - cold, hard cash: namely, competing claims to offshore gas reserves such as the Leviathan field. To this end, Israel has recently signed an alliance with non-Turkish Cyprus. The last thing the Israelis want is Turkish influence expanding in Syria, and getting closer in bed with the US. This will inevitably lead to the Turks demanding a bigger cut.
So from a realist perspective, there are solid advantages to Israel in replacing the Turks with the Iranians as US partners - it makes the Iranians more tractable (who cares if they have the bomb, if they aren’t about to nuke Tel Aviv?) while reducing the influence and quid pro quo due and owing to the Turks (with whom, unlike the Iranians, the Israelis are right now wrestling over resources).
My impression is that the current Israeli government would NEVER - not under ANY circumstances - allow Iran to get nukes. Some future government, maybe - but Netanyahu? No way. So if sabotage, assassinations and sanctions don’t do the trick, he’ll gladly pull an Osirak or even go to war, with or without American approval. He’ll stop at nothing - except, perhaps, using nukes of his own.
Very interesting! I had no idea about any of that.
But still: I’d argue that unlike Turkey, Iran is already doing everything it can.
They stand with the Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq, shipping arms and whatnot. They stand with their Shi’ite kinfolk in southern Iraq, defending Baghdad and environs. Their proxies in Iraq - the Shi’ite militias - have already started sending troops into Syria. Their proxies in Lebanon - Hezbollah - have been fighting IS whenever they pop over the border (unlike the Lebanese army, I might add).
So what, exactly, could the Iranians possibly be asked to do that they aren’t already doing? One thing is propping up your proxies - but a ground invasion? An army of Shi’ites marching all over Iraq’s Sunni north, into Syria, and all the way to Raqqa? A bad look, I think - and, crucially, much harder to justify in the court of (global) public opinion.
Turkey, at least, could claim that IS was right up against its border, posing a direct threat to the homeland - and, what’s more, that they were acting to prevent the destruction of the Syrian Kurds. Nothing quite as dire is happening by the Iran-Iraq border, at least not at the moment: The Iraqi Kurds have managed to hold their own, as has Baghdad. Were IS to break through on either front - were Kirkuk to fall, or Baghdad - the prospect of an Iranian ground invasion would certainly increase. Until then, I dare say Turkey’s your best bet.
So, at best, Iran and the U.S. might perhaps coordinate their attacks a little better - but that’s about it. As things stand, Iran simply cannot do what Turkey could: Invade IS’ “heartland,” such as it is, and look like heroes in the process.
But again, I’m basically talking out my ass here!
So, in that spirit, here’s an idea: Make deals with both! “Fuck Assad amirite,” you say, and Turkey attacks ISIS in Syria. “Here, buddy, have some nukes,” you say, and Iran attacks ISIS in Iraq. And here’s the kicker: Whoever first reaches the Syrian-Iraqi border gets to decide if Assad stays or goes. Boom! Go! Two-front war! And in no time, IS goes the way of the dodo bird! Everybody wins! Except, uh, Israel, which will promptly implode with rage.
The Saudi army has 150,000 active soldiers. They sent thousands of soldiers to help whenever there was a war against Israel. How many soliders has Saudi sent to Iraq?
An Osirak won’t work; war (I mean other than that) is also unlikely to work. I suspect they may be doing what they can already by way of assassinations, etc.
But your point is taken - all of these speculations are ignoring somewhat domestic political realities - I suspect it may be no more possible for the US to partner up with Iran, than for Netanyahu to agree to Iran getting nukes. My speculation is all based on assuming a strict “realism” position, divorced from such matters.
It is indeed an interesting dynamic, and one that often goes unremarked - but has all sorts of very significant implications for the region, and the world. Particularly for Europe.
Taking the larger view - as we all know, a large part of Russia’s clout in Europe is based on its control of the gas supply. It is estimated that the undersea gas reserves recently discovered in Israeli/Cypriot/Lebanese/Turkish (?) waters, is large enough to supply Europe for at least 20 years. What happens if this is in the hands of the Israelis - or possibly, the Israelis and the Turks?
All sorts of possibilities there. It would certainly greatly increase both the clout and the wealth of whoever controls it. The Turks have the direct link with Europe, but the Israelis have made a deal with the Greeks and Cypriots … chech this out
Oh I agree - the Turks are by far the better, more natural partner. However, if the Western a coalition wishes to improve its barganing power vis. the Turks, it makes sense to play the one off against the other - maybe ending with your “both” scenario.
My own pet hypothesis about Iran and nukes is that they really don’t want them. But… they want us to THINK that they want them so we will trip over ourselves negotiating with them. Anyway, that’s neither here nor there.
We can probably contain and weaken ISIL in Iraq, but I don’t see us getting rid of them in Syria unless Assad decides it’s expedient for him to do so. And as long as ISIL is fighting against the FSA, why would he? This whole thing is such a complicated mess, I don’t know how we get ourselves out of it unless we just decide to get ourselves out of it. We’re not going to “win”.
My own hypothesis is that they don’t want nukes to use or sell to terrorists, but they do want to be able to escalate their world terror campaign and making retaliation against them unthinkable would enable them to do it.
Keep in mind that our Sunni “allies” are not all that keen on fighting the enemies of Shi’a governments (that is, Syria and Iraq). They fear the so-called Shi’a Crescent arching from Iran to Lebanon. We were really stupid to launch ourselves into this mess because of the beheadings of a couple of Americans. As gruesome as that was, it was no reason to escalate our involvement in this regional conflict.
