The Arab Spring

I've just spent the last several hour trying to come up with a viable and sane partition of Syria, thanks for getting that idea in my mind Shinra. :P

I realised where the problem is, the groups in Syria are simply to divided. You've got Assad and his minorities, the Kurds, the rebels in the south, the rebels in the north, AQ and ISIS. The moderate rebels are to split geophysically between north and south, you can't use geographical boundaries like rivers to divide due to the fact that you've got major populations centres built on them.

In the end any partition is going to end up looking a lot like the current maps we have of the region. I think one has to embrace that. Pull the Kurdish areas out of both Iraq and Syria to form a Kurdish nation (connecting right up along the top of Syria), pull the southern provinces out of Syria into Jordan (also protecting the Druze, as Jordan already has a Druza population), then take the northern non-AQ rebel areas and push east, and keep pushing, right until you end up bordering the Shia bits of Iraq. What's the point of separating Shia Iraq and Shia Syria? ISIS has proven how stupidly arbitrary that line is, let's be rid of it.

You're welcome.

I've spent hours looking into it myself and I find myself in broad agreement with you.

I do think, though, that using physical landmarks (especially where this also meets with demographic boundaries) can be used, such as the Euphrates. Cities mostly take one side or another and, in the cases they aren't, they can still be split into two sister cities.

Granted, that can lead to anything from Minneapolis-St. Paul to Brazzaville-Kinshasa.....

I think just about everyone sane agrees that Syria should be broken up. The problem is that the international community hates creating new countries, forces them to make new maps and it gives hope to their own secessionist regions. That and, as I have said before, the Arab world will deeply resent having foreigners draw the boarders again, and I'm sure that Iran and Russia would prefer that Assad reign supreme over a unified Syria.

Hence why the Jordanians would have to be involved from the Sunni Arab side, both in Syria and Iraq. Everyone else (Shia/minorities and the Kurds) is okay with it.

And like I said before, the UN is starting to voice this possibility, even if it hates that it has to happen, so there seems to be an international consensus building up as well.

Except for the Turks, everyone gets their pound of flesh.

But think of all the maps that will have to be recalled!

Can't be worse than the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We had to do it in 2013, it's fine, plus the Russians should be happy, as the new maps will probably show Crimea as Russian.

I actually worked it out at a province (and if need be district) level, I think that that's the easiest way to do it, as that way urban centres will stay within a single region.

I don't think you'll get the Jordanians to agree with take on the entire Sunni part of Syria (never mind the Sunni part of Iraq), you're going to need a new state, the area is to much of a mess for the Jordanians to care about, plus a new state would be an independent actor, that might be accepted, but that big an increase in the territory of the Jordanians? It'll never be allowed by the region.

Lake Assad will need renaming though.

That's it. I am invading the Syrian region.

It will be an Aszurtopia. National animal will be Dogge. National coin will be Doggecoin.

This fresh new start will either fix something, or at least it will add a level of twisted amusement to any war that is begun over a flag with dogge on it.

Oh I dunno. Syria's oil fields will cut down on Jordanian imports. Also, considering most of its refugee population comes from across the border, they'd be able to get them to go back. Controlling part of the Euphrates is also no small thing. Considering too that its one of the least populated areas of both Syria and Iraq, Jordan won't have too much to deal with. Money can be provided by the US and Europe (as they already do) for Amman to cope.

As for the rest of the region, I think Saudia and the rest of the peninsula would be very relieved at Jordan taking control. Iran I don't think will care as long as it has its puppets in Baghdad and Damascus.

It won't be easy, sure. But I think it's doable with a lot of patience, money, and will on the part of the rest of the world.

I still say you can split the provinces geographically. Don't see why the provincial borders have to be kept.

Isn't most of the Syrian oil in the bits that the Kurds would end up with?

The Kurds have some, but there is also some in the Syrian desert, particularly between Palmyra and Deir Ez Zor.

Well I just hope that Kurdistan becomes an actual thing, they have been screwed and repressed for over what two hundred years and had their language outright banned more than once?

Let em make an Israel for themselves yeesh.

While it will initially cost the Jordanians a great deal, in the long term access to new resources will greatly benefit them, in fact that might lead Saudi Arabia to oppose Jordan taking the Sunni territories in Iraq and Syria,they wouldn't want Jordan to acquire even a semi independent foreign policy and become Qatar MK 2. That is of course assuming the Hashimites can survive long enough to reap such benefits, which given he way things are going and the inevitable strains annexing such a large new territory would place on Jordanian society, I have my doubts. But then people have been predicting the doom of Jordan since 1947.

The Jordanians are already fully independent, they're not a Gulf State, they do their own thing. Which is why I suspect the Saudis would oppose such a move, one of the few bits of leverage the Saudis have over the Jordanians is that of oil.

That's the thing, the Jordanians have a foreign policy already, they're an existing established and known actor. But a new Sunni state, the regional powers would see that as someone they could play with, and would thus be more willing to allow its creation.

A new state is partly why I keep going for the Jordanians. New also means unpredictable, especially with new borders. World doesn't want another South Sudan.

And Riyadh will have to decide between Jordan getting the land or Iran or a state that makes Yemen look stable on their border.

I think South Sudan will be good for us in the long run (plus it allows me to easily date maps).

Also seeing what the Saudis are trying to do to Yemen right now, you think they'd mind the third option?

Considering that they're not winning quite yet, I'm not so sure. Besides, unlike with Yemen, Iran would never let them intervene in lands directly bordering both their satellites.

And I support South Sudan splitting from the North, I just think it should have then gone to the nearby nations that most closely align with it. Sadly, that was the likes of Centrafrique. Alas....

New can be predictable though if you control it. The Suadi's could to what Europe did every time they got a new country. I'm sure the House of Suad has many ambitious sons with no chance of ever ending up the monarch who would be glad for the chance to aquaria their own Kingdom. But than maybe I've been playing to much Crusader Kings.

@Jack- That will never happen for the same reasons I outlined in my post just before this one.

Again, Jordan has a more well liked government, both inside and outside, and is generally not looking to pick a fight with Shiite powers.

Yeah CAR is not someone anyone should be joining.

As for the bordering, maybe, but the other option is putting the Jordanians right between the Iranians and the Saudis, I'd just feel bad doing that to them, they're like one of the most reasonable people in the region. Admittedly that bar is so low I think it is actually part of the earth's core, but still.

X2 New monarchies aren't a thing, that ship sailed when you lot wouldn't let us try and re-establish monarchies during the Cold War.

edited 13th Oct '15 2:04:03 PM by Silasw

They would also, by virtue of bordering the Kurds, be able to make money off them using their port (since I doubt Baghdad would if they left, and being too dependant on Assad is never a good thing).

edited 13th Oct '15 2:04:59 PM by FFShinra

That's true, I mean if the Jordanians would go for it then it seems like a solid idea, I just don't really think they would, or that if they did the region would accept it like it would possibly accept a weak central state that they could all try and mess with.

So when do you think this partition is going to occur?

Probably not for many years.

A stable partition would be akin to a peace settlement. We know from plenty of cases that civil wars drag on for longer the more external support is poured in, and right now the proxy war is escalating on all sides, not diminishing.

Formally or informally? Also which bits of it?

The Kurdish bits have pretty much already broken away, they're separate now, that bits done. The Iraqi goverment is going to end up with a solid border at some point, and then that's them done.

Assad and the rebels in Syria still have steam in them though, plus ISIS still needs to fall, plus the Jordanians needs to decide if they want a chunk. So that bit is gonna take some time to settle down.