Obama needs to do a deal with Iran

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
Obama needs to do a deal with Iran
The Nation

Tehran could help the us get better outcomes in syria, if washington was prepared to do that

BANGKOK: -- Iran and the United States do not see eye to eye on many things. But if US President Barack Obama wants to destroy the Islamic State, the radical forces that control a large swath of Iraq and Syria, he is going to have to learn to work with Tehran.

And if the two countries could pull this off, it would be a strategic game changer for the entire region.

The United States has some influence with the Iraqi government. But Iran and Iraq are natural allies because of the long running sport from Tehran to the Shiite religious groups that were against Saddam Hussein's regime.

When the United States was working to remove Nouri al-Maliki from his post as the head of the Iraqi government, Iran provided the needed help to make it happen.

In this respect, the United States might have to seek help from Iran in its attempt to make Iraq more inclusive, which means more Sunni and Kurdish representation in the government.

Being included in the Iraqi government is important for immediate and long-term stability for the country.

At this point in time, an air war is well on the way with the US-led air forces pounding Islamic State positions on the ground. Given the West's military capability, victory seems like a done deal.

But if history tells us anything it is that what follows the air war is the hard part. Door to door, village to village gunfights often marked the aftermath of an air campaign. Securing the land often required compromises and power-sharing negotiation between the incoming forces and the local tribes and sects.

In Iraq, for example, in spite of six weeks of airstrikes against IS, the reality on ground has not changed much.

IS units are still not budging, mainly because local tribesmen will not join the US-led operation and take actions against them.

The challenge, it seems, is how to make the Sunnis feel represented in the Baghdad government. But whether that is enough to get them off the sideline and taking direct action is a major question.

Washington is trying to do a miracle in Syria.

The US-led campaign is trying to destroy the IS while at the same time not strengthen their principle rival, the Bashar al-Assad government. Because as the IS loses territory, it will not be the anti-Bashar forces that put up the flagpoles. It will be the Bashar government's forces.

One option is to work out a deal with Syria. Again, this goes back to Iran, one of Syria's closest allies who can act as the go-between and a stabilising force.

At the recent summit at the United Nations, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani made it clear that future cooperation with Iran will depend on the outcome of the nuclear deal that basically centred on the capacity of Iran's uranium-enrichment and which sanctions should be lifted and in what order.

While it is not hard to see the self-serving nature of Rouhani's argument and demands, nevertheless, he does have a point about how the presence of the West has made things worse as it tries to install instant democracy without first questioning the foundation for such a concept.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Obama-needs-to-do-a-deal-with-Iran-30244322.html


-- The Nation 2014-09-29

[englishoak]

And Iran needs to view any deal as very temporary and with a pinch of salt... Because when Syria/Assad goes Iran will be next..

Edited September 28, 2014 by englishoak

[Loptr]

And Iran needs to view any deal as very temporary and with a pinch of salt... Because when Syria/Assad goes Iran will be next..

The US and Nobel Peace Prize winner have proven to be the Saudi's little bitch once again...

Many discount this video, but all these years later it is most prophetic...

[englishoak]

Aye a few ticked so far ... just the timings lacking a bit... im sure they will catch up and tick the rest sooner or later.

Edited September 28, 2014 by englishoak

[Ulysses G.]

And Iran needs to view any deal as very temporary and with a pinch of salt... Because when Syria/Assad goes Iran will be next..

Iran's nuclear program needs to go, by any meals necessary, but I would not count on it with Obama in power.

[ezzra]

Rather... Obama need to go home and play some more golf, he know nothing about foreign policies,

he leads from behind, he's an appeaser and bum kisser, he did enough damage already,

the Iranian can't be trusted, they have their own agenda and that is to go nuclear, and very soon,

yes, they may will help with the ISIS thing and that's only because they're a threat to them, otherwise

they wouldn't have lifted a finger... and once the ISIS will be defeated, the Iranians will be back to their

old tricks....

