Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Lebanon, Gaza, and the Syrian-Iranian Axis

  1. #1
    Council Member AdmiralAdama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    73

    Default Lebanon, Gaza, and the Syrian-Iranian Axis

    Walid Phares, middle east scholar and author of Future Jihad, on the Hamas grab in Gaza:


    http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007...ader_syroi.php

    The latest dramatic military and terror events in Gaza and Lebanon can be viewed from a regional geopolitical perspective: A Syro-Iranian axis offensive on its (their) primarily western front stretching along the Mediterranean coast.
    .
    Iran's and Syria's offensives have been well-coordinated on battlefields across the Levant since last January, with a clear escalation since early spring.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    66

    Default

    "Syro-Iranian" what ab great new NeoCon buzzword from another NeoCon website.

    Don't you ever get tired of making up ####e?

    Anything to make Israel's enemies America 's enemies right?
    Last edited by walrus; 06-22-2007 at 10:22 AM.

  3. #3
    Council Member AdmiralAdama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    73

    Default

    I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to. Is there a point that Walid Phares made that you disagree with?

    Do you believe that Syrian and Iran are not working together to furhter their interests in the Middle East, and do you believe that Syria and Iran are both funding/supporting Hamas and Hezbollah?

    Iran And Syria Sign Defense Agreement


    by Farhad Pouladi
    Tehran (AFP) Jun 16, 2006
    Defense ministers from close allies Iran and Syria on Thursday signed an agreement for military cooperation against what they called the "common threats" presented by Israel and the United States. In a joint press conference, Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar and visiting Syrian counterpart Hassan Turkmani said their talks had been aimed at consolidating their defense efforts and strengthening support for one another.

  4. #4
    Council Member Mark O'Neill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdmiralAdama View Post

    Do you believe that Syrian and Iran are not working together to furhter their interests in the Middle East, and do you believe that Syria and Iran are both funding/supporting Hamas and Hezbollah?

    There are four different propositions and a double negative in that question, what exactly are you saying?

    The 'expert' that you cite works at a partisan think tank in Washington. Do you suppose that there is any chance that this might influence his opinions ? (and I use the word 'opinion' deliberately).

    Your statement implies that there is somehow something weird about sovereign states working to further their interests. How many sovereign states can you name that do not?

    I am just curious as to what the point of your thread is - or did Walrus hit the mark in his post?

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default - In The Eye of the Beholder

    This group makes Hamas out to be the rightful heirs to solve the palestinian's many problems, saviors, even heroic.

    http://conflictsforum.org/

    "Anything to make Israel's enemies America 's enemies right?" (Walrus)

    When Mubarak of Egypt invited Olmert from Israel, Abbas from the palestinians and Abdullah II from Jordan for a summit, there was not a place at the table for hamas. I suppose a neo-con could construe this to mean Egypt essentially regards hamas as disruptive. With just a tad bit of a stretch of imagination, or if one were an Israeli for instance, one could even surmise Egypt regards hamas as an enemy. I certainly would if I were Mubarak or George Bush, or Abdullah for that matter.

  6. #6
    Council Member AdmiralAdama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark O'Neill View Post
    There are four different propositions and a double negative in that question, what exactly are you saying?
    Thanks for trying to clean up my grammar. I appreciate it.

    My question is whether the respondent believes in the existance of a Syrian-Iranian alliance? If so, why the talk about "neocon buzzwords" and "making up ####e" ? Axis, after all, merely means "partnership" or "alliance" and there's many observers noting this alliance.


    Here's Jane's Defence Weekly
    Iran and Syria have signed a further memorandum of understanding (MoU) on defence co-operation to address what both sides described as "American and Israeli threats".

    Citing diplomatic sources, Jane's reported in 2005 that Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki signed a confidential strategic accord on 14 November 2005 with his counterpart Farouq al-Shara and Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otari, "which includes a sensitive chapter dealing with co-operation and mutual aid during times of international sanctions, or scenarios of military confrontation with the West".

    The sensitive chapter in the accord includes Syria's commitment to allow Iran to safely store weapons, sensitive equipment or even hazardous materials on Syrian soil should Iran need such help in a time of crisis, the sources said. Iranian military aid ranges from "the supply of weapons and ammunition and the training of Syrian personnel to co-operation and continuous transfer of technology and equipment in the areas of weapons of mass destruction [particularly the upgrade of Syrian missile and chemical warfare capabilities], to Iranian troops operating advanced weapon systems in Syria during a military confrontation", the sources added.


    Fawaz Gerges here

    There is a major battle raging in Lebanon between what I call on the one hand the Syrian-Iranian alliance and the American-led alliance in Lebanon.
    Here's The Lebanese Daily Star
    Hizbullah's attitude is only convincingly explained in the framework of Iran and Syria implementing a project to reclaim Lebanon, but more importantly perhaps to eliminate international, particularly Western, involvement in the Levant. After having won in Gaza, Tehran and Damascus are now pushing forward in South Lebanon. Their joint objective, regardless of their different priorities on other matters, appears to be to remove the Siniora government, undermine United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, and create a situation where the international community would have to accept a Syrian return to Lebanon, which would, by extension, scuttle the Hariri tribunal.
    Here's the Turkish Policy Quarterly on the Syro-Iranian axis

    The first converging factor in the Damascus-Tehran relations is their anti-Western (especially anti-American) stance and anti-Zionism. By creating an Arab-Islamic bloc, Iran and Syria aimed to counter the American hegemonic influences in the region and to counter the Israeli threat, as they perceived it.
    So I don't think that the existance of an Iranian/Syrian alliance is controversial. That they are funding Hezbollah and Hamas and supporting Iraqi insurgents is also not controversial. Thus, we have here an axis of nations working to frustrate American goals and kill American soldiers. That is something to note, no?
    Last edited by AdmiralAdama; 06-22-2007 at 05:35 PM.

  7. #7
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default Contemporary meaning of axis

    Actually, the term "axis" has very specific meaning when used in discourse these days: it is intended to draw a direct line back to Hitler's Germany, seen by many as the ultimate expression of evil (although in a historical sense that's debatable...there are many contenders for that throne). Prior to this, the term wasn't in common use at all. Alliances were alliances, either of convenience (as might be seen with France and Russia prior to World War I or the US and USSR during World War II) or out of ethnic ties (see Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire prior to World War I). There was not an implied linkage "to the death" or automatic connotation of evil...until ol' Benito coined the term "Axis."

    While Iran and Syria may have some common goals and objectives, I think it's rather foolish to automatically assume that they are joined at the hip in evil intentions. Alliances in the Middle East historically tend to be very fluid things, used and discarded as convenience dictates (this can also be said for much of the world). Describing them as an Axis carries a specific message...one that I believe is intentional on the part of those using the term.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  8. #8
    Council Member AdmiralAdama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post

    While Iran and Syria may have some common goals and objectives, I think it's rather foolish to automatically assume that they are joined at the hip in evil intentions. Alliances in the Middle East historically tend to be very fluid things, used and discarded as convenience dictates (this can also be said for much of the world). Describing them as an Axis carries a specific message...one that I believe is intentional on the part of those using the term.
    I'd be happy to call them an "alliance" instead of an "axis". Not everything is "just like in World War II".

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default -Nuke Potential In Syria Compliments of Iran or N. Korea - ?

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297034,00.html
    "JERUSALEM — Israel's chief of military intelligence was ordered not to discuss an alleged air raid on Syria before a powerful parliamentary panel, tightening the veil of secrecy the government has thrown around the issue.

    Tzachi Hanegbi, chairman of parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee, said he instructed Israel's military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin to avoid any mention of Syria at a committee meeting Sunday. Panel members regularly report to journalists during and after committee meetings.

    In a statement some participants saw as an oblique reference to the alleged Syria raid, Yadlin told the meeting, "Israel's deterrence has been rehabilitated since the Lebanon war, and it affects the entire regional system, including Iran and Syria," according to a lawmaker who was present.

    The lawmaker spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the meeting's contents to the media.

    Foreign news reports have suggested that Israel struck a Syrian site designed to make non-conventional weapons, possibly a nuclear installation built with North Korean help.

    John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., told Israeli Channel 10 TV he thought Israel might have been attacking a nuclear installation, "a message not only to Syria, but to Iran."

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdmiralAdama View Post
    Walid Phares, middle east scholar and author of Future Jihad, on the Hamas grab in Gaza:


    http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007...ader_syroi.php
    To be honest, I find Phares' analysis to be underwhelming (to say the least).

    The Hamas take-over in Gaza was not driven by decisions taken by the Damascus-based leaders (let alone by Damascus or Tehran), but rather by Hamas Executive Force and Izz al-Din Qasim Brigade commanders on the ground and local hardliners (such as Zahar)--coupled with the unanticipated rapidity and totality of the Fateh collapse.

    The same blog entry blames the battles between the Lebanese Army and Fateh al-Islam on the Syrians too, although there is no real evidence for this either (and plenty of evidence that Fateh al-Islam grew on its own, benefitting from the collapse of Syrian-backed Fateh al-Intifada as well as the particular security and political vacuum in Nahr al-Barid refugee camp).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark O'Neill View Post
    The 'expert' that you cite works at a partisan think tank in Washington. Do you suppose that there is any chance that this might influence his opinions ? (and I use the word 'opinion' deliberately).
    Walid Fares was a member of the Lebanese Forces (Christian militia/party) during the civil war. That having been said, his analysis should be treated on its own merits, not based on past and present affiliations.

    In turn, that also having been said, I think his analysis is rather exaggerated, as I've posted above.
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 12-19-2007 at 09:42 PM.

  11. #11
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Not to worry...the Admiral who started this thread is off battling Klingons or whatever...they are as I am certain you know also part of the Syrian-Iranian Axis founded by....

    D. Evil

    Best

    Tom

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    Not to worry...the Admiral who started this thread is off battling Klingons or whatever...they are as I am certain you know also part of the Syrian-Iranian Axis founded by....

    D. Evil
    mu-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    (For the record, those would be Cylons, not Klingons.)

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    mu-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    (For the record, those would be Cylons, not Klingons.)
    But very cute Cylons this time!

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default - fighting by proxy

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

    "UN: Hizbullah has replenished missiles, Dan region in range"

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdmiralAdama View Post
    ... do you believe that Syria and Iran are both funding/supporting Hamas and Hezbollah?
    Yes. I think it's fact.

    Here's a report on recent coordinated activity involving Iranian intelligence, Syrian intelligence and Tehran-based Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mughniyah. This report might properly be categorized as OSINT I&W for some near-term state-sponsored terrorist operation in the Levant.


    Yalibnan, 17 Dec 07: Iranian intelligence official visits Lebanon
    Beirut - A senior Iranian intelligence officer arrived in Lebanon the week of Dec. 9, and Imad Mughniyah, Hezbollah official in charge of foreign operations accompanied the officer to his meetings there, Stratfor sources said Dec. 16.....
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 12-19-2007 at 09:46 PM. Reason: Edited for content. Do not cut-and-paste linked items in full. #2

  16. #16
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    For the most part, one can assume that the vast majority of OSINT on Imad Mughniyah 's movements are little more than RUMINT. One can also assume that a large amount of Stratfor reporting is RUMINT too. I guess that makes it RUMRUMINT.

    Yes, there is deep cooperation between Iran, Hizbullah, and Syria. Hamas does likely receive some Iranian funding, but it isn't its primary source, nor is it Iran's closest Palestinian connection (PIJ would be). Indeed, there's a degree of suspicion and arms-length in the Hamas-Iran connection, with the relationship something of a political liability for Hamas in the WB/G (hence the current Fateh anti-Hamas rally cry of "Shi'a! Shi'a!").

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    For the most part, one can assume that the vast majority of OSINT on Imad Mughniyah 's movements are little more than RUMINT.
    Rex,

    Don't be too quick to dismiss this as RUMINT. That might be a bit of a rash assumption to make with respect to Imad Mughniyeh.

    An article written by Magnus Ranstorp in July of 2006 ( counterterrorismblog.org ) might provide some insight. The first paragraph:

    Hizballah’s decision to kidnap the two IDF soldiers was taken by Sheikh Hassan Nasserallah and the other six members of the Shura Karar, its supreme decision-making body. Additionally there are two Iranian representatives (from the Iranian embassy in Beirut/Damascus) that provide a direct link on matters that require strategic guidance or Iranian assistance or arbitration. The file for handling special operations of this kind is usually left to Imad Mughniyeh, the elusive terrorist mastermind for Hizballah, who stands with one foot within Hizballah (reporting to Nasserallah directly) and with one foot in Iran inside the architectures of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) and the al-Qods unit within the Iranian Pasdaran. Mughniyeh is strictly reserved for special occasions (like the Buenos Aires bombing in 1992 to avenge the Israeli assassination of the previous leader Sheikh Abbas al-Musawi) and his primary mission over the last decade has been to forge qualitative ‘military’ guidance to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives inside Gaza and the West Bank.
    IF Imad Mughniyeh was in Lebanon and acting in the role reported in the linked Ya Libnon report, then something might be in the offing.

  18. #18
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Osborne View Post
    Don't be too quick to dismiss this as RUMINT. That might be a bit of a rash assumption to make with respect to Imad Mughniyeh.
    No assumptions being made. As is widely acknowledged, a primary reason that Mughniyya is still alive and so effective is precisely because he practices very careful tradecraft.

    “Mugniyah is probably the most intelligent, most capable operative we’ve ever run across, including the KGB or anybody else. He enters by one door, exits by another, changes his cars daily, never makes appointments on a telephone, never is predictable. He only uses people that are related to him that he can trust. He doesn’t just recruit people. He is the master terrorist, the grail that we have been after since 1983.”

    Robert Bauer, "Shadow Warrior," 60 Minutes, 1 May 2002.
    That ya Lubnan and Stratfor have cracked this seems, frankly, unlikely.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    As is widely acknowledged, a primary reason that Mughniyya is still alive and so effective is precisely because he practices very careful tradecraft.
    Absolutely.

    When it comes to this terrorist I would ordinarily agree with you, his OPSEC most likely would have no chance of being cracked by the sources noted.

    However, note that the cited report has beau coup specifics about people, places and itinerary that is extraordinary and almost certainly did not originate with Stratfor. I doubt they'd make such detail up out of the ether. I would tend to think that kind of info would almost have to be HUMINT-based.

    Don't know if another dot connects, but Hezbollah concluded a massive 3-day exercise a couple of weeks ago which was clearly in violation of UNSC 1701. Something might be brewing. Not saying it is or isn't, but might be.

  20. #20
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Post One would think something would be

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Osborne View Post
    Absolutely.

    When it comes to this terrorist I would ordinarily agree with you, his OPSEC most likely would have no chance of being cracked by the sources noted.

    However, note that the cited report has beau coup specifics about people, places and itinerary that is extraordinary and almost certainly did not originate with Stratfor. I doubt they'd make such detail up out of the ether. I would tend to think that kind of info would almost have to be HUMINT-based.

    Don't know if another dot connects, but Hezbollah concluded a massive 3-day exercise a couple of weeks ago which was clearly in violation of UNSC 1701. Something might be brewing. Not saying it is or isn't, but might be.
    As usual not trying to over simplify things but wouldn't it make sense that with the all the efforts in regards to this particular area right now, one would assume their not just going to sit on their duffs.

    They'll try something now if we knew the what rather then the who,

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •