The Arab Spring

It seems the UN has done an investigation into Saleh's financials...the man is worth 80 Billion dollars.

Meanwhile the Houthi have seized two more military bases in the north, further consolidating their power there.

I don't know how much things have changed (the map is 1 month old)◊, but, assuming Marib and Ta'izz are under control, it won't be long until the Houthis become willing to balkanize the country.

The map is still broadly accurate, except the Houthis have all of Bayda now and a lot of areas have fallen under control of the Southern Hirak. However, the only reason anyone is listening to Hadi after his escape is because forces loyal to him still control Marib and Taiz. The Houthis will eventually have to take both back.

I see. What about Al-Khalq and Ad Dah? The latter might be important, since Ta'izz is one of their major goals, as you said.

The former is still under Hadi's control (though that control is dependant on how long he control's Marib, since Marib supplies Al Khalq). The latter is being contested, and you're right about its importance.

edited 25th Feb '15 5:56:29 PM by FFShinra

Getting reports now that the seperatists have started firing on Hadi loyalist forces in the Lahij governorate, AND they've pulled out of the UN peace talks.

All this even as more gulf states move their embassies to Aden, followng Riyadh's lead.

Hirak separatists? Or local "get off my property" types?

Nope, articles on the subject are mentioning the Hirak by name. And considering the location, Lahij, I see no reason to doubt it. If it were in the Hadrhamaut or something, then the get off my property types would be far more likely.

edited 28th Feb '15 9:37:02 AM by FFShinra

An interesting article about how the Syrian Civil War is going to eventually lead to stability in the region. As gruesome as the process for doing so is, I can't help but feel he's right.

They have a point. The current ethnic and political setups in the Middle East are unstable and prone to conflict. Pointlessly keeping such setups around is what keeps long-running conflicts alive.

Something I'd like to know more about is the importance of one's tribe in the Middle East. We keep hearing about Sunni and Shia and about how X faction has the support of Y tribe, but it strikes me that I know very little about them. I also wonder how big a part tribal alliances play in the Middle East's instability; even relatively homogeneous tribal societies can find political stability extremely hard - see, for instance, pre-Clearances Scotland or the mess that was Chechen Ichkeria.

edited 1st Mar '15 1:02:29 PM by Achaemenid

I've wondered the same, and would love to have a detailed map of the tribes ans superimpose them over geography.

From what I've gathered, tribal alliances influence on instability seems directly related to how much of a formal role they have in the government. In a country like Libya for example, the tribes were officially suppressed (even as they were unofficially feted depending on whether they were Qadhafa or traditional allies of the Qadhafa) in the name of Gaddafi's personality cult. In Yemen now, the sectarian divide is less meaningful than the news is making it out to be, with tribal (and, to an extent, city-state) affronts actually being the cause of most of the issues going on over there...but officially being a republic in the Nasserist mold doesn't account for the tribes.

Then you have the monarchies, which all have formal inclusion of the tribal system. I think the only republican system that does the same in the region is Kurdistan, but no being Arab, that obviously doesn't count.

Syria and Lebanon, I think, are the only ones where faith trumps tribe (Iraq is unique in that faith and tribe both seem about equally important, at the expense of the civil government). And even then, at least in the case of Syria, there is an informal tribal system that is important among the Alawites.

Egypt is unique in that its a true nationstate that either no longer has tribes or they are no longer relevant.

Thats what I've gathered so far. Would love to know more though.

Here's a PDF from the Project on Middle East Political Science, POMEPS, on the "Arab Thermidor"—the wave of resurgence by security states following the Arab Spring.

The escalation of tensions between the US, Russia, and now China are probably going to accelerate that process - the Middle East's various regimes were originally maintained by each opposing power bloc vying to get their dogs in the ring; the Soviets had Qaddafi, Nasser, the Ayatollah, and Assad, while the US had Saddam and the remaining monarchies.

The Ayatollah answered to no one during the Cold War and Nasser played both sides. As convenient as it is, please don't lump together all the anti-West regimes in the axis of evil paradigm.

Thanks for that.

edited 2nd Mar '15 6:45:49 AM by FFShinra

Ethnic cleansing can bring temporary stability and people separate into different regions, having less immediate reason to fight each other. But the long term basis of peaceful stability isnt good. As each newly homogeneous region becomes more stabile, they gain the ability to project power into their neighbors, and that leads to further conflict. Then there's the problem that you cannot entirely eliminate minorities from within any set of borders, however well drawn.

Plus why do these ethnic groups need to fight anyway? Reminds me of Yugoslavia, coexisted just fine up until Milosevic tried to make it from a multiethnic to a serb-dominated state (in which Serbs already had the advantage, yes, but he wished to push it further). 5 years and a series of war crimes later, nobody on the peninsula who speaks a different language can meet an out-grouper without wanting to throw a brick at them.

These supposedly ancient ethnic divisions are quite modern in some cases.

It's because in the absence of a strong dictator, these groups have to contend with each other in competition for scarce resources. Democracy actually makes this circumstance worse, because, due to a lack of experience with democratic institutions, no one has any faith that the system will protect their basic interests. So they fight.

The reason is simple: In the case of the middle eastern states, the social contract between society and state is tenuous at best, especially (I'd even say specifically) if they are a republic. This fighting will create temporarily homogenuous states and yes eventually they will have to deal with minorities again, but this time (especially if the fighting changes the nonsense borders) they can forge a natural social contract that can evolve and grow.

In other words, the war will destroy the colonial era borders and infrastructure, forcing the people to start from scratch. When they can form social contracts in their own terms, even if at first they're exclusionary, they will eventually grow. It will take time, however, and unfortunately a lot of violence will be needed to go back to the "blank slate" as it were.

EDIT- (Partially 'd but...)In the case of Yugoslavia, the issue was Tito left behind a confederation to govern rather than a federation. In such a situation, especially if people aren't used to it, becomes subject to power plays. Milosevic probably didn't give that much of a shit about Serbian nationalism. It was just a convenient excuse to grab power in what was, at the time, one of the most powerful states in Europe. Tudjman was the same way.

edited 2nd Mar '15 7:21:06 AM by FFShinra

Tito is possibly the most overrated political figure of the 20th century.

People think he's good or something?

Among Balkan-watchers, or foreigners who traveled to, say, Bosnia before the 90s, there is a fair bit of nostalgia for Communist-era Yugoslavia because they remember a functioning multiethnic society. Cold War history buffs seem to like him for his ability to play both ends against the middle and be the closest thing to a properly independent player the era had.

On-topic justifying edit: the nostalgia in this case can't exist for Arab societies, because it was clear that the peace was bought with toxic gas throughout the fertile crescent.

edited 3rd Mar '15 6:36:09 AM by Ogodei

A huuuuge explosion has occured in Aleppo (big enough that Seismologists recorded a 2.3 on the richter scale in the area) caused by the rebels who dug a tunnel under the feared Air Force Intelligence building currently held by the government and packed it with a lot of explosives. Heavy fighting has broken out immediately after.

A link to a relevant article

It was apparently done by Jihadist and Islamist rebels. So as a gross simplification of the incident: Evil vs. Evil.

edited 5th Mar '15 9:24:06 AM by betaalpha

In case the Middle Eastern situation wasn't complicated enough already, there are rumblings from Iran that Khamenei just kicked the bucket.