Why Syria & Iran Can Help And How

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
282
Points
48
Location
USS Abraham Lincoln
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.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
If they are really that concerned about refugees from Iraq, then they will simply stop supporting the terrorists causing the refugees.
 

ekrem

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
7,527
Reaction score
461
Points
93
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.
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.
 
OP
NATO AIR

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
282
Points
48
Location
USS Abraham Lincoln
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.
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.
 
OP
NATO AIR

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
282
Points
48
Location
USS Abraham Lincoln
If they are really that concerned about refugees from Iraq, then they will simply stop supporting the terrorists causing the refugees.
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.
 

rtwngAvngr

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
512
Points
48
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.
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.
 
OP
NATO AIR

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
282
Points
48
Location
USS Abraham Lincoln
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.
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?
 

rtwngAvngr

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
512
Points
48
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?
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.
 
OP
NATO AIR

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
282
Points
48
Location
USS Abraham Lincoln
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.
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.
 

rtwngAvngr

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
512
Points
48
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.
Don't lay your analyst speak bullshit on me. ok?
 

ekrem

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
7,527
Reaction score
461
Points
93
(...)Hell, why not 3-way patrols between Turks, Kurds & Americans? (...)

I wrote on this issue to much on the board.
As you are Republicans you might not agree but changing faces in Washington is good for Turkey. I am not that familiar with US inner politics so i get my informations from Turkish media or politicians. Such politician said today that John Murtha and Trent Lott are known to be friendly to Turkey.

The problem so far was that Turkey's concerns regarding Iraq layed in Washington hands. And they did not hear to the concerns as some sort of revenge.
In such a situation Turkey was being left in 2 options:

1. Accept that you can not do anything against Superpower's will and accept high-rocket Terrorism originated from Iraq.

2. Don't accept Supepower's will and start to make itself's point in Iraq, which will lead to more of just dozen of people dying in Iraq (everyone including Turks)


So Turkey chose the first Option. Additionally it boosted cooperation with Russia, Syria and Iran and blocked all things related Afghanistan or NATO's Active Endeavour extension into Black Sea.
By doing this way it was classified as "Islamo-fascist".
Everything Rumsfeld-clique has done has cemented Turkish-Russian-Syrian-Iranian cooperation.
The initiative to cooperate again with Turkey in the region lies in Washington.
Maybe Turkey is then good to talk about sending additional troops to fight Taliban in Afghanistan or contribute to US forces in Iraq.

Last Years Washington was comfortable with pissing Turkey. Nothing except Turks got pissed and resulting us to look elsewhere such as Russia, Syria and Iran was not achieved.
So we will see what comes out of this in near future.


What interests does Turkey have?
- Territorial integrity of its borders...
- Prevention and elimination of terrorism outside of its borders.
- Punishing terrorists and supporters in adjacent territory.

A Washington ignoring these 3 points makes itself to easy in classifying Turkish steps over the last years as Islamo-fascism.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
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.
Syria and Iran are part of the problem. Getting them to support us in Iraq would require complete brain replacement. Especially Iran who stands to gain much from a US failure in Iraq.
 

rtwngAvngr

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
512
Points
48
Yep. This is the end of the line for the neocon trainwreck. nobody will buy this one.
 

ekrem

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
7,527
Reaction score
461
Points
93
Syria and Iran are part of the problem. Getting them to support us in Iraq would require complete brain replacement. Especially Iran who stands to gain much from a US failure in Iraq.
The answer to the question what Iran's interest is whether USA should fail or succeed in Iraq is not easy to answer.
But if failing means that
- US attention and its army is bound wholly in Iraq for a while
- Iraq does not take again its seat in Opec and influences oil price by its oil production
- And USA will in mid-term leave IRaq

then failing is surely the decisive interest as Iran is so far surrounded by USA and Iraq with Shiite domination by Iran would be a place to breath for Iran in contrast to US bases in Kuwait, Afghanistan or other countries in the region.

The proposal to negotiate with Iran just shows the reality that situation in Iraq is out of control and that Washington has to rely on some states which it self counted in the so-called Axis of Evil.

Negotiations with Iran limited over Iraq is not that likely. Iran would want to raise things like acceptability of its nuclear program and security guarantees once you sit with them on the table.
An other question regarding this so far not decided negotiations would be Israel lobby in USA.
I don't think they would like to see USA sit on a table with Iran.


P.S: As there was response about my English skills lately, i have to say, that i use the new firefox version which has an English grammatical dictionary embedded:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/basbug/Untitled1-3.jpg
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
The answer to the question what Iran's interest is whether USA should fail or succeed in Iraq is not easy to answer.
But if failing means that
- US attention and its army is bound wholly in Iraq for a while
- Iraq does not take again its seat in Opec and influences oil price by its oil production
- And USA will in mid-term leave IRaq

then failing is surely the decisive interest as Iran is so far surrounded by USA and Iraq with Shiite domination by Iran would be a place to breath for Iran in contrast to US bases in Kuwait, Afghanistan or other countries in the region.

The proposal to negotiate with Iran just shows the reality that situation in Iraq is out of control and that Washington has to rely on some states which it self counted in the so-called Axis of Evil.

Negotiations with Iran limited over Iraq is not that likely. Iran would want to raise things like acceptability of its nuclear program and security guarantees once you sit with them on the table.
An other question regarding this so far not decided negotiations would be Israel lobby in USA.
I don't think they would like to see USA sit on a table with Iran.


P.S: As there was response about my English skills lately, i have to say, that i use the new firefox version which has an English grammatical dictionary embedded:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y47/basbug/Untitled1-3.jpg
Seems everyone has their own definition of failure. Mine is if we fail to provide Iraq with the tools to succeed. That has somehow been twisted into Iraq having to become a Western-style democracy and Islamic jihad brought to a complete halt ... both unrealistic expectations. But then, THAT is reason those expectations were chosen. No matter what, Bush and/or his administration fail.

It is up to the people of Iraq whether or not they succeed as a democracy or fail. The US cannot do that for them, no matter who says or thinks otherwise.
 
OP
NATO AIR

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
282
Points
48
Location
USS Abraham Lincoln
Seems everyone has their own definition of failure. Mine is if we fail to provide Iraq with the tools to succeed. That has somehow been twisted into Iraq having to become a Western-style democracy and Islamic jihad brought to a complete halt ... both unrealistic expectations. But then, THAT is reason those expectations were chosen. No matter what, Bush and/or his administration fail.

It is up to the people of Iraq whether or not they succeed as a democracy or fail. The US cannot do that for them, no matter who says or thinks otherwise.
We've given the Iraqis multiple chances. They've chosen civil war, ethnic cleansing, revenge. Their government is now comprised of Hezbollah linked war criminals who are ethnically cleansing Sunnis.

Even if we could not get Iran, we could get Syria, and that would be huge. Syria is desperate for peace with Israel, desperate to be off the regime change list, and scared as hell of a few million Iraqi refugees destablizing their country.
 

rtwngAvngr

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
512
Points
48
We've given the Iraqis multiple chances. They've chosen civil war, ethnic cleansing, revenge. Their government is now comprised of Hezbollah linked war criminals who are ethnically cleansing Sunnis.

Even if we could not get Iran, we could get Syria, and that would be huge. Syria is desperate for peace with Israel, desperate to be off the regime change list, and scared as hell of a few million Iraqi refugees destablizing their country.

So that's their choice. Let's just call it a loss and nuke them if they pose a threat to us. Keeping our boys in that absurd meatgrinder makes no sense. Cozying up to Iran or Syria also makes no sense. The New WOrld ORder is dead, nato. The jig is up.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top