It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Iran and Syria Form "Common Front"

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
The two countries have declared that they are forming a "common front" to face mutual overseas threats. The exact details of this axis are unclear just yet but mutual military assistance can not be ruled out.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
Iran and Syria say they are to form a common front to face challenges and threats from overseas.
"We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said after meeting Syrian PM Naji al-Otari.

Both countries are under intense US pressure, with Washington accusing Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons.

US tensions with Syria have soared since the apparent suicide attack that killed former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think the importance of this story is obvious given the context of the reported explosions in Iran and the geography of the two nations to the east and north of Iraq and politically opposed in the region to Isreal.

Related ATSNN Story

www.atsnn.com...

[edit on 16-2-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 17-2-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
and now there is a unexplained explosion in Iran..

hmmm, attack by the Americans to start the decline of this new force?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
If we werent in Iraq then it would also be part of this common front. A contiguous allied line. Oy.

Dangerous times.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Another interesting part of these alliances is this. Iran has just completed the construction of a trade highway from Iran to Afghanistan. Trade relationships are strong and likely to become stronger, as is an alliance. Afghanistan, Syria an Iran, maybe more countries will join. Middle East coalition anyone?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
This has happened before, and it's always been short-lived. I don't think Iran has ever been in one, but Syria has tried this twice before.
They were with Nasser's UAR in 1958.
They tried to ally with Iraq and Egypt in 1963 but the process broke down before it was completed.
Additionally, Iraq has attempted 2 or 3 unions with Jordan, none of which lasted very long.

Ba'ath governments (Pan-arab socialists) are always getting into short-lived alliances. I don't think it's the end of the world, although it will change things. I think it will be very difficult to fight Syria now without the help of Turkey, or at least Israel (far less preferable).

It would be a very good idea for us to hit Syria first now that we have an excuse to do so. That gives us an open line from the Med to Iran without relying on the Persian Gulf, which is very dangerous for us in consideration of Iranian missile capabilities.

We'll have to get Turkey to really do a good job of this, or else we risk trouble in Iraq from Iran. Turkey wont play ball without the UN or they'll find themselves out of the EU courtesy of France. This is going to be politically unpleasant and militarily puzzling for America, but I think we'll find a way to do it. Syria goes down, then Iran.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Isn't there something in revalation about an army from the East that will take over the holy land? But that's not till the Temple is reconstructed, but still...people thought of the Army as China but it seems that there is a greater threat so much closer to Israel. Also, how could anyone not see this coming? both countries sponsor terrorism, the Syrian's were behind the bombing in Beirut in 1983. It was obvious that there is a very close relationship between these two radical and almost imperialistic Islamic countries. We are their colonies, instead of them reaping resources from us, they reap money for resources. And to think that they were against the British and French occupations of their countries...History repeats itself again and again.

Story of Beirut 1983

Also, Iraq would not be part of the Alliance because Iranians hate Iraqis. Remember the Iran/Iraq war? We helped old Sadaam in that one. Also the Syrians sided with the Iranians in that one too.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I see this as a sign of vulnerabilty and weakness.

These two countries are scared. I really thought the Iraq invasion was the end for a while but I guess the Americans really are considering invading more land. This is going to eclipse Vietnam if they invade Iran (country of 70+million).



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
However this is not Vietnam, This is more like a WWII, just located mainly in one region. The "War on Terrorism" is not a real war as stated in the Constitution, but it is still a world war none the less. In order to end the proliferation of nuclear arms, rogue nations must end their plans to acquire the nukes. I am not even for US nukes. Also the root of all this and even the cold war goes back to the Rosenburgs. These rogue nations would have never gotten their nukes if not for the cold war and what caused the cold war? The espionage of the nuclear secrets by the Rosenburgs...god bless their souls. Would they have done what they did if they could see what has happened???



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
It would be a very good idea for us to hit Syria first now that we have an excuse to do so.e


To all armchair warriors: please, think about what you're saying.

1) The Damascus regime called this attack 'a criminal act'. Is this a phrase a government that has just committed a terrorist atrocity would use? I don't think so.

2) Syrian soldiers fought on the Coalition side during the first Gulf War, you remember; the non-profiteering, morally-objectionable, land-grabbing, apocalyptic Christian fundamentalist-led one?

How can an entire nation of educated people be so easily fooled???



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by donat
It would be a very good idea for us to hit Syria first now that we have an excuse to do so.e


To all armchair warriors: please, think about what you're saying.


I assume you meant to be quoting me there. You have completely missed my point, and you seem to have forgotten that this tread is about the "common front" and not directly about the assassination of Rafik Hariri.

Strategically speaking, and ignoring for a moment what is right and wrong (because those who know me know that I have issues with Bush on Iraq), hitting Syria first is the only way to fly.
Iran controls the Persian Gulf thanks to their missiles. We need an alternate route into Iran before we can hit them effectively. Turkey may not play ball against Iran, and Turkish cooperation is vitally important to the protection of Iraq in any war against a Syria-Iran alliance.
Syria presents an alternate route to Iraq and thus to Iran. Turkey has had differences with Syria over Iskenderun though. Also, Turkish cooperation will not conflict with their desire to enter the EU as long as the UN is on board for this war, and Syrian aggression against Lebanon is the best bet for UN intervention against Syria.
The US would be nuts not to make a play against Syria now that this situation presents the opportunity. The situation is so fortuitous that I'm open to consideration that America really did bump off Hariri just to create the opportunity.



1) The Damascus regime called this attack 'a criminal act'. Is this a phrase a government that has just committed a terrorist atrocity would use? I don't think so.


I could go either way on this. There is a decent chance that it wasn't Syria, but there is also a fair chance that it was. Nations lie all the time. Americans know this all too well. America calls it a criminal act, Syria calls it a criminal act- I dont know if Israel has done so yet, but I dont see them admitting it like they almost always do when they kill an enemy. Somebody is lying their ugly little arse off. Bush? Asad? Sharon? All of them? I don't know.


2) Syrian soldiers fought on the Coalition side during the first Gulf War, you remember; the non-profiteering, morally-objectionable, land-grabbing, apocalyptic Christian fundamentalist-led one?


This is hardly enough to make them the good guys. Their cooperation saved Saddam, kept Israel out of the war, and probably netted them a nice little payoff from America. They still sponsor terrorism, occupy a neighbor(lebanon), wish to anhilate another neighbor(israel), and claim territory belonging to a third neighbor (turkey).
I am somewhat confused as to what the fact of their cooperation with Desert Storm is supposed to establish. That they would never kill Hariri? That they don't deserve to be attacked? Help me out if you could.


How can an entire nation of educated people be so easily fooled???


Before I bite your head off, I'll politely ask for clarification of what I've said that seems so ignorant. Perhaps we have a misunderstanding.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
All good parts on both sides, and being one who has been in misunderstandings on here it is easy to run into these without meaning to. However one point is being ignored: Syria and Iran hated Iraq, Iraq is not a fundamentalist Islam nations, Sadaam was the most secular dictator in the Middle East. Therefore this alliance isn't about who is the good guy or bad guy. The facts about Syria are all true however we must remember one thing: Birds of a feather flock together. That applies to terrorism too!



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
It is a smart move, but doomed to failure. If it wasSyria and Iraq, or Syria and Egypt, I could see it. Syria and Iran? For starters, while few in the West bother with such distinctions, Iranians are NOT Arabs. It may seem a suble difference to us but in the ME, its a huge issue. Religion will also play a part. This is more for its propaganda value than anything else I suspect as It would be hard to coordinate a military force between two goegrapicaly seperate countries. Now If Iraq was part of it then we have trouble.

Remeber Saddam wanted to unite the Arab world in this manner.


[edit on 2/16/05 by FredT]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I've got nothing to say except, "Thank you Iran and Syria!". It's great to see this happening! Now the stereotypes about the Middle East supported by Fox News can be put to shame! They are not mindless screaming hyenas.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Well, we can safely assume that its not love at first sight, but then again, the Bush administration is a matchmaker like no other.

I think, voicing this "alliance" in the public they try to suggest that they would give eachother millitary assitence in case of attack and they want Bush advisors intentionally to take this in account, hoping they lack the enthusiasm to fight a war on three front at once (syria, iraqi sji'ite uprise, and iran).

If that's enough to scare away the crows ? i doubt it, Bush seems like on a mission from God , so we better prepare for Judgement Day




[edit on 16-2-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I don't think that Syria hated Iraq actually. Both nations were under secular Ba'athist governments. Syria and Iraq tried to form an alliance back when Saddam was Vice President.

I also think this alliance can last longer than we would normally suspect. Treaties are good for as long as they are beneficial. This treaty is beneficial for iran right up to the bitter end, but not for Syria. That's why the statement pledges Iranian support for Syria specifically but is not explicitly recirpocal according to what I have heard.

If Syria falls, Iranian controll of the Gulf no longer constitues strategic safety. Iran has to defend Syria to defend itself.
Syria on the other hand is screwed either way and has no incentive to help iran, unless of course they think they can actually win, which they can't.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
why are you making Bush out to be the bad guy?...Syria is the one supporting terrorist groups...Irans the one builing nukes...we havent attacked them...we've done nothing wrong in regards to them...even the nations of the world seem to agree with us on this one...Iran and Syria need a tight eye focused on them both...



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Now what if NK were to join the tag team ?

Then i think the US might have a problem.

More so if Russia and China are just sitting in the background waiting



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Isn't it strange that the BBC has changed the wording of the story from "Syria and Iran form a "common front" to "Syria and Iran against threats". What is the reasoning behind this change in titles?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Division Bell
Isn't it strange that the BBC has changed the wording of the story from "Syria and Iran form a "common front" to "Syria and Iran against threats". What is the reasoning behind this change in titles?


'cause for some strange reason. Iran is now facing more pressure from the US, FOX just had a special about. Apparently Iran is now America's biggest threat



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Well they have all the right to get together after all they are almost neighbors.

If the two countries feel threatened by the US they have not other choice but to get some agreement to protect their sovereignty.

Is as simple as that.

The new land and home terrorist group I mean security now have issue a warning that American turn muslin are waiting for calls to commit attacks against US.

So I guess we will be hunting down on American muslins now.

It was in the afternoon news.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join