<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Syriana?    Part 1</title>
	<atom:link href="http://threeman.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1739" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://threeman.org/?p=1739</link>
	<description>Official Website of  author, lecturer and translator Terry Boardman</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2014 18:32:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Syriana? Part 2 &#124; threeman.org</title>
		<link>http://threeman.org/?p=1739#comment-72</link>
		<dc:creator>Syriana? Part 2 &#124; threeman.org</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2014 18:29:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://threeman.org/?p=1739#comment-72</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] The first part of this article (in New View #69 Oct-Dec2013) outlined some of the economic and geopolitical aspects to the current war in Syria. Since it was written and published, there have been major developments in the region. Following a vote rejecting military action against Syria by the UK Parliament on 29 August, US President Barack Obama  called off what had seemed in late August to be an imminent western attack on Syria after unproven Anglo-American claims that the Syrian government had committed a genocidal gas attack against its own people on 21 August in Ghouta, Damascus. Then on 23/24 November came an agreement in Geneva between Iran and six major powers (US, UK, Russia, China, France, Germany) for a temporary suspension of western economic sanctions against Iran  in return for Iran scaling back elements of its nuclear programme. The deal was hailed as &#8216;historic&#8217; by Obama&#8217;s allies but by his opponents it was seen as &#8220;Munich II&#8221;, a crass example of the worst kind of appeasement, once again the usual comparison here being made between any opponent of the USA and Adolf Hitler (1). Since Iran has been a major supporter of the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, it is also being said that the agreement with Iran may bring a breakthrough in the Syrian crisis. As the forces supported by the US, UK and France in the Syrian war appear to be losing ground not only to the Syrian army but also to the more fanatical Sunni Islamist fighters and other assorted mercenary fighters sponsored by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, it seems that some in the West may now be thinking that the best hope for getting rid of Assad may not be by war after all but through a deal with the Iranians. Needless to say, this prospect does not please those in the region who regard Iran as their inveterate enemy, namely, Israel and the conservative Sunni Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. However, before we assume that all are acting in good faith in this agreement, and that a general peace is about to break out in the Middle East, we should perhaps recall that optimism about Munich in the autumn of 1938 was followed a year later by the outbreak of war in Europe, while before the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, relations between Britain and Germany had actually been at their best for several years (2). Even in the teutophobic Foreign Office it was felt, notably by Sir Edward Grey&#8217;s secretary, Sir William Tyrrell, that from 1913 Britain was &#8220;relieved, at least for a long time to come, of [what he called] the German menace&#8221; (3). Yet within 5 weeks of Sarajevo, the two countries were at war! Much could yet go wrong therefore with the US-Iran deal. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The first part of this article (in New View #69 Oct-Dec2013) outlined some of the economic and geopolitical aspects to the current war in Syria. Since it was written and published, there have been major developments in the region. Following a vote rejecting military action against Syria by the UK Parliament on 29 August, US President Barack Obama  called off what had seemed in late August to be an imminent western attack on Syria after unproven Anglo-American claims that the Syrian government had committed a genocidal gas attack against its own people on 21 August in Ghouta, Damascus. Then on 23/24 November came an agreement in Geneva between Iran and six major powers (US, UK, Russia, China, France, Germany) for a temporary suspension of western economic sanctions against Iran  in return for Iran scaling back elements of its nuclear programme. The deal was hailed as &#8216;historic&#8217; by Obama&#8217;s allies but by his opponents it was seen as &#8220;Munich II&#8221;, a crass example of the worst kind of appeasement, once again the usual comparison here being made between any opponent of the USA and Adolf Hitler (1). Since Iran has been a major supporter of the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, it is also being said that the agreement with Iran may bring a breakthrough in the Syrian crisis. As the forces supported by the US, UK and France in the Syrian war appear to be losing ground not only to the Syrian army but also to the more fanatical Sunni Islamist fighters and other assorted mercenary fighters sponsored by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, it seems that some in the West may now be thinking that the best hope for getting rid of Assad may not be by war after all but through a deal with the Iranians. Needless to say, this prospect does not please those in the region who regard Iran as their inveterate enemy, namely, Israel and the conservative Sunni Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. However, before we assume that all are acting in good faith in this agreement, and that a general peace is about to break out in the Middle East, we should perhaps recall that optimism about Munich in the autumn of 1938 was followed a year later by the outbreak of war in Europe, while before the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, relations between Britain and Germany had actually been at their best for several years (2). Even in the teutophobic Foreign Office it was felt, notably by Sir Edward Grey&#8217;s secretary, Sir William Tyrrell, that from 1913 Britain was &#8220;relieved, at least for a long time to come, of [what he called] the German menace&#8221; (3). Yet within 5 weeks of Sarajevo, the two countries were at war! Much could yet go wrong therefore with the US-Iran deal. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
