I would not take any one analyst's take as definitive, but this seems to be a pretty good summary of a complex area both historically, complicated by the insertion of Israel, and geographically, because of the hydrocarbons in the ground. While it is considered a relative backwater now, it is the home of civilizational states and former empires — Assyrian, Persian and Ottoman.
These were superseded successively in the region, and most recently by the British, French and Russian empires, and now the American. Add to this tribal loyalties in the region and the complicated tradition of Islam pitting Sunnis and Shi'ites against each other, and the mix becomes even more volatile and unpredictable.
I would not say "aggression," but rather "policy." Aggression is one aspect of policy, but there is much more to foreign policy, as the analysis shows.
Also, the author focuses mostly on US influence, which is overt, but British and French influence is also present owing to their former status in the area, which is difficult for them to let go. British intel has been very active in the region, for instance. And it was largely France under Nicholas Sarkozy that led the push for Libyan leader Gaddafi's removal, leaving a vacuum into which Turkey and Iran are cooperatively moving.
No comments:
Post a Comment