Iran vows to crush 'terrorism' in Iraq

[Pandora]

No they aren't, the GCC is just as concerned from them as are Iraq and Iran. Please don't view the GCC states as some sort of states which support the will of the Sunni people.

Ordinary citizens and clerics maybe so. The state though does not.

Don't know if i should term this as funny or pure ignorance. People in GCC countries can't even squash a fly without the approval of their monarchs and you think individual are sponsoring them without their approval.

 

[Ayush]

best of luck

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Good for both! D:

 

[Jaanbaz]

The alliance of Saudi-USA-Al-Qaida is again highlighted. Only fools cannot figure out by now who has the most interest in this region to see mass bloodshed between Sunnis and Shia.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

We shouldn't wait for them to come to our borders, so we get them in Iraq. As @Abii said, unlike Iraq, they have no significant support base in Iran, in a country were the majority are either Shias or non-religious and the absolute majority of Sunnis do not approve of any extremist action and mentality. They won't be able to do anything to Iran except some random bombings in border areas and attacking border guards/posts. So it's important to kill as much of them as possible now.

And besides, you think if we don't fight them, they will love us? They are already thirsty for our blood. Last night, ISIL spokesman said they will also attack Iran, so it doesn't get any worse if we fight them in Iraq or in our own borders.

I wouldn't call it interventionism, I call it deterring a threat before it gets to you. Also, Iraq's government is very close to Iran, we should help them in these difficult times.

I don't think there will be any major direct interference by Iran like sending forces, but I believe Iran will ramp up training of different forces in Iraq to deter ISIL, it's the best way to fight them, asymmetric warfare. Regular armies are usually ineffective, even U.S army had difficulty dealing with them.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Iran is currently spending money on Hezbollah, Assad, and Hamas, in addition to continuing to prop up its own population with subsidies. My understanding is that despite the various embargo breaches that Iran was able to engineer, and continuing trade deals with China, Russia, and Turkey, the economy remains fragile. How will Iran finance an expansion of operations into Iraq?

 

[Serpentine]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Iran is currently spending money on Hezbollah, Assad, and Hamas, in addition to continuing to prop up its own population with subsidies. My understanding is that despite the various embargo breaches that Iran was able to engineer, and continuing trade deals with China, Russia, and Turkey, the economy remains fragile. How will Iran finance an expansion of operations into Iraq?

I already explained. It's very unlikely that Iran sends foot soldiers to Iraq, just like Syria. But sending special forces to train guerrilla groups in Iraq, I think that's the cheapest and most effective way. It doesn't require that huge amount of money as you think.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I already explained. It's very unlikely that Iran sends foot soldiers to Iraq, just like Syria. But sending special forces to train guerrilla groups in Iraq, I think that's the cheapest and most effective way. It doesn't require that huge amount of money as you think.

For the sake of stability, I hope you're right. But the US spent ten years training Iraqi security forces and equipped them with sophisticated weapons, and they were too cowardly to even prove themselves incompetent in battle. I wonder if Iran will really have more success. Even if Iran is successful in training up guerrilla groups, that is the kiss of death to any stable future government (see: Hezbollah), so it would only be a temporary solution.

 

[Serpentine]

For the sake of stability, I hope you're right. But the US spent ten years training Iraqi security forces and equipped them with sophisticated weapons, and they were too cowardly to even prove themselves incompetent in battle. I wonder if Iran will really have more success. Even if Iran is successful in training up guerrilla groups, that is the kiss of death to any stable future government (see: Hezbollah), so it would only be a temporary solution.

It's much much different than training a conventional army. However the recent show by Iraqi army was not because of soldiers' training, it happened because few top commanders in the army ordered the retreat even before ISIL attack. They are all ex-Baath officials and my take is that it had been all planned. Iraqi PM was stupid to assign former generals of Baath party in such high ranks in Iraqi army, knowing that many fighters in ISIL are former Baath members. Now arrest warrants has been issued for those who have betrayed, especially main commanders, but it's too late. Iraqi army suffered from betrayal, not lack of training, because practically, no fighting happened and Mosul was handed over to ISIL after soldiers retreated.

You look in the past and you'll see that Iran has a very good experience in training them. But they won't be a problem to leadership of Iraq because it's already a Shiite-majority country and there were already active groups after American invasion, almost all of them retired after U.S left Iraq, now they are beginning to form again after recent ISIL adventures. They are not meant to fight for land or politics. The same as Hezbollah in Lebanon. Despite what you think, besides being a guerrilla group, Hezbollah is also the strongest political group in Lebanon and it has ministers in the government. They are not like what you think.

 

[Arabian Legend]

Iran is talking about terrorism.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

It's much much different than training a conventional army. However the recent show by Iraqi army was not because of soldiers' training, it happened because few top commanders in the army ordered the retreat even before ISIL attack. They are all ex-Baath officials and my take is that it had been all planned. Iraqi PM was stupid to assign former generals of Baath party in such high ranks in Iraqi army, knowing that many fighters in ISIL are former Baath members. Now arrest warrants has been issued for those who have betrayed, especially main commanders, but it's too late. Iraqi army suffered from betrayal, not lack of training, because practically, no fighting happened and Mosul was handed over to ISIL after soldiers retreated.

You look in the past and you'll see that Iran has a very good experience in training them. But they won't be a problem to leadership of Iraq because it's already a Shiite-majority country and there were already active groups after American invasion, almost all of them retired after U.S left Iraq, now they are beginning to form again after recent ISIL adventures. They are not meant to fight for land or politics. The same as Hezbollah in Lebanon. Despite what you think, besides being a guerrilla group, Hezbollah is also the strongest political group in Lebanon and it has ministers in the government. They are not like what you think.

Time will tell if that's what really happened. Usually, when an army retreats, it takes its equipment with it, so unless the ex-Baath generals specifically ordered the soldiers to leave their weapons, jets, tanks, helicopters, etc. behind without destroying them, I'll remain a bit skeptical about that version of events.

Despite what you think, besides being a guerrilla group, Hezbollah is also the strongest political group in Lebanon and it has ministers in the government.

As far as Hezbollah, perhaps the situation in Lebanon is more complicated than I appreciate, but from an outsider's perspective, it seems that Hezbollah is the strongest political group precisely because it is a guerrilla group. Hezbollah's takeover of Beirut in 2008 because it disagreed with the government's shutdown of its telecommunication network is not the political response of a loyal opposition, but rather a military response against the sovereign government. Hezbollah essentially toppled the government and installed itself. So, yes, they have ministers in the government--I wonder why?

In any case, let's hope for the best in Iraq, but it will probably get worse before it gets better.

 

[The SC]

I already explained. It's very unlikely that Iran sends foot soldiers to Iraq, just like Syria. But sending special forces to train guerrilla groups in Iraq, I think that's the cheapest and most effective way. It doesn't require that huge amount of money as you think.

US special forces have began training Iraqi special forces "again" to face this ISIL or Al Qaeda or whatever it is called.
The US is also seemingly speeding up arms deliveries to Iraq for the same reason.
The US seems to be the number one beneficiary of all this.

Hindous and Israelis and unfortunately some Muslims too are opening their bad mouths in this thread, while you never hear of them when there are 'extremely' deadly bombings on a daily base in Iraq, since the Americans left. So it must be understood that that is what they have left, along with the biggest US Embassy in the world to manage it all.

They want to destroy Iran anyhow and this is another option as they claim "all options are on the table". Iraq is already destroyed and split; the Kurds are selling their "own" Oil, and this is not the first time that we see the Sunni-Shia rift in the workings. During the entire American and British occupation this is exactly what was happening, if all of you try to remember.

So, I am not with any side in this issue, I prefer to wait and see, since the central Iraqi government seems to be totally lost in conjunctures, and the "New American designed" Iraqi army seems to be very feeble, although it looks "great" in the new American uniforms and gear.
To make it short, there is no more Iraq per say, just a banana republic.

If one wants Iraq back and better than it was in Saddam's time, than it should cut its relations with the US to a minimum, if not totally. otherwise it will be a civil war that will engulf the Gulf region...as planned by the USrael.

 

[Serpentine]

Time will tell if that's what really happened. Usually, when an army retreats, it takes its equipment with it, so unless the ex-Baath generals specifically ordered the soldiers to leave their weapons, jets, tanks, helicopters, etc. behind without destroying them, I'll remain a bit skeptical about that version of events.

Only the fact that they haven't destroyed their equipment should make you even more suspicious that this may have been planned before the attack.

As far as Hezbollah, perhaps the situation in Lebanon is more complicated than I appreciate, but from an outsider's perspective, it seems that Hezbollah is the strongest political group precisely because it is a guerrilla group. Hezbollah's takeover of Beirut in 2008 because it disagreed with the government's shutdown of its telecommunication network is not the political response of a loyal opposition, but rather a military response against the sovereign government. Hezbollah essentially toppled the government and installed itself. So, yes, they have ministers in the government--I wonder why?

The situation in Lebanon, exactly as you mentioned, is much more complicated than many other countries, for having three main religious groups and other minorities, all gathered in a small country. Before Hezbollah even existed, there was a bloody civil war in Lebanon. Whether Hezbollah is there or not, Lebanon is a very fragile society. 2008 events were unfortunate, but you should keep in mind that it was pro-government groups who battled Hezbollah in 2008, not the regular police or the Lebanese army. After taking areas from those groups, Hezbollah handed over all of them to the army. But it was one incident, however I agree with you that a big portion of its political power comes from its military power. But take that in mind that it has the support of many Lebanese, almost all Shias, many secular and Arab nationalist Sunnis and also Christians in Lebanon. Different groups in Lebanon should learn to co-exist with each other otherwise, there will be another civil war.

 

[The SC]

Only the fact that they haven't destroyed their equipment should make you even more suspicious that this may have been planned before the attack.


The situation in Lebanon, exactly as you mentioned, is much more complicated than many other countries, for having three main religious groups and other minorities, all gathered in a small country. Before Hezbollah even existed, there was a bloody civil war in Lebanon. Whether Hezbollah is there or not, Lebanon is a very fragile society. 2008 events were unfortunate, but you should keep in mind that it was pro-government groups who battled Hezbollah in 2008, not the regular police or the Lebanese army. After taking areas from those groups, Hezbollah handed over all of them to the army. But it was one incident, however I agree with you that a big portion of its political power comes from its military power. But take that in mind that it has the support of many Lebanese, almost all Shias, many secular and Arab nationalist Sunnis and also Christians in Lebanon. Different groups in Lebanon should learn to co-exist with each other otherwise, there will be another civil war.

These weapons are not even fully paid yet, why do you want any Iraqi to destroy them, they miight have some hope of recapturing them back, or that the quantities are too large for the ISIL to handle.

It is Hizbollah that has stabilized Lebanon, before it coming into existence, Lebanon was in a constant civil war for almost 2 decades, caused by Israel.

 

[mahatir]

terrorism grows as long as sectar

Iran is talking about terrorism.

opening a new front in iraq will make things harder for bashar in syria , probably they will limit it to defending baghdad and shia shrines .

you also have americans leaving afghanistan another front they will have to focus on and a close war might start between israel and hezbollah . They basically fell into the american trap pulling them into long protracted civil wars in 2 fronts and at same time europe has the chance to ship all of their filthy extremists to burn in iraq and syria while at the same time destroying whats remaining of these two failed states and their stretched armies .

These weapons are not even fully paid yet, why do you want any Iraqi to destroy them, they miight have some hope of recapturing them back, or that the quantities are too large for the ISIL to handle.

It is Hizbollah that has stabilized Lebanon, before it coming into existence, Lebanon was in a constant civil war for almost 2 decades, caused by Israel.

I already explained. It's very unlikely that Iran sends foot soldiers to Iraq, just like Syria. But sending special forces to train guerrilla groups in Iraq, I think that's the cheapest and most effective way. It doesn't require that huge amount of money as you think.

you are fighting in syria not only training and your quds force has trained tons of iraqi militias currently operating in anbar and they failed miserably .

why not find another better shia candidate other than al maliki and recognize a sunni entity in nineveh and anbar to end this mess and ease the process of kicking isil outside cities .

the more sectarian militias you train then the more sunnis will fall into the arms of isil , this is endless process

 

[Falcon29]

Only the fact that they haven't destroyed their equipment should make you even more suspicious that this may have been planned before the attack.


The situation in Lebanon, exactly as you mentioned, is much more complicated than many other countries, for having three main religious groups and other minorities, all gathered in a small country. Before Hezbollah even existed, there was a bloody civil war in Lebanon. Whether Hezbollah is there or not, Lebanon is a very fragile society. 2008 events were unfortunate, but you should keep in mind that it was pro-government groups who battled Hezbollah in 2008, not the regular police or the Lebanese army. After taking areas from those groups, Hezbollah handed over all of them to the army. But it was one incident, however I agree with you that a big portion of its political power comes from its military power. But take that in mind that it has the support of many Lebanese, almost all Shias, many secular and Arab nationalist Sunnis and also Christians in Lebanon. Different groups in Lebanon should learn to co-exist with each other otherwise, there will be another civil war.

Whether we agree with each other on other issues or not, I want to warn about the person speaking with you. He's pro-Israel and is trying to bash Iran as well for supporting an organization against Israel. Before you might waste your time, this guy wants to heckle you over Iranian support to organizations which oppose Israeli policy.