Syria reported to have use Chemical Warfare

[Junkenstein]

Will do, thanks for the tip.

[UB]

Syrian rebels have also used chemical weapons.

But then, Israel's not exactly making a deal out of this because of their abhorrence of chemical warfare and war crimes, are they?

When chemical weapons are being referred to, I have to take pause, as Israel has the leading pharmaceutical industry, globally, and Syria has accomplished remarkable progress in treating fatal diseases such as cancer. The slant of the media and of most political talk is on the destructive nature of chemical weaponry, but there is a lot that is not being revealed or conveyed. It may seem completely off topic but, in my mind, the connection goes, almost, hand in hand.

[Cain]

Um yeah.  I'm fairly sure I was referring to Israel-Syrian tensions going back to the 1940s, and the currently existing Israeli-Saudi Arabian alliance to turn Syria into a hellhole, as part of an overall plan of demolishing Iranian influence in the region.

[UB]

Um yeah.  I'm fairly sure I was referring to Israel-Syrian tensions going back to the 1940s, and the currently existing Israeli-Saudi Arabian alliance to turn Syria into a hellhole, as part of an overall plan of demolishing Iranian influence in the region.

Its completely different on a personable level when people meet people outside of the political arena on the grounds of commonalities and reverent disciplines. From where I've seen, Syria is adamantly separate from the Saudis. In and by fact, it seems more the case that the middle east, though taught to be like minded and united, are very much divided in their interests. Iran desires to produce their own petroleum, is one example reason as to why the aforementioned nations are angling against their agenda toward independent renewable energy production. One percent? Everyone needs the global passions to be focused on NONrenewable energies.

[Junkenstein]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27865759

Sunni militants have seized the northern Iraqi buffer city of Tal Afar, officials and residents say.

Militants led by ISIS - the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant - captured key cities including Mosul and Tikrit last week, but some towns were retaken.

Fighting in Tal Afar began on Sunday, with mortar shelling of some districts as militants tried to enter the city.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27834462

Barack Obama: "The US will do our part, but understand that ultimately it is up to the Iraqis as a sovereign nation to solve their problems."

The price of Brent crude spiked on Friday over concerns about the ongoing violence.

Plus tons more shit including Blair making some hilarious statements about, well, anything. The man's a loon and compulsive liar.

Interestingly enough, one of the people taking Blair to task over his nonsense is Boris "Thicker than whaleshite" Johnson. He appears to have totally forgotten his own pro-war outlook some years ago.

That said, Johnson's been doing stupid things for years and everyone forgets about them because it's the friendly tory clown. That friendly clown has a substantial list of malfeasance and mistakes. The worst fucking thing is people seem to think he's somehow funny and therefore trustworthy. Behold, the probable future face of UK politics. It's got a stupid grin and appears to be wearing a wig.

ETA - The spectator is a terrible rag that Johnson wrote/writes for. No prizes for deducing it's various biases:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/05/does-boris-johnson-really-want-to-see-tony-blair-tried-for-war-crimes/

So does Boris think Blair should be tried? We have to presume that, yes, he does. His objection to the notion is not based on principle, but on the sense that, somehow, Blair would find a way to wriggle free of his predicament and escape justice [sic]. If, presumably, there were a better chance of securing a conviction Boris would be shouting Go for it, boys.

Which is interesting, not least because Boris voted in favour of the war too. As, of course, did a majority of MPs. They did so for any number of reasons though few did so with relish or without some reservations. Boris himself now argues that he never believed all that "nonsense" about Saddam Hussein's weapons stockpiles.

Still, this isn't quite what Boris is complaining about. Rather, a) Boris did not believe the government's arguments for the war, b) he voted for it anyway and c) he now complains he was hoodwinked. I can see how you might think two of these things could simultaneously be true; it is rather more difficult to create an acceptable scenario in which all three satisfy some serious burden of truth.

[Cain]

I'm surprised ISIS and associated insurgents are pushing so hard and fast.

It does look like the Iraqi government has "mysteriously" acquired a whole bunch of Mahdi Army irregulars from somewhere (read: Baghdad jail) and they're moving to the front and helping to fortify towns on the most likely route to taking Baghdad.  In addition to that, there is an Iranian-linked militant group who are cooperating with the Army, and the Iraqi secret police are mostly Shiite Badr Organisation veterans.

So they're likely to face some actual opposition the further they push south, and by pushing the offensive now, they may be hoping to catch the more credible Shiite militias before they can entrench themselves.

Either way, it's about to get interesting.  Unlike the poor bastards in Mosul and Tikrit, these are people who know that ISIS see them as apostates.  Meaning they wont throw down arms, they'll resist.  Meaning we'll get to see if there anything behind ISIS's bluff and bravdo, or if they'll break when hit by people willing and able to fight.

[Junkenstein]

There's an idea in my head along the lines of "Blitzkrieg, Middle east style".

Either way, it's surely going to end badly for many. I guess the question is, at which point will western intervention occur? I'm guessing it may not be as far away as political talking heads make out. If nothing else it's an excellent boost to western arms dealers economies and the price of oil will result in action eventually. For their own good, of course.

[Cain]

I wouldn't object to a couple of American-led airstrikes on ISIS frontlines, truth be told.  Obviously I think the Iraqi Army and Iranian unofficial assistance should do the heavy lifting on the ground, but signals intel and air support wouldn't exactly be the worst misuse of American military power right now.

Of course, not supporting jihadists in Syria would've been a better idea, but maybe now Obama will have some political capital to thwart Saudi ambitions on the region.

[Junkenstein]

That's probably adding an undue layer of irony to the whole thing - Western intervention is political suicide at the moment and with various elections upcoming it's smarter to follow the public feeling and shun the whole thing as "someone else's problem". Get yourself elected then start a morally righteous war. Seems to be a habit over the past few decades.

I should probably make myself some kind of chart, it's getting increasingly difficult for me to keep a track of actors, interests and who's a proxy for who.

[UB]

That's probably adding an undue layer of irony to the whole thing - Western intervention is political suicide at the moment and with various elections upcoming it's smarter to follow the public feeling and shun the whole thing as "someone else's problem". Get yourself elected then start a morally righteous war. Seems to be a habit over the past few decades.

I should probably make myself some kind of chart, it's getting increasingly difficult for me to keep a track of actors, interests and who's a proxy for who.

Charting is an excellent idea!  The ebb and flow of tensions would be impossible,  it seems, without an aide.

[Junkenstein]

Interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27882932

Foreign Secretary William Hague has said he intends to re-open Britain's Embassy in the Iranian capital Tehran.

Mr Hague said the "circumstances were right" following an improvement in bilateral relations in recent months.

Full diplomatic relations with Iran were suspended after attacks on the British embassy in Iran in 2011.

The current turmoil in Iraq meant there also was a "short-term congruence of interests" that made the move more likely and which could also lead to what he described as "arm's-length" military co-ordination between Tehran, Baghdad and Washington.

"Iran is often seen as the enemy and has seen us as the enemy," he said.

"Against a backdrop of an improving relationship with the prospect of a nuclear deal, there is a prospect of having a more constructive relationship with Iran because there is a bigger enemy - which is Isis."

However, he warned the "potential for falling out with Iran is always very high".

Well, Iran is often treated as an enemy so this is a reasonable indication that ISIS are being taken quite seriously. Whether that implies they are a long term serious threat, I'm unsure. What I do know is that this fucks up my crappy chart already.

[Cain]

Not unexpected, to me at least.

British Embassy will act as a sorting-house for American coordination with the Iranians on a response (UKUSA treaty information is too sensitive for the Swiss embassy which handles normal American negotiations with Iran, one presumes).  Furthermore, it has been suggested for a while now that America may try and bring Iran in from the cold as an attempt to cool Middle Eastern tensions, or at the very least credibly balance Saudi, Turkish and Israeli (aka the "US friends only on paper" club) designs on the region.

After all, that is what has been causing the huge Israeli and Saudi hissy fit with Obama in the first place - that he isn't obviously seeking to crush the Persian Menace, but instead actually find a modus vivendi with them.

[Junkenstein]

I guess it also allows them to get a listening post spy hq diplomatic presence in the region which has probably been somewhat lacking.

I'm guessing drones suddenly got a lot more expensive for UK/USA buyers.

[Cain]

I should probably make myself some kind of chart, it's getting increasingly difficult for me to keep a track of actors, interests and who's a proxy for who.

[Junkenstein]

Thanks again.

I'll throw that out at A1 and add in other areas of relevance. Israel, Egypt and associated factions need adding as a minimum.

That said, it'll be interesting to see what that chart looks like in a year or so.