Why Syria & Iran Can Help And How

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by NATO AIR, Nov 18, 2006.

  1. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    A popular sign of MENA ignorance among mainstream commentators is the expression of shock and disbelief that Iran and Syria could, or even would, help us in Iraq.

    The reality is complicated but something like this:

    Both nations have responded to American threats of regime change with hostility for the past few years. Any negotiations with these countries will require the regime change chatter be taken off the table. Especially with regards to Syria, it may not be such a bad thing; not only could Israel do it by accident in a future campaign, but the only people ready and capable of taking over a post-Assad Syria are the Muslim Brotherhood. The US stands to gain more from an Assad ruled Syria than in any dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood. We have far more willing to offer Assad anyway, including economic incentives and a 3rd way apart from the fragile path of the more dangerous Iranians.

    The key issue here that everyone misses out on is REFUGEES. There are already hundreds of thousands of them, most in Syria, some in Iran, a few in Saudi and other Gulf states. No one but the Saudis (and even theirs are not that great) has anything close to an effective border without putting an enormous effort into it, and in the face of Arab public opinion inflamed by Arab media outlets, the Iranians & Syrians could not get away with using violent force to repel the streaming refugees who will flee worsening violence and fighting in cities like Baghdad.

    Refugees in the MENA are a combustible mixture of poverty, disease and violent behaviors. They are inherently destablizing, Lebanon and Jordan among others can attest to that, given their decades long strugges with Palestinian refugees.

    Neither Syria nor Iran wants the situation in Iraq to get out of control to the point their fragile control on their borders (and in Syria's case, society) is threatened by hundreds of thousands, if not a few million, Iraqi refugees.

    They are content to let the US bleed itself in Iraq, but even the Iranians are realizing they are overplaying their hand and have been urging Shiite militias to adhere the admonishments of Shia clerics to calm down and stop offensive actions. Far too many splinter groups are developing that even the Iranians cannot control, and they tend to be populated of the most capable and intelligent death squad members.

    With the right kind of agreement, public or otherwise, one would not be insane to see an Iraq six months from now where Iranian intelligence agents and Iraqi policemen help US & Iraqi military forces track these splinter groups down and eliminate them. Where Syrian border police and US military forces work side by side to shut the border down to insurgents, weapons trafficking and terrorists (This happened briefly, off and on, for a few weeks in 2003). Where the US, Turkey & the Kurds get together and talk about the future of N. Iraq and the Kurdish areas of Turkey, i.e. a free trade zone for Turks and Kurds alike, joint security patrols by Turks & Kurds and a slow process towards common sense and cooperation begins.

    You can't cut & run from Iraq. If the US tries to, the Iranians will unleash all the Shia militias and US forces will take serious losses that will be triple or higher the current death toll. Because by that point, the US will be leaving the Iranians and everyone else with a hell of a mess. Though one may argue this would be a benefit at some point, the negatives far outweigh any positives.
     
  2. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Utterly ridiculous.
     
  3. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    If they are really that concerned about refugees from Iraq, then they will simply stop supporting the terrorists causing the refugees.
     
  4. ekrem
    Offline

    ekrem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Messages:
    7,243
    Thanks Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +375
    To Syria:
    Starting cooperation with Syria is a good step. This must be supported.
    In Assad's cabinet there are some really moderate people, who like Assad himself lived in west and got educated there.
    Syria could be get to negotiations easily. The thing you have to ensure is, that you support direct Syria-Israel negotiations. Both of them have some deep problems which you might not believe but it is the truth, Syria is willing to discuss.
    Syria signaled multiple times to get in negotiations with Israel without preconditions. Israel always blocks. Because in such negotiations the issue of occupied Golan heights will come up.
    But in negotiations everything will be discussed including Golan as well as Anti-Israelian involvement by Syria against Israel in the region.
    Turkey itself tried to promote negotiations between Israel and Syria on appeal of Syria.
    But Israel as usual blocked.
    But in general if an environment becomes where Syria will discuss with Israel directly, which will be inescapable if you want to talk about Iraq with Syria, this will be a positive step. Not only to Iraq limited and to these times we live in.


    To Turkey:
    USA has problems with Syria, Iraq and Iran.
    The only country which boarders all of them is Turkey. Also Turkey is involved in Afghanistan.
    What did Turkey say before the war? Let's make a Iraq neighbouring conference about Iraq and Saddam.
    This was ignored and everyone had to follow unilateralist Washington.
    Now in USA comes this proposal about involvement of Iraq neighbours in to the Iraq process on the table.
    Almost everything what Turkey said became true.
    Turkey does not want to destroy Israel nor does it support Anti-USA terrorism.
    But the whole Iraq adventure by USA led to a situation where even Iran profits from the created situation in Iraq but Turkey does not.
    Everything what Turkey said Rumsfeld's Pentagon made the opposite just to piss Turkey.
    Further USA consequent alienated the most powerful country in all ways in the region from Iraq, so that Turkey does not have any influence on Iraq.
    This was made off course diplomatically as Turkey is structured in the western power mechanism and economic.
    Also miltarily this was made with the Suleymaniye incident in 2003.
    Did for example USA achieved to alienate Iran from Iraq business?
    No, the situation now is that Iran has influence over Iraq with assistance by USA.

    I am marveled that in Western media it is discussed that it is positive to negotiate with Syria and Iran. And not with Turkey.
    USA is reliant on Turkey in the region and beyond. You might disagree and if so the door is open to USA to cooperate with Iran and further alienate Turkey.
     
  5. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    Good points.

    I remember that a leading Israeli general who ret. Col Pat Lang mentioned supported negotiations with the Syrians, and the Israelis & Syrians were quite close to a deal, but Clinton backed out at the last minute because he thought it would detract from the more important Wye Accord negotiations with the Palestinians & Israelis that he thought would be more probable for success.

    The Syrians & Israelis will enjoy peace one day sooner than later. Its the only option left for both sides. Whether or not America gets much needed help along the border and within Iraq among the Sunnis from the Syrians is the big question.

    I support talks with Turkey. We have to repair our relations and also keep the Kurd issue from becoming a flashpoint. I see no reason why responsible leadership among America, Turkey & Iraqi Kurdistan cannot come to an agreement that benefits all sides. Hell, why not 3-way patrols between Turks, Kurds & Americans? If we tie ourselves into an alliance of sorts, we help to prevent overreactions and misunderstandings that lead to conflict. The amount of money that could be made by both Turks & Kurds in this region is incredible.
     
  6. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    As I explained within the post, everyone has lost control.

    The Americans can't control the country.

    The Iranians lost control of many of the Shia death squad militias once they began splintering.

    The Syrians have never had control of the Sunni terror groups, only the traveling insurgencies. The homegrown insurgencies accept help from Syrian intelligence but do not take orders from them, these groups being Sunni/Iraqi nationalists who are not going to stop fighting until the Shia death squads stop slaughtering Sunnis.

    Everyone benefits from working together, except the terrorists. With better security only working in concert can provide, perhaps that 60 percent unemployment that keeps the insurgency and death squad ranks filled can be reduced as businesses feel secure enough to invest in the country.
     
  7. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Yeah. I say we give all our enemies all our jobs, money, and land so they won't kill us. Maybe they will like us more, then we can all be friends.
     
  8. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    Part of the reason I don't post much anymore is stupidity like that. If you can't debate the facts, you resort to pithy crap like that.

    We're waging a counterinsurgency. We don't have enough troops to do it. We can't trust a majority of our Iraqi allies. We have no other option except withdraw or seek mutually beneficial short-term alliances of interests with the neighbors. Do I need to post dozens of articles about how worried Iran is about the US leaving Iraq in its current state for the rest of the region to fix?
     
  9. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    This a theoretical discussion. It's not a FACT that your approach is correct. IF people need to be bribed to do the right thing, forget it.
     
  10. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    Again, its not about bribery. Nowhere here is bribery of any sort mentioned.

    Its all about communication and a clear understanding of goals and consequences.

    Baker has been talking to the Syrians, its likely Gates will be talking to the Iranians.
     

Share This Page