Will Trump support Assad in Syria? Watch

Ambitious1999
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
I'm hoping that the US under Trump will realise that Assad and the Kurds are the only realistic future for Syria. It will be great if he will support a Syrian federation led by Assad with an autonomous Kurdish state, like they have in Iraq.

With both Russian and US support the Daesh but also jihadist rebels can be defeated and peace returned to Syria with a free Kurdistan in the North.
1
reply
Cato the Elder
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
We'll have to wait and see.

Trump is very anti-Iranian though, and he could backtrack from his stated opinions on the crisis and perhaps even force Assad to step down as a means of curbing Iranian influence in the region. Which would be a very good thing.
0
reply
Ambitious1999
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by Cato the Elder)
We'll have to wait and see.

Trump is very anti-Iranian though, and he could backtrack from his stated opinions on the crisis and perhaps even force Assad to step down as a means of curbing Iranian influence in the region. Which would be a very good thing.
But Iranians are Shia. It's the Sunni extremists who pose a threat to the rest of the world, FSA and Al Nusra is Sunni so is ISIS.
Iranians and Shia don't pose any threat to the west these days. Having more Iranian and Shia influence in the ME is a good thing I think.
1
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
I love the way Assad is painted as some sort of purer than pure shining light by his supporters. Wasn't it his refusal to accept elections that started this whole sorry episode?
1
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
(Original post by Cato the Elder)
We'll have to wait and see.

Trump is very anti-Iranian though, and he could backtrack from his stated opinions on the crisis and perhaps even force Assad to step down as a means of curbing Iranian influence in the region. Which would be a very good thing.
That's assuming Trump listens to the briefings to have any clue about what's going on.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by ByEeek)
I love the way Assad is painted as some sort of purer than pure shining light by his supporters. Wasn't it his refusal to accept elections that started this whole sorry episode?
Kind of plus opening fire and killing unarmed peaceful protesters is what people got upset about (excluding ambitious).

Btw will Trump support Assad? He's an unknown and I think he's more about Trump than anything else, so he's pragmatic, but inexperienced. I think he wouldnt have any problem overlooking the brutality of Assad. In all fairness there is very little the US can do because it was never prepared to send troops. It is not really a proper player as it has nobody to back.

I think they will turn a blind eye to the situation. Assad will go after anyone who opposed him with his death squads. the civil war wont end but the opposition will become guerilla fighters. Isis may hhave to give up territory and become a terrorist organisation again, but it will have plenty of money and supporters.

They will tolerate, but I doubt they will let an independent kurdistan remain as both Turkey, Iraq and Syria will want the land.
1
reply
Cato the Elder
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by Ambitious1999)
But Iranians are Shia. It's the Sunni extremists who pose a threat to the rest of the world, FSA and Al Nusra is Sunni so is ISIS.
Iranians and Shia don't pose any threat to the west these days. Having more Iranian and Shia influence in the ME is a good thing I think.
How naive you are.

The Iranian mullahs are Shiite Islamists who are intent on spreading their brand of revolutionary theocracy throughout the Middle East, and they're doing a pretty good job so far. Iraq is being patrolled by Shiite militias and in Syria Iranian-backed Shiite jihadists are fighting alongside the tyrant Bashar al-Assad. In Yemen, Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists are causing chaos.

More Iranian influence in the region will be, and has proven to be, a DISASTER. Sunni extremism feeds off of Iranian extremism. If Iran increases its influence it'll fuel the Sunni jihadists who see Iran as an existential enemy intent on recreating the Safavid Empire, and will deepen and accelerate the sectarian violence we are now seeing in he Middle East.

If you know a bit about the history of ISIS, you'll know that the Iranian regime was in a strategic partnership with the group during the Iraq War, giving them free access along their borders and giving them training and equipment to enable them to kill U.S. soldiers and frustrate the building of the new Iraq. The idea that Iran is a reliable partner against ISIS is nonsense. Iran would have to expend a great deal of blood and treasure to take out ISIS directly, which they are not willing to do. Far better to let ISIS run rampant throughout Iraq and Syria, making the regimes of both countries even more dependent on Iranian aid. The atrocities being committed against Sunnis in Syria by Iran and its proxies is precisely what has driven many into the arms of ISIS.

Iran has created the environment in which Sunni terrorist groups can flourish. Giving them more influence so that they can exert imperialistic domination over the Middle East is the last thing that that benighted region needs.

Read the following:

https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...rder-part-one/
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...rder-part-two/
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...er-part-three/
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...der-part-four/
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...keep-isis-out/
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...red-questions/
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...ound-in-syria/

There are loads more where that came from.
0
reply
Ambitious1999
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by ByEeek)
I love the way Assad is painted as some sort of purer than pure shining light by his supporters. Wasn't it his refusal to accept elections that started this whole sorry episode?
Assad was a secular leader who ruled a multi ethnic Syria. The sorry episode started as a result of the Al Quaeda inspired Arab spring that set to spread Sunni extremism across the ME.

