Was Syria a socialism? Seems their entire parliament was made up of 'socialists'

More like Fascism.

Clinton please…

Assad is a bourgeoisie puppet working with American and Russian imperialism to terrorize the Syrian people in their phoney new "cold war." Both sides are equally imperialist.

That's a new one. Go on.

Its of course an extrapolation. The key issue in the entire region since 1979 has been Iranian theocracy excited the Shias around the world. We know the United States is secretly working with theocratic Iran though they will never admit it. During Iran-Contra the United States supported the Iranian theocracy in secret with weapons. Then the United States fought the two gulf wars against Iraq afterwards essentially leaving the country gift packaged for Iran. Even the recent Iran deal is a massive gift to Iran, which is of course on purpose.

Why Bush Sr.'s 1991 Gulf War? To Protect Iranian Islamism.
hirhome.com/iraniraq/gulfwar.htm

So the American imperialists are supporting Iranian theocracy through their actions if not their words. The Russian imperialists are openly supporting the Iranian theocracy. The same situation likely applies in Syria despite misguiding words.

This is a whole new flavour of tinfoil. US policy is explicitly anti-iran.

newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

I guess in your version the sunni majority of the MENA region are the victims?

The United States can be opposed to Iran in words but in favour of them in actions. That means they are public enemies but secret enemies. The United States actions have been pro-Iran despite anti-Iran words. The two gulf wars essentially handed over Iraq to Iran. The Iran deal also benefits Iran.

Do not buy into bourgeoisie lies. The United States is not anti-Iran despite its public statements it is anti-socialist and anti-communist. Since Iran is a reactionary theocracy it is a potential ally of American imperialism against socialism and communism just as it is an ally of Russian imperialism. Theocracies are preferable to the imperialist elites to socialist societies which challenge them on an economic rather then a religious level. Theocracies will never be a true opponent to imperialism.

You mean the lifting of unjustified sanctions and the return of Iranian money frozen in US accounts?

Yes. Stuxnet was proof of this.

Sorry man but such bold claims require powerful evidence. The author of the article you posted above is a lecturer on anti-semitism. He has beef with Iran. This seems like black propaganda.

Just taking this a little deeper, you believe the US are secretly allied with Syria by extension right? So the strikes against Syria have been what, friendly fire or a show for the public?

Yes. They will be given a hundred billion dollars in this deal.

The creator of Stuxnet is unconfirmed.

Look at the Iran contra affair. The whole time the United States claimed to be against Iran well supporting them in secret and that is known to be the case. Also during the Iraq war the United States worked with Iran to bomb MeK which was the greatest opponent to the theocracy in Iran. This is convincing evidence. Iran is a reactionary theocracy there is a good reason to have a beef with it.

The majority of the United States bombing is against ISIS and other common opponents of Assad. Some other strikes may be to put up a show.

The modern US has no love for Iran. Iran-Contra served to keep Iran out of the Soviets sphere of influence, to fund counterrevolutionaries in the US's "backyard", and swapping hostages. Removing the Soviet element from the equation is how you get to the ridiculous conclusion that the US is secretly in leagues with Iran. The US did some contradictory ass shit to counter the USSR during the Cold War.

Then why did the United States go to war with Iraq after the USSR collapsed which gave the country over to Iran? Why did the United States bomb MeK with Iran in the Iraq war?

Its often claimed that the American intelligence created ISIS, which is probably true. But who does the creation of ISIS actually benefit? Above all it benefits Iran because it gives them a green light to bomb these Sunni areas into oblivion. Its ridiculous to suppose that ISIS was created for its own sake because it such a fringe group but it could have been created to benefit the Shias who gain prestige against them. This another part of the equation. The United States handed over Iraq to Iran and then left them ISIS, a highly demonized organization which they can easily justify combating to wipe out the remaining Sunnis.

Of their own money. Seized by the US cause the AIPAC said so.

Wrong. It was created by the US and Israel. It had been on Iranian systems for quite a while before Israelis, pissed that nobody was taking their nuclear claims seriously, activated the second phase ofg the program where it went from observing and reporting to sabotaging systems.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Check out the documentary 'Zero-Days' for the full scoop.

They supported Iran too. Contra was a blakc project. It had to make its own budget. So selling shit to Iran was one of these black project funding routes taken.

So is every state in the region aside Israel. Well Syria wasn't. Sharia is deemed unconstitutional in Syria. Poor Syria didn't deserve what has happened.

Don't take this the wrong way, but are you Sunni? You seem to have a bias.

I don't think ISIS was created by the US directly, though it is interesting to note that Baghadadi was under US custody pretty much up until he formed ISIS.

Anyway, the entire presentation of the Arab Spring has had one overriding theme. Sunni good, Shai bad. Look at the nations that the revolution was supported in western media, compared to where it was suppressed from the public sphere by the same media. Pretty telling.

TBH the only place I've seen the 'Iran and US are secret allies' line before has been on hardline Zionist sites.

...

Ignoring your reflex response for a second here, do you think there is socialist 'sentiment' (for lack of a better word) in the nation, given that not just the ruling party but almost every party calls themself socialist. Does this not suggest that, at the very least, anti-capitalism is a strong theme in Syria?

Neither was Iraq. Iraq didn't deserve what has happened to it. Starting with the Iranian revolution of 1979 Iran became a theocracy and it started to export Shia fundamentalism. This undermined the stability of Iraq by exciting the Shia majority of the country. This caused the Iran-Iraq war in which terrorist theocratic Iran fought Iraq for almost eight years. Then the American imperialists went in after the Iranians and fought Iraq in two wars destroying the country even though it was the main deterrent to Iranian expansionism. Iranian theocracy and American imperialism are guilty of destroying Iraq. Syria didn't really put up a protest against this, in fact they participated in the first gulf war.

No. The dynamic has been changing though since the Iranian revolution of 1979 established the reactionary theocracy in Iran. Theocratic Iran has been taking over the middle east, almost certainly not by coincidence.

If it was created by US intelligence it was another gift to Iran. The fact that the US had Baghdadi is certainly support for this possibility.

Pretty sure Iraq hit first. Saddam was an asshole, but yes. He was better than what we have now.

UIS policy in the region has been blunder after blunder and Iran has capitalised. I still think it is a massive leap to say this is by design.

Taking over seems a little strong, given the gulf monarchies are still a cosy little clique out to get the Shia. Iran is not the only theocracy in the region. It is however the only one with a slimmer of hope for democratic-ish reform. They are already heading that way. The population know they have to play it safe and work within the democratic system. I'm sure the US would much rather though another Green Revolution moment where they could sweep in under the guise of humanitarian concern, but the Iranians are too smart for that.

Obviously it is just one article but I'd suggst you have a read of the NewYorker link I left above. It spells out pretty explicitly that US policy was to bolster Sunni state and non-state forces to counter Iranian ambition. Then there's this video

youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

If the date given is true (2007), it's either some scary-accurate predictions, or all he is saying is true.

Ba'athism and Arab "socialism" are not socialism.

It was provoked by the Iranian theocratic revolution. The Ayatollah Khomeini called on Iraqis to overthrow the Ba'ath government of Iraq and establish a theocratic revolution. This continued despite Iraq's offer to co-exist based upon the principle of non-interference on each others affairs. But the ayatollah insisted on exporting Shia fundamentalism. This was a deliberate policy of provoking war. So Iranian theocracy and American imperialism destroyed Iraq.

Of course the official story is that it is a "blunder." The official story is that the United States, with the greatest intelligence operations in history, somehow blundered into handing Iraq over to Iran. But its more likely incompetence is a cover for a secret agenda.

I don't think it is that strong. This spread of Islamic fundamentalism really started in earnest only in 1979 so its spread in a short period of time has been considerable. As for the gulf monarchies they are puppets.

Now don't get me wrong, I've a million miles from defending theocracy.

If this conspiracy is true, who are the intended victims and what is the objective? And why could this objective not have been pursued with staunch US ally Saudi Arabia?