Is Iran Planning to Strike the U.S. in Syria?

On Sunday, Iran launched a long-range missile strike on ISIS forces in Al Mayadin, now believed to be the Islamist group’s new capital. Iran claimed the attack was in retaliation for the ISIS terrorist attacks in Tehran earlier this month, attacks that it also indirectly blames on the U.S.

The missiles used were geo-located mid-range ballistic missiles, launched by Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces from sites in the western Iranian provinces of Kermanshah and Kurdistan, and covered distances of several hundred kilometers to reach their targets.

The method used here to exact revenge is both interesting and ominous for U.S. forces in Syria, especially as Iran has unfinished business with the U.S. after its airforce annihilated an Iranian militia force that entered a unilaterally-declared exclusion zone around the Southern Syrian village of Al-Tanf located on the strategic Damascus to Baghdad highway.

As reported in Foreign Policy:

U.S. officials said that the force of about 60 fighters armed with tanks and anti-aircraft weapons entered an exclusion zone around the base at Al Tanf, where American Special Operations Forces train Syrian rebels. Before unleashing their bombs, American military officials first contacted their Russian counterparts who are allied with the Iranian-backed force. But when the new column refused to leave, the Americans struck. It is unclear how many casualties resulted.”

And the Daily Telegraph:

American jets were understood to have struck a convoy of 27 tanks as they moved to within 15 miles of a coalition garrison in al-Tanf, a border crossing point to Iraq in southern Syria, marking the most direct clash between coalition forces and fighters with Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Iran believes the U.S. is completely in the wrong, both in the action itself and in its uninvited intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. The U.S. base at Al-Tanf is being used to create a fake “astroturf” army in the South of the country near the Jordanian border in order to seize land as ISIS collapse, and thus block the reestablishment of the “Shiite corridor,” stretching from Iran, through Iraq and Syria, to Hezbollah bases in Lebanon, a policy that seems to have mainly the interests of Israel at heart, rather than those of America.

In contrast to the U.S. squatting in the Southern Syrian desert, Iranian forces are in Syria at the behest and invitation of what is still the legitimate Syrian government. The deaths of several dozen Iranian militia at the hands of U.S. forces under these circumstances means that the Iranians have quite a score to settle. Added to this is the Iranian belief that the ISIS terrorist attacks in Tehran earlier this month were carried out with at least the connivance of America and Saudi Arabia.

But how will the Iranians strike back? The missile strike on Al-Mayadin is a possible indication. Based on the long history of America’s involvement in the Middle East, the Iranians know that the best way to cause trouble for U.S. governments intervening in the Middle East is to increase the U.S. body count. For example, in 1983 Hezbollah’s successful bombing of the U.S. Marine base in Beirut led to the US immediately quitting Lebanon.

American intervention in Syria is mainly in the form of air power and expert support for groups, like the mainly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces in the North and various astroturf terrorist groups elsewhere in the country.

This means there are few obvious targets like there was in Beirut in 1983 for the Iranians and their allies to strike. But one possible target is the U.S. base at Al-Tanf, where an absence of indigenous organic opposition to the Assad government has forced the U.S. and its allies to “over-intervene” and build up a centrally-based force of around 150 U.S. personnel, as well as other allies. The base is still justified to the public on the basis that it is there to “fight ISIS,” although ISIS have now retreated well beyond the area covered by the base.

A successful strike here with significant U.S. casualties would raise a lot of questions back home about the point or pointlessness of U.S. intervention in Syria.

A missile strike, like the one tried out on Al Mayadin, could be the ideal means for the Iranians to carry out such an attack. As the U.S. is already bombing Iranian and Syrian forces in this war, they have little to lose and indeed much to gain from adding to the costs of U.S. intervention.

  • “The best way to end a U.S. intervention is to increase the body count.”

    You haven’t been paying attention. The body count just increases our “commitment”. Whenever anyone talks about pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the response from lunatics like John McCain is that we have spilled too much blood to leave now because then their sacrifice would “be in vain”. Those who get us into wars in places we have no strategic interest in being involved in have an unlimited appetite for dead Americans. They get to look sad but resolute on camera but the body bags and maimed Americans keep coming home to be replaced by fresh meat. That was supposed to change under Trump but like so many other issues his (((neocon))) advisers are whispering sweet nothings of the glory of war in his ear and he is eating it up. As long as Grima Kushner has Trump’s ear we can expect him to do Israel’s bidding.

