Thread: What if Syria fractures into multiple states?

Originally Posted by cyppok

Think about it this way the country goes into an uprising spiral the army is still holding up and the Alawites push for an exit plan. Ergo complete fracture and independence of the Alawite state as it was under the French. Most of good military equipment is shifted and natural border is set up at the mountains. In addition other minorities are given the same option. Druze etc...

Assad goes along with it by becoming king of the new state... and Syria fractures loosing sea access and going into full scale civil war. There is some ethnic push from one area to another similar to Turkey/Greece post 1900s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze_state


Intervention occurs by Turkey into Northern Areas and SHTF, with Kurds in Al-Hasakah Governorate declaring a state as well after being armed by Alawites prior to the fracture. Post fracture they would attempt to join with Iraqi Kurdistan which sends reinforcements to enforce the new border.

Anything else I am not thinking about is welcome. Please contribute how else this could come about and what else could go wrong.

If Syrian and Iraqi Kurds seek a state Turkey will invade which poses huge problems for the US and Iran.

Originally Posted by zraver

If Syrian and Iraqi Kurds seek a state Turkey will invade which poses huge problems for the US and Iran.

You are forgeting that most of the officer core is Alawite and they have good AA (sorta I don't really know but look at this as the SHTF scenario anyways).

Total civil war total fracture. Yes Turkey may invade but then this become not only a civil war but also an external war.

Iran will be forced by the very nature of things to support Kurds (even though it is suppressing its own) and those Iraqi Kurds will have to provide aid to the Syrian ones. You have to think and take into account other players like Russia and Mid-East Arab states whom will want Turkey out no matter what because it might have long lasting incursion and control over an Arab state. etc...

Turkey can't invade or we loose Azerbaijan and Georgia.

Snapper,

Care to enlight us?

Originally Posted by snapper

Turkey can't invade or we loose Azerbaijan and Georgia.

Do you think Turkey would care stacked against the risk of a Kurdish state?

Cyppok,

Iran's reaction to a Turkish invasion will go one of 3 ways- 1. support the Alawaites and oppose the invasion, 2. support Iraq which ever way Iraq jumps, or 3. support Turkey. 1. Is the most likely action and the one with the least benefit to Iran. 2. Means Iran will be praying the US decides to abandon the Kurds again and pressures Iraq to do the same. This would give Iran an effective status quo antebellum situation at the risk of losing face. 3. Offers Iran the most benefit, in particular sanction busting overland black market trading.

Originally Posted by zraver

Do you think Turkey would care stacked against the risk of a Kurdish state?

Cyppok,

Iran's reaction to a Turkish invasion will go one of 3 ways- 1. support the Alawaites and oppose the invasion, 2. support Iraq which ever way Iraq jumps, or 3. support Turkey. 1. Is the most likely action and the one with the least benefit to Iran. 2. Means Iran will be praying the US decides to abandon the Kurds again and pressures Iraq to do the same. This would give Iran an effective status quo antebellum situation at the risk of losing face. 3. Offers Iran the most benefit, in particular sanction busting overland black market trading.

Somewhat don't understand your first question.

Kurdish state already exists de-facto all they have to do is decide when they declare it de-jure. Iran will support the Kurdish state if it sees being cut off from Mediteranian and Kurdish state being the only way to keep that connection. Mind you there are pipelines being laid gas and oil and restored from Iran through Iraq to the Syrian coast. Iran negotiating with Iraq Kurds for recognition of their border and continuation of those projects that allow Iran to survive economically will beat Turkish intervention since that by most points would mean Nato and Us pressure to cut those pipelines out in favor of some other aspect.

Iran cannot support Turkey from a simple balance of power perspective. It will be very easy to turn it against Turkey if it invades and market the conflict as an ethnic domination Arab vs Turk instead of Sunni vs Shiite, in some ways it will be true in other it will not be.

The biggest fear for Iran would be completely pushed out of some regional dominance in the Arab world which it has right now. That dominance allows it to continue trade ties which may seem small from our perspective but very real and necessary for them.
Fear of Iran and Syrian Bloodletting | The Diplomat

Even my fracture scenario would be viable since the ports would be controlled by the Alawite state and it would negotiate with rump Syria for access as long as it gets gas/oil transit from Iran.

Why Iran Eyes a Syrian Civil War | The Diplomat

Why should we care? What's in it for us?

Originally Posted by zraver

If Syrian and Iraqi Kurds seek a state Turkey will invade which poses huge problems for the US and Iran.

