What's new

From 'Assad Must Go' to 'Iran Must Leave Syria'

Tokhme khar

BANNED
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
2,507
Reaction score
-10
Country
Japan
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
When you are defeated, you shift goal posts..........lol

1065847470.jpg

Trump Adviser Bolton Shifts Tone From 'Assad Must Go' to 'Iran Must Leave Syria'
© Sputnik / Sergey Guneev
MIDDLE EAST
14:44 02.07.2018(updated 15:22 02.07.2018)Get short URL
415


President Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, who is often described as a war hawk and known for his support of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and his advocacy of the bombing of North Korea, Iran and Syria, seems to have given up on his "Assad must go" rhetoric, at least temporarily.

Speaking to CBS News on Sunday about the prospects for the upcoming Putin-Trump summit in Helsinki on July 16, Bolton suggested that Syria was one area where Russia and the US "might make progress together."

"We'll see what happens when the two of them get together. There are possibilities for doing a larger negotiation on helping to get Iranian forces out of Syria and back into Iran, which would be a significant step forward – to have an agreement with Russia if that's possible," Bolton said.



1065213116.jpg

© SPUTNIK / MICHAIL KLIMENTJEW
Trump Reveals Topics He Plans to Discuss With Putin During Meeting
"This has been something that's been going on now for nearly seven years, this conflict in Syria," Bolton noted, adding that his concern was the "Iranian presence now across Iraq and Syria really reaching into Lebanon."


Asked whether he agreed with the assessment that Syrian President Bashar Assad had effectively "won the war" against Syria, Bolton deflected.

"Well I don't think Assad is the strategic issue. I think Iran is the strategic issue," he said, listing off a string of accusations against Tehran including their alleged "conventional forces in the Middle East."



1061581501.jpg

CC0
Iranian Military Reports Mystery US Ship With Chemicals Onboard in Persian Gulf
For their part, Tehran and Damascus have denied all claims about Iranian forces in Syria, pointing out that Iran is present in Syria only in an advisory capacity in the country's fight against Islamist extremism.


John Bolton has been a keen proponent of military intervention against Syria going back to the Bush administration. Earlier this year, in the run-up to the Western missile strikes against Syria in April, the national security advisor reportedly advocated a considerably more significant intervention, promoting strikes which would be "ruinous" to Damascus's military capabilities. Bolton was overruled by Defense Secretary James Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Joseph Dunford, who had opted for more limited strikes, which proved a failure.
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201807021065962194-bolton-syria-position-shift/
 
.
They know it very well that without Iran and Russia's support, Assad regime will fall quickly..
 
.
They know it very well that without Iran and Russia's support, Assad regime will fall quickly..
He was falling... Till RU came in.
Iran was on board since the beginning and yet ASSad was losing...
Iran help is mostly "Money"+"Commanders" and "Shia Jihadist canon meat" from Lebanon/Iraq/Afghanistan/Ouzbek mostly.

Even with the IRGC+Hezbo combo..ASSad was still losing... against Caveman in Black...

In the Other Hand...RU went it and came with their full "Chechen" tactics... aka Shave everything...
 
.
He was falling... Till RU came in.
Iran was on board since the beginning and yet ASSad was losing...
Iran help is mostly "Money"+"Commanders" and "Shia Jihadist canon meat" from Lebanon/Iraq/Afghanistan/Ouzbek mostly.

Even with the IRGC+Hezbo combo..ASSad was still losing...
Yup that's probably true.. but I guess the support from two countries is better than one though there is a huge difference between the two. Iran has its own interests so overall its participation may be destabilising the region while Russia provided the hi-tech weaponry to match the highly equipped and trained ISIS supported by USA, UAE and Israel.
 
.
Yup that's probably true.. but I guess the support from two countries is better than one though there is a huge difference between the two. Iran has its own interests so overall its participation may be destabilising the region while Russia provided the hi-tech weaponry to match the highly equipped and trained ISIS supported by USA, UAE and Israel.

Iran is a liability for RU... since Iran aglomerate everything around her and therefore can't "Control it"...
And many Times RU had to "play" with other players in the region to limit Iranian influence... aka Northern Syria...

Iran "Hope" to get something from that War... but unfortunately... Pro-Assad love is toward "Putin"... Iranians are like that friend that you don't say thank you when he comes helping you...
 
.
You don't understand guys that US can kick Assad in one day if it wants. Assad is left to dry out Iran and Russia.
 
.
It is not about Assad leaving or Iran leave. It was never about any one leaving. Libya has no Assad or Iran why is Libya not stable till Now. No matter who ever takes Syria they want it unstable and in ruins. They will never let Muslims be stable around Israel. Libya is the biggest example. it is being kept unstable on purpose.
 
. . . . . .
I disagree!

It was Russia who stepped into Syria and Putin was ready and willing to go all in that changed the situation in Assad's favour.

Without Russian involvement and support, Iran would have at best delayed hanging of Assad by two or three months.
 
. . .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom