Whether or not this is good is unknown at this point because a potential take over by the terrorist HTS is not really a step in the right direction.
I'll quote myself from the Ukraine thread;
Quote:
HTS, the rebel group mainly responsible for taking Aleppo, has been putting in a lot of work to shed their image as terrorists and Islamic radicalists, doing things like helping civilians get their water and electricity back after the fighting, clearing rubble from the streets and giving proclamations to local shia-muslims that the HTS (sunnis) don't mean any harm to them.
As a personal opinion, I think the West is much too eager to slap the "islamist terrorist" label on various armed and political groups in the Middle-East, but of course since there is no obvious definition, there's a lot of subjectivity involved. In chaotic times people tend to turn to religion, and religion has always been used as a way to "other" the opposition in wars... but there really is no obvious line between that being a real motivation and it being simply rhetorical.
That said you can't be good and win wars. I'm not saying the HTS are fine now, I'm just saying them winning is not necessarily a bad thing.
Also, ending the war would be good.
If Russia can't stop the rebels from winning, that would be a major blow to their credibility as a military power. Their only Mediterranean naval base is located in Syria, plus three airbases, and they've spent a decade solidifying their presence and influence there.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
If Russia can't stop the rebels from winning, that would be a major blow to their credibility as a military power. Their only Mediterranean naval base is located in Syria, plus three airbases, and they've spent a decade solidifying their presence and influence there.
The "West" is too eager to throw around the terrorist label yet HTS is opposed by countries such as Turkey, Morocco, Russia, Lebanon, etc. Maybe they are doing "good" things in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public before they really #### them in the ass once they gain control.
If Russia can't stop the rebels from winning, that would be a major blow to their credibility as a military power. Their only Mediterranean naval base is located in Syria, plus three airbases, and they've spent a decade solidifying their presence and influence there.
Do you think the rebels would be more successful if they used non-violent methods?
The Following User Says Thank You to Party Elephant For This Useful Post:
The "West" is too eager to throw around the terrorist label yet HTS is opposed by countries such as Turkey, Morocco, Russia, Lebanon, etc. Maybe they are doing "good" things in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public before they really #### them in the ass once they gain control.
Turkey is currently the main foreign backer of HTS. Relations between them have been tumultuous, but for now they seem to be pretty good. Turkey is for example consideres a main supplier of drones rebels, and some rebels even draped themes in the Turkish flag when celebrating the victory in Aleppo. Turkey's main interest is stopping the rise of a Kurdish state across their border, so it's got nothing to do with who are "good guys" or "bad guys" in the conflict. (The Kurds are probably the closest thing to good guys in the area though.) They've also at times been supporting other groups like FSA, but at another ther time they were directly fighting several Syrian groups when the Turkish military took over some of the borderlands on the Syrian side.
Russia backs Assad, so obviously they oppose every rebel group. I haven't read anything on Lebanon really picking a side in Syria, but Hezbollah has also been backing Assad.
Morocco has been backing Free Syrian Army, which have been fighting the HTS in the past, but right now the rebel groups have been trying to avoid fighting each other.
Is it possible that the HTS is just putting on a show for now to not alienate foreign supporters, with the full intent of going maximal Islamist once they have a more secure grip on power? Absolutely plausible.
Still, I thought it was worth mentioning that HTS has at least been trying to put a different face forward.
We'll see, but I personally choose to have some cautious optimism.
Turkey is currently the main foreign backer of HTS. Relations between them have been tumultuous, but for now they seem to be pretty good. Turkey is for example consideres a main supplier of drones rebels, and some rebels even draped themes in the Turkish flag when celebrating the victory in Aleppo. Turkey's main interest is stopping the rise of a Kurdish state across their border, so it's got nothing to do with who are "good guys" or "bad guys" in the conflict. (The Kurds are probably the closest thing to good guys in the area though.) They've also at times been supporting other groups like FSA, but at another ther time they were directly fighting several Syrian groups when the Turkish military took over some of the borderlands on the Syrian side.
Russia backs Assad, so obviously they oppose every rebel group. I haven't read anything on Lebanon really picking a side in Syria, but Hezbollah has also been backing Assad.
Morocco has been backing Free Syrian Army, which have been fighting the HTS in the past, but right now the rebel groups have been trying to avoid fighting each other.
Lebanon is Canada to Assad's Syria, they will be massively happy that he has fallen, they will get a decade or so to redefine their country without Syrian interference, Hezbollah will be all but destroyed by Syria's fall, their ability to rearm has now vanished (all their supplies came through Syria) my guess is they are gone in a year.
This may end up being grim for Syria and it is definitely bad news for Hamas/Palestine but this will allow Lebanon to thrive, the fall of Assad makes Iran's practical ability to support external forces all but impossible
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
This may end up being grim for Syria and it is definitely bad news for Hamas/Palestine but this will allow Lebanon to thrive, the fall of Assad makes Iran's practical ability to support external forces all but impossible
I'm not sure it's good for Lebanon. I'm also not sure if it makes Iran's practical ability to support external forces all but impossible. Those are both possibilities but they are far from inevitable outcomes.
At this point no one knows what's going to happen. The US will try to gain influence with the rebels and sense if there is room for a strategic alliance. But so too will all the other players. Beyond that no one knows. The islamists could go into Lebanon and be worse than assad. The rebel groups could decide they are friendly with Iran and hostile to the US. Or be neutral to both. The rebel groups could have sympathies for Palestine and disdain for Israel. Or they could be neutral. No one really knows.
“We will remain vigilant,” Biden said. “Make no mistake, some of the rebel groups that took down Assad have their own grim record of terrorism and human rights abuses.” He added that the groups are “saying the right things now.” “But as they take on greater responsibility, we will assess not just their words, but their actions,” Biden said.
The Following User Says Thank You to GullFoss For This Useful Post:
I'm not sure it's good for Lebanon. I'm also not sure if it makes Iran's practical ability to support external forces all but impossible. Those are both possibilities but they are far from inevitable outcomes.
At this point no one knows what's going to happen. The US will try to gain influence with the rebels and sense if there is room for a strategic alliance. But so too will all the other players. Beyond that no one knows. The islamists could go into Lebanon and be worse than assad. The rebel groups could decide they are friendly with Iran and hostile to the US. Or be neutral to both. The rebel groups could have sympathies for Palestine and disdain for Israel. Or they could be neutral. No one really knows.
“We will remain vigilant,” Biden said. “Make no mistake, some of the rebel groups that took down Assad have their own grim record of terrorism and human rights abuses.” He added that the groups are “saying the right things now.” “But as they take on greater responsibility, we will assess not just their words, but their actions,” Biden said.
I suspect what ever else happens Iran is out of the game now, all it's support to Hamas and Hezbollah was channeled through Syria, it can move money now but little else, the question becomes what does the rest of Lebanon do with Hezbollah as they start to lose military control within Lebanon, the basis of their power was always the ability to draw on support and logistics through Syria
I suspect what ever else happens Iran is out of the game now, all it's support to Hamas and Hezbollah was channeled through Syria, it can move money now but little else, the question becomes what does the rest of Lebanon do with Hezbollah as they start to lose military control within Lebanon, the basis of their power was always the ability to draw on support and logistics through Syria
Iran gets weapons to hamas via multiple smuggling channels including offshore, Egypt, sudan, yemen and lybia. The west bank and Gaza don't even border Syria. They also smuggle components and then Hamas builds weapons in Palestinian factories
Hamas wasn't even allied with Syria for the past number of years, which is why it moved its hq out of Syria over a decade ago.
So again, the outcome of "this is super negative for Hamas and positive for Israel" is possible, but far from inevitable.
Likewise, with Lebanon, it's unclear their army can defend it's own borders against the Islamist groups that will replace assad. And they could be even worse for Lebanon than assad was.
Iran gets weapons to hamas via multiple smuggling channels including offshore, Egypt, sudan, yemen and lybia. The west bank and Gaza don't even border Syria. They also smuggle components and then Hamas builds weapons in Palestinian factories
Hamas wasn't even allied with Syria for the past number of years, which is why it moved its hq out of Syria over a decade ago.
So again, the outcome of "this is super negative for Hamas and positive for Israel" is possible, but far from inevitable.
Likewise, with Lebanon, it's unclear their army can defend it's own borders against the Islamist groups that will replace assad. And they could be even worse for Lebanon than assad was.
My guess is Israel will back a Maronite Druze resurgence, I can't see Israel missing the opportunity to install a client state
I'm not sure it's good for Lebanon. I'm also not sure if it makes Iran's practical ability to support external forces all but impossible. Those are both possibilities but they are far from inevitable outcomes.
At this point no one knows what's going to happen. The US will try to gain influence with the rebels and sense if there is room for a strategic alliance. But so too will all the other players. Beyond that no one knows. The islamists could go into Lebanon and be worse than assad. The rebel groups could decide they are friendly with Iran and hostile to the US. Or be neutral to both. The rebel groups could have sympathies for Palestine and disdain for Israel. Or they could be neutral. No one really knows.
“We will remain vigilant,” Biden said. “Make no mistake, some of the rebel groups that took down Assad have their own grim record of terrorism and human rights abuses.” He added that the groups are “saying the right things now.” “But as they take on greater responsibility, we will assess not just their words, but their actions,” Biden said.
The US "should" be trying to gain influence with the new leadership in Syria and try to normalize the region, but that is going to be difficult for all the reasons you alluded to. One you left out was the incoming administration is isolationist and more interested in relationships and cozying up to these authoritarians than they are about maintaining balance in the region. So another radical Islamist government will be setup and the region will become even more inflamed while the United States takes a seat on the sideline. The world is going to get even messier in the near future as American leadership and the might of our military is left on the bench.
Charlie Kirk tells the story of how the election was won and the strategies they used to swing voters. References using social media (especially TikTok) to influence low information voters, relying on the "bro voter" and the patriarchy, and converting people who liked Trump, but not a registered voter (like fraternities). Really interesting discussion.
Money shot is at 1:45:20.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
They can certainly try, but a lot of countries are going to have ideas about Syria, and most of those ideas are unlikely ro align with Israel.
Turkey especially is already in deep with HTS, and they're not someone Israel can push around.
The Maronite reference was to Lebanon, and I suspect Turkey will be happy to let Israel have Southern Lebanon as it's 'sphere of influence' if Turkey gets Syria, that works for both sides frankly, the real question is can Turkey control the Sunni groups in the country, if they can frankly then it could be a pretty good outcome for the average Syrian but I suspect they won't be able to
The US "should" be trying to gain influence with the new leadership in Syria and try to normalize the region, but that is going to be difficult for all the reasons you alluded to. One you left out was the incoming administration is isolationist and more interested in relationships and cozying up to these authoritarians than they are about maintaining balance in the region. So another radical Islamist government will be setup and the region will become even more inflamed while the United States takes a seat on the sideline. The world is going to get even messier in the near future as American leadership and the might of our military is left on the bench.
Trump the pacifist isn't one of the bad things about the guy. The West has been trying to tell that region what to do my whole life. Let them figure it out and find their own balance. Its likely the best long term solution.
Very few people WANT political/corporate violence and terrorism. But there's also an element of "well, what do you expect?". People have been trying to peacefully change their system through government lobbying and peaceful activism for decades and they get stamped out by corporate interests leading to more poverty, addiction issues, death by lack of insurance, etc.. etc... The people making these decisions keep acting like there won't be eventual revolt like it's never happened before. If you're a total nihilist, you can just recognize it as an inevitability and ride the wave while you can, and hope that someone who lost a loved one ( or multiple) in corporate negligence doesn't snap and come for you. Or, you could just pay out some f***ing insurance claims.
Trump the pacifist isn't one of the bad things about the guy. The West has been trying to tell that region what to do my whole life. Let them figure it out and find their own balance. Its likely the best long term solution.
Trump isn't a pacifist. Don't kid yourself. He's ignorant of foreign affairs so withdraws from discussions/engagements rather than read and learn. Numerous times during his first term he was willing to use nuclear weapons to solve problems, only be to be talked off the ledge by his advisors. If the West backs away from the region what do you think happens as a result of the political vacuum? I would suggest you will see Russia and China step in and make things worse. Can you imagine what would happen to Israel if the West withdrew? With Israel in the mix and there being an ocean of black gold under the region, the Middle East will always be a point of interest for the West.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
