Pravda: Only Iran can break ISIS by invading Iraq and Syria - Forums

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pravda: Only Iran can break ISIS by invading Iraq and Syria

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pravda: Only Iran can break ISIS by invading Iraq and Syria

    Only Iran can break ISIS by invading Iraq and Syria

    08.06.2015


    Source: Pravda.Ru photo archive

    The Middle East continues to remain one of the most troubled regions in the world. Hotbeds of tensions continue to grow along with the number of new conflicts. Pravda.Ru discussed the current state of affairs in the Middle East with Russian MP, Director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Central Asia, Semyon Bagdasarov. "The Syrian war - is this our war, especially now, when the situation in Ukraine remains intense?" "Well, clearly, the problem in Ukraine is a lot more serious for Russia, as Russia and Ukraine share a border that is 2,000 kilometers long. The Syrian issue is less important for Russia, of course. However, this is an issue of Russia's image in the Middle East. The events that happen there affect Russia's security. Russia has always supported the government of Bashar Assad, so if Assad's government falls, God forbid, then it would be a defeat for Russia. "Turkey was primarily involved in the Syrian project. The Turks wanted to replace Assad with Muslim Brotherhood that is related to the Turkish party Justice and Development. Thus the ideology of neo-Ottomanism, which Mr. Erdogan preaches, would have been a great success."

    "Erdogan was coming to power with a motto of "zero problems with neighbors." Today, Turkey does not have a friendly neighbor, as Erdogan managed to ruin relations with all of his neighbors." It was Turkey's idea to remove Syria's Assad from power

    "Recently, the Turks have decided to sell their stake in the Transatlantic pipeline, having thus put Azerbaijan in a very awkward position. They have no understanding of some obligations or long-term cooperation. In Syria, it goes about direct involvement in the war, and it is the same thing in Iraq. In Iranian Kurdistan, the Turks took a flexible position. They do not fight with the Kurds, but invest in them to strengthen positions there, given the dependence of Iraqi Kurdistan on transit via Turkey. Today, Turkey is the third largest investor in the region, following the United States and Israel.
    "Toppling the current regime in Syria is ‚Äč‚ÄčErdogan's idea. As I understand it, he had persuaded the US leadership in the face of Barack Obama that the Assad regime would collapse quickly. Erdogan even publicly said in 2011 that the Turks would be praying in Syrian mosques in a year. He did say that. "However, things proved to be different. Bashar Assad's regime has been resisting both internal and external aggression for four years. "In Lebanon, when the civil war was on, many would say that the conflict could be resolved politically. However, the political resolution came only in 15 years, when they realized that one had to do something to finally stop the bloodshed. The Cairo accords were signed. Yet, the situation in Syria is more difficult, and the country is being destroyed. Syria will not exist as a joint state. As in Iraq, there will be several separate states created instead." Syria will never exist as joint state

    "This is a terrible thing to say that Syria will not be restored. US Secretary of State John Kerry admitted in a conversation with Russian counterpart Lavrov that Libya was NATO's mistake that they were doing again in Syria." Also read: Whose dollars fund the Syrian war? "Turkey is a member of NATO, and Turkey is not going to pull out from NATO. Mr. Erdogan and his military officials expressed a desire to lead NATO Rapid Response Forces in 2021. Of course, Turkey wins support. "Secondly, the Syrian problem should be viewed in the context of the Iranian problem. This is the most important question for the Americans. For them, Ukraine is not so important - it is the Middle East that comes first. The Americans did not conceal the fact that they have spent 1 trillion 700 billion dollars on Iraq vs. 5 billion on Ukraine. The Americans also deal with the pressure from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. "Iran is an unusual country. There is no other country in the world that would rise to the level of a great empire for so many times. Iran used to be the Achaemenid, the Sassanid, the Parthian empire ..." "Is there anything that can help Assad now?" "Assad is making several mistakes. He has lost independence. It is the Iranians who make all decisions, including in law enforcement agencies. Iran helps Syria a lot - with money, weapons and everything else. The Iranians are fighting with Hezbollah on the side of Bashar al-Assad. Technically, if he promised autonomy to Syrian Kurds and Christians, then it would be a correct thing for him to do. "In Iraq, many people feel nostalgic about the days of Saddam Hussein. This is absolutely terrible. The only force that can break ISIS is Iran. If Iran mobilizes its army and moves it to Iraq and Syria, then ISIS will be destroyed. This would be the case of an open war with Arabian countries, though. If it happens, the Saudis will not sit on their hands, and the USA will interfere. The situation may develop into one big bloody massacre." Interview prepared for publication by Yuri Kondratyev Interview conducted by Sayeed Gafurov Read article on the Russian version of Pravda.Ru

    - See more at: http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/....xS9DcuEt.dpuf



    http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/..._iraq_syria-0/

  • #2
    This is far fetched. Invading Iraq is not something to be taken lightly. Even America and its accomplices struggled to do that. There is no reason to think that it would be any easier for Iran.

    Comment


    • #3
      I agree. In fact, maybe it would be better to give up on Sykes-Picot and stop trying to reunite Iraq by force. Iran is more likely to control an eastern (shiite) Iraqi state, which has the bulk of the oil, than a united Iraq, with sunnis less favorable to Teheran.

      Comment


      • #4
        That would be easier, starman. It would be better for Iran to provide support to Iraqi security forces and militias, as well as co-ordinate some kind of counter offensive between the forces of Iraq and Syria.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gonjeeshk View Post
          That would be easier, starman. It would be better for Iran to provide support to Iraqi security forces and militias,
          Of course they should back them. But destroying IS completely by retaking all of its towns would be prohibitively costly, and I don't think it would solve the fundamental problem--Sunni dissaffection with the shiite run government. Iran already casts a long shadow over Shiite eastern Iraq and it has the bulk of the oil.


          as well as co-ordinate some kind of counter offensive between the forces of Iraq and Syria.
          Iran's Syrian allies have all but given up trying to retake the whole country. They're now content just to hold the Alawite areas, Damascus and a few other places.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by starman View Post
            I agree. In fact, maybe it would be better to give up on Sykes-Picot and stop trying to reunite Iraq by force. Iran is more likely to control an eastern (shiite) Iraqi state, which has the bulk of the oil, than a united Iraq, with sunnis less favorable to Teheran.
            Unfortunately, that's the way it's going. With sunnis left to face IS alone, IS will make them regret it. It's a pity that the Iraqi and Syrian states don't do more reach out to them

            Comment


            • #7
              I heard Abadi's regime was massing troops near Ramadi to retake it but I've yet to hear of any serious attempt to do so. Seems there's a disconnect between rhetoric and capability.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by starman View Post
                I heard Abadi's regime was massing troops near Ramadi to retake it but I've yet to hear of any serious attempt to do so. Seems there's a disconnect between rhetoric and capability.
                Has there been any news of that?

                Is there any more support that Iran can give Iraq & Syria, without sending in troops?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gonjeeshk View Post
                  Has there been any news of that?
                  None I've heard.

                  Is there any more support that Iran can give Iraq & Syria, without sending in troops?
                  Probably not as long as sanctions are in place.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by starman View Post




                    Probably not as long as sanctions are in place.
                    I agree. But I also think the IS is over rated. They seem to go after easy pickings then entrench themselves. Most of what they have taken is actually rural. Only a few cities. The Iraqi army is still poorly equipped despite the money they spent. Even a hundred million dollars will not get you much from the US.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Behrooz Boonabi View Post

                      I agree. But I also think the IS is over rated. They seem to go after easy pickings then entrench themselves. Most of what they have taken is actually rural. Only a few cities. The Iraqi army is still poorly equipped despite the money they spent. Even a hundred million dollars will not get you much from the US.

                      Recent experience suggests money and weapons aren't the key issue. It's lack of motivation. If the average Iraqi can't be induced to fight and just throws his weapons away, what's the use? Abadi has some good fighters but overall not much punch. I don't know...maybe Iran should settle for the shiite areas of Iraq, which have the most oil anyway, and write off the sunni areas. Maybe there could be a negotiated settlement--lay off the "caliphate" in exchange for continued access to allies in western Syria and Lebanon.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by starman View Post
                        Maybe there could be a negotiated settlement--lay off the "caliphate" in exchange for continued access to allies in western Syria and Lebanon.
                        That could be part of a new approach to the conflict. Countries like Iran could also raise the issue of regional states providing support and access to Syria via their borders, for IS, at the UN.

                        Iran could also provide more support to Kurdish militias in Iraq.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Of course it's hard to predict exactly how all this will turn out. Maybe IS can be beaten. It's noteworthy though, that recent successes by Iraqis and Kurds owe a lot to US airpower. If indigenous strength to crush IS isn't there this could be futile in the long run.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by starman View Post
                            It's noteworthy though, that recent successes by Iraqis and Kurds owe a lot to US airpower. If indigenous strength to crush IS isn't there this could be futile in the long run.
                            Futile for ground forces alone. That considered, Iran could increase the numbers of its aircraft supporting Iraq. Its UAVs and UCAVs would be useful for that.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It looks like they're making progress at Fallujah and elsewhere but we'll have to wait and see...

                              Comment

                              Unconfigured Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X