Meanwhile, In Syria
Discussion
Sunni vs Shiite
Clicked on a video link just recently but for the life of me I can't seem to find it again.
Anyways.... explaining the whole regional conflict(s) in terms of Sunni vs Shiite sets out the primary players in the middle-east, and goes a long way to explain the arab-spring risings and also the subsequent power moves for the likes of ISIS.
Then throw in a good deal of american attempts at proxy wars, allows one to see the confusing mess that is the Syria conflict.
Ignoring many media channels and publications that come out of the west and Russia, one can get a much clearer picture of who we would normally call the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'.
BUT....Basically there is no 'good guy' or 'bad guy' !
This is a major point that I think needs to be grasped.
The 'good/bad guy' arguments only arise with the proxy war interests.
Take out the proxy war and what the region is left with is a long standing religious conflict between sunni and shiite and a play for power and territory.
The terrors of ISIS and their caliphate have been very much advertised in the west which paint them as the baddest of the bad. But this used to be the stage of Al Qaeda. Which are now vetted as needing western support - in various forms - or under various re-naming of their 'efforts'.
So as major towns in Syria and their people are bombarded on a daily basis, the power plays of sunni vs shiite continue, at the same time the USA wants to prevent any gains being made by Russia - whereby these two external parties are prepared to keep the conflict flowing long enough for there to be a result in their favour.
Clicked on a video link just recently but for the life of me I can't seem to find it again.
Anyways.... explaining the whole regional conflict(s) in terms of Sunni vs Shiite sets out the primary players in the middle-east, and goes a long way to explain the arab-spring risings and also the subsequent power moves for the likes of ISIS.
Then throw in a good deal of american attempts at proxy wars, allows one to see the confusing mess that is the Syria conflict.
Ignoring many media channels and publications that come out of the west and Russia, one can get a much clearer picture of who we would normally call the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'.
BUT....Basically there is no 'good guy' or 'bad guy' !
This is a major point that I think needs to be grasped.
The 'good/bad guy' arguments only arise with the proxy war interests.
Take out the proxy war and what the region is left with is a long standing religious conflict between sunni and shiite and a play for power and territory.
The terrors of ISIS and their caliphate have been very much advertised in the west which paint them as the baddest of the bad. But this used to be the stage of Al Qaeda. Which are now vetted as needing western support - in various forms - or under various re-naming of their 'efforts'.
So as major towns in Syria and their people are bombarded on a daily basis, the power plays of sunni vs shiite continue, at the same time the USA wants to prevent any gains being made by Russia - whereby these two external parties are prepared to keep the conflict flowing long enough for there to be a result in their favour.
Atomic12C said:
Sunni vs Shiite
Clicked on a video link just recently but for the life of me I can't seem to find it again.
Anyways.... explaining the whole regional conflict(s) in terms of Sunni vs Shiite sets out the primary players in the middle-east, and goes a long way to explain the arab-spring risings and also the subsequent power moves for the likes of ISIS.
Then throw in a good deal of american attempts at proxy wars, allows one to see the confusing mess that is the Syria conflict.
Ignoring many media channels and publications that come out of the west and Russia, one can get a much clearer picture of who we would normally call the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'.
BUT....Basically there is no 'good guy' or 'bad guy' !
This is a major point that I think needs to be grasped.
The 'good/bad guy' arguments only arise with the proxy war interests.
Take out the proxy war and what the region is left with is a long standing religious conflict between sunni and shiite and a play for power and territory.
The terrors of ISIS and their caliphate have been very much advertised in the west which paint them as the baddest of the bad. But this used to be the stage of Al Qaeda. Which are now vetted as needing western support - in various forms - or under various re-naming of their 'efforts'.
So as major towns in Syria and their people are bombarded on a daily basis, the power plays of sunni vs shiite continue, at the same time the USA wants to prevent any gains being made by Russia - whereby these two external parties are prepared to keep the conflict flowing long enough for there to be a result in their favour.
I would agree with most of that, but you also have the influence of Turkey and Israel involved, who you could argue, are also US proxies to a degree.Clicked on a video link just recently but for the life of me I can't seem to find it again.
Anyways.... explaining the whole regional conflict(s) in terms of Sunni vs Shiite sets out the primary players in the middle-east, and goes a long way to explain the arab-spring risings and also the subsequent power moves for the likes of ISIS.
Then throw in a good deal of american attempts at proxy wars, allows one to see the confusing mess that is the Syria conflict.
Ignoring many media channels and publications that come out of the west and Russia, one can get a much clearer picture of who we would normally call the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'.
BUT....Basically there is no 'good guy' or 'bad guy' !
This is a major point that I think needs to be grasped.
The 'good/bad guy' arguments only arise with the proxy war interests.
Take out the proxy war and what the region is left with is a long standing religious conflict between sunni and shiite and a play for power and territory.
The terrors of ISIS and their caliphate have been very much advertised in the west which paint them as the baddest of the bad. But this used to be the stage of Al Qaeda. Which are now vetted as needing western support - in various forms - or under various re-naming of their 'efforts'.
So as major towns in Syria and their people are bombarded on a daily basis, the power plays of sunni vs shiite continue, at the same time the USA wants to prevent any gains being made by Russia - whereby these two external parties are prepared to keep the conflict flowing long enough for there to be a result in their favour.
Erdogan is playing his own game, and Israel maybe the the tail that wags the dog with the US foreign policy in the Middle East.
Aircaft carrier and now 3 subs, SSN and SSK, to add to the existing hardware in the eastern Med.
Lots of naval hardware in a small bit of sea, from both sides, along with a crowded airspace. Not a good situation. It is beginning to look a lot like the Cuban missile crisis build up, without the moderating influence and real world experience of war that JFK or Khrushchev had.
It is well worth reading "devil's Chessboard" to see how similar the situation is.
https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/235...
It looks like the Syrian military and Co. are making gains in East Aleppo, slow and bloody progress, perhaps the remaining "moderates" can be encouraged to head towards Iraq and Mosul, as they are so "moderate", they would bring additional peace benefits to Mosul. A double win.
Lots of naval hardware in a small bit of sea, from both sides, along with a crowded airspace. Not a good situation. It is beginning to look a lot like the Cuban missile crisis build up, without the moderating influence and real world experience of war that JFK or Khrushchev had.
It is well worth reading "devil's Chessboard" to see how similar the situation is.
https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/235...
It looks like the Syrian military and Co. are making gains in East Aleppo, slow and bloody progress, perhaps the remaining "moderates" can be encouraged to head towards Iraq and Mosul, as they are so "moderate", they would bring additional peace benefits to Mosul. A double win.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 31st October 10:37
An interview with an Ex-CIA Russian analyst, Ray Mc Govern on the Syrian and Russia situation.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_con...
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_con...
Interesting video.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d0_1478018838
I love to hear what others have to say about this. A hoax of a hoax perhaps?
Appearing soon in the MSM of your choice.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d0_1478018838
I love to hear what others have to say about this. A hoax of a hoax perhaps?
Appearing soon in the MSM of your choice.
Driller said:
Interesting video.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d0_1478018838
I love to hear what others have to say about this. A hoax of a hoax perhaps?
Appearing soon in the MSM of your choice.
I think that is called propaganda. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d0_1478018838
I love to hear what others have to say about this. A hoax of a hoax perhaps?
Appearing soon in the MSM of your choice.
Two fantastic videos from an ex royal marine with his smartphone and uplink who is properly embedded for the fight for Mosul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93J91pebN-s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIc6fbTsoEU
And my thoughts in random order are
1. Amazing some bloke with his phone can do this. He is ex royal marine though, his balls are aided with 21st century tech.
2. This is on YouTube and is better than the mainstream media reports.
3. Some of the improvised vehicles are really Mad Max.
4. Mad Max on the ground, F16, F18, Fxxx whatever the US et al is sending over there from the air. Fairly crazy compared to old wars where tech was roughly similar for all combatants.
5. The propaganda shots. Reminds me of shots of Allies going into Paris in WW2 and getting the adulation.
Things don't change do they?
Vietnam was the first war reported on prime time TV. This is the first war really reported on tweets and YouTube.
Andy
An interesting piece in the Spectator.
Why is it ok to bomb Mosul but not Aleppo?.Assad and his allies have carried out war crimes. But so have the rebels. Peter Oborne
Why is it ok to bomb Mosul but not Aleppo?.Assad and his allies have carried out war crimes. But so have the rebels. Peter Oborne
BlackLabel said:
An interesting piece in the Spectator.
Why is it ok to bomb Mosul but not Aleppo?.Assad and his allies have carried out war crimes. But so have the rebels. Peter Oborne
Well articulated, but will be accused of being on the Putin payroll for pointing out the quite obvious hypocrisy.Why is it ok to bomb Mosul but not Aleppo?.Assad and his allies have carried out war crimes. But so have the rebels. Peter Oborne
Ex CIA analyst clearly explains the current state of play.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_con...
(Compare this level of information with the half a*sed horse *hit the likes of the BBC feed the facebook likers these days)
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_con...
(Compare this level of information with the half a*sed horse *hit the likes of the BBC feed the facebook likers these days)
Scoobman said:
Ex CIA analyst clearly explains the current state of play.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_con...
(Compare this level of information with the half a*sed horse *hit the likes of the BBC feed the facebook likers these days)
Mc Govern is excellent, the discussion with Scott Ritter (US military intelligence and UN Iraqi weapons Inspector) is a master class in Geopolitics / intelligence and politics, both from a historical point of view, but also looking at Syria and the current presidential race.http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_con...
(Compare this level of information with the half a*sed horse *hit the likes of the BBC feed the facebook likers these days)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w92wa2yj0So
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 6th November 19:42
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Mc Govern is excellent, the discussion with Scott Ritter (US military intelligence and UN Iraqi weapons Inspector) is a master class in Geopolitics / intelligence and politics, both from a historical point of view, but also looking at Syria and the current presidential race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w92wa2yj0So
I think the problem the few like us that are capable of critical objective thought is can we survive.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w92wa2yj0So
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 6th November 19:42
If you look at the viewing figures for that clip you posted that clearly spells out exactly how it all these recent wars came to pass. How many people have seen it? just over 1,000 people have bothered to watch it.
I flipped onto CNN, which is watched by many many thousands, they are talking about how Bruce Springsteen will appear for Clinton.
If you head over to the thread on here about the presidential candidates. Lots of people bleating on about racist, sexist Trump. Donald Trump is racist, sexist, divisive and very thin skinned....however he does not have a track record in starting wars. And he not making noises about entering another one in Syria which as we know will mean conflict between the US and Russia.
Clinton wants a no fly zone. This is what a no fly zone means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ryoTN7VKSg
Yet most people just look it all skin deep, Putin bad...Trump racist ect. They are just a bit too dense to actually look into who owns, controls the sales (dressed up as objective news) they watch. As Ray McGoven said in his 50 years with the CIA at a senior level....the big change is that there is longer a free press. The message is tightly controlled by vested interests. Investigative journalism is dead in the mainstream....it now thrives on line.
The problem has always been, as illustrated by many that post in these threads.
Small groups of highly intelligent Psychopaths control the masses.
The masses are either too stupid, too lazy or too busy to have much on an idea of what is going on.
Keeping people very very busy paying that mortgage is one of the great ways to keep the masses in check.
When things get nasty every now and then in a country the small percentage that are capable of critical thought end up shot onto a ditch or in a camp or in prison.
People are not getting it. Trump is a nasty man. Hillary Clinton may well take you to war with Russia.
The most dangerous are those that are bright enough to become an accountant watch the BBC and the like and read the big long words in the big newspapers and think they have some idea of what is going on, when in reality they know the square root of F all.
I leave you with Barry sh*t peas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4vuUfnTEkg
Scoobman said:
I think the problem the few like us that are capable of critical objective thought is can we survive.
If you look at the viewing figures for that clip you posted that clearly spells out exactly how it all these recent wars came to pass. How many people have seen it? just over 1,000 people have bothered to watch it.
