US vs Russia war in Syria

[N1019]

Not really. They are just doing Israel's bidding, thats all. After all, the US is a proxy country of Israel, and the relationship between the two countries are very similar between the master and the slave.

That view is popular among anti-imperialists but in reality it is the other way round. It may not always have been the case, but now, Israel is effectively a forward operating base of the US and an American client state. Sure, there are many powerful Jews in the US who probably sympathise with Israel (along with many Christians), and yes, Israel has a powerful lobby in the US. It's no surprise that a besieged nation like Israel would do whatever it could to secure the ongoing support of powerful friends. Israel needs that support and it does what it can to get it. That doesn't mean Israel is the master. Verily, I say unto thee, Israel must offer something in return for the support it receives, and it's not just cash. Israel has to be fully on board with the imperial programme.

Looking at the new American aid package for Israel, there are powerful strings attached, e.g. the US is forcing Israel to spend most of that money on American military hardware. The US does not want it spent on Israel's sovereign military industrial complex, something which Israel was not happy about. The imperial master always prefers that its clients use its own military hardware because aside from the economic boost it gives them control over their capabilities. If you buy equipment from a global power, that global power only sells you what it wants to sell you, which depends on how much it trusts you, what you can offer, etc.

If that were the case, Iran would've been the priority and not Syria.

Iran is the ultimate goal. However, Syria had to be neutralised as an effective state ally of Iran first, for one because it borders Israel and could be used as a launching pad for (retaliatory) attacks on that state.

Now, while Syria still exists, it has zero capacity to assist Iran in the event of an attack. Rather than Syria's serving as an effective ally of Iran, Iran has been forced to send its resources to shore up Syria and prevent the total vaporisation of its Shia Crescent, i.e. it's a nett loss relationship for Iran. Ultimately, Iran's efforts in Syria will likely be in vain.

You'll notice that every state in the region with strategic ties to Iran is in turmoil; it's not a coincidence. What do you think will happen once all of Iran's friends have been neutralised? Predicting that is not rocket science.

Furthermore, Syria was in the path of the proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon gas pipeline, which still hasn't been built for obvious reasons. No coincidence there, I say.

Iran still seems like "an island of stability" (Carter's words to the Shah), but look around it. There is chaos on both sides with virtually no state power to obstruct future imperial military operations. America and her allies can move through the entire area with impunity if they so choose.

From Hillary's emails and other analyses we know that American policymakers thought it would be a good idea to bleed Iranian resources in geopolitcal situations outside Iranian borders. While American actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have been construed by Western mainstream media as a boon for Iran and its supposedly expanding sphere of influence, it has actually imposed costs on Iran with limited returns. If that's the neo Persian Empire, it's not a very good one, because that's not how empires are supposed to work. Imperial possessions are supposed to serve the homeland, not drain it. About the only resources Iran is actually extracting from its supposedly newfound sphere of influence are scores of impoverished volunteers to serve in its proxy forces, fight and die alongside Iranian troops in Syria. Iran does not control the energy reserves in those areas, can't run pipelines for its own petroleum exports through them, and there's no other great cash cow to milk. In summary, all Iran can get from its new "empire" are some low quality troops and something of a buffer zone, albeit not a buffer zone that could ever stop US/allied military forces - it would only be effective against non-state proxies like ISIS.

I think we are very close to open confrontation and a clash between the US and Russia in Syria.

While it might seem close, I believe Russia would stand down before it got to that stage, that or some sort of face-saving deal would be struck that appeared to give Russia an equal power at the table of negotiations for the future of the territory.

Clearly, it was never Russia's objective to save Syria from destruction, anyway. Otherwise, their timeframe and scale of actions could have been very different. Russia took a minimalist approach, ensuring it got a seat at the table for the carve-up of the land, applied pressure to the American-led axis, got some advertising airtime for its military hardware and bolstered what was left of the Assad regime, its only state ally in the Middle East. It all falls short of saving the country because the opposition can just keep coming back repeatedly. That doesn't mean there will be no Syria in the future, but it is likely to be a very different Syria, or a much smaller Syria.

Everything Russia has done has had a lot to do with serving its own interests and relatively little to do with helping the Syrian people. For Russia, there was no point doing it any other way, i.e. really going out on a limb for Syria would likely have failed anyway.

As it stands, Russia has still paid a price for its involvement in Syria, including the following:
- the Ukraine situation, which was almost certainly orchestrated by the US and allies to hurt Russia, and quite likely in direct response to Russia's intervention in Syria (stemming back to John Kerry's monumental semantic fuck-up regarding the disposal of Assad's chemical weapons). Russia is getting in the way of Anglo-American designs on the Middle East. However, taking the Ukraine may have been on the agenda, anyway.
- economic sanctions as part of the massive game of theatrics surrounding the American-orchestrated coup in the Ukraine
- the downing of Russian passenger aircraft, likely orchestrated by the US or US-allied groups in response to Russia's involvement in Syria
- the embarrassing loss of military personnel and assets in Syria, including aircraft and senior officers, likely facilitated by the US and delivered by its clients/proxies

Clearly, the Obama administration has decided to step in and aid ISIS in it's fight against Assad. The recent strike on Syrian forces was INTENTIONAL and not a mistake. All the circumstances point to a coordinated US and Israeli attack on Assad's forces under the guise of joining the fight against ISIS.

Which is what they have been doing all along.

And I can't believe the US is on the side of ISIS. What the actual FUCK.

It might be an inconvenient truth but it is the truth and it has been out there for years. And from where I'm sitting, it still looks like an American strategic victory is on the horizon despite tactical setbacks here and there.

[al-Bosni]

Here is more lunacy. Assad helped create ISIS and keeps it in power.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ure-of-it.html

Does everyone support ISIS?

[Wadaad]

You are nitpicking and looking for a needle in a haystack. Maybe Assad accidentally shot at Israel's plane once in an isolated incident, even though Israel denied being shot down, and you are acting like it's proof for your conspiracies. Just like people are using this one isolated incident of America shooting at Assad and acting like it's proof for their conspiracies. It's time to face reality, Israel has been completely safe from it's next door neighbor, Assad. That's because he never used his military against them, rather he is currently using his military to kill Muslims. Another country that has been completely safe from Assad is America. America has been flying it's planes in Syria for 2 years and he has never attacked them. But why would he? These planes are bombing his enemies, not him.

As for Iran, it has a navy, air force, and army. It has an actual military that it has never used against Israel. You can make excuses. I'm just saying what is apparent.

Well using this line of argument, Saudi Arabia (with its greater resources) should be at the vanguard of bombing israel, well before bashar assad even started kindergarten. Yet for all the trillions the Saudis have put in American and British pockets, they aim their high tech weaponry on the Yemenis.

[al-Bosni]

Well using this line of argument, Saudi Arabia (with its greater resources) should be at the vanguard of bombing israel, well before bashar assad even started kindergarten. Yet for all the trillions the Saudis have put in American and British pockets, they aim their high tech weaponry on the Yemenis.

Turkey has even greater resources than Saudi Arabia. They are not bombing Israel either. Instead, they are currently normalizing relations with them according to sources.

[Sarmatian]

The legitimate government in Syria is the best chance for stability,but the idea that anyone involved in international politics are the "good guys" is ridiculous.

Fix'd it for ya.

[catgeorge]

How the hell can anyone support ISIS - proves America is run by Neocons if they choose ISIS over Assad.

ISIS must be slaughtered.

They need this sort of punishment over and over and over

[Sarmatian]

Iran is the ultimate goal.

Can't agree with you. The ultimate strategic goal is fracturing of Russia which will allow US to access its resources unchallenged. For that Middle East has to be ruined and turned into stateless radical pot with everlasting supply of cannon fodder. It will flow from there in Northern direction consuming Caucasus and Central Asia first and then entering Russia.

[N1019]

Can't agree with you. The ultimate strategic goal is fracturing of Russia which will allow US to access its resources unchallenged. For that Middle East has to be ruined and turned into stateless radical pot with everlasting supply of cannon fodder. It will flow from there in Northern direction consuming Caucasus and Central Asia first and then entering Russia.

I don't think we actually disagree here. Iran is the ultimate goal - in the Middle East - and relative to what is happening in Syria. Iran is the last man of significance left standing intact outside the Anglo-American sphere. But of course it goes beyond the Middle East, and of course the game never ends. Once Iran has been taken down there will be more to do, like balkanization of the region. Looking further abroad, which the global powers surely do, Russia certainly has plenty of resources to which America would love to have access. As for how that outcome might be brought about, I defer to you.