US opposes Iran role in coalition against Islamic State


                                               I think the US is probably the only country in the world with the audacity to tell the Syrian government, who have ISIS in there country, and Iran who face them on there border, they need to stay out of a fight with ISIS. 

                                                I think it's America, there Wahhabist allies in the Gulf, and Turkey, who have shown time and again that they can't be trusted, who need to stay out of this.


I think it’s because Iran and Syria won’t follow American Imperialist commands. The US wants a region full of American serfs who won’t dare question the orders of their overlords.


Iran has already tried to prop up Assad. It isn’t working. Remember Shiites are a small minority in Syria. He doesn’t hold the land and he doesn’t have the forces to hold the nation. Syria as a country with the borders we knew doesn’t exist anymore. References:

“Syria appears to be settling into a four-way de facto partition between the regime,
a politically inchoate opposition, ISIS, and the Democratic Union Party, or PYD—a
Kurdish secessionist movement that controls three enclaves in the north. The lines of this partition fluctuate with the military situation, such as ISIS’s recent offensive
against the regime in the east. No party is poised to achieve a major breakthrough
that alters the strategic balance without significant external intervention. Meanwhile,
the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate. The Assad regime is likely to
extend its policy of “starve or kneel.”28 Ongoing fighting will continue to drive
both displacement and the need for humanitarian aid.”

The Assad regime has an estimated 125,000 regular military forces at its disposal,
taking into account defections and casualties. However, the number of loyal
troops may be closer to 50,000. (this is prior to the loss of the air base in the north at the end of August.) These regular forces are supplemented by roughly
100,000 fighters in the paramilitary National Defense Forces, as well as 4,000 to 5,000
Hezbollah fighters and 2,000 to 5,000 fighters from Iraqi Shia militias, many of whom
retreated to Iraq to fight ISIS there. In addition, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard provides
an estimated several hundred to 1,500 fighters on the ground in Syria.

The anti-Assad opposition remains factionalized. In February, Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper estimated that the Syrian insurgency numbered between
75,000 and 115,000 combatants organized into 1,500 separate groups. Clapper also
estimated that jihadi fighters from ISIS, al-Nusra Front, and Salafi extremist group
Ahrar al-Sham numbered more than 20,000, with more than 7,500 foreign fighters
from approximately 50 countries joining the conflict. A more recent estimate from
the National Counterterrorism Center put the number of foreign fighters at 12,000. (The CIA recently came out with a report with ISIS over 30,000.)

The Islamic Front, a group of ultraconservative Syrian Salafi brigades, is estimated to
number anywhere between 40,000 and 60,000 fighters.


Many moderate Sunnis are on the side of Assad and they hold some key positions in government. The country’s Sunni Grand Mufti supports the government, and the President’s wife and family are Sunnis.


Assad has committed and is continuing to genocide against Sunnis in Syria. He isn’t winning the hearts and minds of what use to be his population.

Like I said, he has lost much of his country.


However, the U.S. would settle for a region of sane people who didn’t regularly commit genocide and express a desire to commit more genocide.

The U.S. has done some pretty stupid things. It’s probably going to do more. But if you think Iran and Syria are more trustworthy, then I think there may be a little “hate the big guy” complex involved in your reasoning.


As I recall, after 9/11 and before we went into Iraq, the talk was of creating three regions in Iraq: a northern Kurdish region, a middle, and a southern. Many of the proponents said that would ensure success in our efforts.

I wonder what the problem would be with this idea?


Assad has been doing a fairly amazing job. For the past 3 years he has been holding out against U.S Saudi, Israeli and turkey funded and trained terrorists. Even Sunnis are joining with Assad. Yes Iran and hezbollah don’t exactly have the best reputation (and deservedly so)
But you do have minorities like the Christians fleeing to them for protection. And that’s the real tell right there. When you have Christians fleeing to hezbollah. Not Instead of, but FROM the U.S backed forces, you have a real problem.


