Iranian Chill Thread

[SalarHaqq]

That image shows that US and Iran are supporting same elements in the region. Do you realize this?

Iran and the regime in Washington are adversaries and this reality is echoed by the political camps they're siding with across the region.

Assad regime provided space and route to Al-Qaeda affiliates to wreck havoc in Iraq:

During the early stages of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the Syrian regime enabled the transit of radical Sunni Islamist fighters to the country, where they targeted Americans and mostly Iranian-backed Shiites.

The paper does not offer proof for its suggestion that fighters who entered Iraq from Syria were targeting Iranian-backed groups in particular. Moreover it's co-authored by a former American regime official and therefore to be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to Iran-related matters, considering the antagonism between Iran and the USA.

Here's another article from the same publisher (The New Yorker), authored this time by an award-winning, independent investigative journalist considered authoritative and most competent in his field. What he shows is that starting from around 2006 and with the goal of undermining Iran, the USA engaged in a policy which led to the development of sectarianist currents it used as proxies. It goes into much greater depth and is far better researched on this matter than the isolated sentence in the above quote.

A brief excerpt:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

These Al-Qaeda affiliates came together to establish the notorious Al-Qaeda Network in Iraq (AQI), and this group sparked Shia - Sunni strife in Iraq with its misdeeds:

There's no actual evidence Zarqawi was based in Syria. If we go by unconfirmed claims from intelligence agencies, then we could as well accept Washington's allegation that Zarqawi found refuge in... Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

To my knowledge no serious scholar has singled out the Syrian government as being the paramount party responsible for the formation of Al-Qaida in Iraq.

US-led forces fought and defeated AQI among other insurgent groups and managed to stabilize Iraq in 2011,

Serious sources indicate that the USA deliberately exploited the chaos caused by AQI and later "I"S. The article shared above represents a good start.

Further circumstantial evidence is offered by the study of neoconservative ideology and policy, as well as several policy papers published by Isra"el"i and American officials (Oded Yinon, Ralph Peters etc) openly advocating the dismantling of West Asian nation-states along ethnic and confessional lines.

But Syrian "terrorism export services" to Iraq continued with Al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria colluding with disgruntled elements in Iraq (Saddam loyalists) to launch ISIL movement in 2013:

Iraqi al-Qaeda and Syrian group ‘merge’

Website linked to Jabhat al-Nusra confirms move that is likely to alarm international backers of anti-Assad fighters.

www.aljazeera.com

This article is reporting the 2013 merger between Syria's Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq. Jabhat al-Nusra was created in 2012 with the sole purpose of fighting the Syrian government, one of whose most bitter enemies it and its avatars have since remained.

Al-Nusra Front, also known as Front for the Conquest of the Levant, was a Salafi jihadist organization fighting against Syrian Ba'athist government forces in the Syrian Civil War. Its aim was to overthrow president Bashar al-Assad and establish an Islamic state in Syria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#Structure

The Syrian government has nothing to do with the occurrence described in the paper. The phrase "Syrian "terrorism export services"" is therefore misplaced in this context.

How Saddam's fighters help Islamic State rule

From military victories to surveillance, former Baathists are a powerful factor in the rise and control of Islamic state.

www.reuters.com

How Saddam's Former Soldiers Are Fueling the Rise of ISIS | FRONTLINE

As the radical jihadist group marches through Iraq, it is quietly utilizing a network of former members of Sadaam Hussein's army to help militarize its fighting force.

www.pbs.org

Isis breach of Iraq-Syria border merges two wars into one 'nightmarish reality'

Jihadi fighters celebrate advance with slick propaganda, but its enemies are responding on both sides of frontier

www.theguardian.com

The Wars In Iraq And Syria Have Merged Into A Single Conflict

Iran and ISIS, the two major players in both countries, view the entire region as one battlefield.

www.businessinsider.com

The Enemy Within: ISIS and the Conquest of Mosul on JSTOR

Tallha Abdulrazaq, Gareth Stansfield, The Enemy Within: ISIS and the Conquest of Mosul, Middle East Journal, Vol. 70, No. 4 (AUTUMN 2016), pp. 525-542

www.jstor.org

Under these links, organizations are mentioned which fought against the Syrian government - not ones supported by it.

Syria and Iraq had deliberated on the possibility of merger in earlier times and ISIL movement was a bad immitation of this sentiment.

INot inspired by pan-Arab unification ambitions of the past but simply to the practical opportunity provided by the destabilization of two bordering nations, as a result of destructive military intervention by the USA and allies.

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Ibadi - one of the leading figureheads in fight against ISIL in the Middle East - also pointed out that Syria was exporting terrorism to Iraq:

Our aim is to stop or to control regional conflicts. There is a conflict in the region, there is a huge conflict. You have Saudi Arabia on one side, probably eager to be a leader of the Islamic Sunni world. You have Iran on the other side who is eager to become [the leader of] the Shia Islamic world, or even beyond. You have Turkey, as well, competing for the leadership of the Muslim Sunni world. And here we are having conflict in Yemen, having conflict in Syria, and it’s been extended before to Iraq. In Iraq, we don’t want to be part of this conflict. We are looking after our own interest, and we think we are the victims of this conflict. What happened in Syria impacted us directly.

Look what happened with Daesh when they crossed the borders into Iraq. So, I think we are very eager to stop these regional conflicts. It’s tough. It happens to be we are here, Iraq is here. We cannot move it from the map. We are bordering Turkey, bordering Iran, bordering Saudi Arabia, bordering Jordan, Kuwait, Syria, of course. And we are here, we have to live with our neighbors…

Nowhere in this quote is al-Abadi blaming the Syrian government nor accusing it of exporting terrorism.

"I"SIS was simultaneously at war with Damascus and Baghdad.

When Syrian Civil War broke out in 2011, terrorists running amok in Syria colluded with Saddam loyalists in Iraq to seize Iraqi and Syrian lands for themselves:

Syria tasked "I"SIS with violently snatching Syrian land?

Haider al-Abadi told Americans that the only way to save Iraq is by putting an end to Syrian "terrorism export services."

What is the source for this quote?

Obama administration got the message and dispatched American forces to Iraq to support Iraqi government in its mission to defeat ISIL in the country (Operation Inherent Resolve), and this operation was also expanded to Syria with support of Kurd:

These realities are also touched upon in following article:

Israel May Decimate Hamas, but Can It “Win” This War?

The scale of the violence, death, and destruction has triggered alarm about a wider regional conflict.

www.newyorker.com

Obviously the Iraqi government would request assistance from anyone it could against "I"SIS.

But this does not mean Washington's intervention was motivated by Baghdad's request alone. I maintain my description of USA policy in the region post-9/11.

Iran worked with Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces to fight ISIL in Iraq.

Iran also worked with its allies in Syria to fight ISIL but as a secondary objective. The (Assad regime + Iran + Hezbollah + Russia) collective was working to defeat Syrian rebels in Syria who were opposing Assad regime.

While U.S.-Led Forces Dropped Bombs, Iran Waged Its Own Covert Campaign Against the Islamic State

Iran’s spies cheered U.S. bombings in the war against ISIS while covertly arming the Kurdish Peshmerga and penetrating the Islamic State’s leadership.

theintercept.com

Iran could respond to ISIL movement earlier because US had left Iraq in 2011.

US could not come back and fight ISIL immediately.

"I"SIS kept welcoming unimpeded streams of recruits from across western Europe, including elements under surveilled by local intelligence agencies, who were able to cross multiple borders on auuthentic ID papers.

NATO member Turkey was allowing "I"SIS sympathizers and members to roam openly on its soil ("I"SIS t-shirts sold in Istanbul stores, known gathering places running and so on).

The USA could have dispatched forces to fight "I"SIS prior to the latter's 2014 summer offensive but chose not to. Even then American air strikes remained suspiciously restrained for some time. Their intensity increased parallel with gains recorded by Iranian-led forces.

I could go on but there's no point. Have stated and sufficiently substantiated my points already.

I understand that US and Iran have tensions but you are blaming the wrong side for creating ISIL. Assad regime is responsible for this mess.

This is your take and you cannot force it on people through censorship nor by slapping the "propaganda" label on dissenting commentary.

You participated in a discussion on this very subject at the Iranian section before, where apart from me several other users namely Hack Hook and raptor22 offered perfectly sound arguments in support of our view. A view which is fully covered by freedom of speech as well as by forum rules.

Readers can consult the respective sets of justifications furnished, and weigh on their own as to which is logically more convincing and factually better documented.

If anything, Iran has benefitted from American military operations in the Middle East:

1. Operation Iraqi Freedom to eliminate Saddam regime (2003 - 2011)

By an administration which had placed Iran on its so-called "axis of evil" meaning Iran was at risk of being next in the series of wars the Americans were launching.

Major USA troop deployment both at Iran's eastern and western borders constituted and were naturally treated as a serious threat.

Furthermore Washington never intended an Iran-friendly government to succeed Saddam. On the contrary, the USA systematically tried to have candidates opposed to Iran access power during elections in Baghdad.

That Iraq finally turned into a partner, Iran owes to her own successful policy, in particular to her ability to turn threats into opportunities as shahid Soleimani, one of the main architects of Iranian policy in Iraq put it.

2. Operation Inherent Resolve to eliminate ISIL (2014 - 2021)

After creating the conditions for the advent of "I"SIS and attempting to employ it as an instrument for the disruption of the Iranian-led Resistance Axis.

As highlighted, it was the fact that Iran and her allies were in the process of stopping "I"SIS in their tracks and driving them back which prompted Washington to intervene, so as to prevent Iran-friendly forces from reaping all the prospective benefits of victory over "I"SIS.

US have defeated two of the greatest threats to Iran in the region.

Certainly not to lend Iran a helping hand but for diametrically opposed reasons.

 

[HGV]

UNCONFIRMED:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712048172896280683

 

[LeGenD]

Iran and the regime in Washington are adversaries and this translates into the political camps they side with in the region.

Let's have another look at the image in question:

It suggests that Iran is supporting Kurd elements. Right?

The paper does not offer proof for its suggestion that fighters who entered Iraq from Syria were targeting Iranian-backed forces in particular.

It is co-authored by a former American regime official and therefore to be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to Iran-related matters, considering the antagonism between Iran and the USA.

Here's another paper from the same publisher (The New Yorker), authored this time by an award-winning, independent investigative journalist considered one of the most competent and authoritative in his field. What he shows is that the USA, starting from around 2006, engaged in a policy which led to the development of sectarianist currents which Washington and allies used as proxies against Iran. It goes much further into depth and is far better researched on this matter than the isolated sentence in the above quote.

A brief excerpt:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection



There's no evidence that Zarqawi was based in Syria. If we go by unconfirmed claims from intelligence agencies, then we could as well accept Washington's allegation that Zarqawi found refuge in... Iran.

View attachment 960402

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

Generally speaking, I don't know of any serious scholar singling out the Syrian government as the party responsible for the formation of Al-Qaida in Iraq.

This article has two authors. It explains at length that ISIL treated all manner of Muslims horribly - this movement mistreated Sunni and Shia alike (Sunni even more so).

You dismissed the article just like that. Those who have worked in White House in some capacity cannot be honest and professional people? Cannot be truthful? This is pre-conceived biased selectivism. Journalists lie all the time as well - awarding winning or not. Seymour has provided references for his claims? How do you know that he is right?

So Iran entertained and supported Zarqawi in his nefarious plots? Why is it that Iran is found to be using criminals to do its bidding? Does this not make you question Iranian leadership?

You should, as a matter of principle. If you have the moral compass.

I shall drop a hint though: Abu Ghadiya

Serious sources indicate that the USA deliberately exploited the chaos caused by AQI and later "I"S. The paper shared above represents a good start.

Further circumstantial evidence is offered by the study of neoconservative ideology and policy, as well as several policy papers published by Isra"el"i and American officials (Oded Yinon, Ralph Peters etc) openly advocating the dismantling of West Asian nation-states along ethnic and confessional lines.

There are some nutcases in the US (not denying this), but this does not prove that an American administration acted on suggestions of nutcases, or it had the opportunity to. Nutcases are found all over the world, not just in the US.

Claims are made all the time and not necessarily acted on.

This article is reporting the 2013 merger between Syria's Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State in Iraq.

Jabhat al-Nusra was created in 2012 with the sole purpose of fighting the Syrian government, one of whose most bitter enemies it has since been.

Al-Nusra Front, also known as Front for the Conquest of the Levant,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#cite_note-37 was a Salafi jihadist organization fighting against Syrian Ba'athist government forces in the Syrian Civil War. Its aim was to overthrow president Bashar al-Assad and establish an Islamic state in Syria.[36]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front#Structure

The Syrian government has nothing to do with the occurrence described in the paper. The phrase "Syrian "terrorism export services"" is therefore misplaced in this context.



These links are mentioning organizations which fought against the Syrian government - not ones supported by it.

Many of the articles are generally written (authors have not done much homework), but I have seen a report that explains at length how Assad regime supported Al-Qaeda affiliates for its ends. This report can be found on the web.

Syrian Civil War changed regional dynamics and reduced control of Assad regime, making it possible for terrorists on Syrian soil to act on their own accord and do as they please. This is not surprising.

It was not related to pan-Arab unification ambitions of the past but simply to the practical opportunity provided by the destabilization of two bordering nations as a result of military intervention by the USA and allies.

To be honest, several Islamic countries harbored Al-Qaeda affiliates and elements. Difference is that Al-Qaeda Network was clearly visible in Afghanistan but not in other places. American move to topple Saddam regime exposed concealed elements.

I regarded American move as shameful, but the remainder is also shameful.

Nowhere in this quote is he blaming the Syrian government or accusing it of exporting terrorism.

"I"SIS was simultaneously at war with Damascus and with Baghdad.



And Syria is responsible for "I"SIS violently snatching Syrian land?



What is the source for this quote?

He is a politician and will use diplomatic language.

Jon Alterman: You say in your book that the United States threw money and resources into creating pockets of capacity where it mattered to them such as intelligence and counterterrorism. If that's what mattered to the United States, why was the Islamic State Group (ISG) able to establish such a strong foothold in Iraq?

Haider al-Abadi: Well, this is a very good question, but don't forget that the ISG established a foothold in Syria first. They built their capabilities, their numbers, and conducted gained the capacity to invade Iraq across the northern and eastern border. They were enabled in Syria, and that spread to Iraq. Having said that, there were some weaknesses in Iraq because these areas were not amalgamated together very well. There was a sectarian problem between some political groups against the government in Baghdad. That sectarianism helped the ISG gain a foothold in Iraq.

You are welcome.

Obviously the Iraqi government would ask for any assistance it could receive against "I"SIS.

But that does not mean Washington's intervention was motivated by Baghdad's request alone. I maintain my description of USA policy in the region post-9/11.

Perhaps, but regional idiots compelled US to return.

This is your take and you cannot force it on people through censorship or by slapping the "propaganda" label on dissenting comments.

You participated in a discussion on this very subject at the Iranian section before, where apart from me several other users namely as Hack Hook and raptor22 offered very sound arguments in support of our view. It falls fully within the freedom of speech and forum rules.

Readers can see the respective sets of justifications furnished, and weigh on their own as to which is logically more convincing and factually better documented.

I am not into propaganda - I am addressing misconceptions. My straightforward perspective might not align with certain narratives of-course.

Muslims should strive for truthfulness, not narratives. WE can find solutions to existing problems when WE know what is going on. There are all manner of statements out there - some aimed to deceive people.

After creating the conditions for the advent of "I"SIS and attempting to use it as an instrument for the disruption of the Iranian-led Resistance Axis.

As highlighted, it was the fact that Iran and allies were in the process of stopping and driving back "I"SIS which prompted Washington to intervene in order to prevent Iran-friendly forces from reaping all the fruits of vitory over "I"SIS.



Not in order to lend Iran a helping hand, but for diametrically opposed reasons.

As noted earlier, several Islamic countries harbored Al-Qaeda affiliates and elements. Difference is that Al-Qaeda Network was clearly visible in Afghanistan but not in other places. American move to topple Saddam regime exposed concealed elements. But US did a bad job at building a case for its intervention in Iraq - the narrative was poorly built even though US had all manner of INTEL at its disposal.

But if you want learn, following is a comprehensive and knowledgeable take on this matter:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/isis-origins-anbari-zarqawi/577030/

As highlighted, it was the fact that Iran and allies were in the process of stopping and driving back "I"SIS which prompted Washington to intervene in order to prevent Iran-friendly forces from reaping all the fruits of vitory over "I"SIS.



Not in order to lend Iran a helping hand, but for diametrically opposed reasons.

Well, I am not complaining. Good to see that Iran and US did the right thing in a while.

Not in order to lend Iran a helping hand, but for diametrically opposed reasons.

Maybe, but Iran benefited from American exploits in the region. It does raise questions.

 

[HGV]

Israel's underground hospital in Haifa:

 

[Blue In Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712078067446005917

 

[HGV]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712078067446005917

old news

 

[NightStrike]

LETS BE CLEAR: Iran isn’t going to enter a war with the US, Israel, and NATO without having an extensive arsenal of nuclear weapons. That’s a fact.

However, I do believe they are willing to get Hezbollah and other militias to get involved in this current cycle of conflict if Israel seeks to completely destroy Gaza.

 

[HGV]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712087401894711798

 

[SalarHaqq]

Let's have another look at the image in question:

It suggests that Iran is supporting Kurd elements. Right?

It's doubtful whether Iran is in fact empowering the PKK, seeing how this organization comprises a branch (PJAK) that happens to be in conflict with Iran. PKK-affiliate PJAK endeavors to undermine Iran's territorial integrity. Nor is scholarly work unanimous about Iran-PKK relations, a very complex topic.

But for each actor Iran and the USA might both have been backing at a given point in time (independently and for different aims), how many enjoy support from but one of these two parties? And how many groups or governments assisted by Iran are on problematic / hostile terms with Washington, ditto the stance of American-sponsored formations vis à vis Iran?

To say that Iran and the USA are somehow on the same side of a grand geopolitical divide would simply be contrary to reality.

You dismissed the article just like that.

This represents a simplification of my statement for I explained what's underlying my reservations.

Those who have worked in White House in some capacity cannot be honest and professional people? Cannot be truthful? This is pre-conceived biased selectivism.

I stated the enmity between the Iranian and American governments warrants accounting for potential bias on the part of American officials when they comment on Iranian affairs, especially when they utter unsourced allegations. This is a valid precaution to take.

Journalists lie all the time as well - awarding winning or not. Seymour has provided references for his claims? How do you know that he is right?

Fact is the paper I shared expands upon and analyses this particular subject in depth, which can't be said of the sentence I was given to read. And unlike that sentence, Hersh is referencing sources in his article. Which makes for a significant difference.

So Iran entertained and supported Zarqawi in his nefarious plots? Why is it that Iran is found to be using criminals to do its bidding? Does this not make you question Iranian leadership?

You should, as a matter of principle. If you have the moral compass.

You should probably read again then, because this is not what I was suggesting.

Claims about Zarqawi issued by "intelligence sources" from the USA and allies have one thing in common: very conveniently, they tend to systematically raise suspicion against countries opposed to Washington (Syrian, Iran, Iraq before 2003). However, they are at the same time blatantly contradicting each other. This all implies we aren't dealing with particularly trustworthy sources worthy of being cited or relied upon.

There are some nutcases in the US (not denying this), but this does not prove that an American administration acted on suggestions of nutcases, or it had the opportunity to. Nutcases are found all over the world, not just in the US.

Claims are made all the time and not necessarily acted on.

Post-9/11 USA policy incidentally produced the very results those authors had been advocating.

Also when I spoke of neoconservatives I meant leading administration personnel. Their ideas are documented, so are their intellectual sources of inspiration. An analyst's work then consists in examining their policy record against those known ideological tenets, which in this case will yield quite the alignment.

Haider al-Abadi: Well, this is a very good question, but don't forget that the ISG established a foothold in Syria first. They built their capabilities, their numbers, and conducted gained the capacity to invade Iraq across the northern and eastern border. They were enabled in Syria, and that spread to Iraq. Having said that, there were some weaknesses in Iraq because these areas were not amalgamated together very well. There was a sectarian problem between some political groups against the government in Baghdad. That sectarianism helped the ISG gain a foothold in Iraq.

The full quote is appreciated, but where do you see him accusing the Syrian government, either directly or by insinuation?

What he's saying is that "I"SIS were enabled in Syria - now this could mean they were enabled by circumstances external to the will of any given political actor - e.g., they were enabled by the vacuum resulting from collapsed central state authority in eastern Syria etc. If instead he's thinking of a specific actor, nothing in his words allows us to conclude whether he's pointing to this rather than to that entity.

Muslims should strive for truthfulness, not narratives. WE can find solutions to existing problems when WE know what is going on. There are all manner of statements out there - some aimed to deceive people.

Unless irrefutable proof is available, charges of insincerity shouldn't be leveled since only God can read His subjects' minds and hearts.

 

[HGV]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712115492373004517

here you go @TheImmortal

 

[Blue In Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712115144300363806

 

[MyNameAintJeff]

Israeli lies and war crimes:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1711792399058395547

https://twitter.com/x/status/1711847516017205280

https://twitter.com/x/status/1711840129902412020

These will be important evidence to bring to a future tribunal / ICC.

I've heard that Hamas soldiers threw babies out of incubators
And that they forced captured Israelis to ride Roller coasters that would launch them into crematoriums at the end of the track
I've also heard that they would force prisoners to stick a gun into a hole in the wall, but the hole led to a tunnel that would bend 180 degrees, and when the the prisoners pulled the trigger they would end up shooting themselves

 

[Blue In Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712127195479429506

 

[Blue In Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712130116363428261

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712131459710873881

 

[Blue In Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712133260707258563

Situation unclear as of now