A rebel fighter from the Ahrar al-Sham Islamic Movement reacts as they fire grad rockets from Idlib countryside, towards forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad stationed at Jureen town in al-Ghab plain in the Hama countryside, April 25, 2015. The Ahrar al-Sham Islamic Movement is participating in an operation providing backup support for fellow rebel fighters in Jisr al-Shughour after they took control of the area. Mohamad Bayoush/Reuters
Nicholas Blanford, CSM: Why Iran is standing by its weakened, and expensive, ally Syria
Iran already spends $35 billion a year to prop up the Assad regime, according to one estimate. Iranian officials say Syria is of supreme strategic importance.
Beirut, Lebanon — Iran has proven critical in helping keep President Bashar al-Assad in power after four years of bloody war, dispatching thousands of soldiers and paramilitary fighters to bolster Syria’s flagging army and billions of dollars in loans to prop up its economy.
Yet, despite this massive show of support, the Assad regime in the past month has lost ground against opposition forces in a series of battlefield reversals. And, crucially, it faces a serious shortage of fresh soldiers and militiamen willing to continue fighting, making it ever more reliant on Iran, its close ally of 35 years.
Iranian officials have declared that Syria is of supreme strategic importance, and appear unwilling to reconsider the military option in defeating the anti-Assad rebels. The question is how much longer Iran, a country burdened by international sanctions, can afford to continue allocating funds, materiel, and manpower to Mr. Assad while incurring ever greater animosity – and now blowback – from the region’s Sunni states.
WNU Editor: The Iranians are now involved in a sectarian war where their side comprises only 20% of the population. This is a quagmire in every sense of the word.
The Iranians need more boots than just trainers on the ground, if they want to win.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. should stay out and pickoff the winner.
The Syrian intelligence services provided jihadis with information and allowed them to pass through the Syrian and Iraqi border. The chickens have come home to roost.
There were sniper teams waiting for them. Obviously they did not get every Johnny jihad.
Iran is not convincingly winning in Iraq which has a Shia plurality if not majority. At least it is not clear cut with IS at Ar Ramadi, Thar That and they might still be not have total control over Tikrit.
Without Kurdish muscle, the situation would look like the Iranians and Iraqi Shia are slowly losing.
I just wonder when the Iranians are going to nuke Mosul. I would not put odds on it, but I have to wonder if they do not consider it from time to time.
I could see it happening of China & the US went to war God forbid. At that point no one in the US would care what happened there.
"The Iranians are now involved in a sectarian war where their side comprises only 20% of the population"
ReplyDeleteThis is true but if the SA is not fighting the Kurds, the odds are better 1 to 4 instead of 1 to 5.
Still not good.
Hezbollah could do more, but they have t watch Triploli and other trouble spots.
I agree with WNU Editor and the commenters above that the war is not going Iran's way at the moment. But I submit that the Iranians have reason to be mildly satisfied with how the war is going. This is certainly counterintuitive, but please consider the following:
ReplyDelete1. Assad's growing manpower shortage is actually in Iran's interest. Iran has no loyalty to Assad personally, but Iran wants whomever rules in Damascus to be their puppet. Assad's dwindling supply of young men willing to fight for him reduces his independence from his Iranian overlords.
2. Hezbollah is almost entirely dependent on Iran's money and weapons. If Iran were to command Hezbollah to ramp up their intervention in Syria, I think Hezbollah would have to comply. Hezbollah has thousands of men who have not yet been sent to the Syrian war. If the Syrian military situation continues to deteriorate, expect to see Hezbollah increase their intervention.
3. I think Iran views the Syrian civil war and the Iraqi war with ISIS as one war, not two. Ironically, in this regard Iran sees the conflict in terms similar to how ISIS sees it. I think Iran views the war as having at least three dimensions: (a) Iran's core geopolitical interest in maintaining control or at least influence over territory from Iran, across Iraq and Syria, and into Lebanon; (b) the Shiite struggle for domination against Sunnis; and (c) the struggle for domination between Persians and Arabs.
4. If the summary in No. 3 is right, then Iran will do what it takes to prevail. Iran's costs, in money and human casualties, will not matter to the Ayatollahs.
5. It is worth noting that most human casualties in both Syria and Iraq have been Arabs or foreign nationals entering to fight for the Sunnis. Iran has no qualms about seeing such men die, even nominal allies such as Alawites. While it is true that Iran has lost some men in both Syria and Iraq, Iran has young men in plentiful supply and those casualties have been relatively minor. Let's not forget that the Iranian theocracy is the same regime that used its teenage boys to clear minefields with their bodies in the Iran/Iraq war, and used poison gas. If Iran has to send its army in force to preserve its position in Iraq and Syria, Iran will do so.
Ugly business
ReplyDelete1) Agreed. Alawite weakness makes it easier to transform the Alawites into their image over time through subtle pressure or the Alawite desire.
ReplyDelete2) There were complaints of men serving outside of Lebanon due to the familiar family reasons and reason of security. In the end Iran would get its' way.
3) It is one war! Duh! That is not directed at Publius with whom I agree but to the people who like to count conflict in each country as a separate war.
Thinking Syria, and Iraq and Yemen solely as separate wars is a good way to get us killed.
The Spec Ops people stationed in Djibouti were not fighting a separate war form those Spec Ops in Afghanistan. It was the same war but different theater. All the opponents might not be the same, but they were not all the same in WW2 either.
There were German submarines based out of Singapore during WW2.
The Germans were also in Iran. If the British had not illegally invaded that country Jay Farquson might be speaking German today and be damn proud of his Jawohls!
5) The Iranians took horrendous casualties during the 1980s. but that was soon after the Revolution when revolutionary fervor was high. Would it be the same now or would people in part be led by jingos and in part by impressment? I don't know.
WNU Editor,
ReplyDeleteI think it's still a little early for pundits to pronosticate on Winners and Losers in Syria, it's going to go on a while longer.
I was reflecting later Jay .... I can see this war going on for another 4 years .... if not longer.
ReplyDeleteYup. The Al Nusra/Al Quida advances are due to new trained troops, weapons and logistics out of Turkey, and the stall on the Israeli border is despite new troops, weapons and logistics out of Jordan.
ReplyDeleteIt's unclear where the "blowback" from hosting and training Radical Jihadists is going to take root first, Jordan or Turkey, they have both had little reported "outbreaks", but so far have been able to quash them.
And the SAA has changed it's composition over the course of the War so far. It's gone from 15% Alwite, 5% Druse, 15% Kurd and 65% Sunni,
To 10% Alwite, 7% Druse, 11% Kurds and 72% Sunni.
And Assad has managed to keep some sort of an Economy running, and "his" Refugees fed.