If Iran does decide to fulfill its obligations do you believe it would send troops by air or by sea? If by air do you think Iran could get over flight rights from its neighbors to transport troops?
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ousting-assad/1044523/0 US recognition of the Syrian opposition frames the need for a political resolution to the crisis The United States’s formal recognition of a coalition of Syrian opposition groups as the legitimate representative of the country’s people marks a watershed moment in the bloody civil war. On the eve of an international conference in Marrakech, President Barack Obama said the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces was now inclusive, reflective and representative enough for the US to take this “big step”. The move is likely to bolster the morale of the rebels, but it also seeks to isolate extremist factions, such as Jabhat al-Nusra, a militant group Washington has designated a terrorist organisation. However, it does not come with a commitment to offer military support to the rebels, keeping the US decidedly on the sidelines of the conflict. Although some criticise the US’s delayed and restrained action for being too little too late, it puts significant pressure on President Bashar al-Assad to accept his inevitable defeat. The death toll has crossed 40,000 according to independent observers, and fighting in Damascus, Assad’s stronghold, has intensified. Between Nato’s deployment of patriot missile systems along the Turkish border and US intelligence reports that activity at Syria’s chemical weapon stockpiles escalated earlier this month, the international community has no choice but to respond with greater urgency. Britain, France, Turkey and the Gulf Cooperation Council had already recognised the National Coalition as Syria’s political representative last month, and some Gulf states, notably Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have provided rebel fighters with arms. The conflict should remain a top priority for the UN, where Russia and China have repeatedly blocked sanctions. The Friends of Syria coalition, which India is a part of, met on Wednesday. Foreign ministers of over 70 countries will discuss possible solutions to the conflict, but Russia declined to participate in the conference. Instead, it expressed surprise that the US has placed “all its bets on an armed victory” for the coalition. If Moscow and Beijing continue to drag their feet and prevent UN action, the opposition might splinter further between moderate and radical factions, despite its attempts to cobble together a united front. With the US’s declaration of support for the opposition, Assad is one step closer to the door, but until he is pushed out, he will continue his brutal assault against Syrian citizens. This is coming from a centrist Indian newspaper.
Although you raise a legitimate question, I am pretty sure Iran will manage to get troops into Syria, if it decides that is what it needs to do. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/world/middleeast/iran-has-rosy-view-of-unrest-in-syria.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/w...rt-to-cut-syria-arms-flow.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20710561 Russia realizes now that assad will lose. As for iran, they are not going to send any troops to syria. I expect them to increase their proxy support from hezbollah to fight there, but you won't see iranian troops in syria. They know the moment they do send in any troops they risk a full fight with Israel and the US. A fight they know they can't win.
I don't see the regular army (Artesh) being deployed to Syria but it is possible that the Pasdaran (ie. the IRGC) will be. I don't see how troops in Syria will be a "red line" for Israel or the US though. Israel seems to be happy with Assad as Assad is maintaining calm along the Israeli-Syrian border but is obviously indirectly increasing instability for Israel with Hezbollah. The "rebels" may try a lot harder to regain control of the Golan and given their much more widespread international recognition may cause the international community to pressure Israel more into giving up the Golan. For the US, sure a change in regime will reduce Iranian influence but the new government could also be a supporter of terrorism in the same way Assad is and not just against Israel. Obviously a fight with the US is a futile endeavor but I think they may view a fight with Israel as worth having. That said, IMO, a fight with Israel will mean BOTH the IRI and Israel are significantly weakened. This will mean a stronger Saudi Arabia/Egypt/Persian Gulf shiekdoms. Iranian oil will be off the market which will increased revenues for Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf shiekdoms. In addition, their two main rivals would also be weakened militarily/politically.
Why would Iran risk a fight with the US by sending troops to Syria? Did the US go to war with Saudi Arabia when the latter sent troops to quell peaceful political protests in Bahrain when Bahrain's puppet ruler invoked his treaty with Saudi Arabia and requested assistance, for the US to get into war with Iran just because Iran sends troops to help Syria put down an armed rebellion by groups that are directed, financed and equipped by outsiders, doing so based on Iran's treaty obligations to Syria? My admittedly rhetorical question aside, I don't expect the US to get into war with Iran regardless of whether Iran sends troops to Syria or not. The main problem with Iran sending troops is the fact that we don't share a border with Syria, which complicates the process of sending and supplying such troops. As I mentioned in response to an earlier message on this point, I suspect Iran will find a way to get around the problem but that seems to me to be a problem that will at least limit the number of troops Iran can commit. At most, Iran might be able to send a contingent of a few thousand, but I am not sure that number is going to be worth the effort? In my opinion, now that the US is out of that country, Iran needs to work very hard to bring Iraq four square on Iran's side and not allow those who are plotting against Iran in Iraq to succeed there. If Iraq is secured and becomes an ally of Iran, then together Iran and Iraq can easily secure the situation in Syria as well, allowing the supply lines and support to Hezbollah in Lebanon to continue. If not, Iran's situation will become very difficult.
If Iraq is TRULY liberated, doesn't mean that IT should choose its alliances as it sees in its national interests? IMO, it's NOT in Iraq's interest to become a satellite of Iran. Iraq can be a great power in the Persian Gulf that can compete with Iran. It has the location and natural resources to compete with Iran. That said it is also NOT in Iraq's interests to be at war with Iran. Iraq should be on IRAQ's side and no one else's. Not Iran's. Not Americas. Not Israel's. Not Russias. That's what sovereignty means. Now, Iraq can have alliances with other countries as it sees fit but ultimately it needs to be on its own side.
When Iran and Iraq have worked together, as in the Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassanid period, or as during the Abbasid Caliphate, both have benefited. When Iraq has been taken outside of the Iranian sphere, it has suffered and been the scene and cause of numerous wars, including most of the wars fought between Iran and the Ottoman empire as well as the Iran-Iraq war and various other such encounters. No one has ever said that a truly liberated country has to be friendless or can't choose to have allies. That is not the criteria at all.
<No one has ever said that a truly liberated country has to be friendless or can't choose to have allies. That is not the criteria at al> - That is exactly what I am saying. Of course you can't be friendless in this world and expect to survive. But shouldn't that be up to the people of Iraq rather than Iranians, Americans, Turks or Israelis, or Egyptians? That's the problem countries like Saudi Arabia have. Their people are stridently anti-American and yet their government is heavily allied with the US. Saudi Arabia may be the most important ally the US has in the Middle East/Central Asia. And yet these countries could hardly be more different. So when the United States decides to sever the relationship (American think tanks are already discussing the possibility), Saudi Arabia becomes weak very quickly similar to what Iran was under the shah. The shah was so dependent on American military for his defense needs that when there was an enghelab, Iran was essentially defenseless quickly because of the lack of spare parts that were needed. <Iranian sphere> - That's the point. Iraqis I talk to don't want to be part of the "Iranian sphere". As you point out, Iraq has suffered when it has had an antagonistic relationship with Iran. But Saudi Arabia and the United States also benefit when Saudi Arabia is in the US sphere...and I'm sure if the relationship is broken off, Saudi Arabia will be harmed. Iraqis also feel they have a proud history and are rightful heirs of a strong country. My question to you is...why do you support us continuing to support Assad when so many others are backing the opposition? Now even Russia is probably going to cut off Assad. If that happens, Iran will be really the only country in the world that is supporting Assad. How about influential countries in Asia like India supporting the opposition? India is a country that is one of the few "friends" Iran has. And Indians have a cultural bond with Iranians (the Taj Mahal being an example of Iranian architecture).
Yes, it should be up to the people in Iraq. Never said otherwise. Although, in the real world, outsiders will inevitably try to influence events to their advantage. The reason I decry America doing so as well, following the mold of imperialistic powers throughout history, is because I see the US as a country that could genuinely be sui generis; something else. Something very different and much better in that sense. America has all the ingredients to become that "shining city on the hill"; shining for all mankind and not just a particular group. It has the ideology and ideological foundation for it. It has the composition, being made up of people around the world. It has the luxury and geography, being the world's richest and most powerful nation, separated from the old world that was made up of such entanglements and calculations. That part of America's heritage just needs to be developed and nourished, while the other party that is also very much a part of America needs to be shunned and vanquished. I agree. In the Middle East, America's problem is its alliance with 2 states, namely Israel and Saudi Arabia, each of them rotten at the core. They have made America rotten too. It is up to the Iraqi people, as a whole, to decide; not just the Iraqi people you happen "talk to". Iraq has democratic institutions which, if anything, are intentionally designed to under-represent the power of its largest political group. The group that is most receptive towards Iran. At this moment, after a lot of killing orchestrated by those who hate Iran, and a lot of money and political intrigue, and much propaganda against Iran including from the US when it was occupying that country, many Iraqis have become weary of becoming too friendly towards Iran. But not long ago, the surest way to do well in the polls in Iraq was to be affiliated to a party that was friendly to Iran. 1- I couldn't care less what Russia thinks. I find them largely irrelevant and entirely worthless. 2- India is a country of immense poverty among its larger populace, as I witnessed first hand staying at one of the top hotels in New Dehli (the Meridian Hotel) in one of its prime locations, yet feeling nauseated by the stench of the poverty around me and almost finding myself in the middle of a riot because (not recognizing the Indian currency well enough) I took a larger bill than I intended to pay a beggar and saw literally dozens of beggars jump on one another fighting over the currency I had inadvertently handed out to one of them. The point is: India needs to first take care of itself, before it worries about other places. The other point, however, is that, unlike India's old elite -- which were quite Iranophile indeed, literate in the old culture that evoked respect and admiration for Iran -- India has a new elite that is emerging who increasingly stand in opposite direction of Iran. This is an elite who has been veered in this direction by Zionists and their attempts to use India's problems with Pakistan as a base to create an anti-Moslem camaraderie between India and Israel and pro Israeli groups in the US. An elite that has been taught to no longer value as much India's traditional friendship with Iran, being promised better friends with supposedly better things to offer. 3- Iran doesn't really support Assad per se. What Iran supports is seeing Syria remain in the camp of the resistance, willing to work closely with Iran including in Lebanon. What Iran opposes even more is seeing thousands of lives lost in a cynical and brazen move by the West (along with their cronies in the region) to unseat Assad from power, doing so in large part because he was unwilling to ditch his alliance with Iran.
<Yes, it should be up to the people in Iraq. Never said otherwise.> - Fair enough. <Although, in the real world, outsiders will inevitably try to influence events to their advantage.> - I agree. <The reason I decry America doing so as well, following the mold of imperialistic powers throughout history, is because I see the US as a country that could genuinely be sui generis; something else. Something very different and much better in that sense> - No. America is just another great superpower. Not better or worse than others throughout history. To be sure, America has a lot of positive attributes. It truly is the land of opportunity. If you work hard and efficiently, you will be successful. The same can't be said in many other countries throughout the world. But in international affairs, America will do what every state does and what every superpower has done throughout history and that is to advance its national interests. <America has all the ingredients to become that "shining city on the hill"; shining for all mankind and not just a particular group. > - That is propaganda used by American exceptionalists. America is exceptional in terms of its military power, economic prowess and social freedoms but it's central mission is not to make sure everyone in the world is protected from humanitarian disaster. It's not a better or worse superpower than any other country that has roamed this earth. >It has the ideology and ideological foundation for it. It has the composition, being made up of people around the world. It has the luxury and geography, being the world's richest and most powerful nation, separated from the old world that was made up of such entanglements and calculations. That part of America's heritage just needs to be developed and nourished, while the other party that is also very much a part of America needs to be shunned and vanquished.> - In theory your idea makes sense. And it's been tried. It was tried prior to the world wars. America gets sucked in eventually anyway. Precisely because it is the worlds most powerful and richest nation, it can't afford to be isolationist to the degree you suggest. Americans would argue (and rightly IMO) that America is appeasing. It should not take as militaristic approach to the world's problems but that doesn't mean it can't still be involved. I do agree with Iraq's political parties...some of that is smart tactics used by the IRI. I don't care what Russia thinks either but it is one of the two major countries in the world that are partially supportive of the IRI so Iran-Russian relations are probably important for them. With Israel, at least, there are significant social similarities between Israel and US (womens right, liberal social laws, etc). There is also a strong commitment by religious Americans (Christian Zionists), of which there are a substantial number, to Israel's plight. That is not a relationship that will be broken. The one with Saudi Arabia is a lot more mutable however. <India surely is a poor country but it is a nuclear power and is trying to become a permanent member of the Security Council. I am probably thinking of the old elite since a lot of my Indian collegues are older (born significantly before the end of the Cold War). However, India is actually a more pro-Israel country than the US is in terms of polling of its population.> <Iran doesn't really support Assad per se. What Iran supports is seeing Syria remain in the camp of the resistance> - I know that. But what matter is perception. All that's seen is that Iran is supporting Assad/Syria for resistance against Israel. But again this reinforces bad notions against Iran internationally. It is seen as not supportive of the two state solution. And it is also seen as supporting a cruel dictator.
