MESOP NEWS TODAYS RELEVANT DISCUSSION / JONATHAN SPYER & SETH FRANTZMAN – Nonsense from David Ignatius
THE GENERAL SUBMISSION OF THE LEFT LIBERALS TYPE WASHINGTON POST
Jonathan Spyer – From David Ignatius’s Feb 22 column: ‘Experts in Washington, Moscow and Tel Aviv are weighing whether there might be an eventual deal between the United States’ key ally in Syria, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, and a reformed Syrian army and state. That Kurdish-government alliance might be a better bulwark against Iranian influence than an unsustainable U.S. occupation; it could also be the backbone of a reformed Syria.’
Can anybody explain what this is supposed to mean?
Seth J. Frantzman This sounds like nonsense. If this happens, it’s not a bulwark, it’s the opposite. It’s a win for Iran. The regime slowly absorbs the areas of the YPG and then later the SDF. Iran’s tentacles and influence move in slowly and quietly. There is no “reform.” It’s like pretending that the victory of Baghdad over the KRG is some kind of “bulwark” against Iran and that somehow it will lead to “reforms.” This was the narrative of Obama when they supported Maliki…there is always some myth about moderation and reform.
It’s like pretending that the AKP winning the elections in Turkey is a bulwark of moderation against extremism. And surely the victory of the Brotherhood in 2012 was going to be a great bulwark against “Salafism”.
And of course, the support for “Lebanese political institutions” is also a “bulwark against Iran and Hezbollah” in Lebanon…even though it isn’t. Everywhere western policy looks it finds “bulwarks” that are not bulwarks but are actually just rivers of Iranian influence. Also the US is working closely with Qatar under the same logic.
Yet there is never any influence that Iran or other adversaries lose out. We just keep telling ourselves they lose out. And we keep imagining “reform”, “moderation” and “democracy”…
Matthew Morgenstern It means “I don’t want the United States to invade anywhere again”.
www.mesop.de