The beginning of this "buy in" process often appears to be very brutal as the purveyors of the ethical system achieve “buy in” from the various local populations, but once all of the major societal elements are moving in the same direction, the society will quickly become more “enlightened.” The more violent and divergent the elements of the society are at the beginning of this process, the more extreme the people implementing the “overarching ethical system” must be to achieve “buy in.” The Taliban can be viewed as this process in its extreme infancy. Another good example of this was the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia.

As I am sure everyone here knows, Iran was a very advanced society when the Ayatollahs took over. While we like to portray the Ayatollahs as unconscionable barbarians who propagate unspeakable brutality on their people, this is grossly incorrect, at least as a general proposition. Iranians enjoy a relatively free society that has been shockingly stable for a non-Western country with substantial natural resources. I think a pragmatic analysis would lead just about everyone to believe that Iran's form of government, though not necessarily all the individuals that participate int that government, represents a best case scenario for Middle East countries. In other words, the Middle East incubator for individual freedom and democracy has always been right under our noses, it is Iran. And yes, this reality, at least in part, is why US policymakers have continuously tried to curb Iran's success as a government and a society. During my entire lifetime, it appears the US has treated the Middle East similarly to a nuclear reaction, content with moderating the forces at play with the ultimate goal of preventing a runaway reaction resulting in one or two powerful nations.

Perhaps by allowing ISIS to gain more and more power, the resulting fear throughout the Middle East of a Caliphate that would result in a return . . . well it’s hard to even put into words what it would result in, and that’s ok, but we don’t need to put into words what living under ISIS governance would entail. All we have to do is watch “The Clash of the Swords 4,” and we can get a pretty good idea.

Mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, community leaders, and yes, many religious leaders throughout the Middle East are faced with the very real prospect of the young men in their societies being rounded up and executed, thousands at a time. We have failed time and time again to establish governments in the Middle East that foster just, stable societies that are acceptable to the populations of the Middle East. Maybe this is because the order of the societies we have propped up has been determined, by and large, by those who are most capable of suckling at the US’s teats rising to the top. I suspect if the order of society, instead, is determined by those who can organically provide security to their fellow men and women, the result will be much more acceptable to local populations, and if the security is provided, for the most part, organically, the likelihood of strongmen dictators seizing power will be minimized. There would be times where we could provide slight nudges to the process, but too much intervention will undermine everything and we will be back at square one.

I think the absolute best we could hope for in the immediate future is the Iranian form of government spreading throughout the Middle East. If the people trying to implement this form of government can protect local populations from ISIS and other brutal fundamentalist, there is a chance of establishing a couple healthy, stable regimes throughout the Middle East that have the legitimate support of their people. Most importantly, we would be able to work with these governments in the near future.

I am far from a foreign affairs insider, but it is painfully obvious that saying our relationship with Iran has shifted dramatically over the last couple years is an understatement. While recounting and analyzing all of the evidence supporting this conclusion is beyond the scope of this post, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that Iran quietly (actually not that quietly upon further reflection) has become a US ally. This process likely can be traced back to the Ayatollahs' realization during the 2009 presidential election protests that business as usual would not be viable for much longer. Ahmadinejad's subsequent "defeat" further supports this conclusion. All of the current events in the Middle East strongly support the conclusion that the US and Iran are in agreement with respect to a short-term, medium-term, and possibly even long-term vision for the Middle East.

This brings us to ISIS. I vacillate between confusion and amusement on this issue. Did the US intentionally create the specific organization that is ISIS? I doubt it, but given the circumstances of its founding, and the likelihood of how its existence will likely play out, I am now firmly in the camp that it is being allowed to exist to serve the US and Iran's purposes. This is supported by the strategic realities faced by ISIS. It is surrounded both by multiple military forces that could crush it in short order and military forces that are just strong enough to poke and prod ISIS to prevent it from doing things we really don't want it to do while allowing it to continue to exist. For reasons that should be obvious, it is important to keep the operations of these allied forces relatively segregated, only using the relatively weak allies (i.e., Peshmerga, Iraqi defense forces) for keeping ISIS in check and using the more powerful forces (i.e., Iran, Egypt, US) for open, boots on the ground operations once the decision has been made to end ISIS.

By allowing ISIS to gain more and more power, the resulting fear throughout the Middle East of a Caliphate that would result in a return to . . . well it’s hard to put into words what it would result in. But we don't need to put into words what living under ISIS governance would entail. All we have to do is watch “The Clash of the Swords 4,” and we can form a pretty good idea. Mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, community leaders, and yes, many religious leaders throughout the Middle East are faced with the very real prospect of the young men in their societies being rounded up and executed, thousands at a time.

We have failed time and time again to establish governments in the Middle East that foster just, stable societies that are acceptable to the populations of the Middle East and not hellbent on destroying us. Maybe this is because the order of the societies we have propped up has been determined, by and large, by people rising to the top who who are most capable of suckling at the US’s teats. Imagine what kind of person would excel at this endeavor. There may be a very small handful of good, decent people who are capable of compromising their values on a case by case basis for the benefit of their people, but those types of people are more or less unicorns. I have no doubt that most people who rise to power in US "supported" governments and those people who achieve "commercial" success in those countries are absolutely repulsive and make for the worst types of leaders.

I suspect if the order of society in Middle East countries is instead determined by those who can organically provide security to their fellow men and women, the result will be much more acceptable to local populations. People who can do this must have genuine "buy in" from some part of the population and have the ability to organize and inspire his forces. Further, if the security is provided, for the most part, organically, the likelihood of strongmen dictators seizing power will be minimized. There would be times where we could provide slight nudges to the process, but too much intervention will undermine everything and we will be back at square one.

The absolute best we can hope for in the Middle East's intermediate future is an Iranian form of government. The widespread dissemination of near real-time depictions of atrocities, in HD video no less, via online media and social networks prevents local populations from going about their lives deluding themselves about the current state of affairs on account of wishful ignorance. They will look to local leaders for protection (i.e., warlords). An Iranian-type of government is the most likely to succeed in achieving the twin goals of successfully coordinating these local groups and obtaining genuine "buy in" from these groups over time. Hopefully, these governments could obtain "buy in" from the local populations while leapfrogging the "Taliban stage" on account of the locals with a median iq of 80 comprehending the value of "buying in" after watching the HD videos of mass killings going on around them and the speeches of their enemies' leaders professing a desire to kill all the men and rape, enslave and/or kill all the women.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2670633&forum_id=2#26301585)

It would also likely lead to the Middle East getting on with the process of civilizing those who are not in the upper class, thus raising their GDP and growing markets for US goods and services.

It also goes without saying that the ability of motivated non-governmental actors to cause destruction on a national scale is only going to increase with time. It is simply no longer an option to write-off vast swaths of the globe as lawless, barbaric heathens best to be ignored.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2670633&forum_id=2#26302366)