r/blowback • u/isawasin • 13d ago
Western media says Iranian and Hezbollah forces were in Syria to “prop up Assad.” Military analyst Elijah Magnier says this is all wrong. Al Qaeda and ISIS posed a threat to not only the Syrian state, but the whole region. That’s why they entered the war.
3
u/dshamz_ 10d ago edited 10d ago
I think the fall of the Syrian government to Al Qaeda is a fucking disaster, but this guy is splitting hairs. Defeating ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria effectively meant propping up Assad, and it's undeniable that Iran's and Hezbollah's reputation amongst Sunnis regionally took a heavy - perhaps irrecoverable - hit because of this. To state otherwise is revisionist history. Assad sucked for many reasons and the real question is what was preventing Syria from reforming itself and re-engaging the Syrian people over the years that the rebels were pinned down in Idlib (and even before). Instead of attempting to relegitimize itself, it just continued to slowly decay until clearly there was nothing left. Not a rhetorical question, I don't have an answer.
1
u/thetacticalpanda 11d ago
Timeline seems to be Hezbollah began it's involvement in Syria mid 2011 while ISIL didn't have significant involvement until early 2013 or have I got that wrong.
1
u/deathtoallsubreddits 5d ago
Hezbollah came in by 2012, ISIL came in by 2013, however, there are other forces like Al Nusra and Al Qaeda that came in before that in early 2012, along with aid from Iran's IRG in 2011, that escalated in 2012
-4
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Thankkratom2 12d ago
I was just going to comment how fucking insane it is that anyone would deny this shit about literally ISIS and Al Qaeda and yet here your dumbass is, doing exactly that.
3
u/blowback-ModTeam 12d ago
Apologia or rhetoric in support of imperialist regimes, their politicians, or the capitalists that those regimes serve will result in the removal of your comment and potentially result in a ban. “Imperialist” may be simply understood to mean “western,” especially the interests of the US and EU.
5
u/GrumpyOldHistoricist 11d ago
Unstable or terroristic governments as a pretext for intervention is shaky when a country is on the other side of the world. When it’s your neighbor? Legitimate. Spillover is a genuine concern. Nobody wants Al-Qaeda headchoppers for neighbors. Iran and Hezbollah involving themselves in Syria is not the same thing as the US meddling in the affairs of countries on the other side of the international date line.
If a violent religious group that had no hope to stably govern, caused massive amounts of the populace to flee, and openly had aims on expanding took power in Mexico the US would have troops there immediately and the international community would support the action. (In reality that group would be a US catspaw, but you all know what I’m getting at in this hypothetical.)