Turkey’s Erdogan says West backing Kurdish terrorists in Syria | Reuters

/us-syria-crisis-turkey-erdogan-idUSKBN0

  • Sunni Alliances Trump Obama Administration Terrorism Concerns in Syria
    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31266-sunni-alliances-trump-obama-administration-terrorism-concerns-in-sy

    The government of Qatar and some in al-Nusra itself had hoped to placate Washington by rebranding the al-Qaeda affiliate as a nationalist resistance organization that is separate from al-Qaeda and interested in ousting the Assad regime only. But that ruse has now collapsed, and the Obama administration has still made no move to demand that its allies shut down their support for al-Nusra.

    And therein lies a key to understanding the real dynamics governing US Middle East policy: The policy makers regard the alliances and the US military bases located in the Sunni states as more important than the threat they have helped to create.

    • Honnêtement je ne suis pas trop convaincu par l’explication de Gareth Porter.

      Ici l’"allié sunnite" Erdogan se plaint :
      Turkey’s Erdogan says West backing Kurdish terrorists in Syria | Reuters
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/11/us-syria-crisis-turkey-erdogan-idUSKBN0OR11620150611

      Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan accused the West on Thursday of bombing Arabs and Turkmens in Syria while supporting Kurdish “terrorist” groups he said were filling the void left behind.

      Il me semble qu’il s’agit plus pour les #Etats-Unis de couper toute tête qui dépasse.

    • @kassem : Vous avez raison, donc je vais essayer de préciser mon appréciation.
      Le tableau général de la position américaine actuelle avec le rappel des faits récents, et de ses relations ambivalentes avec ses « alliés », sur fond de négociation avec l’Iran, m’a paru intéressant. D’autant qu’une analyse approfondie sur les raisons qui amènent à ce rééquilibrage périlleux des alliances - un peu plus d’Iran, mais pas trop - est rarement faite.
      D’accord, par contre, pour dire que la thèse de GP qui cherche à expliquer la position américaine de soutien à la « rébellion » par le fait qu’ils dépendent des bases de ses alliés « sunnites » est un peu courte. D’autant que dans la région, il y a tout de même un autre allié que les Etats « sunnites » qui a, lui, autrement plus de poids pour influencer la définition de la politique étrangère US...

    • U.S. Counter-Terrorism and the Saudi-Turkish-Israeli Strategic Alliance to Overthrow Assad (1/2)
      http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14044

      I would say that there are really two major kinds of forces that are sort of sucking the Obama administration into precisely this situation. And one of them is [...] that the Israelis and the other, the Sunni allies of the United States in the Middle East on whom we rely for military bases, the access to military bases in that region, as well as in the case of the Saudis for a huge bonanza of arms trade, arms sales, which add up to hundreds of million—excuse me, hundreds of billions of dollars over the next couple of decades. This is a very powerful set of interests that incline the U.S. national security state to go along with this.

      But on the second interest, I think, the second situation that does impel the Obama administration that direction, is that Obama definitely does not want the United States military to go to war in, against Isis or al-Nusra on the ground. And he’s inclined to say to the Sunni states, well, if you want to fight it out with these people in Syria then go ahead. So he’s kind of washing his hands of the outcome in Syria in that regard, it appears to me.