International Concern Over Islamic Militants in Syria Increasing


Things are looking increasingly grim for Assad's regime. Russia, one of the Syrian government's closest allies, recently evacuated many of its citizens from the war-torn country, and Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said that Assad's chances of staying in power are "slipping away" at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos. Although the Syrian government is losing support Assad's potential downfall leaves the international community with some concerns.

Assad's opponents include Islamic militants, some of whom have links to Al Qaeda. There are worries that a post-Assad Syria could provide an ideal theatre in which these Jihadist groups could operate. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius recently voiced these concerns. From Reuters:

Addressing the opening of a conference in Paris with senior members of the Syrian National Coalition, Laurent Fabius said the meeting must focus on making the opposition politically and militarily cohesive to encourage international assistance.

"Facing the collapse of a state and society, it is Islamist groups that risk gaining ground if we do not act as we should," he said. "We cannot let a revolution that started as a peaceful and democratic protest degenerate into a conflict of militias."

Officials in Israel are also concerned. Iron Dome defense systems have been deployed to northern Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sent national security adviser Ya'akov Amidror to Moscow for talks on the situation in Syria. One of the main concerns is that chemical weapons could fall into the hands of Islamic militants. Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom has said that Israeli air strikes could be used to stop chemical weapons being acquired by either Al Qaeda-linked militants or members of Hezbollah fighting for the Assad regime.

Israeli strikes on fighters sympathetic to Assad could result in Iran getting involved. A few days ago an aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that an attack on Syria would be viewed as an attack on Iran. While the conflict in Syria is being portrayed as a civil war the reality is a little more complicated. Last month, The Independent reported that fighters from as many as 29 countries are involved in the Syrian conflict. The involvement of fighters from so many countries only adds to the unpredictable nature of the conflict, as does the increased potential involvement of Iran and Israel. Considering the complex international situation in Syria and the fact that Israel and Iran have already mentioned intervention it would be best not to send additional support to the Syrian opposition, despite what Sen. John McCain (R-AZ.) might think. 

NEXT: NYC Houses Sandy Victims With Vermin, No Heat

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Do you guys hear that ripping sound? It’s Lyle and Cytotoxic’s warboners tearing free of their pants.

      1. Damn squirrels wouldn’t let me link to a .wav file.

        1. Oh SF…

    1. But which side are we supposed to warfuck? Assad is bombarding his own people and accidentally shelled Turkey. He owns chemical weapons and was prepared to use them. Meanwhile, the Syrian militants are rabid Islamic nutcases who have killed children and set civilians on fire.

      I don’t know which of those sides we’re supposed to warwingman.

      1. As long as furriners die, who cares?

      2. I think the theory is we attack anyone that we don’t want to have chemical weapons.

        Which, in Syria, is pretty much everyone.

      3. My grandmother would have advocated bombing both sides and bringing restoring Turkish rule to the wayward province.

        1. I’m not saying it should be done, but I’ve heard worse ideas.

      4. I don’t know which of those sides we’re supposed to warwingman.

        Whomever our Saudi masters deem appropriate.

      5. It’s just as likely that the opposition is shelling Turkey.


          I know it’s, a site that clearly has an ax to grind, but Assad’s government did apologize and take responsibility. It’s not just as likely that the opposition did it.

      6. I don’t know about supposed to, but if the rumors about Benghazi are true, we are intervening on the side of jihad yet again. Which makes no sense to me, unless everyone at the CIA and DoD are secret Muslims, or they just literally believe that you need a World War to improve the world economy.

        1. I am curious as to why we want to replace a socialist dictatorship with an Islamist dictatorship.

          Rumor is that if you want to go to war with Iran you can’t do so with Assad in power. You would have to invade both countries.

          Now Assad’s government is a minority Shia that rules a majority Sunni.
          If the Islamists take over, they will be the Sunni majority and they will be more opposed to Iran than they are to Israel or us.

          But, they will be a headache of no end to the Iraqi government.

    2. Clear as day.

    3. In the sense that I enjoy watching the enemies of civilization kill each other at no cost to us, ye, my warboner breaks loose. In any sense of America getting involved, nay, my warboner is nowhere to be found. Not that I expect you to even comprehend or process that last point. You are as addicted to a cartoon of your opponents in this subject as liberals are in basically all subjects.


    What is this, WND?

    1. Well, it makes sense to wear muslin in Syria during the summer, at least.

  3. We should have open borders and allow these people to come to the US so they can become citizens and vote. They are experts on socialist dictatorships and Islamic dictatorships that Americans are too lazy and over priced to do.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.