This ("Aleppo After the Fall") is a really good NYT article about Aleppo city today. Lots of interesting information and firsthand perspectives given by Syrians the author interviews during his recent time in Aleppo.
This ("Aleppo After the Fall") is a really good NYT article about Aleppo city today. Lots of interesting information and firsthand perspectives given by Syrians the author interviews during his recent time in Aleppo.
Yeah its a good one, really puts a face to the conflict.
Its also interesting how foreign journalists are being increasingly allowed into formerly sensitive parts of the country.
This ("Aleppo After the Fall") is a really good NYT article about Aleppo city today. Lots of interesting information and firsthand perspectives given by Syrians the author interviews during his recent time in Aleppo.
Yeah its a good one, really puts a face to the conflict.
Its also interesting how foreign journalists are being increasingly allowed into formerly sensitive parts of the country.
It's a very robust piece--the note of two "sides" of the Aleppo story from a propaganda mechanism is impressive, especially since it's not really a secret which of the two the NYT's own coverage (and editorials) very much fell into in the earlier days of the campaign.
The speculation (not to denigrate it) that the campaign's tide was turned by the movement of troops to oppose Kurdish advances is also very interesting, one of those things we may not get the full story on for years or longer. Also an interesting re-appraisal of the opposition leadership in Aleppo, which for a long time was portrayed in the west as unusually unified during the Syrian Civil War. The Syrian government's insatiable recruitment demands are very interesting too, spotting out even people they just think are Syrian--this is the first time in the NYT I've seen it framed as a competition between the reserves of the Syrian population and reserves of admirers of Salafism worldwide. And this...
In this sense, the Russian intervention was a lucky thing for the Obama administration too. Andrew Exum, who worked in the Pentagon at the time, told me that the military drew up contingency plans for a rapid collapse of the regime. The planning sessions were talked about as “catastrophic success.”
I'd never seen it presented as such, wow. And the description of the Assad ruling clique's mechanism of power--going back decades, for once--is worth reading for anyone even remotely interested in the conflict.
A fight is brewing between Saudi Arabia and Qatar after Trump's visit. All seemed well in the GCC, but it turns out that Qatar is not as enthusiastic about increased hostilities with Iran as everyone else. Qatari official media (QNA) published a statement by the Emir critical of Saudi Arabia, and then claimed they were hacked and the remarks were fake. Later the Emir called Rouhani to talk about the need for cooperation and dialogue between Iran and Qatar/other Arab countries, and Al Jazeera posted a cartoon critical of the Saudi King. The Saudis are very unhappy about this, the Qataris are said to be also unhappy with the Saudis, and now the Saudi press is in a full feeding frenzy. Somewhere in the middle of this Al Jazeera's website got blocked in Saudi Arabia.
This is what it looks like in Saudi-house owned press, so things are getting nasty.
JEDDAH: Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani has said his country enjoyed deep and historical ties with Iran.
In a phone conversation with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday, Al-Thani said he wanted the ties with Iran to be “stronger than ever before.”
The remarks confirm lingering suspicions that have been swirling in the world media that Qatar was in league with Iran against its fellow Arab and Gulf countries. Iran is seen as the root cause of all the troubles in the Arab world — from Syria to Iraq, to Yemen and Lebanon.
Al-Thani said he will instruct the authorities in his country to exert all efforts to develop relations with Tehran. Rouhani stressed that one of Iran’s foreign policy pillars is continuation of cooperation with Qatar.
In comments that will be seen as ironical, Rouhani said that sectarianism is a major scourge that affects everybody’s security. Iran has vociferously and militarily promoted sectarianism in the Arab world through its armed militias.
Monday does not bring with it a cooler attitude. Manager of Al Arabiya.
When an organized conspiracy confronts your country, being neutral is high treason. We love our Arab brothers and other friendly countries but we love our homeland more, and when our interests clash with theirs, we defend our right with all the weapons we have.
When others seal deals in secret to sabotage Saudi Arabia and strengthen enemies and when they meet with leaders of the militias we are fighting in Yemen, then being neutral is a crime and a major sin.
Conspiracies have been on ever since the second Saudi state was established – since Iraq’s events and since King Abdulaziz disciplined rebels in the north and up until Iran’s wars, the Iraqi invasion and the developments pertaining to terrorism and its militias. And now, brotherly countries are harming the state’s backbone and establishing for sabotaging movements inside our countries and homelands.
An obvious enemy is much better than a half-friend!
Monday does not bring with it a cooler attitude. Manager of Al Arabiya.
When an organized conspiracy confronts your country, being neutral is high treason. We love our Arab brothers and other friendly countries but we love our homeland more, and when our interests clash with theirs, we defend our right with all the weapons we have.
When others seal deals in secret to sabotage Saudi Arabia and strengthen enemies and when they meet with leaders of the militias we are fighting in Yemen, then being neutral is a crime and a major sin.
Conspiracies have been on ever since the second Saudi state was established – since Iraq’s events and since King Abdulaziz disciplined rebels in the north and up until Iran’s wars, the Iraqi invasion and the developments pertaining to terrorism and its militias. And now, brotherly countries are harming the state’s backbone and establishing for sabotaging movements inside our countries and homelands.
An obvious enemy is much better than a half-friend!
Monday does not bring with it a cooler attitude. Manager of Al Arabiya.
When an organized conspiracy confronts your country, being neutral is high treason. We love our Arab brothers and other friendly countries but we love our homeland more, and when our interests clash with theirs, we defend our right with all the weapons we have.
When others seal deals in secret to sabotage Saudi Arabia and strengthen enemies and when they meet with leaders of the militias we are fighting in Yemen, then being neutral is a crime and a major sin.
Conspiracies have been on ever since the second Saudi state was established – since Iraq’s events and since King Abdulaziz disciplined rebels in the north and up until Iran’s wars, the Iraqi invasion and the developments pertaining to terrorism and its militias. And now, brotherly countries are harming the state’s backbone and establishing for sabotaging movements inside our countries and homelands.
An obvious enemy is much better than a half-friend!
Huh, the KSA-Qatar fallout is interesting. I remember the two being at each other's throats a few years ago, when Qatar was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the region and KSA was helping others oppose it. After the current Saudi king took over they papered over the rift; I assumed presenting a united front against Iran was part of the reason for reconciling.
Interesting to think of Qatar accused of breaking from that front. Not sure if the Saudis are just overreacting or of this signals a significant shift in Qatari policy or what.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Not that I'm aware of, although wiki informs me that the Saudis fought over Qatar with Bahrain. The current royal family has ruled since the mid-late 1800s, though, with periods of Ottoman and British suzerainty thrown in.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Not that I'm aware of, although wiki informs me that the Saudis fought over Qatar with Bahrain. The current royal family has ruled since the mid-late 1800s, though, with periods of Ottoman and British suzerainty thrown in.
Huh, the KSA-Qatar fallout is interesting. I remember the two being at each other's throats a few years ago, when Qatar was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the region and KSA was helping others oppose it. After the current Saudi king took over they papered over the rift; I assumed presenting a united front against Iran was part of the reason for reconciling.
Interesting to think of Qatar accused of breaking from that front. Not sure if the Saudis are just overreacting or of this signals a significant shift in Qatari policy or what.
I remembered this too, but I couldn't recall the context. Was it something with Libya?
Huh, the KSA-Qatar fallout is interesting. I remember the two being at each other's throats a few years ago, when Qatar was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the region and KSA was helping others oppose it. After the current Saudi king took over they papered over the rift; I assumed presenting a united front against Iran was part of the reason for reconciling.
Interesting to think of Qatar accused of breaking from that front. Not sure if the Saudis are just overreacting or of this signals a significant shift in Qatari policy or what.
I remembered this too, but I couldn't recall the context. Was it something with Libya?
