Thread by @AcrossTheBay

There's been a lot of excitement, confusion, and, alas, retardation, about what's happening in Syria. So let's start with what's *not* happening. 1- This is not the impending collapse of the Assad regime.

2- Contra the clown show on the right, this is not the "CIA Neocon Deep State" launching a new war using Al-Qaeda/ISIS.

Rather, this is Turkey acting rationally in its self-interest to achieve limited objectives.

As a result of Barack Obama's intervention in Syria on the side of Assad and Iran, which culminated in facilitating the return of the Russians to the Eastern Mediterranean, and as a result of Obama backing the PKK terrorists, Turkey has been boxed in in N. Syria since 2016.

That uncomfortable situation has deteriorated recently, as Assad has squeezed the Turkish-backed enclave in northwestern Syria, exacerbating the refugee problem for Turkey. But Assad's problem is that he's a non-entity--a two-bit client entirely dependent on Russia and Iran.

So Turkey made a push to reset the table. And it came at an opportune moment, as Russia is tied up in Ukraine and Iran lost its army after Israel pounded Hezbollah to dust. That left Assad, who, again, is a non-entity, exposed. Consequently, his position in N. Syria collapsed.

The Iranians, too, insofar as they don't have an actual army, just proxy groups, were exposed and the Turkish-backed groups took out a senior IRGC commander based in Aleppo. The Turkish-backed group made quick and significant gains in the north.

Here's where lots of people started getting excited: is this the end for Assad? Is, uh, sharia creeping? What happens to the endangered species? Etc. People need to take a deep breath. Not only does none of that matter, but also none of that is happening.

Without going into too much detail, Turkey's play is based in northern Syria--in the western part but also the east. In short, Turkey is recalibrating its position in the west vis-a-vis the weakened Russians, and is looking to create new facts on the ground ahead of Jan. 20.

The Turks have been, legitimately, aggrieved that Obama not only planted Russia on NATO's southern flank, but also lined the length of Turkey's border with the IRGC and the PKK terrorists. To add insult to injury, the US funded the former and partnered directly with the latter.

During his first term, DoD scuttled Trump's plan to withdraw from Syria and saddled him with the PKK (for whom Trump, rightly, had contempt), which complicated things with Turkey. So, now the Turks will look to leverage their gains to reverse that status quo.

News today is that the Turkish-backed groups have taken the PKK-held Tal Rifaat. Whether they'll be able to push eastward remains to be seen. In any case, the PKK, which long worked with Iran and Assad, will now be the main fighting force on behalf of the RU-IRI axis.

What that means is that we're now directly involved in backing Russia, Iran and Assad. That's the key thing that Obama did: he turned the US into Iran's patron and protector across the Middle East. That's the policy in Lebanon with the LAF, and Iraq, e.g. And here's the kicker:

Everyone from the CT/DoD bros to neocons and to the Tucker/Bannon faction are in one way or another behind Obama's vision, each for their own reasons.

Only Trump has stood apart from this retardation. But he couldn't escape it in his first term. It's unclear if he will now.

The discourse on Syria is retarded on all sides. The Obama faction are pro-Iran psychopaths. The CT/DoD bros are corrupt, and Obama simps. The neocons, such as they are, are retards--and Obama simps. The pro-Israel types are mainly dumb hysterics. And MAGA is drowning in noise.

Both pro-Israel types and MAGA have also been infected by Obama's most toxic innovation: Third World sectarianism. Hence, even as MAGA decries "neocon" foreign policy, i.e. divorced from the national interest and preoccupied with social engineering, theirs is too.

US foreign policy is not sectarian, preoccupied with subnational groups or transnational communitarian commitments. That's the opposite of how states work. Nor is the US interest to "rebuild Syria" (anymore than it is to back a "state" project in fictional places like Lebanon).

Historically, Syria has been more often a series of buffer states separating greater regional powers. Hence Turkey carving its own buffer zone, and Israel imposing it with air power to cut off Iran from Hezbollah (precisely what Obama sought to safeguard for Iran).

America's problem, however, is that its allies are often at cross purposes. In certain cases you can mitigate that with a general framework, but that requires clarity that is completely absent in DC as a result of the alignment mentioned above.

Instead, DC is preoccupied with idiotic things having nothing or little to do with the national interest ("Kurds," "Middle East Christians," etc.), or with mistaking tactical challenges and strategic ones. Not to mention, corruption--DC literally makes a living off this.

So, you'll now find our regional allies mirroring our chaos and each mouthing off some stupid position on Syria, ranging from pro-Assad to anti-Turkish to pro-Kurdish to all kinds of stuff about "jihad" and other forms of retardation.

In the end, as a result of the shift that has taken place in DC first since 2001 and then more catastrophically since Obama, we will continue to be treated to much stupidity and disappointment.

The Turks will eventually leverage their gains to make a deal with the Russians, even as they try to partner with us, provided we cut ties with the PKK. And it will all be nowhere near optimal. But the key for us is to try to free ourselves from two intertwined disasters:

1- the counterterrorism lens (and its freedom agenda compendium), and 2- Obama's realignment and third world sectarianism.

Finally, for background on Obama and Syria, see: tabletmag.com/sections/news/…; tabletmag.com/sections/israe…; tabletmag.com/sections/news/…