HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Iran confirms it has forc...

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:23 PM

Iran confirms it has forces in Syria and will take military action if pushed

Source: The Guardian

Iran has confirmed for the first time that forces from its revolutionary guards corps are in Syria helping Bashar al-Assad's government crush rebels, and warned that it would get involved militarily if its Arab ally came under attack.

In a clear public signal of Tehran's continuing support for Assad, the commander of the Islamic republic's elite military formation said that "a number" of members of the IRGC's Qods force were in Syria, though General Mohammad Ali Jafari gave no further details and claimed this did not constitute "a military presence".

It was a surprisingly candid response to persistent claims by western countries, the Syrian opposition and Israel that Iran is actively helping the regime fight its enemies in the 18th month of a bloody war. Lakhdar Brahimi, the veteran Algerian diplomat who replaced Kofi Annan as UN envoy to Syria earlier this month, met Assad in Damascus on Saturday but warned afterwards that any progress would be slow and halting given the yawning gap between government and opposition. "The crisis is dangerous and getting worse, and it is a threat to the Syrian people, the region and the world," said Brahimi.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/16/iran-middleeast

19 replies, 2583 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply Iran confirms it has forces in Syria and will take military action if pushed (Original post)
alp227 Sep 2012 OP
leveymg Sep 2012 #1
DallasNE Sep 2012 #10
leveymg Sep 2012 #15
pampango Sep 2012 #16
leveymg Sep 2012 #17
zellie Sep 2012 #2
JoeyT Sep 2012 #5
L0oniX Sep 2012 #3
zellie Sep 2012 #4
azurnoir Sep 2012 #6
loli phabay Sep 2012 #7
azurnoir Sep 2012 #11
loli phabay Sep 2012 #12
azurnoir Sep 2012 #13
loli phabay Sep 2012 #14
iandhr Sep 2012 #8
zellie Sep 2012 #9
leveymg Sep 2012 #19
oldsarge54 Sep 2012 #18

Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:26 PM

1. Time to deescalate this messy regime change operation before it turns into a regional war.

The Libya "humanitarian war" model won't work in Syria, and it hasn't really worked in Libya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:35 PM

10. Pre-mature At Best

It is way too early to tell how things will turn out in Libya. The latest attack was by an extremist group with help from foreign fighters. Granted, security is not where it needs to be but that is a different argument. Plus, you fail to provide any documentation to support your "won't work" assessment. Lastly, you did not provide anything as a replacement for current policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:26 PM

15. My point is, the Libyan regime change model can't be replicated in Syria, and it won't work there

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:28 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

or in Iran.

I hope things work out for the Libyans, but this changing regimes in one country with a bunch of native Jihadi terrorists and using them to overthrow other regimes is a humanitarian disaster about to become a major regional war. Any policy but that policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 06:26 AM

16. The peaceful protests that started 18 months ago are "a bunch of native Jihadi terrorists"?

You are right that what happened in Libya can't be replicated in Syria. The death of over 20,000 people killed in Syria in the last year and a half, many of them a little too young or a "little too female" to be your typical Jihadi terrorist, would confirm the 'difference'.

It is indeed a "humanitarian disaster" but blaming it on the opposition to a dictator seems a little illiberal. Did Assad have no choice back in the spring of 2011 other than to respond to the massive peaceful protests with force? Dictators in Tunisia and Egypt did not respond to similar demonstrations with massive force. (They used force and demonstrators died, but not 'massive' force.)

Was Assad right to oppose those peaceful protesters with force back then? I suppose if the use of force had been successful, as it was for his father who bequeathed the dictatorship to him, we would not be having this discussion. Perhaps Assad figured that, if force didn't scare people enough to make them go home and be quiet then, he could win the eventual civil war since he has the artillery, tanks and planes to go with an organized army.

It is a shame when hereditary dictators see their right to rule threatened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 07:38 AM

17. That phase is long past. Once this became a religious civil war involving foreign Jihadi

it's character changed to a religious war of extermination, and the possibility of reform and compromise ended. The minority Alawite have a well-founded fear of genocidal outcomes, and have been given no reason to believe there is any alternative other than to fight for their lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:28 PM

2. Yes we're all scared.

 

Threat number 2,563,436.

I guess we're all supposed to ignore the FU to the IAEA and the medieval treatment of women and gays .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zellie (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:19 PM

5. We're pretty ok with medieval treatment

of women and gays, as long as we like the people that are treating them poorly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:00 PM

3. YAwn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:18 PM

4. Endless daily threats

 

from the most illegal reactionary regime on earth.

They may play that hand once too often..and it may come sooner than they think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zellie (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:35 PM

6. yes especially depending on the outcome of the US elections

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2012, 06:35 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

where one of the candidates has PROMISED to put US lives on the line to assist Israel

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:15 PM

7. does not matter who wins Israel is an ally and the US will support her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:56 PM

11. so your saying the US will go to war if Israel does?

is that what support means?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:59 PM

12. i am saying we will support israel politically, materially, with intelligence and assets

and if needs be with boots on the ground, though militarily they shouldnt need anything other than some supporting units and political cover if they decide to go after the iranian nuclear facilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #12)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:03 PM

13. so in other words yes? because you just said Israel would need supporting units

if not military what kind of units are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #13)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:10 PM

14. i think its was pretty obvious i was saying yes, no other words about it

but we will give them intel as you would expect, probuably counter missile defenses if needed. Its pretty much a given that we dont want Iran to get nukes and if Israel is prepared to do the heavy lifting then we should give them the cover they will need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:28 PM

8. Revolutionary Guards support Assad. Al Qaeda supports the opposition...

... I guess its too much to hope for that they would finish each other off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:31 PM

9. One can only hope. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 09:52 AM

19. More likely, we'll end up fighting both. Regime change using Jihadis - great strategy.

More blowback.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 08:28 AM

18. Obama Shows great wisdom

Obama is showing some real smarts, doing everything he can with our allies and saving war as a LAST resort. I hope he is successful.

However, I feel he has a philosophical difficulty. America is, was, should be, against all form of tyranny. Forgive our past where we supported tyrants, mostly because "those bastards were our bastards." Should we have to intervene, I hope we use the Libya/Balkans model of intervention by air only. I can see supporting a local insurgents by providing the air cover they do not have and no more unilateral actions.

One thing that does worry me. What do we do if the Iranian army does play the part of the NVA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread