Most likely, Assad (with Russian help) will finish everyone else first.
Russia’s goal is to have Assad as the winner, and they will optimize for that. Fighting against ISIS would be a waste of resources for them—other countries will do that for them, so they can focus on the remaining Assad’s enemies.
And the other big players know that. This is why the situation is so difficult to solve, although in theory it should work just as proposed (weaken ISIS by bombing, and let their enemies do the rest).
Russia’s goal is to have Assad as the winner, and they will optimize for that. Fighting against ISIS would be a waste of resources for them
Um, ISIS controls large chunks of Syria and their capital, Raqqa, is a Syrian town which, I assume, Assad would like to have back.
Moreover, as far as I understand, ISIS wants to have a major battle with the Western/Christian/Crusader army by the Syrian town of Dabiq (to kick-start the Apocalypse) and will, presumably, commit all its forces to it.
Um, ISIS controls large chunks of Syria and their capital, Raqqa, is a Syrian town which, I assume, Assad would like to have back.
Sure. Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly. Assad has multiple goals. Destroying ISIS (and getting the capital back) is one of them. Destroying the rebels is another. Destroying Kurds is yet another.
If you have three goals, A, B, C, and you know that most of the world will support you with A, it makes sense to spend your resources (such as the army) on B and C first.
Scenario 1: Assad destroys ISIS first. Other countries will help him, but he will still pay a significant part of the cost. After ISIS is gone, most countries are no longer interested in helping Assad. Some of them may even object against his fight against the rebels and Kurds. Some of them may even start supporting the rebels again.
Scenario 2: Assad destroys the rebels and Kurds first. Then he looks at the rest of the world and says: “You guys are still interested in helping me destroy ISIS, right?”
Yes, and the first and most important goal is to survive. I don’t think Assad has that much latitude in choosing which enemies to go after and which to ignore for the time being. He has been amazingly tenacious, but it’s far from a foregone conclusion that he’ll be the only one left standing at the end.
Yes, and the first and most important goal is to survive. I don’t think Assad has that much latitude in choosing which enemies to go after and which to ignore for the time being.
Yes, and that means he won’t focus on ISIS as ISIS mostly doesn’t fight against him but against rebel groups that fight him.
I suspect who is fighting who at the moment is mostly driven by tactical considerations and just plain physical proximity. ISIS, basically, fights everyone it comes into contact with. If there are rebels between it and Assad, it will fight the rebels. If Assad pushes the rebels back and comes into direct contact with ISIS, it will fight Assad.
Most likely, Assad (with Russian help) will finish everyone else first.
Russia’s goal is to have Assad as the winner, and they will optimize for that. Fighting against ISIS would be a waste of resources for them—other countries will do that for them, so they can focus on the remaining Assad’s enemies.
And the other big players know that. This is why the situation is so difficult to solve, although in theory it should work just as proposed (weaken ISIS by bombing, and let their enemies do the rest).
Um, ISIS controls large chunks of Syria and their capital, Raqqa, is a Syrian town which, I assume, Assad would like to have back.
Moreover, as far as I understand, ISIS wants to have a major battle with the Western/Christian/Crusader army by the Syrian town of Dabiq (to kick-start the Apocalypse) and will, presumably, commit all its forces to it.
Sure. Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly. Assad has multiple goals. Destroying ISIS (and getting the capital back) is one of them. Destroying the rebels is another. Destroying Kurds is yet another.
If you have three goals, A, B, C, and you know that most of the world will support you with A, it makes sense to spend your resources (such as the army) on B and C first.
Scenario 1: Assad destroys ISIS first. Other countries will help him, but he will still pay a significant part of the cost. After ISIS is gone, most countries are no longer interested in helping Assad. Some of them may even object against his fight against the rebels and Kurds. Some of them may even start supporting the rebels again.
Scenario 2: Assad destroys the rebels and Kurds first. Then he looks at the rest of the world and says: “You guys are still interested in helping me destroy ISIS, right?”
Yes, and the first and most important goal is to survive. I don’t think Assad has that much latitude in choosing which enemies to go after and which to ignore for the time being. He has been amazingly tenacious, but it’s far from a foregone conclusion that he’ll be the only one left standing at the end.
Yes, and that means he won’t focus on ISIS as ISIS mostly doesn’t fight against him but against rebel groups that fight him.
I suspect who is fighting who at the moment is mostly driven by tactical considerations and just plain physical proximity. ISIS, basically, fights everyone it comes into contact with. If there are rebels between it and Assad, it will fight the rebels. If Assad pushes the rebels back and comes into direct contact with ISIS, it will fight Assad.