How will Daraa’s capture change the Syrian war?


MAP UPDATE: Military situation in southern province of Daraa, on July 12, 2018

…from Southfront

A number of foreign countries need to be exposed for aiding and abetting the Syrian terrorists

[ Editor’s Note: One of the unnoticed stories of the SAA liberation of the Daraa region is the amount of weaponry that is being surrendered, including armor, which will now be put to good work in defending the area and in the future Idlib, Raqqa, and Deir Ezzor campaigns.

A subplot behind all this is the foreign weaponry that is being recaptured, proof of the undeclared “world war” waged against not only the Assad regime, but the Syrian people.

They were slaughtered indiscriminately by Western, Gulf State proxy terror forces, along with Israel; and NATO having a hand in the pie, always looking for opportunities to justify itself.

And last, the movement of refugees back into the Daraa area will be a testament to the political power that not just Assad, but the Syrian Army are putting in the bank, as the only votes the opposition is going to get is from themselves.

Even those who were not happy with Assad know who unleashed the terror brigades against them, and I doubt they will forget it before the next electionJim W. Dean ]

Jim's Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal
Jim's work includes research, field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving & more. Thanks for helping. Click to donate >>

– First published … July 12, 2028

Strategically this Daraa campaign will be ending the free flow of weapons and supplies run out of the huge war operations command underneath the US Embassy in Jordan. The Jordan King is a main culprit in the terror war on the Syrian people. This command center was also manned by Gulf State military officers, and of course always the Israeli “observers”.

There has not been much said about plans for the ISIS pocket west of Daraa that has been supplied by the Israelis. They will be hard pressed to only protect it with air and artillery cover from their Golan positions.

They will of course have their agents on the Syrian side lob a mortar shell over the the fence to give Israel the excuse to strike a Syrian position. So far, Russia has been silent on this. But that might all change after the Trump-Putin summit, or it could get worse.

Israel has been demanding the Iran anti-terrorism forces leave Syria before it gives up anything. Israelis never do anything because it is the right or legal way to do things. The Likuds have extortion in their DNA.

Syria of course has a right to invite anyone to remain in Syria as part of its mini-NATO anti-terrorism campaign, and even moreso so as many of the countries around them have supported the terrorists against them.

I find it amusing that the US with its 700+ bases, and the Israelis who conduct espionage against everybody, anoint themselves as the deciders of what allies other countries can have.

Will the SAA go to Idlib next? If so that could bring conflict with Turkey’s defacto occupation of the area. Where Russia will stand could rule the day in terms of will it use its air power close to Turkish forces, especially when it comes to bombing terrorist supply lines? We might know more after the Trump-Putin summit, or they may go quiet … Jim W. Dean

All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. When our media invariably talk about wars in foreign countries, for the cynical geopolitical reasons cited, it is true that it is indeed customary to designate governments viewed by the US as hostile to its interests, as ‘regimes’, but precisely because it is so customary, as Ian does here, we can innocently use the term in its pristine, neutral sense, without feeling we are ‘playing their game’ – still less, intentionally doing so.

  2. ‘so why do you use the word ‘regime’ when speaking about Syria but never about the usa?’

    If I may interject – Broadway Danny Rose-style – Cariatide, might it not be because it has become increasingly clear that the successive administrations of the US tend to be little more than puppets, whose strings are pulled by their paymasters : the ‘deep state’, perhaps mostly via the latters’ lobbyists. The power is more diffusely exerted by dark and mostly anonymous forces ; while highly imaginative, democratic credentials are evoked to gether with the claim that they, themselves, are democracies standard-bearers, nay, champions par excellence’.

    Even such corrupt and specious diffusion of government power in other countries, however, would not lend itself to the same focused, concentrated targeting of their hostile propaganda, in the same way that the word, ‘regime’ does ; which has the further bonus of possessing military overtones that the hopelessly civil, bureaucratic term, ‘administration’ emphatically. does not. A nice propaganda asset for the US.

  3. This is a verbatim copy from the (updated) Oxford English Dictionary :
    (Note that it says “usually derogatory”)
    regime reɪˈʒi:m ♫ noun. Also régime. l15.
    1 = regimen 2. l15.
    G. Greene A patient…accepts…the strict regime required for a cure.
    2 A method or system of rule or government; a system or institution having widespread influence or prevalence. Now freq. (usu. derog.), a particular government. l18.
    G. F. Kennan The political disintegration of the old Tsarist regime.
    the ancient regime, the old regime [translating French] = ancien régime.

  4. The Golan Heights taken back by Syria? Will Israel use their nukes to keep their stolen land? What will Iran do if Israel freaks? There sure is alot going on.

  5. Ian, I beg to differ. You’re correct, by itself the word “regime” by definition is not negative. However, during my 70 years on the planet the media has primarily made a habit of using the word regime to describe a known dictator, enemy leader, or strongman, who happens to be on the wrong side. So, by constantly using it to describe hated opposition, like: Nazi regime, Putin regime, Noriega regime, Assad regime etc., the word has picked up a negative aire. After all I have never heard anyone say: the Obama regime, the Trump regime, the Reagan regime or, the Clinton regime. Overtime definitions can change.

    • Well, yes, you are broadly correct, but it is abundantly clear than Jim Dean wasn’t seeking to make any negative implication whatsoever. I have used the phrase ‘Trump regime’ in my articles several times, but I recognise that I am the exception to the rule and in general, as you say, most tend to use regime largely to refer to regimes that they do not approve of and refrain from using it for those of which they do approve.

  6. We didn’t make a mistake and you are being very arrogant by trying to lecture native English speakers on how to use their own language. Also, your insertion of nationalistic rhetoric is completely out of place, need I remind you of some of the crimes of France?

  7. He is not being “extremely pedantic”, while the may be no “implicit negative connotation” it has been used explicitly to point out the “nondemocratic character” of countries, west doesn’t approve of!They don’t use it in connection with any western democratic regime, or even western friendly nondemocratic countries!

    • Yes, he is being pedantic and no, there is nothing wrong with the use of the word regime, it is correct use of English. Go look in a dictionary, there is nothing negative about the word regime:

      or ré·gime
      [ruh-zheem, rey-, or, sometimes, -jeem]
      a mode or system of rule or government:
      a dictatorial regime.
      a ruling or prevailing system.
      a government in power.

  8. Why Jim are you using the words Assad Regime? Please call him his rightful name President Assad.

    • You’re being extremely pedantic. ‘Assad Regime’ is perfectly correct use of English, there is no implicit negative connotation.

    • The country is run by the Assad party with a huge majority. In the 2014 election the two opposition parties had eyes on the ballot boxes 24/7 until the votes were counted, per the election commission rules, so no one could make claims of ballot stuffing. Also, I stood over the shoulders of the registrars who were logging in everybody’s ID the old school way, by hand, by people with good penmanship. I even have this on video.

Comments are closed.