The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Middle East: Sanctions Against Iran Lifted
[Tycho?]![[Tycho?]](https://us.v-cdn.net/5018289/uploads/userpics/934/nHG8VEMRTY5QM.gif)
As elusive as doubtRegistered User regular
As elusive as doubtRegistered User regular
Welcome back to the Middle East Thread, 6th edition.
This OP has become ridiculously bloated and unreadable, as it tries to summarize an entire region of the world during one of its most tumultuous times.
For a better summary, here's a comic (thanks Echo):
****
This is the thread for talking about the goings on in these countries, including current events, history, travel and general interest. Discussion is pretty wide ranging but usually holds pretty close to whats going on in the region, and with all the revolutions and wars and attacks there is usually no shortage of things to talk about. For discussion of things like Islam please see Ham's thread on the subject. http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/151553/islam-or-holy-shi-ite-it-s-a-thread-about-mohammedans/p1
We all know arguments can be common in this sort of discussion, especially around Israel/Palestine. So far everyone has conducted themselves very well, but we'll keep a reminder to play nice. Cite your sources, avoid attacks on other posters, and generally be willing to let a point drop; people have been debating this for decades, we probably wont be solving much here anyway.
Below is a bit of a primer. It is by no means complete, and as it was assembled mostly through memory it can't be called perfectly accurate or unbiased. Suggestions for more resources are welcome, especially media like photos, videos and maps.
Middle East
What do we mean by this? Well I stole a map from wikipedia which I think does an excellent job:
The dark green is the "traditional" Middle east. The lighter green in the North of Africa indicates nations that are mostly Arabic and Muslim; this region is called the Maghreb. Somalia is on there for its proximity to the Arabian Peninsula, and it is also Muslim. The lighter greens in Asia are not Arabic, but are all Muslim. Calling Pakistan or Kazakhstan part of the Middle East is frankly absurd, but current conflicts mean that you hear the term come up. The Caucuses (light green, the small region north of Turkey and Iran, south of Russia) is the only region that has Christian nations, though plenty of Muslims are there as well. Discussion also can include more of Africa.
History of the long ago, courtesy of @Qingu. Big thanks to him for taking the time to write this up.
MESOPOTAMIA, meaning "the land between the rivers" in Greek, is the heart of the middle east and, arguably, the heart of human history and civilization. The land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Iraq is part of the "fertile crescent."
Some accounts include Egypt in the fertile crescent; in any case, they were neighbors to the Mesopotamians and both civilizations have influenced each other since they began. What follows is a short list of various groups who have ruled Mesopotamia throughout history.
The Sumerians
(c. 3300 B.C. - 2400 B.C.) are the earliest known civilization in history. In fact, everyone before the Sumerians is by definition prehistoric, since the Sumerians invented writing. Their cuneiform writing system used wedge-shaped marks on clay tablets. Around 3300 B.C., the Sumerians established the first urban centers. They built zigurrats—giant stepped pyramids with flat tops—that functioned as religious centers. Uruk, a major Sumerian city, is where the name "Iraq" comes from.
The Akkadians
(2400 B.C. - 1900 B.C.) invaded Mesopotamia under a leader named Sargon, who established one of the first empires. Unlike the Sumerians, the Akkadians spoke a Semitic language from the Afro-Asiatic language family. But the Akkadians absorbed Sumerian writing technology, their urban civilization, and apparently much of their religion. The Epic of Gilgamesh, the earliest known work of literature, is written in Akkadian, though Gilgamesh is also mentioned in earlier Sumerian poems. Akkadian-Sumerian civilization, much like the later civilization of ancient Greece, was based on city-states, each with its own local god.
The Canaanites
(2nd century B.C. onward) were Semetic-speaking people based west of Mesopotamia, in what is now Lebanon. "Canaanite" is actually a pretty broad term, and can be said to include a number of important cultural groups.
• The Hebrews lived in this area and Hebrew is a Canaanite language. They never rule Mesopotamia but establish a long-lived kingdom to the west in what is now Israel; they become important later.
• The Amorites lived in Syria. They become the Babylonians, also important later.
• The Greeks called Canaanite seafarers Phoenicians, and this group of Canaanites established colonies all throughout the Mediterranean Sea, including the famous city of Carthage. They also developed an alphabet that spread to the Greeks. The Phoenician-Greek alphabet is the ancestor of all modern Western alphabets.
The Babylonians
emerged as a power around 1900 B.C. when Amorites took over Mesopotamia from the Akkadian-Sumerian culture and established the city of Babylon as the capital. Around 1800 B.C., the Babylonian king Hammurabi established one of the earliest-known codes of law (shown above, receiving it from the sun god Shamash). Many Biblical laws are found in the Code of Hammurabi. The Enuma Elish, a Babylonian creation myth, explains how Babylon's local city-god Marduk becomes the supreme god, absorbing all the other gods' names and powers. Atrahasis, another Babylonian-era myth, describes how the gods created men from clay and then flood the world to get rid of all but one.
The Assyrians
lived in the north of Mesopotamia and often struggled against the southern Babylonians. Around 1200 B.C., they grew quite powerful, and conquered Babylon entirely around 850 B.C. The Assyrians have a cruel reputation, perhaps partly because they are known in the Bible as brutal conquerers of the northern Jewish state of Israel in the 700's B.C. They developed advanced forms of warfare, notably siege engines. Pairs of sphinxlike creatures called lamassu, shown here, often flanked Assyrian palaces.
Judaism/Neo-Babylonian interlude
Around 600 B.C., the Babylonians and their allies re-conquered Mesopotamia from the Assyrians. When these "neo-Babylonians" took power, they conquered the southern Hebrew kingdom of Judah. The prophets of the Old Testament, like Daniel (shown above) wrote during this period, called the Babylonian captivity. Now the Hebrews had no kingdom or territory at all, but they did have their religion. And for centuries they hoped a savior—a "messiah"—would come to re-establish their kingdom.
The Persians
.jpg)
(540 - 330 B.C.) were the first non-Semitic people to conquer Mesopotamia, under Cyrus the Great. The Persians spoke an Indo-European language—like the Greeks, the Hittites, and the Indians—and their ancient territory included much of what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan in addition to Iran. Their religion, Zoroastrianism, was also different from the Mesopotamians; in Zoroastrianism, the world hangs in the balance between a supreme God of Light (Ahura Mazda) and a God of Darkness (Ahriman). Cyrus is notable for being widely regarded as a fair and just ruler. In the Bible, he is celebrated for giving Jews back their autonomy which the Babylonians had suppressed. Persian culture would later greatly influence Islam.
The Greeks
(330 B.C. - 64 B.C.) conquered the Persians under the Macedonian ruler Alexander the Great. Although Alexander's empire did not last long, the Greek-speaking Seleucid dynasty did maintain control in Mesopotamia for centuries. The Hebrew Maccabees managed to wrest control of a short-lived Jewish state from the Seleucids, made famous in the story of Hannukah.
The Romans
took over Mesopotamia from the Greeks in 64 A.D., though their reach never extended that far east and the region would seesaw between Roman (aka Byzantine) and Persian (aka Parthian/Sassanid) control for centuries. The Romans took much of their culture from the Greeks, but they were a multicultural civilization that took influence from Mesopotamia, Persia, and Egypt—especially in "mystery religions" that combined aspects from all of these cultures' traditions. The Romans installed a puppet king named Herod to rule over the Jews, and Jewish rebellions against Roman rule came to a violent end in 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple. It is against this simmering backdrop that the founding and development of Christianity occurs.
The Arabs
were a Semitic-speaking people largely based in the deserts south of Mesopotamia. Arab traders had plenty of contact with all of the civilizations previously mentioned, and an Arab civilization called the Nabataeans built the famous city of Petra in the Jordanian desert around the time of Jesus' birth. But what really propelled the Arabs to Mesopotamian rule was Islam, founded by an Arab merchant named Muhammad in 622 A.D. After Muhammad's death, the first caliph—Abu Bakr—conquered Mesopotamia. Umar, the second caliph, conquered the Persian Sassanid Empire. During the Abbasid Caliphate, Arab philosophers preserved many ancient Greek philosophical texts. Arabs also adapted the Indian numeral system with its zero and place value to become the modern number system we use today.
The Turks and Mongols
The Turks, despite the name of the country, are not from Turkey. They originally came from the Eurasian steppe, a vast strip of grassland that extends across the whole continent, just north of the Middle East. Horse-riding nomads from the steppe had long influenced the Middle East; the Scythians and the Huns also originated there. The Turks never outright conquered the Islamic Caliphate; but Arabs used Turks as elite warriors, much like Romans used Germanic tribes, and over time the power base shifted from the Arabs to the Turks. The Turks' steppe-dwelling cousins, the Mongols, however, were a different story. Arguably the most catastrophic event in Islamic history, the Mongol conquerer Hulagu sacked Baghdad in 1258 A.D, as part of an invasion that killed millions.
The Ottoman Empire
(1400's to 1922). The Mongols never established a long-lived presence in Mesopotamia, and soon the Turks regained control under the aegis of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were some of the first to use firearms, and they conquered the Byzantine capital of Constantinople in 1453. The Ottoman Empire was one of three so-called "gunpowder empires"—which also included the Safavid Empire in Iran and the Mughal Empire in India. The story of the Ottoman Empire's slow decline, and its eventual carving-up by Western powers after World War I, dovetails with current events.
Sunni and Shia - who are they and why should I care?
Green is Sunni, red is Shia (also called Shiites or more properly, Shi'i). Too small to see is tiny Bahrain on the coast of Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf, which is also majority Shia.
Oman is Ibadi, which I don't know anything about.
The sects in Islam can be thought of as roughly like Catholic and Protestant, except the split in Islam occurred only a few years after its founding. Like in Christianity, the actual beliefs are mostly the same, but minor differences have a way of adding to existing conflicts that makes them bigger and badder.
Current Events
The Islamic State, new kid on the block
NSFW:
ISI, ISIL, ISIS, and now just plain IS. Formed as a Sunni rebel group to the US occupation around 2003 or 04. Rose to fame during the Syrian civil war, by being such assholes that the al-Qeuda franchise al-Nusra told them to fuck off. They were so effective at destroying or absorbing competing rebel groups that Assad mostly left them alone. They apparently get their funding from private entities in Saudi Arabia, though its tough to say for sure. After fighting in both Syria and Iraq for some time, they came to global attention when they seized Iraq's second largest city of Mosul almost without a fight. This was in early June. Since then they've become enemy #1 in the Middle East by chopping people's heads off and generally being dicks.
The US has gotten (re)involved in a big way, along with some other Western nations like the UK and Canada, and have convinced several arab nations like Saudi Arabia to join the coalition against IS. The US has put several thousand extra troops in the country, and Canadian soldiers have actually engaged in ground battles with IS. Its widely believed that Saudi citizens if not their government has backed IS and similar groups, so it makes the whole situation extra murky. US airstrikes have slowed the advance but haven't won the war, while the ongoing crisis has made bedfellows of Iran and the US.
In my opinion this is the start of a long and protracted regional war involving much of the region and many other nations. Peoples will move, borders will be redrawn, enemies will becomes friends and friends enemies. I think its the biggest change the Middle East has seen since '79 at least. Whatever happens, it won't be over any time soon.
Google map of US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in 2014.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=zMFlMATXQa8A.kXw7ltbpSmW4
Kurdistan- my map is broken
You won't find it on your world map. The Kurds are a people that almost got a state after the Ottoman Empire was cut up by Britian and France. They got screwed though, and like most of the rest didn't get the state they wanted. They've seen been a thorn in the side of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran in their time. Saddam attacked his Kurdish region with chemical weapons in the 80s, in retaliation for the rebels fighting on Iran's side during the Iran-Iraq war. After Operation Desert storm, the US and allies imposed a no-fly-zone over northern Iraq, which effectively insulated the Kurds and increased their autonomy. When the country fell apart in the wake of the '03 invasion, the Kurds were already used to going it alone. They've been increasingly powerful for the past few years, and have been running a state within a state. The recent seizure of Mosul by ISIS basically broke the Iraqi state, and with Turkey quietly ok with the issue and the West struggling to find reliable allies, the Kurds may be getting a formal state out of the mix. They shouldn't get their hopes up on that, but despite not existing on paper, the de facto state of Kurdistan is one of the more stable ones in that region right now.
Southern Iraq
I didn't know until I looked for this image, but Iraq's flag was changed in 2004 and again in 2008.
This is a column of vehicles of the Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada, a Shia militia backed by Iran. That is their flag in yellow and green (liked Hezbollah's flag), the Iraqi national flag, on a Made In America up-armoured humvee.
Baghdad doesn't control as much as it used to. After the country was largely destroyed in 2003, the Sunni establishment was purged by the US pro-consul and the country has been in a low- or high- level civil war since. Its in the high part, at the moment. I dare say the government in Baghdad really has very little power, as the national army is in ruins and the heavy fighting is being done by Shia militias which do not answer to the government, but are backed if not controlled outright by Iran.
Syrian Civil War- Oh yeah that thing
The terrible bloodbath continues. Hundreds of thousands have been killed with no end in sight. At the start, peaceful protests were met with a violent crackdown, and the resulting rebellion and defection of some of the army rapidly became very messy as foreign fighters (many from the recently concluded conflict in Libya) with outside backing entered the fray. Turkey has provided safe haven for the rebels, Saudi Arabia and Qatar weapons, with the US and other western nations providing "non-lethal" aid and trying to get the rebels to form a cohesive government. There was much talk of an intervention, especially when Assad began using chemical weapons. Obama's (in)famous red line was passed Aug 2013 in Ghouta, where over a thousand people were killed in a chemical attack. The much threatened intervention did not come however, partly because the British government got cold feet. The conflict has since worn on as before; the country is a blasted hulk of its former self, millions have fled, starvation is common, and the conflict has spread to neighbouring Lebanon and Iraq.
Israel/Palestine- their unceasing disputes are sort of like a married couple, with more death
Extra big, extra detailed map made by the UN:
The conflict synonymous with the Middle East. Wall to wall coverage, and discussion of this issue is known to turn normal people into frothing animals. The dispute is basically about land and who lives on it, who used to live on it, and who should live on it. There's Israel, Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. Hamas and Fatah had a violent falling out in 2007, and the occasional attempt at reconciliation has so far gone nowhere.
The West Bank is occupied by Israel and contains many illegal jewish settlements. The settlements were removed from Gaza during the last decade, and the territory was put under siege when Hamas was elected. It seems like basically nobody is happy with the current situation, so expect plenty more conflicts after this one.
Gaza was largely destroyed during Israeli airstrikes last summer. Reconstruction hasn't gotten very far, largely due to the blockade (now heavily enforced by Egypt as well) on most building supplies.
Iran - less evil, more business
After Iraq was invaded by the US and co, it seemed like Iran was next on the list. Member of the "axis of evil", no proven weapons program, lots of muslims and oil, it all seemed to fit. But Iraq was quickly shown to be a Bad Idea, and the plan was sheleved. Israel kept threatening, but they probably can't pull off an attack on their own. About a year ago Iran elected Rouhani, who was a lot less annoying than Ahmadinejad, his predecessor. For reasons I still do not completely understand, cooler heads on both sides suddenly started getting along. Secret negotiations between the US and Iran led to some surprise announcements, then more open talks. All the talk these days is about peace with Iran, the ending of sanctions, and Iran opening its markets. It doesn't feel like empty rhetoric to me either, so even if some wacko like McCain gets elected in the US, I think there is a good chance relations will continue to improve. I think people might have finally realized there are more important things to worry about.
Libya- What's a Benghazi?
As of early 2015, Libya is a very dangerous place. This isn't very different from any point since Gadaffi was overthrown, which was around 3 years ago now. The various militias that were fighting in the civil war (some with NATO support, some without) are still fighting it out. Libya has had a "government" in Tripoli, however it controlled little of the country and indeed couldn't stop street fighting in the capital, or indeed protect government offices. The Prime Minister fled the country in March 2014. The east of the country around Benghazi, where the rebellion started, has its shit together a bit more solidly, but doesn't listen to Tripoli at all. It got in trouble trying to export its own oil- Tripoli protested, and US navy SEALS ended up seizing the tanker that carried the oil. Libya has become a "failed state", contested by various militias, a source of thousands of boat-migrants to Europe and likely candidate for another Western "invervention". Recently IS followers have captured and executed some Egyptian christians here, with Egypt responding with airstrikes.
Afghanistan and Pakistan: still terrible
The US combat mission has officially ended, fortunately a deal was signed to allow thousands of US troops and many more contractors to stay behind, just in case. To absoltely nobodies surprise, Afghanistan is not being left as a beacon of freedom and democracy. Not that the foreign troops or Kabul ever really controlled the country, but lots of groups were simply waiting for this occupation thing to die down before making their move. The Taliban and other rebels groups are basically biding their time until the US is sufficiently disinterested to make their move. If the Taliban winds up back in power basically depends on how much Pakistan continues to support them (those good, loyal allies of the US). Pakistan fought a mini war (still involving hundreds of thousands, Pakistan is a populous place) last year against restive tribes in its north eastern, mountainous region. Its still not the most stable country around.
This OP has become ridiculously bloated and unreadable, as it tries to summarize an entire region of the world during one of its most tumultuous times.
For a better summary, here's a comic (thanks Echo):
****
This is the thread for talking about the goings on in these countries, including current events, history, travel and general interest. Discussion is pretty wide ranging but usually holds pretty close to whats going on in the region, and with all the revolutions and wars and attacks there is usually no shortage of things to talk about. For discussion of things like Islam please see Ham's thread on the subject. http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/151553/islam-or-holy-shi-ite-it-s-a-thread-about-mohammedans/p1
We all know arguments can be common in this sort of discussion, especially around Israel/Palestine. So far everyone has conducted themselves very well, but we'll keep a reminder to play nice. Cite your sources, avoid attacks on other posters, and generally be willing to let a point drop; people have been debating this for decades, we probably wont be solving much here anyway.
Below is a bit of a primer. It is by no means complete, and as it was assembled mostly through memory it can't be called perfectly accurate or unbiased. Suggestions for more resources are welcome, especially media like photos, videos and maps.
Middle East
What do we mean by this? Well I stole a map from wikipedia which I think does an excellent job:
The dark green is the "traditional" Middle east. The lighter green in the North of Africa indicates nations that are mostly Arabic and Muslim; this region is called the Maghreb. Somalia is on there for its proximity to the Arabian Peninsula, and it is also Muslim. The lighter greens in Asia are not Arabic, but are all Muslim. Calling Pakistan or Kazakhstan part of the Middle East is frankly absurd, but current conflicts mean that you hear the term come up. The Caucuses (light green, the small region north of Turkey and Iran, south of Russia) is the only region that has Christian nations, though plenty of Muslims are there as well. Discussion also can include more of Africa.
History of the long ago, courtesy of @Qingu. Big thanks to him for taking the time to write this up.
MESOPOTAMIA, meaning "the land between the rivers" in Greek, is the heart of the middle east and, arguably, the heart of human history and civilization. The land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Iraq is part of the "fertile crescent."
Some accounts include Egypt in the fertile crescent; in any case, they were neighbors to the Mesopotamians and both civilizations have influenced each other since they began. What follows is a short list of various groups who have ruled Mesopotamia throughout history.
The Sumerians
(c. 3300 B.C. - 2400 B.C.) are the earliest known civilization in history. In fact, everyone before the Sumerians is by definition prehistoric, since the Sumerians invented writing. Their cuneiform writing system used wedge-shaped marks on clay tablets. Around 3300 B.C., the Sumerians established the first urban centers. They built zigurrats—giant stepped pyramids with flat tops—that functioned as religious centers. Uruk, a major Sumerian city, is where the name "Iraq" comes from.
The Akkadians
(2400 B.C. - 1900 B.C.) invaded Mesopotamia under a leader named Sargon, who established one of the first empires. Unlike the Sumerians, the Akkadians spoke a Semitic language from the Afro-Asiatic language family. But the Akkadians absorbed Sumerian writing technology, their urban civilization, and apparently much of their religion. The Epic of Gilgamesh, the earliest known work of literature, is written in Akkadian, though Gilgamesh is also mentioned in earlier Sumerian poems. Akkadian-Sumerian civilization, much like the later civilization of ancient Greece, was based on city-states, each with its own local god.
The Canaanites
(2nd century B.C. onward) were Semetic-speaking people based west of Mesopotamia, in what is now Lebanon. "Canaanite" is actually a pretty broad term, and can be said to include a number of important cultural groups.
• The Hebrews lived in this area and Hebrew is a Canaanite language. They never rule Mesopotamia but establish a long-lived kingdom to the west in what is now Israel; they become important later.
• The Amorites lived in Syria. They become the Babylonians, also important later.
• The Greeks called Canaanite seafarers Phoenicians, and this group of Canaanites established colonies all throughout the Mediterranean Sea, including the famous city of Carthage. They also developed an alphabet that spread to the Greeks. The Phoenician-Greek alphabet is the ancestor of all modern Western alphabets.
The Babylonians
emerged as a power around 1900 B.C. when Amorites took over Mesopotamia from the Akkadian-Sumerian culture and established the city of Babylon as the capital. Around 1800 B.C., the Babylonian king Hammurabi established one of the earliest-known codes of law (shown above, receiving it from the sun god Shamash). Many Biblical laws are found in the Code of Hammurabi. The Enuma Elish, a Babylonian creation myth, explains how Babylon's local city-god Marduk becomes the supreme god, absorbing all the other gods' names and powers. Atrahasis, another Babylonian-era myth, describes how the gods created men from clay and then flood the world to get rid of all but one.
The Assyrians
lived in the north of Mesopotamia and often struggled against the southern Babylonians. Around 1200 B.C., they grew quite powerful, and conquered Babylon entirely around 850 B.C. The Assyrians have a cruel reputation, perhaps partly because they are known in the Bible as brutal conquerers of the northern Jewish state of Israel in the 700's B.C. They developed advanced forms of warfare, notably siege engines. Pairs of sphinxlike creatures called lamassu, shown here, often flanked Assyrian palaces.
Judaism/Neo-Babylonian interlude
Around 600 B.C., the Babylonians and their allies re-conquered Mesopotamia from the Assyrians. When these "neo-Babylonians" took power, they conquered the southern Hebrew kingdom of Judah. The prophets of the Old Testament, like Daniel (shown above) wrote during this period, called the Babylonian captivity. Now the Hebrews had no kingdom or territory at all, but they did have their religion. And for centuries they hoped a savior—a "messiah"—would come to re-establish their kingdom.
The Persians
(540 - 330 B.C.) were the first non-Semitic people to conquer Mesopotamia, under Cyrus the Great. The Persians spoke an Indo-European language—like the Greeks, the Hittites, and the Indians—and their ancient territory included much of what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan in addition to Iran. Their religion, Zoroastrianism, was also different from the Mesopotamians; in Zoroastrianism, the world hangs in the balance between a supreme God of Light (Ahura Mazda) and a God of Darkness (Ahriman). Cyrus is notable for being widely regarded as a fair and just ruler. In the Bible, he is celebrated for giving Jews back their autonomy which the Babylonians had suppressed. Persian culture would later greatly influence Islam.
The Greeks
(330 B.C. - 64 B.C.) conquered the Persians under the Macedonian ruler Alexander the Great. Although Alexander's empire did not last long, the Greek-speaking Seleucid dynasty did maintain control in Mesopotamia for centuries. The Hebrew Maccabees managed to wrest control of a short-lived Jewish state from the Seleucids, made famous in the story of Hannukah.
The Romans
took over Mesopotamia from the Greeks in 64 A.D., though their reach never extended that far east and the region would seesaw between Roman (aka Byzantine) and Persian (aka Parthian/Sassanid) control for centuries. The Romans took much of their culture from the Greeks, but they were a multicultural civilization that took influence from Mesopotamia, Persia, and Egypt—especially in "mystery religions" that combined aspects from all of these cultures' traditions. The Romans installed a puppet king named Herod to rule over the Jews, and Jewish rebellions against Roman rule came to a violent end in 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple. It is against this simmering backdrop that the founding and development of Christianity occurs.
The Arabs
were a Semitic-speaking people largely based in the deserts south of Mesopotamia. Arab traders had plenty of contact with all of the civilizations previously mentioned, and an Arab civilization called the Nabataeans built the famous city of Petra in the Jordanian desert around the time of Jesus' birth. But what really propelled the Arabs to Mesopotamian rule was Islam, founded by an Arab merchant named Muhammad in 622 A.D. After Muhammad's death, the first caliph—Abu Bakr—conquered Mesopotamia. Umar, the second caliph, conquered the Persian Sassanid Empire. During the Abbasid Caliphate, Arab philosophers preserved many ancient Greek philosophical texts. Arabs also adapted the Indian numeral system with its zero and place value to become the modern number system we use today.
The Turks and Mongols
The Turks, despite the name of the country, are not from Turkey. They originally came from the Eurasian steppe, a vast strip of grassland that extends across the whole continent, just north of the Middle East. Horse-riding nomads from the steppe had long influenced the Middle East; the Scythians and the Huns also originated there. The Turks never outright conquered the Islamic Caliphate; but Arabs used Turks as elite warriors, much like Romans used Germanic tribes, and over time the power base shifted from the Arabs to the Turks. The Turks' steppe-dwelling cousins, the Mongols, however, were a different story. Arguably the most catastrophic event in Islamic history, the Mongol conquerer Hulagu sacked Baghdad in 1258 A.D, as part of an invasion that killed millions.
The Ottoman Empire
(1400's to 1922). The Mongols never established a long-lived presence in Mesopotamia, and soon the Turks regained control under the aegis of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were some of the first to use firearms, and they conquered the Byzantine capital of Constantinople in 1453. The Ottoman Empire was one of three so-called "gunpowder empires"—which also included the Safavid Empire in Iran and the Mughal Empire in India. The story of the Ottoman Empire's slow decline, and its eventual carving-up by Western powers after World War I, dovetails with current events.
Sunni and Shia - who are they and why should I care?
Green is Sunni, red is Shia (also called Shiites or more properly, Shi'i). Too small to see is tiny Bahrain on the coast of Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf, which is also majority Shia.
Oman is Ibadi, which I don't know anything about.
The sects in Islam can be thought of as roughly like Catholic and Protestant, except the split in Islam occurred only a few years after its founding. Like in Christianity, the actual beliefs are mostly the same, but minor differences have a way of adding to existing conflicts that makes them bigger and badder.
Current Events
The Islamic State, new kid on the block
NSFW:
ISI, ISIL, ISIS, and now just plain IS. Formed as a Sunni rebel group to the US occupation around 2003 or 04. Rose to fame during the Syrian civil war, by being such assholes that the al-Qeuda franchise al-Nusra told them to fuck off. They were so effective at destroying or absorbing competing rebel groups that Assad mostly left them alone. They apparently get their funding from private entities in Saudi Arabia, though its tough to say for sure. After fighting in both Syria and Iraq for some time, they came to global attention when they seized Iraq's second largest city of Mosul almost without a fight. This was in early June. Since then they've become enemy #1 in the Middle East by chopping people's heads off and generally being dicks.
The US has gotten (re)involved in a big way, along with some other Western nations like the UK and Canada, and have convinced several arab nations like Saudi Arabia to join the coalition against IS. The US has put several thousand extra troops in the country, and Canadian soldiers have actually engaged in ground battles with IS. Its widely believed that Saudi citizens if not their government has backed IS and similar groups, so it makes the whole situation extra murky. US airstrikes have slowed the advance but haven't won the war, while the ongoing crisis has made bedfellows of Iran and the US.
In my opinion this is the start of a long and protracted regional war involving much of the region and many other nations. Peoples will move, borders will be redrawn, enemies will becomes friends and friends enemies. I think its the biggest change the Middle East has seen since '79 at least. Whatever happens, it won't be over any time soon.
Google map of US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in 2014.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=zMFlMATXQa8A.kXw7ltbpSmW4
Kurdistan- my map is broken
Kurdistan (Iraq only) Dark is official territory, light is defacto territory, light is claimed territory:
The capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, Ebril. From the citadel, you might think the place has seen a battle or two before.
The capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, Ebril. From the citadel, you might think the place has seen a battle or two before.
You won't find it on your world map. The Kurds are a people that almost got a state after the Ottoman Empire was cut up by Britian and France. They got screwed though, and like most of the rest didn't get the state they wanted. They've seen been a thorn in the side of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran in their time. Saddam attacked his Kurdish region with chemical weapons in the 80s, in retaliation for the rebels fighting on Iran's side during the Iran-Iraq war. After Operation Desert storm, the US and allies imposed a no-fly-zone over northern Iraq, which effectively insulated the Kurds and increased their autonomy. When the country fell apart in the wake of the '03 invasion, the Kurds were already used to going it alone. They've been increasingly powerful for the past few years, and have been running a state within a state. The recent seizure of Mosul by ISIS basically broke the Iraqi state, and with Turkey quietly ok with the issue and the West struggling to find reliable allies, the Kurds may be getting a formal state out of the mix. They shouldn't get their hopes up on that, but despite not existing on paper, the de facto state of Kurdistan is one of the more stable ones in that region right now.
Southern Iraq
I didn't know until I looked for this image, but Iraq's flag was changed in 2004 and again in 2008.
This is a column of vehicles of the Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada, a Shia militia backed by Iran. That is their flag in yellow and green (liked Hezbollah's flag), the Iraqi national flag, on a Made In America up-armoured humvee.
Baghdad doesn't control as much as it used to. After the country was largely destroyed in 2003, the Sunni establishment was purged by the US pro-consul and the country has been in a low- or high- level civil war since. Its in the high part, at the moment. I dare say the government in Baghdad really has very little power, as the national army is in ruins and the heavy fighting is being done by Shia militias which do not answer to the government, but are backed if not controlled outright by Iran.
Syrian Civil War- Oh yeah that thing
Israel/Palestine- their unceasing disputes are sort of like a married couple, with more death
Extra big, extra detailed map made by the UN:
The West Bank is occupied by Israel and contains many illegal jewish settlements. The settlements were removed from Gaza during the last decade, and the territory was put under siege when Hamas was elected. It seems like basically nobody is happy with the current situation, so expect plenty more conflicts after this one.
Gaza was largely destroyed during Israeli airstrikes last summer. Reconstruction hasn't gotten very far, largely due to the blockade (now heavily enforced by Egypt as well) on most building supplies.
Iran - less evil, more business
After Iraq was invaded by the US and co, it seemed like Iran was next on the list. Member of the "axis of evil", no proven weapons program, lots of muslims and oil, it all seemed to fit. But Iraq was quickly shown to be a Bad Idea, and the plan was sheleved. Israel kept threatening, but they probably can't pull off an attack on their own. About a year ago Iran elected Rouhani, who was a lot less annoying than Ahmadinejad, his predecessor. For reasons I still do not completely understand, cooler heads on both sides suddenly started getting along. Secret negotiations between the US and Iran led to some surprise announcements, then more open talks. All the talk these days is about peace with Iran, the ending of sanctions, and Iran opening its markets. It doesn't feel like empty rhetoric to me either, so even if some wacko like McCain gets elected in the US, I think there is a good chance relations will continue to improve. I think people might have finally realized there are more important things to worry about.
Libya- What's a Benghazi?
Afghanistan and Pakistan: still terrible
The US combat mission has officially ended, fortunately a deal was signed to allow thousands of US troops and many more contractors to stay behind, just in case. To absoltely nobodies surprise, Afghanistan is not being left as a beacon of freedom and democracy. Not that the foreign troops or Kabul ever really controlled the country, but lots of groups were simply waiting for this occupation thing to die down before making their move. The Taliban and other rebels groups are basically biding their time until the US is sufficiently disinterested to make their move. If the Taliban winds up back in power basically depends on how much Pakistan continues to support them (those good, loyal allies of the US). Pakistan fought a mini war (still involving hundreds of thousands, Pakistan is a populous place) last year against restive tribes in its north eastern, mountainous region. Its still not the most stable country around.
[Tycho?] on
+5
Posts
Fallout of the Arab Spring
Tunisia - don't mind us, where the Arab Spring was kicked off the by self immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, has been doing pretty ok, relatively speaking. Its probably the most successful of all the revolutions, however the outcome is still uncertain. Sharing a border with Libya isn't helping.
In Egypt, on the other hand, the revolution has been thoroughly crushed. The Muslim Brotherhood won elections in the wake of the street protests and the removal of Mubarak, however the military again seized power in a coup over a year agao (july 2013). The country has been effectively led by General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who was eventually elected in a sham election, heartily backed by local media. Over a thousand members of the Brotherhood were gunned down in the streets after mostly-peaceful demonstrations against the coup, and since then hundreds more have been sentenced en masse to the death penalty. Egypt's economic woes remain, and since Mubarak fell Bedoin groups in the Sinai have been launching regular attacks on the army there. Lately there has been the occasional bombing and shooting in more urban areas as well. My prediction is that the moderate, non-violent Muslim Brotherhood may come to be missed as more violent islamists become the only groups opposing the military.
Yemen - North and South
How exactly the Houthi rebels managed to capture the capital Sanaa with almost no violence is a bit of a mystery to me, but there it is. The Houthis have been at odds with the government for years, and have been bombed by Saudi jets in the past decade. Yemen is an unstable mess of a country, with al-queda in the east and sunni groups still controlling the south. The Houthis control a territory suspiciously similar to old North Yemen; what goes around comes around. The place seems to be target practice for US drones.
Algeria - nothing unsual except the status quo we haven't heard much about, only the hostage taking at that oil refinery seemed to make the news. But Algeria is in much the same position as Egypt. In the early 90s the military-backed regime launched elections. Like in Egypt, the wrong people won, namely Islamist groups. The results were overturned and the Islamists jailed, which sparked off a long running and extremely brutal civil war which killed many thousands in the 90s. This conflict never really ended, only simmered down. With the region in turmoil and armed groups from Libya and elsewhere roaming fairly freely across the region (the refinery attacks being an example here), we could see a revolution, renewed civil war, or outside military action involving Algeria at almost any time.
Mali - not really in the Middle East but it does have arabs and muslims. Violence there, to which the French responded with a military intervention, was believed to have been caused by Liyban groups and weapons moving elsewhere in the region after Gadaffi fell. The Sahel, and indeed most of Northern Africa is looking mighty unstable these days, with more militant groups than usual moving about and making trouble. This is France's old colonial territory, and the French move in militarily at will if they see something sufficiently alarming.
Other countries
Lebanon- "Who the fuck do we overthrow around here?"
Lebanon is a very interesting place. For the time being, it is fighting Syria's civil war on a smaller scale, especially in its northern city of Tripoli (not to be confused with Tripoli, Libya). The Lebanese government is a complicated, poorly functioning beast, probably because the country is composed of a huge host of ethnic and religious groups that have not often seen eye to eye. The most powerful entity in the country right now is the Islamist Shia group Hezbollah. It fought a war with Israel in 2006 in which it did fairly well, though Lebanon itself suffered badly. Hezbollah has turned from what could credibly be called a defense force against Israel into more of a proper army: it has been fighting hard in Syria for years on the side of Assad, and now has fighters in Iraq. The place has been a flash-point since the 80s, hard to say what will happen next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War_spillover_in_Lebanon
Jordan- keeps its head down
Jordan is right in the middle of the Middle East, and has been remarkably stable despite that. It is home to a few million Palestinian refugees and their descendants, and now is also home to hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. It also borders Iraq, where last I heard, ISIS controlled the border crossings on the Iraqi side. Jordan is ruled by a pro-West monarch that is good at keeping lots of different people happy. Has been the base of US training operations for Syrian rebels, and Jordan has also launched airstrikes against IS targets. It doesn't really want to get involved though, probably wisely.
Gulf Emirates (lots of money, no wisdom)
Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE, including Dubai and Abu Dhabi), Qatar are all stinking rich because of their oil reserves. They spend this money usually in incredibly foolish ways, like by building artificial islands, incredibly tall skyscrapers and ski hills in the desert. Kingdoms built on sand, quite literally. In some of these countries the number of foreign workers (who are paid almost nothing) outnumber the citizens. Their security is assured by the US and their big brother Saudi Arabia. If the energy stops flowing, they're fucked. Qatar in particular has been very active in the region, its (usually pretty good) TV station al-Jazeera mostly backed the Arab Spring protests, and the government has actively aided rebels in Libya and Syria.
Saudi Arabia- home of Mecca and Medina
A pretty messed up place, and given their neighbours this takes quite a bit. If you think Iran is repressive (and it frequently is) look up Saudi Arabia a bit to see how much worse it is. They also use their enormous wealth incredibly unwisely, mostly by enriching their huge extended family, ridiculous building projects, fancy weapons by the billion, while using millions of foreign workers who live in slave conditions. Their oil ensures the undying loyalty and protection from the US, despite Saudi Arabia backing groups like the Taliban, most of the 9/11 hijackers being Saudi, Saudi citizens backing ISIS and al-Nusra, and so forth. The place has a significant Shia minority (oppressed, of course) on its eastern coast, which happens to be oil rich. A source of potential friction. It has so far proved immune to popular uprisings. Its recent gambit to cut oil supplies, thereby taking the bottom out of the price of oil, has pissed of Iran, Russia and the US, all at once. Its trying to look like it cares about fighting IS, I don't think many buy it.
Turkey- the glorious republic of AtaturkErdogan
Home of the Ottoman Empire of old. These days is mostly secular, and is a member of NATO. The current president Erdogan has gotten a lot of flak, which I find odd seeing how comparatively well-off Turkey and its citizens are compared to much of the rest of the region. Erdogans mildly-islamist policies have earned him enemies abroad though, as the US, Israel and others are keen to keep Turkey in the western sphere. Despite the protests against Erdogan (which occurred for good reasons, like consolidating power) he remains quite popular in the country as a whole and his party easily won recent elections. Turkey remains one of the largest and most powerful countries in the region, and that won't be changing anytime soon. Despite stoking the fires of the Syrian civil war perhaps more than any other country, its strategy seems confused and hasn't come down solidly on any particular side.
Somalia - Libertarian paradise
Perennial failed state. Despite the occasional cheery media report, rest assured Somalia is still very much not a country in any functioning way. The goverment controls Mogadishu and is incredibly corrupt. There are two independent states in the north which do not pay any attention at all to the ostensible capital. There is still plenty of fighting, mostly between al-Shabab, a radical islamist group similar to the taliban or a proto-ISIS, and military forces from the rest of Africa, especially Kenya. Kenyan troops regularly conduct operations and blow shit up in the countries south, while Ethopia invades the place occasionally. If something really bad happens in Kenya, there's a good chance al-Shabab is the one behind it. Pirates are less of a thing than before, but despite a lot of American guns the Horn of Africa remains chaotic. Occasional drone strikes and special forces attacks round out the mix.
