Just found this article in the National Review.

The Middle East is in meltdown.

The Syrian civil war is unrestrained. Tens of thousands have died. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are considering direct intervention. Syria’s mayhem threatens to spill into Lebanon, and in Beirut, Iran and Hezbollah wage terrorism against their political opponents.

Jordan is overwhelmed by a refugee crisis of staggering proportions. Iraq teeters on the brink of collapse. Its government remains divided and weak. Unsupported by America, the Sunni tribes are wedged between the jackboot of Iran and the horrors of ISIS.

Yemen is a Mad Max battleground between Saudi Arabia and Iranian-supported Houthi rebels (and nationalists, separatists, and al-Qaeda).

But while the operative cause of this disaster is authoritarianism and the rot of political Islam, President Obama’s strategy is certainly catalyzing the catastrophe. And now, thanks to his delusion, the chaos is about to get a thermonuclear injection. Just read what one Gulf leader currently visiting Washington told the New York Times: “We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research.”

The Saudis have made themselves clear. As I explained in February, Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear capability will lead to reciprocal action by the Saudi government. After all, Saudi Arabia’s long-term financial support for Pakistan’s nuclear program has never been just about Islamic beneficence. Instead, that funding was a down payment for future opportunity.

This speaks to the great failing of President Obama’s Middle East policy: its narrow focus.

President Obama believes rapprochement with Iran is fostered by his tangible support for the more moderate elements of that regime. But he neglects two undeniable facts. First, Iran’s policy toward the United States is shaped not only by deep mistrust but also by outright hatred. To be sure, President Obama has forged trust with more-moderates like Foreign Minister Zarif and President Rouhani. Yet he has neglected the simultaneous need to deter regime hard-liners who hate America and hold great influence over the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. Today, those hard-liners are empowered by President Obama’s strategic hesitation.

Don’t believe me? Just look at what they’re doing.

Two weeks ago, Iran seized a Marshall Islands–flagged cargo ship. Last week, an Iranian general said, “We welcome war with the Americans.” This week, the Iranians sent a cargo ship to Yemen to test whether Obama would prevent them from supplying the Houthi rebels. Yesterday, the Iranians fired on a Singapore-flagged cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. Navy’s response? To send an unarmed plane that arrived too late to do anything. As CNN noted, “The Pentagon recently stopped escorting commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, and it’s not clear if those operations will resume.”

Of course, Iran’s growing hostility was entirely predictable. It’s why I argued a couple of months back that President Obama needed to send another carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf.

Instead, the Obama administration chose to ignore reality. And it still does so. Take John Kerry’s patently ludicrous defense on Tuesday of the Russian-brokered WMD deal with Assad. In return for avoiding U.S. retaliation for his August 2013 massacre at Ghouta, the deal required Assad to surrender his chemical weapons. He hasn’t. Instead, as the Obama administration is well aware, the agreement has not prevented Assad from continuing to burn the lungs of Syrian children. Still, to Kerry, it’s a victory. As he put it, “We have seen what happens when Russia and the United States work together.”

These failures — so brutal and so unambiguous — are the tombstone of U.S. credibility and of our ability to stall the Middle East’s descent into chaos. Iran knows it, and so do our allies. And this, in essence, is why Saudi Arabia will go nuclear. American guarantees are no longer reliable. While President Obama doubles down on vacuous words, others are choosing nuclear weapons.

Thoughts? Especially interested in SgtMag's view if he's knocking around at all.

Also, has Comms been perma'd? Because I'd be interested in his thoughts, too.

Give me a few hours and I can give a proper response. Gotta finish up a few projects.

The article is pretty correct.

One of the reasons the why the Middle East is so fucked up right now is because of poor US leadership in the region. This is a direct result of the current administration's foreign policy and, honestly, miscalculations from our intel community.

We had opportunities to intervene in Syria a long time ago, way before any extremist group had a significant foothold in the country. We could have started arming the rebels or provided more direct support for the opposition from the early days of the revolt. But we didn't. This was partly due to our miscalculations that "Since everywhere else transitioned quickly, surely Assad will too." We should have realized that was wrong when Assad started sending tanks into opposition rallies. Then, with the whole "red line" dilemma, Obama blinked. This greatly hurt our credibility with our Sunni allies and is in part a reason as to why Saudi and Qatar increased support for more questionable groups.

The Iraqi withdrawal was also handled poorly. Full disclosure, I don't think we should have ever withdrew. A permanent military base would have been best. That being said, a new SOFA agreement should have been more seriously sought after. Yes, Bush did sign a SOFA agreement in 2008 that outlined our withdrawal, but that could have been negotiated on to extend. And I will concede that this would have been difficult with Maliki who definitely pursued more sectarian means after we left.