    • Exactly. A missile attack from Iraq would guarantee air strikes into Iran.

      With that said, it really is shameful how much suffering has been caused by US foreign policy (globalist policy actually) in the Middle East. From the support of both sides in the Iran-Iraq war (including selling Iraq chemical weapons), to the sanctions that caused the death of thousands of children in Iraq, to the overthrowing of Hussein and Qaddafi, to restarting the heroine trade out of Afghanistan, to the creation of ISIS and their covert support in Syria, to the non-stop support of Israel’s actions, to propping up the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in Saudi Arabia; all in the name of freedom and democracy.

      It’s pure evil.

      • My proposal is simple, send the people from the Middle East and Africa back to their own countries and in turn pull American troops out of those same regions.

      • Liddell

        If Iran kills Yanks in Syria, there will be token retaliation from the US. That’s all. Iran is too big and well positioned for America to fuck with them too much.

        • rutger4

          The deep state in the US has been pushing massive assault on Iran and the shia block for over a decade. You being allowed to post this stuff on lowers my confidence in this site by alot. It was the same on the predcessor to this site with this Jorjani fellow posting stuff about how we should be enemies to the shia regime in Iran.

        • If Iran used missiles and killed a bunch of US soldiers I would expect cruse missile strikes, bombings, and increased troop presence. It will still end up in disaster for the US (and Iran), but Trump will be pushed into it. Any attack by Iran would have be done by terrorist proxies.

        • Slidell

          Colin, you overestimate the Establishment’s capacity for rational thought.

      • Syd

        And they have the front to criticise Russia, scumbag murderers!

      • Sam Cru

        “A missile attack from Iraq would guarantee air strikes into Iran.”

        And air strikes into Iran guarantee downed US planes and dead US pilots.

        • Maybe a sunk aircraft carrier as well.

          • Sam Cru

            I can’t wait until one of those multi-billion dollar, outdated, 20th century pieces of useless junk goes to the bottom of the ocean with its entire multicultural crew.

  • Mike Hammer

    Yes brilliant idea! Bomb US soldiers so the jews have a brilliant angle of getting USA to go war officially.

    • Pareto

      Sometimes I wonder if Collin is actually on someone’s payroll. Ditto Brett Stevens and the whole amen-chorus of anti-Alt Right masquerading as players in the movement.

      • Crud Bonemeal

        remember this Liddell gem?

        “May Allah Grant Victory to ISIS”

        • Liddell

          While we all have our petty preferences, the main thing is that somebody — anybody — wins this Syrian war that has been the main engine of the refugee crisis. In 2015 Assad was much weaker than he is now, before Putin stepped up support. ISIS much stronger. A quick ISIS victory back then would have put a lock on people leaving the country, so have to stand by that article.

          • Billy Brown

            really just an excuse for the refugee crisis though. been people in bad spots for a long time but now suddenly they using this heavy handedly. I think it sounds smart though with iran. hopefully they used their last we need to double down now excuse and just gtfo

          • Emerald Will

            Pfft.. Utter horseshit. If ISIS won people would be fleeing their persecution in the same way that they have already been doing.

          • Liddell

            Yeh, ISIS believe in the free movement of people. Sure.

          • Emerald Will

            Yeh, ISIS could quarantine a whole country in its utter state of disarray. Sure.

          • Liddell

            Oh, you mean the “utter state of disarray” that winning brings?

          • Emerald Will

            How long does it take to consolidate your rule when you’re a disorganised bunch of goat fuckers with zero experience in running a country?

            Even a modern country would find it hard to quarantine a whole country and you think a clown group like ISIS could pull it off, instantly, just by winning.

            Just admit it, you’ve got nothing to stand on here.

          • Syd

            Whatever political situation they’re comming to Europe for the gibs

        • rutger4

          Thanx for linking to that piece on therightstuff. This article above seemed really insincere to me when i read it and i immidiately started wondering about Liddell. Seems that where there is smoke there is fire.

      • I wonder who is going to win, the Alt-Right Israel shills, like Stevens, or the Alt-Right Russian shills, like everyone else? It would be nice to have some Alt-Right people on the side of Americans.

        Liddell rightly points out:

        a policy that seems to have mainly the interests of Israel at heart, rather than those of America.

        Yet we still have many who try to make some sort of distinction between the Bad Cultural Marxist “Liberal” (((Jews))) and the Good Based Zionist Israeli (((Jews))).

