Iran Signals Implicit Support for Assad Departure.

A poster of Syrian President Bashar al Assad agaisnt the desolation of war torn Syria. Image belongs to Getty Images.
A poster of Syrian President Bashar al Assad against the desolation of war-torn Syria. Image belongs to Getty Images. Joseph Eid took the photo.

April 26th, 2016.

Iran Signals Implicit Support for Assad Departure.

In a break from their long-held position, it appears that Iran is open to a deal that would see the Syrian President Bashar al Assad leave Syria as part of a formula to end the five-year Syrian war with a death toll  now estimated at 400,000.

Syria death toll likely as high as 400,000: UN envoy | Middle East Eye

This information emerged in a Press TV story posted on their you tube channel yesterday.

“Syria president rejected offer for resettlement in Iran”

This story, which must be taken seriously given the source, indicates that Iran is now willing to countenance Assad’s departure, after all, Iran could not have offered Assad refuge if they disagreed with his leaving.

As recently as April 10th senior Iranian spokesmen have stated that there would be no negotiation over the future of the Syrian President.

Syria War Update: Bashar Assad Removal Is ‘Red Line,’ Iranian Official Says

Iran official: Assad removal from Syria a ‘red line’ | The Times of Israel

This position, shared publicly by the Syrian government appears to have been one reason that the Geneva peace talks have never achieved anything so the apparent change in the Iranian position seems to indicate a broadening consensus that it may be in the best interests of Syria for a government of national unity to be formed without the President.

Betrayal?

Elements of the Iranian military and the Iran proxy Hezbollah have been involved in heavy combat in Syria and have taken severe casualties, judging by the funerals.

Many have stated correctly that it should be up to the Syrian people to decide Assad’s fate and many will see the shift in the Iranian position as a sell out and a betrayal, caving in to the demand for regime change after all this time.

Regime Change.

My understanding, is that when the Neoconservative chorus calls for regime change, this is merely a means to an end. The real goal is the destruction of the target state and the call for regime change is a ruse that is used as a vehicle to achieve this more sinister long-term goal.

The point is to demand the impossible and achieve the secondary goal on the back of the initial deliberately unrealistic demand for the leader to pack up and leave because Washington DC said so.

All of the war hype is focused on the “brutal dictator” and the idea that only if this one individual could be removed from power everything would be alright, childish nonsense in its own right but the real goal is the destruction of these states along the lines envisaged soon after 911 by the wonderfully malevolent Neoconservative US  official Paul Wolfowitz.

Before the onslaught in Iraq began in March 2003 the US President delivered an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein and his sons, “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.”  The US military would be entering Iraq even if Saddam chose to leave but:

“It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life. “

When the US invaded Iraq the Iraqi military largely followed Bush’s advice and the invasion force was thus met with only limited resistance from loyalist political units while the bulk of the army stood down.

The Iraqi Government fell within weeks of the invasion as a result of this decision yet by May 2003 Paul Bremer, the ranking US civilian official in Iraq decided to disband the Iraqi Army.  This decision, Coalition Provisional Authority order number 2  was the cause of Iraq’s destruction as a nation-state and all the horror that followed until the present day.

So the Neoconservative goal is to destroy Syria entirely, the demand for Assad to leave is simply the impossible demand that masks the deeper goal. The same was true in Libya.

Conclusion.

If Assad’s departure is part of a process of forming a genuine government of national unity and thus ending the war and preserving the state this may be a worthy deal. It seems wrong that the authors of so much misery and destruction should be rewarded for their efforts but the first priority must be the preservation of life and the second the state.  Such is the chaos in Syria and the strength of the extremists of Al Nusra and ISIS that it is likely the insurgency will continue on its bloody way for several years even if there is a political deal and some type of unity government is formed.

The fate of Bashar al Assad is incidental when compared to the suffering and instability caused by the war and if Assad chose to leave his fate would be a far happier one than befell Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi.

10 thoughts on “Iran Signals Implicit Support for Assad Departure.

  1. Assad’s removal will not accomplish anything. But I wonder about Iran. Iran would be inviting trouble to be an ally of Syria/Assad. Unless, of course, “Iran” was secretly controlled by the opposition to Iran. That couldn’t happen, could it? 😉 (let the reader use discernment). I have a documentary I just watched that is the best I have seen to date. From the start of the Industrial Revolution, really, to our days of global enslavement of the masses. Guaranteed not to disappoint.

    To take over the world, one must take over schooling so that the population can be dumbed down so that they can not offer any real resistance. Then you take over food production and Health Care and subvert both of those. All in a day’s work. But I question I pose for any reader brave enough 😀

    Who was really behind the creation of the “Collective” referred to in the documentary. Only those with eyes of discernment will know the answer. The rest must remain blind.

    I had another wild thought. Was Hitler mind controlled? Some say it looks probable. Was his goal that of destroying Germany rather than trying to advance it? After all, he did get away to Argentina and Germany was left in ashes with nearly all East German women and many girls, raped, often and repeatedly. Those traumas created in rape victims affect the resulting pregnancies and births for decades after. And now we see the same thing starting to take place again. An accident? Twice? I am not so sure.

    Like

    • Thanks for that truth1. It is not a subject that I have really explored but the Islamic revolution in Iran was supported by France certainly-they hosted Khomeini prior to his victorious return and he became a big media darling while he was living near Paris in 1978 or so. I think you are basically right that the departure of Assad will accomplish nothing. This was kind of a funny story for me as I kind of lucked upon a semi-scoop but not necessarily good news. My position is informed by the fact that I have been watching a lot of the day to day war footage for months and it is all so awful and hellish that despite the fact that I am far away and relatively safe I am absolutely desperate to see it end but realise this is highly unlikely to happen. There are wars lining up waiting to happen over there and the break up of these states and their replacement with Zionist style tribal statelets could provide further decades of war. I have watched the Oil documentary it is excellent.
      Regarding Hitler, the Nazis to my understanding were a built to fail Banker project designed to chase the Jews from Europe. The leadership could not stand the fact that most of the everyday Jews of Europe were relatively assimilated and content. They needed volunteers for the Palestine project and when volunteers were lacking the element of coercion was required. My understanding is that Mein Kampf was written on a typewriter provided by Rothschild connections, the Nazis received a lot of money from Wall Street as the Bolsheviks had done before them. There is an historian named Anthony Sutton who has meticulously documented this Wall Street support for the Bolsheviks and the Nazis who were simply playing their roles in the very early stages of the New World order project in my opinion and the engineers borrow freely from both the left and the right or that is they use whatever parts of the right or left that are helpful to the project of complete control and absolute tyranny as described by many sources including George Orwell and the Protocols, a “fake” document based clearly on very very solid intelligence as it described the future before it happened.Thanks for commenting.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Can you remember which Sutton book it is that you refer to? There are 8 of them listed and many are similar. Zionism, if you will, is a movement 1st instituted by Satan, the very same that has kids raped continually. Earthly Zionists have the assignment of subduing the Mid East so as to secure Jerusalem and Israel so that a temple maybe be rebuilt in Jerusalem and the false Jesus can “return” and lead the world into madness and destruction. Such a nice guy!

        Your info on Hitler/Germany is interesting. I have found it difficult to trace Hitler financing beyond a certain point. The rich do not like people knowing they are behind politics and that they fund both sides in any disagreement or conflict and most conflicts are phony, anyway. I agree with your take on the Protocols.

        But as for Germany, she had been a real threat before WWI. And I think the British knew that Germany would continue to rebound, so why not introduce someone to enable Germany to fail again? The only thing that saved Germany the 2nd time was that the allies feared the Germans going over to Russia, which might not have been such a bad thing. The allies have long feared a German/Russian alliance. Webster Tarpley has interesting things on that.

        Now that is not to say Hitler might also have intended a double cross, but any good schemer or planner usually has at least 2 options, so that if one fails, the other is used as an escape. The Hitler Bormann connection is very interesting, as the rest of the cabinet always envied the close relationship of Hitler and Bormann. Bormann ended up running Nazi International in Sought America. Its all a very dirty game and hard to follow, for all the twists and turns.

        But that Iran leadership is bad, well, remember that uncle Joe was really our ally but we were told he was the big bad wolf and that we must fight him and then Kruchev, etc. So I never really know what to believe. I would believe in mother goose before I would those many gangsters.

        Attacking an enemy competitor with armies is one way to eliminate competition, but its easier if you “own” the leader of your enemies/competitors and can get him to sell his nation down the drain. Sadly, I sort of got the hang of this duplicitous evil stuff. Maybe I only should have taken 1 red pill instead of 3. Too late now, I guess.

        Like

      • Thanks for that truth1 and apologies for not providing a proper source in the original comment. I have not read all of Sutton’s work but these are some of the relevant volumes.
        https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf
        https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf
        You make a lot of excellent points “But as for Germany, she had been a real threat before WWI. And I think the British knew that Germany would continue to rebound, so why not introduce someone to enable Germany to fail again?”
        I am confident that you are right about the multiple motives to bring down Germany. I also enjoyed this point “Attacking an enemy competitor with armies is one way to eliminate competition, but its easier if you “own” the leader of your enemies/competitors and can get him to sell his nation down the drain. Thanks for that truth1.

        Like

  2. Should I be encouraged or concerned? Always the later I know – but what best? Maybe ‘they’ll’ remember Iraq, as you remind? And see an ‘impossible demand’. Another version. Why does Assad stay, his motives? Perhaps no safe-haven from prosecution? Or sheer threats? He seems to be working on normalising best-can, assuring he’s Syria People/s pleasing. Seeing he must be, what he must be, for honour-sake? For whatever crimes he once committed on his own before the war, a kind of penance to stand right? He knows if he leaves, realistic prospect of better, the same even, and not worse – unlikely? There’s any number of ways he could have been forced away or killed. It could be, for all the bluster from outside agitators, they want to carry on in this painful relative-slow-down but wear-down, Assad remaining. Advantages to wait. The only ones who want resolve – Syria. Russia. Iran. Anyone else? Those most making war, neo-con-under-cabal, march on/or not to Tehran and Moscow. Syria between. Here’s my prayer, ‘genuine government of national unity and thus ending the war and preserving the state’. Post makes me. Thanks.

    Like

    • Many thanks to you for commenting Mark. All I can offer in response is that Bashar al Assad became President due to the death of his father. He inherited an antiquated and severely corrupt system of government. There were recent parliamentary elections in Syria. Beneath that headline 65% of the seats in the parliament are simply reserved for the ruling Baath party meaning the whole thing is a meaningless fraud and a total joke. It is obviously ridiculous the way they try and hold Assad responsible for all the death and suffering,a total lie. But the incompetence of the Government has allowed these things to happen. Assad has run a business as usual government where severe reform was needed. The security forces were run completely incompetently according to the Russians they were sending people out ti fight in tanks with no training and the equipment was allowed to fall into disrepair. Thanks for commenting.

      Like

    • Mark, my misgivings about the Assad “problem” are that if “they” suggest he is “bad,” I only have to ask, who is calling the kettle black. I see puppet bands of marauders battling over territory while actual real people suffer. for me, this battle is about something no one could imagine possible. Zionism wanting control of the entire region. With as much power in wealthy, allies, networks and strategic resources as well as commerical resources, I don’t see who anyone is going to stop this Juggernaut. Now exactly what moves they will end up making, I don’t have an answer. But as to what that final outcome of it will be, to that I know exactly the answer. But I have to wait for time to prove my case. Till then I am just a basket case 😉 I have had worse things said about me. But Oh, the fun I will have when the say finally arrives. Well, actually it might not be that fun, but vindicating anyway.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Truth1. I’m not aware, substantially either way, about Assad’s responsibility in claimed crimes of torture during his reign. As James suggested, he’s certainly complicit in taking-over what he may not realistically, have been/be in, a position to stop. (Loath to admit I do these days) but watching a recent T.V. news report on ‘Calais’ interviewing one out of the hundreds, who ‘happened to be’ a claimed victim of recent Syria state torture. The pull up the trousers and hard to see scar, was hardly necessary and obviously more shabby system-says-think. Me? I’m watching don’t go too far down the line, ostensibly accurate, re those shining like diamonds, compared to the rubble. Zionism? Talk about fall down one line too far, or not enough? As for the endearing rest of your comment? (Know me), don’t see the road the juggernaut ‘has’ to go on and only approximately, where and when it gets – where. And so, on when? IF… in our generation… (How does that ol’ chorus go? ‘I want to see the Kingdom of God in my gen…’) …we stop the jugger? For as long as. Amen. For freedom to proclaim, across the whole world, and then, and then… the end, will come. Debate the rest but this, the gen to rev attitude and – God wants. Freedom for captives. But you know and believe this. On ‘sense of basket’? Knows that well. Better that and overcome some, than figure ourselves all flowers and perfume, everyone else weedy. You write, you care, you pray. Fun? Let’s shout, find compassion and call. Make that fun, make it whatever y’like. But them, and esp – talking to myself – pray. A lot. Better, all the time. Start up again and again. ‘Greater the one in us than…’
        Thanks for commenting.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s