This was an interesting take on the whole thing, and I think it’s quite plausible. He basically argues that the west might be intentionally drawn into a trap in Syria. Incidentally, there is a RAND paper that warns against this exact scenario. It basically argues that putting Syria under stress is beneficial to the US, but there is a risk of over commitment.
Russia and Iran aren’t stupid, and they likely saw that the west was going to flare up the conflict in Syria again. One option was to pour resources into Syria to fight off the jihadists. This would be long and protracted quagmire. The other options was simply to withdraw and let them take it. These groups all hate each other, and they’re not a cohesive fighting force. They’re already starting to fight each other just days after taking over, and it’s only going to get worse.
The west wants to have a compliant regime in Syria and that requires using coercive methods that will inevitably breed resentment from these groups. This is basically what happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan where the insurgents ultimately turned on their masters.
On top of all that, Israel is now invading Syria in a big way, and they’re unlikely to withdraw. It’s only a matter of time till they start getting attacked, and this will force the west to keep pouring resources to prop them up. In effect, this flips the script on Syria. Instead of Russia and Iran being on the hook propping it up while the west can keep destabilizing it relatively cheaply. It is now the west that’s stuck with a very volatile situation.
I think this is a reasonable take. And while I’m not going to pretend like this situation doesn’t present a problem for the Iran-Hezbollah supply line, I think that a fractured Syria probably means those supply lines can still be maintained. The Zionist entity will probably try and control as much of the Syria/Lebanon border as possible, but I think that will only serve to align more domestic Syrian forces against them.
Exactly, and this also draws Israel out where they’re much more vulnerable. The situation was pretty stable for Israel before because there was absolutely no chance that anybody would try a direct invasion. However, now they’re stuck in a three front conflict with Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.
I have to finish the video but God, I hope so. Can you imagine the IOF cowards engaging in that kind of ground warfare? I know i shouldn’t analyze from an angle of vengeance but the IOF deserve the worst things to happen to them.
This was an interesting take on the whole thing, and I think it’s quite plausible. He basically argues that the west might be intentionally drawn into a trap in Syria. Incidentally, there is a RAND paper that warns against this exact scenario. It basically argues that putting Syria under stress is beneficial to the US, but there is a risk of over commitment.
Russia and Iran aren’t stupid, and they likely saw that the west was going to flare up the conflict in Syria again. One option was to pour resources into Syria to fight off the jihadists. This would be long and protracted quagmire. The other options was simply to withdraw and let them take it. These groups all hate each other, and they’re not a cohesive fighting force. They’re already starting to fight each other just days after taking over, and it’s only going to get worse.
The west wants to have a compliant regime in Syria and that requires using coercive methods that will inevitably breed resentment from these groups. This is basically what happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan where the insurgents ultimately turned on their masters.
On top of all that, Israel is now invading Syria in a big way, and they’re unlikely to withdraw. It’s only a matter of time till they start getting attacked, and this will force the west to keep pouring resources to prop them up. In effect, this flips the script on Syria. Instead of Russia and Iran being on the hook propping it up while the west can keep destabilizing it relatively cheaply. It is now the west that’s stuck with a very volatile situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVMfckVQ7Hg
I think this is a reasonable take. And while I’m not going to pretend like this situation doesn’t present a problem for the Iran-Hezbollah supply line, I think that a fractured Syria probably means those supply lines can still be maintained. The Zionist entity will probably try and control as much of the Syria/Lebanon border as possible, but I think that will only serve to align more domestic Syrian forces against them.
Exactly, and this also draws Israel out where they’re much more vulnerable. The situation was pretty stable for Israel before because there was absolutely no chance that anybody would try a direct invasion. However, now they’re stuck in a three front conflict with Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.
Yeah, it does bring IOF into the open where they can have many “difficult security incidents”
Syria could become Israel’s Afghanistan.
I have to finish the video but God, I hope so. Can you imagine the IOF cowards engaging in that kind of ground warfare? I know i shouldn’t analyze from an angle of vengeance but the IOF deserve the worst things to happen to them.
Indeed
This is a plausible best case scenario. It’s just a question of time how long it takes for the west to bleed itself to death.
This would be in line with the general strategic analysis of how to defeat empires. I hope it’s the case
It seems pretty heartless if true. ISIS has already started mass executions.
It is, but Russia is already at war and Iran is likely to be attacked next. Committing to a war in Syria could have disastrous consequences for both.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: