Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Today is again 9/11, 14 years later.

Let's distill the situation down to the most basic dynamics.

The USA, following on from the Brits, has historically aligned itself with the Persian Gulf oil exporters. In the past it made no distinction between the western side of the Persian Gulf and the eastern shore, and Russian influence in the region was limited, almost absent. Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution there was major realignment.

The USA cemented its position as not only the protector of the Middle East sea lanes to export crude, but also the military protector of the oil exporting Arab monarchies and dictatorships in the region - all the while keeping a fine balance with its role to support and protect Israel.

Since the US fissure with Iran, Russia's aim has been to draw Iran into its sphere of influence. The USSR entry into next door Afghanistan in 1979, armament sales to Iran, international and UN Security Council political support, the alignment with the Shia Assad regime in Syria, the indirect (through Iran) supplying of Hezbollah in Lebanon are just a few examples. Perhaps Syria is the new Cuba. ;-) The danger for the Russians is it turns into the new Afghanistan.

Layer on that the belated recognition of where the terrorism the USA fears is sourced, and who is funding it (contrary to popular opinion in America, it is NOT the Persians).

Makes for an interesting time looking forward...

The Russians could be in for tough tines protecting its warm water Mediteranian naval port access in Syria, avoiding the need to transit Turkish(NATO) waters.

I'm wondering if the end state will be something akin to an "Alawite Israel" circa 1948 but fighting an asymmetric 2018 war?

It could prove to be immensely expensive in terms of treasure and distraction for Russia to set up a sustainable Alawite coastal strip country as the Syrian regime is not exactly blessed with much in the way of sustainable recurring revenue streams to pay for it.

it would be interesting to sit in on Russian/Iranian negotiations on how to split up the costs and the benefits of being the sponsors.

-----

I would agree that Sunni terrorism of all varieties, local, NSA, and proxy/sovereign represents the majority, but it would be dangerous to think Shia Iran doesn't represent a hub of sovereign and proxy terrorism as terrorism has been a fundamental part of Iran's kinetic foreign policy since not long after its revolutionary inception.

It could be easily argued that Iran would be incredibly foolish to engage in conventional kinetic operations from a point of extreme comparative weakness against its adversaries, hence its choice to use asymmetric and deniable-ish kinetic means which can be accurately described as sovereign and proxy terrorism.

Theres been quite a few IRGC direct/proxy operations disrupted in quite a few countries in recent years.

Maybe the questions should include:

What category of terrorism represents the bigger threat to individual Americans? Sunni or Shia sourced terrorism?

What category of terrorism represents the bigger threat to American sovereign influence? Sunni or Shia sourced terrorism?

I reckon it's two different questions with two different answers.

-----

What I personally find quite ominous is how the recent ambush on Trump regarding Qods Force reminds me of the pre 9/11 ambush on Bush regarding Pakistan's then "President" Musharrif. Quite unknowingly prescient.

Probably more so today as there is relatively little in the western mainstream media on IRGC Qods Firce commander Qassam Soliemani bar an excellent article in Atlantic a few years ago.

One of the least known and most influential people in the world.

[touchring]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

What category of terrorism represents the bigger threat to individual Americans? Sunni or Shia sourced terrorism?

From the articles that I've read, my impression is that the terrorist groups, Al Qaeda and ISIS were proxies created or indirectly created by the Americans to fight Russia in Afghanistan (Al Qaeda) and now Syria (ISIS).

We know that for Al Qaeda, it boomeranged and cost the US trillions in war bills.

As the saying goes: What goes around comes around. ISIS being more radical, sadistic and deadly than Al Qaeda will have a much bigger impact in the future.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/10/us...t-into-europe/

The Islamic State’s ability to infiltrate the ranks of Syrian refugees pouring into Europe is of “huge concern” to U.S. intelligence officials, National Intelligence Director James Clapper said Wednesday.


“We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees,” Clapper said in a question and answer session at a U.S. intelligence conference in Washington, D.C. reported by The Washington Times. “That is a huge concern of ours.”

[Woodsman]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

From the articles that I've read, my impression is that the terrorist groups, Al Qaeda and ISIS were proxies created or indirectly created by the Americans to fight Russia in Afghanistan (Al Qaeda) and now Syria (ISIS).

We know that for Al Qaeda, it boomeranged and cost the US trillions in war bills.

As the saying goes: What goes around comes around. ISIS being more radical, sadistic and deadly than Al Qaeda will have a much bigger impact in the future.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/10/us...t-into-europe/

It's part of what's been called a strategy of tension. Seems to work well almost everywhere it's tried.

[don]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

It's part of what's been called a strategy of tension. Seems to work well almost everywhere it's tried.

