Oh so the Syrian peple are all puppets who were manipulated by the US/West/Israel to rise up against the Assad dynastic familly who has been ruling them since independence right ?
No they aren't. Hence why the Syrian people are far from forming a monolithic bloc unanimously hostile to their government, contrary to what NATO propaganda has been attempting to brainwash its audience with. That a majority were in fact supportive of the government was actually corroborated by a western-conducted study which needless to say, mainstream media kept silent about.
As for the concept of "color revolution" an the CIA's role in promoting these, there's ample literature on the topic, do some research.
Do you even know that Assad familly(which you are now praising as some sort of "axis of resistance ". Lmao ) was put in power in the first place with the help of France?
That's nonsense. After Syria gained independence in 1946, the very same elites France had brought to power continued to rule.
It's against this government made of politicians chosen by France that Syrians rose up in the 8 March Revolution of 1963, with the help of the military committee which general Hafez al-Assad was a leading member of. One of the main motivations of revolutionaries was their dissatisfaction with Syria's artificial boundaries established by France.
After that Hafez al-Assad's Syria fought Isra"el" in the 1967 and 1973 wars. It hosted the PLO, in the late 1970's began supporting Palestinians based in Lebanon. Tel Aviv happens to occupy internationally recognized Syrian land in the Golan.
Moreover, fact is that the regime in Paris was at the forefront of failed efforts to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad, providing all kinds of support including weapons to the armed insurgency.
https://www.france24.com/en/20140821-france-arms-syria-rebels-hollande
As for the Axis of Resistance against zio-American imperialism, it took shape and was founded after the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. Syria then became a strategic ally of Iran, continued to host Palestinian Resistance leaders while extending support to Hezbollah that is to the anti-zionist Resistance in Lebanon.
In short, the above quoted interjection is entirely deprived of substance.
You say the conflict in Yemen is also the fault of US/UK/Israel . Dude it seems you see the West and Israel everywhere. Are you sure you dont also see them inside your room?
No amount of silly ad hominem can obfuscate hard facts: the PGCC-backed Hadi administration, which replaced the ousted Saleh regime, overstayed its mandate by repeatedly refusing to hold the election it legally was bound to; it also removed fuel subsidies, a highly unpopular move which heightened economic stress on an already struggling population. This in turn lead to continued protests, against Hadi this time, with clashes taking place between the parties. This is while the PGCC, Hadi's backer, consists of western allies.
Followed Saudi and Emirati military intervention in favor of the Hadi regime, again with direct assistance from the USA, the UK and more discretely from the zionist regime.
For seven years, the Yemeni people have been pummelled with Saudi bombs, many from Britain. Yet Westminster is silent, says Guardian columnist Owen Jones
www.theguardian.com
because hearing you speak, it seems like every country and all the people in the region are just dumb robots who have no independent thinking or feelings or whatever and they are just puppet of the west to be used whenever we see fit..
In fact using you logic, the uprisings in the Ara spring in Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, failed one in Bahrain(helped by Iran but supressed with the help of Saudi forces) , Yemen(with the fall of Saleh) etc etc were all the fault of the US./west/Israel right? Those people were merely puppets used by the West. They have no greviances or feelings, they are just robots twho follow orders to protests and die for it when required. Lool You need to review your own views. Seems you have swallowed Mullah propaganda so much that you don't even use any rational thinking anymore.
Only to someone who wouldn't properly comprehend the content of my posts.
It's your assumption that people of the region happily embrace western and zionist (neo-)colonialism. Nothing could be further from reality though, for as I underscored earlier, the primary aspiration of West Asian nations in modern times has been to emancipate themselves from imperial overlordship. A sentiment gaining ground once again in Pakistan as well, due to the removal of Prime Minister Imran Khan in which the CIA had a hand.
The Assad family dynastic dictatorship would have fallen to the revolution/uprisings
The Syrian government would have fallen to western military intervention propping up armed proxies.
The only reason Assad regime is still there is because he serves Iran, Hezbollah and Russia's interests in the region, so they interved direcrly to save his regime.
Iran will consider any government opposed to the zionist entity and favorable towards Hezbollah (Lebanon's only bulwark against Isra"el") to be in her interest.
So yes, the fact that the Syrian government overcame the western-backed armed insurgency was a win for Iran precisely because unlike Bahrein, Jordan or the UAE, Damascus will not compromise on Palestine nor recognize the illegitimate occupation regime, and will continue to offer a land bridge to the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon.
Iran formulates her interests in anti-imperial terms.
You think Russia loves Arabs/muslims so much so that they were sacrificing their soldiers life and capital just to save the Regime there for nothing or for some holy reason to fight for good?
It's not a matter of "loving" or "hating Muslims" but of geostrategic alignment. Moscow happens to share a common adversary, hence why cooperation can take place.
If that was the case Russia would not have massacred and indescrimately razed to the ground entire Syrian cities killings tens of thousands of them. Lol
NATO propaganda.
Russia is invonved simply becasue Syria and Assad is a useful puppet to serve Russian interests and its the only country on the region where Russia still retains military influence and their naval bases which is crucial for Russia to extend their influence and its presence there would strengthen Russia’s position in the eastern Mediterranean and increase its leverage over one of the chokepoints of the Middle East the Suez Canal.
This is just useless wordplay. To reiterate: Iran is pursuing the goal of ousting western imperialists from West Asia, something people of the region have been looking forward to for centuries. And yes, to Iran it's more than mere self-interest seeing how it stems from the religious and ideological foundations of the 1979 Islamic Revolution upon which the Islamic Republic is based.
But even if we were to postulate that self-interest is the only factor driving governments, it so happens that Iran's interest would be in line with what nations of West Asia have been longing for: freedom from the zio-American imperial yoke after decades of exploitation and oppression.
That's geo politics for you and i dont blame them since i know every country is out for their national interests. However for you to believe that those powers are there for some holy reason just makes me laugh.
Let me break it down in most simple terms:
1) After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, a confrontation began between Iran and the zionist regime. Tehran set out to help virtually every movement resisting zionist occupation of Palestine and Lebanon. Are you trying to deny this?
2) In the framework of their joint opposition to Tel Aviv, Iran and Syria established a strategic alliance. One aspect of which is that Damascus allows Iran to supply through its soil Lebanon's Hezbollah, which has been protecting Lebanese sovereignty from Isra"el"i military incursions, as seen during the occupation of southern Lebanon by the "I"DF as well as in the 2006 war. Are you trying to deny this?
3) Therefore, Isra"el" and its western allies sought to disrupt the alliance between Damascus and Tehran. Are you trying to deny this?
4) After repeated failures to peel Syria away from Iran through diplomatic means, NATO regimes saw an opportunity to do so in 2007 by arming and funding the armed insurgency against the government of President Assad. Are you trying to deny this?
Since you keep claiming governments can never be motivated by the pursuit of lofty principles in the international arena, you might as well want to tell us why it is that the UK regime, Washington, Paris and the rest of NATO as well as their regional clients threw their weight behind the radical militants fighting the Syrian government? By your own logic, it was definitely
not to "protect the Syrian people from an evil dictator".
Don't bother, I'll spell it out: if western regimes supported armed groups against the government in Damascus, it was because of Syria's alliance with Iran and her opposition to Isra"el". End of story.
Conclusion: Iran came to Syria's aid not due to some fictitious expansionist agenda nor to exploit that country economically, but in order to save an ally threatened by western-backed armed groups and to prevent the demise of the regional system of alliance Iran set up after 1979 against the zio-American bloc.
