Abdullah
Eskandari, an IRGC Brigadier General, was killed in Syria on Saturday. Circumstances
of his death are not clear, but an armed Syrian opposition group reportedly captured
and later killed Eskandari. A website close to the Syrian opposition has
published a photo of decapitated head of the late General Eskandari.
Eskandari
was former director of Bonyad Shahid (Martyr Foundation) in Fars province, and former commander of Kerman division of IRGC Ground Force. At the time of his capture, he was posted in Damascus. Earlier this month, Eskandari was quoted in the
Iranian press as saying that IRGC had many brigades fighting in
Syria.
Since
the involvement of the Quds Force and IRGC Ground Forces in the Syrian
conflict, funeral and memorial services for some 60 fallen IRGC officers,
including some general officers, have been reported by Iranian press.
The
Syrian opposition has lately been reporting a growing presence of QF and IRGC-GF in
the country, as trainers and combatants supporting the operations of the Syrian Army,
the Hezbollah and other militant Shia groups against the opposition,
including armed Sunni militants.
Photo:
IRGC Brig. Gen. Abdullah Eskandari, reportedly captured and killed by Syrian
militants. The undated photo was published in websites close to the Syrian
opposition.
RIP. Iran will still win in Syria.
ReplyDeleteAt what cost?
Deletetens of billions out of Iranian economy every year
DeleteWars are failure of humans, especially civil wars and this one in Syria is one of the worst and most wasteful ones in human lives and treasure. Although I wish for a fast and lasting peace, I do not wish for ISIS or other Crazed AQ affiliated groups to have any power in future. I am afraid their conduct shows the hell they would bring on people under their rule in future.
DeleteIt's actual brilliant the way obama is slowly but surely devastating Iran's government. Bleeding them dry in Syria, destroying their economy and causing them to have to beg for mercy thus putting them in their place as nothings in the world. Obama might be the 12th imam.
Delete@Uskowi you ask at what cost? Khomeini once said ,"I say let Iran burn as long as Islam is victorious." "Let Iran go up in smoke."
DeleteThat's at what cost.
When Mullah Tieb said,"Syria is more important than Khuzestain."
That's at what cost.
Anon 9:40
DeleteVery shocking, but true. His absolute disregard for the lives of thousands of young Iranians that perished in the wastelands outside of Basra, Amarah, Qurnah, Badra, Mandali, Faw...it was just stunning how much he was willing to put his country through, what the population of both countries had to endure for him to fulfill his visions, and even that wasn't enough to dream about. To that end he had no qualms with continuing attacking Iraq forever. After having attacked Iraq for 6 years straight, in 1988, the Ayatollah regime came to the conclusion that they in actuality never had the capability to take even a single city, such as Basra, and that such a grand mission would require another 5 years to complete, which would have extended the war until at least 1993 and countless more casualties.
Iraq and Saddam started the war and you "only" had the USA, The Soviet Union, Europe, plus the Persian Gulf states and Saudi Arabia to help you both financially and militarily, selling you everything in their Arsenal including Chemical Weapons, just short of A bombs.
DeleteConsidering that Iran managed very well to recapture a lot of its illegally occupied territory.
The Iranian military would have captured Basra with 20% of the military hard wear that Saddam had, was it not for fighting Iraq plus 44 other countries supporting it. That is a fact.
However i do agree with you that the Iranian leadership should have ended the War in 1982
@General Basrawi,
DeletePlease also include the dear leader of Iraq who thought he could conquer Khoramshahr, the province of Khuzestan and also Tehran in a week or so. He was ready to get some half a million Iraqis dead or wounded, get his country fully ruined financially, get his navy smashed, his airforce rebuilt 3 times duirng war with hard currency, his nuclear power plant crushed, his tankers sinked, his country partially occupied.
That despite help from 50 countries, extensive usage of chemical weapons and an army of Persian speaking traitors in his arsenal.
Iranians just defended their country heroically and they didn't perish, they were martyred to defend their motherland.
Dear friend, don't get me wrong. I have no love for Saddam, since close relatives of mine got jailed and tortured under his watch while the war was going on. Indeed it was a grand mistake to invade Iran, infact i have stated this numerous times before. The Iranian martyrs were fully within their right to defend their land, may they rest in peace. The support that we recieved began during the month of May leading up to Iran's first offensive in 1982, whereas from the very beginning there was an arms embargo imposed on us by nearly all of our weapon suppliers for having set in motion a full-scale war against our neighbour on the 22th of September 1980. The news of the extensive embargo came only days after major operations had commenced on the 22th, it was shortly after that date that the other governments realized that what Saddam had planned was no longer a limited military incursion (the quick occupation of disputed territories on the central part of the border + Qasr-e-shirin). The goal of the original operation that took place in mid September aimed at taking and holding Qasr-e-shirin and villages that lay on the central part of the border and then use them as a bargaining chip. The thinking within high command, as i have come to understand it, was that Iran's regular armed forces would not be able to re-gain those areas, they would try, but get defeated in their attempts. They would admit failure in re-gaining those places, be forced to come to the negotiating table, and give Iraq legal right over the Shatt-Al-Arab. This change of plan, going from a limited military operation to a full-scale invasion, which the Iraqi troops had not prepared for, explains why the Iraqi armed forces failed to deliver a decisive blow. The proper logistics and other essential supporting elements had not been readied, resulting in an arbitrary order to halt at the Karun river outside of Ahwaz (otherwise there was no potent resistance infront of the Iraqi ground units). In other words, ironically the invasion failed due to Saddam's "change of heart". That switch basically botched any hopes of fulfilling the original aim of getting back the Shatt-Al-Arab river. As for chemical weapons, they were utilized as a means of defense against the invading Iranian troops, starting in June 1982 (Operation Ramadan). Unfortunately, as the war progressed, orders did get issued by the high command to bombard civilians with those sort of weapons, that was a very regretful decision. From Saddam's point of view, it was a way of putting pressure on the Ayatollahs. I can also tell you that the statement by Khomeini regarding prolonging the war got Saddam contemplating the use of Scud missiles armed with chemical warheads! But as far as being used against military targets (especially in repulsing Iranian offensives inside Iraq), in my opinion, it was just another helpful tool. It's true that our nuclear reactor at Tammuz was hit by Iranian fighter aircraft, but then we hit back and destroyed all the facilities and reactor at Bushehr in a series of strikes. As for tankers, we hit three times more than Iran did. The international community in those days saw the conflict very much the same way as some do when looking at the current battles happening in Syria. They considered the secular natured Baathist regime of Saddam to be a better alternative than the extreme Islamist regime of Iran. To be continued...
DeleteI believe Iraq would have eventually recovered its economy, slowly but surely. Saddam should have refrained from the hasty and ill-thought decision of invading Kuwait. He thought it would strictly be an "Arab affair". His grandiose ideas were strongly reinforced by April Glaspie's reassurances that US government had no particular opinion on the disputes that Iraq had with Kuwait, the famous "green-light", or do as you please because we don't care. As for intelligence gathering, you fared much better than we did, from the very onset of the war you had Arab speakers in Khuzestan that worked in your military departments translating every word that was spoken through our communication lines. We didn't have the luxury of having ethnic Farsi speakers in our country. It took a while for us to attain that kind of capability and develop it to a useful and efficient level. We relied exclusively on signals intelligence and had just one guy working on translating the recordings!
DeleteThank you for keeping a civilized disussion my friend(s). Personally i have no hard feeling towards Iranian people. My grievances are with past leaders of our countries.
continuation ...
DeleteBy the way, i want you to know that i refused to use Chemical bombs on civilians. Other pilots in my Mirage F1 Squadron No. 79, caved in to pressure and performed such missions. Hence my relatives paid a price for my refusal to obey orders.
Dear Gen. Basrawi,
DeleteI am surprised that you find using chemical weapons by Saddam's army and Air force " another helpful tool" as this is against the Geneva convention. Using it against the civilian population was shameful act by the Iraqi military. Kudos to you for refusing that order.
Khomeini in contrast to Saddam, forbid the use of chemical weapons.
The Iranian Air force played a significant role in halting the Iraqi invasion. You could not have captured Ahvaz as you could not capture Abadan.
As for the lack of Persian speaking staff, helping the Iraqi military, if Saddam had not been stupid enough to deport all Iraqis of Iranian descent, that might have been different.
The issue of the US ambassador's "green light" is contested by the Americans, but lets accept that this was the case, it only shows how naive Saddam was who walked into a trap like that.
Off course his well equipped army needed to be destroyed by the very same nations who had helped him. The reality is that unfortunately your country paid a heavy price for his mistakes and the Iranian leadership ultimately prevailed.
One might say that the Theocratic regime in Iran lost the battle, but won the war.
@Anon 8:12PM
DeleteChemical weapons were used by Iran too. Every regime apologist denies this fact. The Akhoond regime is known for its deceptive ways and crooked lies.
http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/81ali.pdf
Anon. 5:26
DeleteSpend a bit more time reading this article, and maybe you realize what a damning report it is against Iraq and Saddam. It also very clearly states that Iran could have invoked the argument that Iraq had used chemical weapons first and it had a right to retaliate.
The important thing is the the UN found Iraq and Saddam in violation of Geneva Convention against Chemical use and no amount of hatred against the IRI should delude your judgment that you will deny this fact.
Bravo. How many young people has this person led to their death?
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:08 AM.......Thousands upon thousands of mislead young.
DeleteOne should ask what the cost would be if Syria falls. I think the cost to keep Assad in power is less for Iran than waiting for war at Iran's gate. Great powers fight beyond their borders, they don't wait until the enemy knocks on the door.
ReplyDeleteThe Iranian economy is too small and facing so many issues to afford a long-running fight in Syria and Iraq. Iran needs to be careful not to fall into that trap.
DeleteNader, they have been saying just that since 1979. So far, no Iranian has died of hunger......perhaps thirst. How many Americans have died of hunger?
DeleteIran's military intervention in Syria is the first foreign deployment since the Shah intervened in the civil war in Oman in 1970s. Foreign deployments are very costly undertakings, both in human and financial costs. Iran will walk into a trap of historic proportion if it continues and expands its military involvement in Syria and now in Iraq.
DeleteIran is not deploying any large number of troops. Mainly IRGC experts to advise the Syrian military.
DeleteHezbollah forces in Lebanon and Iraqi Shias are being reqruited to fight.
When it comes to the financial cost of it, I do agree with you, but it is a logical approach from the Iranian leadership to try to keep Bashar in power in order to maintain its support and delivery of weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon to counter balance the threat of Israel / USA of attacking Iran.
One has to admit that it has worked for quite a few years.
The other question is if anyone who is sane would like to see the Islamist Extremist in Syria to take over. Bashar is a western educated, secular dictator and he is 100 times better than those "Takfiris" trying to oust him.
AnonymousMay 29, 2014 at 12:33 PM
DeleteAgreed,well said,the loss of syria would be a huge blow to the shia crescent and irans regional power/influence
Anon 6:56 AM,
DeleteThe argument that Iran's military involvement in the Syrian civil war, and its growing involvement against Sunni militants in Iraq, protect it from a US/Israel attack is not credible. A possible Israeli attack on Iran, if it ever happens, as it is more unlikely now, will involve nuclear issues. A comprehensive agreement in Vienna is the way to prevent an attack, not involvement in Syria.
The role of Iranian military in Syria and now Iraq is not limited to training Syrian army, its national defense force, and militant Shia groups. Gen. Eskandari had explained IRGC's vast involvement in Syria during interviews with the Iranian press few weeks before he was killed
Iran's minister of economy, in his report to Assembly of Experts, painted a troubling picture of the state of economy in the country; with high inflation, negative growth rate, high unemployment, especially among the youth, and negative rate of investment in the country. Spending billions of dollars each year in the Syrian adventure, in the guise of avoiding future attacks on Iran as you argue here, is not a prudent policy. It's a trap that will put the country in much worse shape if the involvement in Syria and Iraq continues and grows.
Why is my argument not credible? Please elaborate.
DeleteThere is no doubt that the major improvements in Iranian military hard wear technology (self suff. etc..), mainly its diverse missile program, including its activities in Iraq and Lebanon has protected it from a military attack (Remember the neo-cons slogan "Real men go to Iran" ?) by the US forces (mainly during the Bush admin.)
Secondly it is very prudent of the Iranian leadership to continue the negotiations with 5+1 at the same time as they continue their support for Bashar and Hezbollah in Lebanon until they have reached a comprehensive deal / agreement.
Thirdly the issue for a long time has been "regime change" in Iran by successive US admin. as any fair observer would admit. The Iranian leadership has always looked for a "grand bargain" and the Nuclear issue is a part of this "grand bargain" in these negotiations.
From Iranian perspective it makes sense to have an active "defense" policy including Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.
Your argument of linking Iran's involvement with its prevention of an attack on its homeland are not valid. if there is a credible threat of attack on Iran, it is related to the country's nuclear program, not its involvement or lack of in Syria or Iraq.
DeleteThat is exactly the case, great powers don't wait until the enemy enters the bedroom as the case was in Iran-Iraq war in Khoramshahr and to certain degree the siege of Abadan. That cost is much higher. This is a fact in today's world, either you are part of an umbrella of a global super power like US or China, or you have to have good protection by your own sources and as such you should not limit it to your own country only.
DeleteWhen the US/Israel and EU time by time repeat "all options are on the table" Iran wants to make sure its allies in the region don't fall. Especially Syria which is the center point between Israel-Turkey (NATO) and Southern Europe (NATO) and has great strategic importance for Iran to project its power in case of any conflict with the global powers. In any full scale war Iran's strategy is not to dig in and go into Iran-Iraq mode of war as it knows the opponent is superior technologically and it has to project as much power as possible in a short period of initial phases of the conflict.
Your remarks on Iran's economy is fully correct and Iran should focus more and more on that to address the major issues otherwise it will have major problems in the near future. Having said that the issues of economic development in Iran is fully interwoven with major power houses in Iran releasing grip of their money sources and that will not happen soon. Iran has major problem with corruption and IRA is doing nothing to fix it, as such it will most probably fail. Fixing corruption means you have to put hard measures on certain individuals and institutions inside Iran and IRA leadership is still not willing to do that. People are fed up with them and if drastic measures are not taken they will not be able to convince the young generation regarding their performance as leaders of the country.
what great powers do is entirely different from what Iran can do.
DeleteIran is not a great power and has not been one for thousands of years.
Excellent comment and spot on. Mr Uskowi very well knows these facts, but is just trying to avoid the subject by simply saying that these arguments are not valid and the only issue of concern to US and the West is the Iranian Nuclear program, while the reality is that, they would rather go for a regime change if they could. Khamenei is not totally wrong in his assessment that the Nuclear issue will not be (even if settled) the end of the US threats to his leadership.
DeleteFrom the IRI point of view it is absolutely prudent and a necessity to play a strategic role in its sphere of interest.
The subject here is Iran's military involvement in Syria. I not only did not avoid that subject, but have welcomed its discussion whenever the topic called for it.
DeleteBut the subject of the post or comments here was not regime change, I am not sure where that come from! But even if the topic was regime change, how could Iranian military involvement in Syria stop an attempt to change the regime in Tehran, even if that was the Western "plan," which I believe it is not? If anything, Iranian military involvement in Syria could hasten it, again if we take your hypothesis of a Western plan to change the regime as valid.
Ladies and gentlemen, the issue of involvement of Iranian military in Syria should be considered and discussed seriously for the right reasons, and not the wrong reasons. Such involvement will not prevent an attack on Iran, nor would it prevent an attempt in regime change. Lets put those factors, or excuses, aside, and let's talk why such military expedition is good or bad for Iran today. I have given my reasons above. Hope to hear yours. And by the way thanks to all of you for a lively discussion.
