Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
Sectarianism is probably too great a barrier to a Turko-Iranian alliance. Turkey is majority Sunni, Iran is Shia. They typically don't get along, and it's hard to what their common interests are ATM- certainly there's not enough there to prompt any sort of military alliance but who knows- stranger things have happened.
There's plenty of ingredients for a major regional war in the Middle East. You've already got the Iranians and the Saudis fighting a proxy war in Yemen. You've got ISIS getting increasingly desperate in Iraq. You've already got Russian and U.S. airpower backing rival factions in Syria, with other regional players stoking the flames. It's a powder-keg.
In Europe, you've got the continued fighting in East Ukraine. You've got Russian saber rattling towards the Baltics. You've got the U.S. and NATO flexing in response. You've got instability in several of the former Soviet republics in the Caucuses.
The EU just lost a major member with the Brexit. The refugee and economic strains on south and east European member states are giving rise to right-wing movements. I could see other members leaving or even getting the ol' heave-ho (here's looking at you, Greece).
In Asia, you've got the Chinese pushing further out into the S. China Sea, building island airfields and taking pot shots at Vietnamese fishing trawlers. The Philippines starting to lean towards Beijing was pretty unexpected. I'm going to have to ponder the possible ramifications of that curveball.
And then North Korea is the ultimate wild card. Who knows what that regime will pull, especially if it feels threatened by foreign or domestic pressures.
I doubt it'll happen, but what if a U.S. presidential hopeful actually gets elected and follows through on his thinly-veiled threats to pull funding and troops from NATO? That might be just the invitation Putin needs to make his play for the Baltics.
|
I'm thinking more along the lines of the Turko-Iranian alliance being more of a thing of convenience where both sides are getting what they want to some degree, but neither really committing fully. Each secretly hoping the other half gets burned by the maneuvering where they agree something should be done. Iran with its nuclear capabilities recently gained, Turkey with its strategic location and Russia perhaps getting its fleet into areas it couldn't in the past. Perhaps Russian surplus ships sold to Iran as part of a cementing move - both with the understanding that in order to maintain any of the surplus ships, the Iranians will have to deal through Russia to get the spare parts and training for maintenance crews.
If we presume that the EU starts to experience some difficulties due to fragmentation, we might see not only Greece attempting to exit the Union, but perhaps Ireland or Portugal or perhaps even France. I don't know the local politics enough to say yay or nay on that. But from what I'm reading, it seems that the issue, as ever, revolves around money and political power. Greece is blaming the EU for its woes, all the while refusing to accept an austerity budget. It kinda looks grim there from what I'm reading. I almost wonder if that might be deemed an opportunity for Russia. If they have access to the Mediterranean sea via Turkey AND Greece, NATO would have a hard time containing the break out from the Black Sea.
If Russia sends aid to Syria, Iran, and Greece, and works on obtaining Cypress as part of its alliance - NATO might be harder pressed towards containing the Russian Fleet. Question is - to what end? What is it that Russia wants at this point in time? A fractured NATO would play right into Russia's hands, something that Donald Trump, as President might facilitate. Once that "mistake" is made, perhaps the US might recommit to the welfare of NATO, but by then, it would be a weaker position. If Hillary Clinton is Elected instead, what might the ramifications be? Pay for Play making it such that a sufficient "bribe" might cause the US to withdraw from NATO sufficiently to weaken it (same effect either way the US decides who becomes the next president perhaps? Just different reasons for the same effect?)
The thing from my perspective is "Why". War's aren't fought just because. They usually have a triggering point, and a final objective. With the current climate regarding the US-Israeli relationship, one could almost expect that with one president, we'd have a worsened relationship, with the other president, we'd have a strengthening relationship. Perhaps an Iran/Syria axis threatening Israel might be a focal point. By itself, I don't think it would start a massive war. But the result of a game of chess (so to speak) in conjunction with Syrian/Iranian Alliance AND Russia playing a grand game - and a Russian Fleet in support of Syria and Iran - perhaps the first nuclear warheads get launched by Iran, only to be met by retaliation by Israel, then engulfing the Balkan region in a war thanks to the Russian grand strategy? What does Russia Gain from the scenario just outlined?