|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Jan 28, 2016 19:33:38 GMT
Good day people. For my second thread on this subforum, I would like to make the ever turbulent region that is the Middle East. What Does the future have in store once ISIS and its associated conflict(s) ceases to be a significant issue? I for one thing believe that what's going on right now will be the final nail in the coffin for the current borders that were drawn by the colonial powers post-WWI. After that, new borders will finally be designed after a century. For example if Iraq were to balkanize, Kurdistan might get its long-awaited independence and the rest of Iraq is bound to split into Sunni and Shia Arab sections. If that were the case, we will see something like this :  In addition, if Saudi Arabia keeps bleeding its oil money like it is now for another 10 years at most, the country's ruling dynasty will also go the path of the dinosaur. |
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Jan 28, 2016 20:37:30 GMT
Here was a map of a similar idea I made a year ago (also first map I'm actually posting here!):  And full description: |
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Jan 28, 2016 20:50:53 GMT
^I'm not sure if Turkey will give land to the Kurds so easily. At least without a fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Jan 28, 2016 21:12:26 GMT
^I'm not sure if Turkey will give land to the Kurds so easily. At least without a fight. They didn't exactly hand it over nicely either. While I admit my description didn't give that idea, but Turkey essentially was embargoed and Turkish Kurdistan was invaded and occupied |
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Jan 28, 2016 22:02:49 GMT
EDIT PROLOGUE: Wrote all of this in quick reply before anyone else replied and forgot to hit post, can't be arsed to edit for shit later said but I'll reply later, assuming some discussion occurs at some point.
It'd be interesting to hear how you came to these viewpoints, guyverman.
I don't actually view a Kurdish state as a likely outcome, not while Erdogan and Turkey are busy being pseudo-Islamist lunatics bent on maintaining total control. An independent Kurdistan threatens Turkish Kurdistan too heavily, they've been agitating against it throughout the history of the region in order to maintain control. They're already interfering south of the border to harass the Kurds. A heavily autonomous de facto independent region in Iraq, perhaps, but that's not worlds away from where we're at now.
The Alawites are a tiny proportion of Syria compared to the whole - they've ruled/dominated Syria through being in power and being clever about it. You're not gonna find an Alawite state that dominates the major populated areas of Syria on its own.
It's far more likely that your future where the Sykes-Picot-and-subsequent borders of the Middle East disappear will not come to pass. It's almost silly to predict things in the region, but I'd say Assad will at somepoint leave office - whether gracefully, with a Russian bootprint on his back, or with a bullet through his head, who can say - and someone acceptable to the international community will begin the process of uniting Syria. Probably violently and authoritarianly, but it'll get done. The Syrian Kurds would lose what they've carved out but there'll probably be an insurgency there more persistent than it has ever been.
I'm also secretly prejudiced against all countries with fucking hideous borders, so even if the Sunni State did come into existence, we'd have to kill it with fire and oil money.
|
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Jan 29, 2016 1:21:04 GMT
^If the Sykes-Picot borders don't change in the near future, along with the same applying to North/South Korea as well as Catalan not being carved out, and god knows how many other peoples and nations craving independence/unity it makes it seem as if history itself is facing a stalemate when it comes to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Jan 29, 2016 23:28:54 GMT
North/South Korea is, I would say, more likely to change - purely because the North Koreans can't sit there in their hell hole forever, at some point its going to fall apart. Within our life times, for sure.
The Catalans are also more likely than this. Even Scottish independence is more likely than this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kubo Caskett on Jan 29, 2016 23:52:54 GMT
I hate to be the most cyncialist here but frankly I think that ISIS would likely to be MORE powerful and resembling a nation-state by the time the 2020's begin. ISIS would be stretching from Damascus to Baghdad to Riyadh with Saudi Arabia and Libya split to pieces and Yemen and Somalia falling under it's wretched influence. Iran, Morrocco, and Israel end up becoming the leading powers of the Middle East while all competing against ISIS even with frequent skirmishes; the UAE is really going to be really investing in armed neutrality since it couldn't afford to lose it's precious cities to the Caliphate. Turkey is going to lose it's NATO status and fall into a civil war with ISIS slowly gaining influence over the country much to the dismay of both the West and the East.