First off there simply is no comparison between syria and bahrain. I don't agree with what bahrain did and what sa did, but that situation is different in size and scope then what is going on in Syria. For one, syria is a civil war and both sides are being supplied by outside sources. Or did you forget that aside from iran sending some troops already and supplies, Russia has been doing the same and so has China. The people fighting against assad are for the most part Syrians. Yes there are foreign fighters there, just like there are foreign fighters there supporting assad. Namely hezbollah terrorists and iranian troops. Now as for this becoming a larger war, do you honestly think that if iran could somehow bring in large numbers of troops to syria that it would go unanswered? Namely by Israel? What would make you think that Israel would stand by while iran puts a military force on their border? And if that happens, and Israel strikes at them, you know they will then use that as an excuse to attack nuke sites in iran and you can bet this will involve the US. And haven't we all heard you talk about how iran would strike at US targets should their nuke sites be hit? iran will have influence in iraq. But iraq has already made it clear that they will be their own country and make their own choices. I know you are dreaming of some new persian empire, but it isn't happening. And the dreams of supporting hezbollah terrorists through syria are coming to an end as well. As I said above, Israel isn't going to let iran have control over syria. Israel may end up not liking those who do end up in power there, but it isn't going to be iranian backed anymore.
I don't see why Israel should attack Iranian troops in Syria. Makes no sense. That would basically make Israel allied to the insurgents which just doesn't seem logical. Anyways I wouldn't hold my breath. Iran is not going into Syria. Even if Assad goes there could be a medium intensity civil war in Syria for at least a decade which means there will be actors within Syria that will continue to be allied to Iran much like Iraq today
To understand why you need to look at this from the IDF standpoint. Do you think they would allow any large concentration of iranian troops on their border? I don't believe that Israel would allow a major iranian military force to camp out on their border and subject Israel to more iraninan made missles. Plus with all the issues revolving around the iranian nuke program, letting iranian military forces get that close to Israel is not something I would expect the IDF to allow to happen. It would cut the response time from any attack against Israel down to a fraction of what little time they would have now.
Oh my ... Look at all the hostile American troops surrounding Iran now and those troops aren't even from the region. Are Iranians launching missiles at US bases in Baghdad and Kabul? Again I don't even think Iran is sending anyone into Syria and if they did they would go where the fighting is in Aleppo and Homs and Damascus But whatever ... I don't care ... If Israel insists on getting involved in the Syrian civil war then go ahead. I see zero political advantage for them to do that
I dont see Iran deplying troops either. If it comes to that, it will not be to such extent, but more like deployment of a group of IRGC, assisting with intelligence and combat training imo. If they arent doing that already. I also fail to see why this would be a red line for Israel and least of all the US. Iran has a mutual defence treaty with Syria. And IF (that is a big if) Iran becomes more involved by deplying troops, who is to say it will be by the Syrian-Israeli border? Its all speculative.
Of course I also don't see masses of people in major American cities chanting Death to Iran after Friday prayers every week either...Same can't be said for iran towards the US and Israel. And while I am certain there are covert and overt acts committed by the US and Israel against iran, I still don't see any large proxy terror armies waging war against iran for the US like Iran has with hezbollah and hamas. Like I said though, I am looking at this from a more Military POV with a Strategic aspect as to what it would mean to have Iranian troops in Syria. Though I see I have not specified very well what size force it would take to set off Israel. Or the US. I would say a ballpark figure of 75,000+ troops and accopanying armor and missiles etc....would be enough that Israel would feel that a balance point had been tipped and that a clear and present danger existed for them. And we all know that when Israel feels threatened they don't sit back and do nothing.
O OK when you put it that way ... 75000 or more troops would basically be an Iranian occupation. At that point I wouldn't necessarily be worried about Israel. That scenario could pull turkey, Lebanon and Iraq into the fight and of course eventually NATO and Israel I don't think Iran makes such a bold move. There's not enough at stake with them. Iran can survive Assad's demise
As for the Russians: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/12/2012121471619263245.html http://news.yahoo.com/russia-denies-shifting-policy-syria-131101038.html
There are reports that suggest Iran is doing that already, citing western sources. Indeed, in well publicized allegations, the US Secretary of Defense Panetta has alleged that Iran is working on creating a Hezbollah-like unit in Syria as well. Thus, I don't think anyone would be particularly surprised by Iran committing the kind of force you mention. On the other hand, if "deploying troops" refers to the kind of figures (e.g., 75,000 troops backed by armor etc) being thrown around by "Conspiracy", I agree that is not in the cards either. The commitment of that kind of force would face possibly insurmountable logistical and political hurdles and, in any case, I just don't see the rationale for that kind of a force being sent to Syria by Iran. Something in between these figures, however, is also a possibility, if a request for such help comes from the Syrians. For instance, a combination of a few hundred well-trusted officers and crack troops along with a division-sized unit (i.e., around 10,000 troops), as well as quiet arrangements for a naval base of sorts with steps in that direction. As for reactions to such a move, naturally Iran's enemies won't welcome any such moves. But if carried out with the requisite firmness and determination, I am confident they will learn to live with it.
Hows that relevant what some paid mob chants? You are saying if they did not chant that that, it would be ok with you for Iran to surround all of US, and with nukes at that, if they could? It has absolutely no bearing on the geopolitcal scene what some folks chant and dont chant. Iran has a mutual defence treaty with Syria, and thus an obligation to fulfill if the Syrian gov. ask them to come and assist. Where does united states get into this picture? Why would Iran risk a war with united states if deploying troops to Syria. A country where united states have no precense or influence what so ever.
And Im not entirey sure Assad is loosing to the terrorists. They might be gaining control over some areas, but keeping it under control is another ball game. West have been predicting the fall of Assad for two years, but he doesnt seem to budge. Off course, I do think that if the foreign insurgence gets weakened, the true Syrian opposition will call for reform or even regime change. But what the Al Qaeda terrorists have done to the country has really put a huge dent on the true voices of Syrian opposition. Next time the regime can more easily supress that opposition (even if its peaceful) in the pretext of protecting the country from insurgence and terrorists, because of the "FSA". PGCC, Turkey, West et al pretty much HAS to go all in on this one.
Now we both know that while the silly chants themselves have little bearing or meaning, the fact that they do happen and are pushed to happen by the IRI coupled with the terror groups the IRI employs would be relevant to Israel, and to a lesser extent to the US should iran commit large forces of troops to syria. But as im has admitted, and something that we already knew, iran lacks the capability to put that many troops into Syria. As for the mutual defense pact, does that include civil war? Not that it really matters, sending 10000 troops to syria isn't going to tip the scales in assads favor. As for the US, I already outlined that if a large force were sent to syria by iran, and if it did provoke a response from Israel, it has been stated here that iran would also attack US targets if they were attacked. And I would presume that Israel would go forward with strikes on iran's nuclear program as well. And if that happens hasn't iran said they would close the straits of hormuz? You don't think that wouldn't bring the US into it? Basically, if iran were to get seriously involved in syria, it would lead to a larger confrontation. To think the US wouldn't become involved isn't looking at the entirety of the situation.
What is happening in Syria now, is not so much civil war imo. Its a foreign insurgence consisting of AQ terrorists from GCC countries, Libya fighting against Syrian military. Same guys that did 9/11 mind you. Under such circumstance Iran has all the right to send troops to Syria, if they ask for it. Because of the mutual defense pact. In Bahrain, Saudi Arabia sent their troops to crush down an unarmed protests by a Shia majority, probably after authorization from the united states. Did the US and its ally SA risk a war with Iran for that? Afterall it was right in Irans backyward.