mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
A World Without America
Here Comes Iran…

As Russian attacks continue into their second day, once again targeting rebels directly threatening Assad rather than focusing on ISIS exclusively, Iran appears to be dispatching ground troops for direct combat roles. Reuters reports:

Two Lebanese sources told Reuters hundreds of Iranian troops had reached Syria in the past 10 days with weapons to mount a major ground offensive. They would also be backed by Assad’s Lebanese Hezbollah allies and by Shi’ite militia fighters from Iraq, while the Russia would provide air support.

“The vanguard of Iranian ground forces began arriving in Syria: soldiers and officers specifically to participate in this battle. They are not advisers … we mean hundreds with equipment and weapons. They will be followed by more,” one of the sources said.

So far, direct Iranian military support for Assad has come mostly in the form of military advisers. Iran has also mobilized Shi’ite militia fighters, including Iraqis and some Afghans, to fight alongside Syrian government forces.

If these reports prove to be true, and a coordinated push by Syrian and Iranian ground forces backed by Russian air power soon begins, we will know with even more certainty what Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani discussed in July (when Soleimani flew to meet with Putin in Moscow in direct violation of a UN travel ban).

Features Icon
show comments
  • lord acton

    Boy this President Obama is a sublime chess player. Can’t wait to see his next move.

    • lurkingwithintent

      Has he made any moves yet? He just seems to ponder them or pontificate about them, but never gets around to anything that might be perceived as a real move.

      • lord acton

        We are just too intellectually addled to appreciate the knots that he has Putin and the Iranians tied up in. Remember, he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review and has tremendously well creased pants. Oh, and he can reference Niebuhr.

        • lurkingwithintent

          Which Niebuhr? Even the two Niebuhrs disagreed about how to approach China prior to World War II, so I am guessing that you mean Reinhold and H. Richard is probably not the right kind of theologian for President Obama.

    • IWantALamborghini

      Maybe they need to send another reset button.

  • FriendlyGoat

    Congress isn’t doing anything else very important these days. It could get busy declaring a war and force Obama any direction the Republican majorities prefer in terms of military action. Since we know there is overwhelming public support for major American ground-troop actions in the world of Islam, this ought to be a very simple matter for Congress to just follow the Constitution.

    • Dale Fayda

      Take care not to throw up on your keyboard from “spinning” so much.

      Even if Congress would declare a war, as asinine an attempt at misdirection on your part as it is, Obama would ignore it and continue to rule with a “phone and a pen”. In fact, when it comes to Iran and its allies, Obama will ignore everything short of a mushroom cloud.

      No, FG – this is Obama and Kerry’s baby all the way.

      • Ofer Imanuel

        Even simpler, Obama will veto the congress declaration, as it will not have 2/3 support.

      • FriendlyGoat

        When Congress declares a war, the Commander in Chief has an obligation. In Obama’s case, or that of any other president, it’s mostly a matter of delegating authority to the war professionals of the Pentagon to fight it.

        As usual, you’re full of it—-speculating on how Obama would perform his function when Congress has not acted and is not going to. THE REASON, by the way, is that very few real people in this country want to waste our money and personnel on another quicksand mission in the world of Islam.
        Republicans know this and they would no more find the courage to declare anything than they would fly to Mars.

        • Dale Fayda

          I’m full of it? Surely, you jest!

          We have an ongoing rolling pile of excrement of a track record from the Obama regime – it’s unfolding before our eyes as I write. Putin is riding our Nobel laureate boy-king like an elephant at the circus. The Iranians couldn’t even wait before the ink on their “deal” with him was dry before ignoring him and his pointless seminars on the “arc of history” and “international community”. I have no doubt that you’ve noticed that in the ME Obama is basically running out the string and hoping that the monumental debacle unfolding there isn’t pinned on him, at least not before he leaves office.

          Out of all the commenters on this site, you are the only one who suggested that Congress declare war – a war on whom, exactly? Russia, Iran, ISIS, Al-Nusra? What war you talking about? Are you being serious or is this just an attempt to re-direct from the utter debacle that is Obozo’s ME policy?

          Furthermore, “Obama” and “lawful obligation” are two words that do NOT belong in the same sentence. How many times has Obama spat on his constitutional obligations? Do you want a list?

          • FriendlyGoat

            The reason I’m the only one calling for Congress to declare a war is because I’m the only realist here. It’s the Constitution, Dale. Not only that, it’s the pesky circumstances of needing to find the target and LEAD the counter-aggression—–something you just admitted is undefined

            What I’m saying is that all this criticism of Obama for letting this or that happen—–is empty. Congress is the only institution with the actual power to commit forces, and they won’t. Until they do, Obama is doing fine.

          • Dale Fayda

            Once again, horse manure.

            “Congress is the only institution with the actual power to commit forces, and they won’t…” Remember Libya? All Obama’s doing – Congress had nothing to do with it. Remember the recent disaster in Yemen, with American troops having to evacuate while leaving behind all their heavy equipment – there again, Obama’s doing. Thousands of additional US troops back in Iraq – Obama, not Congress.

            From where I’m standing, our enemies are pretty plain to see – ISIS and the rest of the Jihadi factions, the Taliban, Iran and Russia. Assad used to be an enemy (according to Obozo) until he became a “partner in the peace process” and now Obama isn’t so sure. Obama pointedly doesn’t care what happens in Afghanistan, he just got done inserting his head so far into Iran’s rear end with his nuclear “deal” that he can taste the Supreme Leader’s hair cream, he has amply demonstrated to Putin that short of a Russian tank rolling down Pennsylvania Ave, Russia pretty much has carte blanche and with ISIS Obama only wants to do enough to create an impression of purposeful action, so the MSM gives him some cover.

            It’s hard to internalize the fact that your “messiah” is an incompetent demagogue and a fraud, isn’t it?

          • FriendlyGoat

            I never regarded Obama as a “messiah”. That was sacrilege from your side. I merely regarded Obama/Biden better than McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan. I still do.

            Call Congress and tell them you have identified ISIS, Taliban, Iran and Russia. Tell them we need Congressional permission to kick all of their butts. Tell them they should have repealed any left over resolutions to use force from the Bush era at the end of the Bush administration and demanded their exclusive authority to declare all war actions, period.

          • Dale Fayda

            Don’t play the victim card, FG. You’re by FAR the most active poster on this site, so if you’re going to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. You certainly have made more than your share of bold statements here – time to back them up.

            Once again, you’re attempting to re-direct the discussion away from the downward spiral of events in the ME caused by Obama’s “smart power”. My side in Congress KNOWS who America’s enemies are and generally has no qualms in calling them out by name. It’s YOUR side that has weakness and appeasement in its blood, YOUR side that can’t bring itself to utter the word “Islamic” in relation to America’s avowed enemies, YOUR side which demands that America unilaterally disarm, YOUR side that despises the military, YOUR side that prostrates itself before our foes and spits on our allies.

            I seem to have refuted all of your contentions in this string and you don’t seem to have done so with any of mine. I have listed specific instances which counter your points and you have given me no factual reposts. I don’t know what more to add here, really.

            Oh, and as far as sacreligiously calling Obama a “messiah” by our side, let me leave you with this titbit of liberal dementia:

            Admit our sun is common, a Milky Way twin
            to a hundred million more. Even its end
            ordinary, no stellar explosion, it will snap
            hydrogen to helium then cool to a dense core.

            You squint skyward, still wanting the corona
            of a bright god, the unconquered sun that chose us
            to spin around. But there is no need for tributes
            of maize and falcon wings while we burn

            the oil of light left epochs ago. You may ratify
            the droughts and downpours, assign blame
            for melting ice and rising seas, but I can count
            more kinds of hammers than turtles;

            we need instinct, not law. The dogs of Pompeii
            howled for days, even snakes slithered
            from Helice. In the Gallatin Range, the bears
            left the forest. At night, a slice of mountain shook

            down, sleepers drowned in their beds, soaked
            in waves off the lake. When the ground stilled
            the bears returned, covered with mud. Hush.
            Listen to our internal combustion rumble.

            There is more elegance in turning photon
            to electron to motion. Let us trade the old sun
            for the new one, sustain ourselves, wet and green,
            within this delicate spindle of axis and orbit.

            Robin Beth Schaer, Day 93, “100 Poems for Obama’s First 100 Days”.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Dale, your side is in charge of Congress. Your side can declare any war and essentially put Obama in a box to prosecute it. Your side hasn’t the faintest idea what to do with Islam, Russia and China any more than anyone else.

            As for me, I detest Islam and if you have read my thoughts in these comment sections, you will know that I have never justified it an inch.
            I also am a fan of a very big, strong military which preferably stays home and does not over-use military families as was done for a decade after 9/11.

            Having Obama as president has not made me a “victim”. You started ranting at me because I suggested that Congress declare our wars.
            That idea puts me—–a liberal—-in league with libertarians and constitutionalists on that point. What the heck is your problem with that?

          • Dale Fayda

            Once again, deflection. America hasn’t declared a war on anyone since WWII, yet has been involved in countless military actions since then. Why should Congress declare war now and on whom? How does that absolve Obama, who explicitly and repeatedly presented himself as someone who would save America from itself by righting its past wrongs and by not “doing stupid s@#t” from being held responsible for the crumbling of our foreign policy?

            History will not fault this Republican Congress for not declaring war on someone, but it will be brutal to Obama, I’ll venture a guess.

            If you’re a staunch anti-Islamist (and I know you are), perhaps YOU should contact YOUR side in Congress and let your feeling on that subject be known? Because from where I’m standing, you’re ALL in disagreement with you.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I actually have submitted my concerns about Islam to some of the liberals in my state delegation before.

            As for war actions, the Constitution seems to imply that we are not to have wars without a declaration by Congress. If we citizens actually put that considerable DUTY on our Congress, we could probably cause it to behave more sensibly on all issues and we would cause our president of either party to work more closely with a Congress with either party in majority. Nearly everyone wants that anyway.
            The endless bickering is waaaayyy overdone in our time and we should be able to demand that the president be backed up by some Congressional minds who have to put their butts on the record too concerning foreign affairs and nearly every day.

            Instead of what Kevin McCarthy has basically admitted is a political effort in the Benghazi probe (after the fact), those SOB’s should be too busy every dang day with what Sarah Palin called “actual responsibilities” about what we are going to do with any hot spot next week or next month. We’d have a better country.. Not only that,.

        • vepxistqaosani

          Actually, from the text of the Constitution (you must be an originalist rather than a palimpsestist, right?), I fail to see how a declaration of war confers any obligations upon the executive branch. Admittedly, one could make a strong case that, absent such a declaration, the executive cannot initiate any acts of war, but I don’t think the converse holds.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I do. A commander-in-chief who will not vigorously prosecute a war declared by Congress could very justifiably be impeached for a high crime. The problem is that no one in Congress wants to be on record for a war unless it’s the day after Pearl Harbor or September 11th. While that remains the perpetual case, there is no sense in trashing any president for not being a hawk by nature in foreign policy.

          • vepxistqaosani

            That seems unlikely. It would require a supermajority of Congress to agree on the definition of “vigorously.” And not prosecuting a war in the way Congress likes is not really a “high crime.”

            But, fundamentally, the problem is not that Obama isn’t a hawk (Libya) — it’s that he’s an idiot who cannot anticipate the perfectly obvious consequences of his actions and inactions and simultaneously a narcissist who believes that he is the smartest, most knowledgeable, most moral person on the planet, and so feels no need ever to ask anyone for advice, much less consent.

          • FriendlyGoat

            You’re basically telling us that a president is supposed to bluster across the world in ways that imply he or she can take unilateral military action against any Islamic power and other larger adversaries such as China and Russia ——backing up his/her words with actual deployments and shooting, as needed—– and let Congress ride along in the back seat. That’s not the Constitution.

  • Peripatetic

    “They will be followed by more.” And more — far more — funding.

  • stan

    Teddy Roosevelt — Speak softly and carry a big stick
    Barack Obama — Run your mouth and grab your ankles

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service