Much is going on in the region with reporting one way or the other. There are two sides to every story. Which one is accurate? Who is telling the truth? How can we varify the info? I think these are important question to ask. Let's begin. Play nice.
With respect your premise may be flawed. Frankly I see a number of sides, some travel short distances together, but it would be a mistake to conclude that they have similar agendas. Assad (Syria) wants to remain in power whatever the cost to his country or people. Its questionable just how many refugees will ever return to a government run by him. Judged by his actions he feared the moderate opposition far more than the nihilistic terrorist organizations and ISIS. Putin (Russia) wants his client to remain in power to be sure as he has few enough allies, but I suspect he more interested in burnishing his image as a world player. Something that has been lacking since the fall of the Soviet Union. The Mullah's (Iran) has supported Syria despite profound religious differences (Shia-Sunni divide). My suspicion is that the ISIS Caliphate is their primary concern, apart of becoming dominate in Shia Iraq. Al Queada was simply a terrorist organization, but ISIS threatened to take over the leadership of militant Islam on a regional and national level. To this point Tehran has funded the anti-Israel fight, but the Western intervention and rise of ISIS has made this a Muslim on Muslim civil war. Erduan (Turkey) has been typically Turkish, make the deal with whomever they can. They made life easy for ISIS at first, then supported the US in suppressing ISIS. After shooting down a Russian jet, now they are kissy face with Putin. Their real worry is the rise of some kind of Kurdish superstate and will deal with anyone that helps keep that from happening. Iraq wants to reclaim territory lost to ISIS and other terrorist groups but can not act much beyond the desires of Iran. Trouble is they still haven't figured out how to run a multi religious-cultural nation and Iran calling the shots isn't gonna help. The Kurds have long wanted a country of their own, but have been thwarted by stronger powers. It doesn't help that they are scattered over Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran. They now have carved out a all but real country, creating a effective army, or at least one better than Iraq proper. The United States wants ISIS put down, they would love to see some kind of moderate state in Syria, though that is highly unlikely now. They would love to see Iraq become some kind of functioning Federated state, but between Iranian meddling and the inability of the Shia leadership to reach real accommodations with the Kurds and Sunnies within Iraq, that too seems problematic. Israel is quite content if Muslims continue fighting one another in a series of purity wars as it allows them the freedom to make Israel ever more Israeli. ISIS hasn't given up, though they may go the way of Al Queada as many groups before them (PLO, Hezzbola, etc.). Likely they will morph into some other anti western some how more viscous than the last incarnation. They won't die as such, just change their name and banners.
The Syrian-Iranian alliance is not just something that has been created recently. Post-Revolution Iran represented an opportunity for then Syrian President Hafez al-Assad to find a new counterweight to Israel and Iraq, Syria's regional foes. Mostafa Chamran, a close adviser to Khomeini, had fought in Lebanon and advocated an Iranian alliance with Assad to increase their influence in southern Lebanon, and the Shi'ia community there. Syria was third country in the world to recognise the Islamic republic, and the first Arab state. The Syrian leadership, including the current President Bashar Assad himself, belongs predominantly to the Alawite branch of Shi'a Islam. Nevertheless Syria was a secular state. Syria sided with non-Arab Iran against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and was isolated for it's actions by most of the Arab world. Syria shut down the Iraqi oil pipeline of Kirkuk-Baniyas to deprive the Iraqis of revenue. They provided much-needed armaments to Iran. This history has created strong bonds between the two.
I keep seeing references to the "moderate" apposition... who are they? What are the names of these groups? Who are their leaders? What do they want? Who else besides the Kurds?
The Moderate Marxist Terrorists. Reminds me of the crack suicide squad from the "Judean People's Front" (not to be confused with the People's Front of Judea).
Speaking of TIRDAD, I hope the good fellow is alright, I have not seen or heard from him in more than a week. I certainly hope some of his statements haven't gotten him into any kind of trouble over there. The world is complicated, but it seems that the Middle east is the most complicated of all....
To be honest whoever is saying that missile strikes will lead to ww3 doesn't know jack shit. Putin needs a war to draw attention away from his corruption yet that war cant be with a powerful enemy, that being the us and nato, Putin just cant afford an escalation between them.
Indeed it seems the Russians didn't even try to help Assad in this case. Of course it's harder to market your weapons if someone else's have proven better.
Due to prior requests from Israel/US, Russia never delivered the S300 platform to Syria. If confirmed, no longer the case. Israel is quite nervous. I think Russia has done a pretty good job of marketing her weapons in Syria
If Russia is making new nuclear missiles instead of peace negotiations I would call it preparation for war. What do you call It? Starting with Hitler making a strong army is keeping the peace. Taking Crimea is surely a massive peace action. Finland could take his old areas as Russia no more needs them to protect St Petersburg for artillery usage. In Petroskoi they even have suggested to have a vote of joining Finland as during winter Russia hae not been able to deliver enough eletricity to the town to keep the houses warm. Ali in all in Russian terms we could go and get our own old country back and Putin would not disagree.
