Turmoil in the Middle East? So what else is new?

Turmoil in the Middle East, so what else is new?

The Middle East is constantly in turmoil. Israel is fighting Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and Iran. The rebels in Syria have all of a sudden decided to renew their shooting war with Syria’s allies Iran and Russia being weakened.  The rebels are advancing and are threatening Damascus. Turkey is siding with the rebels seeking to widen its sphere of influence. Assad’s ruling faction is a small minority called Alawites which are considered as disbelievers by both Sunni and Shia and were installed in power by the French in the 1920s. The rebels fighting Assad are terrorist groups and are no friends of either the US or Israel. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s nominee as director of national intelligence is on record as saying that Assad is not an enemy of the United States. Assad may not be an enemy but he is no friend either. He is a brutal dictator and has suppressed Christians and other minorities in Syria. During one upheaval his forces used chemical weapons killing almost 100 people. Gabbard said that reports of the attack were “100 percent fabrication” despite evidence to the contrary. It will be interesting to see how she handles questions regarding her views on Assad, of anti-intervention and her previous anti-Trump comments before her MAGA conversion.

Much of the discord in the Middle East is directly linked to the lines drawn in 1916 by Mark Sykes of England and François Picot of France dividing up the old Ottoman Empire between their countries. Their map created Palestine (Israel), Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia. In so doing, the new borders threw together religious factions into the same new country. So Christians, Jews, Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, along with other sects were put together, practically insuring discord. While it may have been logical to draw borders that minimize conflict, Sykes-Picot did no such thing. Perhaps the divisions made sense in a dividing of spoils amongst the Brits and the French after World War I so that the locals would fight among themselves rather than fighting their European rulers. But it portended eternal conflict for the residents of the Middle East. By the way, much the same is true in the creation of countries in Africa. Only time will tell as to whether the warring factions can unite, or decide to redraw country borders, or continue fighting forever.

I wonder why don’t countries that have such divisions which lead to terrorist activities and/or protests just don’t cut those areas loose? I guess that the rulers want as much land as possible and as many people to lord over than ever willingly ceding territory. A case in point is Turkey and the Kurds who the Turks label a terrorist group. Why doesn’t Turkey simply grant the Kurds their ancestral land of Kurdistan? Since Kurdistan encompasses southeast Turkey, northern Iraq, northwest Iran and northern Syria, the Turks could rid themselves of the Kurds and let Iran, Iraq and Syria deal with the problem.

In Iraq, the Shias live mostly in the south, the Sunnis in the middle and the Kurds in the north. The Iraqi Shias are aligned with Iran which is 95% Shia. Wouldn’t it make sense for Iraq to divide itself into thirds with Shia in the south, Sunni in the middle and Kurds in the north? Each area could have self rule and the country operate as a confederation, much like Switzerland. I think that one day the Sunnis who are the majority in 32 countries will unite against the Shia who are a majority only in Iran and Azerbaijan. The Sunnis and the Shia are forever at each others’ throats. Ultimately with energy independence, America could just let the two sides settle their differences without our interference. So perhaps Gabbard might be correct after all.