Russia would consider air strikes in Iraq at Baghdad's request: RIA

[GreatGazoo]

Source: Reuters

Russia will consider extending its air strikes against militants in Syria to Iraq if it receives such a request from Baghdad, the RIA news agency quoted the head of the country's upper chamber of parliament as saying on Tuesday.

The speaker, Valentina Matviyenko, said Russia had so far not received such a request from the Iraqi government.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-matviyenk-idUSKCN0S00UH20151006

---

This is very similar to what Russia said before the campaign in Syria -- 'we will help if invited to do so.' They may already have a deal with the Iraqi government and this is prelude to airstrikes in Iraq.

Another major development IMHO.

[uawchild]

1. Russia has thrown in with the Shiites

Clearly, Russia's foreign policy has decide to throw in major support to the "Shiite Crescent" states stretching from Iran, threw Iraq and Syria to Lebanon. Looking at a map, these states form a continuous land border shielding Russia from the Sunni fundamentalist states led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Considering the amount of money the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia and the Sunni Gulf States have been funneling to wahabbist/fundamendalists in the region, it makes geopolitical sense for Russia to support the Shiites.

Meanwhile, may I ask what our foreign policy goals in the middle east are? To support Saudi Arabia as the dominant power? It already is , what, the number 3 spender on military equipment in the world? How soon before SA turns on Isreal? Personally, I don't trust a country like Saudi Arabia that does not even allow women to drive cars, oppresses every other religion, hates gays, and beheads people routinely.

[GreatGazoo]

2. In general our SOP seems to be to keep the governments there weak, keep regional conflicts going,

sell weapons to anyone who wants them and get the oil as cheaply as possible. The borders of many countries on your list were redrawn after WW1 so that each country would be ripe for civil war and very hard to unify. The Kurds, for example wound up with a presence in 3 countries (Iraq, Syria and Turkey) rather than a country of their own. Iraq wound up with a mix of Shiite and Sunni.

If Russia finds an on-going presence in Iraq the US is in a very bad situation militarily but the big mistake for us was to back "moderate" Al Qaeda rebels in Syria with the goal of toppling Assad. That is what created this opening for Russia in the first place.

[happyslug]

3. Saudi Arabia and Isreal have been de facto allies for decades

Last edited Wed Oct 7, 2015, 11:54 AM - Edit history (1)

While Saudi Arabia did send planes to fight in the Seven Day War, like the Iraqi Planes sent at the same time, to little to late. They did NOTHING doing the Yom Kipper War of 1973 EXCEPT to call for an oil boycott (Which the Saudis had done in 1956 and 1967, but since the US was a net oil export till 1969 those boycotts had little effect in the US, unlike the 1973 Boycott which shocked everyone on how it affected the US which in 1973 was importing 10% of its oil).

After the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, Saudi Arabia was facing an enemy it disliked, but started to look for allies. Saddam was the House of Saud's first choice (Israel supported Iran in the subsequent Iraq-Iran war) but after Saddam took Kuwait, the House of Saud looked for other allies, especially as it was clear by 1990 that Iran had recovered from the War with Saddam and after Desert Storm that Iran had extensive support in the Basra region of Iraq as while as the oil fields of Arabia and Kuwait (All are Shiite dominated areas). Iran then extended its support to other Shiite groups in addition to the Alawites of Syria, a mix of Christian and Shiite islamic beliefs (Assad is a Alawite as is most of the ruling class of Syria).

The Alawites have had close trading relations with the Christians of Lebanon for centuries, and the Alawites controlled the trade routes to Baghdad and Basra and from they into Iran. This trade route has existed since Ancient times and the parties involved have been more or less allies since the time of the First Persian Empire (and this included when the area along the Mediterranean Sea was controlled by the Roman Empire AND all of these people where pagans).

The House of Saud has controlled what is how Saudi Arabia, off and on, for the last 300 years (THe House of Saud has lost controlled twice during that time period, but then another branch of the family took back control of Arabia within 40 years (A biblical Generation). During the last 300 years the House of Saud has had to fight the Turks and the Iranians when it came to control of Arabia for neither the Ottomans or the Iranians of the time period thought taking over Arabia was worth the cost, but the biggest dispute for the House of Saud was control of the Persian Gulf which caused them to ally with Egyptian and Turkish forces against Iran starting in the 1700s.

Please note the best way to get to Mecca, before the days of air travel, is via Palestine and/or Egypt. Given all Moslems should go to Mecca once in their life time if they can afford it, that route was a huge source of income for the House oF saud since the 1700s. Pilgrims had two options, the Camel route from Jerusalem to Jedda and then to Mecca, or the boat route from the Sinai Peninsula to Jedda and then to Mecca. Given there is no real good port north of Jedda, most took the Camel Route and thus why since the 700s Egypt and whoever controlled Jerusalem was important (Till Air Travel and improved Sea travel after WWII made the Jerusalem route to Mecca less important).

