ISIS

[Dill]

(11-10-2016, 12:19 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: In a word, sectarianism.  In two words, proxy war.

I am not in the Middle East any more. Left in 2011.

My question about "interference" arose from the fact that Saudi Arabia and Iran are already participants in the fight.  Iranian militia have, tensely, been in the field fighting on the same side as the US in Iraq for two years now. Saudi is one of the secondary causes of the rise of ISIS, owing to four decades of funding Islamicism in the Middle East, but that rise has finally worked against their interests. 

The NI article you posted is interesting, and recognizes the conflicting options open to the US.  But unlike the folks at NI, I think either Saudi or Iranian domination of Syria is a better outcome than continued existence of the Islamic state, though that would mean continued armed conflict in the region.  In part because it means Saudi boots on the ground rather than Americans.

Or at least I thought that on Monday. Since my original comments, Trump has become president of the US, so what future US policy in the region might be like is a mystery. Erdogan has said he will not let the US operate from Turkey if Trump is president.  If he means that, and Trump uses his executive "first strike" prerogatives, I forsee chaos. I no longer have any idea whether Iranian/Saudi help is good or bad. None of our "allies" in the region has any idea what the consequences of helping (and being identified with) the widely-perceived-to-be-anti-Muslim Trump administration will have for their own credibility.