Syrian Civil War and The future of Syria after liberation
- Thread starter The SC
- Start date
hyperman
INT'L MOD
The Clash report cites 3rd parties as well, you declare it to not be credible, I'm just saying, keep the same standard. Has the Cradle cited things from 3rd parties that turned out to be incorrect like Clash Report at times? Why is one acceptable to you and not the other?
Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
The Cradle referred to a direct interview and quoted that interview. If Clash Report did the same, I would not object. Instead, I see it post lots of unreliable and incorrect information. But that's not really relevant here. I'm willing to judge all sources on their merits.
Assad is gone. Move on, lol. So defensive. I didn't even criticise the Syrian people for wanting to normalise with Israel. They have been through a lot and want peace at any cost, I get it.
Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
Jolani is obviously very keen to align with the US and make peace with Israel, he talks about it a lot, and far more than Assad did. I don't exclude any possibility with Jolani as he is so desperate for peace and stability. Just a bit weird that a former jihadist is suddenly so keen to make peace with Israel.
hyperman
INT'L MOD
they took and excerpt from an article, Clash report cites Source under their posts as well, i cited them citing Reuters and the Reuters report was later refuted by Iran, and you took that to disparage Clash report. Thats an inconsistent basis. B/c many such stories that the cradle has commented on referring to a 3rd party has been refuted.
Oh no, I can't do that Assad was a "Warrior against Zionism", so if its kosher for him, then surely he is relevant to cite with regards to Syria.
hyperman
INT'L MOD
not at all, on the contrary I can cite several things from Assad pre war where he disparages Hamas to US Senators, calling them uninvited guests, hangs out with Tony blair and saying he can make peace with Israel under the "right conditions", goes to Paris. But all this is ignored b/c it doesn't fit the narrative.
Jolani's position has been 1974, you will see in every interview he has he will try to steer the conversation to the 1974 ceasefire and then point out whenever they try to pressure him on normalization like Trump did on the "Abraham Accords", he deflected and said Israel has a lot of work to do on their end(referencing Golan), which funny enough is what Assad did in Western interviews. Really the only difference in terms of foreign policy for Syria is with regards to Iran, Hafez had a deal with the Ayatollah(he made that to counter the threat against him from Saddam), and the Son kept the deal as well always keeping Iran on his side as a counter balance to the Sunni Arab states. But Jolani does not need Iran b/c he has support from Saudi and Turkey, if anything the Iran stuff is a liability for him, he needs the sanctions off, and if he is tied to the hip with Iran, the sanctions don't come off. So he has cut the Iranians off, but he isn't taking hostile action towards Iran, he is only minding the affairs of his own state.
hyperman
INT'L MOD
The main objective for Syria right now is stopping the bombings, consolidating the country, and rebuilding, and that includes rebuilding strength. Syria needs time, if it can keep the status quo without giving up any significant concessions, if it has time to rebuild it will be in a stronger position long term in terms of the regional dynamics, and things will be harder to impose upon it compared to the current weakened position.
Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
Obviously Israel will not agree to withdraw without significant concessions from Syria, so that is a pipe dream.
And who are the "common enemies" that Israel and Jolani share?
Sultan Baybars
Registered Member
Syria needs some time. The country must be united and the army must be trained by Turkey.
And those Kurdish groups in the North must join the national army.
And when it can produce and sell oil again, it can buy Chinese Air Defence and Turkish weapons.
And then the operation against Israel can begin.
And those Kurdish groups in the North must join the national army.
And when it can produce and sell oil again, it can buy Chinese Air Defence and Turkish weapons.
And then the operation against Israel can begin.
hyperman
INT'L MOD
Israel will not withdraw at all period under the current Israeli govt, which is where the discussion on any "normalization" dies. They annexed it long ago, but they didn't start significantly settling it, but then recently made plans to move people into settlements there.
There is nothing to concede here, The only thing Syria needs is Sanctions removal, the stopping of bombings, the consolidation of Syria and the withdrawal of the US and other forces. The Golan matter is frozen and Syria isn't trying to settle that matter now, least of all when its in a weakened state, the Golan matter is better approached after Syria has rebuilt capacity and depending on the regional geopolitics at the time. But what the Israelis and their backers want is to not give Syria time, for that exact reason, what they want is a weak syria that isn't consolidated, that has a US presence(which they feel is in their favor), a syria under deep sanctions, all of which they can use to leverage concessions.