Azerbaijan- Caspian emirate?
A small country on the Caspian Sea. I include it because its a muslim country, and used to be part of Iran. It has access to huge natural gas reserves, and it's been turning into something like a Gulf Emirate due to that wealth. It is potentially interesting because of its resources, AND it sits on a pipeline route to Europe, AND is sandwiched between Russia (controlled it in Soviet days), Turkey (they are ethnically and linguistically Turkic) and Iran (they were part of Iran until the mid-1800s, and Iran currently has a large Azeri population). In short, it is ripe for conflicting outside influences.
Central Asia - all those 'stans you've never heard of
All those 'stan countries, excluding Afghanistan and Pakistan. They've been pretty quiet lately, but they border the Middle East and have all the same potential for interesting times; decades and centuries old Games of strategy being played by Great Powers for control of a strategic region, enormous wealth in resources, terrible colonial borders, demographic bulges, oppressed muslims and "terrorism". It could take years before anything much happens here, but when it does it will be spoken of in the same breath and Middle Eastern conflicts.
This primer is very incomplete! Look, here's a homemade tank from the Syrian-Kurdish People's Protection Units, loyal to the PKK, allied with Assad. I didn't talk about any of that, and yet its hilarious.
Links and stuff
What ISIS really wants, by The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
How appalled are you when you think of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, launched by Bush and his Neoconservative pals? Not enough? Well if you want to see how the Neocons got the war machine going, check out this excellent documentary from PBS: FRONTLINE
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
A quirky documentary originally for the BBC. Its also about Neocons, and about ultra-radical islamists, and how they're actually pretty similar in how they view the world and manipulate other through fear:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x20su5f_the-power-of-nightmares-1-the-rise-of-the-politics-of-fear-bbc-2004_news
I don't like this video much, as it encourages people to think of the region in terms of "oh, THOSE PEOPLE have been fighting forever!" implying there is no rhyme nor reason for it. Still, its been popular, does show that these aren't exactly new arguments we're having now.
Another FRONTLINE documentry from PBS. This is about Egypt after the revolution:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/egypt-in-crisis/
news:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world/middle_east/
http://america.aljazeera.com/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/middleeast/roundup
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/en/sites/almonitor/home.html
http://www.haaretz.com/ (sometimes paywall'd)
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
This did not happen. Instead, an older guy named Abu Bakr took over, becoming the first caliph—a word that originally meant something like "deputy." After Abu Bakr died, a warrior named Umar became the second caliph. When he died, a merchant named Uthman became the third caliph. All this time, as you might imagine, Team Ali was getting more and more resentful. After Uthman was assassinated, though, the Islamic community basically begged Ali to become the fourth caliph, and so he did. Team Ali eventually became known as "Shi'ites" or Shia, which means "partisans."
Sunni Muslims, who form the majority, believe the first four caliphs—including Ali—were "rightly guided"—which usually means they were good men doing their best under difficult circumstances. Shia, on the other hand, believe that the first three caliphs were not really legitimate.
This probably sounds mundane and maybe a little boring, and you might be wondering how this succession split became such a big deal. The answer largely has to do with theology. Sunnis, theologically, are like Protestants. They believe the basis of Islamic religion is the Quran and the example set forth by Muhammad—that's about it, that's all you need. Shia are more like Catholics. Ali, much like Peter, is seen as supernatural—not a prophet, but a special kind of conduit to divine revelation. Likewise, the Shi'ite conception of the imam—a spiritual leader—is somewhat similar to the Catholic Church in that they are seen as having special powers. Many Shia believe that the last known imam, who vanished as a child, is a Messiah-like figure who went "into occultation" and will re-appear to lead the Islamic community during the end times.
Sunnis, much like Protestants, do not really buy into this "extra" supernatural stuff that Shia believe, and fundamentalist Sunni sects actively denounce Shia with the same valence that fundamentalist Protestants denounce "Mary-worshiping" Catholics, for example. (The comparison between Christian and Islamic sects is meant to be illustrative, not precise—the Shia never had close to anywhere the amount of power that the Catholic Church did in Christendom, and Sunnis were there from the beginning, unlike the Protestants.)
This conflict is still hot. The leader of the Islamic State has called himself Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a reference to the first Sunni caliph, who came to power in opposition to Ali; ISIS, like al-Qaeda and other Salafist Sunni sectarians, believes that Shia are apostates, not real Muslims.
So that's Sunni vs. Shia. What about Sufism? Short answer: not a sect, more a mystical attitude and, later, a form of guild-like organization.
in the map illustrating ISIS-controlled areas, why are they not all contiguous blobs but rather this network of long corridors stretching across the country
is it to do with the highway system or something? like, ISIS controls a few cities and the roads between them and the rest is just countryside and desert that they have no presence in
or is it something totally different
In Syria, ISIS marched northeast along the Euphrates toward the Turkish border. Deir ez-Zor is mostly under their control and ar-Raqqah, further north, is their capital. The control the entire length of the Euphrates in Syria, stopping at Jarablus on the Turkish border. The YPG has said upon retaking Kobane they were able to push east and south pretty easily, but were fiercely resisted in the west; I assume this is because advancing west entails contesting ISIS's control of the Euphrates along the Turkish border. An equally excellent map:
edit- Though the highways are probably along the rivers, linking the major cities, so you're probably right too. The major population centers of Iraq and eastern Syria are mostly along the two rivers. A lot of Anbar province and parts of Syria are empty desert, so no one really bothers to "control" those areas.
edit edit- hadn't finished reading the OP yet when I posted, apologies for redundant maps
the tigris and the euphrates are right there on the map
there's a couple of other corridors on qingu's map that i guess are ISIS trying to get to other important centres of power? now that i've spotted the blue lines it all makes more sense though
Which comes out a little more imperialist than I mean it to, but quite honestly last year when they kept swinging their dicks at each other my gut reaction was "Let them fight."
Kaputa covered most of it, but another part is that there is literally nothing between those areas more often than not. In the US (and most of the west) we sort of think that in any empty space there is usuallty something or someone out there, just not a major town. In much of the middle east this isn't the case. The land between Syria and Iraq, and aalmost all of western Iraq, is desert wastes that have neither town nor farm nor really anything of strategic value.
You can see that tiny strip they control as very bright lighhts surrounded by.... nothing! This is part of the reason why the borders drawn by the British Empire during the partitioning of the middle east are so problematic: they drew the borders based on lines that looked feasible on a map rather than by actual flows of population and ethnic groups. ISIS has no need to control the spaces of the map borders, enforcing those borders aren't even worth their time. All they have to control is the places a that are actually places and they will have control of the majority of the resources and population.