The Arab spring was designed to remove the strong authoritarian leaders who kept many countries in the ME and North Africa stable. They'd seen how successful a chaotic power vacuum was in post Saddam's Iraq. If the leaders of Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria could be toppled then the ensuring chaos would be springboard to spreading radical Sunni Jihad in these places, getting rid of, secularism getting rid of Christians, Shia, Alawite, Yazidis and even moderate secular Sunnis. Aleppo was a prime example; a multi-cultural city that was invaded in the dark days of 2012 by jihadist rebels from the countryside and abroad, intent on making Aleppo a Sunni only city.

It was quite cunning how they did it. In 2011 the issue was mass poverty and unemployment in the ME caused by the bankers global recession. The terrorist leaders told young people that their leaders were solely to blame for their poverty and if they rose up they could topple their authoritarian leaders and enjoy US style freedom, wealth and democracy. The resulting power vacuum was however an opportunity for extremists to fill the void and spread Wahabists salafism.

The fact is these countries need strong leaders like Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad and Saddam Hussein to stop extremism.

The question is who was behind the Arab Spring? Al Queda, The US, Zionists or all three?
0
reply
BigMan Ting
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Ambitious1999)
Assad was a secular leader who ruled a multi ethnic Syria. The sorry episode started as a result of the Al Quaeda inspired Arab spring that set to spread Sunni extremism across the ME.

The Arab spring was designed to remove the strong authoritarian leaders who kept many countries in the ME and North Africa stable. They'd seen how successful a chaotic power vacuum was in post Saddam's Iraq. If the leaders of Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria could be toppled then the ensuring chaos would be springboard to spreading radical Sunni Jihad in these places, getting rid of, secularism getting rid of Christians, Shia, Alawite, Yazidis and even moderate secular Sunnis. Aleppo was a prime example; a multi-cultural city that was invaded in the dark days of 2012 by jihadist rebels from the countryside and abroad, intent on making Aleppo a Sunni only city.

It was quite cunning how they did it. In 2011 the issue was mass poverty and unemployment in the ME caused by the bankers global recession. The terrorist leaders told young people that their leaders were solely to blame for their poverty and if they rose up they could topple their authoritarian leaders and enjoy US style freedom, wealth and democracy. The resulting power vacuum was however an opportunity for extremists to fill the void and spread Wahabists salafism.

The question is who was behind the Arab Spring? Al Queda, The US, Zionists or all three?
The Zionists and US. They have a very funny relationship, Al Qaeda are just the new PLO - everyone has seen that is what they are and what they ever will be.
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by Ambitious1999)
But Iranians are Shia. It's the Sunni extremists who pose a threat to the rest of the world, FSA and Al Nusra is Sunni so is ISIS.
Iranians and Shia don't pose any threat to the west these days. Having more Iranian and Shia influence in the ME is a good thing I think.
Yes they will love more Iranian and Russian influence in the ME. You should get a job in PR or become a diplomat once you leave school.
0
reply
BigMan Ting
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Cato the Elder)
How naive you are.

The Iranian mullahs are Shiite Islamists who are intent on spreading their brand of revolutionary theocracy throughout the Middle East, and they're doing a pretty good job so far. Iraq is being patrolled by Shiite militias and in Syria Iranian-backed Shiite jihadists are fighting alongside the tyrant Bashar al-Assad. In Yemen, Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists are causing chaos.

More Iranian influence in the region will be, and has proven to be, a DISASTER. Sunni extremism feeds off of Iranian extremism. If Iran increases its influence it'll fuel the Sunni jihadists who see Iran as an existential enemy intent on recreating the Safavid Empire, and will deepen and accelerate the sectarian violence we are now seeing in he Middle East.

If you know a bit about the history of ISIS, you'll know that the Iranian regime was in a strategic partnership with the group during the Iraq War, giving them free access along their borders and giving them training and equipment to enable them to kill U.S. soldiers and frustrate the building of the new Iraq. The idea that Iran is a reliable partner against ISIS is nonsense. Iran would have to expend a great deal of blood and treasure to take out ISIS directly, which they are not willing to do. Far better to let ISIS run rampant throughout Iraq and Syria, making the regimes of both countries even more dependent on Iranian aid. The atrocities being committed against Sunnis in Syria by Iran and its proxies is precisely what has driven many into the arms of ISIS.

Iran has created the environment in which Sunni terrorist groups can flourish. Giving them more influence so that they can exert imperialistic domination over the Middle East is the last thing that that benighted region needs.

Read the following:

https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...rder-part-one/
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...rder-part-two/
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...er-part-three/
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...der-part-four/
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...keep-isis-out/
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...red-questions/
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/...ound-in-syria/

There are loads more where that came from.
I think Assad is doing what Hussein did, they both want to run secular states. Unfortunately with the rise in radicalisation in Islam in the ME, as the root cause of this started because of Israel-Palestine and the immediate Gulf Wars that followed after it, you can only say the blame lies between the two perpetrators. I believe the crux of this was because of an agreement between the US and Zionists in the ME, especially Netenyahus government who still occupy Palestinian areas today.
0
reply
Ambitious1999
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by 999tigger)
Yes they will love more Iranian and Russian influence in the ME. You should get a job in PR or become a diplomat once you leave school.
One things for sure, western influence has not worked in the ME, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. Everything we touch we wreck beyond repair.

I think we should just leave the ME to Russia, they're all for maintaining the status quo rather than our obsession for disaterous regime change.
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Ambitious1999)
One things for sure, western influence has not worked in the ME, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. Everything we touch we wreck beyond repair.

I think we should just leave the ME to Russia, they're all for maintaining the status quo rather than our obsession for disaterous regime change.
You should go and study history as well as PR at uni.
Iraq was about regime change.
Afghanistan was to get rid of the Taliban and stop Al Qeda having a permanent base.
Libya was about preventing the slaughter of civilians in Benghazi from a mentally unstable dictator.
Syria wasnt somewhere the QWest wanted to get involved in. Blame than on your hero assad for shooting unarmed civilians in peaceful protest.


Wreck beyond repair? Yes ofc they were peaceful regions beforehand. I didnt think you were from the UK? O am surpised . Uoi spit enough anti UK stuff I thought you were Russian.
0
reply
Ambitious1999
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by 999tigger)
You should go and study history as well as PR at uni.
Iraq was about regime change.
Afghanistan was to get rid of the Taliban and stop Al Qeda having a permanent base.
Libya was about preventing the slaughter of civilians in Benghazi from a mentally unstable dictator.
Syria wasnt somewhere the QWest wanted to get involved in. Blame than on your hero assad for shooting unarmed civilians in peaceful protest.


Wreck beyond repair? Yes ofc they were peaceful regions beforehand. I didnt think you were from the UK? O am surpised . Uoi spit enough anti UK stuff I thought you were Russian.
I was referring to how the west supplied weapons to Afghan jihadist Mujahadeen in the 1980s to attack the Afghan secular socialist government and the Russians who came to help the Afghan government. The people we supplied with weapons were the Mujahadeen which is jihadist and would later splinter to create the Taliban and Al Queda who would attack the west in the late 90s and 2000s.

Our 2000 intervention in Afghanistan was to try and destroy the legacy from what we'd created in the 1980s.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Cato the Elder)
Trump is very anti-Iranian though
He's not as anti-Iran as he is pro-Russia.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by Ambitious1999)
I was referring to how the west supplied weapons to Afghan jihadist Mujahadeen in the 1980s to attack the Afghan secular socialist government and the Russians who came to help the Afghan government. The people we supplied with weapons were the Mujahadeen which is jihadist and would later splinter to create the Taliban and Al Queda who would attack the west in the late 90s and 2000s.

Our 2000 intervention in Afghanistan was to try and destroy the legacy from what we'd created in the 1980s.
The Afghan war in the 80s was a proxy war with Russia. They didnt know or care about Jihad at the time. They wouldnt have attacked Afghanistan of they hadnt been letting AQ usie it to train more terrorists.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by Palmyra)
He's not as anti-Iran as he is pro-Russia.
Disagree. I think he loathes Iran hence the person he has put in charge of the military and the state department. It will be interesting to see how he copes with foreign policy and if he ties himself up in knots.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by 999tigger)
Disagree. I think he loathes Iran hence the person he has put in charge of the military and the state department. It will be interesting to see how he copes with foreign policy and if he ties himself up in knots.
His Secretary of State (Rex Tillerson) is essentially Putin's lap dog, and he has made a point of saying Iran/Assad/Russia are all fighting ISIS in Syria.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by Palmyra)
His Secretary of State (Rex Tillerson) is essentially Putin's lap dog, and he has made a point of saying Iran/Assad/Russia are all fighting ISIS in Syria.
We will see if he follows through and cancels the nuclear deal. You seem to forget only one of them is a superpower. Trump is a very changeable salesman. he cant allow to get too close to the Russians.
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by 999tigger)
We will see if he follows through and cancels the nuclear deal. You seem to forget only one of them is a superpower. Trump is a very changeable salesman. he cant allow to get too close to the Russians.
The nuclear deal is a multilateral agreement which was the culmination of years of intense negotiations between Iran, the P5+1 (US, the UK, China, France, Russia and Germany) and the EU. Trump can't just unilaterally 'cancel' it (or the UNSCR which terminated the sanctions).

The three biggest themes of Trump's campaign were (i) jobs, (ii) closer ties with Russia, and (iii) fighting ISIS. All of these limit the likelihood of Trump "ripping up" (insofar as he can do this - which he can't) the Iran deal. Firstly, Iran recently signed a $16 billion deal with Boeing which supports 100,000 American jobs. Secondly, Russia and Iran are very close allies (Russia recently having delivered the latest S-300 missiles to Iran with further military exports likely in the near future, in addition to close cooperation in Syria). Lastly, Trump has repeatedly said that Iran and Russia are fighting ISIS, which he views as by far the biggest threat to the US.

As a result, I don't believe Iran has much to fear from Trump (and, for other reasons not mentioned above, they are well-placed to deal with any irrational acts by Trump).
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (116)
65.91%
No I haven't decided yet (36)
20.45%
Yes but I might change my mind (24)
13.64%

Watched Threads

View All