Remember a discussion with S2 & TTL a while back where i was surprised to learn that Turkey would not mind an independent Kurdistan in Iraq.

Not saying this applies to Syria.

Well Gunnut apparently we do care due to our involvement via Mrs. Clinton rooting for intervention and pressing it on all sides.

I actually think a more fractured middle east would be better. Ergo more countries vying with each other and none too strong to overtake one another forced to compete like Europe in the middle ages where by every principality granted rights and freedoms to entice industry. Etc...

So a Kurdistan, Alawaitistan, JabelDruzistan, and a perhaps Allepostan(North Syria) and Damscustan(South Syria) would be better in my mind than Syria. Granted I also think it would be nicer for Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan to fracture as well.

Originally Posted by cyppok

Well Gunnut apparently we do care due to our involvement via Mrs. Clinton rooting for intervention and pressing it on all sides.

I actually think a more fractured middle east would be better. Ergo more countries vying with each other and none too strong to overtake one another forced to compete like Europe in the middle ages where by every principality granted rights and freedoms to entice industry. Etc...

So a Kurdistan, Alawaitistan, JabelDruzistan, and a perhaps Allepostan(North Syria) and Damscustan(South Syria) would be better in my mind than Syria. Granted I also think it would be nicer for Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan to fracture as well.

In that case, we should just let them fight, which was my original view on Libya. It doesn't matter what we do, they hate us. They blame us for everything. So why work on being hated when we can be hated while sitting on our asses?

Originally Posted by Doktor

Snapper,

Care to enlight us?

Originally Posted by zraver

Iran's reaction to a Turkish invasion will go one of 3 ways- 1. support the Alawaites and oppose the invasion, 2. support Iraq which ever way Iraq jumps, or 3. support Turkey. 1. Is the most likely action and the one with the least benefit to Iran. 2. Means Iran will be praying the US decides to abandon the Kurds again and pressures Iraq to do the same. This would give Iran an effective status quo antebellum situation at the risk of losing face. 3. Offers Iran the most benefit, in particular sanction busting overland black market trading.

zraver

Iran IS supporting Assad. Assad is supporting the Kurdish attacks on Turkey. Turkey and the Gulf Arabs are supporting the 'Free Syrian Army'. Many proxy wars going on here. On the larger scale this is about the Iranian nuclear issue: If a pro Gulf Arab Government is installed in Damascus we are one step closer to dealing with the real problem and coincidentally Hezbollah supplies would be more difficult. Of course a nuclear armed Iran will want to dictate oil policy to the Gulf Arabs and can interfer in Iraq with relative impunity, as well a wage a continuous proxy war on Israel via Hezbollah. The Russians just want their sea base and do not want to be seen lose face. zraver there are Kurds in Syria and Iran too and of course they dream of a 'Greater Kudistan' with bits of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran and this is why they normaly lose; fighting on four fronts at once. Iran doesn't care who rules in Damascus as long as they are pro Iran and anti Gulf Arabs. Turkey is already fighting a proxy war with Assad and want him gone. The Russians may be willing to back someone else but want promises in blood first; they met with Opposition groups in Moscow the other day and have said they will not make any arms deals with Assad but will honour existing contracts.

Dok

In the larger picture of the Iranian nuclear problem Azerbaijan controls the non Russian gas feed for Europe. The pipleline goes via Georgia as the old Armenian/Turkish enmity closes the border there. There is also a Russian base (102) 35 miles north of Yerevan. The real problem with the South Ossetia war - the pipelines are within closer range of a Russian move now. Azerbaijan has also not specificaly denied that it has leased an airbase to Israel. Azerbaijan and Georgia are both wannabe NATO members and Azerbaijan is closely allied to Turkey. Yerevan (the Armenian capital) is less than 10 miles from the Turkish border and Baku (the Azeri capital) about 130 miles from Russian Dagestan and less from Iran. So if Turkey gets bogged down in a Syrian civil war Iran must be postponed as the threat of a Turkish intervention is all that could save Azerbaijan and Georgia (and the non Russian gas) should we start on Iran, whether by air or more fully. With no non Russian gas for Europe blackmail then becomes possible over the missile shield. The worst case is nuclear Iran and loss of Caspian gas and double blackmails on two fronts.

