Gulan: After Russian attacks over ISIL inside Syria, the political equation of Middle East has undergone some transition, indeed; Russia would like to be a main player of re-drafting the regional politics of Middle East. To what extent Russian intervention will require U.S. and NATO to revise their attitudes?

Sullivan: The Russian intervention into Syria has changed the calculus for many of the parties involved. Russia is an aggressive player wherever it is. It has its own goals, which include, it seems, the at least temporary propping up of the Al-Assad regime until an alternative can be found. Russia's attacks on non-ISIL targets have confused the situation and certainly give the sense that protection of the regime is more important than going after ISIL. Having Russian aircraft and soldiers on the ground makes the situation more tense and potentially more dangerous. The French, British and others will likely get more involved in the situations in Syria and possibly Iraq. The US will remain limited in its further actions barring very extreme events due to domestic politics in the US and due to the coming election cycle, which makes this administration a near lame duck one.

Gulan: Russian intervention has re-categorized the U.S. allies and enemies in Middle East, the enemies of the U.S. and The West are directly supporting and considering themselves as Russian allies. To what extent this categorizing is going to create a polarization between Russia and U.S. in Middle East?

Sullivan: The US does not see Russia as an ally. The US does not support Assad. Nor do the Saudis and many others in the region. This is an extremely complicated situation with many parties involved with sometimes conflicting or even self-contradictory interests even within each country. People who are part of ISIL can also be part of other extreme groups. It is also not clear who is what on the ground sometimes. One thing is clear: the ultra-extremists and the "Fahish", the obscene ones, are the enemy of the world. They are, to follow from that, enemies of the Kurds, Turks, Iran, and more. They have many enemies, those within the evil called ISIL. It may be best if the enemies of ISIL for at least for some time worked together to rid the region and the world of this cancer.

Gulan: The Western allies in the area are Sunni Islamic countries, but countries that consider themselves as allies to Russia are Iran, Iraq, Hizbullah and Huthis in Yemen. That means if U.S. and Russia have different perspectives towards Middle East, but their allies are enemies to each other based on sectarian differences. To what extent tension between Sunni and Shiite sectarian groups will be the basis of Russian and American conflict in the area?

Sullivan: I would hope that we could get beyond that. There is no ideological or religious reason why the Russians should ally themselves with Shia countries and groups. It just worked out that way via inertia, history and opportunity. Iraq is more than just the Shia south, however, and that needs to be considered in the complexity of all of this. I hope that the Shia-Sunni tensions do not breed a Russia-US conflict. That would likely end badly for all involved.



However, it does seem like the region is heading for another very big storm. This storm will be fed by sectarian strife and east-west tensions, but it is also, and let us not forget this, powered by realpolitick for some and money, power, survival and other goals by others involved. The "sectarian" tensions are much more than about religion. They are often more about money, power, strategic position and striving for hegemony. There is also a lot of tribalism involved. I see nothing good coming form this.



I see no real chance for a solution to the problems brought about by the collapse of parts of Syria and Iraq any time soon. In a situation this complex with so many players with so many complex and fluid goals mistakes can be made. One would hope that the hurricane of violence and instability that seems to be coming could be stopped, but I do not see any great strategic and thought leaders who can step in to stop it. In many ways these problems, and the death and destruction that comes from them, are the result of inadequate regional and global leadership, and a lack of the required ethics and morality needed to resolve the conflict among many of the so-called leaders involved. Real moral and strategic leadership is needed. I see very little of it compared to what is needed in such a situation.

Gulan: Since Russia has always been considered as the backbone of Iran in the area, so Russian intervention in Syria will be harmful for the interests of Israel. How Israel is going to react within the new equation as we have Iran and Russia playing the essential role in it?

Israel will need to be very careful and quiet on this. They are in a more insecure situation than they have been since the founding of their state.

Gulan: In the war against ISIL terrorism, Kurds have become an important aspect of the war and are considered as allies to U.S. and NATO, moreover; Kurds are looking forward to meet their dream of having an independent state. According to your view; how far Kurds are going to have a strong position in the new equation of changes in Middle East with regards of declaring independency?

Sullivan: The Kurds had a state via the Treaty of Sevres so long ago. It did not survive the changes in leadership in the region. The Kurds, outside of the extremists, could be a big part of the solution to the many problems of the area. The real enemies need to be distinguished from allies and partners. This is far from simple. Past grievances need to be gotten over in order to save the region from the potentially far more massive deadly and destructive military and political hurricane that could be coming, but is not really deterministic or destined. Sometimes very difficult tradeoffs need to be made for the greater good of the world and the region.

Gulan: The only aspect which has stayed neutral in terms of Sunni-Shiite division in the area is Kurdish people, since naturally Kurds are in favor of western cultures and democracy. According to your opinion; to what extent U.S. and the West are going to be concerned about this property of Kurds as an ally and a friend in the new Middle East?



Sullivan: Again, the Kurds, some of them, not the extremists among them, could be a big part of the solutions to the many problems in the area. It is time to move forward to a better region before it is too late.

Gulan: Experts and scholars are discussing the inevitable probability of changes to take place in Middle East. To what extent there are chances for borders to change and draft a new map for Middle East?

Sullivan: The borders have already changed. Most people have not noticed it just yet because most of the world is sleepwalking through these disasters. Sykes-Picot is gone. The borders that were drawn by outsiders over the centuries are being redrawn by the people of the region whether the outsiders like it or not. Syria is no longer a country. It is gone. Iraq is to some extent shattered from what the map says it is. Yemen is shattered. Libya is a failed state. And there is more to come. The violence and instability of the region are far from over. I would not be surprised to see the maps and borders change in many unexpected ways. The region is in turmoil and that turmoil will not end until the underlying reasons behind it are resolved to a great extent. I do not see that happening any time soon.

The good people and good leaders of the region need to work together and put aside their differences, at least for a while, in order to rid the region of its greatest present and potentially future threats.