A rational US interest is in Turkey and Iran fighting and both loosing.
“The world has been appalled by the bloodshed in Syria to date. ”
Really? What is your definition of the world, Mead?
Pundits in NY and London and Polisci faculty in Ivies?
NATO was supposed to be a defensive alliance. It seems to me it would make a lot of difference if Iran responds to a hypothetical Turkish intervention by invading Turkey along their common border or if they provide troops to Assad to fight the Turks in Syria. In the latter case, I think NATO sits out the war.
I think Dr. Mead has some very good points about the concerns that Iran’s current leadership has about regional isolation. In a perfect world, Iran would capitulate on her nukse in order to remove the possibility of western casus belli, but I think it’s more likely they would double down and rush toward nuclear weapons at redoubled efforts.
A prolonged civil war in Syria is in the US interest. A Turkey/Iran war is in US interest.
The NATO trigger would not matter if Turkey is the attacker. Even if it did, its the perfect fig leave for destroying Iran’s nuclear program.
Not surprising at a strategic level. The past 10-15 years has resembled nothing so much as The Gathering Storm. We have a regional cult that demands to kill all the Jews (AND stone or shoot their women, AND whip rape victims to death, AND prohibit education to women, AND lock girls in burning buildings rather than let them escape without their tent – Islam is FAR worse than NAZI-ism; unfortunate the West refuses this fact), to arm themselves, disobey international arms treaties — and Western leaders perfectly willing to appease them. And now a line may be crossed and the world finds itself at war. Oh, yeah, we also have a collapsed global economy for the same Keynesian reasons that prolonged the Great Depression. Perhaps in some future world nations will have their best in the classrooms teaching their future generations, rather than what a former Dean of the BU School of Education called “the dregs of” the academic population, and this kind of thing can be avoided? Here’s hoping!
Excellent post. Refreshing to read a realistic, balanced survey that puts aside wishful thinking and ideological preconceptions.
“The larger point here is that anarchy and chaos in Syria is inherently destabilizing and offers many routes to a wider international conflict.” The question is destabilizing for whom? And does multipolarity increase potential for international conflict?
Might the close justaposition of states in region promote (given history) defensive realism as well as magnify geographical arrangements (Kurds, Sunnis, Turks, etc.) in which miscalculation can ignite power rivalries (Iran/Turkey regional hegemon aspiration). Turkey Edges Toward Syria Invasion, Iran Threatens Response essay infers that region like many parts of globe appears to be enduring seismic change with no direction – a dynamic configuration of no determined outcome.
Alternative guesses regarding Iranian intentions:
(i) Iran wishes to hang on to Assad as a useful card against Israel until it completes its nuclear weapons.
(ii) Iran wishes to ratchet up the tension until the West is willing to trade the nuclear sanctions for Iranian cooperation on Syria.
“The world has been appalled by the bloodshed in Syria to date.”
(Link inspired by [email protected])
_Refreshing to read a realistic, balanced survey that puts aside wishful thinking and ideological preconceptions._
Said completely without irony by one of the most rabidly partisan and blindly left-wing ideological commenters I’ve ever read.
If Tehran hasnt stepped in before now- when the western insurgency could have been stopped? Well its to late at this point.
Very odd, like Iran welcomes war or is in the worst denial I’ve ever seen. Once the Wall of Syria is breached its on to Persia.
Prophecy is being fulfiled.
brace yourself for amagedon.