Kurds vs FSA/Turks - Battle of Qarqisiya in the making?

[Ashvazdanghe]

What are the signs of Imam Zaman’s (عليه السلام) dhuhur (reappearance) and which ones are reliable?

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa2032

[Northwest]

On 4/7/2025 at 2:36 AM, Diaz said:

I agree, it’s only a big amount of Syrian, Palestinian and Jordanian support this terrorist. Majority of Sunnis do not. 

@Diaz @Ashvazdanghe Additionally, Jolani’s Turkish backers are on good terms with the U.S. and Israel, so he is unlikely to fulfil the narrations by taking over Palestine. Numerous reports indicate that Jolani is essentially a joint American–Israeli–Turkish project, while also being backed by the GCC and the EU. Just recently Trump proclaimed his support for Erdoğan—and by implication Jolani—in Netanyahu’s presence, calling the takeover of Syria by HTS a tremendous achievement by Turkey:

Quote

The United States together with Israel and Turkey will be able to reach an agreement on Syria, US President Donald Trump said, replying to questions at a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"Any problem that you have with Turkey, I think we can solve, as long as you are reasonable, you have to be reasonable," he told Netanyahu, stressing that he has very good relations with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The US president noted that during a conversation with his Turkish counterpart, he congratulated him on "taking over Syria," accomplishing something that "nobody has done in 2,000 years."

^ So someone like Jolani definitely will not be challenging Zionism anytime soon.

[Eddie Mecca]

On 4/7/2025 at 12:38 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

What are the signs of Imam Zaman’s (عليه السلام) dhuhur (reappearance) and which ones are reliable?

This doesn't mean what you think it means...these narrations are simply saying that Allah reserves the right to change events, postpone events etc. This is because the Jews say that Allah's hands are Shackled 

[Eddie Mecca]

On 12/14/2024 at 8:56 PM, Abbas0 said:

the Hadiths say sufyani comes out with a vengeance basically saying “my lord, first I kill kill kill (avenge) and then I’ll go to hell after that idc” is basically how his mentality will be. What will he avenge tho?

The revenge part could be the Axis of Resistance setting back or sabotaging the plans of the Crusaders, Zionists and Takfiris by 15 years...HTS and American administration is extremely angry at the Shi'a for wasting billions of their dollars and manpower and time...now they have a score to settle w/ Iran and its allies...especially the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups in Syria...they've been trying to oust Assad since 1975 and have experienced setback after setback...hence the vengeance 

[Eddie Mecca]

On 1/6/2025 at 12:31 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

I visited an online Salafi community platform a while back...and some of the contributors were attempting to make the case that Al Sufyani will be a righteous figure

"In contrast, McCants writes that while Sunnis also have prophecies about a Sufyani, some include him in a heroic mode, "fighting on the side of the Mahdi against his enemies: 'The Sufyani and the Mahdi will come forth like two race horses. The Sufyani will subdue (the region) that is next to him, and the Mahdi will subdue (the region) next to him.'" McCants quotes Adnan al-Aroor, a "popular Syrian Salafi cleric", hoping for the appearance of the Sufyani to lead the Sunni rebels to victory in the Syrian civil war: "God willing, all of us will be in the army of the Sufyani, who will appear in (Syria) by the permission of God," prayed Adnan al-Arur, a popular Syrian Salafi cleric and supporter of the rebellion who currently lives in Saudi Arabia." - Wikipedia

Edited May 1 by Eddie Mecca

[RiseOrDie]

US is consolidating its troops in Syria (likely a move to protect them before times of trouble in the region).

They have also withdrawn troops to Iraq (where the US has bases with better air defence), and they have allegedly handed over some heavy equipment to the SDF like artillery pieces.

[Northwest]

On 5/12/2025 at 2:02 AM, RiseOrDie said:

US is consolidating its troops in Syria (likely a move to protect them before times of trouble in the region).

@RiseOrDie So long as the U.S. views Iran as a regional problem, any talk of “withdrawal” is likely to remain a smokescreen, in my view. During his first term Trump often spoke of exiting Syria while also espousing a hardline anti-Iran stance. Given geography, I could never really understand Trump’s logic; a U.S. military presence in Syria would be the strongest guarantee vs. Iranian influence there and in Lebanon. At any rate, Trump’s approach was to substitute some wars (i.e., on Iran and the “Resistance Axis”) for others (i.e., Ukraine), not to abandon militaristic U.S. imperial hegemony in general.

