Will Russia kick Iran out of Syria?

[Sumerian]

Recently statements from Russian officials - including Putin - have been along the lines of "all foreign forces must leave", and yes, they confirmed they mean Iran and Hezbollah too.

Add to that, there will be no Iranian or pro-Iranian representation in the anticipated Southern Offensive, due to an agreement between Russia and Israel. Russia and Israel will also be communicating all throughout the offensive.

What do people say?

[Sirius_Bright]

10 hours ago, Sumerian said:

an agreement between Russia and Israel

What was the agreement?

[Zurushkan]

12 minutes ago, Sirius_Bright said:

What was the agreement?

Basically that Iran and Hezbollah not participate with the SAA for the Southern Offensive.

[Dreamcatcher]

I don't think they meant "Leave" Syria, just not take part in the Southern Offensive due to Israel's border. This just means SAA will tackle the Southern Offensive without, at least, open involvement of Iran or Hezbollah.

[Sumerian]

1 hour ago, Dreamcatcher said:

I don't think they meant "Leave" Syria, just not take part in the Southern Offensive due to Israel's border. This just means SAA will tackle the Southern Offensive without, at least, open involvement of Iran or Hezbollah.

No, they said two things. They said they will not participate in the Southern Offensive, and they should leave Syria all together sooner or later.

[Dreamcatcher]

36 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

No, they said two things. They said they will not participate in the Southern Offensive, and they should leave Syria all together sooner or later.

Let's see what outcome of the Southern Offensive is first. I doubt the pro-Asad forces (including the Russians) will leave Syria anytime soon, even if the war comes to a complete hault and peace prevails. I wonder what happens when the opposition's "foreign friends" are asked to leave too.

[Sumerian]

1 hour ago, Dreamcatcher said:

Let's see what outcome of the Southern Offensive is first. I doubt the pro-Asad forces (including the Russians) will leave Syria anytime soon, even if the war comes to a complete hault and peace prevails. I wonder what happens when the opposition's "foreign friends" are asked to leave too.

Obviously the anti-government foreign forces will leave first, but then Russia will expect Iran and Hezbollah to follow through.

[Ashvazdanghe]

 

الکن والایام السته

From 19:00 to 31:14

She explains what will happen from Shia Hadiths (Arabic)

 

السنه والشیعه فی القرآن)الامام علی والابواب الاربعه (eng sub ) IMAM Ali &   four gates

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Ashvazdanghe

[shiasoldier786]

Russia doesnt have the ability to force Iran out. Iranian/Hezbollah/shia fighters control the ground and vastly outnumber the russians.

Could possibly be a tactical withdrawal by Iran from southern syria to allow SAA to take ground. Who will stop them moving back in once the rebels are sent to idlibstan?

[coldcow]

Russia doesn't care about Iran, it just wants to maintain access to it's naval facility in Syria.  As such it had to ensure it had a friendly power ruling Syria.  It didn't want to put Russian troops on the ground, so it supported Iran  and had them send most of the troops on the ground but gave them some weapons and air support.  But if you watch the news, you'll see Putin and Netanyahu being pals together.  Russia knows that Israel is the only real power in the region that can destabilize their plans for maintaining their naval facilities.  Russia doesn't have to force Iran to leave.  All they have to do is withdraw all support (weapons, air power, etc).  If they wanted to force Iran to leave, they could threaten to stop selling them weapons.  And even though Russian weapons are no match for American, they're better than anythign produced locally.  

[Sumerian]

15 minutes ago, coldcow said:

Russia doesn't care about Iran, it just wants to maintain access to it's naval facility in Syria.  As such it had to ensure it had a friendly power ruling Syria.  It didn't want to put Russian troops on the ground, so it supported Iran  and had them send most of the troops on the ground but gave them some weapons and air support.  But if you watch the news, you'll see Putin and Netanyahu being pals together.  Russia knows that Israel is the only real power in the region that can destabilize their plans for maintaining their naval facilities.  Russia doesn't have to force Iran to leave.  All they have to do is withdraw all support (weapons, air power, etc).  If they wanted to force Iran to leave, they could threaten to stop selling them weapons.  And even though Russian weapons are no match for American, they're better than anythign produced locally.  

Also, what would be the use of maintaining a force in Syria from the Iranian viewpoint after all the threats to Assad's power has been extinguished? 

I'm saying if the rebels and the SDF are defeated or they surrender or they sign a peace treaty and Assad controls all the land, why maintain a force in Syria after that scenario? 

Economically it makes no sense for Iran.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Sumerian

[Soldiers and Saffron]

Syria decides who stays in Syria.

[Urwatul Wuthqa]

On 6/2/2018 at 10:58 AM, Sumerian said:

What do people say?

It would be a strategic loss for Iran & Hizb if they were asked to leave Syria.  Anyway, if it is the cost for having enduring peace & stability in Syria, I think Iran would have no objection to pay that price. 

[Sumerian]

Just now, Salsabeel said:

It would be a strategic loss for Iran & Hizb if they were asked to leave Syria.  Anyway, if it is the cost for having enduring peace & stability in Syria, I think Iran would have no objection to pay that price. 

Why is it a strategic loss though? What have they lost? Their mission is complete, Assad controls all of Syria.

[Urwatul Wuthqa]

1 minute ago, Sumerian said:

Why is it a strategic loss though? What have they lost? Their mission is complete, Assad controls all of Syria.

I think the game of Assad is over now.

Israelis will try desperately to break that supply line of Hizbullah which Iran maintains through Syria. 

[Sumerian]

1 minute ago, Salsabeel said:

I think the game of Assad is over now.

Israelis will try desperately to break that supply line of Hizbullah which Iran maintains through Syria. 

Iran was supplying Hezbollah through Syria before 2011, so before they had a presence on the ground in the first place.

[Urwatul Wuthqa]

5 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Iran was supplying Hezbollah through Syria before 2011, so before they had a presence on the ground in the first place.

Before that Asad & his father was in strong position in Syria and Iran had very good relationship with them. Now they are not in that position. Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia & Israel will not allow Assad to remain in power. Russians will just focus on getting proper loyal replacement of Assad for themselves. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Salsabeel

[shiasoldier786]

40 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Iran was supplying Hezbollah through Syria before 2011, so before they had a presence on the ground in the first place.

From the Israeli perspective, their biggest nightmare is facing rockets/guerilla fighters along a unified front in Syria & Lebanon (and maybe Gaza to a lesser extent). South Lebanon proved to be too tough for them in 2006, so could you imagine them fighting on 3 fronts, with battle hardened Hezbollah fighers that can rain down rockets on tel aviv daily from both Syria and Lebanon.

This is precisely why they are ready to ready to abandon their nusra rebel proxies on the border if Iran/hezbollah also withdraw. From the Israeli calculation, Assad/regular SAA will not open a front against Israel.

[Sumerian]

48 minutes ago, shiasoldier786 said:

From the Israeli perspective, their biggest nightmare is facing rockets/guerilla fighters along a unified front in Syria & Lebanon (and maybe Gaza to a lesser extent). South Lebanon proved to be too tough for them in 2006, so could you imagine them fighting on 3 fronts, with battle hardened Hezbollah fighers that can rain down rockets on tel aviv daily from both Syria and Lebanon.

This is precisely why they are ready to ready to abandon their nusra rebel proxies on the border if Iran/hezbollah also withdraw. From the Israeli calculation, Assad/regular SAA will not open a front against Israel.

Yea, but no one wants a war on the Golan, especially Assad.

[Mohamed1993]

Iran will eventually leave Syria, to sustain your presence you need popular support, Hezbollah has that in South Lebanon, in Syria the demographics work against Iran, barring areas like Tartus, Latakia and Damascus, where Assad is very popular, I don't see how Syrians living in Homs, Hama, Idlib, Raqqa or near the Golan would want a Shia country occupying them. In any case, I think Iran has enough domestic problems, their economy needs to be well thought out, because things will get tougher without JCPOA, so it may be a good leeway to channel some resources to building at home. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Mohamed1993

[Soldiers and Saffron]

24 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I don't see how Syrians living in Homs, Hama, Idlib, Raqqa or near the Golan would want a Shia country occupying them.

You mean to say the other places in Syria are currently occupied by Iran? Thats quite the exaggeration in my opinion.

[Mohamed1993]

50 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

You mean to say the other places in Syria are currently occupied by Iran? Thats quite the exaggeration in my opinion.

There are Iranian backed forces from Pakistan and Afghanistan that once the war is over will have no purpose in Syria anymore. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

9 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

There are Iranian backed forces from Pakistan and Afghanistan that once the war is over will have no purpose in Syria anymore. 

The Liwa Fatimiyoun?

[Soldiers and Saffron]

17 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

There are Iranian backed forces from Pakistan and Afghanistan that once the war is over will have no purpose in Syria anymore. 

InshaAllah they could be a loaded gun aimed towards the makers of mischief, ready whenever the time comes.

 

Either way, having military bases in the south of Syria with the permission of the government and saying that Iran is occupying the whole country are two EXTREMELY different statements.

Edited June 4, 2018 by IbnSina

[Mohamed1993]

2 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

The Liwa Fatimiyoun?

There are many, that's one. Imam Ali Battalions is another, they are Iraqi though. They participated in the Palmyra operation. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

1 minute ago, Mohamed1993 said:

There are many, that's one. Imam Ali Battalions is another, they are Iraqi though. They participated in the Palmyra operation. 

Thanks brother!

[Mohamed1993]

9 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

Either way, having military bases in the south of Syria with the permission of the government and saying that Iran is occupying the whole country are two EXTREMELY different statements.

The bases aren't only in Southern Syria. The authority of a dictatorial government is questionable, the Saudis are bombing Yemen with the authority of the int'l recognised government of Yemen, does that make it legitimate? The US has bases in Qatar/Bahrain, are their bases legitimate? People matter, I don't place too much value on what Assad or what any authoritarian government says. There was a poll on how Syrians view Iran, in some parts of Syria the opinion of Iranian involvement was favourable in some areas it was not. 

[Soldiers and Saffron]

1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

The bases aren't only in Southern Syria. The authority of a dictatorial government is questionable, the Saudis are bombing Yemen with the authority of the int'l recognised government of Yemen, does that make it legitimate? The US has bases in Qatar/Bahrain, are their bases legitimate? People matter, I don't place too much value on what Assad or what any authoritarian government says. There was a poll on how Syrians view Iran, in some parts of Syria the opinion of Iranian involvement was favourable in some areas it was not. 

By your definitions and rhetoric then you would consider the government of Syria a occupational force in Syria?

[Mohamed1993]

33 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

By your definitions and rhetoric then you would consider the government of Syria a occupational force in Syria?

It's a dictatorial government. It's pretty simple. You can't say the Saudi and Qatari royal families are illegitimate and then talk about Assad being a legitimate leader. Just because he's not backed by the US, his word has legitimacy regardless of how he deals with his own people? What kind of leader tortures his own people in cooperation with the US government and then absolves himself of all blame when his actions are questioned? 

[Soldiers and Saffron]

1 minute ago, Mohamed1993 said:

It's a dictatorial government. It's pretty simple. You can't say the Saudi and Qatari royal families are illegitimate and then talk about Assad being a legitimate leader. Just because he's not backed by the US, his word has legitimacy regardless of how he deals with his own people? What kind of leader tortures his own people in cooperation with the US government and then absolves himself of all blame when his actions are questioned? 

I think we have a difference of opinion regarding the support of the Syrians towards their government.

To my understanding the majority of Syrians support the government, that might not be the cases of the examples you mentioned.

[Mohamed1993]

3 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

To my understanding the majority of Syrians support the government, that might not be the cases of the examples you mentioned.

Depends on the areas, there are areas in Syria where Assad is not popular at all. 

[Sumerian]

6 minutes ago, IbnSina said:

I think we have a difference of opinion regarding the support of the Syrians towards their government.

To my understanding the majority of Syrians support the government, that might not be the cases of the examples you mentioned.

Most Saudis and Qataris support their government too by the way. You can claim Bashar Al-Assad is legitimate and that's a debatable issue (I don't say he is or isn't), but to be consistent, you also have to be saying the Gulf States governments are legitimate too, as they garner popular support amongst their people as well.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Sumerian

[Soldiers and Saffron]

25 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Most Saudis and Qataris support their government too by the way. You can claim Bashar Al-Assad is legitimate and that's a debatable issue (I don't say he is or isn't), but to be consistent, you also have to be saying the Gulf States governments are legitimate too, as they garner popular support amongst their people as well.

I never said anything about Saudi and Qatar, if the majority of people want the government they have, then it is legitimate, although in both cases they have monarchy, so I dont know how much the will of the people will matter to begin with.

[Soldiers and Saffron]

28 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Depends on the areas, there are areas in Syria where Assad is not popular at all. 

Yes, I also think some areas like him more than others but I think the majority of people (more than 50%)  in Syria like Assad.

[coldcow]

17 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Also, what would be the use of maintaining a force in Syria from the Iranian viewpoint after all the threats to Assad's power has been extinguished? 

I'm saying if the rebels and the SDF are defeated or they surrender or they sign a peace treaty and Assad controls all the land, why maintain a force in Syria after that scenario? 

Economically it makes no sense for Iran.

One would imagine having a base in Syria would help in act as a deterrant for aggression from Israel (assuming they can get some actual weapons instead of the rockets they apparently have).  A military position closer to Israel would allow them to respond sooner should Israel attack somewhere within Iran, without relying solely on Hezbollah to retaliate.  Of course this also exposes your soldiers there to a higher risk, as it's apparent Israel can strike virtually anywhere within Syria with minimal risk to itself, and virtually without fear of retaliation.  

Economically, facing potential sanctions, and my understanding is a worsening economy at home, you're right, it doesn't make much sense for them to stay.  However, if they had the money, I'm sure they'd want to, but Russia is still pulling the strings and knows Israel is the major power there, not Iran or Syria, and both need Russia more than Russia needs either.  So Russia can play both while also courting Israel.

The fact that the Russians allow the Israelis to kill Syrians and Iranians with virtual impunity should tell you something.  Either they let Israel do all that, or their weapons are simply ineffective against American made weapons.