Thus the "Natural" Allies of Iran follow the fertile crescent to Lebanon, while the Natural Allies of Arabia is tied in with Egypt and its alliance or control over Palestine (now Israel). Thus Saudi Arabia, while still saying it supports its fellow Arabs support for the the Palestinian people, the House of Saud look to Egypt and Israel as its Natural Allies and have been treating them as such since the 1990s (and in regard to Egypt since at least the 1960s when Egypt sent its Army into Yemen to support Saudi Arabia's position within Yeman).

Now, Natural Allies often break up, but then rejoin later on. The classic example is England and Spain. During the Middle Ages both feared France, thus were natural allies to each other. In fact the Spanish Armada was more an attempt to restore the alliance then a true invasion. During the Napoleonic Wars the Alliance was restored and they have stayed allied ever since (and in the late 1600s the alliance reformed for a few years, till the King of Spain died and his only heir was the King of France, which broke up the alliance again). Another "Natural Alliance" was Scotland and France's alliance against England, that lasted tll the King of Scotland became the King of England (and even then it did not die away, French troops landed in Scotland to fight with the Highland Scots against the English in 1745).

Side note: During the Napoleonic Wars the Stuart heir to being King of England and Scotland was a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, which ended up allied with England against the French. Because of the French Revolution the Cardinal lost his income from France, which England then agreed to replace to make sure the Cardinal did not ask his highland supporters to do something pro France during the war. Natural Alliance can be undone for a few years as can be seen with the Stuart heri to the Throne of England during the Napoleonic wars but in the long term they tend to keep coming back.

Right now, the House of Saud has an understanding and a de facto alliance with Israel in addition to the Generals of Egypt and Turkey. The people of Arabia, Egypt and Turkey oppose that alliance but also oppose Iran. Thus they is no support within Arabia to go after Israel unless the house of Saud is overthrown (And same rule as to Egypt, in Turkey the situation is more complex for you have an elected government in Turkey as opposed to a dictartorship as in Arabia and Egypt).

Side note: Yes, Egypt held elections, but like Haiti, where the party with the most support among the people was banned from being on the ballot and Write in Candidates are NOT permitted. Thus the people of Egypt had the right to vote for anyone who oppose the people they support.

If and when the House of Saud Collapses, the Eastern quarter of the country will ally with Iran (and take with it most of the oil in Arabia, but not all of it), the rest will revert to City states with some areas rural pasture lands controlled by whatever tribe controls that area.

Thus the House of Saud will say that it wants Israel destroyed, but the House of Saud will work with Israel. If Arabia stays united but the House of Saud losses control, then you will see Arabia attack Israel, but that is the long shot, the most probable result of the end of rule by the House of Saud is the strengthening of Iran and the Shiite alliance as Arabia breaks up, much like the old Soviet Union did.

As to Arabis itself, I see Egypt moving into Western Arabia, Israel has the firepower to do so, but NOT the manpower, Egypt has the manpower and this will go into Western Arabia backup with Israeli Firepower (and in support of what support the House of Saud has in Arabia at that point in time). This will secure the Red Sea Coast and the route to Mecca. I see the Persian Gulf States all falling to their Shiite Majorities and then allying closely with Iran (Annexation by Iran is possible but in modern politics leaving them appear to be independent is a much better option). I see Yeman moving north into the Empty Quarter (name given the area just north of Yemen, for no one lives there do to the lack of water).

Oman, on the southeast Corner of the Arabian Peninsula, is neither Shiite or Sunni, but a Islamic Group that rejects both traditions and has survived for Oman was on the place to no where till the Portuguese arrived in the 1500s. Prior to the Portuguese, the trade route was via the Persian Gulf, after the Portuguese, it was along the African Coast, Somali, Yemen, Oman and then to India. Oman became important till ships became large enough not to need to hug the coast and sail straight to India. At that point, the 1600s, Oman returned to being a back water.

Thus I do not see Oman expanding to far north, even through the area to its north has more water then the area north of Yemen. The main reason is as you head north, Oman starts to take in to many Shiites and thus reduce the power of its Ibadi Branch of Islam. Ibadi were a moderate wing of the radical Kharijites who reject Caliph Ali's decision to arbitrate a dispute over his rule as oppose to leaving God decide the issue in a battle. This position that battle is better then arbitration is rejected by Shiites and Sunnis, but is the core of the Kharijites and Ibadi break with both branches of Islam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibadi

Surprising while the Kharijites were NOT tolerate of either branch of Islam or other religion, Ibadi is highly tolerate of other religions, much more then Shiites of Sunni (you have Hindu Temples in Oman as while as Christians Churhes, something unheard of in Saudi Arabia). All the other branches of Kharijites have died out, but the Ibadi branch survives in Oman.

[uawchild]

4. fascinating analysis!

Last edited Wed Oct 7, 2015, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Thanks for the detailed and thought provoking post. As for the stability of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, I think its police-state infrastructure and willingness to crush opposition with overwhelming military force, as it is doing in Yemen at the moment, will ensure that it will stay intact, albeit with severe brutality, for the foreseeable future.

[happyslug]

5. Several Scholars disagree with the Stability of the House oF Saud.

The use of force is a sigh that the House of Saud has a weak control over its population. You do NOT need to use force, if your hold over the people is strong, it is when that control and support is weak you see an increase in violence. This is what happened in South Africa in the last decades of Apartheid (1960s through the 1980s), and the Soviet Union as it dissolved (In the case of the Soviet Union the period of unrest was less then half a decade, but the unrest existed between 1985 and 1989 as the Soviet Union Lost the support and then the control over its people).

One of the reason for the fall of the Soviet Union was you finally had rulers who had NOT meet Stalin. It was a generational change, much like what happened in Europe just before WWI. The same thing is going on today in Arabia. We are seeing the last of the Sons of King Saud I (who died in 1953) dying (his last sons were born in the late 1940s). Thus we are seeing the grandsons take more and more power and being grandsons and thus cousins, more willing to pull out the knives to stab competitors for power then were their fathers (who were brothers to each other and thus grew up together to a certain degree, through most had different mothers, the difference in mothers is another factor in the ongoing in family infighting among the House of Saud).

A generational change in rulers is always dangerous, to many young people in charge and not enough older people telling them to calm down for they are heading for disaster (It is better to have a mix of the old and the new, the old to tell the new what will NOT work for it failed in the past AND to tell the young you have to work with your enemies for in the long run, your enemies today will be your allies ten years from now). The Mongol Rule of China ended when the Grandsons of Kublai Khan fought over who would rule China (The Ming Dynasty ended up defeating all of the Mongol Claimants). Otton von Bismark warned Kaiser Wilhelm II that he was bringing it to many new people with him and those new people ended up leading Germany into WWI. Franz Joseph, the Ruler of the Austria-Hungary had ruled that country successfully for decades, but brought in a whole new set of advisers just before WWI and we can see the results of that decision.

Just a comment, the House of Saud is going through a generational Change, and in such a change infighting breaks out (Gorbachev-Yeltsin fight in the last years of the Soviet Union is a recent example of this). In the case of the Soviet Union, it was the leaders of the Soviet version of the US National Security Agency that tried to do a coup, the result was the end of the Soviet Union, something the coup plotters did not even think possible (and they were a third party to the Gorbachev-Yeltsin fight going on at that same time period, thus you have to watch not only the people up front by other members of the ruling elite, and in the cause of Arabia that is the Ruling House of Saud and their close allies).

King Saud has several wives, each produced several sons and daughters. The Daughters ended up marrying some cousin, but now the grandsons and granddaughters of King Saud I are marring each other to create even more infighting and alliances between the branches of the family. (each marriage being with it additional allies within the internal family fight).

Side note: It is only with the Catholic Church in the Middle ages that you see a ban on marrying your cousin. Marrying one's cousins seems to have been the rule in the days of Rome and remain so today outside "Christian" Counties (i.e. Counties with Strong Christian traditions, such as Europe, Russia and both North and South America). The only non "Christian" Country to ban marrying one's cousin is China and they appear to have done so for the same reason Christian Europe did so, to prevent concentration of wealth within certain families by spreading out that wealth by marriage to non cousins.

I bring up marrying cousins for that is an additional complicating factor in the ongoing fight for power among the members of the House of Saud. I have tired to determine the alliances within the House of Saud, but who is married to whom is often NOT on the net. The present King is a Son of King Saud I, but the line of succession includes a grandson for the first time ever (The King of Arabia is an elected position from among the male members of the House of Saud, since 1990 they have elected a successor to the existing king who takes over when the king dies and a new successor is selected, that potential successor is called the "Crown Prince&quot .

Some previous posts on this problem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=628856

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=829526

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=960879

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=640342

The present Crown Prince of Arabia is the Grandson to King Saud I:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Nayef

Muhammad bin Nayef is the son of one of the Sudairi Seven, seven sons of one wife of King Saud I who as a group are considered the closest allied and most powerful block of children of the Second Generation of Saud sons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudairi_Seven