Is the war in Syria grinding to a close?

[Devrim]

Iran seems to be claiming that the war in Syria has finally been won. Certainly the Syrian state has made military advances recently. Is it finally drawing to a close?

Overall I never thought that the final result was in any doubt. Assad was always going to win.

Has it made anyone reflect on the positions they adopted towards it? If so in what way? What do people think the future there holds?

Devrim

[Sasha]

The war might possibly draw to a close, but I think the insurgency will not, so long as Assad will be in power it will be a very fragile/pyruss victory and bombings and cross border attacks will remain a constant unless turkey and Jordan etc decide to expell all the refugees towards their deaths which I don't think that will happen.

[Lynx]

If the United States has its way, Assad, Hezbollah and Iran will be destroyed.

[Devrim]

If the United States has its way, Assad, Hezbollah and Iran will be destroyed.

But the United States isn't having its way. If you look at the events in the Middle East since the the bombing of the Twin Towers, Iran is clearly winning. As Alaeddin Borujerdi, Iranian National Security Council Chairman, stated:


We have won in Syria...The regime will stay. The Americans have lost it.

This may come as a surprise to Americans, but it terms of geo-politics, Iran is winning, not just in Syria, but across the region as a whole.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The war might possibly draw to a close, but I think the insurgency will not, so long as Assad will be in power it will be a very fragile/pyruss victory and bombings and cross border attacks will remain a constant unless turkey and Jordan etc decide to expell all the refugees towards their deaths which I don't think that will happen.

I don't know what line you draw between the insurgency and the war. It seems that you are reluctant to admit that the sectarian gangs that you have supported through this war are on the edge of defeat, and now that they are seem to be taking refuge in the fact that they will continue their terror campaign from neighbouring countries.

I don't think that there will be a cross-boarder campaign. When it is all resolved Turkey and Syria will come to the table, and make a deal, which won't allow it. Turkey will give up supporting Syrian rebels, and Syria will give up supporting Kurdish rebels. Perhaps a few people will be handed over. There is a precedent for this sort of behaviour.

Devrim

[Raquin]

The rebels suffered enourmous losses this year. The government with Hizbullah's aid cleansed the whole Qalamoun mountain range from them, which was one of their three blocs of territory. In Raqqah, ISIL(which only fights with the rebels and the Iraqi government these days) expelled them. Right now the rebels are all hysterical about the fact that ISIL is on the verge of expelling all the rebels from Deir ez-Zor. In the south, the rebels in Quneitra and Daraa are paralysed and on the verge of a civil war because of the intrigues of Jordanian intelligence - Wahhabis of the Islamic Front/Jubhat al-Nusra are dominant in the area, which the Jordanians don't like, so they're trying to maneuver the marginal "moderate" into a better position, which is pissing off the Wahhabis who have kidnapped the leader of the "moderates" just a few days ago because of it. As-Suwayda is completely untouched by rebels in the South though. Homs, the "capital of the revolution", has just been liberated entirely. In the Damascus countryside, the besieged rebels are being neutralised pocket-by-pocket through the negotiation of capitulations disguised as truces. The rebels are only doing well in one governorate, Idlib.

The bulk of the fighting will probably be done after the conclusion of this summer's offensives. Once Aleppo is secured, the rebels are done. Most of those who haven't died will go back to their own countries before the year is finished.

[Devrim]

The rebels suffered enourmous losses this year. The government with Hizbullah's aid cleansed the whole Qalamoun mountain range from them, which was one of their three blocs of territory. In Raqqah, ISIL(which only fights with the rebels and the Iraqi government these days) expelled them. Right now the rebels are all hysterical about the fact that ISIL is on the verge of expelling all the rebels from Deir ez-Zor. In the south, the rebels in Quneitra and Daraa are paralysed and on the verge of a civil war because of the intrigues of Jordanian intelligence - Wahhabis of the Islamic Front/Jubhat al-Nusra are dominant in the area, which the Jordanians don't like, so they're trying to maneuver the marginal "moderate" into a better position, which is pissing off the Wahhabis who have kidnapped the leader of the "moderates" just a few days ago because of it. As-Suwayda is completely untouched by rebels in the South though. Homs, the "capital of the revolution", has just been liberated entirely. In the Damascus countryside, the besieged rebels are being neutralised pocket-by-pocket through the negotiation of capitulations disguised as truces. The rebels are only doing well in one governorate, Idlib.

The bulk of the fighting will probably be done after the conclusion of this summer's offensives. Once Aleppo is secured, the rebels are done. Most of those who haven't died will go back to their own countries before the year is finished.

I'd like to sincerely thank the gentleman from ath-Thawra (http://www.alwehda.gov.sy/) for his input.

Devrim

[Lynx]

What makes you believe the Middle East is no longer an American stomping ground? The US will invent a pretext to intervene, as they always do.

Who is "winning" in Egypt? In Libya? In Gaza?

Iran and Syria are slated to be next, its no secret. Israel and Saudi Arabia would like them destroyed for their own domestic reasons.

[Queen Mab]

I don't think the fighting is going to end any time soon, but the government seems to have pretty much won now.


But the United States isn't having its way. If you look at the events in the Middle East since the the bombing of the Twin Towers, Iran is clearly winning. As Alaeddin Borujerdi, Iranian National Security Council Chairman, stated:



This may come as a surprise to Americans, but it terms of geo-politics, Iran is winning, not just in Syria, but across the region as a whole.

Devrim

America had an ambiguous relationship to the rebels, though. Qatar and Saudi Arabia were their main backers. They're the ones who have suffered a major defeat.

[Broviet Union]

As long as neither the Jihadists nor Americans take power in Syria, things turned out about as well as they could, given the horribleness of the situation.

[adipocere]

turkey and Jordan etc decide to expell all the refugees towards their deaths which I don't think that will happen.

So you're saying that when the refugees area able to return home, the Assad death machine will swoop down and murder them by the millions?


You are a fucking joke.

[Sasha]

No not all refugees will be murdered, but most that fought in the uprising will, anyone who think Assad will leave them unharmed is the fucking joke here.
But then again you will probably wholehartedly support the slaughter being the crypto-fascist cosplayer that you are...

[Sasha]

I don't know what line you draw between the insurgency and the war. It seems that you are reluctant to admit that the sectarian gangs that you have supported through this war are on the edge of defeat, and now that they are seem to be taking refuge in the fact that they will continue their terror campaign from neighbouring countries.

I don't think that there will be a cross-boarder campaign. When it is all resolved Turkey and Syria will come to the table, and make a deal, which won't allow it. Turkey will give up supporting Syrian rebels, and Syria will give up supporting Kurdish rebels. Perhaps a few people will be handed over. There is a precedent for this sort of behaviour.

Devrim

I don't know where to draw the line either, you asked the question, not me, is the war in Iraq drawn to a close? I think the war in Syria will be as closed as the war in Iraq is at the moment. Maybe it will be a bit more Lebanon, maybe a bit more Afghanistan, but people will keep on dying even though major combat operations will be ended

And what sectarian gangs did I support through this war? I only called for support of the coordinating peoples committees at the beginning of the uprising, that I made it clear that I wouldn't reu the fact if Assad would end up hanging from a lamppost doesn't make me a supporter of sectarian gangs.
But misrepresenting my positions is quite a hobby of yours isn't it.

[adipocere]

No not all refugees will be murdered, but most that fought in the uprising will, anyone who think Assad will leave them unharmed is the fucking joke here
I agree. Except you have to actually be Syrian to be a Syrian refugee. A Saudi jihadist hiding in a refugee camp doesn't count.
Edit:

But then again you will probably wholehartedly support the slaughter being the crypto-fascist cosplayer that you are..What does that even mean? I'm an American, how could I possibly be a fascist in regards to Syria, a country which I have no relationship to?
Anyway You've been wholeheartedly supporting a slaughter since I've been here, to the point of even trying to use RefLeft to raise money for the jihadist mercenaries. You are literally an imperial shill. Normally moderators would not use their forum to raise money for terrorists - but you know exactly what you're doing, I''m sure.

[La Guaneña]

that I made it clear that I wouldn't reu the fact if Assad would end up hanging from a lamppost doesn't make me a supporter of sectarian gangs.
But misrepresenting my positions is quite a hobby of yours isn't it.


Well, taking in consideration that the only way of Assad hanging from a lamppost would be if sectarian, Qatari backed sectarian gangs did this, you are supporting them...

[Devrim]

What makes you believe the Middle East is no longer an American stomping ground? The US will invent a pretext to intervene, as they always do.

Who is "winning" in Egypt? In Libya? In Gaza?

Iran and Syria are slated to be next, its no secret. Israel and Saudi Arabia would like them destroyed for their own domestic reasons.

America is obviously the most powerful state in the world, and projects that power in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, I think that since the attack on the Twin Towers and the opening of the latest round of wars, Iran has made the most strategic gains. First of all the governments of two neighbouring states, Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were enemies of Iran, have been deposed, and replaced by governments which are pro-Iran, in the case of Iraq extremely so. What is probably even more amusing to the Iranian government is that the US paid billions of dollars to change it for them. Second, Hizbullah, an Iranian ally put up a strong defence in the last Lebanese war strengthening its (and therefor Iran's) position in Lebanon itself, and increasing their prestige in the region. Finally, the grand alliance that was built up to overthrow the Syrian state, seems to have been pretty much defeated.

You ask about Egypt, Gaza, and Libya, but what gains do you think that America has made in those countries. In Gaza there has been no change. The status quo, and the balance of terror remain. Certainly the US hasn't lost their, but nor has it moved forward. In Egypt there hasn't been a major change in the strategic position. Egypt is still a state where the military has great influence and is indebted to America. Relations are not significantly worse, but possibly are slightly worse. Libya is outside the Iranian sphere of influence, and perhaps it could be said that America had some success there. They overthrew a regime that was making significant steps towards the West, and replaced it with some sort of brewing chaos. That is the measure of their achievements. I think on balance, it is quite clear that Iran is winning and winning well.

Iran and Syria are not "slated to be next". The American side has just lost the Syrian war, and if they can't take on Syria, they certainly can't take on Iran.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I don't think the fighting is going to end any time soon, but the government seems to have pretty much won now.

I don't think it will be immediately over, and it may take some time to wind down, possibly even a year or two, but the end is certainly in sight now.




America had an ambiguous relationship to the rebels, though. Qatar and Saudi Arabia were their main backers. They're the ones who have suffered a major defeat.

Saudi, and Qatar were very public backers, as was Turkey. I think though that when the US' main allies in the Muslim world are backing something and lose this is also a defeat for the US. I am also sure that on a more covert level The US was quite involved.

Devrim

[Devrim]

As long as neither the Jihadists nor Americans take power in Syria, things turned out about as well as they could, given the horribleness of the situation.

It has been a massive disaster, a huge defeat for the working class. The war itself, not its results, are the real tragedy. Over 200,000 people killed, 130,000 missing or detained, 3,000,000 refuges, and 5,000,000 internally displaced people. That means about 1% of the population has been killed, not counting any wounded, and nearly 40% driven from their homes, relations between different communities in Syria have been poisoned for at least a generation, and sectarian tensions have increased dramatically across the region.

And you think that "things turned out about as well as they could [have]"?

We are pretty lucky it didn't go badly then.

Devrim

[Devrim]

No not all refugees will be murdered, but most that fought in the uprising will, anyone who think Assad will leave them unharmed is the fucking joke here.

The amount of refugees returning will be massive. As I noted in my previous post, their are 3,000,000 refuges in neighbouring countries. That is about 1 in 7 Syrians. There will be many people who fought in the war and even more who played some role in the rebellion. I don't think that the state can afford to victimise many of them, but they must put forward some programme of reintegration, and reconciliation. It is just not practical to do otherwise. There are probably some people whom the state would like to disappear. One would imagine that many of these people will find more permanent refuge in neighbouring countries or America.

The Syrian state knows that it in the long term in a country where 59-61% of the population are Arab Sunni Muslims, they can not rule by force alone. They won't murder all the refugees. This is not because they are nice people. They aren't. It is a bloody murderous state. It is because they are practical politicians.

Devrim

[Devrim]

And what sectarian gangs did I support through this war? I only called for support of the coordinating peoples committees at the beginning of the uprising, that I made it clear that I wouldn't reu the fact if Assad would end up hanging from a lamppost doesn't make me a supporter of sectarian gangs.

It all depends how you see these committees. You, I think, genuinely believed that they represented some independent working class movement. The only problem was that this independent working class movement didn't exist outside of the minds of the Western left. These committees even if they didn't start that way, soon ended up as auxiliaries to sectarian gangs, and in that way, yes you were a supporter of sectarian gangs.


But misrepresenting my positions is quite a hobby of yours isn't it.

No, I don't think so at all. As far as I see it your position is support anything where there is movement, don't attempt to analyse or understand the situation in any way, just throw your support behind anyone who is fighting against the state. It is certainly not as terrible a position as those who support states massacring people, who are always on the wrong side. At least you are only on the wrong side part of the time.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

I think it's ridiculous to say that the U.S. poured all of its resources into the Syrian uprising to the point where it can be called the 'American side'. I also have relative doubts about the U.S. alone being behind it, given the countries history with the Muslim brotherhood... A military intervention by the U.S. could surely crush Syria, and Iran. The problem of course would be time and resources spent on dealing with the aftermath.

[Queen Mab]

Saudi, and Qatar were very public backers, as was Turkey. I think though that when the US' main allies in the Muslim world are backing something and lose this is also a defeat for the US. I am also sure that on a more covert level The US was quite involved.

So far as I understand the (unofficial) American policy on Syria is the same as it was in the Iran-Iraq war: the conflict is good for us, let both sides kill each other. I remember the Saudi media being upset about this policy a few months ago:


This painful surprise was reported in the New York Times last Wednesday. The White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told members of Congress: “The situation in Syria can keep Iran busy for many years,” and then added: “The fighting in Syria between Hezbollah and al-Qaeda may be in the interest of the United States.”

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2013/10/26/Saudi-Arabia-s-take-on-the-Syrian-crisis.html

The thing is that no-one in Washington cares about Syria enough to actually risk anything by getting involved. The danger of creating another Iraq (or Afghan Mujahadeen) outweighs the benefits of removing Syria from the Iranian sphere. Plus America is trying to pivot away from the Middle East to face China in East Asia. The economic crisis in 2008 has lead to military cuts and the inability for the US to dominate both regions, so in the ME it cuts a nuclear deal with Iran and focuses on domestic oil production to lessen the strategic need to defend the Persian Gulf from Iranian imperialism.

[Lynx]

America is obviously the most powerful state in the world, and projects that power in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, I think that since the attack on the Twin Towers and the opening of the latest round of wars, Iran has made the most strategic gains. First of all the governments of two neighbouring states, Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were enemies of Iran, have been deposed, and replaced by governments which are pro-Iran, in the case of Iraq extremely so. What is probably even more amusing to the Iranian government is that the US paid billions of dollars to change it for them. Second, Hizbullah, an Iranian ally put up a strong defence in the last Lebanese war strengthening its (and therefor Iran's) position in Lebanon itself, and increasing their prestige in the region. Finally, the grand alliance that was built up to overthrow the Syrian state, seems to have been pretty much defeated.
Iran has avoided the effects of a proxy war being waged on their own people, something with which they have first hand experience (Iran-Iraq War). In that regard they are "winning". What Iran is doing in Syria and Lebanon is also a proxy war.


You ask about Egypt, Gaza, and Libya, but what gains do you think that America has made in those countries. In Gaza there has been no change. The status quo, and the balance of terror remain. Certainly the US hasn't lost their, but nor has it moved forward. In Egypt there hasn't been a major change in the strategic position. Egypt is still a state where the military has great influence and is indebted to America. Relations are not significantly worse, but possibly are slightly worse. Libya is outside the Iranian sphere of influence, and perhaps it could be said that America had some success there. They overthrew a regime that was making significant steps towards the West, and replaced it with some sort of brewing chaos. That is the measure of their achievements. I think on balance, it is quite clear that Iran is winning and winning well.
I would say that the status quo has more or less prevailed. Now consider those events from the perspective of ordinary citizens and what they have had to endure.


Iran and Syria are not "slated to be next". The American side has just lost the Syrian war, and if they can't take on Syria, they certainly can't take on Iran.
The US participated in a proxy war, with predictable levels of bloodshed. They have not intervened militarily as the American public are in no mood for yet more conflict. But regime change in Syria and Iran is a long held objective of neoconservative hawks in Washington. Some of them still hold positions in the State Department. These are the same folks who helped precipitate the crisis in the Ukraine.
I'm not arguing that US foreign policy is sensible. It can be argued that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were also defeats. But to the neoconservatives, they are convinced that they are strengthening American "hegemony". They are literally crusaders. Millions have died and millions more suffer thanks to their geopolitical obsession.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Not that I have any particular love for Assad, I had far less love for the rebels. That being said, maybe a bias is showing, but Assad was obviously going to win once things started to become clear.

Taking Homs was a massive victory for the SAA, and with no intervention after the chemcical weapons events, the rebels really had no military advantage from their benefactors.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

My fear is that the war has radicalized the Assad regime. When he regains full control, I suspect there will be a gruesome retribution. The Syrian people deserve so much better than Assad. :(

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

And what sectarian gangs did I support through this war? I only called for support of the coordinating peoples committees at the beginning of the uprising, that I made it clear that I wouldn't reu the fact if Assad would end up hanging from a lamppost doesn't make me a supporter of sectarian gangs.


And who else supports the Local Coordination Committees?



"We are not 'king-making' in Syria. The UK and the US are moving cautiously to help what has been developing within Syria to improve the capabilities of the opposition," said a British consultant overseeing the programme. "What's going to come next? Who is going to control territory across Syria. We want to give civilians the skills to assert leadership."

The schemes are overseen by the US State Department's Office of Syrian Opposition Support (OSOS) and Foreign Office officials. America has set aside $25 million for political opponents of President Bashar al-Assad while Britain is granting £5 million to the cause of overthrowing the regime.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9500503/Britain-and-US-plan-a-Syrian-revolution-from-an-innocuous-office-block-in-Istanbul.html
It's fair to say that without their backers in Washington, they'd be even more irrelevant than that one trot outfit that released a statement back in 2012. And that 25 million is not only for them but the other sectarian warlords that the U.S has backed, and considering this article is 2 years old and they managed to funnel 25 million in the few months that the war had been going on at this point, and that they managed to get money from their puppets in the Arabian peninsula, it's also far to say that the various cliques would have gotten no where if not for their foreign backing.
You see, this is why support can not be on the mere basis of lesser evilism. A bourgeois democracy would be objectively better than the Assad regime, but the Syrian bourgeois is not capable of delivering even the most basic democracy. The west don't give these fellas backing because of ideological attachment to democracy, if it were Washington's choice then the world would be ruled by Pinochet's, the west gives these organizations backing so they loot, plunder, and pillage. They made a gamble to get rid of Iran and when that failed they pulled their investment. Obama doesn't care about the Syrian people any more than Assad and if you think Assad's tactical nastiness is unique then you aren't familiar with the historical practice of imperialism.

The working class never had a dog in the fight. The fact that you keep with your vitriol against Assad out of frustration for your errors two years down is a bit sad. I once supported the Libyan revolution and Libya was torn apart by warlords and looted by the west and I learned a very important lesson from that. You're reluctance to condemn the Ukrainian uprising until the last minute shows that you haven't learned that lesson, if western money goes towards it then it is designed to kill and loot, any progressive movement that comes from it is accidental and will be intentionally crushed.

[Homo Songun]

One interesting similarity between Syria and Ukraine to consider: both conflicts involved attempts by the US to deprive Russia of warm-water ports in neighbouring countries; and in both instances, Putin utterly defeated US in general, while exposing Kerry to be a clown in particular.



The history of sea power is largely, though by no means solely, a narrative of contests between nations, of mutual rivalries, of violence frequently culminating in war. The profound influence of sea commerce upon the wealth and strength of countries was clearly seen long before the true principles which governed its growth and prosperity were detected. To secure to one's own people a disproportionate share of such benefits, every effort was made to exclude others, either by the peaceful legislative methods of monopoly or prohibitory regulations, or, when these failed, by direct violence. The clash of interests, the angry feelings roused by conflicting attempts thus to appropriate the larger share, if not the whole, of the advantages of commerce, and of distant unsettled commercial regions, led to wars. On the other hand, wars arising from other causes have been greatly modified in their conduct and issue by the control of the sea. Therefore the history of sea power, while embracing in its broad sweep all that tends to make a people great upon the sea or by the sea, is largely a military history... ― Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Influence Of Sea Power Upon History, 1660 - 1783

[piet11111]

I think the war in Syria is going to escalate sometime in the next few months.

The Turkish government was embarrassed by the leaking of audio tapes talking about staging a series of fake attacks to create a casus belli.
Saudi Arabia was angry over the indecisiveness of the americans to go to war over that "red line"

Then you have the Americans trying to send man portable air defense systems and better anti tank weapons.
And the never ending allegations that Syria is using chemical weapons or not being cooperative with the dismantling of those weapons.

Even if the Americans are not going to stick their nose in any further i can see the Turkish government creating a war.

The Netherlands even had discussions about keeping the patriot missiles there now that it was clear that the Turkish government was trying to find a justification for war.

[ckaihatsu]

Obama in talks with "rebel" leader on escalating Syrian war

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/05/09/syri-m09.html

[Devrim]

I think it's ridiculous to say that the U.S. poured all of its resources into the Syrian uprising to the point where it can be called the 'American side'. I also have relative doubts about the U.S. alone being behind it, given the countries history with the Muslim brotherhood...

It is not the US alone behind it. It is very clear that Turkey, Saudi, and GCC countries are the main movers behind it. It is though the side that the Americans are on. In that sense it is the 'American side'. The US is the world's only super power, and to that extent the side they are on is relevant.


A military intervention by the U.S. could surely crush Syria, and Iran. The problem of course would be time and resources spent on dealing with the aftermath.

I don't think that it would be as easy as you think. Iran is not Iraq. It is more than twice as big, but more importantly the terrain is not suited to modern technological tank war like Iraq was. That is not the point though. Perhaps they would win easily. The point is that they would never undertake it because they know they couldn't deal with the aftermath.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I would say that the status quo has more or less prevailed.

With the points you mentioned about US interest yes, but not for Iranian interests, Iran has won real victories.It certainly has the upper hand.


Now consider those events from the perspective of ordinary citizens and what they have had to endure.

That is not what we are discussing though. I don't think any of the actors in these geo-political struggles considers the ordinary citizens for one minute.


I'm not arguing that US foreign policy is sensible. It can be argued that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were also defeats.

That is what I am arguing.


But regime change in Syria and Iran is a long held objective of neoconservative hawks in Washington. Some of them still hold positions in the State Department.

Some of them may well still work in the state department, and they may well have that long term aim, but they have deep resoundingly defeated over this.

They have lost.

Devrim

[Devrim]

One interesting similarity between Syria and Ukraine to consider: both conflicts involved attempts by the US to deprive Russia of warm-water ports in neighbouring countries; and in both instances, Putin utterly defeated US in general, while exposing Kerry to be a clown in particular.

Syria is not one of Russia's neighbours. It does have some navel facilities in Tartus, but I don't think they are that significant. Neither has Putin defeated the US in Syria. His role was much less direct than in Ukraine.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I think the war in Syria is going to escalate sometime in the next few months.

The Turkish government was embarrassed by the leaking of audio tapes talking about staging a series of fake attacks to create a casus belli.
Saudi Arabia was angry over the indecisiveness of the americans to go to war over that "red line"

Then you have the Americans trying to send man portable air defense systems and better anti tank weapons.
And the never ending allegations that Syria is using chemical weapons or not being cooperative with the dismantling of those weapons.

Even if the Americans are not going to stick their nose in any further i can see the Turkish government creating a war.

The Netherlands even had discussions about keeping the patriot missiles there now that it was clear that the Turkish government was trying to find a justification for war.

I don't think that any escalation is likely at all. The Syrian state has made significant gains on the ground and the diplomatic players are responding to this. The Iranians are having high level diplomatic talks with the Saudis, and I would be very certain that Syria is one of the main items on the table. It is no coincidence that these talks have been instigated at this moment.

Devrim

[Lynx]

With the points you mentioned about US interest yes, but not for Iranian interests, Iran has won real victories.It certainly has the upper hand.
Can you be more specific?


That is not what we are discussing though. I don't think any of the actors in these geo-political struggles considers the ordinary citizens for one minute.
What are we discussing then? The POV of despots and their cheerleaders?
If we're going to determine who won and who lost, what better measure than the effect upon ordinary people.


That is what I am arguing.
Those countries were devastated by war. A Pyrrhic victory at best.


Some of them may well still work in the state department, and they may well have that long term aim, but they have deep resoundingly defeated over this.

They have lost.

Devrim
I suppose there's no arguing with you until Iran suffers another round of war induced devastation. American foreign policy demands it.

[Lynx]

The point is that they would never undertake it because they know they couldn't deal with the aftermath.

Devrim
They don't seem to care about the aftermath. As soon as whatever ephemeral goals have been achieved, they and the mainstream media quickly sweep the 'aftermath' under the rug.

[Devrim]

Can you be more specific?

Iran has won real geo-political victories in both Syria and Afghanistan. Previous to the Twin Towers attack, both of these countries were distictly hostile to the Iranian state. Now Afghanisan is pro-Iranian, and Iraq is even more so. They have also strengthened their position in Lebanon considerably.


What are we discussing then? The POV of despots and their cheerleaders?
If we're going to determine who won and who lost, what better measure than the effect upon ordinary people.

Well, yes, that is what we are discussing. When we talk about whether countries achieve their war aims, the suffering of individuals doesn't really come into it.


Those countries were devastated by war. A Pyrrhic victory at best.

But I am not arguing that those countries won. I am arguing that Iran won.


I suppose there's no arguing with you until Iran suffers another round of war induced devastation. American foreign policy demands it.

Various US leftists have been saying that America was going to invade Iran since 1979. It still hasn't happened.

Devrim

[Lynx]

Various US leftists have been saying that America was going to invade Irab since 1979. It still hasn't happened.

Devrim
The US has attempted to regain control in Iran, and we should expect those efforts to continue. Iran does not have a nuclear deterrent.

[piet11111]

I don't think that any escalation is likely at all. The Syrian state has made significant gains on the ground and the diplomatic players are responding to this. The Iranians are having high level diplomatic talks with the Saudis, and I would be very certain that Syria is one of the main items on the table. It is no coincidence that these talks have been instigated at this moment.

Devrim

And yet several country's are trying to find ways to pour in more weapons and money so the rebels can fight towards another stand-still (or maybe regain some ground)

[Devrim]

And yet several country's are trying to find ways to pour in more weapons and money so the rebels can fight towards another stand-still (or maybe regain some ground)

Yes, I think that the Americans, for example, would be quite happy so see it go on for a few more years. I don't think that they believe that the rebels can win any longer though. Ultimately it comes down to the attitudes of the countries supporting the rebels in the region. If the Saudis, and Turkey stop giving them support, I think it will die down a lot quicker. They can only prolong it now though. They don't have the prospect of winning anymore, which means that at soem point they will have to cut a deal.

Devrim

[Sasha]

I still think there is always still the possibility though that Assad might fall victim of a successful assassination or a coup, his image of a strong popular leader took some serious hits and if sanctions continuu he might not be able to keep buying the loyalty of the non-alevi/christian bourgeoisie

[piet11111]

Yes, I think that the Americans, for example, would be quite happy so see it go on for a few more years. I don't think that they believe that the rebels can win any longer though. Ultimately it comes down to the attitudes of the countries supporting the rebels in the region. If the Saudis, and Turkey stop giving them support, I think it will die down a lot quicker. They can only prolong it now though. They don't have the prospect of winning anymore, which means that at soem point they will have to cut a deal.

Devrim

The rebels on their own wont win but the Turkish government wanted to do a false flag operation to justify a direct war against Syria.
And that is what concerns me besides with the ongoing allegations of chemical weapons usage it seems that a massive cruise missile strike is also not out of the question.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

If the Iraq War could last 8 years with comparable casualties and deaths, it seems likely that this war could drag on just as long. As long as the imperialists have fuel to burn, they will continue adding fuel to this fire.

[greenforest]

The rebels on their own wont win but the Turkish government wanted to do a false flag operation to justify a direct war against Syria.
And that is what concerns me besides with the ongoing allegations of chemical weapons usage it seems that a massive cruise missile strike is also not out of the question.

I'm not terribly up-to-date on current events, but didn't the Turkish government consider a false-flag operation to attack ISIS in northern Syrian?

Even if the rebels are effectively defeated by marginalizing them to rural areas in the east, ISIS is still very powerful, and controls almost all of northern Syria and is grabbing the oil wells in Deir-ezzour.

I'm guessing ISIS will begin terror bombings and conduct guerrilla warfare once Assad's armor squares off against ISIS's fleet of technicals.

[greenforest]

If the Iraq War could last 8 years with comparable casualties and deaths, it seems likely that this war could drag on just as long. As long as the imperialists have fuel to burn, they will continue adding fuel to this fire.

There doesn't seem to be much of an insurgency in areas that have been re-captured by Assad's forces.

I guess Assad's militias are too strong, and the locals too weary of reprisals, to support an insurgency.

I haven't seen evidence that once strategic towns and cities taken by Assad have continued to be hotspots of anti-Assad violence.

This war is probably much more traditional than Iraq was/is.

[Lynx]

*bump* LOL :lol:

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Pessimism always wins out lol. It might be fair to say that the civil war is over though as it's become a regional shitstorm between state entities now.