But Israel was sidestepped in Syria by Trump, who took off the sanctions that Israel didn't want removed, is making plans to withdraw from Syria and deferred to Saudi/Qatar and Turkey onto Syria. The Israelis are not happy with US Syria policy, to say the least. Their bombings of Syria was curtailed with US pressure and they were rebuffed when they tried to get the US to take their side against Turkey in Syria, during that Netanyahu White House visit where Trump tells Netanyahu to be "reasonable".
Assuming such a quote is true, which i don't think it is. These people seem to hear what they want to hear in every interview they seem to hold.
The Common enemy in this case could be anyone from Daesh, to the people smuggling weapons into Syria from Lebanon to aid the insurgency on the coast. Like the recent IED seizure which showed that these IEDs were quite sophisticated and built in a factory in a standardized environment likely with higher possibly state actors.
Its really dependent on the "Common Enemy" if it wishes to remain a common enemy with an irresistible desire to interfere inside Syria to recover whatever it had in the past, or to try to break up Syria where it has "zones of influence". Syria is not seeking aggression with it, if it respects Syrian sovereignty and principle of non interference, then there isn't a "common enemy".
Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
Let's forget Golan for now since Israel has been holding onto that for a long time and they might have given it back for peace with Assad's Syria but Assad didn't accept that and those days are over. I am not expecting the new HTS regime to get the Golan back. What will Syria concede/offer to Israel to entice Israel to accept the 1974 agreement and to withdraw from the newly occupied areas of Syria?
The quote was posted from an interview with the Jewish Journal and widely published across Israeli sites, I didn't see anyone dispute its authenticity.
Israel normalization? Al-Sharaa tells Jewish media: 'We have common enemies' - i24NEWS
'I want to be clear,' he said – 'The era of endless tit-for-tat bombings must end. No nation prospers when its skies are filled with fear. The reality is, we have common enemies'
www.i24news.tv
I think you are clutching at straws by interpreting common enemies in that way. Israel has only a few major enemies - Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Ansarallah (probably in that order). So the common enemies in question that are relevant to Israel and Syria are almost certainly Iran and Hezbollah.
hyperman
INT'L MOD
Assad was willing to accept it, he indicated as such, the rest of what was asked from him was not deliverable for Assad, b/c the Israelis and US demanded that he cut ties with Hezbollah(end their routes through Syria) and cut ties with Iran. Thats was a significant price that he wasn't willing to pay b/c he was reliant on them for supporting his regime. He was willing to make a deal where he got back Golan in exchange for normalization, I linked you the video, there was several where he talks to western reporters of there being an Israeli embassy in Damascus and how everything will be normal etc etc.
With regards to the 1974 agreement, there is nothing to concede, the agreement itself is a concession. Its not Syria that is going to be applying the pressure here, its the regional Sunni Arab states and Turkey via the United States/Trump. I don't see the Israelis giving back what they took right after Assad fled, but the ceasefire along the current LOC is possible, the Israelis tried expanding into some villages after the initial villages they took, and they were met with local village/tribal resistance armed by the state. The recent bombings and other elements stopped after US pressure, mainly b/c of the regional actors.
They are all quoting 1 source, and that is one reporter and what he feels he allegedly heard though a translator in an interview that I don't know if it even took place. Is there Audio? It there video? I've seen this BS happen before, where the congressman goes to Damascus and comes back and said Syria is ready to join the "Abraham accords" only for the story to be refuted by the gov't that they didn't say anything like that. Abstract statements are interpreted by people, I already explained this, it happened in Riyadh itself, when Trump tried to talk about the Abraham accords, and Jolani deflected the question putting the onus on Israel saying they have a lot of work to do, in reference to Golan.
Did I say differently? lol I clearly made a reference to Iran and Hezbollah. But pointed out that it depends on if the "Common Enemy" wishes to remain a common enemy, If Iran can accept 2 principles, "Syrian Sovereignty" and "Principle of Non Interference", then there is no issues and no "common enemy".
"Its really dependent on the "Common Enemy" if it wishes to remain a common enemy with an irresistible desire to interfere inside Syria to recover whatever it had in the past, or to try to break up Syria where it has "zones of influence". Syria is not seeking aggression with it, if it respects Syrian sovereignty and principle of non interference, then there isn't a "common enemy"."
Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
Yes, Syria under Assad was willing to normalise in return for full Israeli withdrawal from occupied Syrian territories. That makes sense and I wouldn't criticise Jolani for doing the same. At least they get a real concession from Israel out of it unlike UAE Bahrain Morocco etc.
Ceasefire along the current LOC is not the 1974 agreement and means Jolani will accept Israel occupying those new areas (for now - though that's probably what Assad thought after 1967...). I thought you were suggesting Jolani would want a deal where Israel gives up the newly occupied land.
Israel will want to retain its FOE to strike across Syria at will to keep the new Syrian regime weak. I don't see Turkey and Arabs being able to pressure Israel into giving that up, when they can't even pressure Israel to let in humanitarian aid to Gaza.
These are your words but not Jolani's words. Iran's government has consistently put out statements respecting (and demanding Israel respect) Syria's sovereignty, so no issues there. It's clear to me that Jolani still sees Iran as an enemy, despite the official statements from Iran respecting Syria's sovereignty etc.
hyperman
INT'L MOD
Thats interesting, b/c I wouldn't accept Israel under any circumstances. Its preferable for Golan to be occupied and there to not be recognition than for it to be non occupied but an Egypt situation. I'm expecting there to be an opening in the future(long term not right now) where taking back the Golan is viable.
The Zionists are greedy, they will not return that mountain, its too strategic. but otherwise, they haven't taken anything significant, a few villages in the buffer zone, don't really change the equation overall. Under those circumstances if the terms of 1974 can be followed even if LOC is not the official 1974 line, its acceptable under the current circumstances, as what the main priority here is buying time to consolidate and rebuild capacity.
Gaza is different from Syria, Gaza is isolated and outside of Egypt no one has capacity to intervene in Gaza and Egypt doesn't seem interested. Turkey shares a land border with Syria, and there is capacity to bring fighters from all across the world into Syria b/c its not isolated like Gaza. It's a fundamentally different equation.
No Iran has not done that, I can show you IRGC generals commenting on Syria. Brig. Gen. Behrouz Esbati for example and his comments on supporting "resistance groups" inside Syria, you can understand why Syria would take exception to this, that not in line with the "Principle of Non Interference", thats a direct challenge to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Syria. I referenced those professionally built standardized factory made IEDs that were recently confiscated being supplied into Syria, now those could be from Israel, and if it was found in the south, I would have suspected it was them, but this came over the Lebanese border in all likelihood, which would mean Hezbollah, which would mean Iran. Thats not tolerable for the New Govt. There is also the issue with the Syrian PKK and Iran supplying weapons there(although thats more related to Turkey than to Syria). This is the type of stuff that causes tension with Iran.
edit:
These are excerpts from a Speech Brig. Gen. Behrouz Esbati gave at a mosque in Tehran.
General Esbati said in his speech that Iran would look for ways to recruit insurgents in whatever shape the new Syria takes.
He said Iran would benefit if Syria descended into chaos because Iran knew how to thrive and secure its interests in a turbulent landscape.
“We can activate all the networks we have worked with over the years,” he said. “We can activate the social layers that our guys lived among for years; we can be active in social media and we can form resistance cells.”
He added, “Now we can operate there as we do in other international arenas, and we have already started.”
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last word on key state matters, has said in at least two speeches since Mr. al-Assad’s fall that resistance was not dead in Syria, adding that Syria’s youth would reclaim their country from the ruling rebels, whom he called stooges of Israel and the United States. President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have been more conciliatory, saying they favor stability in Syria and diplomatic ties with the new government.
So you see the rhetoric from the foreign ministry is different from the IRGC operatives and Rahbar, and we all know who really runs things in Iran and its not Pezeshkian.
Last edited:
