It was quite reliable in Iraq! The central government became dominated by the majority Shia, and the Sunnis basically went into revolt (and, eventually, ISIS.) It's quite true that the Shi'ites didn't share *our* agenda either, but that's a separate issue.
It was quite reliable in Iraq! The central government became dominated by the majority Shia, and the Sunnis basically went into revolt (and, eventually, ISIS.) It's quite true that the Shi'ites didn't share *our* agenda either, but that's a separate issue.
ISIS was supported by Syria and Iran. Syria is ruled by Shi'ites, as is Iran. Iran sponsors Hamas, which is Sunni. The Shi'ite-Sunni split has always been greatly exagerrated.
Tim, that's actually incorrect. Iran was opposed to both ISIS/ISIL and the Sunni rebels in Syria. Iran *does* sponsor Hamas, but that gives you an idea of exactly how much expediency works into these things. The rebels in Iraq, which eventually led to ISIS/ISIL, were opposed to the central government which we helped to stand up and which was dominated by the previously downtrodden Shi'ites (who had pretty close ties to Iran's Shi'ite regime.) Iran also supported the Ba'athist Syrian regime despite having held Saddam's Ba'athist Iraq as a mortal enemy, precisely because they saw the rebels as either Sunni supremacists or as the pawns of Sunni supremacists.
This is a standard modus operandi for Russia & its allies, going back to Dzerzhinsky's "Trust" operation in the 1920s, if not back to the Tsarist secret police. In Russian, it's called "provokatsiya," a.k.a., "controlled opposition" or "reflexive control." Russia and its allies keep doing this, and Western dupes keep falling for it, at least once a decade since.
ISIS was anti-FSA, just like Assad, Putin, Iran, and Hezbollah, who allied together against the FSA.
It was quite reliable in Iraq! The central government became dominated by the majority Shia, and the Sunnis basically went into revolt (and, eventually, ISIS.) It's quite true that the Shi'ites didn't share *our* agenda either, but that's a separate issue.
ISIS was supported by Syria and Iran. Syria is ruled by Shi'ites, as is Iran. Iran sponsors Hamas, which is Sunni. The Shi'ite-Sunni split has always been greatly exagerrated.
Tim, that's actually incorrect. Iran was opposed to both ISIS/ISIL and the Sunni rebels in Syria. Iran *does* sponsor Hamas, but that gives you an idea of exactly how much expediency works into these things. The rebels in Iraq, which eventually led to ISIS/ISIL, were opposed to the central government which we helped to stand up and which was dominated by the previously downtrodden Shi'ites (who had pretty close ties to Iran's Shi'ite regime.) Iran also supported the Ba'athist Syrian regime despite having held Saddam's Ba'athist Iraq as a mortal enemy, precisely because they saw the rebels as either Sunni supremacists or as the pawns of Sunni supremacists.
I'm sure this looks confusing, but it's really more of a "war of all against all" situation where everyone was looking for what they saw as their best deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_the_Islamic_State
You are confused. ISIS was created by Assad & Putin:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/assad-henchman-heres-how-we-built-isis
This is a standard modus operandi for Russia & its allies, going back to Dzerzhinsky's "Trust" operation in the 1920s, if not back to the Tsarist secret police. In Russian, it's called "provokatsiya," a.k.a., "controlled opposition" or "reflexive control." Russia and its allies keep doing this, and Western dupes keep falling for it, at least once a decade since.
ISIS was anti-FSA, just like Assad, Putin, Iran, and Hezbollah, who allied together against the FSA.
Also instructive: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/the-syrian-crisis-simplified-whos-fighting-whom-and-why