Yes, is it possible that the West and Russia can collaborate effectively to destroy ISIS ? Can they organise a truce between Assad's forces and the democratic/liberal/communist/social-democrat forces, so that they can all - Assad, the Western coalition, Russia AND those scattered 'democratic' forces - can co-ordinate their efforts on the destruction of ISIS, al Qa'ida/al Nusra/Khorasan and the various other jihadist factions ?

Would Assad et al. agree to partition Syria, into a Shi'a/Alawite/Christian state, and inland Sunni state ? Pretty clearly, the Yanks would be stuck with a future Sunni state, and with trying to form a workable government, a vast slab of desert BUT with most of the oil. Maybe they would be tempted to give it to the Saudis, EXCEPT for the oily bits in the north-east. The Iraqis might be interested in those bits. So would the Kurds. And the Turks. Oy.

A coastal state under a coalition of Assad and the 'democrats', on the one hand, and an inland state, ideally under more 'democratic' Sunnis and secular (assuming hypothetically that they exist) forces, on the other, with a long, thin Kurdish territory linking what is now northern Syria with Kurdistan: does that sound too crazy ?

Fortuitously, it will take a long time to destroy ISIS completely, AND to painfully build up the 'democratic' forces in Assad's enclave and in the rest of Syria. So much can go wrong: I wouldn't trust the Russians to stick to any agreement, especially in the final stages of the destruction of ISIS. The Yanks have a long and thankless task to defeat ISIS, and will get nothing out of it, except a bit of kudos.

But otherwise - what ?

Joe

An excellent comment Joe

Where you say:

"Would Assad et al. agree to partition Syria, into a Shi'a/Alawite/Christian state, and inland Sunni state?"

The tendency for Syria to fragment may move from small ethnic-religious segments to tiny clan-tribal segments. One might think they would be happy with that - but then they would fight between themselves for land, water, "toll-way" roadblocks and protection racket rights.

Arab tribal traditions to fragment are certainly at odds with creating larger viable nation states. Nation states large enough to their defend land against Israeli air and land incursions.

Regards

Pete

The US has to get real with the Saudi's to have any real cred here. After all this is a proxy war between the Saudis and the Iranians, with IS as the an arm of the Saudi's.
The Saudi's are happy for the Iranians to fight in Iraq while they deal with the Iranian backed rebels in Yemen.

Still gotta keep that oil is flowing.

Thanks Pete,

I suppose the bottom line is that Syria (and perhaps Iraq too) won't be the same shape on the map once all this is over. If I were either government, I would be tempted to say to the Sunni: form tribal fiefdoms and alliances at perpetual war with each other, raid each other's women, dates and camels, and go for each others' throats all you like - just bugger off and leave the civilized world alone.

So maybe the best we can hope for, and perhaps for decades, is a vast ungovernable desert tract - call it, say 'Northern Arabia', who cares - and two agricultural- and urban-oriented territories, mainly Shi'a, Christian and 'secular': Syria and Iraq. Maybe from that point, any painfully slow move towards democracy can begin. Live in hope.

Joe

Hi Joe

Yes an equilibrium of infighting amongst some Muslims may be good for:

- the West generally
- for Israel
- even good for the oil providing Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE etc)

The last major War Of Equilibrium was the Iran-Iraq War (Iran Shiite dominated, Iraq was Sunni dominated). They fought it out 1980-1988 using poison gas, children for mine clearance and Scud missiles. Oil prices went up - to the satisfaction of the Saudis and West Texas crude. Good for President Reagan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

The US and Israel supported Iran or Iraq depending on which side was losing at the time. Iran was too disrupted to devote much effort to its nuclear program.

Who knows incoming President Donald Trump (and Israel) could benefit from a Sunni versus Shiite/Kurd War covering Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Cheers

The aim of the USA and other western powers has obviously been "regime change" in Syria to replace Assad, who was democratically elected and is apparently very popular with Syrians with puppet/stooge leadership sympathetic to the interests of their own companies, military and banksters. Similar to what was done in Ukraine. This is obvious to many who follow news on sources providing viewpoints that those influencing western mainstream media do not want publicised. Also that Islamic State has received at least some covert support from those opposed to Assad. Now it is looking like with some additional support from Russia, the US aim of deposing Assad is unachievable and there is no acceptable possible alternative government anyway. Also, that many European states are now becoming more inclined to support Assad to stop the influx of Syrian refugees