Jacob Siegel, Daily Beast: The Myth of Iran’s Military Mastermind
Qasem Suleimani is seen as a superhuman strategist and battlefield commander. But lately, he’s been losing more than winning.
He’s been called the “single most powerful operative in the Middle East today” and nicknamed “Supermani,” but is Qasem Suleimani, the suddenly omnipresent commander of Iran's expeditionary Quds Force, suddenly coming down to earth?
After Suleimani reportedly visited Damascus last weekend to discuss military strategy, the Iranian press agency IRNA quoted him saying, “in the coming days the world will be surprised by what we are preparing, in cooperation with Syrian military leaders.” On Wednesday, a Syrian security source told AFP, “around 7,000 Iranian and Iraqi fighters have arrived in Syria over the past few weeks.” Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the source said the incoming fighters were mostly Iraqi, “and their first priority is the defense of the capital… [t]he goal is to reach 10,000 men to support the Syrian army and pro-government militias, firstly in Damascus, and then to retake Jisr al-Shughur [a city in Idlib province recently fallen to an Islamist-driven rebel faction] because it is key to the Mediterranean coast and the Hama region.”
WNU Editor: Israel wants him dead. Iranian opposition groups want him dead. Islamic State wants him dead. Syrian rebel groups want him dead. I also suspect that in the Persian Gulf states and in Saudi Arabia itself .... they would not mind reading reports of his death. For a man who may be more "myth" than reality .... it is amazing that many want him dead.
The above BBC video report is from last year.
4 comments:
The thing about this is Qasem and Iran/Syria have to win with this move, anything less than a big victory spells trouble for some if not all of them. Isis would like to win, but they can lose here and still progress. This also probably spells the end for any serious counter offenses(ie Ramadi) in Iraq. This air bridge is completely at the mercy of the Israelis and by extension the US. The Irani's maybe getting ready to learn one of the hard lessons of solely air supported operations, getting in is much easier than getting out.
Recent events have proven that Iran is not invincible. No one is. If anyone or any country thinks they are, such thinking is the height of hubris. I think the truth is actually somewhere between the extremes of being a military mastermind and a myth. As we can see, in this man's case maybe being thought of as some sort of mastermind may not be all that it's cracked up to be!! It seems a number of people want him dead!!
While Iran has essentially been able to play the United States like a fiddle, the Syrian opposition and ISIS have not been so easy to defeat. They may have gotten soft going up against the US and may not have yet figured out how to handle a much more capable adversary.
James,
They might have to save Syria now. But what I cannot see is why they cannot have land bridge.
Rutbah is not that big of a city. We built a berm around it and held it. then you take the border crossing point near there. No one outside of the Middle East barely knows this city exists.
The roads from Baghdad to Rutbah would be interdicted with IEDs and by ambush, but is it less onerous than solely supporting things with an air bridge.
If a army cannot take Rutbah, can we take them all that seriously.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/03/rutbah_fact_vs_ficti.php
"It occupies a strategic location on the Amman-Baghdad road, and the Mosul–Haifa oil pipeline."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar_Rutba
Maybe the Iranians could string a land bridge south of Fallujah via Karbala Amiriyat Fallajuh & Jurf Sakhar would flank the route.
Aizino,
" But what I cannot see is why they cannot have land bridge."
We could, but for the Iranis this presents a very different and difficult problem. They don't have anything in air assets and/or history and coordination of air ground operations comparable to what we do. To have a land bridge they would first have to make the decision of either secure the bridge itself or each and every convoy that uses it. Without workable air this is very hard. If you can't deny maneuver to the enemy, you can't secure the bridge and you must secure each convoy. A bridge might end up consuming more resources and men than the worth of the original objective. At the very least it would present the opportunity of easy pickings for ISIS. Well I hope that was long winded and boring enough. What I guess I'm trying to say is don't judge the situation from the view point of what we would or can do.
Post a Comment