Assad is becoming increasingly dependent on the Iranians for his capacity to wage war. Lots of interesting implications with this move, none of them good.

The FSA has little chance to prevail in this affair, sans air cover.

Interesting. Iran send their goons to support a nominally secular Syrian government that is locked in combat with an Islamist uprising? You can’t make this stuff up!

Likely to backfire, by increasing defections of native Syrian Sunnis from the Syrian army.

I doubt Iran alone can maintain enough men in Syria to hold it for Assad.

The Syrian Islamist uprising is Sunni.
Iran is supporting a nominally Shiite (Alawites are Shiite to to a degree, depending on how you squint at them) ruling class in Syria.
There is nothing a bit odd here. Its the Iran-Iraq war all over again, except now its a proxy conflict of Iran vs an alliance of the Saudis and the Gulf states.

No way to take some of them out?

I think they can.
Ordinary guerrilla operations can isolate Syrian regime forces in strongholds which the regime will find difficult to supply. The regime military seems to already be short of manpower and can’t hold a lot of critical posts. At some point the regime will run out of money.

Take who out ?

Interesting. Iran send their goons to support a nominally secular Syrian government that is locked in combat with an Islamist uprising? You can’t make this stuff up!

Not the first time this kind of stuff has happened. Countries ally with others with which they have very little in common all the time. The Crimean War was waged by the British and the French to limit Russian encroachments upon the Ottoman Empire. Prior to Pearl Harbor, we sent USAAF "volunteers" to staff the Flying Tigers who defended Chinese airspace against the Japanese, both of which obviously had much more in common culturally and racially than with us. And during WWII, we allied with one socialist regime (the Soviet Union) to fight another socialist regime (Nazi Germany).

The Iranians are merely allying with non-Sunni Arabs to fight the common Sunni Arab enemy. As a country that is surrounded by overwhelmingly Sunni majority regimes where persecuting Shiites is viewed almost as a religious obligation, Iran's strategic situation would be bleak even without an American presence backing those regimes up. The smart thing for Iran to do would be to ally with the US, thereby guaranteeing its sovereignty against its Sunni adversaries. But the regime is headed by delusional fools who think (or at least say in public) that they can conquer the neighboring Sunnis countries on the way towards unifying the entire world under Shiite Islam in preparation for return of the Twelfth Imam. My guess is that they view nuclear weapons as an essential tool (or shield) to aid them in the process of global conquest, which is why they are unlikely to give up on their nuclear ambitions.

Thanks for the clarification. Alawite’s are a ‘branch’ of the shiite. That makes some sense if you discount the socialist aspect of the Assad regime.

Well, perhaps. But they do not seem to be doing very well. Heavy casualties. Town after town destroyed. Parts of major cities likewise. Iran has access via sea as well as rat lines to Syria. Constant resupply of forces. Supplies. One FSA officer (Syrian army defector) stated "no Syrian soldier could shoot like that." Implying of course, that Iranian snipers were being employed. And this was weeks ago.

FSA did manage to drop a Syrian Army helicopter the other day. But these can be replaced quickly. I see much more blood shed ahead. Death toll rising to 30K soon...

This is bad, it gets Iran one step closer to wanting to obliterate Israel.

Egypt allows Iranian warship through Suez despite U.S. objection

CAIRO — Egypt has again allowed an Iranian Navy ship to pass the Suez Canal toward Syria.

A senior official said the Egyptian Navy approved the passage of an Iranian ship loaded with weapons to move from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea
The Iranian Navy frigate IS Alvand passes through the Suez Canal at Ismailia, Egypt, on Feb. 22. The frigate, accompanied by the replenishment ship IS Kharg, entered the Suez Canal en route to Syria. /AP
The official said Egypt dismissed a request by the United States to stop the Iranian ship at the canal.
“The Egyptian Navy refused a U.S. request to strike an Iranian ship loaded with weapons that was on its way to Syria through the Suez Canal,” Mohab Mamish, chairman of the Suez Canal Authority, said.

In an Aug. 26 interview with an Egyptian television station, Al Hayat, Mamish, replaced as Egyptian Navy commander earlier this month, did not say when the Iranian weapons ship traveled through the canal.
Mamish, a former member of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, said he was authorized to make all decisions on the canal, a leading earner of revenue for Egypt.
Mamish, whose remarks were also reported by Egypt’s official daily Al Ahram, said the Egyptian military objected to deployment of U.S. Navy ships at the southern entrance of the canal in January 2011. At the time, President Hosni Mubarak faced massive unrest, which led to his ouster by the military 18 days later.

In the interview, Mamish said the Egyptian Navy has maintained tight control over the canal. The retired vice admiral said no foreign navy could conduct operations in the narrow waterway without Egypt’s approval.

http://www.worldnewstribune.com/2012/08/27/egypt-allows-iranian-warship-through-suez-despite-u-s-objection/

Bloodshed and infrastructure destruction tend to help the insurgents. The more the economy is disrupted, the more the organization of government fails, and leaves the field to the insurgents to organize in their place and control the population.

That the government can march into a town and flatten it is less important than whether they can stay in it. If they then need to pull out the fire brigade and go elsewhere to put out the next center of insurgency, it will just result in losing the ground they won.

Resupply of government ammunition is not the critical point. Its whether the government can control the population, and maintain an economy. Iran can’t pay for a war in Syria for very long. I doubt the Syrian state is collecting much in the way of taxes at the moment.

The Saudis and Gulf states however can pay for an insurgency forever.

Muslim Brotherhood has issues with the Saudis.
Hence acting against their interests at least in a token manner.
Game playing looking for a Saudi subsidy ?

Russia is backing Assad. They will keep him afloat as they did so many countries during the Cold War. Tartus is their only sea port outside Russia itself. They need it badly.

This thing can go on for years. Or it could collapse tomorrow. Insurgent movements have been defeated in the past. Iran is good at crushing internal opposition. Will they be able to do so inside Syria? Well, they sure raised nine kinds of hell during our involvement in Iraq. 'Stan as well.

I would have thought the Gulf States would have stepped up to the plate by now. More active. But time will tell...

Russia cant afford to back Assad for long.
Its not the Soviet Union. They don’t have money to burn, and ports outside Russia are moot when the Russian fleet barely exists, particularly in the Black Sea/Med. Nice to have, not have to have.

Anything can happen of course. The Iraq precedent is instructive. Its way more expensive to suppress an insurgency than it is to keep one going. I am sure the Saudi and Gulf money is flowing in this proxy war.

Maybe Syria will soon become a peaceful, agricultural kind of place.

Thanks mojito. From the FRchives:

• Report: Iran Quds Forces March into Syria
• Report: Iranian Special Forces Are Marching Into Syria
• Iran Quds marching into Syria to ail Assad
• Iran Sends 15,000 Troops to Syria to Assist in Crackdown on Syrian Civilians
• Report: Hizbullah Fighters Lately Entered Syria to Back Assad Troops
• US official: Russia sends troops to Syria as peace hopes fade
• Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria
• ABC Reports Russian Troops Have Arrived In Syria, Russia Denies
• Russian Anti-Terror Troops Arrive in Syria