Originally Posted by snapper

zraver

Iran IS supporting Assad. Assad is supporting the Kurdish attacks on Turkey. Turkey and the Gulf Arabs are supporting the 'Free Syrian Army'. Many proxy wars going on here. On the larger scale this is about the Iranian nuclear issue: If a pro Gulf Arab Government is installed in Damascus we are one step closer to dealing with the real problem and coincidentally Hezbollah supplies would be more difficult. Of course a nuclear armed Iran will want to dictate oil policy to the Gulf Arabs and can interfer in Iraq with relative impunity, as well a wage a continuous proxy war on Israel via Hezbollah. The Russians just want their sea base and do not want to be seen lose face. zraver there are Kurds in Syria and Iran too and of course they dream of a 'Greater Kudistan' with bits of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran and this is why they normaly lose; fighting on four fronts at once. Iran doesn't care who rules in Damascus as long as they are pro Iran and anti Gulf Arabs. Turkey is already fighting a proxy war with Assad and want him gone. The Russians may be willing to back someone else but want promises in blood first; they met with Opposition groups in Moscow the other day and have said they will not make any arms deals with Assad but will honour existing contracts.

Dok

In the larger picture of the Iranian nuclear problem Azerbaijan controls the non Russian gas feed for Europe. The pipleline goes via Georgia as the old Armenian/Turkish enmity closes the border there. There is also a Russian base (102) 35 miles north of Yerevan. The real problem with the South Ossetia war - the pipelines are within closer range of a Russian move now. Azerbaijan has also not specificaly denied that it has leased an airbase to Israel. Azerbaijan and Georgia are both wannabe NATO members and Azerbaijan is closely allied to Turkey. Yerevan (the Armenian capital) is less than 10 miles from the Turkish border and Baku (the Azeri capital) about 130 miles from Russian Dagestan and less from Iran. So if Turkey gets bogged down in a Syrian civil war Iran must be postponed as the threat of a Turkish intervention is all that could save Azerbaijan and Georgia (and the non Russian gas) should we start on Iran, whether by air or more fully. With no non Russian gas for Europe blackmail then becomes possible over the missile shield. The worst case is nuclear Iran and loss of Caspian gas and double blackmails on two fronts.

Iran wouldn't strike inside Azerbaidjan to cut off gas to Turkey nor would Russia at least not directly. If Azerbaidjan and Armenia resume their war it is possible but unlikely since everyone with vested interests would rush to get involved.
For Iran the most likely way of cutting off energy would be Kurdish insurgency all over Turkish areas and specific bounties tied to gas line disruptions.

Turkey vs Iran war on the ground is extremely unlikely.
Azerbaidjan and Iran relations have been going down hill rapidly lately.
The problem with [land]intervention in a Post-Soviet state is it will irk Russia and other Central Asian states, Iran needs grain from both Russia/Kazakhstan for stability it wouldn't intervene(land incursion) to endanger that. But the incursions air or sea won't really make anyone vince too much.

Iran, Azerbaijan In Tense Caspian Standoff, Cables Show | EurasiaNet.org
Tensions rise between Iran and Azerbaijan | World | DW.DE | 07.06.2012

The likeliest intervention if it happens is not the pipeline but the gathering and the sea or near sea platforms in the Caspian that could easily be attacked by Iran and the ramifications of it as a protracted aspect are limited.

People I speak to tend to disagree Cypook.

Originally Posted by snapper

People I speak to tend to disagree Cypook.

Disagreement is ok the problem is thus far what I said about PKK and Syrian Alawites backing each other is true and the reverse is not.

This is Turkey reporting what is happening on the ground as it sees things so even if it is biased it is against the way I see things.

Thus far the fracturing scenario about which I wrote about a year or so ago is very close to occurring I just re-started a new thread instead of quoting the old one.

The problem with people like us is we like to pontificate, I know I do. What I try doing in this thread is basically show if what we think and what happens on the ground proves or disproves what we expect.


Imagine if Russia by helping to create an Alawite state gains the same position in Mediterranean as Britain did in Cyprus, ergo Sovereign Bases (Naval and Air) please tell me would you get involved if that was the outcome?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia
Outlet to the Mediteranian and gas/oil deals for pipeline extensions into export hub similar to what Turkey has and some control over flow... etc.

The reality is even Europe doesn't want the Iran-Iraq-Syria -> Turkey pipeline interrupted while it is being built.

Syria fracturing would change the balance of power so much that there would actively be a no mans land from Iraqi Kurdistan and Sunni areas of Iraq through Middle Syria up to Druze and Alawite areas which can separate if they hold geographical positions and have some help. Alawites care very much what happens post-Assad they realize they need an exit plan and long ago (about 50-60 years) their autonomy under French was a good guideline, they control the military why wouldn't they go independent? and create another Levantine state.