A Syria Update
It’s being reported that Iranian Revolutionary Guard members – posing as “religious pilgrims” – were captured by Syrian rebels ten days ago. They apparently were there to offer clandestine support for the Assad regime.
This makes me wonder about a few things.
- Would Iran have sent these “pilgrims” had the US not announced support for the Syrian opposition?
- Did the Obama Administration even foresee and consider this possibility?
- “What we do now, Keemosabe?”
Oh, and I’d also guess Iran is hedging their bets in Syria too. I’d be shocked if they aren’t making quiet overtures to some of the more hardline Islamist elements of the Syrian opposition – just in case.
As I’ve said before: “I’ve got a bad feeling about this . . . .”
Category: Foreign Policy, Military issues
Despite their ties to the Iraqi Baathist regime, Syria has always been a near sockpuppet of Iran, mainly serving as a channel for Iranian money to Hizballah. And what’s more, I’m pretty sure the Syrian people know it. Remember, Syria is a majority Sunni country that was ruled by the Shia Alawite minority. So sort of the reverse of the situation than you had in Iraq. Overtures from al-Qaida being accepted by the rebels I can foresee. Iranian overtures? It’s possible. Shia and Sunni can and do get along when there’s other factions to hate (mostly the Israelis and US), but most likely there will be a TON of distrust there as well.
IRGC has long been in Syria. I see nothing that any Administration has done to alter that fact. Syria has been the pipeline for Lebanese Hezbollah from Tehran to Bekaa.
I think that the Iranian regime would have sent soldiers to support Assams Army in any case. It has been reported by an
unreliable source that there are non Syrian Arabs fighting for the rebels. Even if the unreliable source is wrong it would make sense that the Iranian powers that be would have believed and sent some of their own forces to even things out.
I think a key point to be made though is that Iran should get used to losing Syria. It gained Iraq as n ally recently and Iraq is a far bigger and better prize than Syria. One might conclude that the Iranians felt that Sryia was crucial to be able to attack Israel to be able to deter an attack by the US.
If that had been the case it would have been faulty thinking.
Israel was designed by the US military to be a target that the Arabs and Iranians can vent thier anger on with out hurting anyone in the US. Yes that is what I mean the only reason that Israel exists is to serve as a scapegoat for the US. Everything else is just disinformation. So the declared Iranian strategy of holding Israel hostage to prevent a US attack has been a complete failure.
Double Duh. Of course I know that the US has not launched an overt attack against Iran. The reason for that is clearly not because of things that the Iranians have doing to prevent it.
Iranians might be exceptionally polite to friends and strangers. They might be good wrestilers and wieght lifters.
Hell they might even be decent electrical engeniers but when it comes to tactics and strategies of modern war fighting they are still a few generations behind. Well behind me anyways.
Ouch, stop pinching my butt you pervert!
1. Yes. Iran’s support of the Syrian regime is about Israel, not the US.
2. No, but considering it wouldn’t have led to a counter, anyway.
3. Sit back and watch.
The Quds Force has openly stated their mission is to aid Islamic revolutionary movements. Which they did for JAM in Iraq, and most likely the Shiite Assad regime now.
Anonymous: not sure about that. The Baathist regime in Syria is secular. The great majority of Islamists in Syria all appear to be on the rebel side. That’s the primary reason I have a bad feeling about supporting the rebels.
I’m amazed that you were able to choose a primary reason for the bad feeling here, Hondo. I have a bad feeling that I agree with you. The primary reason being the history of our involvement in that entire region of the world.
The news report this afternoon was that Iran’s participation or support or whatever in Syria is making the Saudis nervous, because of Iran’s perceived (meaning not actual, but rather, hypothetical) nuclear capability.
That seems somewhat anticipatory to me, because the US doesn’t yet ‘know’ of any nuke tests by Iran, nor is Iran assumed to have refined their uranium enough for fissionable material?
Possibility: recent series of quakes along the Persian Gulf coast of Iran were sufficiently strong to have been underground tests, all in 2.0 to 3.0 range, same as North Korea, which is known to have completed at least two underground tests. Also, there are many odd structures in Iran that appear to be massive bunkers of some kind, with roads and very large flat, paved areas out front and walls that appear to be at least 8 feet high, judging by their cast shadows. Basically, we really don’t know what they’re up to.
CI just hit the nail right on it’s head, the most evil place on earth is still the Bekaa, with FATA a close second…
Shit, Ex-PH2, that is pretty damned scary. I remember the 1980’s and the uncertainty, at least in the form of what the middle east was going to scare up next, and this almost, at least to me is a return to those uncertain times, and that scares the shit out of me.
@10 Lucky, you are NOT alone feeling that way.
The difference is, now its my generation and I that have the watch, and we have seriously wrong ROE’s compared to what my Dad’s generation had in Beirut and a few other places. Back then, when hostile intent was suspected, light ’em up, and do it while blasting “Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner” and “Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money” by Warren Zevon over the PSYOP loudspeakers…
I’d say that the Iranians are there to make certain that Assad doesn’t make it out alive. He knows too much, and his information could be a handy bargaining chip with western nations to ensure his survival. Iran doesn’t want that. Why, you ask?
Because Syria has been a financial and technical supporter of both the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. By that, I mean the singular nuclear weapons program that all of them have working on together.
It is no secret that Syrian and Iranian “scientists” have been seen in North Korea, and NORK “scientists” have been at locations in both Iran and Syria. Spread the facilities out, spread out the risk. The North Koreans already had a working power station. The Iranians had money and Syria also had desert. Lots and lots of desert. It’s why they were able to build and hide a nuclear facility for so long, until at last the Israelis took it out. One suggestion was that it was to be an assembly facility for nuclear weapons. Oh joy.
It is easy for the Iranians to ship materials and people back and forth from Iran to North Korea, as well as cover financial involvement through oil deals.
No, all three countries have been cooperating on both the weapons and the delivery systems. It’s getting closer to showtime for them, and the last thing the Iranians need is for Assad to slip the country and seek safety in exchange for talking about it.
Of course the Iranians, or as they are better known to the Arabs, “Persians”, have been known to play both sides to their advantage. They’ve been doing that for 35 centuries now. They might also be eying gaining control of Saddam’s old stockpile of chemical and biological weapons stored in the Bekaa Valley. They could create a LOT of mischief if they could get their hands on that stuff too.
We need to just stay the fuck out of all of it, and be prepared to bomb the living shit out of the place when the dust settles.
Brother Tim, I concur
I forgot to include the fact that Syria has been one of Russia’s biggest weapons markets. Putin was not too happy about the UN sanctions that the US wanted in place not so very long ago. Russia’s rep voted against those sanctions and for aid to the Syrian rebels.
Making sure that Assad doesn’t leave Syria alive sounds about right. The Syrian prime minister Riyad Farid Hijab defected to Jordan about a week ago, and the Taliban have been moving in with the rebels for about the same length of time. I’m sure they’d love to get their hands on a couple of nukes or biochem materials.
The rebels can’t even bury their dead any more. CNN has journalists in Aleppo; they ran a video this morning of a body covered with a rug left in the street. This is reminiscent of those two people in the Balkan War who were shot in the street and left to rot; no one could get near them because of heavy sniper fire. Those two were simply trying to escape.
@AW1, you are right: we need to stay out of it. Let them settle it themselves.
I don’t like any of this.
I agree that we should have stayed out of this – from day one. Unfortunately, it appears we didn’t. And we’ve now announced that we’re supporting the rebels, albeit at a low level.
I fear the wind has been sown. Hopefully the whirlwind will be a small one.
Hondo,
The Ba’athist regime in Iraq was (nominally) secular. The Assad regime was not. They belong to a Shiite sect called the Alawis. There’s some good information on them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawi
But the short of it is, Ba’athism does not require secularism, though it is socialist and Pan-Arabist at heart. And there was a nasty split between the Iraqi Ba’athist party and the Syrian Ba’athist party in 1966 (think of the PRC and USSR both communists, both hated each other).
MikeD: agreed. But the current Alawite-led Baathist regime in Syria is primarily secular, as was the case when daddy died and Bashar “inherited” the Syrian presidency. I just don’t see them attracting a lot of Islamic fundamentalist support on their own.
Iran may well be supporting them, but I think that’s more because Iran wants to maintain a friendly regime in Syria and is worried about losing that should Sunni fundamentalists take power. Iran’s leadership can be pragmatic vice Shi’ia fundamentalist when it suits their purposes.