Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Duuvian]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing when fighting ISIS. I would like to see ISIS/ISIL stopped in both Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately America and the West are at odds with Iran in Syria, where Iran supports the dictatorship rather than moderate rebels. However American and Iranian co-operation against the 'third side' ISIL in Iraq has become could lead to cooperation finding a compromise alternative to Assad amongst the rebels in Syria to stop the fighting and keep post war atrocities at a minimum or prevented. Preferably one that the Russian leadership also can live with, as they also have provided a large amount of support to Assad and I assume would continue until they are satisfied their own interests are protected by a new (democratic) regime.

I say this because I've read there is some evidence somewhere Assad and ISIS/ISIL are at least sharing intelligence against rebel groups if not co-operating strategically. While perhaps it can be chalked down to pragmatism rather than collaboration by design it would be odd for Iran to encourage such activities while supporting one and opposing the other.

As for the Kurdish advance, it would be utter foolishness for the Iraqi government to antagonize the Kurds now, landgrab or not. Remember the Nationalists and Communists in China against the Japanese. The Nationalists would not call for peace with the Communists during the Japanese invasion until well after it had begun and lost the support of a great deal of the populace for it. It's not exactly the same situation but I imagine there are also some similarities.

[10ebbor10]

I don't think Iran is going to let Assad go actually. Remember, Assad is the one who's maintain the secular government. Both ISIS and the so called moderate rebels* seek to install Sunni dominated Sharia state.

And as a matter of fact, Assad is winning against both forces, so they have no reason to seek cooperation. In fact, Assad and his allies have all reason to believe that once they crush the remaining moderate rebels, everyone else will have no other choice to support him against ISIS.

Edit: Assad and ISIS are, if not cooperating, then certainly avoiding excessive combat with each other. Both forces know that the largest threat to their victory is a foreign military intervention. By eliminating the "moderate" opposition, such an intervention becomes politically unviable for the west, allowing them to continue their war without disturbance. I've seen reports of cooperation, including not bombing known ISIS headquarters, buying fuel and oil.

I'm pretty sure Iran knows this actually. If you look, you find plenty of examples of Iran giving up principles for strategic gain.


*Who are only moderate by comparison to ISIS.

[Duuvian]

Actually, you are incorrect. While there are indeed many groups in Syria who fit your statement, the main one supported by the West:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

Riad al-Asaad stated in October 2011 that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) has no political goals except the removal of Bashar Assad as president of Syria.[20][21] The FSA has also claimed that the conflict is not sectarian, that they have in their ranks Alawis who oppose the government, and that there will be no reprisals if it falls.[22] On 23 September 2011, the Free Syrian Army merged with the Free Officers Movement (Arabic: حركة الضباط الأحرار‎, Ḥarakat aḑ-Ḑubbāṭ al-Aḥrār) and became the main opposition army group.[8][23][24] By July 2012, there were over 100,000 defectors from the armed forces reported, according to activist and media sources.[25] About a year prior, American intelligence sources gave estimates of more than 10,000 defectors.[26][27] The actual number of soldiers defecting to the Free Syrian Army is unknown.[28][29]

The Free Syrian Army is moderate, secular and backed by the United States with weapons and training.[38] In recent months these weapons have included advanced American made BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missiles.[39] The FSA is in stark contrast with groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra which have been designated as terrorist by several Western countries;[40] this has lead to a rift between the secular forces fighting the Syrian government and al-Qaeda linked groups such as al-Nusra and ISIS, often resulting in deaths.[41][42] The FSA maintains good relations with moderate Islamist factions such as the Islamic Front.[39]

Edit: Assad and ISIS are, if not cooperating, then certainly avoiding excessive combat with each other. Both forces now that the largest threat to their victory is a foreign military intervention. By eliminating the "moderate" opposition, such an intervention becomes politically unviable for the west, allowing them to continue their war without disturbance. I've seen reports of cooperation, including not bombing known ISIS headquarters, buying fuel and oil.

I agree with this. It would be a sound strategy for Assad and Isis. While I can understand Iran's hesitance towards Western intervention it remains to be seen how much spilled blood and instability Iran can tolerate to watch Assad's obstinance cause before they feel obligated to intervene against him themselves.

[10ebbor10]

They're but a part of part of an already fractured opposition, and are losing a two front war. They had to make significant concessions to their Islamic allies already.

There'll need to be a significant game changer for Iran to change ships.

[Duuvian]

Iran changing ships would be enough of a game-changer itself.

[LordSlowpoke]

i assume you are aware that in extremely simple terms bordering on misuse, iran is inverted turkey

all it would take is someone in the administration going "yeah that's a good idea"

alternatively, there's the option of the iranian clergy flipping the fuck out in case holy sites are disturbed and forcing the administration's hand into it but that would mean the regime's mouthpiece would find itself in some deep shit and that shit is even deeper when contrasted with the lucrative stools they're occupying currently

[10ebbor10]

Assad certainly isn't a saint, but the other forces aren't exactly humane either. So far, Assad is the only one who has managed to maintain a sense of normality and livability in his core provinces. (The fact that he's bombarding civilian areas doesn't help for the livability there, but anyway).

The Iran-Syria-Lebanon axis of resistance has remained intact for more than a decade. They're not going to drop it now.

i assume you are aware that in extremely simple terms bordering on misuse, iran is inverted turkey

all it would take is someone in the administration going "yeah that's a good idea"

alternatively, there's the option of the iranian clergy flipping the fuck out in case holy sites are disturbed and forcing the administration's hand into it but that would mean the regime's mouthpiece would find itself in some deep shit and that shit is even deeper when contrasted with the lucrative stools they're occupying currently

Assad is part of the Alawite (related to Shia) minority. As such, the Iranian Clergy is firmly behind him. Syria is predominatly Sunni, so the chance they hit anything of religious importance to Iran is limited.

[LordSlowpoke]

the chance that isis, which absolutely adores wrecking such sites (just like the saudis, they claim it's worshipping idols) actually wrecks them is pretty big though

and they're all over iraq and syria (in the current scenario, damascus and karbala are notable)

this is what i meant here

[Duuvian]

The Iran-Syria-Lebanon axis of resistance has remained intact for more than a decade. They're not going to drop it now.

I agree with you that it would not make sense for Iran to want to drop such an alliance now. What I suggest is that this axis does not necessarily dissolve after removing Assad from power.

[10ebbor10]

No reason for them to risk it. They gain nothing by switching their support.

[Duuvian]

They stop the war and start reducing the instability it's causing throughout the region. They earn some friendship points with the West (the Russians too if their interests are protected; I'm sure the situation makes Putin the human being uncomfortable even if he doesn't show his discomfort often) and gain the worldwide credibility that peacemakers often earn. They stop having to fund military ventures into Syria. ISIL would be easier to crush. Non-military trade with Syria resumes and refugees can return home. Polio vaccinations and other humanitarian actions that can be said to benefit the people of Iran as well as Syrians will resume. A member of their alliance is no longer at civil war and can turn their view outwards.

[10ebbor10]

I doubt that simply dropping support for Assad will be sufficient to make him give up. Besides, the Islamic brigades aren't going to agree to a democratic state without a fight. You might end the civil war, but you will immediately start a sectarian war between the moderate rebels, the less moderate rebels, and ISIS. In the end, the only thing you will accomplish is ruining those few provinces that still had a semblance of security.

On a side note, I saw something on a new site about a possible Iran backed peace resolution. Highlights:

- Assad admitting that he has done things wrong (Note: does not include gas attack. Merely barrel bombing)
- Diplomatic Immunity for Assad and his government, as well as key military figures
- Constitution reform by a joint council formed by the current government and moderate rebels. Exiles don't get to participate, and neither does ISIS.
- Installation of a joint interim government by moderate rebels and current government. Assad might not be part of this.

[Helgoland]

Immunity for Assad? That won't fly with large parts of the population. What I keep hoping for is a palace revolution - Assad and his government are removed by the second row, and the (now semi-clean) Syrian state forges an alliance with moderate rebels to crush the Islamists.
Basically I'm hoping Assad is sacrificed like a pawn in chess - he himself isn't that important, after all.

[LordSlowpoke]

you keep pushing for assad's death and this is what strikes me as unpleasant

ideally nobody would die in the entire civil war but civil wars involve deaths as a sort of basis for being

in fact, barring a solution that somehow turns syria into a democratic state (which would be the second actual success of the arab spring, and that is just sad) i consider the continuation of assad's reign highly preferential to the alternatives currently offered

[10ebbor10]

What was the first success of the Arab spring? I can't remember any.

On a side note, the alleged Iranian proposal would be a slow move towards a more democratic society. Be it one that for the time being would be dominated by Assad.