Iran Troops in Syria

B

Bronco

500+ Posts
I can't really tell if this has been confirmed by anyone credible yet, but reports are that Iran is sending 15,000 elite troops to Syria to help put down the protests.

There are differing views on what, if anything, the US should do in these situations. Personally, I do not have a problem with the US supporting peaceful protestors that are being gunned down by their govt. I don't want backdoor/secret arms deals, but out in the open support I favor. I realize there are many who think we should not interfere at all in these situations and let the Syrian people fight it out for themselves. I do not agree with this position but can understand it.

However, I do not think the US can stand still if another country offers direct military aid to the govt facing the revolt. If Iran does this, I think the international comunity would be justified in going after those troops and intervening in the situation.

Also, talk about tossing gasoline on the Israel fire. I can't see how Israel would sit by and let Iran do this in Syria.
 
Yeah, I mentioned this in the "Sanctions on Iran taking their toll" thread. There appears to be a proxy war between the West and Iran taking place in Syria. The rebellion against Assad is being supported through Turkey and financed by the Saudis from what I have read. Here is an article from the Guardian:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
This is how we create troubles for ourselves. The Reagan admin funded and built up bin laden and it came back to bite us. Stay out of this mess already!
mad.gif
 
I assume the 15,000 troops would have to go from Iran to Syria by sea (through the Suez Canal). If so, I think the U.S./Navy would be justified in intercepting the ship before it reaches port in Syria. But Russia strongly supports Syria (and Iran to a lesser extent) and strongly opposes sanctions against them, so that could bring about a standoff, perhaps a 21st-century, Middle Eastern/Mediterranean version of the Cuban missile crisis.

According to debka.com, 20,000 U.S. troops practiced this week along the Atlantic coast, while Russian special forces have moved to Black Sea bases, ready to protect Damascus. Looks like everyone is getting ready for some serious shiite to go down.

"Bold Alligator 2012" drills 20,000 troops on US East Coast for Persian Gulf action

Russia vetoes motion after preparing Special Forces for Syria
 
All of the middle east is not worth the life of a single US Marine.

The area is the birthplace of three of the major plagues afflicting mankind. Let them kill each other with what they have at hand.

Tarbaby is not a politically correct term any longer but it is a perfect description of the middle east. Winston Churchill laid a rotten egg in the area every time he squatted there and Obama and the Ivy League geniuses are no Winston Churchills. If he couldn't do anything right, they sure cannot.
 
maj: after the soviets invaded afghanistan to prop up the marxists running the place (a really horrid bunch they were, too; they were educating girls!!!) our president Carter started arming the opposition, mostly though Pakistan, our great ally.

Reagan came in and kept upping the ante. The aid was parcelled out by the Pakis, not by us. Bin Laden got some of it. So did a lot of other nutcake islamists. Religious fanatics were real good against the Russians because getting killed was not a big deterent to them.

Lots of people now blame the Carter/Reagan arming of the anti russian forces for the surge of violent and well trained loonies who have been roaming the area since then. These people tend to overlook the fact that blowing up russians in afghanistan was one of the things that finally dropped the USSR to its knees, which was not a totally bad thing in itself, I don't think.
 
I get some of the anti-involvement talk. I agree too that I would hate to see any US soldiers die over this cause. It is a tough spot.

I guess my supposed cold black conservative heart hates to see an army kill of its own citizens when the citizens are asking for peaceful changes (I am sure some protests have been bloody).

I kind of thought that this is what the UN was for. If anything, it shows just how completely foolhardy and giant waste of money are institutions like the UN. They sound great on paper but their policies have no bite if they lack the will to enforce them.

The world is watching right now. Syrian people want change. If another country comes along and crushes the revolt it will speak huge volumes for what kind of country and govt really exists in Iran. It is going to be very hard for the China's and Russia'a of the world to continue to support Iran if they pull something like this.
 
BOB- I get what you are saying. I think the difference is in sending troops into another country to help kill that country's people. The distinction is huge. If Iran or Syria wants to behave badly in their own countries, there is only so much the world can do. When they do this, it will be very, very hard for some of the fence sitters in Europe and the rest of Asia to turn a blind eye.

Yes, Russia needs the port and China wants the oil. But, those 2 countries rely on the rest of the world way more than they rely on Iran and Syria. I can see no rationalization, of any kind, for Iran to send troops into Syria. Certainly no rationalization in the eyes of the International community. Wouldn't you agree that China needs the markets of Europe and North America and the rest of Asia to support their economy a whole lot more than they need the amount of oil they get from Iran? Russia makes a little money selling weapons to Syria, but if they are cut off from selling their natural resources to the world economy it would be absolutely devastating to their economy. Continued support of Iran, if this materializes, by Russia nd China would literally be like stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime. At some point, Iran and Syria just aren't worth it.
 
I say let Iran go down the rathole of Syria. They can't afford it, they won't get what they want, and they will end up being on the wrong side of history.
 
Bronco -- I think we're pretty much on the same page. I guess I'm of the belief that Russia and China are large and powerful enough that they can get away with lots of things (sort of like how the U.S. can) before everyone else will gang up to take action.

China is the master of amoral politics, IMO, with North Korea being a good example. While China doesn't want North Korea to do anything reckless like starting (another) war with South Korea (with a nuke or otherwise), China also enjoys the benefit of having a rogue nuclear ally to serve as a buffer state that occupies the U.S.', Japan's and South Korea's military attention. China is able to score points with all parties merely by hosting (fruitless) talks. Same type thing with Iran and Syria... Russia and China will call for "restraint" and more talks between the West and Iran (or Syria) and try to stay above the fray that way, while continuing to do business as usual with said rogue states.
 
Anything that hurts my enemy is good is a reasonably good model I suppose but it can cause problems and Carter and Reagan both were playing chess one move at a time with their intervention in Afghanistan. But it is hard to see how they could do anything else. Letting the USSR have a naval outlet in that area would have raised huge problems for everybody in the area and we have lots of interests there.

I don't fault either for going in and mentioned that Carter actually started it.

By the way, the Gates book the other poster referred to is something everybody interested in modern history should have on the shelf. He is non partisan to an extreme and passes out compliments regardless of party. I think he is one of the most balanced, fair authors of an inside account I have ever read. I picked up that book at a half price store for a book and had a hard time putting it down because he was in so many positions to watch what was happening.

Our political class is not so good at taking the long view; the state department people and, to a lesser degree, the CIA are much better at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top