The last ten days have seen some important developments in the Middle East, starting with the news today that Tony Blair has resigned as the Envoy of the Quartet seeking peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I don't know what he thinks he has achieved in eight years, but it doesn't amount to much from my perspective (for what that's worth).
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...e-envoy-report
Meanwhile, IS has extended its reach to include Ramadi, a strategically important town close to Baghdad. As usual, when IS arrived, the armed forces of Iraq turned and ran, even though the IS force does not seem to contain more than a few hundred fighters. The Prime Minister has vowed that Ramadi will return to Iraqi rule soon, but if it is 'liberated' it will most likely be by the Shia militia grouped under the 'Population Mobilisation Committee' -one of the covers used by Iran to organise military attacks -and being the Middle East, wretched atrocities will be inflicted by winners on losers or anyone else who happens to be in the wrong place at the time. Should anyone really want to know who these militias are, a short guide to them is here:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/who-are-shi...e-iraq-1493743
Meanwhile, the Kurds, who have been amongst the most effective armed resistance to IS in both Iraq and in Syria, are losing patience with the incompetent government in Baghdad. An oil and gas newsletter argues that we may be moving towards independence in Iraqi Kurdistan -making it the 10th largest producer of petroleum in the world, and one that would provide it with the revenue to maintain its independence by force. Turkey would then find itself having to choose between funding extremists in Syria devoted to the overthrow of the Ba'ath government in Damascus (the current situation), or taking on the Kurds if their independence movement 'grows' into south-eastern Turkey.
http://www.oilandgasiq.com/strategy-...-3BLFAE5&disc=
What is curious in all this is that both the Iranians and the Saudis are complaining that the Obama presidency is not doing enough to defeat IS, while the architect of the 'surge' in Iraq, David Petraeus is still wedded to the view that the sectarian divide in Iraq can be healed if the Sunni are given a meaningful stake in the future of the country. Emma Sky also takes this view, but has acknowledged that Obama was keen to get the US out of Iraq, and that while the US is still bombing targets in Iraq and Syria this is the limit of the actions the US can take other than the shipments of arms, 'advisers' and other murky arrangements.
Apparently it is not enough, but it does mean that Iran and Saudi Arabia now join Israel in considering Obama a busted flush, yet the alternative would be for the US to go in to both Iraq and Syria, all guns blazing, like the 7th Cavalry, as if this re-run of 2003 would make everything right.
I wonder if in fact the American people believe Obama has a magic wand, or is it that they are now reluctant to send troops to foreign battlefields, and how is this going to be discussed among the candidates for the Presidency as the momentum to 2016 grows throughout the year?
-On the one hand it does now seem to be up to the parties to the conflict to sort it out themselves, but on the other hand, without restraints, who would really want the Saudi kingdom to replace IS as the 'Caliphate', fulfilling the long-term aim of Ibn Saud when he first established his family business in the early 20th century?
-Well it may be that Bernie Sanders, without realising it, is supporting precisely this outcome when it has been eported that:
Sanders said in a statement that the Saudi Arabian government must be responsible for stability in the Middle East and should send its own military to fight the Islamic State rather than demand that the United States undertake such actions.
http://sputniknews.com/us/20150527/1022593197.html
Perhaps someone should tell Mr Sanders that Saudi Arabia -sometimes as a state, sometimes through its wealthy citizens- has been the financial and operational hub of Middle Eastern terrorism for decades, not to mention the Saudi involvement in 9/11. Giving free reign to these followers of Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahab is a recipe for more war, not the end of it. But I doubt that Mrs Clinton would take a balanced view of the conflict, while from what I have read, Jeb Bush is still struggling to decide if regime change in Iraq was a good or a bad thing. The truth may be he wishes he was not asked the question, in which case why is he in politics?
I think IS are overstretched and cannot carry on if their money chain is seriously attacked, though this may mean blowing up oil and gas wells, and refineries. I don't think they have earned much from ransoms recently, and there is only so much they can extort from the population under their control. But the Syrian armed forces are also stretched and weary, so there appears to be no military solution right now, only more misery.
If there was something the US could do to change facts on the ground, I think it would have been done by now, but maybe I am wrong, and something could happen to change the agenda. Whatever the news is, it is unlikely to be good for some time to come...