Iran sending soldiers to Syria?

[Tim Cornelis]

If this is true it will prove a real dilemma for the "anti-imperialists" supporting Assad "conditionally." But it is difficult to ascertain what is true.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/158597#.UB6eKZJp65w

[khad]

If this is true it will prove a real dilemma for the "anti-imperialists" supporting Assad "conditionally." But it is difficult to ascertain what is true.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/158597#.UB6eKZJp65w
There were already Saudi special forces and intelligence on the ground long before, not to mention fighters paid to join the FSA from abroad.

Notwithstanding the fact that this is probably made up, intelligence and reconnaissance operations are fairly routine. When people talk about intervention, they tend to imply direct action forces, like what you saw with the 3000 Qatari special forces in Syria.

[RedHammer]

This has been an imperialist war from the beginning, on both sides. I'd rather not see Assad fall. The minorities of Syria will suffer if he falls.

[agnixie]

Bourgeois wars, working class, etc.

Jaures already said it all and was murdered for daring to say it. I'm with Mayakosvkyi on that, the only somewht good position is solidarity with independent non sectarian defence committees of the workers and generally, this one being my opinion, moving from stupid "leftist" real politiks back to actual left wing cross border solidarity and treating formerly soviet friendly bourgeois regimes for the bourgeois regimes they are, no matter the power bloc they're dependent on.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I wouldn't trust israeli news sources regarding Iran, seen the current long lasting tension between the countries, but ofcourse it could be true. Many countries house soldiers of befriended nations, like there are many US soldiers in Germany.
Besides, there are probably soldiers of multiple nations in Syria right now, like Khad said.

[hashem]

rulers of Iran are dealing with serve crisis inside their own country. they are in no position to stand firmly behind assad. besides, a military intervention by Iran only gives a perfect opportunity to foreign supporters of anti-assad fighters to extend their own intervention which can be much stronger than a weak country like Iran.

[Tim Cornelis]

I wouldn't trust israeli news sources regarding Iran, seen the current long lasting tension between the countries, but ofcourse it could be true. Many countries house soldiers of befriended nations, like there are many US soldiers in Germany.
Besides, there are probably soldiers of multiple nations in Syria right now, like Khad said.

There is plenty of other news sources:

http://news.kuwaittimes.net/2012/08/05/army-pounds-rebels-in-aleppo-rebels-say-hostages-iranian-guards-syrias-first-astronaut-defects/

http://nos.nl/artikel/403117-ontvoerde-iraniers-zijn-militairen.html

[RedHammer]

Does anybody have any news regarding who is "winning" in the conflict?

[erupt]

and treating formerly soviet friendly bourgeois regimes for the bourgeois regimes they are, no matter the power bloc they're dependent on.

That one sentence pretty much sums it all up for me.

Being a socialist, to me it's unreal how so many so called "leftists" support Assad; those children that are tortured, what are they, counter-revolutionaries? Just because U.S. imperialism's ugly head has surfaced again does not mean the opposing force (Assad's regime, in this case) is any better.

What's more is that the Syrian Arab Republic is pretty nationalistic, and is allied (whether or not Israeli news is correct about the Iranian military) with an Islamic republic. But I forgot, most people on here talk about how detrimental religion is to working class solidarity and class consciousness, yet Islam, because of quite a few anti-imperialist Islamic countries, is okay?

[ckaihatsu]

and treating formerly soviet friendly bourgeois regimes for the bourgeois regimes they are, no matter the power bloc they're dependent on.





That one sentence pretty much sums it all up for me.

Being a socialist, to me it's unreal how so many so called "leftists" support Assad; those children that are tortured, what are they, counter-revolutionaries?


It's understandable that few would want to do the political "gruntwork" of dealing with this shit around Syria....

But please note that *no one*'s actually said "Yea Assad, he's the guy!"

Because of circumstances, and in light of what the U.S./NATO has done to Libya (and Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), it would be preferable to see Syria remain whole and for domestic situations to be handled internally, rather than bringing in mercenaries and becoming in political debt to their masters.





Just because U.S. imperialism's ugly head has surfaced again does not mean the opposing force (Assad's regime, in this case) is any better.


Yes, and just because two different kinds of thugs both use strongman tactics for ruling and/or overturning nations doesn't mean that they're equivalent, or carry the exact same geopolitical role.





What's more is that the Syrian Arab Republic is pretty nationalistic, and is allied (whether or not Israeli news is correct about the Iranian military) with an Islamic republic. But I forgot, most people on here talk about how detrimental religion is to working class solidarity and class consciousness, yet Islam, because of quite a few anti-imperialist Islamic countries, is okay?


Here you're attempting to take the moral high-ground by pointing to the problematic of religion propping up state power -- but denouncing Iran solely for its Islamism is no better than a religious type who denounces a country for being "run by infidels".

[erupt]

Firstly, the thugs running around Syria aren't "dealing" with anything.

Now, moving past that, I never said that NATO or the U.S. interfering would be beneficial in any manner. I simply stated that because imperialism is at work here, some people support the country who has Western imperialist fingers rooting through it. Imperialism is always oppression, but, it does not make the country being invaded correct in its actions both before and after being invaded. Of course, the people will suffer, and it's at the hands of both sides; some suffer because of the regional power, in this case, Syria, while others suffer due to another (usually Western) power looking out for their own geopolitical and financial interests.

I did not "denounce" Iran. Once again, my point, before it was twisted, was that although Syria may not be an Islamist country, some of its allies are. Syria is predominantly Muslim, as is most countries in the region. I have a problem with state power having anything to do with religion, but I don't care what people choose to believe in as an individual.

These countries have to deal with Western imperialism, but the multiple regimes that fit this description are just as sickening to me as the Western powers that stick their nose in the other country's business, regardless of geopolitical status and global allies.

The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.