Sun 18 Jun, 2017 07:15 pm
Everybody has an opinion about why the US is in Syria.
The one that seems most plausible to me is - following proxy players and overlapping narratives - that the US is throwing significant firepower behind an effort to keep Iran from rising to hegemonic regional power. I would've never arrived at this conclusion myself because Iran hardly seems to be a player in the heat of battle right now, but I read some historians, ME journalists, and other interesting on-the-ground commenters who put the pieces together.
Of course, the war is in flux, the players seem to shift sides routinely, and the coverage isn't as sexy as trying to get Trump impeached.
I think it's about to trump Trump.
We have been fighting by proxy until today, it seems. We're out, now.
When Obama originally engaged, it was my impression he merely wished to oust the government and saw an opportunity, he figured, to help a pro western regime take power. But, like everything else the foreign powers attempt over there, it unraveled and after becoming a total mess, Russia stepped in with its own agenda. Personally I see no clear objective for the Americans these days.
Iran has launched missiles in Syria.
One of these major interlopers is bound to hit another.
If Iran has officially ditched the dollar, as I just read elsewhere, it all starts to fall in place.
Yes. Watching this pretty closely.
An interesting prognostication about how a US /USSR (oops, sorry) Russian skirmish in Syria might look.
I'm currently thankful that the recent downed plane hasn't resulted in open hostility yet.
Is the US actively goading Syria/Iran/Russia into a hot war?