I flipped onto CNN, which is watched by many many thousands, they are talking about how Bruce Springsteen will appear for Clinton.
If you head over to the thread on here about the presidential candidates. Lots of people bleating on about racist, sexist Trump. Donald Trump is racist, sexist, divisive and very thin skinned....however he does not have a track record in starting wars. And he not making noises about entering another one in Syria which as we know will mean conflict between the US and Russia.
Clinton wants a no fly zone. This is what a no fly zone means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ryoTN7VKSg
Yet most people just look it all skin deep, Putin bad...Trump racist ect. They are just a bit too dense to actually look into who owns, controls the sales (dressed up as objective news) they watch. As Ray McGoven said in his 50 years with the CIA at a senior level....the big change is that there is longer a free press. The message is tightly controlled by vested interests. Investigative journalism is dead in the mainstream....it now thrives on line.
The problem has always been, as illustrated by many that post in these threads.
Small groups of highly intelligent Psychopaths control the masses.
The masses are either too stupid, too lazy or too busy to have much on an idea of what is going on.
Keeping people very very busy paying that mortgage is one of the great ways to keep the masses in check.
When things get nasty every now and then in a country the small percentage that are capable of critical thought end up shot onto a ditch or in a camp or in prison.
People are not getting it. Trump is a nasty man. Hillary Clinton may well take you to war with Russia.
The most dangerous are those that are bright enough to become an accountant watch the BBC and the like and read the big long words in the big newspapers and think they have some idea of what is going on, when in reality they know the square root of F all.
I leave you with Barry sh*t peas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4vuUfnTEkg
Aww fackin' 'ell!!!!!If you look at the viewing figures for that clip you posted that clearly spells out exactly how it all these recent wars came to pass. How many people have seen it? just over 1,000 people have bothered to watch it.
I flipped onto CNN, which is watched by many many thousands, they are talking about how Bruce Springsteen will appear for Clinton.
If you head over to the thread on here about the presidential candidates. Lots of people bleating on about racist, sexist Trump. Donald Trump is racist, sexist, divisive and very thin skinned....however he does not have a track record in starting wars. And he not making noises about entering another one in Syria which as we know will mean conflict between the US and Russia.
Clinton wants a no fly zone. This is what a no fly zone means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ryoTN7VKSg
Yet most people just look it all skin deep, Putin bad...Trump racist ect. They are just a bit too dense to actually look into who owns, controls the sales (dressed up as objective news) they watch. As Ray McGoven said in his 50 years with the CIA at a senior level....the big change is that there is longer a free press. The message is tightly controlled by vested interests. Investigative journalism is dead in the mainstream....it now thrives on line.
The problem has always been, as illustrated by many that post in these threads.
Small groups of highly intelligent Psychopaths control the masses.
The masses are either too stupid, too lazy or too busy to have much on an idea of what is going on.
Keeping people very very busy paying that mortgage is one of the great ways to keep the masses in check.
When things get nasty every now and then in a country the small percentage that are capable of critical thought end up shot onto a ditch or in a camp or in prison.
People are not getting it. Trump is a nasty man. Hillary Clinton may well take you to war with Russia.
The most dangerous are those that are bright enough to become an accountant watch the BBC and the like and read the big long words in the big newspapers and think they have some idea of what is going on, when in reality they know the square root of F all.
I leave you with Barry sh*t peas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4vuUfnTEkg
Scoobman said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Mc Govern is excellent, the discussion with Scott Ritter (US military intelligence and UN Iraqi weapons Inspector) is a master class in Geopolitics / intelligence and politics, both from a historical point of view, but also looking at Syria and the current presidential race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w92wa2yj0So
I think the problem the few like us that are capable of critical objective thought is can we survive.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w92wa2yj0So
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 6th November 19:42
If you look at the viewing figures for that clip you posted that clearly spells out exactly how it all these recent wars came to pass. How many people have seen it? just over 1,000 people have bothered to watch it.
I flipped onto CNN, which is watched by many many thousands, they are talking about how Bruce Springsteen will appear for Clinton.
