Russia will target US jets in parts of Syria, defence ministry says

Lol... I didn't say Ukraine Mr Zoomishvili... I said GEORGIA. I hardly make mistakes on my guesses

 

By the same token when we shoot down a sovereign nation's plane, who Russia was invited in to help maintain sovereignty, we are wanting a war with Russia. Dr. Roberts makes it easy to understand...



Don't allow RT to keep you from listening to what this credentialed American is saying. MSM blacks him out for nefarious and obvious reasons.

 

So facts are just hurdles you must step over? I stated fact. You had to insult so you can try to ignore facts. Another post truth individual, no doubt. Run along junior, you are out of you league here. I deal in facts, not juvenile insults directed at the giver of facts. Go piss on someone else's leg and claim it is raining.

 

Dr. Roberts speaks on this too. It is worth a listen.

 

I obviously can't share your goals, but I also can't deny the underlying coherence of your thoughts on the issue and the fact that they are based on (for the most part) a solid understanding of the issues in the region.

 

Then you understand how important wooing Turkey is to both the Iranians and the Americans. They're the key to the region, right now.

The problem: I think that whoever successfully woos them will realize within a decade or two that they've created a monster.

That's why I think our countries are destined to be allies.

 

You need to pay close attention to what we, the US is doing. We make Russia look like choir boys. We are the evil empire. We did not used to be. And moving from decent to evil happened in my life time. This is an objective fact. Read the New American Century, and notice how our actions since Bush Jr has followed this blue print. Impossible to be mere coincidence. Education expands the mind.

 

I have no problem or issue with what you foresee in relations between Iran and the US. As long as that relationship isn't one of master and servant, and is a bit more anchored to and cognizant of internal Iranian dynamics than it was during the Shah's time, I certainly wouldn't mind such an alliance. But truth be told, my preference is for a Grand Bargain down the line: one that produces a win-win outcome for all of Iran, US, Turkey and which gives the Wahhabis their fair share of the pie as well. In the Grand Bargain I like, there will be an Israeli/Palestinian confederation, but political Zionist ideology would have to share the same fate as other ideologies of similar ilk.

 

Well you've obviously made one here, I'm not east European, not from Tbilisi, not even the slightest hint of being Georgian. Try again.

 

I don't think that Americans and Iranians will sit at a table and strike a deal, I think that events will force them, bit by bit, to cooperate in rolling back Turkish power. Sunni Islamism is a powerful force in Pakistan, and as hardline groups take greater power (which I think they will) the Iranians will have to cope with the Islamist fire raging in their east and maybe north. These Islamists are likely to find supporters in the Turks.

The Iranians will start to feel pressured by the Turks and their allies on all sides.

The Americans will be quite oblivious to all of this for a while, having finally withdrawn from the region almost entirely. But suddenly one day we'll wake up and realize the following: A new superpower is forming under Turkish auspices, stretching from North Africa to Southeast Asia. The Americans and the French will suddenly start finding democratic Sunni Islamism to be more and more odious by the day. Our news pages will fill with all the "horrors" of the Islamist regimes. It seems likely to me that by this time reformists will have had their hand in Iran for a while, and Westerners will talk about how enlightened and liberal Iranians are.

I think that an alliance of nations fighting to roll back democratic Sunni Islamism will form, and the Iranians will be at the center of this alliance. And if we're being honest, they already are.

Of course it's pretty arrogant for me to think that I can predict geopolitical events decades in the future, I'm just laying out what I think is a pretty plausible scenario given current trends.

 

I don't see Turkey having that much pull. The Turks will be relevant, and they certainly can play a role in checking Iran in a more fundamental and lasting way than the Wahhabis can hope, but they just don't have what it takes to get to the heights you mention. Indeed, Turkey is still not fully settled on its own identity and whether it wants to be a neo-Ottoman Islamist state, a more or less democratic European state and member of NATO, or whether it wants to see itself as the kind of pseudo Turkic, secular nationalist state that Ataturk charted? Unless you know who you are, you aren't going to be able to have others follow you.

 

I say "Turkey" somewhat loosely. I believe that Turkey will simply be the most powerful player in some sort of Islamic Union. Most likely members being Egypt, Syria, Jordan, the Gulf States, a number of North African and West African states (this is where France starts getting uncomfortable), the Caucasian peoples, and some central Asians. Four less likely but still plausible members are Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

Turkey will play the role of Germany in this union, not formally in control but certainly the central actor.

And it won't be purely about Sunni Islam, pan-Turkish heartstrings will be pulled too. Azerbaijan is likely to fall into the Turkish sphere.

Think about modern Iran. It's an Islamist state, sure, but they're perfectly willing to talk about Iranian unity when dealing with foreign Kurds. When dealing with Sunni Arabs they tend to appeal to general anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment.

It's important not to focus too much on the ideology here. I know that my wording suggests the supreme importance of pan-Sunnism, but the truth, as always, will be more complicated. There will be plenty of pushback from Arabs, for example.

 

Islam is absolutely central to Arab, and indeed all Muslim culture, this is not the problem. The problem is that Islam is just as absolutely central to politics throughout the Arab and Muslim world, and now the Islamic fundamentalists want political control.

 

It's natural that Islam have a central place in politics. Politics is baked into the religion. The fact that Muhammed was a significant political leader while forming the religion of Islam had important effects on the religion itself. This tendency baked deeper into Sunni Islam over centuries, with the peoples of the region acceding to the authority of men who are something between theologians and lawyers.

The Americans might love to believe that there were "moderate rebels" fighting Assad in Syria, and we can talk all day about certain cultural precepts that Americans hold that can lead them to this view, but these "moderate rebels" abandoned their pretenses as soon as it became clear that the Americans weren't going to invade.

The "liberals" of Egypt may have overthrown Mubarak, but it was the Muslim Brotherhood that won the elections.

 

I recently visited Baku, Azerbaijan for the first time. I was frankly disappointed that a place which had been a part of Iran for centuries until we lost the territory to Russia, had become rather divorced from its Iranian heritage and seemed much more in tune with Turkey. That would tend to support what you mentioned as far as the Azerbaijan republic is concerned, although I am told Baku isn't representative and there are still places in northern Azerbaijan that feel a lot closer to Iran.

As for a loose, Sunni Arab-Turkic, sphere, I think there is a chance of such a coalition emerging. The idea was certainly branded about during a recent security conference in Germany, as part of the larger anti-Iran coalition being worked on by the neocons. If such a coalition does develop, I agree that the US and the Israelis will have created a monster that will eventually bite them. But I see the Wahhabist cancer within the Arabian peninsula a rather effective disease lurking into the equation and find it one of the tools to make sure the loose coalition will not be anything but temporary and a troubled one at that.

 

The left has been blaming America for all the worlds problems since the end of wwii

Bush overreacted aftewr 9-11 and it cost us dearly in lives and money

But the evil empire?

I dont think so

 

Not just among the Sunnis, don't overlook the fact Iran is nearly completely Shia and an actual theocracy, ruled by an Ayatollah.

On this "baked-in" politics in Islam, one should be mindful as we promote religious tolerance, for most Muslims this means others need to accommodate a political role for Islam. Islam's political role varies, from Iran, where the head of state must be the highest ranked cleric (and this is not the same thing as Queen Elizabeth being the head of the Anglicans), to more secular countries where the political authority of clerics is unclear. What I do know of this is that in all Muslim countries Sharia law is enforced by secular police, they don't enforce the same Sharia laws everywhere (not everyone has those "vice and virtue" patrols they apply in Iran), in some places this just involves family and succession laws, but in others it covers much more; another religious political feature in most Muslim countries is the use of government funds for religious education, their equivalent of seminary is completely paid for with government funds, the government pays for the housing, texts and instruction of aspirants to the clergy in Islam, it regulates their curriculum too, the imam's have to relay government policy in their preachings.

Muslims in the west express preference for the enforcement of Sharia law, in some countries they've been able to secure the limited application of this law in circumscribed circumstances where those affected agree voluntarily to submit. This is all they can get now, as their numbers grow and they develop political power, Muslims in western countries are certain to push for the greater involvement of their religion in political matters. I question the notion westerners should accommodate the Muslim preference for a more politically influential Islam, but repudiate any political influence by Catholics or protestants on specifically religious grounds. It is inconceivable a Christian majority in any EU government could abolish abortion on religious grounds, but not hard to imagine some future Muslim majority banning the use of military force by a western government on the grounds that the Koran forbids Muslims to kill Muslims.

 

I think that this is, in a lot of ways, historical accident. Shia Islam is a little more metaphysical/personal and less legalistic/political. A lot like Sufism.

 

There are Arabs that are Christians or Jews.
Do not confuse linguistics and religion.

 

Certainly, but not many and probably surreptitiously. In Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Iraq there are a lot less than there used to be.

 

Many millions, they openly professed their religion and lived in peace with Muslims for many centuries... till the creation of Israel.

Yes, their number is dwindling since the creation of Israel and the "false flag" operations of Mossad.

BTW, Iranians/Persians have nothing to do with Arabs.

 

And yet, Islam is central to Arab culture.

Surely you understand that a culture isn't dominated by minority groups.

 

Yes, I've heard about this Israel before, apparently the source of all evil (for Muslims).

 

Oneminded;

"I stated fact...The US is the usual culprit"

Yeah, you're a bolshie. if not an original, you sat on your grandfather's lap and absorbed this "the US is the culprit" crap.

 

For Mac, there is no distinction between America and the government. To him, they are one in the same. So any criticism of the government is seen as an attack on America.