        We have a Republican president, a Republican House, a Republican Senate, a Republican Supreme Court, and nearly two thirds of the state governments are in the hands of Republicans.

        That may suggest that the problem in the current situation isn’t some frizzy haired Marxist professor at Oberlin, but a suit-and-tie wearing AIPAC lobbyist and member of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

      • Emerald Will

        You mean Amren, right?

        Anti-alt-right? I wasn’t aware of this. Elaborate?

        Found this while googling Brett Stevens:


        • Brett Stevens is an anti-White, Jew supremacist Zionist. He is openly against White nationalism and openly for Jewish nationalism.

          He is also against freedom and liberty for White people and wants Whites to be ruled by a Jewish aristocracy.

          Seems simple enough, he has a lot of company. But reactionaries always want to make common cause with his type because he’s against “liberals.”

          • Slidell

            HR, I read Steven’s essays all the time and this is not true.

          • Which part is not true? His essay says he wants to destroy White nationalism, he is open that he supports Jewish nationalism, and right here on he said he wants to get rid of freedom and liberty.

            Sounds anti-White to me.

          • Emerald Will

            Sounds like someone that should be ostracised.

            Seems like you and Slidell disagree though.

    • Liddell

      If that was the plan they would have arranged the bombing themselves.

  • machiaevil

    Hopefully! And I would cheer for that.

  • Alek

    Iran would have much to lose if they directly attacked an American base with a missile barrage. I’m sure they like Tehran just the way it is. If they used some proxy with deniability, however, like they did in Beirut, then youre speaking sense.

  • Crud Bonemeal

    Strongly disagree.

    Drumpf’s foreign policy seems to be incoherent and schizophrenic, as if multiple factions are trying to steer the US ship at the same time. Which may be true.

    One constant is that Drumpf will want to look tough and project a ‘Murrica strong image, as this pleases both the dumber elements of his base and the normie boomer cons.

    A direct Iranian attack would only embolden and empower the neo-con / zionist / liberal interventionist factions inside the American regime, and would be exactly what they are looking for in order to bring about the war they desire. It would also weaken our ability to argue against the war.

    It would also cause the American population to (stupidly) rally behind the war, where they are currently divided and uninterested in this conflict, but unable to stop the regime from continuing to attack.

    Iran / Syria / Russia need to make it clear that Drumpf will not be able to score cheap political points using this conflict, and avoid presenting him with opportunities to wag the dog and gain a lot of points from doing so.

    It sounds gay, but one possible route would be to utilize the United Nations and other international institutions to make a clear case that the American presence is illegal and unjustified. Give the left something to hammer Drumpf with on this issue, while we delegitimize war from the right, making it less profitable for Drumpf to cave to the pro-war voices and more profitable for him to just STAWP fucking around in Syria. Similar soft power / information warfare approaches are needed.

    To some extent a show of military strength could be beneficial to make it clear that the good guys have a firm grip on Syria and that it will not be feasible to destabalize and balkanize it, as ZOG clearly still hopes to do. But not something that would in any way legitimize further response from the American regime.

    Frankly Liddell’s advice seems pretty bad, almost maliciously bad.

    • Liddell

      Not advice. Speculation on what Iran might do.

      The missile attack was obviously a message and a response to the US bombing of Iranian militias.

    • WHAT

      It`s hard to do anything substantial through UN, it being US` bitch. Security council has some say, but there you can at best get a stalemate with Russia and China jointly vetoing neocohen shit.

  • Pareto

    Absolutely stupid advice. Provoking a devastating strike on (((US))) troops is *exactly* what these symbolic incursions into Syria are meant to do. (((The Pentagon))) is just laying a trap and hoping someone walks into it so the (((strategic planners))) can stop using R2P as an excuse for our aggression in Syria and go all in because “they attacked America.” Collin just stop. STAHP IT.

    • I didn’t realize Colin Liddell was so influential in Tehran.

    • Liddell

      You overestimate America. When it comes to serious military opponents, the US invariably chickens out. Allowing the US to participate in the Syrian Civil War at a comfort level of their choosing is a mistake.

    • Sam Cru

      Iran has a few aces up its sleeve. It can easily close the Straight of Hormuz and blow up or seize all of the oil fields in eastern Saudi Arabia. In addition, Hezbollah and the SAA can invade Israel and strike Israel with missiles. This is not to mention the US carrier(s) in the Med that would be instantly sunk by the Ruskies. America will lose a confrontation with Iran ten times out of ten. Also, the Turks would pile on the Americans too. If I were Khomeni, I would have called the bluff of these Pentagon faggots and struck Al Tanf. Paper Tigers can only be destroyed with fire.

