m.france24.com/en/20160618-usa-s … bassador-s
I’ve never seen anything of this scale done before by the diplomatic corps, they usually are not the war hawks. Just about everyone at this point is frustrated with Obama.
small edit:
war cartel asks Diplomats to Sign Petition to Bomb Assad
Who are the war cartel exactly?
In other news fifty one American diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia to declare war on Syria.
To be fair Syria is quite prone to be declared war on, from every angle. It usually happens. No big deal. When the emeny isnt decimating them their own leaders are. Its all good, classic human culture. Damascus is five thousand years old. Who are we to judge. Let them make kebab of one another. It is a spicey smell, curling up that rock.
Where do you guys get these stupid ideas from?
m.france24.com/en/20160620-numbe … bal-trends
We now have more refugees than during WW2.
Reason they are wanting to Bomb Assad is to dramatically reduce the time period of the war, by removing the main obstacle to peace. He is the dynastic successor to his father… in a dynasty, political coalitions coalesce around the dynasty, the opposing factions can’t get much influence till the next dynasty, save through intrigue or launching a coup.
In Syria, everything us in a state of total war, the highest security around Assad, no stone unturned. Political factions are a given, some by default will lean more moderate… they can’t assassinate him for the same reasons coup attempts against Hitler failed… people care too much to live, fearful it will backfire or harm them… from the very top to the grunt doing the assassination. I assure you Assad’s security is excellent at screening out those looking for revenge at any cost, he only meets with those he needs to, and has a good middleman as a filter.
Honestly, a well placed middle on Assad would do wonders. US can restrain the Arab Coalition to focus on Al-Nursa and ISIS if a successor to Assad agrees to figth them too, a joint ceasefire backed by Russian and US airforces… either side gets out of line, we both nail them hard under a joint command. Russia only wants a return on it’s stupid shortsighted investments… Assad stuck a lot of those contracts in Arab areas.
This war would of been over a year ago had we had even a decent president. The ban on assassination is a executive order, a policy no different than the ban on negotiating with terrorists, Obama dropped it for Bergdahl…
I’m note than willing to let the Shia half of Syria to be under Russia’s Sphere of Influence, it will be as useful for Russia long term as Egypt was for France on and off since the middle ages (in other words, a waste of time). They are obsessive compulsive over it, I say encourage this.
Kill Assad doesn’t extend the war, it shortens it. Any conspiracy for selling weapons or a military I industrial capitalist conspiracy is bizarre… they benifit from Assad living, not getting blown up at a banquet. Sayonara I say to him.
Hello Mr. Ferguson
I was not surprised when I read this. In the interview Obama gave The Atlantic he responded to those suggestions that the US should bomb Syrian targets to facilitate diplomacy: "If there had been no Iraq, no Afghanistan, and no Libya, Obama told me, he might be more apt to take risks in Syria. “A president does not make decisions in a vacuum. He does not have a blank slate. Any president who was thoughtful, I believe, would recognize that after over a decade of war, with obligations that are still to this day requiring great amounts of resources and attention in Afghanistan, with the experience of Iraq, with the strains that it’s placed on our military—any thoughtful president would hesitate about making a renewed commitment in the exact same region of the world with some of the exact same dynamics and the same probability of an unsatisfactory outcome.” (theatlantic.com/magazine/arc … /471525/#4). While it is not popular I respect his reasoning. I am sure that one can look at the same information and reach a different conclusion, but I think he raises a valid point. No one knows the consequences of a military intervention, and Obama should know better than most. While Hillary and Kerry are more hawkish, Obama has maintained a realistic outlook late in his Presidency because he has also been persuaded by his own idealism early on in his Presidency.
Obama realizes two things. One that we are already involved in too many conflicts in the region, and two that others should be more concerned (the Europeans for example) and commit their resources to the fight. Obama classifies the conflict as a civil war; that tells me that in front of him there is not enough information to suggest that it is the majority of the people who want Assad out. This might be in part because of the make up of Assad’s army. But never mind that. When W. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq, I think he was convinced that US forces would be received as liberators, as heroes. We have been proven wrong. I therefore respect the President’s pessimism in trying to avoid more entanglements in fights we don’t have any skin to lose.
No… this civil war happened on his watch, a direct result of his policies. I was under attack by the ISIS / Al Nursa predecessors, they would come out of Syria in 2007, find the city fortified, skirmish at the marine base outside it’s base (our B company, the company Bergdahl would later join, had to be sent up there to reinforce them)… then they woukd mosie on down heading Towards Iskandariya… where they died, like Groundshog Day, some way each time, same stupid location, little variation.
Assad was letting these guys train in Syria and they were attacking us. Obama made his presidential bid off of the malaise that was setting in from this… but it was manageable, they never broke through our defences here when ISIS later came storming through in my area, Iraqi government continued the tradition. What went downhill was all the many other places where troops obviously didn’t, Mosul, Falluja… why?
Honestly, I’m asking you. Obama lost control of tge political process, Shia began dominating the sunni, sunni played on the frontier borders of the two states, gained autonomy. They went after the places either central government was prepared to defend, in terms of priorities.
When we let the Shia dominate the Sunni, within the larger balance of powers between Sunni and Shia populations across the region,… the Sunni freaked out. The Shia are better organized and fortified… in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and under the US and the Madhi Militia, Iraq. They didnt hesitate to send arms, special forces, cash, and militias across the region. It is why Saudi Arabia freaked out over Yemen… the Shia are smaller and weaker, but much more willing to link up and share talent.
We shouldn’t be surprised in hindsight the Sunni resurrected the caliphate as a reaction, but once tgis is understood, it is obvious from the start Sunni Nationalism is competing against a limitless caliphate. This is not a new phenomena at all, quite old. Mamluks did much the same.
End result is you have a mix of warlords, some favoring a state (not necessarily the state we recognize) as far as their alliances and enemies, and frenemies, allow them. They need to feed their people first and foremost, to even have a garrison or deployable militia. They need to network and ally, but don’t want to lose their status… the achievements and abilities they already have… such as the 200 chickens you captured… you want those two hundred chickens, their coups, that village… if you join a larger coalition. Sunni prefer Sunni, Shia Shia, but not always… Sunni back Assad, and Sunni back the Iraqi Government in both countries. I believe (if my translations are correct) tge Iraqi call these “Sons of the Tribe” movements, Sunni still loyal. Why are they loyal? The only Arabs around arent acting friendly… Nursa and ISIS, they are actively competing for resources, land, and manpower, makimg threats, and making good on those threats. So, the network of possible alliances favor the state.
In Syria, they have these issues too, but it is more complicated, as theis regiem lost all legitimacy in most Sunni eyes. We already are a very active element in this civil war. To view it as a civil war is very self deceptive. ISIS doesnt, Al Nursa doesnt, as far as UN recognized international borders are concerned. Assad doesn’t, his manpower and logistics tie in heavily to the Iranian-Hezbollah network, built over the years to target Israel, it is very much a interstate affair. Russia supplies the rest. This is community to community, sector by sector. It is this logic which explains the Russian Airforce bombing pattern. They are after areas near Assad, which have the highest potential for recruits, and the largest amount of warring factions… no clear leaders. Aleppo is a good target for this reason. Good recruiting grounds too. City solidifies the border with Lebanon, to Assad’s main lands south.
Assad, even with Russia and fancy weapons, cant move for years to retake most of Syria, he has to rebuild a army from scratch, recruits. Most of his money options are promisary, to Russia… they have conteacts stretching out decades for Russia to develop agriculture (russians arent interested in farming) and oil lands. Syria gets military goods now, in return for that. Assad is personally dug in deep.
This war wont end for years, short of Iraq invading Syria next year… not impossible, but not likely beyond short raids and holding outskirt crossings.
This changes rapidly however if Assad’s dynasty collapses. Many Sunni groups can come over for alluances if convience, then larger coalition building. The new Shia leader in Syria will need to appease the Russians, his political base, while building a new one. ISIS generally goes on the offensive when uncertainty occurs… he will be heavily pressed. Russia will panic, because they will lose their investments. US… wont care much… we will still be attacking ISIS, despite ISIS throwing everything against Assad.
The priority of tge new leader will be to appease russia, make up for his manpower shortages, build a new military and political base. He wont be the pariah Assad was, even if he committed crimes, we can look the otherway and it will only be some loopy Spanish judge making a fuss for the ICC. Most western countries will come around, limited sactions lifted. This will energize his economy, make his currency more credible, allowing him to raise troops, bribe, make alliances. US will likely be willing to a limited partnership too. Turkey’s main complaint against Assad will evaporate, when Assad dies.
End resukt us a rapid end of the war. The new Syrian coakition becomes the basis of a federal army and parliament.
Sitting back all Startrek, is about the worst decision one could make. Why? We are actively bombing them, daily, funding 1/3rd of tge factions in this “civil war”. Why the hell woukd we not finish the job? Either finish or leave. Assad has committed dome serious crimes against humanity. If we signal to Russia we accept they have a long term future in Russia, they won’t fight us. They cam well guess we have short term goals, and they themselves have to get in good with Sunni in Syria and Iraq… their investments are ironically in these areas. They can’t be seen betraying Assad abd the larger Shia network. Iran would flip out… but a done fact is a different matter all together. They are picking up the pieces.
Iran can’t blockade the persian gulf anymore, after the parallel canals were dug. A Airwar with Artillery would go very badly for them. Saudi has a narrow front, US support, while Iran is dispersed and easy for light infantry to penetrate on commando missions along the shore. It isnt desirable, given how thin Iran’s hold is currently. If Iran does badly in a air and artillery skirmush, it will encourage seperatist movements, it us a poorly unified country, Ethnically and in terms of loyalty. Their chief desire is to maintain a offensive footing, not loose allies. A unwinnable war isnt a option, considering how badly their militias are holding in Syria and Iraq.
I see no good reason not to bomb Assad. Should of been done long ago. No valid reason to hesitate and to some fake chin stroking and muse on philosophy debating civil wars, proxies… we are involved… yet we aren’t somehow magically. What us the enlightened highroad? Hmmmm, hmmmm. I can imagine Obama thinking these deep thoughts. It is bullshit, just blow up Assad already, make immediate overtures to the Syrian military, offer airdrops of supplues, and a few satellite phones so we can talk. We should already have a shortlist of preferred successors to Assad. I cant imagine the state department and DoD overlooked this wishlist of petty tyrants to take over. We can count on the Syrian Kurds to make some phonecalls too.
It’s all about oil, natural resources, and American military hegemony in the Middle East, everything else is bullshit or propaganda noise.
PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION.
yeah, saddam hussein is behind 911, we have to invade Iraq and free the iraqis people. (bomb the country with depleted uranium, among other things)
yes we have to invade libya and topple gaddhafi… all of which created a giant mess and started EU migrant invasion… great!
sorry but you do NOT know what you are talking about. Intervention HAS/IS an agenda onto itself. Always been and NEVER benefits the masses.
Do you have war stocks, speculate on killing?
I read this morning that Israel’s Killing of Yasser Arafat With Polonium is very likely… conclusion of french doctors and jurists which delayed their decision on whether to reopen an investigation into the cause of Yasser Arafat’s death, but mounting evidence of polonium poisoning and shocking admissions suggest an explosive assassination cover-up has been underway for over a decade.
yeah, let go and invade the middle east now. Laughable!
Intervention = WW3 = die offs because robots will soon takeover most jobs. Darwin’s fraudulent last word ???
Hello Mr. Ferguson
A lot of unforeseen bad stuff happens on a President’s (ANY) watch. We cannot hold Obama responsible for something that probably was brewing, as all sectarian conflict, well before we ever got involved.
Assad was letting ISIS train in Syria? Perhaps there is some truth to that. I believe that Assad allowed ISIS safe haven in Raqqa if for no other reason that to show the West they reality they would face if he was gone. He planted the problem for which he would be the solution. The blunders that created ISIS predate Obama, going to Al Zarqawi in 2003. But it is more than this, I think. The reason why staying the fuck out is a respectable position is because any effective action would require the commitment of US resources and troops at a level that is unsustainable given our circumstances and nature. We don’t give enough of a fuck to stay on point. 9/11 was able to coalesce American resolve and so perhaps the reason we haven’t seen another attack of such level, even when within the capacity of ISISI to conduct due to their various foreign fighters with passports, is because it makes the need for action less pressing for the US. The issue in Iraq and Syria is a festering distrust between Sunnis and Shias. The Sunnis are now like the Jewish people in that they have become a question without a solution. What we have before us is the unraveling of colonial lines and a region that must write it’s own history. Do we really care as a nation about a Sunni homeland? We left at what now seen clearly as a bad time, but there is no historical precedent for a good time to leave. At some point the US would have had to leave and at that point it would be those people having to be fair and just among themselves for them to move forward as a nation. that is no easy task and there is no guarantee that they will succeed.
What would you have rather seen on Obama’s watch?
An end to us involvement at a given date, no matter what, or a continuation of US involvement in sectarian violence, in civil war, overseeing the democratic elections of corrupt Warlords, child rapists mother fuckers, and be soiled by their abuses of power? Fuck that! Let’s use that money to fix the VA and help veterans that are coming home in pieces. This does not mean that Obama has done nothing or that we should do nothing, but that we should act only when a clear option is present. Assad is bad, but we have learned from toppling one too many dictators that good does not always step in to fill the power vacuum, but rather centuries of suppressed sectarianism. Let’s take out terrorists with drones, or other covert strikes because acting on behalf of a local warlord or moderate rebel group has no guarantee of success. And look out because this will be the approach most natural to TRump. I believe that he will try to take the fight to ISIS but eventually settle into an expanded used of US means of wars to carve out whatever measure of security we can while letting the region’s powers finally grow tired of war.
The people winning against ISIS have been Shias and Kurds because they are fighting for their land, for a land in which a post ISIS Iraq would be their land. Sunnis do not have this. The mistrust in them was set by the W. Bush administrations and continues to this day. ISIS and other terrorist draw from this anger and remain as good an option as any.
No. Assad is a client of Iran, which is predominantly Shia. The Sunni are the core of the terrorist groups opposing Assad.
I think that Russia is approaching this from a realpolitik stand-point. They want a strong man in power, not a democracy, or an effective society. Keeping Assad as a puppet makes a lot of sense, which is why their strategy is so clear. The US is put in an unwinnable situation as all the opposition to Assad is reduced to ISIS who wants nothing but the worst for America. Obama is, I think, looking for a suitable replacement for Assad before taking out Assad, but Russia’s move has effectively eliminated any likely replacements that Obama may have had in mind which is brilliant…if you’re Putin.
One. ISIS was on the ropes after the surge in 2003 only to pop up again even stronger because the underlying problem needs to be resolved. ISIS is a symptom of the Sunni anger in the region. Two, there is no credible substitute in sight, would create another power vacuum which will be filled by the proxies of Saudies, Turkey, Qatar, Iran, Iraq, US, and Russia, not to mention the Warlordism and terror.
We have a proven history of being unreliable and unfaithful, so I would not blame the Syrian Army if they stay by their man…Iphone6 be damned.
anybody who doesnt see anything wrong with going into debts to kill/genocide others is by definition immoral. Period. the war tax is the ultimate slavery. A state that is war driven, does not care about its citizens, regards them like ants.
moreover, intervention is cause #1 of terrorism. Did supporting bin landen against the russians work? That must be why NATO is demonizing russia as I type this… war 3 is coming and we’d all better wake up!
many people on here should visit globalresearch.ca
EU should not lift sanctions against Russia: NATO
Putin proposes formation of a ‘great Eurasian partnership’
Like he’ll he wasn’t responsible for letting this unfold in the way it did. I’m not specialized in the philosophy of language like Faust is, but military and political philosophy. I’m not so easily convinced when I can look across history and see similar situations handled better and worst. Our state department and DoD is supposed to have these experts way better than me making excellent cases in terms of options to be pursued. I can’t imagine Obama was paying any damn attention, case in point our fucked up attempt to train a FSA in Turkey and Jordan… we dropped millions to produce tiny platoons sent in piecemeal with no support. He clearly is a bizarre fuckup. Only thing comparible would be the bay of pigs… that was a ify foothold operation not taken with enough force and support… but Kennedy looked like a strategic mastermind compared to Obama. I literally could of trained more just showing up in Kurdish Syria for the cost of a plane ticket, than he did with millions. Utterly bizarre and inept.
In regards to a Sunni Homeland… outside of the Kurds (who are Sunni) no, we haven’t shown much interest in creating a Sunni Homeland. Likewise not much interest in a Shia. Assad is a client state of Iran, but is also a Client State of Russia and Israel… effectively. If we were to express it in terms of vassalage, Iran is getting far less, as well as Russia, than Assad is giving. Assad is mostly taking advantage. His government would of collapsed had Iran and Russia not made the overtures to one another. Cuba looked close for a while, but won’t go on another Syrian deployment unless compensated heavily… enough to make up for falling back under US sanctions. Cuba has a history in Syria.
Putin mostly has business dealings with unaligned states that are stable… the Russian central bank doesn’t want strong men, it wants stable returns on leases and contracts for it’s overseas investments, and safety for it’s workers. I’m certain Putin would smile if Assad died, it would solve all his problems in Syria, so long as he had guarantees under the next leadership Russian debts and contracts would be honored. They have a ton of 30 year leases in Syria, and a lot of investment in Iraq. Assad is great in that he is painfully indebted, but he can’t supply much in terms of repayment of his debt. A new Syria, that US is increasingly uninterested in, goes a much farther way than relying on Assad does.
We can’t carve a Sunni homeland for the same reason we can’t carve a Shia. Kurds are unlikely to join, and the regional factions are unlikely to come together save through conquest unifying them… Isis and Nursa both failed, or grand coalitions… only ISIS, Nursa, and the Kurds have enough pull and group feeling to consistently cross boarders and be accepted. The tribes that control strongholds have limited alliances at best, because they are controlled by a petite nobility. The ultimate reason they couldn’t unify is this. Pan Arabism, such as Syria, Iraq, and Egypt was a clever idea when first attempted, but fell apart because they couldn’t balance out inequalities, and regional units still resembled the shape of the old states. Look at Libya… it was split into two Parliaments for the longest time, Egypt is fighting tooth and nail against Gaza and ISIS in the East Sanai, Jordan yesterday sealed off it’s military border with Saudi Arabia and Yemen (walls people…m well, chain link fences with concertina wire between, but it works), Turkey has been fortifying it’s border with Syria and parts of Kurdish Iraq, Kuwait of course is locked down, Morocco in the south has been fortified since the invaded, and I won’t include anything south of the Air Mountains into this analysis… not Arab, though definitely impacted. How would you integrate Afghanistan and Pakistan with Iran and the White Hunnic groups stopping overland link ups, and Russia controlling the overland crossings, effectively sealing off Dagastan and surrounding regions?
A Arab Homeland isn’t possible… these states have severe Machiavellian issues with one another, and internally most are hardly cohesive. They are more likely to bomb one another. It will be a very long time before sentiment turns in the direction of a modern Arab republic, it is definitely souring on a medieval caliphate ran by hoodlums. It isn’t as easy as it was for Italy, and that took centuries to do. The Sunni populations between Syria and Iraq are equally that hard to unify into a state, it us why nobody takes that seriously. They would be landlocked like Jordan, prone to high militarization to protect it’s nebulous frontiers in the Anbar… no natural obstacles… Iran would quickly swallow up Shia Iraq, that Arab state would be in the pinchers, guaranteed to quickly seek out nuclear weapons as a counterbalance. It would have Jordan-Sanai and Kurdish-Turkey routes for support, with Syyria/Lebanon pressing Iran non a awkward to hold horizontal axis. It can’t survive short of Prussian levels of militarization and paranoia. Do we really need such a state? Turkey might want it, doubt Jordan. It would be a nightmare for NATO (despite Turkish joy), cause like North Korea is could snap on it’s friends at any moment.
No… I’m more inclined to insisting on Syrian and Iraqi federalism, with local autonomy. The factions that can compromise should be the piwerholders in the new Parliaments, especially Syria. Assad has shown this willingness (no other way to do it), but nobody fucking trusts Assad, on any side. They may take that offer up under a new Shia federal regiem emerging out of the toasted smashed carcass of Assad in return for a real a real ceasefire and coordination though.
I’he supported pan Arabism in the past, but realistically it isn’t happening anymore than pan-cristianity was going to resurrect the Roman Empire during the Renaissance. If the culture is educated, strong middle class, a federalized military that is as well trained and educated as the US, I think it would be a boon for the world. Large states gravitate towards stability and mutual concerns after a initial period of confrontation. Not saying they result in peaceful Utopias, but war tends to be prohibitively expensive to have between one another. Long term thinking, a unified Arab State is pallitable… just sure the hell isn’t pulling together out of this mess. It is a good suggestion to advocate though, as long as it is tolerant and secular regarding it’s martial prerogatives.
Hello Mr. Ferguson
Alright. Give me a similar historical case that has ended well in the ME. Also how do you define, in the ME context, “better” and “worse”? I know that this seems philosophy of language or some stuff like that, but it is aimed at the root of our problems which is that what for some seems “better” for others it is “bad” because there is no objective measure by which to judge this stuff, except, maybe, by the number of terrorist attacks we suffer as a nation. I am not saying that this is the measure that you are using, but I can imagine a similar attempt at an objective measure as to what could be considered a “better” result. But I’ll wait about what you say.
Obama did have a few advisers, including his Sec. of State J. Kerry, who did propose taking a more aggressive military action in Syria to force Assad to the negotiating table, I don’t necessarily disagree either with these alternatives as alternatives. But the problem I have with taking a heavier load in the Syrian conflict is precisely the fact that there does not seem to be enough power in those groups, and the FSA is morally dubious and often used Al Nusra’s suicide bombers in its fight against Assad. Because our “allies” are so weak they would be eaten up by the militant groups fighting Assad, so the fact is that aiding our “allies” would in fact be aiding the militants who will be the ones filling the power vacuum. Sure, we could bomb them too, but then we become again an occupying force. Sometimes, I think, if you have no illusions about a situation, you realize that it is better to wait because the time is not right for intervention.
When we dropped millions, it was not to train and equip 50 soldiers. That that was all that such amounts of money produced should give us pause before we throw more resources at our “allies”. The same shit happened in Iraq when our US trained Iraqis folded at the sight of ISIS. From the Sec. of State’s office you cannot gauge the will to fight of a people and Obama has seen this and learned from it, just as Kennedy did.
I think that at most Israel is neutral (today) on Assad’s ouster.
Ding, ding, ding!!! And also on the Sunni homeland. I agree with all of this; what I am saying is that because of this situation military intervention is not the clear and obvious alternative. It is an alternative, but like I said, I respect the POTUS refusal to put more skin in the game, AND this is the same logic which Trumpi will use, the same he has used to walk out on NATO. He is so ready with NATO because there is no terrorist alternative to a world where the US is not part of NATO, but the POTUS has to make the calculation as to what type of world it will be without US involvement in Syrian wars. For Obama, I am sure, that calculation has resulted in a vision in which the US is actually safer by refusing to fulfill the part of foreign Crusader in ISIS’s little play. They do not have the capacity right now to attack us (or trsut me they would have had already) and we continue to degrade their capabilities through proxies that act in our stead. Is Obama correct in his calculation? Well, here is the thing, like “better” and “worse” the calculations he makes rely on subjective ideas.
But let me ask you something: What would we be fighting for in Syria? I can see why Iran and Russia would fight for, but what would be the reason to send GI’s over there only to see them come back dead, maimed, or psychologically disturbed? What would you put in Assad’s place? Someone friendly to us? He would last until Russia and Iran replace him. Again, these other players have more skin in this game than we do.
I agree, so again, I agree with the non-action by the President to allow the region time to choose a path.
Doesn’t matter what you want, but what they want over there. We have wanted such a state for years but it has not come about because it is not an idea with indigenous roots. Compromise is not easy to achieve, just as OUR Congress, so if it is difficult for a proven Federation, how difficult do you think it would be for an area where co-existence depends on suppressed aggression?
I believe that there is a war brewing. The end of the Ottoman Empire had consequences that were suppressed by Western intervention which delayed historical evolution in the area. Saddam lit up the dry grass and we have been playing fireman ever since. If not a war, then the eventual resolution of these proxy wars will be the exhaustion of Arab oil or the replacement of oil based technology leaving that area dry of surplus money that can be used on terrorism. What happens to the people? Eventually they will have to attract investment and industries. I think that the Emirates are setting up the example, turning their landscape into a tourist destination in itself.
Ill finish reading your post tonight, to your first question:
Middle East has a very long history handling these sorts of alliances actually. A system doesn’t break down into this sort of hell in fact without a lot of historical mechanisms and expectations guiding the way, it is why we have the factions leaning the way they are.
The Roman & Persian struggles over Armenia would be the first case… it always had a tendency to launch a seasonal war on the frontiers, and it always included client states in Syria, all the way to the Med. and Terhan. Many of the players involved in this war got their historical political identities in this era.
Likewise, Muslims who know their history can point to Muhammad the (questionable) peacemaker under his rule in Medina over the Jewish and Christian tribes there.
Saladin wasn’t merely a conquered, bit also a pretty skilled diplomat, and negotiated a end to the Crusades via a marriage alliance (fell through when the princess revolted, but shows his intelligence).
Turkey likewise went through many phases of strong and waning imperial authority. Middle east did well under the British and French at times… definitely wasn’t always rosy, but the crown of Jordan got control over these lands in this period. TURKEY joining NATO while the Soviet Union was pressing to it’s east and resurgent nationalism to it’s south is another case.
These are cases of stable nations and dynasties arising out of the chaos of political alliances. You can include the current incarnation of the house of Saud with Lawrence of Arabia too. Albania has done well playing it’s alliances.
What is happening in the middle east has aspects of all these wars. Islam didn’t develop in a void, it had a prehistory, many Arab tribes were active players on the Byzantian and Persian frontier. I see absolutely no reason to look at Islam as something inherently broken or screwed… it certainly has issues, I can point to the reactions of the Islamic State to Muhammad’s passing and the collapse of his theological network (Islam was a loose theological alliance, not a caliphate under Muhammad, broke up fast after her died), but I don’t think these issues are any worst than what the Greeks were dealing with prior to Macedonia invading, or Rome conquering the west, or breakdowns within the Roman Empire, or the cliques and factions China would periodically fall into till the 20th century. US doesn’t have a tribal or long state independence period. Colonial era was distant, Texas is full of shit. We are largely immune in our era, but won’t always be that way. These are concerns of human nature. Islam lacks both the resolve and capacity to fix these problems simply because it never had the ability to do so in the first place… the idea of a Caliphate never sat well with the orthodoxy of Muhammad’s household. Both sides accused each other of being heretics… whatever… impressive use of whipping yourselves with chains over a thousand years later to hold that grudge. I’m not really impressed. What I am impressed with is how deeply the parallels run between politics within Islam and outside of it,and I know states either run with these wars for centuries, slowing down only out of manpower shortages and economic exhaustion, or when larger powers loom over. We happen to be a larger power, never have we showed up and not instantly scored some allies. I think alliances forming into parliamentary representation and larger alliance blocs is a great idea for the region. A purely Sunni/Shia divide absurd… no natural borders. States that have to learn to get along, with militaries and not jihad is holding their territory together with a tolerant mix faith army best. As a Christian Philosopher who looks at both Shia and Sunni Islam, I see a lot of differences in philosophy, but most points on what appears essential in the faiths seem largely identical. I think they should know this shit off, and just focus on building their economy, national militaries, alliances and relations with other states, and not fight.