3 ms·

Pretty sure if Turkey falls we'll end up with a new Islamic caliphate in the next 10 years. Who doesn't see one sweeping over this shattered region. For 90% of

by pixie_ 13y ago

Pretty sure if Turkey falls we'll end up with a new Islamic caliphate in the next 10 years. Who doesn't see one sweeping over this shattered region. For 90% of its history (600 to 1900) the middle east has been under a single empire or another. What we should really be afraid of is some kind of galvanizing leader or force to come out of this.

muhuk 13y ago
That will never be allowed to happen. A united middle east would be undesirable. The current state of chaos and poverty is ideal. Personally, I wouldn't want that to happen either.
- pixie_ 13y ago
  'Not allowing it to happen' would probably be the most galvanizing thing the world could possibly do. Basically damned if we do, damned if we don't. That's why a new caliphate seems like a real possible outcome. Also a new Islamic empire would most likely ally with Russia and China. Already they veto action on anything middle east related in the UN.
  - mbreese 13y ago
    You seem to think that the various factions in the Middle East, just because they share a common religion, actually like each other. Even their religion has a few divisions that really don't like each other. Really, I doubt that you'll see any sort of large unified Middle East. It is just too hard to get them to agree on anything.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
barry-cotter 13y ago
Nationalism is a thing, you know. The Turks look down on the Kurds and the Arabs, the Levantine Arabs think the Mashreqis are a bunch of hicks with oil, the Maghrebien middle and upper class are very French indeed and Iran is Shi'ite and will not be having anything to do with the Turks or Arabs if possible. And the ex-Soviet stans have two, three generations of official atheism. I could see, maybe, the unification of some of the Arab states but that's really about it, and I wouldn't bet that way. Pan-Arab nationalism probably reached its apotheosis with Nasser in the 70's. This is not to say that the next twenty or thirty years will be wine and roses. Yemen is going to look like a vision of hell for one thing.
- inoop 13y ago
  Out of interest, could you elaborate that last statement?
  - barry-cotter 13y ago
    Poor, no oil, no water, no human capital, really high birth rates, highly religious, no trust in the state.
fusiongyro 13y ago
Bullshit. They've had a common enemy for sixty years and it hasn't enabled them to overcome their differences. Different nations are different. Turkey is completely unique. Look at their system of government, it's secular, and has been for years, and they got there on their own. The Arab Spring protesters were very mixed, but largely Islamist. These protesters are largely secular. Look at Iran. I'd say it's much more likely they secularize their government in the next ten years than any kind of substantial caliphate spring into existence. Having a caliphate was one thing when you had one rich city-state dominating a vast poor expanse. It's a very different story when you have a dozen rich countries, each with their own tiny army, each with their own couple ethnicities, each one wanting to pronounce everything differently and quite unable to agree on who succeeded Mohammed. It would be really convenient to be able to paint all our troubles with a single brush and a single color of paint, but the truth is much more complex and interesting.
cpleppert 13y ago
>> For 90% of its history (600 to 1900) the middle east has been under a single empire or another. That is so totally wrong I don't even know where to begin. For starters the caliphate was only a political force until the emergence of the seljuk turks. The turkish empire was European focused and never controlled persia or arabia.
- pixie_ 13y ago
  Wikipedia must be wrong then you should correct it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate
- barry-cotter 13y ago
  Persia was never an Ottoman posession but Arabia was, or at least most of it was. I'm too lazy to look it up on my phone. Caliph was among the titles claimed by the Ottoman Sultan and his claim was taken seriously by almost all Sunnis, particularly after the dethronement of the Mughals. They didn't consider it among their more important titles until quite late, preferrimg Qaysar-i-Rum or Emperor of the Romans, but their claim to the Caliphate was long standing.
smutticus 13y ago
I regret I have but one downvote to give you, sir.

by pixie_ 13y ago

muhuk 13y ago

That will never be allowed to happen. A united middle east would be undesirable. The current state of chaos and poverty is ideal. Personally, I wouldn't want that to happen either.

pixie_ 13y ago
'Not allowing it to happen' would probably be the most galvanizing thing the world could possibly do. Basically damned if we do, damned if we don't. That's why a new caliphate seems like a real possible outcome. Also a new Islamic empire would most likely ally with Russia and China. Already they veto action on anything middle east related in the UN.
- mbreese 13y ago
  You seem to think that the various factions in the Middle East, just because they share a common religion, actually like each other. Even their religion has a few divisions that really don't like each other. Really, I doubt that you'll see any sort of large unified Middle East. It is just too hard to get them to agree on anything.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

barry-cotter 13y ago

Nationalism is a thing, you know. The Turks look down on the Kurds and the Arabs, the Levantine Arabs think the Mashreqis are a bunch of hicks with oil, the Maghrebien middle and upper class are very French indeed and Iran is Shi'ite and will not be having anything to do with the Turks or Arabs if possible. And the ex-Soviet stans have two, three generations of official atheism. I could see, maybe, the unification of some of the Arab states but that's really about it, and I wouldn't bet that way. Pan-Arab nationalism probably reached its apotheosis with Nasser in the 70's. This is not to say that the next twenty or thirty years will be wine and roses. Yemen is going to look like a vision of hell for one thing.

inoop 13y ago
Out of interest, could you elaborate that last statement?
- barry-cotter 13y ago
  Poor, no oil, no water, no human capital, really high birth rates, highly religious, no trust in the state.

fusiongyro 13y ago

Bullshit. They've had a common enemy for sixty years and it hasn't enabled them to overcome their differences. Different nations are different. Turkey is completely unique. Look at their system of government, it's secular, and has been for years, and they got there on their own. The Arab Spring protesters were very mixed, but largely Islamist. These protesters are largely secular. Look at Iran. I'd say it's much more likely they secularize their government in the next ten years than any kind of substantial caliphate spring into existence. Having a caliphate was one thing when you had one rich city-state dominating a vast poor expanse. It's a very different story when you have a dozen rich countries, each with their own tiny army, each with their own couple ethnicities, each one wanting to pronounce everything differently and quite unable to agree on who succeeded Mohammed. It would be really convenient to be able to paint all our troubles with a single brush and a single color of paint, but the truth is much more complex and interesting.

cpleppert 13y ago

>> For 90% of its history (600 to 1900) the middle east has been under a single empire or another. That is so totally wrong I don't even know where to begin. For starters the caliphate was only a political force until the emergence of the seljuk turks. The turkish empire was European focused and never controlled persia or arabia.

pixie_ 13y ago
Wikipedia must be wrong then you should correct it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate
barry-cotter 13y ago
Persia was never an Ottoman posession but Arabia was, or at least most of it was. I'm too lazy to look it up on my phone. Caliph was among the titles claimed by the Ottoman Sultan and his claim was taken seriously by almost all Sunnis, particularly after the dethronement of the Mughals. They didn't consider it among their more important titles until quite late, preferrimg Qaysar-i-Rum or Emperor of the Romans, but their claim to the Caliphate was long standing.

smutticus 13y ago

I regret I have but one downvote to give you, sir.