I mainly remember it in terms of Qatar supporting Morsi in Egypt while KSA enthusiastically supported the coup and Sisi. Qatar supports the Brotherhood-ish factions in Libya too, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Saudis backed opposing sides there, but I haven't read much of anything about Saudi involvement in the country. I think the KSA and UAE just regarded the Brotherhood as a threat generally and were pissed at Qatar for backing them throughout the region.
I find it ironic that KSA is frothing about backstabby half-friends given their own actions.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Huh, the KSA-Qatar fallout is interesting. I remember the two being at each other's throats a few years ago, when Qatar was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the region and KSA was helping others oppose it. After the current Saudi king took over they papered over the rift; I assumed presenting a united front against Iran was part of the reason for reconciling.
Interesting to think of Qatar accused of breaking from that front. Not sure if the Saudis are just overreacting or of this signals a significant shift in Qatari policy or what.
I remembered this too, but I couldn't recall the context. Was it something with Libya?
I mainly remember it in terms of Qatar supporting Morsi in Egypt while KSA enthusiastically supported the coup and Sisi. Qatar supports the Brotherhood-ish factions in Libya too, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Saudis backed opposing sides there, but I haven't read much of anything about Saudi involvement in the country. I think the KSA and UAE just regarded the Brotherhood as a threat generally and were pissed at Qatar for backing them throughout the region.
Ah, yes, Egypt.
I'd thought of it, but rejected it because Egpyt is just another arab dictatoriship! I'd completely forgotten about the doomed Morsi government. Fuck, what sad, fucked up times.
Given it's the trump administration I'm picturing a huge dollar value but idiotic outcome. Somewhere in Kurdish territory, in an embattled city enormous air drops keep coming in, Trump's face printed on the side:
Box #1 is cracked open, lying in the middle of a rubble strewn street, nearly 40 feet long. Inside is an F-16 fighter, no fuel or ordinance
Box #2 contains the guidance systems for 3 ICBM warheads
Box #3 is replacement parts for the machinery in an MRE production plant
it goes on like this for thousands of air drops
Trump announces "The largest military aid package in history"
RE PYD material support: I wonder how this is going to affect our relationship with the KRG. The KDP has an on again off again relationship with the PYD and Erdogan/Turkey has been courting Barzani and the KDP (which coincides with border closings along the KRG and Rojava (now allegedly Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria). The KRG has been begging the US for material support, but even more importantly economic support and investment.
In the coming conflict over Mosul and Kirkuk (especially, as part of the first post invasion Constitution this was supposed to be ceded back to the KRG, Kirkuk was originally "Arabized" and many ethnic Kurds were forcefully relocated) it will be interesting to see if Barzani chooses a "Kurdish Belt" over support from Turkey in the face of a potential conflict with Shia in Iraq (and Baghdad over Kirkuk) who likely want to build a "Shia Belt" using the same territory. I think the implication of US material support, as demonstrated by our supporting Rojava materially, may push the KRG away from Turkey and towards Rojava/the PYD (not accounting for the myriad of political issues between the two).
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Given it's the trump administration I'm picturing a huge dollar value but idiotic outcome. Somewhere in Kurdish territory, in an embattled city enormous air drops keep coming in, Trump's face printed on the side:
Box #1 is cracked open, lying in the middle of a rubble strewn street, nearly 40 feet long. Inside is an F-16 fighter, no fuel or ordinance
Box #2 contains the guidance systems for 3 ICBM warheads
Box #3 is replacement parts for the machinery in an MRE production plant
it goes on like this for thousands of air drops
Trump announces "The largest military aid package in history"
It'll be like that scene in A Bridge Too Far except instead of an entire airdrop of berets it's MAGA hats
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
At least 80 people were killed and 350 wounded in Kabul on Wednesday when a powerful vehicle-borne bomb exploded in the middle of the Afghan capital, a public health official said.
No claim of responsibility yet. This is in the diplomatic corridor of Kabul.