Hence, the Empire of Chaos . . . .

[Polish_Silver]

Re: china vs oil

Why would China be concerned with Russia? China doesn't pose a military threat to the Russians.

Can't China buy oil from anyone else, Brazil, Sudan, Nigeria, or even Canada, if they want to build the pipeline?

Sure, but the middle east is such a dominant exporter, that the price of the oil will be much higher, regardless of where it is purchased.

China, as a major manufacturer, is very vulnerable to higher oil prices.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Questions for GRG

Did you mean Yemen?

To me, Oman represents one of the quieter "success stories", at least in relative terms, for the Sunni part of the region.

if there is one single place I'd like to spend more time in the region if required again(just narrowly avoided a 6 month "sentence" to "Dubai")it's Oman.

Yes, I was thinking of Yemen. I don't use the names often enough to keep the neurons cleaned out. Good tip. If I travel there again, I'll move Oman to the top of the list.

[Polish_Silver]

What do Russia and Iran want ?.

The Russians could be in for tough tines protecting its warm water Mediteranian naval port access in Syria, avoiding the need to transit Turkish(NATO) waters.


-----

I would agree that Sunni terrorism of all varieties, local, NSA, and proxy/sovereign represents the majority, but it would be dangerous to think Shia Iran doesn't represent a hub of sovereign and proxy terrorism as terrorism has been a fundamental part of Iran's kinetic foreign policy since not long after its revolutionary inception.

\ . . . .

LD, that's the first time I heard that Russia cared about Syria because of it's port. Very logical. Then it's not a particular government or ideology that matters, but just that the Syrian government let's them use the port. I am wondering, though, why they need the port. Does it give their navy a better position to do something? What do they want to do?

And what does Iran want from their terrorist activities? I thought it was driven by religious ideologues, who had no particular motivation other than
to frighten and blow up some people they did not like. Are they trying to accomplish some political or military objective? Between the terrorism and nuclear technology, they are doing a great job of pissing off Israel !

Iran's insistence on isotope separation is strong evidence they want a weapon. If they wanted reactor fuel, I think they could buy it easily.

And there are new generation reactor designs that can run on even lower enrichment than current reactors.

[Polish_Silver]

More questions for anybody

Today is again 9/11, 14 years later.

Let's distill the situation down to the most basic dynamics.

...

If the US is protecting OEAM (oil exporting arab monarchies), Why is it doing so?

I have heard these reasons:

1) Current monarchies will not wage large scale military attacks on Israel, though they may promote anti-Israel propoganda and terrorism,
as a distraction from the domestic situation.

2) Monarchies accept oil payments in $USD, then buy treasury notes, thereby stabilizing the dollar and decreasing the effect of the US trade deficit.


Could a politician (near the end of his career) go public with this? I don't see why he couldn't, except maybe the little black helicopters . . .

[Milton Kuo]

Re: china vs oil

Sure, but the middle east is such a dominant exporter, that the price of the oil will be much higher, regardless of where it is purchased.

China, as a major manufacturer, is very vulnerable to higher oil prices.

I don't believe that manufacturers need crude oil so much as they need electricity, which can be generated using through nuclear reactors. High oil prices would affect China peripherally as consumers such as those in the U.S. have less money to buy goods after paying more for fuel used for transportation.

China's desire for crude oil is most likely for military purposes.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: What do Russia and Iran want ?.

LD, that's the first time I heard that Russia cared about Syria because of it's port. Very logical. Then it's not a particular government or ideology that matters, but just that the Syrian government let's them use the port. I am wondering, though, why they need the port. Does it give their navy a better position to do something? What do they want to do?

And what does Iran want from their terrorist activities? I thought it was driven by religious ideologues, who had no particular motivation other than
to frighten and blow up some people they did not like. Are they trying to accomplish some political or military objective? Between the terrorism and nuclear technology, they are doing a great job of pissing off Israel !

Iran's insistence on isotope separation is strong evidence they want a weapon. If they wanted reactor fuel, I think they could buy it easily.

And there are new generation reactor designs that can run on even lower enrichment than current reactors.

The Russian naval port at Tartus Syria provides it with well located supported for Med Sea naval support, without having to transit Turkish waters into the Black Sea.

A very useful facility for Russia.

Syria(or the Assad family) would represent Russia's longest lasting regional relationship and area of influence.

With Iran's nuclear deal and freeing up of all that cash and dropping of sanctions places Russia in an excellent position to benefit from that Iranian cash(military systems such as S300).

They make strange but logical bedfellows.

I think the Russians need to be very careful to avoid "mission creep" such as the difference between Afghanistan 2002 and 2012.

With Syrian infrastructure and economic activity completely devastated, it's not going to be cheap in any scenario to put some semblance of a sovereign state(even in coastal stripped down version only form).

I don't see Syria being anything more than a cancerous black hole for he next 10-20 years minimum.

They've been knocked back from a secular-ish totalitarian 2nd/3rd world state to a chaotic 4th world mess not unlike Somalia or Afghanistan or Yemen.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

From the articles that I've read, my impression is that the terrorist groups, Al Qaeda and ISIS were proxies created or indirectly created by the Americans to fight Russia in Afghanistan (Al Qaeda) and now Syria (ISIS).

We know that for Al Qaeda, it boomeranged and cost the US trillions in war bills.

As the saying goes: What goes around comes around. ISIS being more radical, sadistic and deadly than Al Qaeda will have a much bigger impact in the future.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/10/us...t-into-europe/

AQ and ISIS manufactured by the U.S. are conspiracy theory jokes.

If you want to talk indirect 2nd and 3rd order effects then I think a rational conversation can be had.

OBL and US interests may have been temporarily aligned in Soviet era Afghanistan, but that doesn't imply or prove guilt.

Same for US and ISiS interests in imploding Assad's regime in Syria.

I'm not a big fan of the radical fundamentalist ISIS portrait.

Soldiers and middle management in ISiS as fundamentalists? Absolutely.

ISIS senior management and founders?

In that space I'd look to the Baathists from Saddam era intelligence and security forces extensively trained in Warsaw Pact best practices in terms of intelligence tradecraft, communications security, operational security, unconventional warfare, and operational art.

That doesn't lay all the blame at the likes of the former East German security apparatus that provided a lot of the training, TTPs, and basis for how ISIS operate to Baathist forces decades ago, but it helps explain the success and professionalism behind the scenes of ISIS.

I see ISIS as "meet the new boss same as the old boss" wrapped in a fundamentalist wrapper adjusting doctrine to suit both the local culture(western and Warsaw Pact conventional warfighting doctrine does not suit Arab cultures well).

Its more like a TE Lawrence warfighting model updated for the 21st Bladerunner meets Mad Max century.

[vt]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Isn't it really just a continuation of the centuries old Sunni vs. Shia for supremacy of the Muslim world?

It has taken a more intensive turn with the future threat of nuclear weapons.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Isn't it really just a continuation of the centuries old Sunni vs. Shia for supremacy of the Muslim world?

It has taken a more intensive turn with the future threat of nuclear weapons.

Sunni versus Shia is certainly a substantial overarching issue.

But there's also the local/regional tribal battles for influence and control.

Saddam era Baathists may be behind the ruse of ISIS as well as one substantial concentric England around Saddam's regime resiliency, but at the core it was his tribal networks from Tikrit that represented the inner most concentric ring that allowed him to maintain power.

So the same as in many places around the world, but throw in arbitrary borders created by the UK/France 100 years ago to make things more interesting.

[touchring]

Re: What do Russia and Iran want ?.

I think the Russians need to be very careful to avoid "mission creep" such as the difference between Afghanistan 2002 and 2012.

Firstly, Russia is economically weak, no longer a military superpower so another Afghanistan type of campaign is unlikely. Secondly, Putin is a cautious man so he won't take more risk than necessary.

My guess is this will look like a replay of Ukraine. The whole world thinks that Putin will invade Ukraine, reinstate his crony Viktor Yanukovych, or spit Ukraine into half, but in the end, he kept only the Crimean port and a strip of border land in East Ukraine.

If this is the case, Putin will only need to secure Damascus and the Tartus Port. Both cities border Lebanon and can be easily secured by wall fortification and mines which won't cost more than a couple hundred millions to build and a couple thousand troops can defend it once it is built.

With Damascus and the Port of Tartus bordered up, ISIS will move their attention elsewhere.

[touchring]

Re: china vs oil

Sure, but the middle east is such a dominant exporter, that the price of the oil will be much higher, regardless of where it is purchased.

China, as a major manufacturer, is very vulnerable to higher oil prices.

Yes, I would agree that China is vulnerable to higher prices, but no more vulnerable than any other major economy.

I'm not sure if you have lived in Hong Kong or anywhere in China, it's possible to live without cars for the following reasons:

1. Almost everyone live in apartments.
2. There's usually a grocery store, coffeeshop or eatery, 24 hour convenience shop and supermarket within 5 minute's walk from your home.
3. There's a bus stop within 1-2 minutes walk from your home.
4. Public transport is very cheap and the bus for every route comes every 5-10 minutes.
5. There's usually a metro station within 5-15 minutes walk from your home. Trains travel faster than cars during peak hours.
6. Electric bicycles are very popular.
7. To travel to another nearby city, you could take an inter-city bus and they depart every 10 minutes.