This web browser is the fastest ever used, it is lightning speed - Carbon web browser

[rooster59]

Hezbollah leader says to stay in Syria

 

A supporter of Lebanon's Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah carries his picture during a rally marking al-Quds Day, (Jerusalem Day) in Maroun Al-Ras village, near the border with Israel, southern Lebanon June 8, 2018. REUTERS/Aziz Taher NO RESALES. NO ARCHIVES

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Lebanon's Iran-backed Hezbollah will remain in Syria as long as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad wants it there, the group's leader said on Friday, defying renewed U.S. and Israeli pressure to force Tehran and its allies to quit the country.

 

"I will tell you that if the whole world comes together to force us to leave Syria, they will not be able to evict us," Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a televised address, adding that only the Syrian leadership could ask them to leave.

 

Israel has repeatedly struck Hezbollah and Iranian targets in Syria, saying they must leave the country, with which it shares a border. Washington has also demanded that Iran and forces it back quit.

 

Alongside Russia, Iran-backed forces in Syria have helped Assad drive rebels from the country's biggest cities and reclaim swathes of the eastern deserts from Islamic State.

 

Russia has recently called for all non-Syrian forces to leave southern Syria, a statement seen as partly aimed at Iran, as well as at U.S. forces in a base near the Iraqi border.

 

Senior Syrian officials have said they want to recapture the rebel-held areas in the southwest near the border with Israel. Israeli strikes in Syria are partly aimed at keeping Hezbollah and other Iran-backed forces from its border.

 

This week, a Russian troop deployment near the border with Lebanon caused friction with Iran-backed forces there including Hezbollah, a rare case of Assads' allies acting out of sync with each other, though it was soon resolved.

 

In his speech Nasrallah mocked the idea that U.S., Israeli or Gulf pressure was forcing a wedge between Russia and Iran on Syria.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-09

[Morch]

There's more than one way to skin a cat....

 

Iran-Backed Fighters Switch to Syrian Uniforms to Avoid Israeli Strikes, Rebels Say

https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-backed-fighters-switch-to-syrian-uniforms-to-avoid-israeli-strikes-rebels-say-1528478351

 

[ezzra]

Hezbollah will not stay a day longer than what Putin will permit them to do so no matter what the lapdog Assad will say, and that goes for the Iranians as well period....

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, ezzra said:

Hezbollah will not stay a day longer than what Putin will permit them to do so no matter what the lapdog Assad will say, and that goes for the Iranians as well period....

So Assad's a lapdog of Putin?

Vladimir Putin asked Bashar al-Assad to step down

Just weeks before his death on January 3, Colonel-General Igor Sergun, director of Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency, was sent to Damascus on a delicate mission.

The general, who is believed to have cut his teeth as a Soviet operative in Syria, bore a message from Vladimir Putin for President Bashar al-Assad: the Kremlin, the Syrian dictator’s most powerful international protector, believed it was time for him to step aside.

Mr Assad angrily refused.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/735b4746-c01f-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2

[Morch]

 

@bristolboy

 

That difference between stepping down and curbing actions of foreign forces in Syria.

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@bristolboy

 

That difference between stepping down and curbing actions of foreign forces in Syria.

 

So Assad is a lapdog of Putin? Because that's what I was replying to. 

As for curbing the actions of other foreign forces in Syria. You think Putin is up for that?

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So Assad is a lapdog of Putin? Because that's what I was replying to. 

As for curbing the actions of other foreign forces in Syria. You think Putin is up for that?

 

As said on previous discussions, this certainly falls in line with Putin's interests. Whether these amount to a complete withdrawal of all other foreign forces can be debated. The same goes for assessing how far is Putin willing to go in order to affect this.

 

It is not so much a question of leverage, but more the price of using it. I think that like many such decisions, there will be a compromise of sorts, but overall more in line with Russia's point of view.

 

There were reports of talks going on between various involved parties. Specific details may or may not be correct, but the general directions seems to be toward deescalating potential conglomerations,  and curbing some regional players' ambitions (current focus being on Iran).

[bristolboy]

Just now, Morch said:

 

As said on previous discussions, this certainly falls in line with Putin's interests. Whether these amount to a complete withdrawal of all other foreign forces can be debated. The same goes for assessing how far is Putin willing to go in order to affect this.

 

It is not so much a question of leverage, but more the price of using it. I think that like many such decisions, there will be a compromise of sorts, but overall more in line with Russia's point of view.

 

There were reports of talks going on between various involved parties. Specific details may or may not be correct, but the general directions seems to be toward deescalating potential conglomerations,  and curbing some regional players' ambitions (current focus being on Iran).

Don't think so. There is already lots of discontent in Russia over the cost of the Syrian operation. Putin will incur the expensive proposition of taking on Iran and Hezbollah for the sake of what exactly? And without ground troops apart from some "mercenariess"? Very doubtful that Putin will seriously tangle with nearby Iran given Russian arms sales to Iran and the Military Cooperation Agreement.

[Morch]

47 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Don't think so. There is already lots of discontent in Russia over the cost of the Syrian operation. Putin will incur the expensive proposition of taking on Iran and Hezbollah for the sake of what exactly? And without ground troops apart from some "mercenariess"? Very doubtful that Putin will seriously tangle with nearby Iran given Russian arms sales to Iran and the Military Cooperation Agreement.

 

What you disagree with is either a creative interpretation of what I posted, or just a straw-man proposition of your own making. I never said anything about Putin getting into a shooting war or open hostilities with either Iran or Hezbollah. Applying leverage can be done in many ways other than military threats or action.

 

Russia's relations with Iran are founded on necessity and interests, rather on a shared vision of the ME's future or either country's role in such. I don't think that Putin is particularly keen on Iran getting more of a hold on Assad's regime or Syria in general. Same goes for the prospects of Iranian ambitions and actions bringing about a regional escalation.

 

Iran is currently at a tough spot, what with the economy in trouble, renewed US sanctions and doubts over the JCPOA's future. I don't think it's in position to completely ignore Russia's wishes.

 

[Trouble]

Seems to me that the USA needs to let Putin and Iran get rid of the threat to Assad by rebels while the USA wipes out what's left of ISIS. The USA can then withdraw and leave Assad, Putin, and Iran to figure out what's next. Surely Putin will want Iran out so Assad can reassert himself and bring peace to Syria and give Russia influence and the military bases it would like.  All these Middle East countries need strong men ruling otherwise there is just chaos as there are too many factions in these places that want to fight each other to the death. As an American, I really don't mind Putin having the upper hand in Syria if there is peace there. I would rather have Assad running Syria than some militant cleric spewing hatred against anything and everything. 

[bristolboy]

13 hours ago, Morch said:

 

What you disagree with is either a creative interpretation of what I posted, or just a straw-man proposition of your own making. I never said anything about Putin getting into a shooting war or open hostilities with either Iran or Hezbollah. Applying leverage can be done in many ways other than military threats or action.

 

Russia's relations with Iran are founded on necessity and interests, rather on a shared vision of the ME's future or either country's role in such. I don't think that Putin is particularly keen on Iran getting more of a hold on Assad's regime or Syria in general. Same goes for the prospects of Iranian ambitions and actions bringing about a regional escalation.

 

Iran is currently at a tough spot, what with the economy in trouble, renewed US sanctions and doubts over the JCPOA's future. I don't think it's in position to completely ignore Russia's wishes.

 

From the article you linked to:

"The alleged disguise tactic is a sign of just how much the Syrian government depends on Iranian-backed forces—as well as Russian air cover—for its territorial advances. After more than seven years of conflict, the ranks of the Syrian regime’s forces have been depleted by deaths and defections."

Given that the USA is still in Syria and still supporting the SDA, it would be bizarre to suggest that Russia would want Iranian and Hezbollah troops out of Syria. The need is mutual.

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by bristolboy

[Morch]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

From the article you linked to:

"The alleged disguise tactic is a sign of just how much the Syrian government depends on Iranian-backed forces—as well as Russian air cover—for its territorial advances. After more than seven years of conflict, the ranks of the Syrian regime’s forces have been depleted by deaths and defections."

Given that the USA is still in Syria and still supporting the SDA, it would be bizarre to suggest that Russia would want Iranian and Hezbollah troops out of Syria. The need is mutual.

 

 

Got to love how you ignore your previous deflection/spin being called out, and simply toss in another bogus "argument". Wasn't all that long ago that Assad's army's supposed loyalty was asserted. But now, since there's an argument to "win", "defections" are now an acceptable proposition. About as consistent as the waters you try to muddy.

 

Bizarre would be trying to pit the Iranian/Iranian-sponsored Shia militias/Hezbollah involvement vs, the US presence is misleading. Other than the odd skirmish, the US military presence is not involved in operations targeting neither Assad's forces nor his allies. The same goes for the SDF.  What "mutual need" you're on about in this regard remains unclear. Russia's stance seems to be that all foreign forces (other than Russia's) ought to gradually withdraw from Syria. This bring a more pressing issue with regard to southern Syria. This approach does not exclude US forces.