Iranian military chief warns against U.S. crossing Syria 'red line'

reply to post by dlbott


One post does not a thread make (or unmake).

On your 2nd point i agree with you. The Iranian population will sooner or later reform their government. The thing most likely to delay it is blundering western interventionism legitimising the Mullahs.

The Iranians cant really affect events on the ground greatly. If the western world imposes a no fly zone and starts dismantling the Assad military and Hezbollah there is not much they can do about it.

Russia can but probably wont, they have no interest in a ruinous conflict with the west.

I don't doubt the west can put a disjointed coalition of groups with a large Sunni fundamentalist component in charge of Syria. I just don't think its sensible, justifiable or will be improvement on the secular and relatively stable regime that was there before.

What Iran or Russia say is irrelevant because they simply do not have the ability to back anything up even if they had the will to do so. The US has a complete lack of interest in doing anything in Syria. Obama has been dragging his feet on it as best he could without the US looking like it was losing its spot as a global leader. The US made chemical weapon use the red line and then kind of over looked it when it was used before because it was hard to verify. Now, this event has been documented by to many outside parties to ignore it. So the US now has to act or it word no longer carries any weight.

We know the US has been under pressure from Jordan, the Arab League and Turkey to act. Now that pressure has become global. What I expect is a Libya style air operation where the US will clear the skys and then fall back to a support position. Since moving in Syria is heavily pushed by both the Arabs and the Europeans I expect they will take over air ops while the US moves to a support role. Advisors and weapons from the Arab States and possibly NATO will also most likely flow to the Syrian Rebels. This will mean we will see active fighting between the rebels and the radicals begin as well.

reply to post by MrSpad


The thing is that Syria is not Libya. If they go there, they will stay there for a long time and will risk a bigger war (Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia ..) in the region. US would be risking thousands of lives (and millions of lives in the region), risking bigger war and spending a lot of $$$ without even a little chance of a positive effect on the US.

reply to post by MrSpad


It has been overlooked because it was used by the rebels whom the US and the US civilian population (not all) were supporting.
PS- Al Queda was/is a large part of the FSA so in effect, the US is supporting the very people who they blamed for 9/11.

I'd laugh if it wasn't truly sad.

The only problem militarily we will have with Iran is if they get invaded, otherwise they are fairly benign in conventional warfare terms.

We see the photoshops you subject your citizens too!

Iran has not been invaded because they are a prickly pear, good air and coastal defences. I respect them in a way defending 'their' identity. I do not think whatever they say will have any bearing on the US/UK decision to conduct missile strikes. I feel (in my own lay knowledge) the the only time NATO will G A F is when they want to invade them, in which case that is when they will be dangerous.

Correct me if i am wrong, i don't know everything.

Originally posted by ElectroMiester
Hello All!!! newbie here. Once again we can thank the parasitic race for there hand in every conflict in the history of mankind

Yes, The Human Race is Parasitic, isn't it?

Originally posted by Mamatus
The USA has no business in Syria. There is nothing to be gained from ANY involvement in the Middle East any longer. Nothing coming out of there but broken soldiers and a whole lot of permanent hate against the USA.

Stupid freaking Americans keep letting our Government just do whatever the F they want to do. Makes me ill.

indeed, and applauded and egged on by the usual crew of kool-aid slurpy sucking warmongering blowhards...


none of which will be doing any actual fighting on the ground. even more laughable is the spin being given
when it's really obama and the chickenhawks who are sweating bullets, knowing fully well that Iran, Russia and China have made it clear regarding their own Syria 'red line'.

then again, perhaps certain 'muricans, being among the "Sanest" "people" on earth, seek to surpass the british empire's record for mass-murder/genocide*.

they'll need to kill about 2.5 billion to obtain the title of most vicious killers in human history.
WWIII [or would that be IV?] seems made to order for that


* aprox. 1.8 billion in India alone! greatgameindia.wordpress.com...
doesn't include china, africa, the south pacific, new world, etc.

but pay me no mind, as I Am quite "Insane"

Originally posted by Dianec
reply to post by DaRAGE

 

And that is Russia's red line and rightfully so IMO. We would do well to step back on this one and let the UN do its job. Wrabbit made a good point too - only 3 more countries to go and we have successfully painted the world red, white, and blue (or have gotten the primer on and paint purchased in any case).

Russia is awfully patient and careful with their comments. I get the sense the Russian government is taking the same approach one takes with positive guidance of a spoiled child. Its demeaning they even have to keep repeating the same thing.

You're right, Russia is showing remarkable restraint in it's rhetoric towards the west. So long as the US does not misinterpret this as a sign that Russia would be reluctant to respond to any US lead attack on Syria, after all, Putin does not seem to be the type who would balk at using the military forces at his disposal.

reply to post by TwiTcHomatic


Kind of a ballsy / bold statement from Iran when the UN has not even gotten on the ground in Syria to investigate the claim.

Originally posted by nake13
You're right, Russia is showing remarkable restraint in it's rhetoric towards the west. So long as the US does not misinterpret this as a sign that Russia would be reluctant to respond to any US lead attack on Syria, after all, Putin does not seem to be the type who would balk at using the military forces at his disposal.

Russia is not going to risk its nation over defending Syria.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by TwiTcHomatic

 

Kind of a ballsy / bold statement from Iran when the UN has not even gotten on the ground in Syria to investigate the claim.

This statment came after The US rejected the UN inspectors investigation. The US say its to late to investigate now.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by TwiTcHomatic

 

Kind of a ballsy / bold statement from Iran when the UN has not even gotten on the ground in Syria to investigate the claim.

This statment came after The US rejected the UN inspectors investigation. The US say its to late to investigate now.

The UN inspection team has not even arrived on the ground for the latest chemical weapons claim. Aside from this most recent incident, there have been 2 or 3 others.

ETA - I think what you are referrng to is the UK's position.. William Hague said the evidence had been degraded / destroyed / tampered with, not the US.

Originally posted by baburak
If US goes to Syria, Iran will have no choice but to help Syria. They have an agreement. With Iranian forces in Syria, Israel will have an opportunity to attack Iran since 2013 was the red line for Israel. With 5 nations fighting on their border, Turkey will have no choice and will get involved. In the matter of months, most of the EU countries and US (NATO) and Iran, Turkey, Syria and Israel will be at war.

I think that Iran is just trying to warn US. No one will win.

Good post and deserving star. Iran knows if it does not help Syria then Iran will be next. Russia and China know the same too and that's why initially they will help Syria with weapons and covert support and if needed come out in open and then we are talking real nonsense flying in all the directions.

Syria and Assad are on the list to get revenge for aiding the Saddam's factions in Iraq after the dictator fell. All the insurgency was coming from Syria and its help and that resulted in US staying in Iraq for many more years incurring much high cost and causalities. All the rebel help in Syria is coming from US allies like Saudi, Kuwait, UAE and Qatar.

Obama is wise enough to not risk even going near the possibility of WW3 let alone start one.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by TwiTcHomatic

 

Kind of a ballsy / bold statement from Iran when the UN has not even gotten on the ground in Syria to investigate the claim.

This statment came after The US rejected the UN inspectors investigation. The US say its to late to investigate now.

The UN inspection team has not even arrived on the ground for the latest chemical weapons claim. Aside from this most recent incident, there have been 2 or 3 others.

The UN inspector have been welcome by Assad, but the US is not interested in a investigation at this point.

The only thing that is going to stop the US from attacking Syria now Depends on what Russia and Iran will do if they go a head.

People might think Russia aint capable of defending Syria, But Our opinions have no value in this matter. What matters is if Russia thinks they have the capability. They are the once who play the game not us.

reply to post by victor7


So lets get this straight we have

US, UK, France, Israel and Turkey who most likely agree with military intervention

v

Russia, China, Iran, Iraq who oppose any military intervention

I have a feeling Russia might back off, China again I don;t see any action from them, Iraq i practically war torn so it comes down to Iran in the meantime Israel she want to hang Iran.

Its a mess all this.

Originally posted by deviant300
reply to post by victor7

 

So lets get this straight we have

US, UK, France, Israel and Turkey who most likely agree with military intervention

v

Russia, China, Iran, Iraq who oppose any military intervention

I have a feeling Russia might back off, China again I don;t see any action from them, Iraq i practically war torn so it comes down to Iran in the meantime Israel she want to hang Iran.

Its a mess all this.

Dont forget Syria. They to will be fighting back.
Russia and Iran can hit US assets from home base. They dont really have to be present to attach US ships or bases.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by nake13
You're right, Russia is showing remarkable restraint in it's rhetoric towards the west. So long as the US does not misinterpret this as a sign that Russia would be reluctant to respond to any US lead attack on Syria, after all, Putin does not seem to be the type who would balk at using the military forces at his disposal.

Russia is not going to risk its nation over defending Syria.

I agree with the idea that Russia will follow though "if" the US goes in without UN approval (bypassing due diligence). I would like to know from the comment to the first one - why would Russia just be bluffing?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by nake13
You're right, Russia is showing remarkable restraint in it's rhetoric towards the west. So long as the US does not misinterpret this as a sign that Russia would be reluctant to respond to any US lead attack on Syria, after all, Putin does not seem to be the type who would balk at using the military forces at his disposal.

Russia is not going to risk its nation over defending Syria.

I think its pretty obvious what has been happening, Once Syria and Iran have succumbed, Russia and China will be the end game.

Originally posted by Dianec
why would Russia just be bluffing?

For the same reason the US did when it came to the Georgian-Russia war.

The threat, or projection of it, by a country capable of following through with it is at times enough to deter an action. While Russia is friends of Assads Syria, that friendship is only going to go so far. Russia is not going to risk its nation over a country like Syria.

Russia has said in the past they are open to regime change, so long as its done in a certain manner. If Russia were to intervene in Syria if the West gets involved, they are going to be in for a world of problems once its done and over with. Syrian civilians are already linking their issue to Russia's stance on UN action.

We are now going into a second year with this mess in Syria. Do you honestly think that Assad is going to hold onto power, whether or not there is some type of intervention from some other country? At some point, a body guard, military officer or civilian is going to be in the right place at the right time with Assad an make their move. Whether that comes now or years down the road, its going to happen. Syrian forces under Assad have laid waste to cities, the countryside and have, according to UN investigations committed war crimes against the civilian population.

While the same holds true for the rebels, Assad is the one at the controls, and as such is the one going to be held accountable for the actions of his military.

Something people scream about when it comes to the US military and accountability.

what's good for the Goose...