If you head over to the thread on here about the presidential candidates. Lots of people bleating on about racist, sexist Trump. Donald Trump is racist, sexist, divisive and very thin skinned....however he does not have a track record in starting wars. And he not making noises about entering another one in Syria which as we know will mean conflict between the US and Russia.
Clinton wants a no fly zone. This is what a no fly zone means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ryoTN7VKSg
Yet most people just look it all skin deep, Putin bad...Trump racist ect. They are just a bit too dense to actually look into who owns, controls the sales (dressed up as objective news) they watch. As Ray McGoven said in his 50 years with the CIA at a senior level....the big change is that there is longer a free press. The message is tightly controlled by vested interests. Investigative journalism is dead in the mainstream....it now thrives on line.
The problem has always been, as illustrated by many that post in these threads.
Small groups of highly intelligent Psychopaths control the masses.
The masses are either too stupid, too lazy or too busy to have much on an idea of what is going on.
Keeping people very very busy paying that mortgage is one of the great ways to keep the masses in check.
When things get nasty every now and then in a country the small percentage that are capable of critical thought end up shot onto a ditch or in a camp or in prison.
People are not getting it. Trump is a nasty man. Hillary Clinton may well take you to war with Russia.
The most dangerous are those that are bright enough to become an accountant watch the BBC and the like and read the big long words in the big newspapers and think they have some idea of what is going on, when in reality they know the square root of F all.
I leave you with Barry sh*t peas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4vuUfnTEkg
An interesting piece from the Syrian Observer (it includes input from the official Syrian Press);
http://syrianobserver.com/EN/Commentary/31886/Opin...
Phil
http://syrianobserver.com/EN/Commentary/31886/Opin...
Phil
Scoobman said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Mc Govern is excellent, the discussion with Scott Ritter (US military intelligence and UN Iraqi weapons Inspector) is a master class in Geopolitics / intelligence and politics, both from a historical point of view, but also looking at Syria and the current presidential race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w92wa2yj0So
I think the problem the few like us that are capable of critical objective thought is can we survive.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w92wa2yj0So
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 6th November 19:42
If you look at the viewing figures for that clip you posted that clearly spells out exactly how it all these recent wars came to pass. How many people have seen it? just over 1,000 people have bothered to watch it.
I flipped onto CNN, which is watched by many many thousands, they are talking about how Bruce Springsteen will appear for Clinton.
If you head over to the thread on here about the presidential candidates. Lots of people bleating on about racist, sexist Trump. Donald Trump is racist, sexist, divisive and very thin skinned....however he does not have a track record in starting wars. And he not making noises about entering another one in Syria which as we know will mean conflict between the US and Russia.
Clinton wants a no fly zone. This is what a no fly zone means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ryoTN7VKSg
Yet most people just look it all skin deep, Putin bad...Trump racist ect. They are just a bit too dense to actually look into who owns, controls the sales (dressed up as objective news) they watch. As Ray McGoven said in his 50 years with the CIA at a senior level....the big change is that there is longer a free press. The message is tightly controlled by vested interests. Investigative journalism is dead in the mainstream....it now thrives on line.
The problem has always been, as illustrated by many that post in these threads.
Small groups of highly intelligent Psychopaths control the masses.
The masses are either too stupid, too lazy or too busy to have much on an idea of what is going on.
Keeping people very very busy paying that mortgage is one of the great ways to keep the masses in check.
When things get nasty every now and then in a country the small percentage that are capable of critical thought end up shot onto a ditch or in a camp or in prison.
People are not getting it. Trump is a nasty man. Hillary Clinton may well take you to war with Russia.
The most dangerous are those that are bright enough to become an accountant watch the BBC and the like and read the big long words in the big newspapers and think they have some idea of what is going on, when in reality they know the square root of F all.
I leave you with Barry sh*t peas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4vuUfnTEkg
The problem is, we only know the extent of the influence looking backwards, the likes of the Dulles brothers from 1950s to 1970s, who shaped US internal and external policy for several decades, and their acolytes, like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Nixon, Brzezinski, Kissinger, Bush dynasty and lately Clinton dynasties etc. Democrat or Republican is different names of the same coin.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B011HCY14K/ref=dp-kind...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-...
These two books are probably the best outline of the US post WWII and cold war geopolitics I have read. The similarities between the strategies, areas of influence and overlap, then and now are stark, and unsettling, as the moderating influences no longer have sway.
Another book worth reading , although not of the same quality, but makes an interesting aside.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Confessions-Economic-Hit-...
The recent John Pilger interview with Assange is also worth the time to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbT3_9dJY4
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 8th November 09:48
Thanks for the links.
I think one encouraging thing. Is that way back American Politics was corrupt and was exposed in Gore Vidal´s writings. But who read Gore Vidal! Now with the internet and alternative news sources, slowly fewer people are believing the main stream narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Vidal
So to bring the thread back on track, although US politics has a very big part to play -
1. Who will be president?
2. Will Assad/Putin take Eastern Aleppo by January 20th 2017?
3. If Assad/Putin win out. How will Saudi and the like react to a Shia crescent that stretches from Iran to the Med?
I think one encouraging thing. Is that way back American Politics was corrupt and was exposed in Gore Vidal´s writings. But who read Gore Vidal! Now with the internet and alternative news sources, slowly fewer people are believing the main stream narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Vidal
So to bring the thread back on track, although US politics has a very big part to play -
1. Who will be president?
2. Will Assad/Putin take Eastern Aleppo by January 20th 2017?
3. If Assad/Putin win out. How will Saudi and the like react to a Shia crescent that stretches from Iran to the Med?
Scoobman said:
Thanks for the links.
I think one encouraging thing. Is that way back American Politics was corrupt and was exposed in Gore Vidal´s writings. But who read Gore Vidal! Now with the internet and alternative news sources, slowly fewer people are believing the main stream narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Vidal
So to bring the thread back on track, although US politics has a very big part to play -
1. Who will be president?
2. Will Assad/Putin take Eastern Aleppo by January 20th 2017?
3. If Assad/Putin win out. How will Saudi and the like react to a Shia crescent that stretches from Iran to the Med?
1. Probably Clinton, unless there is a lot of "shy" Trump voters. I give Clinton 60% to 40% for Trump.I think one encouraging thing. Is that way back American Politics was corrupt and was exposed in Gore Vidal´s writings. But who read Gore Vidal! Now with the internet and alternative news sources, slowly fewer people are believing the main stream narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Vidal
So to bring the thread back on track, although US politics has a very big part to play -
1. Who will be president?
2. Will Assad/Putin take Eastern Aleppo by January 20th 2017?
3. If Assad/Putin win out. How will Saudi and the like react to a Shia crescent that stretches from Iran to the Med?
2. Yes, but the main concern for Russia will be to ensure their military disposition is ready for any Clintonesque idiocy at a no flyzone. Expect those "moderate" Islamist fighters to be flooded with new weapons, including MANPADS this time, especially if Iraq is secured. Likewise expect Ukraine to flare up again.
3. Not well at all. I expect a serious escalation, probably including Israel this time, focusing on Hezbollah. The war in Syria will not be allowed to stop if Assad is in power over the entire Syria. At best, I expect a partition of some sort will be the result, Northern Kurdish region (Turkey will make sure they control that indirectly), Western Coastal region Assad and the East will be the domain of the Sunni, breaking the crescent. It will also depend on the outcome in Iraq.
Iran are flexing their muscle, and now have the money to really begin to expand influence a de facto "Sovereign wealth fund" of around $80 to $100 Bn of unfrozen assets. I think Iran is probably more reasonable, as regards Islamic fundamentalism and exportation of crazies than Saudi and Co. They probably would make a tentative ally in the region, as they did during the Afghan invasion. Either way, keeping them close is a good idea, even just from the economic opportunities available within the Iranian economy.
It is conundrum, that is best viewed from afar, very damn far, but thanks to Blair's legacy, and acquiescence to the USA foreign policy, the UK is neck deep in.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 8th November 12:10
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff