but majority of Syrians trusted him all this while- why you think?
LMao- easy to say when your country hasnt faced the full wrath of US and NATO militaries.
hypothetical crap that doesnt stand up to the reality that Bashar outmaneuvered US , ISrael and NATO govts and militaries who tried to snatch Syria from SYrians to make it a vassal of Israel.
Let me explain it to you, but first question -are you ready to learn and accept the truth? If yes, here you go:
1. Iran as a nation and Muslim country cares about having strong influence in the middle east
2. Being Persian and Shiite, the only way Iran can spread influence is through the SUnni(mostly) and Arab middle east (mostly)
3. SYria,being Arab and having a strategic position in the middle east, is the main route that allowed Iran have more "influence" in the middle east
Also, Iran's goal in the region is to dampen ISrael's influence so Iran can take over its position and role in the middle east- at hte end of the day, stop focusing on aesthetics and symptoms, focus on results- why is Iranian influence in the middle east at an all time high today? please explain, you cant ignore it and simplify that and just say "Iran isnt a cancer specialist"! wtf, lol.
Let me offer a possible explanation as to why reformist supporters on a platform such as this, will tend to come up with all sorts of convoluted, far fetched, lame attempts at finding fault with Iran's allies, Syria and its president Assad for example.
The reformists and moderate camps in Iran are fundamentally opposed to Iran maintaining strategic relations with any of those allies, let alone organizing them into an Axis of Resistance against the zionist regime and NATO. Their goal is basically to have Iran capitulate to the west and to Tel Aviv. Hence their thinly veiled admiration for the former regime of the shah, which indeed was a textbook western and a zionist vassal. Hence why you will see reformist elements on this forum go out of their way to defend the Pahlavi regime, even if they're forced to resort to hollow wordplay as a last ditch effort, and even if it runs counter to their claims of loyalty to the Revolution.
However, since the general outlook of Iranian users on military forums is rather patriotic in nature and that therefore, such users will naturally tend to consider Iran's system of alliances as a valuable asset, liberal agitators can logically be expected to tone down and adapt their discourse accordingly: they will try to concoct some funny stories designed to tarnish the image of Iran's allies whilst stopping short of depicting them as downright villains (something their political mentors however engage in).
I assume you don't speak Persian, else you could listen to how this high profile liberal in the debate below is labeling President Assad as a "dictator who massacred his people", and how he is speaking ill of the Supreme Leader because Iran came to the aid of Syria - in short, parroting the mainstream western-sponsored propaganda line relative to that conflict:
Other hilarious suggestions: "I"SIS in Iraq was gotten rid of "with the help of the USA", the blame for soured relations with Saudi Arabia after the 1979 Revolution "falls on Iran", if Iran and the Saudis came to agreement now it's because China "forced" Iran to "abandon her adventurism" etc.
Reformist and moderate parties represent a fifth column serving the interests of hostile western powers in Iran. At times they try to come across as patriotic when it is of tactical benefit to them, in order to mislead the audience about their actual agenda.
