Iran Holds Nothing Back: "It's A Weird Suicide Mission That Will Have A Very Dark End"

Tyler Durden's picture

Earlier today we reported that Saudi Arabia has made a “final” decision to invade Syria.

Of course they won’t use the term “invade.” They’ll say the same thing the US says, which is that they need to send in a limited number of ground troops to help fight ISIS.

The timing of the announcement quite clearly suggests that the Saudis are going to try and shore up the rebels who are facing imminent defeat at Aleppo where Hezbollah, backed by Russian airstrikes, is about to overrun the opposition.

That outcome is unacceptable for the Saudis, who have been funding and supplying the Sunni opposition in Syria for years. For Turkey, it’s pretty much the same story. How Riyadh and Ankara plan to assist the rebels while maintaining the narrative that they’re only in the country to fight Islamic State is an open question, but one thing is for sure: it’s do or die time. In the most literal sense of the phrase. “Publicly, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain are calling for troops to be deployed as part of the US-led international coalition already ranged against Isis,” FT wrote, earlier this week. “But regional observers say the moves are cover for an intervention to help the Syrian rebels.”

“If Saudi and Turkish forces were deployed at Syria’s northwestern border crossings with Turkey, for example, they would be inside Russia’s operational theatre,” The Times continues. “This would be a total nightmare for the US,” said analyst Aaron Stein, of the Atlantic Council in Washington. “What happens if Russia kills a Turk? They would be killing a Nato member.”

Yes, a “total nightmare” for the US and to let one Iranian military source tell it, a “total nightmare” for the Saudis as well. Read below to see what Tehran thinks about Riyadh’s chances of securing a desirable outcome in Syria (note the reference to Saudi Arabia and Islamic State's shared ideology):

*  *  *

Via Al-Monitor quoting unnamed Iranian military personnel:

"It’s a joke. We couldn't wish [for] more than that. If they can do it, then let them do it — but talking militarily, this is not easy for a country already facing defeat in another war, in Yemen, where after almost one year they have failed in achieving any real victory.”

“The Saudis might really take part in this war. Such a decision might come from the rulers of the kingdom without taking into consideration the capabilities of their troops, and here is where the tragedy would occur. They are not well-trained for such terrain. I’m not sure if they sorted out the supply routes they would use — this is assuming that they would only fight [IS] — but it’s obvious they [want to] implement their agenda, after their proxies failed.

“This would mean a regional war. Mistakes can’t be tolerated, especially with the tension mounting around the region. It’s not about Iranians, but about all troops on the ground fighting with the Syrian army. How would the Syrian army deal with a foreign country on its soil, without its permission, and maybe aiming [guns] at them? That would be an occupation force. Can the Saudis control their army? Who can guarantee that some of them might not defect and join [IS]? They have the same ideology and they hold the same beliefs, and many of them are already connected [to IS].”

The Saudis are simply putting themselves in a very weird position that might have a very dark end. The worst thing is that the implications aren’t only going to affect the region, but world peace.”

*  *  *

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No war until Trump is in office. (we need to win)

svayambhu108's picture

Suicide, then I hope they'll do it!

New England Patriot's picture

Party in Syria.

(Everyone's invited.)

The Juggernaut's picture

NATO member my ass, Turkey.  If you decide to preserve your oil venture, officially invade Syria yourself.  The Bear will eat the Turkey.  Saudi Arabia, fuck you too.

Leopold B. Scotch's picture

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson


Alas, the Perpetual War is Peace / U.S. Exceptionalism crowd has brainwashed the masses into believing that such sentiment was always Isolationist.  And so some stupid Turk could drag the U.S. into a war the average Joe in Peoria has aboslutely no interest in whatasoever thanks to its membership in an organization that should have ended when its purpose / the USSR collapsed.  These nuts are even begging to start something in the Ukraine.

The whole of the Mid East is not worth the bones of a single U.S. Soldier.  Let them fight over sand, we're already choking on oil.


( "The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier."  Original quote = Bismarck warning leadership to not ever get dragged into the Balkans... and he was eventually ignored.)

svayambhu108's picture

Saudi will look like an S Audi that hit a wall

WTFRLY's picture

Joo World Order loading ... ... ... 69%

Miles Ahead's picture

@ Compromised - "we need to win".

I'll say.  Batting 1 for 6 since WWI from where I'm sitting.  That is when you count real wars where the enemy could fight back.  Vietnam and more recently Iraq and Afghanistan immediately come to mind.  I won't be nasty and mention Lebannon, but you gotta throw Somalia in there.

So I'm voting for Trump too.  I hate losing streaks.  Spent too many years in Cleveland...

RafterManFMJ's picture, more than one, then?

Element's picture



General Curtis LeMay 1964:

 "... The idea of using force to achieve total defeat of an enemy is now only one of the available choices. When you consider the damage levels that high intensity war can bring even to the nominal “winner,” total defeat of the enemy may be the least desirable choice. For the future we need to improve our methods of using weapons to gain precise, but limited, objectives for particular crisis situations. This would increase our capability to neutralize selected targets which are important to the enemy. If carefully applied, these actions could force him to back down from his initial aggression and negotiate our respective interest. ..."
Source: Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, June 3, 1964.


The US and West in general has been following that basic idea, of not pursuing total defeat or surrender of opponents, since Vietnam, to achieve limited political and strategic objectives. The US no longer wants to 'win' via total brutal destruction of another state, using overwhelming force (which it clearly could easily do - no question). It's simply not the preference of the military or politics (nor practical, or cheap) to destroy opponents, leaving them no choice but to surrender, and then have to rebuild them again. When you can just partially destroy them for as long as you like, and make them prefer to not fight with you (see Iran).

McCormick No. 9's picture

Jump you fuckers!

If the bankers die, wars die with them.

Element's picture



Oh, that myopic old myth. Wars occur when States decide to go to war, with other states, to gain or maintain advantages, or to prevent the diminution of 'lifestyle'. As I grew up the common repeated myth about WWII was that we went to war for our allies, in Europe, "to protect our way of life".

And if you look back through history to WWI, and its narratives, and propaganda themes, it was very much done with a rousing call, "For King and Country!". Each time the reasons for a State to cause its population to go to war, is water down to a new digestible mantra, but it's always in the interests of state power driving the populations into combat. And no, I'm neither pro, nor con that process, it's just what States do and we all have to live with it, or not, as the case may be. No matter what I say think or feel about that, it is not going to stop States doing that. I accept it is a fact of life, like cot death, Steak and Cesar salad, male-pattern baldness, dancing with the stars, or sunburn. I could object until I keel over, but will not change the State or its structure and dynamics one scrap.

And no, I'm not going to be adopting anyone's conflicted version of 'reality', I couldn't be bothered, the one around me is much more interesting thanks.

So I'm annoyingly relaxed and arguably 'well-adjusted' about it all. The pet boogieman and scary monster myths that people and really shitty states and governments like to present to me, just don't work. And your pet word illusions fall apart, due to my total lack of interest or respect for any aspect of it. 

What are you gonna do now?  :D

Banks and investors in general (some of whom even hang out at zh, btw) are opportunistic flees on the back of the eternal dog of war who's Master is State Power.

Did you really not know or understand this?

It's the State, a formation of a human 'order', of control, of governance, like governing an engine's parameters to make it run, or in this case, think a certain way, that has created the tendency to go to war. But the State is just the expression of the inner thinking mind of ambitious controllers and alpha dominators to begin with.

If you believe its due to bankers stemming from reading some trite ignorant crap on a web page once, well good for you. But may I suggest you help us all out and clean out your bullshit filter more often, as it's apparently been blocked for many, many years.  :D


You won't be bamboozling me with your preferred cognitive swill.  ;-)

macholatte's picture

The whole of the Mid East is not worth the bones of a single U.S. Soldier.  Let them fight over sand, we're already choking on oil.


Will the chicken shit Arabs fight their own war or will the morons in Washington step in to sacrifice American blood and treasure?  Stay the course Barry. It’s the only thing you got right so far.


 “What happens if Russia kills a Turk? They would be killing a NATO member.”

Ouch!  France and Germany and Italy and England and all the rest are going to have to commit to defending Turkey and sacrificing their blood and treasure.... NOT!

True Blue's picture

France and England did once already; invading the Crimea (Ukraine) to pull the Turk's chestnuts out of the fire.


War is coming. It's not to be stayed. The likes of Paul Krugman have got to be paid.

We're led by the nose; 'till we've tags on our toes;

while the debt of our children contin'lly grows.

Where does it end; when does it stop?

When the trap door opens and our 'leaders' take the drop.

scraping_by's picture

That's the war the word "Jingoism" came into use. "The Russians shall not have Con-stan-ti-ooooo-ple!'" See also, The Charge of the Light Brigade.

True Blue's picture

I originally quoted Tennyson and Kipling in my answer, but it got too long winded. Thanks for noticing though!

Pazuzu's picture

George M Frasier's 'Flashman at the Charge' will give you the history and a good laugh.

True Blue's picture

Own them all. Sadly, he died in 2008.

August's picture

If Turkey choses to invade Syria, there is zero obligation on NATO to in any way aid Turkey.

Unless you think Cameron, Merkel etc. etc. are willing to outsource their foreign policy to Erdogan.

Lark.monotonous's picture

NATO is a defensice alliance.

If the turks go into Syria, they're on their own. NATO as nothing to do with it.

ThroxxOfVron's picture

Syria should publicly announce that:


"Upon the first footstep of a Saudi Arabian soldier upon Syrian soil we will ignore the oil fields -and bomb Mecca to dust.

-Should the Kingdom invade the destruction shall be their SOLE responsibility."


...The ultimate line in the sand.

The Islamic World will stop this bullshit immediately IF that is the proposition set forth.

I guarantee you that neither Russia nor the US/Nato will need to do anything further at that point to shut down this regional/proxy war bullshit..

Jerky Miester's picture

Rape them both with the largest Steely Dan on the planet!

Freddie's picture

Liar and rapist Bill Clinton on his post presidential temple tour speeches said if Israel was ever attacked he would be in a fox hole with a rifle.  Most likely with Denise Rich, Marc Rich ex wife.

Shit if the Saudis and Turks enter Syria then I might pick up a rifle for Syria.  This would be a freaking "turkey" shoot.   The Saudis are so evil and stupid.

The statement from Iran was pretty funny.  They think the Saudis and Turks are evil clowns.

Perimetr's picture

Soon comes the fall of the House of Saud.
Good riddance.
The Russian S-400s and S-300s will take out the Turkish Air Force, and the Turkish and Saudi troops will be slaughtered.

KnuckleDragger-X's picture

It's always much easier when your not the one being shot at. I need to call Las Vegas and see if anybody has started a betting line and what odds they're giving......

cheech_wizard's picture

Because moving your troops closer to enemy artillery has always proven such a brilliant strategy in the past.

Standard Disclaimer: Genius, pure fucking genius...

bid the soldiers shoot's picture

Into the Valley of Death rode the Saudi Arabians

Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
    Rode the Saudi Arabians


Itch's picture

Are you out of your fucking tree? Like Trump is going to know anything about winning wars, if you can't win with a guy that has been waging them for 8 years, it's time to smell the coffee. No war, period.

Miles Ahead's picture

if you can't win with a guy that has been waging them for 8 years, it's time to smell the coffee

Got that part right.  Hilarious... you're just assuming Obama is going to continue wars until his last day!  LMAO.  I think you win.

DownWithYogaPants's picture

Obama is a dumb Niggerian.  I would not expect anything he does to be successful.

I would highly expect Trump to use unconventional methods even in war.  More likely yet is if he does use force it will be extremely limited.  I suspect the unconventional will be his strong suit.  He's already winning the presidency on a Walmart budget.

eforce's picture

Perhaps Trump is just saying what ever is needed to get elected but has no actual intention of going through with some of the crazy ideas floated.

America needs rebuilding, not entering into another war.

Collapsed's picture

You could make a strong argument that "we" realllllllly need to lose.

Miles Ahead's picture

No we don't!  Got damn!  See above, my comment.  I'm tired of these ass-whuppins.  I grew up in Cleveland!

scraping_by's picture

We could very easily win - by staying out. No dog in this fight, bubba.

Oquities's picture

the U.S. is the dog and it's alrady in the fight.   guess who its handler is?

TeaClipper's picture

Win? You better be very fucking clear about who the enemy really is before you get any delusions of grandure about winning anything.


Fucking dumb tool

Perimetr's picture

Agree with TeaClipper.

We have met the enemy and he is US.

The Spanish Ambassador's picture

more muzz for the meat grinder. 

open-range's picture

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do...

svayambhu108's picture

Saudi Arabia 1932-2016

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Time to gang up and end the House of Wahhabi Smegma.

The ME does not want or need them, and We (in the West) don't need these Orks.  

Just do a "Saddam" on their ass:  Bomb and invade them, take their oil (to keep the PetroDollar), and put the Jordanians in charge of Mecca and Medina.  QED.

EVERYONE (even the regular non-Royal Saudis, Israelis and US Frackers) wins, with the House of Saud GONE.

froze25's picture

I Can't agree with that. The Saudi's are the Sister to Israel. They work as a team in affairs.

Miles Ahead's picture

Exactly.  But step sisters.  And Saudi gives Israel cover for things they cannot do to other Arabs.  Like Obama gives Neocons cover for things even a white man could not get away with!