Dear Mr Uskowi,
DeleteI am sure as a student of Iranian politics you must understand the reasons. But I guess I have to spell it out :
Iranian financial and military support of Hezbollah via Bashar's Syria is a strategic threat to Israel. Hezbollah's missiles can reach most of the Israel by now and not even the Israeli Iron Dome at the moment is efficient enough to prevent them hitting Israel. Any threat of an Israeli or US attack ("All options are on the table") will be affected by this fact. The US will not risk an Arial bombardment of its most important ally in the ME by Hezbollah unless they can make sure that the threat is neutralized, hence trying to get rid of Bashar to cut the supply line of Iranian weapons to Hezbollah
Some observers have likened Hezbollah the equivalent of US aircraft carriers in the region.
I don't that is very difficult to understand. that is what I mean with you trying to avoid the subjects by simply saying that this argument is not valid, although both the Israeli and US top brass have confirmed this fact time after time.
The discussion here was on Iran's involvement in Syria to keep Assad in power. I have argued here and elsewhere that Assad has turned into a caricature of his old self, "presiding" over a devastated war-thorn country. If he clings to power, partly by Iranian help, he will not be the Assad in your imagination. He will not have the power nor the condition to resist against Israel, or even a lesser power. He can not even defeat an opposition which arguably is the worst opposition seen in modern times, divided and fighting each other as much as they fight against Assad (even with Russian and Iranian help).
DeleteEven an Assad victory over the opposition could not help Iran's "cause" for many years or decades to come. If the excuse of the Iranians in supporting Assad is, as you claim, that he will put up a resistance against Israel if the latter decides, however unlikely, to attack Iran, then the Iranian leadership needs to examine their strategy again. If fact, Assad will be a drain on Iran's treasure and its military forces for long time to come. The involvement in Syria is a big mistake, and as big a trap for its military. Sooner Iran withdraws its military support and instead spend its energy to achieve a political solution between the two sides, better off it will be.
Nader
ReplyDeleteMuch as I do not belittle having a strong economy, yet one need to survive first in order to achieve this. If Iran abandon Syria for so called economic reason who do you think is next to get attacked in the middle east?
America and the zionists state of Israel has never hide there intention of attacking iran, and many analysis had made it obvious that Syria needs to be subjugated to isolate Iran. Clearly this is a proxy war against Iran, so the question is as a policy maker would you have waited for your ally to be decimated and your strategic interest and partners destroyed knowing you are next in line? Syria is Iran first line of defence, so Iran did what every rational nation would have done.
And what do you make of America's policy in Bahrain? When Saudi Arabia invaded that tiny gulf state to suppress pro - democracy movement did America lift a finger for the majorities protest in that nation? People call it America's double standard but I believe America is just being pragmatic like Iran is being pragmatic in Syria.
No nation can achieve greatness if they run away when there ally needs there support. Much as I detest the shedding of people's blood, at this present world order it cannot be totally avoided if you want to survive as an independent nation free from foreign dominance.
Iran's growing involvement in Syrian civil war and now in Iraq will only expose it to the explosive sectarian violence that is going on in the region, and will probably increase significantly in the coming years. When religious conflicts start, it would be very hard to end them. Iran's Shia religion makes it a minority in the sectarian divide and it should not get involved in that war. This is a trap which will come back and haunts Iran for many years to come.
DeletePlease also read my response to Anon 6:56 above on the argument that Iran's involvement will protect it from future attacks on its homeland.
All Islamists deserve each other. They made their beads and now they can go and lay in it.
ReplyDeleteNader
ReplyDeleteIt appears you believe that Iran can only be secure from attack when it sign a comprehensive nuclear agreement with the P5+1. I would not ague with you on this point but let's go back to 2003. In 2003 Iran present the same proposal as it did in 2013, the only difference being that Iran only possess few centrifuges back then. If you recall, the US stand back then was zero enrichment policy, fast forward to 2013 Iran now possess 19,000 centrifuge some with higher degree of enrichment capability with the same proposal. Guess what, instead of war US go to sit with Iran and suddenly the zero enrichment policy just vanished and the P5+1 signed a temporary nuclear agreement with Iran that recognised Iran's right to enrich on its own soil. These much was confirmed by John Kerry and Obama in his latest speech.
Much as we the world as become civilised, the world is still being led by the policy of might is right and if you are perceived as being weak you get exploited.
With the victory of Assad in Syria Iran as made a statement which is that "Iran has the power to protect her interest and is not a country to be trampled upon" and in fact this will in the long run strengthen Iran's position at the negotiations not otherwise.
It's been 35 years, yet wishful thinking as not make IRI disappear but wax stronger. Iraq, Syria Lebanon are now in Iran orbit, it is only a matter of time before Afghanistan fall into Iran's lap.
Very unfortunate that you resort to such polemics. I said the actual threat, however unlikely, of a possible attack on Iran at this time could only be linked to its nuclear program, and military involvement in Syria and Iraq will not protect the country against such attack. On the contrary, a comprehensive nuclear agreement would be more effective.
DeleteNow, you are arguing that Iran needs to protect itself against attacks. If this is a general observation, it is true, and not just for Iran but for all countries in the world. But if this pertains to a specific threat against Iran, tell us what are the issues that could lead to such attacks, and we can discuss if your concerns are well taken.
Very dangerous sloganeering on your part. Basically by saying that the countries in the region are in Iran's orbit, you would be pushing military involvement on part of Iran in the name of safeguarding its satellite countries. Dangerous for two reasons: it is untrue that these countries are satellites of Iran, and it is untrue that it is in Iran's national interests to get involved in civil and sectarian conflicts that are going on and will grow in these countries, in the name of protecting its orbit. This is nonsense. Iran's national interest remains in working hard to avoid sectarian conflicts in the region, as Iran is a minority in a Sunni-dominated region, and non-ending sectarian conflicts would not work in Iran's advantage.
Mr.Uskowi as usual to fail to understand the Iranian and regional dynamics of what is at stake in Syria and your myopic views are very much in line with ignorant US thinking and disinformation. The crises is Syria is a dire threat to the survival of Iran and no government in Tehran, mullah or non-mullah can afford to be passive. The Wahhabi led terror campaign is now largely based on foreign madrassa terrorists from Pakistan, Maghreb and Caucasus and their aims are not confined to Syria alone but a fundamentalist cannibalistic 7th century ignorant and intolerant arc from Saudi Arabia to Libya. Iran, Syria and Iraq and Lebanon offer the only real impediment.
DeleteIran, whether you like it or not is the only regional power by the sheer dint of size, demography and influence that can stop them in their tracks. Iran has made a very minor commitment to bolster the Syrian Arab Army and the legitimate and popular regime of President Bashar al Assad, along with Iraq and Hezbollah. Iranian involvement is less than a few hundred advisers and technical personnel and contrary to the usual western and diaspora hyperbole its financial costs are very minimal running into a few million dollars and not "billions". Iran has no choice, along with Russia, China and India to eliminate the Wahhabi terror threat. Iran and most importantly, the legitimate Syrian government will prevail. The majority of Syrians, including the majority Sunni's are fed up with the terrorist atrocities and war. The US and its stooges are once again on the wrong side of history.
"Iranian involvement is less than a few hundred advisers and technical personnel and contrary to the usual western and diaspora hyperbole its financial costs are very minimal running into a few million dollars and not 'billions.''' This is what you wrote, yet you ask why your information are not credible?
DeleteThis blog needs to post more on Syria, Iraq and Iranian involvement so we could start a serious conversation on the subject. Meantime, thanks for your comments and appreciate your readership.
brig gen. Basrawi-\
ReplyDelete@we have had a lot from you about the miscalculations of the Imam, and his general handling of the war !!.Now will you rise up to give Saint Saddam his share of congratulations or blame if any concerning his general handling of the war?.