Given it's the trump administration I'm picturing a huge dollar value but idiotic outcome. Somewhere in Kurdish territory, in an embattled city enormous air drops keep coming in, Trump's face printed on the side:
Box #1 is cracked open, lying in the middle of a rubble strewn street, nearly 40 feet long. Inside is an F-16 fighter, no fuel or ordinance
Box #2 contains the guidance systems for 3 ICBM warheads
Box #3 is replacement parts for the machinery in an MRE production plant
it goes on like this for thousands of air drops
Trump announces "The largest military aid package in history"
It'll be like that scene in A Bridge Too Far except instead of an entire airdrop of berets it's MAGA hats
"I am announcing that I will give military aid to any Kurdish leader who acknowledges that I got more votes than hillary in november"
Seeing the Taliban go "that was beyond the pale" at a terror attack is weird.
I read somewhere this morning,can't remeember where, that denying responsibility if the attack ends up just killing a bunch of civilians, is something they do regularly. Like if it had flattened whatever embassy or something, and still killed a whole shit ton of people they'd claim it, but since mostly it just vaporized a bunch of Afghans they are gonna pull a Shaggy.
So, there is a recent escalation between the US and Russia in the Syrian war that I feel is being mostly ignored in the media and general discussion of foreign policy. A couple weeks ago the US bombed Syrian government or government-allied forces advancing toward the Iraqi border, seemingly in order to prevent Iranian-allied forces from reestablishing a "Shiite crescent." I thought this was a pretty major shift in policy, and a dangerously confrontational one regarding Russia/Iran/Syria, but I was sorta surprised to see it mostly ignored in the mainstream media/political discussion.
A few days ago, the US-backed rebels who hold positions along the southern borders with Jordan and Iraq, and on whose behalf we recently bombed pro-government forces, claim that they were bombed by Russia while attempting to advance on government positions. So we have a situation where Russia-backed factions made a move and were bombed by the US, then US-backed factions made a move and were bombed by Russia. Refusing to allow the SAA to retake control of its southern borders is a terrible plan, it seems to entail a game of chicken between the US and Damascus's backers. Al-Monitor has done a good job covering the issue; here's some informative articles on the subject (relevant quotes posted in case people don't want to read all the links, but at least the al-Monitor articles are worth reading IMO) :
US and Russian officials have quietly stepped up contacts in recent weeks to try to advance a deal on the creation of a safe zone in southern Syria, Al-Monitor has learned. US and Russian officials are quietly negotiating a deal over a proposed "de-escalation" zone near the border with Jordan. The talks included a meeting in Jordan in late May, a former diplomat from the region said on condition of anonymity.
The Americans and Russians have been meeting quietly on Syria without announcing it, a senior international diplomat who works on Syria confirmed to Al-Monitor.
“They met more than once,” the senior diplomat, speaking not for attribution, said, referring to the Americans and Russians. “[It is] difficult to say where they are at ... but they seem to have rather serious discussions. And at the same time [they are] trying to increase their bargaining power through moves on the ground [to see] who has the upper hand in the Euphrates valley.”
Describes the relation of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (a variety of pro-government militias, often Shia Islamic and sometimes backed by Iran) to the geopolitical conflict in Syria. Since the war on IS in Iraq seems to be winding down, some PMU militias have declared their intention to cross the border into Syria's Deir ez-Zor, to help the Syrian government retake the province and link up with Iraq and Iran. This places the Abadi government in a rough situation, as Baghdad is allied with both Iran and the US and PMU involvement in Syria will draw Iraqis even more directly into the Washington-Tehran power struggle.
The U.S. military is growing increasingly concerned about two groups of pro-Syrian regime forces near a coalition training facility at Tanf, Syria, and has asked some pro-regime forces to leave the area. The facility trains local partner forces to combat ISIS in southeastern Syria.
The U.S. has warned the groups that they are inside and around a "deconfliction zone" established by the U.S. and Russia.
...
This deconfliction zone extends about 34 miles out from the city center and the Pentagon says a small pro-regime force is inside the zone while a larger pro-regime force is patrolling around the zone's perimeter.
...
"We have increased our presence and our footprint and prepared for any threat that is presented by the pro-regime forces," Dillon said.
Talla said that 150 US troops are stationed at al-Tanf base, in addition to troops of five different nationalities from within the ranks of the coalition — which he did not name at the request of these member states — including two Arab countries.
Rebels said military aid has been boosted through two separate channels: a programme backed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), known as MOC, and regional states including Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and one run by the Pentagon.
...
"The equipment and reinforcements come and go daily ... but in the last few weeks they have brought in more heavy military vehicles, TOW [missiles], and armoured vehicles," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Sorta the opposite of what many expected from the Trump administration, whose campaign rhetoric seemed to imply abandoning the Syrian rebels to the mercy of Damascus and Moscow.
Basically, what I gather is that the US government wants to cut the "Shiite Crescent" in half by inserting some proxy militia along the Syria/Iraq border. Presumably they hope that their southern rebels can push through eastern IS territory and meet SDF lines in the north, thus preventing the Syrian Army's march east. Iran, the Syrian government, Iraq, and Russia are all opposed to this (especially Iran and Syria, I suspect), and the Syrian army and "Iranian backed militias" (as described by the US) have already come into direct conflict with the US-backed groups in the area, with the US and Russia taking turns bombing the opposing factions. This is a more confrontational position toward Russia and Iran than we saw in the Obama years; it's actually about what I'd have expected from a Clinton Middle East policy had she been elected. If the US doesn't back down from this policy it seems likely to lead to escalated US-Iran conflict (or possibly even direct confrontation with Russia). Additionally, it seems to add another layer of intractability to a conflict that looked like it was finally starting to wind down towards a government/SDF victory and rebel/ISIS defeat.
Meanwhile, al-Jazeera reports that the Trump admin has picked a hawkish and "ruthless" CIA officer to lead the agency's regional anti-Iran efforts.
One former Central Intelligence Agency official, who spoke to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorised to talk to the press, said the appointment of D'Andrea is the first signal that the Trump administration is mapping out an aggressive strategy to deal with Iran.
Former CIA case officer Robert Baer, who said he knows D'Andrea by reputation, was more blunt. "All I can say is that war with Iran is in the cards [after D'Andrea's appointment]," Baer said.
I dunno how accurate the description of the man is, or exactly what his new role entails, but it fits with the developing picture of Trump Middle East policy in general. Frankly I'm not even sure how much of this foreign policy is the "Trump administration's," per se; it seems like the hawkish parts of the usual foreign policy establishment have been given carte blanche. What the US is doing in Syria right now seems like something from the Brookings Institution's wet dreams, and a hot war with Iran seems more likely every month.
edit - also, the indiscriminate attacks in Kabul are too horrible for words. I hope that country sees peace before I'm old, they haven't since years before I was even born.
The on and off cholera outbreak scares in Yemen have landed on the most serious one yet.
AMMAN, Jordan (AP) — A suspected cholera outbreak is spreading quickly in war-ravaged Yemen, with an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 new cases every day, the U.N. children’s agency said on Saturday.
Geert Cappelaere, the Middle East director of UNICEF, said in an interview with The Associated Press that 70,000 suspected cases of cholera have been reported in the past month in 19 of Yemen’s 22 governorates.
Which makes an increase in aid urgent and the still rumored offensive on Hodeidah even more catastrophic if it goes ahead. There's no sign of the Saudi coalition feeling any need to deescalate.
I dunno how accurate the description of the man is, or exactly what his new role entails, but it fits with the developing picture of Trump Middle East policy in general. Frankly I'm not even sure how much of this foreign policy is the "Trump administration's," per se; it seems like the hawkish parts of the usual foreign policy establishment have been given carte blanche. What the US is doing in Syria right now seems like something from the Brookings Institution's wet dreams, and a hot war with Iran seems more likely every month.
There's a article in the NYT talking the debate inside the WH about increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and how it's heavily dominated by generals, when compared to the Obama WH. I expect that sort of militarism is replicated across the board.
Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have severed diplomatic ties with Qatar, cut off land, air, sea contacts, all Qatari citizens have two weeks to leave Bahrain, and Qatar is pulling out of the war in Yemen - they shouldn't have joined in the first place.
Egypt is possibly also cutting ties, but no good source is confirming that.
Posts
Yeah its a good one, really puts a face to the conflict.
Its also interesting how foreign journalists are being increasingly allowed into formerly sensitive parts of the country.
It's a very robust piece--the note of two "sides" of the Aleppo story from a propaganda mechanism is impressive, especially since it's not really a secret which of the two the NYT's own coverage (and editorials) very much fell into in the earlier days of the campaign.
The speculation (not to denigrate it) that the campaign's tide was turned by the movement of troops to oppose Kurdish advances is also very interesting, one of those things we may not get the full story on for years or longer. Also an interesting re-appraisal of the opposition leadership in Aleppo, which for a long time was portrayed in the west as unusually unified during the Syrian Civil War. The Syrian government's insatiable recruitment demands are very interesting too, spotting out even people they just think are Syrian--this is the first time in the NYT I've seen it framed as a competition between the reserves of the Syrian population and reserves of admirers of Salafism worldwide. And this...
I'd never seen it presented as such, wow. And the description of the Assad ruling clique's mechanism of power--going back decades, for once--is worth reading for anyone even remotely interested in the conflict.
Well this escalated to weird
Guess I'm glad the US basically said "fuck off"
This is what it looks like in Saudi-house owned press, so things are getting nasty.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2017/05/29/An-obvious-enemy-or-a-half-friend-.html
It sounds dramatic but my sense is that they are genuinely angry about this.
Does Saudi Arabia have tradition of frothing at the mouth rhetoric in public but backed by more level headed talk between the professionals?
Yeah, that's their modus operandi with Israel most of the time.
Interesting to think of Qatar accused of breaking from that front. Not sure if the Saudis are just overreacting or of this signals a significant shift in Qatari policy or what.
didn't the Saudi's own that at one point?
ah nevermind then.
I remembered this too, but I couldn't recall the context. Was it something with Libya?
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Ah, yes, Egypt.
I'd thought of it, but rejected it because Egpyt is just another arab dictatoriship! I'd completely forgotten about the doomed Morsi government. Fuck, what sad, fucked up times.
some good news
Given it's the trump administration I'm picturing a huge dollar value but idiotic outcome. Somewhere in Kurdish territory, in an embattled city enormous air drops keep coming in, Trump's face printed on the side:
Box #1 is cracked open, lying in the middle of a rubble strewn street, nearly 40 feet long. Inside is an F-16 fighter, no fuel or ordinance
Box #2 contains the guidance systems for 3 ICBM warheads
Box #3 is replacement parts for the machinery in an MRE production plant
it goes on like this for thousands of air drops
Trump announces "The largest military aid package in history"
In the coming conflict over Mosul and Kirkuk (especially, as part of the first post invasion Constitution this was supposed to be ceded back to the KRG, Kirkuk was originally "Arabized" and many ethnic Kurds were forcefully relocated) it will be interesting to see if Barzani chooses a "Kurdish Belt" over support from Turkey in the face of a potential conflict with Shia in Iraq (and Baghdad over Kirkuk) who likely want to build a "Shia Belt" using the same territory. I think the implication of US material support, as demonstrated by our supporting Rojava materially, may push the KRG away from Turkey and towards Rojava/the PYD (not accounting for the myriad of political issues between the two).
It'll be like that scene in A Bridge Too Far except instead of an entire airdrop of berets it's MAGA hats
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
No claim of responsibility yet. This is in the diplomatic corridor of Kabul.
"I am announcing that I will give military aid to any Kurdish leader who acknowledges that I got more votes than hillary in november"
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
I read somewhere this morning,can't remeember where, that denying responsibility if the attack ends up just killing a bunch of civilians, is something they do regularly. Like if it had flattened whatever embassy or something, and still killed a whole shit ton of people they'd claim it, but since mostly it just vaporized a bunch of Afghans they are gonna pull a Shaggy.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XBQ7ZL8/
A few days ago, the US-backed rebels who hold positions along the southern borders with Jordan and Iraq, and on whose behalf we recently bombed pro-government forces, claim that they were bombed by Russia while attempting to advance on government positions. So we have a situation where Russia-backed factions made a move and were bombed by the US, then US-backed factions made a move and were bombed by Russia. Refusing to allow the SAA to retake control of its southern borders is a terrible plan, it seems to entail a game of chicken between the US and Damascus's backers. Al-Monitor has done a good job covering the issue; here's some informative articles on the subject (relevant quotes posted in case people don't want to read all the links, but at least the al-Monitor articles are worth reading IMO) :
US, Russia hold secret talks over south Syria safe zone.
Tehran, Washington set for proxy clash on Syrian-Iraqi border
Describes the relation of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (a variety of pro-government militias, often Shia Islamic and sometimes backed by Iran) to the geopolitical conflict in Syria. Since the war on IS in Iraq seems to be winding down, some PMU militias have declared their intention to cross the border into Syria's Deir ez-Zor, to help the Syrian government retake the province and link up with Iraq and Iran. This places the Abadi government in a rough situation, as Baghdad is allied with both Iran and the US and PMU involvement in Syria will draw Iraqis even more directly into the Washington-Tehran power struggle.
US concern growing over pro-Syrian regime forces amassing near coalition training facility
Syrian rebel commander: 150 US troops at al-Tanf base
Syrian rebels: US sends more arms against Iran threat
Sorta the opposite of what many expected from the Trump administration, whose campaign rhetoric seemed to imply abandoning the Syrian rebels to the mercy of Damascus and Moscow.
Basically, what I gather is that the US government wants to cut the "Shiite Crescent" in half by inserting some proxy militia along the Syria/Iraq border. Presumably they hope that their southern rebels can push through eastern IS territory and meet SDF lines in the north, thus preventing the Syrian Army's march east. Iran, the Syrian government, Iraq, and Russia are all opposed to this (especially Iran and Syria, I suspect), and the Syrian army and "Iranian backed militias" (as described by the US) have already come into direct conflict with the US-backed groups in the area, with the US and Russia taking turns bombing the opposing factions. This is a more confrontational position toward Russia and Iran than we saw in the Obama years; it's actually about what I'd have expected from a Clinton Middle East policy had she been elected. If the US doesn't back down from this policy it seems likely to lead to escalated US-Iran conflict (or possibly even direct confrontation with Russia). Additionally, it seems to add another layer of intractability to a conflict that looked like it was finally starting to wind down towards a government/SDF victory and rebel/ISIS defeat.
Meanwhile, al-Jazeera reports that the Trump admin has picked a hawkish and "ruthless" CIA officer to lead the agency's regional anti-Iran efforts.
I dunno how accurate the description of the man is, or exactly what his new role entails, but it fits with the developing picture of Trump Middle East policy in general. Frankly I'm not even sure how much of this foreign policy is the "Trump administration's," per se; it seems like the hawkish parts of the usual foreign policy establishment have been given carte blanche. What the US is doing in Syria right now seems like something from the Brookings Institution's wet dreams, and a hot war with Iran seems more likely every month.
edit - also, the indiscriminate attacks in Kabul are too horrible for words. I hope that country sees peace before I'm old, they haven't since years before I was even born.
Which makes an increase in aid urgent and the still rumored offensive on Hodeidah even more catastrophic if it goes ahead. There's no sign of the Saudi coalition feeling any need to deescalate.
There's a article in the NYT talking the debate inside the WH about increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and how it's heavily dominated by generals, when compared to the Obama WH. I expect that sort of militarism is replicated across the board.
That seems bad! I knew Saudi Arabia were pissed at Qatar, I didn't know they were this pissed, though
Egypt is possibly also cutting ties, but no good source is confirming that.