The Gathering Storm in Syria

[ZenGum]

I've been thinking about this for some time. There is an idea that there is (often but not always) a "natural political map" of any given area, with national boundaries following cultural groups. Each group, having it's own language, bases its ideas on its own literature, and develops its own cultural values; and consequently various groups with differing values are best administered separately.

The situation in Central and Eastern Europe post WWII is a good example of national boundaries being imposed in tension with the natural map. In the 1990s, the natural map reasserted itself. The Czechs and Slovaks managed an amicable divorce, but Yugoslavia was too entangled and erupted in war.

The borders of the Middle East, defining countries like Jordan, Syria and Iraq, were drawn up in the peace conferences after WWI and WWII, and largely represent the global ambitions of the victorious powers at the various conferences. These countries are largely fictional. Most people in them do not, it seems, identify as being a citizen of that country, but as being a member of their own particular ethnic group. These countries were only held together by repressive governments. Now, after the removal of Saddam Hussein, the sectarian violence in Iraq, and the Arab spring, the idea that the government cannot be resisted has been undermined, and various groups are taking things into their own hands.

From here, I can see three ways to go. Firstly, the current governments effectively repress the mobs, and force the lid back on the simmering pot for a few more years, til it all erupts again.

Secondly, the whole Middle East could peacefully reorganise itself along a lines of European style centralised regulation, with a high degree of regional cultural independence. I consider this massively unlikely.

Thirdly, and most likely, the area slides into further ethnic and civil war, going through a particularly long and bloody Balkanisation. I would imagine this taking quite a few years to play out, lead to millions of deaths and huge refugee flows, and really screw up the worlds oil supply networks. Because of the oil, the world's great powers will want to push for option one, and keep deferring the problem.

At the end of the day, I imagine the Middle East with radically different borders. Not only would various Shi'ite groups and Sunni groups have their own countries, so too should the Kurds, the Palestinians, and many other minorities. Many of the Arab states, especially the Gulf Emirates, have (One Side) majority populations, with (Other Side) rulers. That has to change.

TL/DR: Like the Balkans, only longer, bigger, and with oil.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Now the Russians are going to supply Syria with an anti-aircraft rocket system, to kill any west imposed no-fly zone, it may get very hot, very soon.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

... At the end of the day, I imagine the Middle East with radically different borders. Not only would various Shi'ite groups and Sunni groups have their own countries, so too should the Kurds, the Palestinians, and many other minorities. ...

Sounds like too much work. Maybe the nuclear powers in the region can divvy up the rest of the geography and wipe out those populations. All they do is bicker anyway.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The borders of the Middle East, defining countries like Jordan, Syria and Iraq, were drawn up in the peace conferences after WWI and WWII, and largely represent the global ambitions of the victorious powers at the various conferences. These countries are largely fictional. Most people in them do not, it seems, identify as being a citizen of that country, but as being a member of their own particular ethnic group. These countries were only held together by repressive governments. Now, after the removal of Saddam Hussein, the sectarian violence in Iraq, and the Arab spring, the idea that the government cannot be resisted has been undermined, and various groups are taking things into their own hands.

I agree with pretty much all of this. I read an article a few years back (can’t find it) predicting that in 2100, there will be twice as many countries than what exists today due to the nation-state boundaries not taking ethnic differences into account. Africa is the main one.

From here, I can see three ways to go.

This scares me as well. My outcome predictions are a little different but boil down to basically the same thing. Also, it seems clear that the situation has gotten so bad so quickly that a peace deal will never be accepted by all parties.

If Al Assad and his allies win, a major crackdown will ensue and regime change will be unlikely in other countries (Iran, etc.). This will probably result in the most stable condition for a non-peace outcome but the problem is that this peace will likely be temporary. Things may boil over later or may not.

If the Syrian rebels win and the fighting remains isolated within Syria, there may be vast amounts of Shia ethnic cleansing and the government that follows (if one even does) will likely be unfriendly to not only U.S. and Israel, but also its Iraqi (mainly Shia) neighbors. This is not a stable condition.

If the fighting erupts into a Greater Middle Eastern War, then the outcome is anyone’s guess. While a re-divided Middle East is a potential option, it may also end up not being as “clean” as the Balkans, resulting in further problems. Or, one side may end up winning and the region becomes more centralized as well. I don’t think we can automatically assume that decentralization of nations is the only possible option.

The reactions from Israel, Turkey, Iran, Europe, Russia, and China are up for grabs as well. Russia and China care more about stability and economic gains than ideology so their “loyalty” could be lost or transferred instantly. If Assad falls and the fighting expands or continues, it isn’t about regime change anymore for Europe and the US. Both sides will likely be unfriendly to Israel.


In hindsight, this entire Arab Spring may also cause reflections of foreign policy strategies. I think Obama is going to find out the hard way that having good intentions and pushing for the best outcome (peace deal) may unintentionally result in a much more destructive outcome. As realpolitik as it sounds, if the US and Europe supported Assad from the beginning, many lives would be saved. On the other hand, pursuing realpolitik policies that doesn't take civilian opinion into account, like China and Russia is now and the US has in the past, may also result in a more unstable environment that becomes extremely hostile. The shortcomings of all the major foreign policy ideologies may be exposed in the next few years.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

TL/DR: Like the Balkans, only longer, bigger, and with oil.

Well it looks like your prediction is starting to come true.

Beirut: More than two years into Syria’s civil war, the once highly-centralised authoritarian state has effectively split into three distinct parts, each boasting its own flags, security agencies and judicial system.

In each area, religious, ideological and turf power struggles are under way and battle lines tend to ebb and flow, making it impossible to predict exactly what Syria could look like once the combatants lay down their arms.

But the longer the bloody conflict drags on, analysts says, the more difficult it will be to piece together a coherent Syrian state from the wreckage. “There is no doubt that as a distinct single entity, Syria has ceased to exist,” said

http://gulfnews.com/news/region/syri...ions-1.1219353

To show how this looks on a map (red is Assad, Green is rebel, Yellow is Kurd):