But it's mostly about the Tigris and Euphrates. ISIS as an organization began during the Iraq War as "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia." The caliph's chosen name is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: The historical Abu Bakr conquered Mesopotamia, and Baghdad lies in the heart of Mesopotamia.
It would be a bit like calling yourself Julius Caesar of Rome. You'd probably have to actually conquer Rome if you really wanted people to really take you seriously.
Here is a map showing Iraq and Syria:
Here's what that area looks like in real life:
That light map at night was really cool too. Geography is central to this, and indeed any war. There are only so many roads running between cities, and blocking off one or two can effectively cut off a city, because the desert is impassable over large distances. It makes flanking maneuvers more difficult too.
This also might hammer home the importance of dams. IS controls a big one at Mosul [edit: they briefly controlled this dam, but the Kurds recaptured it], and one around Haditha. Aside from agriculture and power generation, they serve as a bridge across the river that can't really be hit from the air because you risk damaging the dam itself.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Does ISIS actually control the dam? It's some distance from Mosul itself.
Edit: looks like they did, but no longer.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Mosul_Dam
edit: the Middle East is really beautiful from space. Especially Iran. It's ... swirly and stuff.
Also Erdogan is getting the sufficient amount of flak that any aspiring "Western" country deserves in the same manner that Bibi and Israeli policy receive it. I used to think that Erdogan's government was getting disproportionately criticized (particularly with its EU aspirations... if those are even on the table anymore) in comparison to other countries in the region, but having made friends, and talked politics, with folks from Turkey there are plenty of unseemly things going on that don't get reported internationally (because their journalists have been locked up); as if the Gezi Park protests, nepotistic corruption, and crackdown on "Gulenists" weren't enough cause for worry.
Granted I have not had any implicit thoughts of letting Israel and Turkey openly go at each other - that would make the current political/military mess in the region look like candyland.
After the blockade incident, Turkey a
Nd Israel are not exactly buddies.
I think variations of this plan have been attempted by everyone since the start of the civil war in Syria. Support was often tied to the groups actions: unify under a leader, respect minorities, agree to hold elections etc. The West was trying to throw millions at these groups if they could only work together, and they could not.
Arming moderate rebels is at this point a contradiction in terms that everyone seems to realize. The "moderates" that received weapons show up a short time later fighting in a radical group. What Qatar is suggesting seems even more far fetched: ok, you don't even have to claim to be moderate to get support, just promise to become more moderate in the future. Sure, that sounds reliable.
Or we could read this in a more direct way "Qatar seeks to support al-Nusra, the radical islamist group". It also highlights the power politics in all this. Qatar is still pretty bent on ousting Assad, as are other countries in the region. If this means backing questionable forces to do so, then so be it. This is what caused the war in the first place.
Nothing could be better than a continuing detente and cooperative spirit between the Washington and Tehran.
The fact that US has said it will provide air support for the new rebel group might change the game. The western proxies that generally been defeated or marginalized so far haven't had the advantage of the US bombing their enemies. Maybe it will deter al-Nusra from attacking them, especially if they are focused on fighting ISIS. In a way the US and Qatari policies (if Qatar's policy is accurately described in that article) seem opposed to one another: the US will back a secular force aimed at retaking ISIS-held territory, while Qatar (and maybe Turkey?) would be supporting Islamist groups whose main goal is to defeat Assad. The only outcomes I can picture are a war between the US-backed forces and al-Nusra and its allies or direct US attacks on Assad (or perhaps both).
Back when Maliki (famous for his sectarianism) was in charge, Iran was on the same page as the US about him having to step down so a more inclusive leader could take the reigns.
I don't know much about how Iran treats its Sunni minority, but I do remember reading about how the Iraqi militias during the Iraq War were a lot less refined (and more violent) than Iranian Shi'ite religious leaders.
El-Sissi leading a Churchillian fight against Hamas http://www.timesofisrael.com/el-sissi-leading-a-churchillian-fight-against-hamas-terror/
+1
The same way we still admire George Washington (and Jefferson, though to a lesser extent in my case).
And that's admirable, even if he was far from perfect and often not a positive influence beyond the Anglosphere.
Well he did lead Europe in an existential struggle against actual, literal Hitler. That's one of those things were whatever 'Ya, but...' you are going to follow it with doesn't exactly cancel out.
Hell, Abe Lincoln was not a believer in racial equality, nor was William 'Hotlanta' Sherman.
Gandhi-you know the guy Churchill was being so racist about- was actually pretty fucking racist against Africans, too.
You'd think a militant group fighting 'for the people' would have some regard for their heritage.
Unless, you know, that was all words and propaganda.
Great men are not necessarily good men.
Between this and the book burnings, it seems like they're trying to Year Zero the territory under their control.
Qingu wrote the history passages that I gave him credit for. Rchanen gets partial credit for Lebanon: "Who the fuck do we overthrow around here?" , but the line originally comes from some satire piece a while back.
The rest I wrote from memory and the occasional fact checking so please for the love of god don't assume its perfect.
I'm guessing no, since I never actually learned the meaning of the words. But Arabic is super similar to Hebrew. Shalom! Salam! (That's all I got.)
Probably would be like English and Dutch if Dutch was written in Cyrillic.
- Some letters which are not distinct in English but are in Arabic. For example, t, d, z, s, and h each have an "emphatic" version in addition to the regular one. If I listen closely to individual words and phrases I can usually differentiate between them, but when an Arabic speaker is talking at a normal pace I really have no idea. ع is also a really weird letter without an English analogue which I still don't think I'm pronouncing correctly. Your Hebrew knowledge might at the very least give you an edge in making and recognizing these otherwise unfamiliar noises
- When Arabic words are written, vowels are generally left out, unless they are long vowels. Understanding and pronouncing written text thus relies on knowing the vocabulary already and figuring out which word is meant from the context. I think Hebrew is similar in this respect, hence the YHWH thing?
Fun fact: Torah scrolls from the Greek Septuagint are twice as long as Hebrew scrolls for this reason.
People say they want peace, but I don't for one second believe that. Because actual peace would mean redrawing a shitload of borders, doing right by the Palestinians and the Kurds, destroying the current political structure on the Arabian peninsula, allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons, etc etc etc.
I feel like the US is happy as long as they get to project power against Russia and China in Asia Minor.
Europe is happy as long as the flow of immigrants / refugees isn't too high & energy prices stay stable.
India is happy as long as Pakistan doesn't gain too much power/influence
Russia is happy as long as US/Europe is unhappy
None of those interests coincide with progress, prosperity, or peace in the middle east.