Matador said:
I can't square these two statements:
then
So you are saying the policy was static since the late 90's, then Obama's singular 'pivot wrt. Iran' was solely responsible for the growth of ISIS?
How do you think Saddam Hussien would have dealt with Shia-backed ISIS militants in Iraq?
I think if you look at the US foreign policy as a whole it is mostly static, with a few minor changes here and there. The Obama administration's softening stance on Iran is an exception. It was a pretty significant departure within the region. The Trump administration initially kept it as a status quo, but has since walked that back strongly. You can look at Mattis' retention as SECDEF and later resignation as evidence for both points.
I don't think it is solely responsible for the growth of ISIS. Nothing in something as complicated as geopolitics is the sole cause of anything. Energy dependence presents a considerable risk for the European subcontinent. Russia has the means to negatively impact western Europe through the restriction of the supply of natural gas and has demonstrated a willingness to use this lever many times over the years. I believe a combination of a kind of neo-con / progressive "light of democracy" hope combined with a desire to change the balance of power in the ME and western Europe caused us to engage in destabilizing activities in Syria. Read: supply of materiel and training to certain rebel groups and militias. We know for a fact that some of these groups later joined ISIS. The aim here being regime change to allow a friendly government (or junta, or dictator - who cares amiritelol /s) in Syria to extend our control and allow us to build a pipeline from Qatar to Europe.
Our exit from Iraq also created a power vacuum that allowed ISIS to grow (Iraq is a 30 year tragedy or comedy depending on how you look at it, so don't take this as me putting it at the feet of the Obama administration). This can be seen in the light of a softening toward Iran. Our change in stance in Jordan and KSA also fostered this opportunity.
Syria blocks an easy route for energy transfer by pipeline from the ME to Europe. Therefore Russia opposes it. Assad is supported by Russia; therefore Russia opposed the civil war we encouraged, fostered, whatever you want to call it. Iran is aligned with Russia.
However, there was some blowback (when will we learn? There always is...) and ISIS became a problem for everyone. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and therefore Russia, and us. We actually directly cooperated with Iran's Qud's force to fight ISIS, along with pro-Assad rebels, anti-Assad rebels, and Kurdish factions in both Syria and Iraq, along with the pro-Iranian army in Lebanon (indirect boon for Hezbollah).
Surrogate warfare makes for strange bedfellows, especially when the surrogates on any particular side are not politically, ideologically, ethnically, religiously aligned.
///
ISIS would have never happened in Iraq under a strong government regardless of who was in power. The very presence of what amounts to an invading army is evidence of a weak government. That's why you're starting to see some people call for the US to about-face and support Assad, on the belief that a dictator is the easiest path to controlling nations in the ME. You might say that's why George H.W. Bush was perfectly content to stand by while Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds. Easier to handle one crazy person than a whole mess of rival factions. It's ugly, but it's hard to argue with.
