Bi_3 wrote:This is all still fresh, but I haven't seen any well thought out takes on what this means for regional stability. We don't need another ISIS rising in Syria.
Anders wrote:I don't think anyone fully knows what this will end up as, which is probably why Israel are bombing the way they are. Most likely the Turkish backed groups will continue to rule in the western region across the Turkish border, and the Kurds will continue to rule in the east, unless Turkey goes full war against them. But the largest uncertainty remains with those who captured the big cites (Aleppo, Homs, Damascus and the coast) over the last couple of weeks. Most likely they will be the rulers of Syria as a nation going forward, so let's see what they can unite under.
"Syrian rebel leader's extremist past raises questions about his future
Abu Mohammad al-Jolani has sought to rebrand his and his group’s position while distancing himself from their Al Qaeda connections."
While I wouldn't suggest there isn't a lot of cultural nuance to all this, I think the broad strategy is pretty clear: US gets to use Israel as a proxy for further economic rule; Israel gets to expand and solidify their economy. The whole reason you bomb a place to shit is so you can generate dollars on the rebuild.
I think Israel did it to prevent attacks against them, from a more erratic/militant Islamic Syria.
Not that Israel loved Assad, but they knew where they had him. Mostly they have bombed military equipment.
Ah, that's helpful info. I think the spirit is the same though: A stable Syria protects their economic interests. And military bases are probably nice steady portfolio payers.
Will be interestlng to see who the new Syria pays for military equipment in the future, but probably not the US or Israel for a while.
Probably a combination of after-market outdated weapons and supplies to shore up their boots on the ground, and select choices of next-gen US tech to protect their most critical assets.
Could be that the bombing will drive them back into the arms of Iran/Russia, same as Assad.
Turkey is a potential ally, but that also has a large backside.
Maybe it will be as you have said.
Other Arab nations seem like their best choice.
Egypt is one of two countries seeing increased birth rates (the other is Mexico(. From a workforce development perspective, it's tough to imagine any robust growth strategy that doesn't leverage the recent alignment between Egypt and Turkey.
I was thinking of:
Bahrain
Egypt
Jordan
Morocco
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
All more or less allies and anti-Iranian government.
Anders wrote:The Kurds are far more important to Turkey than Israel.
The Kurds are to Turkey, what the Palestinians are to Israel.
Sorry, that’s not what I was driving at. By pulling back, Turkey puts the US and Israel in a difficult position to drive a peaceful transition, let alone one with strong economic gains. My prediction is that Turkey is a key ally again within two weeks, and they get some bargaining chips in the process.
Israel will have very little say in the rebuilding or the transition of power in Syria, and the US only a marginal role, especially under Trump.
Turkey will have all their focus on the Kurds and the border area. It is far more important to them, than who will rule in Damascus in the near future. But I don’t doubt that Turkey and Turkish construction companies will play a significant role in the rebuilding.
Will be interesting to see what happens when Trump takes over.
Who gets the billions in construction is not important to me, but I do not want to see Turkey steam roll their way across the country, leaving the Kurds in ruin.
The Kurds are at their strongest in Iraq, with an autonomous region, and have the potential to have something similar in Syria, if peace can be kept. They are also the largest minority in Turkey, with 15-20% of the population.
We usually hear the least about the Kurds in Iran. Though if the Iranian regime were to fall, I could see the Kurds there going for more autonomy as well.