But regardless, our withdrawal, and our lack of influence or sway in Iraq definitely assisted in the resurgence of al Qaeda in Iraq. Maliki, with Iran at the helms, was more freely able to pursue sectarian policies that further alienated the Sunni populations in Ninewa, Salahadin, and Anbar (and somewhat Kirkuk, i.e the Hawija massacre.) It should be noted that the Syrian Civil War also played a large role into why al Qaeda in Iraq was able to come back in a big way and eventually become the Islamic State. This whole notion of telling Jeb Bush his brother "created ISIS" is complete bullshit and an oversimplification of the the multitude of crises in Iraq since 2003.

Switching to Iran, they essentially control the governments of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and to an extent Yemen via the Houthis. Iraq is such an Iranian proxy state it's not even funny. The Iraqi Security Forces are second best to the Hashd Sha'abi forces that Iran set up. All the major groups in the Hashd are direct Iranian proxies, Asaib al Haq, Kata'ib Hezbollah, Kata'ib Saeed al Shuhada, Kata'ib Imam Ali, Harakat al Nujaba, Badr, et al. This provides Iran with just insane amount of leverage in Iraq. To make matters worse, many of these groups have been reciepents of US air support. This is entirely saddening when you understand that Asaib al Haq, Kata'ib Hezbollah, and the Badr Brigades are responsible for the deaths of more than a thousand US troops.

Will come back and do more later. For now, discuss what I have so far. I still haven't touched Yemen, Somalia, North Africa, AfPak, and the Iranian nuclear deal...

As far as Yemen is concerned, it's pretty laughable that the country was touted as a successful model that we would pursue for Iraq. If Yemen is a success, I'd hate to see failure. The same can be said for Somalia, which was also touted as a success. Last time I checked, al Qaeda still controls large swaths of rural southern Somalia. Al Qaeda also controls significant amounts of ground in Yemen and this will grow as the chaos continues. And I don't care if Iran denies that they have ever supported the Houthis; they do. There has also been some evidence that some Houthis have been fighting alongside Assad in Syria. And there is only one explanation how they got there. Iran is also recruiting Shia Afghans and Pakistani's to fight for Assad. Hell, a good portion of Assad's forces are now direct Iranian proxies or actual Iranian troops.

Switching over to North Africa, more specifically Libya, we abandoned this country after 2012. We have done the occasional SOF raid in country, but only to capture AQ guys. The chaos in Libya has direct repercussions for the fight in Mali, which is now re-surging, for Tunisia and AQ's group there, as well as in Egypt. AQ is still growing and Islamic State forces just captured an airbase outside of Sirte today. The chaos in Libya, while it is a direct result of NATO's intervention, it wasn't because we intervened. It was because we left the Libyans to their own devices in creating a state after Qaddafi was toppled. We assumed they could handle it so our political support was minimal at best. What we didn't realize was that under Qaddafi, political institutions were not allowed. So how can we expect people to create a state when they've never had any political institutions? We can't. So they failed and lacked the strength to curb rivaling militias and various extremist groups. Many of which are now either with AQ or IS.

And just to hit Tunisia a little bit, I expect more attacks here. With what's happening in Libya, I expect AQ's group, Katibat Uqba bin Nafi, to step up their game on the weak Tunisian military. I could also see IS sympathizers doing something there too, as IS has been calling for it. We really need to start beefing up the Tunisian military. I just want to emphasize how weak they are. They are one of the few Middle Eastern/North African states where the military never really had a large public role.

And let's be honest about AfPak. Taliban are already recapturing ground in northern A-stan with their ongoing Azm offensive. Their still doing their thing in Pak and will so long as Pak supports them. When we leave A-stan--which we shouldn't, but I digress--expect a similar situation like Iraq.

And about the Iranian deal....I oppose any deal with that lying, terrorism-supporting, domestically-repressive, ideological radical country. I don't trust any Iranian official. I'm a little biased here, but with their track record, what they have been doing in the region for years, what they did to us during the Iraq War, what they do to their own people, and what they do to our allies, fuck 'em.

What needs to happen is stronger US leadership. The region actually wants this, at least the Gulf states, Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt--which are really the countries that matter politically. Most states are afraid of a stronger Iran, as they rightfully should. More needs to be done in Iraq, we need an actual strategy for Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, and we need to reengage in Libya. But we won't until after 2016.

Well, considering everything east of Baghdad is essentially an Iranian province, and everything west of it has gone to Hell in a hand basket, I can't fault the article.

Not to mention that Obama's "Red Line" gaffe showed Putin that he could play chicken with the West and win. Now Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are "ancestral Russian territories".  I'm sure SACEUR are really happy about having that on their plate, especially since it's been Merkel who's been leading the political fight, not Obama.