Entering into the ME us entering into a war of all against all. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, when it comes to sharing common enemies with Assad and Iran.

Kudos to the Obama administration for that basic acknowledgement. The basic dysfunctionalality that is the ME, where there is no such thing as a good choice, only choices that are less wrong that others, is something that preceded Bush, and something that will last much longer than Bush and Obama together.

In the meantime, there is a particularly dangerous fire that needs snuffing.


-]/-]So does Obama have any kind of coalition lined up?
I think it is a mess. Who can you trust in the Middle East if they hate the West? What if it is a trap and draws Russia in? Germany has said no to helping us. Hopefully, someone will come up with a better plan than anything they have used in the last 10 years.


It is playing out the same as the last time Iraq was the theater of war. Turkey is dragging its feet, this time because it is worried about the hostages it took, so America will have to base itself in the south.
Bush managed to get a lot of nations signed onto the coalition of the willing. It doesn’t seem that Obama has built up enough friends in the ‘international community’ to have as much success in that venture as what was the case the last time.


In Syria, the areas where Christians, minorities are allowed to live safely and rebuild after the war, are incidentally government controlled areas.

Assad was running a secular government which protected minorities from rabid extremists. The US marched in, with the Saudis, and created a mess.


The US would settle for a region of people who follow it’s dictates to the T.

If not, mysterious, dubious accounts of “genocide” appear and whaddya know, the US is carpet bombing civilian populations for “humanitarian reasons”.

Since when did slaughtering civilians count as saving lives?

The US cares little for human life, human rights. It’s primary goal is ensuring its continued hegemony.

Want an illustration? Just look at all of the little dictators the US set up in South America.


Oh wait, then there’s the other side to the Putin story.

Iran, Assad and Hezbollah are using Christian persecution by ISIS to hijack the minorities

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad claims his forces are fighting to protect Christians in Syria, but Nassar says that protection is a myth.

“The regime protects itself,” he says. “The regime uses Christians as a political card, and the opposition uses the minorities and Christians as a political card. Nobody has any interest to protect the Christians.”

“We are between two fires,” he continues. “One fire is the regime, which is a dictatorship. The other fire is a fragmented, lost opposition. They don’t know where to start building the country.”

Nassar sees some hope in the peace talks that recently took place in Geneva. He calls the talks historic.

“Never in the modern life of Syria could people from different parties of different political persuasions sit around a table and talk. So we need to acknowledge that. And then we need to build on that."


This comes right after Netanyahu told the US not to side with Iran when fighting ISIS.

So, now you know who sets US ME policy.



Agreed. Check this out - ouch.

Barack Obama’s plan to fight Isil is hard to believe

After dodging any commitment in Syria for three years, Barack Obama’s sudden call for leadership is undermined by his lack of credibility at home and abroad

I heard all of these positive commentaries about Obama’s speech on engaging ISIL/S. It’s like we were watching a different person. I thought he looked like he was at the dentist. Almost paralyzed with disgust and discomfort at what he was saying. Add in a little fear and incompetency. Jimmy Carter looks like Patton these days. Disgraceful, even to the point of inspiring pity. Only problem - Obama is the leader of the free world. The only person in the world in a position to confront the threat that the Islamic State poses to us all.


I swear I can’t figure our president out. I don’t think he gives confidence to any other world leaders who see ISIS as a threat


Barack Obama’s plan to fight Isil is hard to believe
After dodging any commitment in Syria for three years, Barack Obama’s sudden call for leadership is undermined by his lack of credibility at home and abroad

Who was Obama suppose to commit to in Syria ?

Assad ?


The multiple moderate rebel groups who don’t have the organization to defeat either ISIS nor Assad ? Giving weapons to them only means that ISIS will capture them after they’re overrun.

But that’s what it appears we’re about to do, for we can’t support Iran who supports Assad.



DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit