• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iranian troops in Syria for joint offensive

anatta

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
24,275
Reaction score
10,372
Location
daily dukkha
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Reports from Lebanon say hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria in the last 10 days and will soon join government forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies in a major ground offensive backed by Russian air strikes.

The vanguard of Iranian ground forces began arriving in Syria: soldiers and officers specifically to participate in this battle," the second source said.

They are not advisers ... we mean hundreds with equipment and weapons. They will be followed by more."
Iraqis will also take part in the operation, the source said.
Thus far, direct Iranian military support for Assad has come mostly in the form of military advisers.

The White House said it could not confirm reports that Iranian troops have launched a ground offensive in Syria, but said any such development would be an "apt and powerful illustration" that Russia's military actions have worsened the conflict.

Josh Earnest, White House spokesman, that Russian involvement has not caused a "broad re-evaluation" of US strategy in Syria.

Reports: Iranian troops in Syria for joint offensive - Al Jazeera English
 
White House said it could not confirm reports that Iranian troops have launched a ground offensive in Syria, but said any such development would be an "apt and powerful illustration" that Russia's military actions have worsened the conflict.

Josh Earnest, White House spokesman, that Russian involvement has not caused a "broad re-evaluation" of US strategy in Syr

what's it going to take to wake up to the fact, that Iran/Iraq/Syra are now allied with Russia? On the ground?
That wouldn't be quite so bad if we weren't seen as feckless, and unreliable..

Egypt has basically turned to Russia when convenient. I guess that leaves Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states,
but they can't be feeling too secure either..
 
Reports from Lebanon say hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria in the last 10 days and will soon join government forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies in a major ground offensive backed by Russian air strikes.

The vanguard of Iranian ground forces began arriving in Syria: soldiers and officers specifically to participate in this battle," the second source said.

They are not advisers ... we mean hundreds with equipment and weapons. They will be followed by more."
Iraqis will also take part in the operation, the source said.
Thus far, direct Iranian military support for Assad has come mostly in the form of military advisers.

The White House said it could not confirm reports that Iranian troops have launched a ground offensive in Syria, but said any such development would be an "apt and powerful illustration" that Russia's military actions have worsened the conflict.

Josh Earnest, White House spokesman, that Russian involvement has not caused a "broad re-evaluation" of US strategy in Syria.

Reports: Iranian troops in Syria for joint offensive - Al Jazeera English
This has the potential to get real sticky, real fast! :shock:
 
what's it going to take to wake up to the fact, that Iran/Iraq/Syra are now allied with Russia? On the ground?
That wouldn't be quite so bad if we weren't seen as feckless, and unreliable..

Egypt has basically turned to Russia when convenient. I guess that leaves Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states,
but they can't be feeling too secure either..

Russia isn't exactly Western but it isn't exactly developing world despotism. Why not let them handle it? I thought most people were tired of the US handling everything. It's not like Russia will reconstitute the Soviet Union and go all totalitarian on the world, so where's the harm?
 
Russia isn't exactly Western but it isn't exactly developing world despotism. Why not let them handle it? I thought most people were tired of the US handling everything

For many on this website that is only true if Obama increases military aid, presence, bombing runs... That is the only time they call for the "US to quit handling everything".
But once other powers/nations take over and align themselves with other powers/nations who are willing to increase military aid, presence, etc that is when the US is seen as "feckless and unreliable" cuz of that damn Obama.
 
For many on this website that is only true if Obama increases military aid, presence, bombing runs... That is the only time they call for the "US to quit handling everything".
But once other powers/nations take over and align themselves with other powers/nations who are willing to increase military aid, presence, etc that is when the US is seen as "feckless and unreliable" cuz of that damn Obama.

I'm inclined to agree.

As you know, I'm an interventionist. And even I don't have a problem with Russia carrying some weight.
 
You want to know the irony to this is?

Obama's recent deal with Iran over nuclear materials.
 
what's it going to take to wake up to the fact, that Iran/Iraq/Syra are now allied with Russia? On the ground?
That wouldn't be quite so bad if we weren't seen as feckless, and unreliable..

Egypt has basically turned to Russia when convenient. I guess that leaves Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states,
but they can't be feeling too secure either..

In case you were curious... not a one of these relationships are new, with the exception of Iraq that you are not very accurate about anyway.

Russia has had relations with Syria one way or another going back to the 1950s, around the time of the Ba'ath Party and the nation's Independence. And it has been such a lengthy relationship that Syria has been purchasing arms from Russia for years, Russia has a relationship with the al-Assad family going back several decades, and includes Russia voting against actions against Syria at the UN. Russia's relationship with Iran goes back even further than that, and includes arms sales as well.

Iraq on the other hand still has a puppet government we put there that can neither control all of their own nation or build a military might strong enough to deal with ISIS within their own borders. Pure weakness in power over a weakened military we are greatly the cause of, to the point that Iran and Iraq have off and on talks on their shared concern. The idea of an ISIS moving past the nations of Syria and Iraq to fight in. A reasonable portion of the Iraq is no longer under government control, and even the Kurds up north are pretty much on their own (perhaps having only the US to rely on... sort of.)

Egypt did not like us all that much before, and does not like us all that much now. Similar story in Libya.

Saudi Arabia is an alliance of ours going back so far that it has caused issues throughout the region for both the US and Saudi Arabia, but that relationship itself represents the absolute height of our hypocritical and confusing foreign policy going back about as long as Russia has been aligned with both Iran and Syria.

Saudi Arabia and the "Gulf States" (as a grouping) are just coming to the conclusion that they need to do what they should have done decades ago... clean up their own backyard. Will they do so? Probably not.
 
In case you were curious... not a one of these relationships are new, with the exception of Iraq that you are not very accurate about anyway.

Russia has had relations with Syria one way or another going back to the 1950s, around the time of the Ba'ath Party and the nation's Independence. And it has been such a lengthy relationship that Syria has been purchasing arms from Russia for years, Russia has a relationship with the al-Assad family going back several decades, and includes Russia voting against actions against Syria at the UN. Russia's relationship with Iran goes back even further than that, and includes arms sales as well.

Iraq on the other hand still has a puppet government we put there that can neither control all of their own nation or build a military might strong enough to deal with ISIS within their own borders. Pure weakness in power over a weakened military we are greatly the cause of, to the point that Iran and Iraq have off and on talks on their shared concern. The idea of an ISIS moving past the nations of Syria and Iraq to fight in. A reasonable portion of the Iraq is no longer under government control, and even the Kurds up north are pretty much on their own (perhaps having only the US to rely on... sort of.)

Egypt did not like us all that much before, and does not like us all that much now. Similar story in Libya.

Saudi Arabia is an alliance of ours going back so far that it has caused issues throughout the region for both the US and Saudi Arabia, but that relationship itself represents the absolute height of our hypocritical and confusing foreign policy going back about as long as Russia has been aligned with both Iran and Syria.

Saudi Arabia and the "Gulf States" (as a grouping) are just coming to the conclusion that they need to do what they should have done decades ago... clean up their own backyard. Will they do so? Probably not.
Libya doesn't like us???? which government are you talking about in Libya?
No I don't think they would like us, considering we bombed the crap out of them in 2011, and caused their current civil war.

I'm aware that Syria is a long time Russian client state - i'v posted such many times, sometimes I don't feel like doing so again.

Iraq is now essentially becoming a client state/colony of Iran - that is a new relationship with Russia though..

I really don't understand your SA critique, we have a long history going back to FDR with them, maybe not the same "special relationship"
as we have with Israel.but a long term alliance.

Eqypt is increasing trade/arms/security agreements with Russia.
Where does this put the US/west? Not out in the cold, but definitely much more so then before Obama.
 
Russia isn't exactly Western but it isn't exactly developing world despotism. Why not let them handle it? I thought most people were tired of the US handling everything. It's not like Russia will reconstitute the Soviet Union and go all totalitarian on the world, so where's the harm?
Not the Soviet Union, but a much more active Russia, then just in Syria. Upgrading Tartus is part of this.
It gives them anability to do more then just re-fuel there.
These are the ground troops we couldn't find -those elusive Syrian moderates -except they turn out to be Iranian regulars. :roll:

It's not just Syria, if it was just Russia in Syria without a new strategic partnership with both Iran and Iraq,
while Iran expands into Lebanon and controls Baghdad, while supporting the Houthi's in Yemen it would just be Syria.

Then there is Eqypt. After the terrible decision to sanction el-Sisi over the Morsi coup, it drove Egypt into a working partnership with Russia on many levels.
Surly you know about Saudi Arabia being worried about the Iran deal. Not just for nukes -but for what we are seeing here.
Iranian troops - not just advisors -but troops working with Russian air for an offensive.

Who's "tired" of the US "handling everything?" That isn't going to be a 'problem' much longer in the region if events
keep breaking like this. Let Russia do it isn't exactly what a US president's policy should be doing.

Going back to Nixon, it's been the policy to keep Russia bottled up.
Add in the Ukraine.. just exactly where do we advance our interests?
 
Not the Soviet Union, but a much more active Russia, then just in Syria. Upgrading Tartus is part of this.
It gives them anability to do more then just re-fuel there.
These are the ground troops we couldn't find -those elusive Syrian moderates -except they turn out to be Iranian regulars. :roll:

It's not just Syria, if it was just Russia in Syria without a new strategic partnership with both Iran and Iraq,
while Iran expands into Lebanon and controls Baghdad, while supporting the Houthi's in Yemen it would just be Syria.

Then there is Eqypt. After the terrible decision to sanction el-Sisi over the Morsi coup, it drove Egypt into a working partnership with Russia on many levels.
Surly you know about Saudi Arabia being worried about the Iran deal. Not just for nukes -but for what we are seeing here.
Iranian troops - not just advisors -but troops working with Russian air for an offensive.

Who's "tired" of the US "handling everything?" That isn't going to be a 'problem' much longer in the region if events
keep breaking like this. Let Russia do it isn't exactly what a US president's policy should be doing.

Going back to Nixon, it's been the policy to keep Russia bottled up.
Add in the Ukraine.. just exactly where do we advance our interests?

I couldn't give a crap if Russia took all the troubles of the world off our hands. They can have at it. I don't buy into fear mongering about Russia and I'd be fine saving the blood and treasure as long as someone else is doing the job.

Beside, US problems stem from involvement in the Mideast, Russia is welcome to those problems. You can't play both sides of the fence; either getting involved in the Mideast is good or not. If not, then Russia will erode itself by doing so, all the while taking care of things. Isn't that a win-win?
 
Last edited:
I couldn't give a crap if Russia took all the troubles of the world off our hands. They can have at it. I don't buy into fear mongering about Russia and I'd be fine saving the blood and treasure as long as someone else is doing the job.

Beside, if the US's problems stem from involvement in the Mideast, Russia is welcome to those problems. You can't play both sides of the fence; either getting involved in the Mideast is good or not. If not, then Russia will erode itself by doing so, all the while taking care of things. Isn't that a win-win?
I have no idea what you are saying other then advocating for US/west isolationalism. "getting involved" is what superpowers do.
We've never shied from our role before. I read last page that you advocate interventionism, which is ironic considering you are advocating
a hands off approach; ceeding Russia to set the agenda.

There is a better way - power projection.
We make the alliances we always have done, without getting dragged into foreign civil wars like Afghanistan/Libya/Iraq.

We are getting close to straying off topic.
 
I have no idea what you are saying other then advocating for US/west isolationalism. "getting involved" is what superpowers do.
We've never shied from our role before. I read last page that you advocate interventionism, which is ironic considering you are advocating
a hands off approach; ceeding Russia to set the agenda.

There is a better way - power projection.
We make the alliances we always have done, without getting dragged into foreign civil wars like Afghanistan/Libya/Iraq.

We are getting close to straying off topic.

I'm no isolationist, I'm a hawk. And I can still - at the same time - have no problem with Russia carrying some or even all of the weight (obviously, that's not actually possible).

I guess it boils down to me not buying fear-mongering about Russia. They're a mostly Western country and they're welcome to help out in the world police roll.

What I don't understand is how you see a problem with this. Do you think Russia is gonna go totalitarian and take over the world? Please explain: what exactly is the downside to this for the US?
 
I'm no isolationist, I'm a hawk. And I can still - at the same time - have no problem with Russia carrying some or even all of the weight (obviously, that's not actually possible).

I guess it boils down to me not buying fear-mongering about Russia. They're a mostly Western country and they're welcome to help out in the world police roll.

What I don't understand is how you see a problem with this. Do you think Russia is gonna go totalitarian and take over the world? Please explain: what exactly is the downside to this for the US?
I've gone over this with you. "If it was just Syria , it would be Syria"..(etc.)

Don't insult me with "gonna go totalitarian and take over the world" type ridiculous bait questions,
nor am I going to respond to your characterization of "fear mongering"..You're not saying anything but tossing up specious terms..

I'm done speaking to you on this ,as it's not constructive at all.
 
I've gone over this with you. "If it was just Syria , it would be Syria"..(etc.)

Don't insult me with "gonna go totalitarian and take over the world" type ridiculous bait questions,
nor am I going to respond to your characterization of "fear mongering"..You're not saying anything but tossing up specious terms..

I'm done speaking to you on this ,as it's not constructive at all.

So you don't have a downside (beyond a nebulous "what about our influence"). Well, Russia's influence isn't much different, the Cold War is over.
 
Last edited:
Not the Soviet Union, but a much more active Russia, then just in Syria. Upgrading Tartus is part of this.
It gives them anability to do more then just re-fuel there.
These are the ground troops we couldn't find -those elusive Syrian moderates -except they turn out to be Iranian regulars. :roll:

It's not just Syria, if it was just Russia in Syria without a new strategic partnership with both Iran and Iraq,
while Iran expands into Lebanon and controls Baghdad, while supporting the Houthi's in Yemen it would just be Syria.

Then there is Eqypt. After the terrible decision to sanction el-Sisi over the Morsi coup, it drove Egypt into a working partnership with Russia on many levels.
Surly you know about Saudi Arabia being worried about the Iran deal. Not just for nukes -but for what we are seeing here.
Iranian troops - not just advisors -but troops working with Russian air for an offensive.

Who's "tired" of the US "handling everything?" That isn't going to be a 'problem' much longer in the region if events
keep breaking like this. Let Russia do it isn't exactly what a US president's policy should be doing.

Going back to Nixon, it's been the policy to keep Russia bottled up.
Add in the Ukraine.. just exactly where do we advance our interests?

Very good comments--I agree with all that.
 
what's it going to take to wake up to the fact, that Iran/Iraq/Syra are now allied with Russia? On the ground?
That wouldn't be quite so bad if we weren't seen as feckless, and unreliable..

Egypt has basically turned to Russia when convenient. I guess that leaves Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states,
but they can't be feeling too secure either..

Ok, and who are we allied with.?

I mean, if Russia is helping Syria to fight isis.., and the U.S. Is wanting to get rid of assad, doesn't that make isis our allies in Syria?
 
Ok, and who are we allied with.?

I mean, if Russia is helping Syria to fight isis.., and the U.S. Is wanting to get rid of assad, doesn't that make isis our allies in Syria?
Syrian Civil War is multi-headed hydra.

Damascus ( assad) / Islamists ( al-Nusra types) / secularists Islamist ( FSA types) / ISIL ( jihadists).

Where do you see Russia going after ISIL ??? They have been going after the Islamists/secularists.
They are supporting Assad as their client, and the Iranians/Shi'a brigades - their regional partners.

They aren't doing anything in regards to ISIL.
 
Syrian Civil War is multi-headed hydra.

Damascus ( assad) / Islamists ( al-Nusra types) / secularists Islamist ( FSA types) / ISIL ( jihadists).

Where do you see Russia going after ISIL ??? They have been going after the Islamists/secularists.
They are supporting Assad as their client, and the Iranians/Shi'a brigades - their regional partners.

They aren't doing anything in regards to ISIL.

That is not true. They have bombed ISIL targets, but the western media tends to ignore that. The western media are really looking like the build up to Iraq 2002-3... not questioning anything. Thursday they hit targets in ISIL areas including a former Syrian Air Force base lost earlier this year.

And so what if they are not exclusively targeting ISIL? There are other terrorist groups that are almost as bad as ISIL, of which the west are not doing anything about.

You have to also remember that ISIL might control large portions of Syria, but it is mostly desert. The important strategic parts are held by other Islamist or the moderate rebel groups.

And in the end, the US/west are worried that Assad will regain the footing he has lost lately, and maintain power.... and lets be brutally frank here.. who would you rather have in power... Assad or ISIL, because the other rebel groups are in no way viable. So that is your choice.. I know who I would choose.
 
Syrian Civil War is multi-headed hydra.

Damascus ( assad) / Islamists ( al-Nusra types) / secularists Islamist ( FSA types) / ISIL ( jihadists).

Where do you see Russia going after ISIL ??? They have been going after the Islamists/secularists.
They are supporting Assad as their client, and the Iranians/Shi'a brigades - their regional partners.

They aren't doing anything in regards to ISIL.

I think they will start with whoever is posing the greatest threat to Assad's regime now, and go from there. Since there doesn't seem to be very good cooperation among Assad's opponents, they can be dealt with one at a time. How great a threat Assad considers ISIS, at least in the far north and desert areas of the country, who knows? I doubt he feels he can let them be, in the long run. And the Russians and Iranians may also see them as a threat they have to take on, at some point. I'd like to see ISIS try to defend Raqqa and Mosul at the same time against strong attacks.

I am wondering how the Russians will respond if some of these savages capture any of their men. I'm sure it's a concern, and my guess is their aircraft will operate close enough to the ground forces so help is not far away for any crewmen that may be shot down. I think the Russian forces will forget about the laws of war in dealing with these people, if they think that is necessary in certain situations.
 
I think they will start with whoever is posing the greatest threat to Assad's regime now, and go from there. Since there doesn't seem to be very good cooperation among Assad's opponents, they can be dealt with one at a time. How great a threat Assad considers ISIS, at least in the far north and desert areas of the country, who knows? I doubt he feels he can let them be, in the long run. And the Russians and Iranians may also see them as a threat they have to take on, at some point. I'd like to see ISIS try to defend Raqqa and Mosul at the same time against strong attacks.

I am wondering how the Russians will respond if some of these savages capture any of their men. I'm sure it's a concern, and my guess is their aircraft will operate close enough to the ground forces so help is not far away for any crewmen that may be shot down. I think the Russian forces will forget about the laws of war in dealing with these people, if they think that is necessary in certain situations.
absolutely. Their interest is Assad -ISIL to some extent but only secondarily to maintaining Assad in power.
And yes the "Islamists" are a danger to Assad in Aleppo and Homs - i'm not sure if ISILhas have any presence there or near Damascus,
but we know the Islamists do.

I imagine they'll coordinate with Hezbollah too - if Iranian troops are there as reported.

Mosul can't be gone after until Anbar province is more pacified I haven't looked in awhile,last I saw was an Iraqi offensive in Ramadi.
That was Quds forces and Shi'a brigades though -the Iraqi army seems to be MIA. (as usual)

Raqqa is interesting, that's gonna prolly take Kurds, but all this dynamics are shifting now with Iranian regulars,
and possible Russian ground....I'm not prepared to make any predictions..lol
 
That is not true. They have bombed ISIL targets, but the western media tends to ignore that. The western media are really looking like the build up to Iraq 2002-3... not questioning anything. Thursday they hit targets in ISIL areas including a former Syrian Air Force base lost earlier this year.

And so what if they are not exclusively targeting ISIL? There are other terrorist groups that are almost as bad as ISIL, of which the west are not doing anything about.

You have to also remember that ISIL might control large portions of Syria, but it is mostly desert. The important strategic parts are held by other Islamist or the moderate rebel groups.

And in the end, the US/west are worried that Assad will regain the footing he has lost lately, and maintain power.... and lets be brutally frank here.. who would you rather have in power... Assad or ISIL, because the other rebel groups are in no way viable. So that is your choice.. I know who I would choose.
I'm not sure whom is "viable" it may very well be Syria is carved up into smaller states/reshuffled/ don't know.
al-Nusra is homegrown AQ, but those groups seem to have a lot of support.
It might be like Libya is now that Qaddafi is gone -endless militias, and more then one government

So they did hit ISIL yesterday? I didn't know that -thanks
 
Back
Top Bottom