      • stavros

        The US military fight for the filthy jew always has and always will.

    • rutger4

      I had exactly the same reaction as Pareto to this article.

  • Cascadia

    Nah bruh. Stop to think for a minute. It took nearly 20 years and 50,000 dead before we left Vietnam. These days the military is smart enough not to put that many troops in danger. We’ve been in Iraq less than 15 years and haven’t even lost 5,000 soldiers. Not enough for the American people to notice, even more so considering none of those were conscripts. Everyone else here is right, more casualties in Syria would just be justification to get more involved.

    • Liddell

      Vietnam cost less.

      • Cascadia

        No one really cares how much any war costs

        • Liddell

          Well, it might provide a good reason to cut welfare.

        • stavros

          War makes the filthy fat jew even fatter .

    • Gatzke

      Right, The 20 war vets that killed themselves per day over the same 15 year period do not count. Because they would have just killed themselves anyway. And. If a soldier does not die in theater and at the burn center state side they are not accounted for as KIA. Make no mistake- the toll is orders of magnitude higher than is reflected in the “official counts”. A VA leak several years ago put the number of deaths directly attributable to the middle east policing at well over 100,000.

      • Cascadia

        And still nobody cares. Like I said, the military is a lot better at keeping things hidden now. The learned a lot in that respect from Vietnam.

  • jay donnelly

    The Dailystormer rally in Houston was the waterfront movement of our time. WE NEED TO UNITE! before the Jew gets us into WW3 with Russia over their ISIS foot soldiers. Support Putin he is the actual alt-right leader and everyone needs to tell everyone they know that Russia is more on our side than our government obvious to us but not normies.

    • WR_the_realist

      Putin is not an alt right leader. But he isn’t the devil incarnate either. He’s a Russian nationalist whose foreign policy is a little saner than ours.

  • Sam Cru

    May our Aryan brothers in Iran triumph over the (((Great Satan)))! God, grant them strength and victory!

  • Syd

    Just the neocons trying to maneuver us into WW3. Trump ran against this, another lie

    • Yehudah Finkelstein

      Who is Trump’s Court Jew? Who cried about the poor children Assad used chemical weapons against?

      • stavros

        Who is Trump,s Court Jew? Pick one the White house has more jews in it than aushwitz did in 1944.

        • Yehudah Finkelstein


          • stavros

            He is the one that stands out ,I think the White house and the big end of town is full of jew.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            Of course it is. But Jews like Gary Cohn had resumes before they went to the White House. Kushner is the definition of a Court Jew because he ingratiated himself into the White House solely on account of marrying Ivanka.

          • stavros

            He is a crafty little jew bastard that Kushner prick and a court jew is exactly what he is .Kushner is like what Kissenger used to be the dirty little jew rat in the back ground.

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            Disagree. Kissinger was actually smart, and rose to Secretary of State on his intelligence. His foreign policy actually wasn’t that bad either. He helped put Pinochet in power. Kissinger was on tape agreeing with Nixon that if Israel lost the Yom Kippur War, millions of Jews would die in a genocide that could not be prevented because America getting involved would start WWIII. Kissinger was NOT a neocon like Bill Kristol or the other Jews who have captured the American government.

            Kushner is a total moron. His dad had to donate millions to allow Jared into Harvard. Kushner would not be anywhere near the White House if he didn’t marry Ivanka. The difference between Kissinger and Jared is a massive IQ divergence. Kissinger had some common sense and was not willing to destroy the whole world over a few million of his own people. I don’t think we can say the same for Kushner.

          • stavros

            Point taken,still hate fockin jew,s especially the smart one,s.

          • nunyabidnessfoo

            I’m not remotely am expert on the Yom Kippur war or the broader geopolitical context at that time, but if rescuing the Israelis would have caused WW3, would the Jews have survived that? Even most Jews I imagine would prefer that only the Jews were wiped out instead of all humans including Jews.

          • Don’t believe the bullsh*t story about Kissinger from “conservative” Jews.

            Link: Kissinger’s Judeopolitik (Aryan Skynet)

          • stavros

            Thanks for the link to Aryan Skynet article. as for conservative jews i am a simple man to me a jew is a jew i absolutely despise the focken lot of them.I was a much younger man when nixon was president and Kissinger was a dirty little shit house rat that was manipulating world politics to his own advantage i hated him and all jews and nothing has changed.

        • Jared Kushner comes from a Mossad family. His father, a convicted financial swindler, sponsored Golan Cipel for a visa – Cipel is a homosexual who seduced the “down low” homosexual Jim McGreevy, the governor of New Jersey at the time of the September 11 investigations, during a trip to Israel. McGreevy put his new boyfriend, Cipel, in charge of the NJ Department of Homeland Security – in other words, in a position to control the investigation and funnel billions of dollars of “anti-terrorism” money into Israeli/Jewish hands.

          Even the mainstream media has now acknowledged that Jared Kushner maintains a “back channel” to Putin through Russian orthodox Jewish groups.

          Former NJ Attorney General Chris Christie was the one who prosecuted Kushner’s father which is why Christie, despite being a loyal friend of Trump and one of the earliest Republicans to endorse him, was frozen out of the new administration.

          All this is common knowledge, published in the mainstream press, yet for some reason no one in the supposedly “Jew savvy” parts of the pro-white movement ever seems to notice this, much less point it out when trying to understand what is going on with Trump.

          • stavros

            I don,t read as much as you do so that,s why i am here on this site trying to keep up to date with whats going on from a non jewish point of view.The things that you say are common knowledge may not be as common as you think that,s why trump is where he is he relied upon people,s ignorance and apathy of the jew influence in things.At my age its hard to keep up with the who,s who of the world so keep spreading the word on the filth that the jew is .Out side of this site and Mein Kampf i don,t do a lot of reading although i do enjoy the Daily Stormer.

      • Syd

        They your bloody pick, lol

  • Marathon-Youth

    The biggest threat Iran poses is if she tests a nuclear device. The moment she does the Arab world will also go nuclear.

    The Arab world can get the Nuclear & missile technology from Pakistan or North Korea. Push comes to shove there is a possibility of China supplying them with these technologies.

    Once the Arab world goes nuclear all options are out.

    Pakistan’s nuclear father Dr. Khan set up the “nuclear Bazaar” which sold Pakistan’s nuclear secrets to North Korea, Iran and Syria. Under “Operation Orchard” Israel took out Syria’s nascent Nuclear program.

    • WHAT

      As if Saudi doesn`t already posess a nuke through their puppet Pakistan.
      Iran should proceed with their own dead man`s hand as soon as possible. Hell, ayatollahs are smart, I`m sure they have everything set up already. Plust they have China betting on them in this thing.

    • Syd

      The Arab world going nuclear, literal nightmare!

    • Allan Ali Akbar

      I doubt your last paragraph – I believe Pakistan actually got help creating nuclear armament from North Korea, starting under the PPP government of Zulfiqar Bhutto and likely completed by the ul-Haq military regime. By 1990 they likely had a working nuke (maybe not the means to launch it). Most likely aimed at India in case of war – one which India would probably conventionally win due to sheer force of numbers. It was a sensible decision to balance the odds.

      Israel obviously fears that Iran is getting close to a nuclear weapon, hence their attacks on multiple Iranian scientists suspected of being part of this program. If Iran gets a nuke it will probably be aimed at Israel – hardly something I could oppose.

      I wouldn’t care too much about a nuclear armed Middle East. Iran and the Arabs will likely aim them at each other, everyone at Israel, Israel at everyone. The world would be far less relaxed – and that is always a good thing. It’s partially that everyone is “asleep” that is why the world is in such a mess.

      • Israel has said if they are threatened with Arab or Persian nukes, they will attack … Rome and German cities. This is the “Sampson option” – a form of nuclear blackmail against Europe in order to force Europe to do their bidding in the Middle East.

        The only option is the complete nuclear disarmament of the Zionist entity, and if that cannot be done peacefully, nuclear strikes against Israel – before they can nuke European civilians: men, women and children

        The Arabs and Persians can be dealt with in various ways, doesn’t matter too much as long as we don’t allow any Middle Eastern immigration into Europe and other Western countries.

        • nunyabidnessfoo

          You need to cite sources now for your extraordinary claims.

          • I can’t believe you are actually going to try to deny it, even thought it’s common knowledge – Israelis brag about it:


            We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch
            them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European
            capitals are targets for our air force.
            Let me quote General Moshe
            Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” I
            consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent
            things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces,
            however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the
            second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us.
            And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.’

