Kicking off in Syria?


*dons tin-foil hat*

I'm starting to smell a big fat rat here. How come every country that threatens Israel and/or has oil starts to suffer Islamist/nationalist uprisings, potentially justifying US intervention and ultimately leading to the break-up of that country into quarrellling (but not threatening to Israel) minor fiefdoms?

Iran - bombs going off in arab-dominated, oil rich province nearest Iraq.
Now Syria.

Let's not forget the oil-rich provinces of Saudi are Shia-dominated. And the Kurds provide the US with a useful tool.

Also don't forget the Shia are not one unified, homogenous mass- arab and persian and other shia don't see eye to eye entirely and there are definite disputes as to the 'capital' of shiism - Najkaf/Karbala in Iraq or Qom in Iran.

I see a 'divide and rule' strategy writ large here. Maybe I'm seeing what I want to see, but I always thought the USA were the world champions at 'grand strategy' (after all, they completely took the p1ss out of UK and the rest of Euorpe in the 20th Cent.). I'd been having my doubts lately, but seemingly the strategy is becoming clearer.
Though Assad and co may be Alawite and Shi'a affiliated the country is actually Sunni.
This attack was Islamists Sunnis - No American hand, unless they are really that stupid.
Saying that the Islamic brotherhood in Syria are facing their own problem in terms of new more stricters Islamic groupings that are slowly gaining strength. The Americans have made the regime weak and the Islamists (the only real opposition) are seeing opportunities.

The Kurdish sepratists backed it seemed by 'sponsers', did try and cause a bit of havoc in Northern Syria but were soon stopped when they realised that the average Syrian Kurd - no doubt unhappy would rather have dialogue with the governement then see another 'Hamma' occur.
Isn't Soylent Green listed as one of the ingredients of the Colonel's seasoning at KFC?

It should be remembered that, like Saddam Hussein, the Assad family are Ba'athists and, notionally at least, secular in orientation. Hence they appeal to Arabist sentiments rather than Islamist ones, insofar as regional politics are concerned. (Having said that, they use religious ideas and sentiments when it is politically expedient to do so.) Accordingly, like T6 suggest, they have always had problems with the Muslim Brotherhood etc.

Similar threads

Latest Threads