Iranians claimed to be fighting in Syria

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

[DSM0305]

What the point? In the one hand you guys don't want USA to get involved, in the other you post video which strongly suggest a wish for involvement.

[$hiva]

Iranians claimed to be fighting in Syria

Iranian women? Fake blonds in a line up?

Or do I have an obscene imagination?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

What the point? In the one hand you guys don't want USA to get involved, in the other you post video which strongly suggest a wish for involvement.

You are obviously talking to ghosts in your head.

[DSM0305]

You are obviously talking to ghosts in your head.

So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey.

[Tiger Khan]

Iran is supporting Syria because the government is shia, America wants to secure Israel and weaken Hizbollah (Again to secure israel). Syria should have played it fair ie. not use chemical weapons and not had other involved. Now the Majority of syrians dont agree with Asad's government. I think Asad should be kicked out.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Iran is supporting Syria because the government is shia, America wants to secure Israel and weaken Hizbollah (Again to secure israel). Syria should have played it fair ie. not use chemical weapons and not had other involved. Now the Majority of syrians dont agree with Asad's government. I think Asad should be kicked out.

Syrian government is not really shia. But it is using shiism to rally support.

Hizbullah is not a threat to Israel.

Iran want Assad to stay because Iran considers Syria to be part of its political alliance against Sunnis and the West.

Assad killed over 100.000 people with conventional weapons. Do you think that is fair?

This war is about shift in power in the middle east. The syrians are victims of this war.

[Tiger Khan]

Syrian government is not really shia. But it is using shiism to rally support.

Hizbullah is not a threat to Israel.

Iran want Assad to stay because Iran considers Syria to be part of its political alliance against Sunnis and the West.

Assad killed over 100.000 people with conventional weapons. Do you think that is fair?

This war is about shift in power in the middle east. The syrians are victims of this war.

yeah ok,,, but what the bottom line.. do you want america to attack or not.. i do.

[khushal]

Americas interest in attacking is not to save Syrians from assad but to level the playing field to pro long the war to weaken both the rebels and assad to neutralize any threat to Israel and to shift the militants focus away from the Saudi kingdom. Assad can end this war in a matter of days if he uses his full arsenal(chemical and biological weapons) just like saddam did with the Kurdish rebellion.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

yeah ok,,, but what the bottom line.. do you want america to attack or not.. i do.

If America attacks they will also bomb ISIS. So its against the benefits of Muslims if that happens. America is already supporting the secular rebels.

[Tjanaparh]

Or everybody don#t interfere in problems inside a country or all will take the right to interfere in the affairs of any country.
Actually the worldis developing to the second...

[Tiger Khan]

If America attacks they will also bomb ISIS. So its against the benefits of Muslims if that happens. America is already supporting the secular rebels.

thats not the answer... do you want americans to attack or not?? !!

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

thats not the answer... do you want americans to attack or not?? !!

It is your answer. Should I answer you in Pashto or Urdu? (in case you dont understand english)

[Shah-i-Kot]

I am opposed to US/Western intervention in Syria or any other place in the region. It does not benefit the US and neither does it benefit those people of the region.

US and other European countries will not conduct airstrikes on Syria for two reason. One, because they do not have the money/ good credit to do so unless they want to increase an already unsustainable debt. There is no money to continue or begin other NATO interventions.

Second reason is because the Assad regime has a somewhat capable air defense system (additionally a possible S-300 antiaircraft system given to him by Russia recently). NATO has never intervened in countries that have capable air defense systems.

What will most likely happen? Qatar will probably continue to fund the Syrian rebels (and ignore Saudi requests to not supply them with advanced weapons). Iran will continue to directly get involved (Iranian Revolutionary Guards are already in Syria), and Israel will strike at IRGC and Hezbollah units whenever it feels like it as they have already done. Which brings the Israel question. For Israel, they would prefer that Iran and Hezbollah continue to seep into Syria. Once they have them all in one spot, I think they will keep conducting airstrikes against them (again for their own interests).


US foreign policy interests dictate that they ensure stability in the oil resources rich GCC nations (Saudi, UAE, Bahrain, etc.) Saudi led- GCC views the situation in Syria in a very complex way. While proponents of US/Western intervention, they are at the same time opposed to supplying the Syrian rebels with advanced weapons - the reason they have a huge rift with Qatar (because that is what Qatar is doing). Also at stake is the large cache of modern weapons that the Assad regime has accumulated over the entirety of their rule of Syria and the consequence of these weapons controlled by the next Syrian regime. Saudi does not want an armed Sunni regime to emerge out of Syria post-Assad because they feel it would represent a direct threat to the current power structure which they have. In that sense, they are on the same page as Iran. However, Iran's primary interest is ensuring that the Iran-Iraq-Syria oil pipeline is realized (billions of potential monetary profit). Saudi is as opposed to this as a post- Assad regime.

Thus, Saudi prefers a weakened Syrian government (like the one in Libya). They would prefer that US/Western intervention removes Assad and also the cache of weapons his regime has- so that whatever government comes next is weakened.

[Shah-i-Kot]

Americas interest in attacking is not to save Syrians from assad but to level the playing field to pro long the war to weaken both the rebels and assad to neutralize any threat to Israel and to shift the militants focus away from the Saudi kingdom. Assad can end this war in a matter of days if he uses his full arsenal(chemical and biological weapons) just like saddam did with the Kurdish rebellion.

I dont think the US has a vested strategic interest in protecting Israel. Israel security was central to US foreign policy in the Middle East for decades but not to the extent that US interests would be put on the line for Israel's security. This is basically the reason the US is reluctant to go to war with Iran (because Iran has said they would strike at US bases in the region, and consider an Israeli strike as a US strike). For that reason, the US has tried to discourage Israel from a unilateral strike on Iran which they refuse to avoid.
US has been unable to convince Israel to not conduct a unilateral strike on Iran. The lack of a US response to the Syrian chemical attack has hardened Israel's position to go ahead with a unilateral strike on Iran. Israel no longer trusts US assurances of military action to destroy Iran's nuclear program.

At the same time, the American Israeli lobby has a lot of influence over the US Congress and Senate (several resolutions authorizing the US to get military involved if Israel strikes Iran has been passed- and this was in conflict with the US administration). There is no money for another US war, or the current wars. US would be dragged into war with Iran in event of unilateral Israeli strike on Iran.

The below links should give you an insight into the US-Iran-Israel issue.

http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/09/04/obama-prefers-mid-east-hegemony-over-a-war-of-choice-on-iran/

http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Official-Israel-capable-of-unilateral-strike-on-Iran-if-US-not-committed-322182

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/2012923159813668.html