            Thanks for making your agenda clear, nunyabidnessfoo

          • nunyabidnessfoo

            Whats my agenda bud? Getting people to cite evidence for wild claims? Yku got me bud.

  • rutger4

    But how will the Iranians strike back?
    They wont. The Iranians are not children. This article mostly gave the impression of setting up the narrative for the next US intervention pretext. Iran causing lots of US casualties would give the neocons the causus belli to recommit to the region. I question this articles sincerity.

  • Diversity Heretic

    Historically, I think that a Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut airbase in December of 1966 that destroyed a number of planes was a factor in the Johnson Administration’s escalation of the war.

  • Yehudah Finkelstein

    Iran striking the US would be dumb, as commenters mentioned, it’s the Gulf of Tonkin incident needed to allow the Jews to suck America into war with Iran. Fuckfaces like Bill Kristol have been attempting this for years, when Ahmadinejad was in power they acted like he was literally Haman in anticipation for a 21st Century Purimfest and Jewish Day of the Rope against their Persian enemies.

    If Russia, Iran, and Assad want America to fuck off in Syria, it would be quite easy to do so. Just have Russian trainers sit in two seat planes with Syrian pilots over Syrian airspace. If America blows up a plane and kills Russians, well, that’s an excuse to unleash S-400 Anti Aircraft over all of Syria. Intervention in America would be enormously unpopular and Trump would have to run with his tail between his legs like Reagan did after a couple hundred Marines didn’t come home from Beirut.

    • stavros

      I agree the filthy jew is loving the American for doing it,s dirty work.

      • Yehudah Finkelstein

        The Purim Holiday actually celebrates Jews taking over a foreign government through Esther’s influence on the Persian Emperor.

        • stavros

          You are a smart young man and you seem to know your history so you know the filthy jew has played this game for thousands of years .I wish the world would open their eye,s to the jew ,Hitler was on to the jew,s he knew the truth it,s all there in Mein Kampf and the jew destroyed Germany for it.Keep spreading the word .Best Regards “Steve”

          “Heil Hitler”

          • Yehudah Finkelstein

            Everyone needs to study and understand Jewish history. Like they said on GI JOE, “Knowing your enemy is half the battle.”

          • Syd

            The Talmud reveals their filthy mentality as do the protocals of course. The jews are evil!

          • stavros

            What a wonderfull world it would be without that foul race in it and you are dead right the jew is evil .

          • Syd

            As simplistic as it sounds their demise would solve all problems

          • nunyabidnessfoo

            Not all problems, but I can’t think of a more efficient way to improve the world

          • Syd

            Hear! Hear!

  • Jason R.

    That’s an interesting analysis, and from an Iranian perspective, one that makes sense. Ultimately, the US needs to pack up and exit Syria. Our intervention brings no solution; only chaos. The US is no longer fighting ISIS; it’s fighting the Syrian government and this is *not* what Trump supporters wanted or called for.

  • Allan Ali Akbar

    Given that most “refugees” aren’t even from Syria/Iraq, how does the outcome of the war even matter?

    The most likely scenario is that that the Assadists will gradually regain control as the RF/Iran gradually increase their roles. There will be persecution of the Sunni majority and the Kurdish problem will at least initially worsen. Things will gradually return to their pre-2011 state.

    If the opposition managed to pull through a victory it will likely be a Sunni-dominated secular government with strong support from nearby countries – bar Iraq/Iran and perhaps to some degree Israel. There will be minority persecution and the Kurds will be eventually crushed. At least in the short term, probably a better outcome.

    Jihadist victory is virtually impossible. I expect IS to transfer most of its assets into other countries and gradually abandon the Iraq/Levant region. They will flare up again in other regions over the next decade.

    Whichever side is worse for the Kurds is best for me. These leftist clowns backed by USA/Israel – and perhaps worse, even attracting Communists/Antifa to fight for them due to ideological similarity – need to be defeated.

  • Iran wants war. Look how close they put their country to US military bases:

  • nunyabidnessfoo

    It’s fucked up that we’ve reached a point where I would have no problem US servicemen being killed by Iranians and Russians, but here we are.

    In related news, Trump’s response to the Tehran terrorist attack was repulsive. Having said that, the head of the Iranian legislature himself said that the attack was a “minor incident” so I stopped caring. Iran deserves a leader like that.