NFT: Iraq - Iran

Iran through southern Iraq, through Syria to their proxy group in Lebanon known as Hezbollah. They seek to dominate the Muslim world, spread their form of Islam, and destroy Israel. I'm sure this will get political and be deleted soon, but the only thing that can be done in the middle east is to re-organize the countries by ethnic and religious lines. This could create some violence and instability in the short term, but I think would work out well in the long term. Southern Iraq can be turned into an Arabic speaking Shia state. The Kurds should have a state, Sunni Muslims should leave Israel and Lebanon. Lebanon can return to being the Arab Christian state that it was intended to be. All middle eastern Christians can move there, it can be a Christian Zionism for middle eastern Christians. The remaining ethnic and religious minorities can replace the Sunni Muslims who leave Israel and Lebanon (they will be treated much better there). One might say this is unrealistic, but nothing will ever change in that region without this plan.

Although we can probably quibble on the edges. The is an argument that the Kurds deserve their own state but can they maintain one where their four neighbors Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria oppose it? Also do you try to carve out a Kurdish state from Iraq which is essentially the Arab Yugoslavia and watch the state collapse or does it collapse on its own allowing the Kurds to assert themselves. Iraq is essentially the Ottoman provinces of Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul. If the Iranians absorb Basra and the Kurds split out on their own. What actor fills the vacuum in Baghdad?

from us and Israel, as well as a Christian Lebanon. Also I forgot to mention that all Shia Arabs should be allowed to move to the new Shia Arab state in southern Iraq like Jews can all move to Israel. Shia minorities are not treated well in the Sunni countries with the exception of Lebanon where Hezbollah has carved out a state within a state. The Sunni Muslims have many states, a good 15 or so of them are Arabic speaking, any refugees can be easily absorbed there, they don't need to go to Europe. I am sure there will be many objections to this, but enough is enough already, nothing else has a shot of working.

The British tried this in India - one country. How's that worked out?

For Iraq to become a Switzerland rather than Yugoslavia of course. I think we had a chance for that had we not withdraw as we did with the consequent great differences for the whole Middle east. I think our great mistake was underestimating the involvement / penetration of the former regime Iraqi intelligence service into the various front terrorists organizations. Before anything can be accomplished the head of this snake must be cut off.

In comment 13634250 Modus Operandi said:

Quote:

The British tried this in India - one country. How's that worked out?

Well, the current system is based on French and British claimed spheres of influence from 100 years ago. I don't see that as a better system. BTW, I don't see the possibility of a Christian Lebanon. Not only does it infringe on the land corridor Elisha refers to, but none of the Muslim countries in the area would accept it any more than they would an independent Kurdistan. They're nuts enough about Israel.

BTW, excellent discussion. This thread, at least currently, deserves to live.

much better than most. Congrats to all.

India has many different ethnicities and a caste system. Separating Pakistan from the rest of India generally worked out okay, but the Muslims want the Kashmere region.

Mike

Iraq could never be Switzerland, but the three groups separated should be able to be more like the Gulf states or Morocco.

njm

The Arab states would not except any part of my plan, they want to control everything, but they are not the only group in the middle east. Lebanon was carved out of Syria for the Maronite Christians after WWI, it would of had an overwhelming Christian majority, but they wanted more land which included more Muslims. Many of the Christians left because of terrorism. Christians are under attack and are being ethnically cleansed all over the middle east. They deserve a state for themselves. The Arab Muslims will have to learn to share. BTW, the Kurds are Muslim and they have always opposed them having a state, so its more than religion, its tribal. Plus they think a Kurdish state will be tight with Israel. However, as I always say when discussing Israel, Sunni Muslim Arabs have 21 states, the middle east is large enough for a few other states. Perhaps they could be convinced to change because they are scared of Iran. The gulf states are so spooked they work with Israel behind the scenes. The Gulf states, Israel, Kurdistan, and a Christian Lebanon could be a great counter to Iran.

Two nuclear powers that share a border whom regularly exhibit aggression towards one another through troop buildups and terrorist bombings is hardly a success.

Israel has existed for almost 70 years and still fights for its survival. Iran, through proxy, has done everything in it's power to threaten it. What makes you think Iran would accept a Kurdish or even Christian state? They won't even accept dual state solution.

What should, could or would happen are very different things. We (the West) have a difficult enough time keeping the various Shia and Sunni factions at bay, much less negotiating a land division that recognizes non-Muslim states in the ME.

1. We miss Dune, Ronnie and Bill2 obviously.

I did not jive at all with Bill2s brand of pragmatism, but he was a font of knowledge and probably experience and led these threads in a welcome manner.

2. regarding the M.E. - You have to know what you are about .......what the "measure" is.

Pluralism is not just a vague idealistic idea, implemented properly, it can be very stabilizing.

In addition, its almost a requirement for a Nation State to have -valuable- relations with the West, over and above, 'we want your (oil or what have you, the pragmatist position)'.

Pluralism Miriam Webster-
a :a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization .
b :a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state

The Kurds, from here on my couch, seem to be the only player in Pluralism within the Iran/Iraq/Saudi sphere, and far better than the Syrians, possibly better than the Turks, certainly better than formerly Isil.

Strategy 101 says 'reinforce success.' By that measure, we should be helping the Kurds.

Notions of 'send millions of people here, send other millions there' are naïve, Un-American and have actual terrorizing examples in history (see, Stalin, Joseph, 20 to 60 million dead) Don't suggest ethnic cleansing, that would be steps from genocide, its not our thing.

the habit of sectarianism being so deep and hard to break, certain movements sought the façade or illusion of socialism and nationalism (' we are all one'). Which obviously failed and led to wars of its own.

Contrast Western style pluralism, where cultural identity and individualism are welcome as long as they stay within the blank slate of basic constitutional law. From a distance, only the Kurds come close to that.

Whereas it may be naïve of me to suggest we have that as a goal, methods and timing counts:

As long as the parties (Arabs of all sorts) are not attacking us here at home, or harboring those who would, we may be able to step back and take the long view. So its not like we are going in and trying to plant seeds in fallow ground. Just ignore the non-pluralistic ones as much as possible within those minimalistic goals, while maintaining and sharing the focus as a constant reminder.

All that said, the Kurds may have to give Kirkuk and the oil, or the oil $$$, to Iraq, as part of any independence bid, that might be the smart move, and without a fight.

In addition, the Kurds need to outline a strong 'non-interference policy towards Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq' ASAP. That is: 'we wont start or support Kurdish rebellions once our state is in effect'.

In addition, "we will respect all borders as they existed prior to 1989" or whenever (with the exception of Iraqi Kurdistan, where the new state would or will be, and if Assad willingly throws in a couple of acres here and there, in exchange for same).

Kurdish emmigres into a new State from those neighboring States must be required to state - the same as above.

As for my own bonafides:

Prior to the Syria war, here on BBI; I was the ONLY one on the initial Syria rebellion thread that said "I am very worried about this one as opposed to Libya, this could get bad, like WW2 bad" and that "the Russians may play a role".

In comment 13634434 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

Prior to the Syria war, here on BBI; I was the ONLY one on the initial Syria rebellion thread that said "I am very worried about this one as opposed to Libya, this could get bad, like WW2 bad" and that "the Russians may play a role".

The civil war started in 2011. You registered in 2015. So...

Can I borrow your time machine? I need to stop the Trey Junkin signing...

throwing the 'baby' of strategic clarity out with the 'bathwater' of competing goals in the following way:

- After marginally helping the Kurds for a time, and "requiring that they act as proxy to prevent said land bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean, we, unable then to ask the Kurds to take a non-interference position (as we are asking them to interfere elsewhere), we therefore loosing the hope of that beacon of freedom and true ally of a pluralistic Kurdish state as I described, killed on the usual altar, the altar of hate of and fear of the Iranians.

Possibly the same rational we used for letting the Yemen horror burn on. One of those rare spots where we really look, not too great, letting the Saudis play like that.

Freebluelove became Alligatorpie became IdiotSavant

In comment 13634409 Modus Operandi said:

Quote:

Two nuclear powers that share a border whom regularly exhibit aggression towards one another through troop buildups and terrorist bombings is hardly a success. Israel has existed for almost 70 years and still fights for its survival. Iran, through proxy, has done everything in it's power to threaten it. What makes you think Iran would accept a Kurdish or even Christian state? They won't even accept dual state solution. What should, could or would happen are very different things. We (the West) have a difficult enough time keeping the various Shia and Sunni factions at bay, much less negotiating a land division that recognizes non-Muslim states in the ME.

I had a similar reaction to the argument that the partition of India into a Hindu and Muslim state has worked out well. That is why the world cringes when there is a news report of a terrorist attack in a India.

timing and small tactical items pre-empt your big strategy.

It may be as simple as this, seeing that success of a Kurdish state would be great strategically and morally, but knowing that they would have to do said non-interference.

Our side says "no can do, we asked them just last week to interfere in Syria (vs the land bridge thing) , gotta wait"

So, once again, small fish beat big fish we tied our own hands.

In comment 13634434 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

the habit of sectarianism being so deep and hard to break, certain movements sought the façade or illusion of socialism and nationalism (' we are all one'). Which obviously failed and led to wars of its own. Contrast Western style pluralism, where cultural identity and individualism are welcome as long as they stay within the blank slate of basic constitutional law. From a distance, only the Kurds come close to that. Whereas it may be naïve of me to suggest we have that as a goal, methods and timing counts: As long as the parties (Arabs of all sorts) are not attacking us here at home, or harboring those who would, we may be able to step back and take the long view. So its not like we are going in and trying to plant seeds in fallow ground. Just ignore the non-pluralistic ones as much as possible within those minimalistic goals, while maintaining and sharing the focus as a constant reminder. All that said, the Kurds may have to give Kirkuk and the oil, or the oil $$$, to Iraq, as part of any independence bid, that might be the smart move, and without a fight. In addition, the Kurds need to outline a strong 'non-interference policy towards Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq' ASAP. That is: 'we wont start or support Kurdish rebellions once our state is in effect'. In addition, "we will respect all borders as they existed prior to 1989" or whenever (with the exception of Iraqi Kurdistan, where the new state would or will be, and if Assad willingly throws in a couple of acres here and there, in exchange for same). Kurdish emmigres into a new State from those neighboring States must be required to state - the same as above. As for my own bonafides: Prior to the Syria war, here on BBI; I was the ONLY one on the initial Syria rebellion thread that said "I am very worried about this one as opposed to Libya, this could get bad, like WW2 bad" and that "the Russians may play a role".

I've worked with the NSC and have a pretty deep base of knowledge and experience on these issues, probably more practical experience then most, I don't need some one else to help me have an informed discussion.

but, no need to get your panties in a bunch, none of that was targeted at you, just throwing ideas at the wall.

I am allowed to have ideas.

In comment 13634211 Elisha10 said:

Quote:

Iran through southern Iraq, through Syria to their proxy group in Lebanon known as Hezbollah. They seek to dominate the Muslim world, spread their form of Islam, and destroy Israel. I'm sure this will get political and be deleted soon, but the only thing that can be done in the middle east is to re-organize the countries by ethnic and religious lines. This could create some violence and instability in the short term, but I think would work out well in the long term. Southern Iraq can be turned into an Arabic speaking Shia state. The Kurds should have a state, Sunni Muslims should leave Israel and Lebanon. Lebanon can return to being the Arab Christian state that it was intended to be. All middle eastern Christians can move there, it can be a Christian Zionism for middle eastern Christians. The remaining ethnic and religious minorities can replace the Sunni Muslims who leave Israel and Lebanon (they will be treated much better there). One might say this is unrealistic, but nothing will ever change in that region without this plan.

I don't think it will get political because you're pretty much spot on with your assessment that is not based in anything other than fact

In comment 13634449 idiotsavant said:

Quote:

but, no need to get your panties in a bunch, none of that was targeted at you, just throwing ideas at the wall.

Yeah, I probably over reacted, sorry,

I try not to engage on issues involving the Middle East, but as someone who is Christian and born and raised for several years in Lebanon, I can assure you that the internal struggles within that country are far more complex than simply Muslims trying to kill Christians. There are numerous factions and plenty of blame to go around. Notwithstanding the rise of Daesh (Isis), the reality is that the threat to Lebanon's future (and much of the Arab world)is from Iran and its Shia proxies and not the mainstream Sunni who have largely co-existed with Lebanese Christians for years. The Christian community has also not been blameless and there are still many fascist elements within the Lebanese Christian Phalangist movement, which began under General Franco in Spain, and has over its existence brutalized Muslims, Christians (Maronites and Coptics)and Jews.

Religino is the easy way to describe the issues of the region. The real problem has more to do with poverty and brutal dictators who have enslaved many of their own and often use religion to maintain their power.

Jeffrey, its too bad as well, Lebanon is a beautiful place, the food probably rocks, lively culture apparently, hopping business style, always wanted to see those famous cedar trees. Oh well.

there is probably a way to let the Kurds off the hook, require that they retreat into Iraqi Kurdistan and play nice, and also block the Iranians in Syria....using other means.

In comment 13634388 Elisha10 said:

Quote:

India has many different ethnicities and a caste system. Separating Pakistan from the rest of India generally worked out okay, but the Muslims want the Kashmere region. Mike Iraq could never be Switzerland, but the three groups separated should be able to be more like the Gulf states or Morocco. njm The Arab states would not except any part of my plan, they want to control everything, but they are not the only group in the middle east. Lebanon was carved out of Syria for the Maronite Christians after WWI, it would of had an overwhelming Christian majority, but they wanted more land which included more Muslims. Many of the Christians left because of terrorism. Christians are under attack and are being ethnically cleansed all over the middle east. They deserve a state for themselves. The Arab Muslims will have to learn to share. BTW, the Kurds are Muslim and they have always opposed them having a state, so its more than religion, its tribal. Plus they think a Kurdish state will be tight with Israel. However, as I always say when discussing Israel, Sunni Muslim Arabs have 21 states, the middle east is large enough for a few other states. Perhaps they could be convinced to change because they are scared of Iran. The gulf states are so spooked they work with Israel behind the scenes. The Gulf states, Israel, Kurdistan, and a Christian Lebanon could be a great counter to Iran.

I think it might take more than the fear of the Iranians to "convince" them to accept a Christian and/or Kurdish state. And that raises the problematic question of how the US would be involved.

In comment 13638509 njm said:

Quote:

In comment 13634388 Elisha10 said: Quote: India has many different ethnicities and a caste system. Separating Pakistan from the rest of India generally worked out okay, but the Muslims want the Kashmere region. Mike Iraq could never be Switzerland, but the three groups separated should be able to be more like the Gulf states or Morocco. njm The Arab states would not except any part of my plan, they want to control everything, but they are not the only group in the middle east. Lebanon was carved out of Syria for the Maronite Christians after WWI, it would of had an overwhelming Christian majority, but they wanted more land which included more Muslims. Many of the Christians left because of terrorism. Christians are under attack and are being ethnically cleansed all over the middle east. They deserve a state for themselves. The Arab Muslims will have to learn to share. BTW, the Kurds are Muslim and they have always opposed them having a state, so its more than religion, its tribal. Plus they think a Kurdish state will be tight with Israel. However, as I always say when discussing Israel, Sunni Muslim Arabs have 21 states, the middle east is large enough for a few other states. Perhaps they could be convinced to change because they are scared of Iran. The gulf states are so spooked they work with Israel behind the scenes. The Gulf states, Israel, Kurdistan, and a Christian Lebanon could be a great counter to Iran. I think it might take more than the fear of the Iranians to "convince" them to accept a Christian and/or Kurdish state. And that raises the problematic question of how the US would be involved.

An internally peaceful,externally secure and co-dependent entity. It doesn't have to sell chocolates to be stable. If however there is a trained cadre of intelligence and military professionals lurking behind the scenes to sabotage any progress in this direction than the possibility may never materialize. I believe the involvement of the former regime operatives with terrorists was always underestimated both prior and after our involvement. After we left they fell right back in on their former functions, IMHO.

Kurdistan nation was split up into 4 different countries after WW1

Iraq
Turkey (15% - 20% of population is Kurd)
Syria (10% - 15% of population is Kurd)
Iran (10% -15% of population is Kurd)

If Kurds in Iraq declare free nation then the rest of Kurds in region will want to join this new country -

Turkey Iran and Iraq will use force to prevent this from happening
They are already in a military alliance to prevent it.
Kurdistan - ( New Window )

Why are the other countries against the Kurds having their own country?

Is it because they are in the areas that are oil rich?

In comment 13639453 giantfan2000 said:

Quote:

Kurdistan nation was split up into 4 different countries after WW1 Iraq Turkey (15% - 20% of population is Kurd) Syria (10% - 15% of population is Kurd) Iran (10% -15% of population is Kurd) If Kurds in Iraq declare free nation then the rest of Kurds in region will want to join this new country - Turkey Iran and Iraq will use force to prevent this from happening They are already in a military alliance to prevent it. Kurdistan - ( New Window )

Even your link shows that Kurdistan had not existed for centuries prior to WWI. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And indeed, Turkey Iran and Iraq have no desire to lose a part of their countries to an independent Kurdistan.

Montana - Believe there are substantial oil deposits in or near the Kurdish controlled part of Iraq. I don't recall any in Kurdish areas of either Iran or Syria.

In comment 13634475 montanagiant said:

Quote:

In comment 13634211 Elisha10 said: Quote: Iran through southern Iraq, through Syria to their proxy group in Lebanon known as Hezbollah. They seek to dominate the Muslim world, spread their form of Islam, and destroy Israel. I'm sure this will get political and be deleted soon, but the only thing that can be done in the middle east is to re-organize the countries by ethnic and religious lines. This could create some violence and instability in the short term, but I think would work out well in the long term. Southern Iraq can be turned into an Arabic speaking Shia state. The Kurds should have a state, Sunni Muslims should leave Israel and Lebanon. Lebanon can return to being the Arab Christian state that it was intended to be. All middle eastern Christians can move there, it can be a Christian Zionism for middle eastern Christians. The remaining ethnic and religious minorities can replace the Sunni Muslims who leave Israel and Lebanon (they will be treated much better there). One might say this is unrealistic, but nothing will ever change in that region without this plan. I don't think it will get political because you're pretty much spot on with your assessment that is not based in anything other than fact

You do know this is BBI, right?