Hmmm, but do you see them weakening?
Also, can't you identify any real threats to you other than the distant big bad bear? Any threats that Merkel put next door to you by any chance?
Well, I'm not too excited about the way that our governemnt handled the refugee situation but when it comes to this sort of things you have to take into account how the general population of germany sees everything that could be consideres "right wing" as a straight call back to the days of the NSDAP.
I guess we as a society suffer some form of PTSD which dosn't allow for an objective view on this kind of topics, although there is quite an opposition now after the events on new years eve last year and all that followed.
Russia is just a distraction I guess. But it works. People are genuinley afraif of evil Putin but don't think there is too much to worry about when it comes to islamist extremism.
Syria wasn't democratic but it was secular. The same can't be said of the West's allies in the Gulf, like Saudi Arabia [where women can't drive or work] . Also, unlike Saudi Arabia, which exports wahhabism [an ideology IS shares], Syria wasn't interested in exporting Baathism anywhere.
That's what I meant. For middle eastern standards it was quite a modern society.
But is it in the West's interests to weaken Iran? Israel and the Gulf states would certainly like to weaken Iran; this in line with their own interests but it certainly doesn't make the region more stable. In the long term, weakening Iran will have an impact Iran's ability to aid Syria and Iraq [Iran was there way before others got involved] to defeat IS and that won't be to anyone's benefit [with the exception of the Gulf states]. We also need to bear in mind that what happens in Syria not only has an impact in Iraq but also the Lebanon and of course Turkey.
Well, at least US republicans have made no secret about their hatred towards Iran. There has been progress made towards a normalization of the relationships between iran and the west, but I think a lot of people still don't like them too much.
In addition, this whole ordeal can partly be viewed as a proxy war between saudi arabia and iran (including the conflict with yemen). With the west so firmly invested into saudi arabia and the decades of sanctions towards Iran I find it pretty simple to spot who's side the west is on. I can't see them angering Saudi Arabia too much by supporting Iran in the same way.
Also, when you talk about stability as a strategic goal of the west you must ask the question how the hell the western politics so far would be able to accomplish this. If I look hat Libya I thing the country and region was much more stable with al gaddafi on top and I would imagine the same outcome in an post Assad Syria.
Daesh also wouldn't just cease to exsist when the Assad regime falls and if the splintered Opposition which would take power would be able to put up an organized and unified response to this threat is at least questinable. I think Assad and the SAA has the better chance to defeat ISIS once the rebellion has ended and especially if the west would ensure that their allies would stop supporting them.
Which leads to the last point, daesh... I don't see the west putting too much effort in destroying them. As mentioned, their allies still keep financing and equiping them. In addition one would assume that the USAF would be able to inflict more damage on them. Yet, after years of bombing they still seem to be perfectly operational and able to pull off successfull offensives.
