Syria: Is there any way this can end well?

Keep in mind that ISIL was originally a Sunni insurgent group in Iraq. If you believe Josh Rogin, they got a lot of funding from rich folk in the Gulf States. And they governments supposedly are looking the other way partly because they are upset at Obama not bombing Syria after the famous red line was crossed:

I’ve heard that last claim from other sources, too. Not sure what to believe these days, but there is a certain logic to it. As long as Assad is fighting radical Islamists instead of secular rebels, then he makes Obamas claim that “Assad must go” less of a reality.

But ISIL also robs banks-- they allegedly got something like $400M from the bank in Mosul. And they run extortion rackets in the territories they control. They’re like the Muslim Mafia, only with actual control over large areas of actual countries.

“Putin and Rouhani”?
That’s a fairly odd juxtaposition since Rouhani isn’t the leader of Iran. You might as well say “Putin and Boehner”.

It’s pretty common for people to not realize that Iran’s president has little, if any, influence over foreign policy. There isn’t a good analog to Rouhani in most Western governments, I don’t think.

I suppose you could compare him to the President of Israel.

Decades of political assassinations by both Hafez and Bashar Assad really benefited Lebanon.

You’re responding to someone banned two years ago.

You’re correct though that his claim is jaw-droppingly stupid.

Petty petty petty:

Iranian President Rouhani says country is ready to help Iraq …
www.foxnews.com/...president-rouhani...to-help-iraq-if-asked
… State of Iraq and the Levant, ( ISIS … with Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion … Rouhani said. …

On matters of the military and foreign policy, he’s more like the press secretary. As some of us know, the Supreme Leader is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, and makes foreign policy decisions. If Iran sends aid to Iraq, it will be Khamenei’s decision to do so. Rouhani can mouth the policy, but he doesn’t make the policy.

I was referring to ‘elected’ leaders of both countries:
Profile: Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran - BBC News Profile of Hassan Fereydoon Rouhani, who was elected president of Iran in June 2013.
So Boehner was a pitiful choice for a snark attempt. Boehner was elected by one congressional district in Ohio.

Mace has made anither gross error.

Post 149 it was IBN that made the original error. It was not Mace. Just posting the correction.

I was referring to elected leaders. As some of us know both Putin and Rouhani were elected.

I should have added that Iran does not have an elected leader. Rouhani is the president, but he’s not the leader of the country. Khamenei is the leader. There’s a hint about that in his title: “Leader”. He’s often referred to as The Supreme Leader, but if you look in the Iranian constitution, he’s just called “Leader”.

There is a fiction that the Leader is indirectly elected, since he is chosen by an elected body, the Council of Experts. But the Leader and the unelected Guardian Council decide who can stand for election and can dismiss anyone on the Council of Experts.

What “error” did I make?

You made an extremely stupid post which suggested that your knowledge of Iran was less than ideal.

Rouhani is not the “leader” of Iran.

Iran’s “leader” or “Imam” or “Rahbar” if you prefer is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Rouhani is at best the the third or fourth most influential politician in Iran, hence my reference to Boehner, though in retrospect that was a terrible comparison because Boehner can and does thwart the will of Obama, Rouhani can’t do that to Khamenei.

In theory the Assembly of Experts can countermand an order by the Supreme Leader, or Supreme Guide(depending on your translation) but in over thirty years of existence they haven’t done so once.

Anyway NFBW, I suggest you learn a bit more about Iran before making such pronouncements in the future and then doubling down on them.

I didn’t claim he was the leader. I referred to two elected leaders one in Russia one in Iran. Rouhani is the highest elected leader in Iran. I thought one as smart you would know that. I guess I should have expected your petty nitpicking but I didn’t. Now if you have a point against the substance of what I wrote, can we see it or is nitpicking over ‘leader’ as far as you can go?

Do you have an argument that Rouhani was not elected by the people of Iran? If not admit your error.

So, Rouhani is the leader of Iran and at the same time not the leader. Got it.

I’ll take the BBC over Message Board nitpicking any day.

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22886729

No. You snipped two full sentences from my reply to Ibn.

Here they are:

"I didn’t claim he was the leader. I referred to two elected leaders one in Russia one in Iran. Rouhani is the highest elected leader in Iran.

I thought you “didn’t claim he was the leader.”

At any rate, the BBC is in error. That’s sloppy reporting, especially since they also say, in that very article:

Emphasis added. They are not talking about Rouhani there.

You thought wrong because you did not read my full thought.

Go back and read your cite. Its sloppy reading not sloppy reporting.

And you were so smart until I brought you the reality that BBC and probably every news agency would refer to Rouhani as the leader of Iran as they did right here;