On 5/12/2025 at 2:02 AM, RiseOrDie said:

They have also withdrawn troops to Iraq (where the US has bases with better air defence), and they have allegedly handed over some heavy equipment to the SDF like artillery pieces.

^ Do you have a source for this? Right now the U.S. and its proxies seem to be backing a centralised, unified Syria under Jolani/HTS to effectively counter Iran. As I mentioned before, apparently the SDF is now sending Damascus oil, despite possible quibbles on internal governance, and most Druze factions have submitted to the government for now; mediation helped suppress the brief Druze–Islamist flareup recently. Any fight among HTS, Druze, and the SDF would badly harm the American–Israeli effort vs. Iran.

[RiseOrDie]

6 hours ago, Northwest said:

@RiseOrDie So long as the U.S. views Iran as a regional problem, any talk of “withdrawal” is likely to remain a smokescreen, in my view. During his first term Trump often spoke of exiting Syria while also espousing a hardline anti-Iran stance. Given geography, I could never really understand Trump’s logic; a U.S. military presence in Syria would be the strongest guarantee vs. Iranian influence there and in Lebanon. At any rate, Trump’s approach was to substitute some wars (i.e., on Iran and the “Resistance Axis”) for others (i.e., Ukraine), not to abandon militaristic U.S. imperial hegemony in general.

^ Do you have a source for this? Right now the U.S. and its proxies seem to be backing a centralised, unified Syria under Jolani/HTS to effectively counter Iran. As I mentioned before, apparently the SDF is now sending Damascus oil, despite possible quibbles on internal governance, and most Druze factions have submitted to the government for now; mediation helped suppress the brief Druze–Islamist flareup recently. Any fight among HTS, Druze, and the SDF would badly harm the American–Israeli effort vs. Iran.

I agree with you. 

Regarding the news about the heavy weapons, this was denied by SDF. Also the only noise about it was coming from pro-HTS and some radical pro-Erdogan accounts.

For now the Trump/Netanyahu strategy is employing soft power and hard power to achieve joint goals. I think their current disagreement is fake, Netanyahu uses hard power like threats, bombing, sabotage meanwhile Trump comes in with negotiations, deals, and sanctions relief. 

They're doing in Gaza, they did it against Joulani, and they're trying it against Iran. This way they squeeze the best deal for Israel. Its all in Trumps book 'Art of the deal'. For example he used lawyers or politcians to pressure and bully potential rivals, then he comes in with a very 'bad deal' that he refers to as a great deal.

[Ashvazdanghe]

11 hours ago, Northwest said:

Any fight among HTS, Druze, and the SDF would badly harm the American–Israeli effort vs. Iran.

Hi their long term plan is Balkanization of whole of region toward western borders of India based on new  middle east doctrine which Balkanization of Syria & Iraq & Iran even Turkey  specially Iran will be in favor interests of American–Israeli .

Quote

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=drXkPwt0&id=EC88E098F6871F6F783B57BE567F27C8C6465FD5&thid=OIP.drXkPwt0BCdMnGB7ktW-TAHaFa&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fstatic.timesofisrael.com%2fwww%2fuploads%2f2023%2f09%2f33W786X-highres.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.76b5e43f0b7404274c9c607b92d5be4c%3frik%3d1V9Gxsgnf1a%2bVw%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=1497&expw=2048&q=doctrine+of+new+middle+east&simid=607996658165773736&FORM=IRPRST&ck=DC9BC8C9C81784F87A94F385D9528F61&selectedIndex=0&itb=0

 

 

Energy And Commerce Will Drive Trump’s New Middle East Doctrine

Quote

The Trump Doctrine Strategy

This is where the dealmaking feeds into a comprehensive strategy backed by American energy and economic might, and a presidential exercise of geopolitical leverage. In his speech in Riyadh, President Trump discarded the neoconservative, morality-based, nation building approach which led to the creation during the George W. Bush years of disastrous, seemingly interminable wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

“In the end,” Trump said, “the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built and the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves."

In place of the neo-con vision for the Middle East, Trump laid out a vision that discards fights over morality and religious differences, replaced by a vision grounded in commerce and energy. All of it revolves around Trump’s revised goals related to the enhancement of American energy security.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2025/05/18/energy-and-commerce-will-drive-trumps-new-middle-east-doctrine/

Quote

In practice, the Wolfowitz Doctrine influenced the US to perceive of all states as being part of a zero-sum power game and having a unique role to play, which in turn was elaborated upon by Zbigniew Bzezinski in his 1997 work about the “Grand Chessboard”[14]. The US’ goal is to either co-opt or control all states in the world in order to bring them into Western-led institutions, from where they could then be subordinated, neutralized, and redirected as weaponized chess pieces against the remaining players, taken in this case to be Russia, China, and Iran. As the US strives towards this megalomaniac goal, it is invariably placed in circumstances where its decision makers and strategists see an advantageous desire to engage in regime change.

The US promotes regime change through one of two ways. The first one is direct and in accordance with the neorealistic model of direct state-on-state force, but this is costly in terms of both personnel and finances. The most prominent example is Iraq, but Panama and Grenada are two smaller-scale ones where a conventional regime change military invasion didn’t result in a total war against the population. On the other hand there’s the indirect model which follows the neoliberal theory. The concept here is to use diplomacy to gradually promote the long-term transformation of the targeted state, such as like what the US is presently employing in regards to Iran, Cuba, and Myanmar. The problem, though, is the timeframe, which might not be sufficient for some decision makers who might think that the matter at hand is much too urgently pressing to potentially dilly dally around for decades.

https://en.interaffairs.ru/article/ir-theory-and-the-new-middle-east/

[Northwest]

9 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi their long term plan is Balkanization of whole of region toward western borders of India based on new  middle east doctrine which Balkanization of Syria & Iraq & Iran even Turkey  specially Iran will be in favor interests of American–Israeli.

Energy And Commerce Will Drive Trump’s New Middle East Doctrine

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2025/05/18/energy-and-commerce-will-drive-trumps-new-middle-east-doctrine/

https://en.interaffairs.ru/article/ir-theory-and-the-new-middle-east/

@Ashvazdanghe Those articles do not refer to a new “Sykes-Picot,” but rather to its opposite: an attempt to mould an order that favours U.S. material interests. On Iran, energy security, and trade, the last thing the U.S. (or Israel) needs is more instability or disunity. If anything, attempts to informally partition Syria (2017–24) were more a temporary means to press Assad until a pro-U.S. regime assumed power and marginalised Iran. Otherwise neither the U.S. nor Israel likely sees much use in redrawing borders further, given that doing so would ultimately disrupt ties with key partners such as the GCC and/or Turkey.

A Kurdish or Druze quasi-state in Syria threatens the Arabs—even U.S.-friendly ones—and Turks as much as it does the Iranians. (Incidentally, Trump is on the best of terms with Erdoğan, whose regime seems to be firmly established.) Any effort to fragment the region would disrupt foreign investment and energy supplies, so Trump’s strategy, as outlined above, inherently enshrines a focus on stability. So the U.S. is likely to focus on stabilising Syria and its non-Iranian neighbours under the aegis of the Sunni–Zionist bloc. Ensuring the solidification of this bloc, in fact, is in line with longstanding U.S. policy; Trump is hardly being original here.

Do you really think that Netanyahu, or any Israeli elite, has a material stake in overthrowing the KSA, the UAE, or Azerbaijan, for instance? “Balkanization of whole of region” would inevitably include the GCC. Even AKP-led Turkey has been quite supportive of Israel behind the scenes. Moreover, breaking up the region, as mentioned, would potentially disrupt any grand anti-Iran coalition or body, including a central regional power. To achieve its aims the U.S. needs to unite the MENA both internally and internationally. If anti-Iran groups fight one another, then the U.S. ends up defeating itself. The U.S. hardly needs a Druze–Kurdish–Salafi bloodbath in Syria right now.

[RiseOrDie]

I think you're both right, but on different timescales.

Trump's major agenda in his first term was to create an "Arab NATO" that was made up of GCC states, Jordan, Egypt, and Morocco. Now you can add Syria to that equation. I believe this is still on the table, but tied to a 2 state solution, but this condition can be skipped if let's say Iran closes the strait of Hormuz and a coalition is formed to reopen the strait.

The long term plan in the Middle East is likely balkanization where Israel rules supreme.

I think if we see an Arab coalition form in the coming years, we can then expect a 3 way clash Arabs vs Turks vs Iranians. Sort of a war of attrition where the super powers don't allow anyone to win until the entire Middle east becomes weak. Basically what happened in Syria since 2011.

Was Syria a mini experiment before the big conflict? 

[Ashvazdanghe]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

Do you really think that Netanyahu, or any Israeli elite, has a material stake in overthrowing the KSA, the UAE, or Azerbaijan, for instance?

Hi history has shown that they betray to their allies too easily which their current coalition is ue to common goal of enmity with Iran which zionist Israel won't tolerate so called allies after Balkanization of Iran because it's fundamental doctrine is about expanding it's territory based on fom river to sea which they won't tolerate any opposition even a mini opposition which zionist Israel needs "Druze–Kurdish–Salafi bloodbath in Syria right now." which Trump as most loyal servant of zionists  can't oppose it which Trump  just wants to do damage control under guise of shaking stability for USA's rivalry with China ; which Turkey just looks for it's benefit as a traitor which justification of if I don't do it so then others will do it for their benefit. 

[Northwest]

8 hours ago, RiseOrDie said:

I think if we see an Arab coalition form in the coming years, we can then expect a 3 way clash Arabs vs Turks vs Iranians. Sort of a war of attrition where the super powers don't allow anyone to win until the entire Middle east becomes weak. Basically what happened in Syria since 2011.

Was Syria a mini experiment before the big conflict? 

@RiseOrDie Ultimately I think that Arab–Turk cleavage might be overestimated, given that Turkey has long been dependent on GCC investment, whether via Riyadh or Doha or both. Erdoğan’s regime could never have survived friction with Europe, much less the U.S., if not for all the Saudi and Qatari finance. Moreover, if anything, GCC–Turkey links seem stronger than ever. For instance, Trump’s Saudi-brokered move to remove sanctions on Syria apparently received Turkey’s blessing. There are also signs that Turkey may consent to Syria’s joining the Saudi-led Abraham Accords. Political theatre notwithstanding, Turkey is very much tied to the Arab wing of the Sunni–Zionist bloc; after all, the whole regime-change operation in Syria was a joint Turkish–Arab endeavour vs. the Iranian-led “Resistance Axis.” (Of course Erdoğan has always wanted closer economic relations with both the GCC and Israel, but has had to feign opposition at times.)

[Northwest]

8 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi history has shown that they betray to their allies too easily which their current coalition is ue to common goal of enmity with Iran which zionist Israel won't tolerate so called allies after Balkanization of Iran because it's fundamental doctrine is about expanding it's territory based on fom river to sea which they won't tolerate any opposition even a mini opposition which zionist Israel needs "Druze–Kurdish–Salafi bloodbath in Syria right now." which Trump as most loyal servant of zionists  can't oppose it which Trump just wants to do damage control under guise of shaking stability for USA's rivalry with China ; which Turkey just looks for it's benefit as a traitor which justification of if I don't do it so then others will do it for their benefit. 

@Ashvazdanghe ^ Maybe Israel will turn on its Arab clients later, but if it wants to defeat—and break up—Iran first, it needs a united front under Western patronage, so it must unite all anti-Iran forces in Syria and regionally. Resuming the Syrian civil war at the moment would not be in Israel’s interest, as it would disrupt the formation of an anti-Iran coalition there, involving Salafi, Druze, and Kurdish factions. If any of these forces start fighting one another, then the formation of an anti-Iran military force (and political base) becomes next to impossible. (To counter Iran the collective West also needs Pakistan, but that is another matter.) The Israeli leadership may be aggressive, but it is not stupid. If anything, a Syrian bloodbath at this time might allow Iran or its allies to indirectly regain some leverage, by siding with one faction against another out of mutual self-preservation. For the record, I do not think that any of the anti-Iran parties wants internecine conflict in Syria before Iran is carved up; a renewed war there would upset their shared anti-Iran agenda.