|
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Jan 30, 2016 15:50:25 GMT
I hate to be the most cyncialist here but frankly I think that ISIS would likely to be MORE powerful and resembling a nation-state by the time the 2020's begin. ISIS would be stretching from Damascus to Baghdad to Riyadh with Saudi Arabia and Libya split to pieces and Yemen and Somalia falling under it's wretched influence. Iran, Morrocco, and Israel end up becoming the leading powers of the Middle East while all competing against ISIS even with frequent skirmishes; the UAE is really going to be really investing in armed neutrality since it couldn't afford to lose it's precious cities to the Caliphate. Turkey is going to lose it's NATO status and fall into a civil war with ISIS slowly gaining influence over the country much to the dismay of both the West and the East. I am afraid you fundamentally misunderstand sentiments in the region and the reason ISIS exists where it does at all. The areas they occupy are mostly filled with sand and nothingness, and everyone in the region has their own reasons for being as minimally involved as they can get away with. The Iraqis (which is to say the Shi'a majority) are less than keen to reincorporate the Sunni majority areas into the country and reintroduce ever more sectarianism and dissent. Iran is more or less happy for the conflict to drag out and drive the Shi'a of Iraq into their arms more and more and away from the West. The Kurds essentially have autonomy and are less than keen to help Baghdad out too much lest they return to their full strength and rein in Kurdish freedoms. Turkey is both increasingly pseudo-Islamist and more concerned with the growing influence of the Kurds than with ISIS. Israel doesn't have a horse in the race at all. The Saudis don't want to get involved for a whole host of reasons, from not wanting to kill Sunnis to being busier in Yemen. The list goes on for regional players. The cajoling and influence from the international community and the West to get people actually involved is bizarre. But anyone who sees ISIS spreading beyond where it currently resides, let alone taking three major cities in the Middle East, all at opposite points of the compass, is totally in the dark about the Middle East. I'm hardly an expert, but seriously, they would face a level of opposition and resistance, both civilian and military, beyond anything they've seen so far. The Saudis aren't going anywhere because of a bunch of lunatics in the desert, let me tell you. |
|
|
|
Post by Kubo Caskett on Jan 30, 2016 16:47:26 GMT
I hate to be the most cyncialist here but frankly I think that ISIS would likely to be MORE powerful and resembling a nation-state by the time the 2020's begin. ISIS would be stretching from Damascus to Baghdad to Riyadh with Saudi Arabia and Libya split to pieces and Yemen and Somalia falling under it's wretched influence. Iran, Morrocco, and Israel end up becoming the leading powers of the Middle East while all competing against ISIS even with frequent skirmishes; the UAE is really going to be really investing in armed neutrality since it couldn't afford to lose it's precious cities to the Caliphate. Turkey is going to lose it's NATO status and fall into a civil war with ISIS slowly gaining influence over the country much to the dismay of both the West and the East. I am afraid you fundamentally misunderstand sentiments in the region and the reason ISIS exists where it does at all. The areas they occupy are mostly filled with sand and nothingness, and everyone in the region has their own reasons for being as minimally involved as they can get away with. The Iraqis (which is to say the Shi'a majority) are less than keen to reincorporate the Sunni majority areas into the country and reintroduce ever more sectarianism and dissent. Iran is more or less happy for the conflict to drag out and drive the Shi'a of Iraq into their arms more and more and away from the West. The Kurds essentially have autonomy and are less than keen to help Baghdad out too much lest they return to their full strength and rein in Kurdish freedoms. Turkey is both increasingly pseudo-Islamist and more concerned with the growing influence of the Kurds than with ISIS. Israel doesn't have a horse in the race at all. The Saudis don't want to get involved for a whole host of reasons, from not wanting to kill Sunnis to being busier in Yemen. The list goes on for regional players. The cajoling and influence from the international community and the West to get people actually involved is bizarre. But anyone who sees ISIS spreading beyond where it currently resides, let alone taking three major cities in the Middle East, all at opposite points of the compass, is totally in the dark about the Middle East. I'm hardly an expert, but seriously, they would face a level of opposition and resistance, both civilian and military, beyond anything they've seen so far. The Saudis aren't going anywhere because of a bunch of lunatics in the desert, let me tell you. Maybe, but everybody thought before ISIS made headlines that that one little organization wasn't going anywhere but then we know the rest. There's no telling what ISIS can do if they are still left alive, though that doesn't mean that ISIS is going to be invading Europe anytime soon; they were able to gain massive amounts of territory before using the instability of Iraq and Syria to their advantage so I'm willing to bet they might seize more unless the governments of the middle east do something about it.
As for Israel, while most the Arab world would be reluctant to accept Israel's existence but would be willing to make friends if it means fighting ISIS. You're right in that Israel isn't going to be a major player in the same lines as Iran and Morocco but it would be serving as a springboard for covert operations against ISIS.
|
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Jan 30, 2016 19:07:55 GMT
Maybe, but everybody thought before ISIS made headlines that that one little organization wasn't going anywhere but then we know the rest. There's no telling what ISIS can do if they are still left alive, though that doesn't mean that ISIS is going to be invading Europe anytime soon; they were able to gain massive amounts of territory before using the instability of Iraq and Syria to their advantage so I'm willing to bet they might seize more unless the governments of the middle east do something about it.
As for Israel, while most the Arab world would be reluctant to accept Israel's existence but would be willing to make friends if it means fighting ISIS. You're right in that Israel isn't going to be a major player in the same lines as Iran and Morocco but it would be serving as a springboard for covert operations against ISIS.
Okay, let me put this a little more on the nose then. The idea that ISIS is going to conquer the entire Middle East and become a new regional power is moronic beyond belief. Are they "scary"? Yeah, sure. But they don't control "massive amounts of territory" (http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/126FB/production/_87951557_iraq_syria_air_strikes_624_v59.png). It's small snippets where they have control, with areas where they can pass through because no one really controls them. The maps that show vast areas of land are connecting the dots between spread out villages in an area where there's nothing important. Even if the international community wouldn't put the hurtdown on them if they tried to mount anything like the kind of operations that would be required for what you're envisaging, they don't have the resources to tangle with the vast numbers of people and land you're talking about. I mean, I could go on and on but it's really to the point where this is so daft I'd be here all night. |
|
|
|
Post by Kubo Caskett on Jan 30, 2016 22:42:46 GMT
Maybe, but everybody thought before ISIS made headlines that that one little organization wasn't going anywhere but then we know the rest. There's no telling what ISIS can do if they are still left alive, though that doesn't mean that ISIS is going to be invading Europe anytime soon; they were able to gain massive amounts of territory before using the instability of Iraq and Syria to their advantage so I'm willing to bet they might seize more unless the governments of the middle east do something about it.
As for Israel, while most the Arab world would be reluctant to accept Israel's existence but would be willing to make friends if it means fighting ISIS. You're right in that Israel isn't going to be a major player in the same lines as Iran and Morocco but it would be serving as a springboard for covert operations against ISIS.
Okay, let me put this a little more on the nose then. The idea that ISIS is going to conquer the entire Middle East and become a new regional power is moronic beyond belief. Are they "scary"? Yeah, sure. But they don't control "massive amounts of territory" (http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/126FB/production/_87951557_iraq_syria_air_strikes_624_v59.png). It's small snippets where they have control, with areas where they can pass through because no one really controls them. The maps that show vast areas of land are connecting the dots between spread out villages in an area where there's nothing important. Even if the international community wouldn't put the hurtdown on them if they tried to mount anything like the kind of operations that would be required for what you're envisaging, they don't have the resources to tangle with the vast numbers of people and land you're talking about. I mean, I could go on and on but it's really to the point where this is so daft I'd be here all night. I didn't say that ISIS is going to conquer the Middle East as I implied that Saudi Arabia and Libya would fall into pieces with various warlord states opposing ISIS for obvious reasons, rather I implied that ISIS would become an unofficial world power somehow (given that they don't have the resources and expertise to develop weapons of their own...yet). I also should mention that Egypt might become some middle power that would likely be allied to China and Russia (and maybe Iran if it would). Any misstep the powers in the middle east take would make a very good benefit for the Caliphate of chaos.
Besides, I can't access that link you gave me because I get some 403 error thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Jan 31, 2016 1:05:38 GMT
Forgive me - when you say that ISIS is going to defeat 2 US regional allies, one of them a major, overrun some of the largest oil fields in the world, followed by a significant Russian ally, entailing an area of land encompassing some 60+ million people, and becoming, not a regional power as I previously misunderstood you to say, but a "world power". Well. You can perhaps understand how conquer the Middle East is perhaps not that incorrect a summary. You keep talking about your perception of how you think the future would look, but you've not said a single thing about how this would ever even happen. Particularly how a tiny, disparate, weak terror group that fields less than 50,000 men goes on to conquer most of the region and set off shockwaves that destabilise all of the Middle East and North Africa. Much less how Egypt turns to China and Russia, Yemen splits up, Saudi Arabia splits up, or any of this other stuff happens. It's absurd. And the image I linked is a map of just how little ISIS controls:  |
|
|
|
Post by Kubo Caskett on Jan 31, 2016 2:32:57 GMT
Forgive me - when you say that ISIS is going to defeat 2 US regional allies, one of them a major, overrun some of the largest oil fields in the world, followed by a significant Russian ally, entailing an area of land encompassing some 60+ million people, and becoming, not a regional power as I previously misunderstood you to say, but a "world power". Well. You can perhaps understand how conquer the Middle East is perhaps not that incorrect a summary. You keep talking about your perception of how you think the future would look, but you've not said a single thing about how this would ever even happen. Particularly how a tiny, disparate, weak terror group that fields less than 50,000 men goes on to conquer most of the region and set off shockwaves that destabilise all of the Middle East and North Africa. Much less how Egypt turns to China and Russia, Yemen splits up, Saudi Arabia splits up, or any of this other stuff happens. It's absurd. Basically, I consider the whole ISIS getting stronger thing to be a worst case scenario in which the US (under a certain president) gives the bare minimum effort to defeat ISIS and ends up losing 1/3 of the Arabian peninsula due to incompetency and fear of getting lost in another Iraq War style quagmire (even though those two situations are very different as far as I'm concerned). Not that the US, NATO, and SCO would allow ISIS scot free, but they'll make up for ISIS's growth by fighting them via proxies (Israel included).
There is plenty of truth in regards to Egypt and Yemen in regards to the political scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Feb 1, 2016 4:32:56 GMT
I can easily see a scenario where Kurdistan gets independence or greater autonomy. I can also see Erdogan going down in a possible coup or revolution, hopefully to the Chapullers.
|
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Mar 18, 2016 4:52:17 GMT
I can easily see a scenario where Kurdistan gets independence or greater autonomy. I can also see Erdogan going down in a possible coup or revolution, hopefully to the Chapullers. Chapullers? |
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Mar 19, 2016 2:38:51 GMT
I can easily see a scenario where Kurdistan gets independence or greater autonomy. I can also see Erdogan going down in a possible coup or revolution, hopefully to the Chapullers. Chapullers? Derived from the Turkish word for "looters", "vandals", "rifraff" and similar things. It's an epithet from Erdogan regarding some of the protesters against his regime. The protesters took the epithet as a badge of honor. (The protesters even adopted as an unofficial anthem, LMFAO's "Party Rock Anthem", using the slogan, "Everyday I'm Chapulling.") en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapulling |
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on Mar 25, 2016 7:57:25 GMT
Is it possible that if the Civil War in Syria drags on any longer, some of Assad's top generals would become disgruntled to the point of wanting to go take matters into their own hands and perform a coup?
|
|
|
|
Post by guyverman1990 on May 5, 2016 19:49:03 GMT
I'm also secretly prejudiced against all countries with fucking hideous borders, so even if the Sunni State did come into existence, we'd have to kill it with fire and oil money.As long as Wahabis/Salafists don't take power. |
|
|
|
Post by huojin on May 6, 2016 14:41:27 GMT
I'm also secretly prejudiced against all countries with fucking hideous borders, so even if the Sunni State did come into existence, we'd have to kill it with fire and oil money.As long as Wahabis/Salafists don't take power. Bit late for that, boyo. Just take a look at Saudi Arabia. If you're talking specific the areas of land you've drawn as "the Sunni State", I'm going to assume you're referencing Daesh, in which case I think you need to look at both how all the neighbouring countries and the international community as a whole view its existence and control over the region, and the degree to which even the Iraqis themselves have been consistently rolling back ISIS control. Quite what they'll do when they reach the Syrian border I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if they keep going to preserve their own territorial integrity in the long-run. Given the mess that has resulted from any actual attempt by Islamists to implement their agenda in the region without some moderating factor to their "ideology", I think it's extremely unlikely that local populations will abide by the system - not to mention the international community. You slightly missed two things though - I think this "model" of the future of the Middle East is not going to come to pass in the first place, and secondly (perhaps most importantly), killing the Sunni State with fire and oil money on account of it having ugly borders is very much a joke  |
|
