Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
I believe the point of the article is that Assad should be supported in regaining control of Syrian territory.
By side the fact that you're proposing cooperation with a character responsible for deployment of chemical weapons against civilians (not only insurgents); detention and murder of at least 15,000, more likely 60,000 peaceful protesters; for wholesale destruction of nearly all major cities in Syria; for death of up to 400,000 Syrians in total (of which about 210,000 are 'confirmed'); for provoking a civil war with inter-religious and inter-ethnic 'flavour'; who is not only cooperating with such terrorist organizations like the IRGC, Hezbollah, PFLP etc., but depends on them for his naked survival...

...but: how?

As for the various forces fighting with the SAA they are only doing that because the US/UK/France/Turkey have been supporting the other guys.
First of all, you should define 'SAA' here. What is 'Syrian Arab Army' today? Where is it? For example: can you mention at least one battalion or brigade of the 'Syrian Arab Army' that is still existent?

(PLEASE: just one battalion or brigade, I'm not asking for anything more.)

... As the de facto government of Syria working with Assad means we assist conditionally; he leashes his dogs (and sends them back to where they come from)...
Assad is neither in control of the IRGC-QF, nor in control of IRGC's 'regulars' deployed in Syria, or in control of Iraqi Hezbollahis recruited by the IRGC and deployed in Syria to fight against insurgents: only Khamenei is (via Vahid). Assad is not in control of the Hezbollah. Assad is not in control of such 'native' militias like the NDF (this is commanded by IRGC-QF officers), not in control of the Ba'ath Party Militia, not in control of the SSNP's militia, not in control of the PLA, not in control of the PFLP. He's not even in control of various Alawite- or IC-run militias that could be considered 'closest' to the regime (indeed, some of them are run by members of the 'inner circle').

He's only in control of quasi MOD and the chain of command inherited from the former Syrian Arab Army - the primary purpose of which is to represent that 'SAA' in the public, the air force (which is including the former air defence force), 2-3 brigades and few artillery regiments (all that is left) of the former Republican Guards Division and little else.

So, how should he 'leash his dogs'? And what do you think would the IRGC-QF do if he comes to the idea to tell them, 'thanks a lot, you can now go home'?

The point is you can't help restore the Iraqi state and leave out the Syrians when they are both fighting the same enemy (which also happens to be our enemy).
Since when is the 'regime' in Syria fighting the Daesh?

Except for Daesh's attack on Tabqa AB and nearby Army bases, can you cite one major clash between any of militias fighting for the regime and the Daesh?

And if the regime in Syria is not fighting the Daesh (which is the case), then how can you say that this regime and the government of Iraq are 'fighting the same enemy'?

As for the Iranians they are merely doing what they have to to keep those maniacs as far away from their borders as they can (they are fighting in Iraq too don't you know).
I can even cite from the Iranian doctrine of national defence developed several years ago. That's why I do understand they're fighting this battle in Syria and Iraq, no problem with this.

But, what's going to happen once they - supposedly - 'win' that war?

Or, alternatively: what's going to happen if they lose?

The best way to get the Iranians out of Syria and Iraq is to ... take their place. IMO. How is another question. I don't think large scale "BOG" is the answer. SoF (which can also collect valuable intelligence on the ground), artillery and air power might well be though.
So, you want to replace the IRGC-QF's presence and influence between the Shi'a of Iraq with help of few SF teams?

Good luck...