Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenGum
The borders of the Middle East, defining countries like Jordan, Syria and Iraq, were drawn up in the peace conferences after WWI and WWII, and largely represent the global ambitions of the victorious powers at the various conferences. These countries are largely fictional. Most people in them do not, it seems, identify as being a citizen of that country, but as being a member of their own particular ethnic group. These countries were only held together by repressive governments. Now, after the removal of Saddam Hussein, the sectarian violence in Iraq, and the Arab spring, the idea that the government cannot be resisted has been undermined, and various groups are taking things into their own hands.
|
I agree with pretty much all of this. I read an article a few years back (can’t find it) predicting that in 2100, there will be twice as many countries than what exists today due to the nation-state boundaries not taking ethnic differences into account. Africa is the main one.
Quote:
|
From here, I can see three ways to go.
|
This scares me as well. My outcome predictions are a little different but boil down to basically the same thing. Also, it seems clear that the situation has gotten so bad so quickly that a peace deal will never be accepted by all parties.
If Al Assad and his allies win, a major crackdown will ensue and regime change will be unlikely in other countries (Iran, etc.). This will probably result in the most stable condition for a non-peace outcome but the problem is that this peace will likely be temporary. Things may boil over later or may not.
If the Syrian rebels win and the fighting remains isolated within Syria, there may be vast amounts of Shia ethnic cleansing and the government that follows (if one even does) will likely be unfriendly to not only U.S. and Israel, but also its Iraqi (mainly Shia) neighbors. This is not a stable condition.
If the fighting erupts into a Greater Middle Eastern War, then the outcome is anyone’s guess. While a re-divided Middle East is a potential option, it may also end up not being as “clean” as the Balkans, resulting in further problems. Or, one side may end up winning and the region becomes more centralized as well. I don’t think we can automatically assume that decentralization of nations is the only possible option.
The reactions from Israel, Turkey, Iran, Europe, Russia, and China are up for grabs as well. Russia and China care more about stability and economic gains than ideology so their “loyalty” could be lost or transferred instantly. If Assad falls and the fighting expands or continues, it isn’t about regime change anymore for Europe and the US. Both sides will likely be unfriendly to Israel.
In hindsight, this entire Arab Spring may also cause reflections of foreign policy strategies. I think Obama is going to find out the hard way that having good intentions and pushing for the best outcome (peace deal) may unintentionally result in a much more destructive outcome. As
realpolitik as it sounds, if the US and Europe supported Assad from the beginning, many lives would be saved. On the other hand, pursuing
realpolitik policies that doesn't take civilian opinion into account, like China and Russia is now and the US has in the past, may also result in a more unstable environment that becomes extremely hostile. The shortcomings of all the major foreign policy ideologies may be exposed in the next few years.