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

And Iran needs to view any deal as very temporary and with a pinch of salt... Because when Syria/Assad goes Iran will be next..

Iran's nuclear program needs to go, by any meals necessary, but I would not count on it with Obama in power.

And yet ONLY POTUS Obama has been dealing directly with Iran over its nuclear ambitions while other POTUS' have relied on Israel proxy to check the Iranian nuclear weapons program. ONLY Obama has thus far succeded in negotiations with Iran to stall its nuclear weapons ambitions but not its right to nuclear energy. ONLY Obama has skillfully used DIPLOMACY instead of war to change a nation's strategic behavior as he has with Russia over its interference with Ukrainian sovereignty and Syria over its chemical WMD's. The only POTUS that comes close to Obama's foreign policy successes was POTUS Regan who effectively ended the Cold War with Russia by simply outspending it in an arms race.

[kamahele]

And who says we aren't dealing with Iran behind closed doors..... However it wouldn't be good to publicize doing business with Iran over Syria as we have put together a coalition of Sunni countries to do the fighting. They don't particularly like the Shia government of Iran which supports Assad.

[rickirs]

I am sad to say this article is naive at best and ignorant at worse.

Yes, Iran and Iraq have become, largely thanks to the US overthrow of Sadaam, allies with many shared security issues. Iran is also a supporter of Syria's Asaad regime and of Lebonnan's Hezbollah insurgents. While the US will not hesitate to "lose one eye" in aligning itself with a diametrically-opposed regime for the sake of national security (ie., Chile), in the case of Iran the alliance is unnecessary and the long-term risks are too quesionable.

Consistent with its ISIS policy with Syria, the US will allow Iran and Iraq to work together to defeat the ISIS threat ON THE GROUND. The US will make its own assessments on how to best apply the Coalition airpower. The same holds true with Syria supported by Iraq without a direct US alliance. There is further the danger of giving, through such a temporary and self-serving alliance between the US and Iran, potential Iranian leverage to stall US negotiations on dismantling Iran's nuclear weapons program in exchange for what would become Iran's continued support against ISIS. Iran essentially would be given an opportunity to hold Iraq's survival hostage over Iraq's survival against ISIS to gain political concessions from the US.

[coma]

The US can throw everything it has at IS but it will be useless without sovereign Iran and Syria on the team fighting global terrorism.

[NoBrainer]

The more you attack and kill, the more you alienate the rest of the muslim population, (which is over 2.2 Billion people), and cause them to want to join the cause against the west.

For every one you kill, maybe 20 or 25 more will join the cause over the next few years. They are now learning to manipulate the media, as the west has done for the past 30 years as well. Seems to me a cease fire, and staying in your own country would be the safest course of action, and then you could use your full resources to protect yourself at home. Would save a lot of money as well. Eventually, with no-one attacking them, the majority will become complacent, and get back to living their lives.

[Ulysses G.]

The more you attack and kill, the more you alienate the rest of the muslim population, (which is over 2.2 Billion people), and cause them to want to join the cause against the west.

This is a common left-wing talking point, but I don't buy it. Didn't someone named Neville Chamberlain say the same thing about a different brand of Nazi, not long ago?

[quicky]

And Iran needs to learn how to work with the world. Like babies with guns.

The US has tried many times and has even tried discussing the ISIS issue with Iran, Iran declined to involve itself and stop all further discussions.

[farangabroad]

The more you attack and kill, the more you alienate the rest of the muslim population, (which is over 2.2 Billion people), and cause them to want to join the cause against the west.

Who cares?

[quicky]

The more you attack and kill, the more you alienate the rest of the muslim population, (which is over 2.2 Billion people), and cause them to want to join the cause against the west.

This is a common left-wing talking point, but I don't buy it. Didn't someone named Neville Chamberlain say the same thing about a different brand of Nazi, not long ago?

Hit the nail right on the head.

and staying in your own country would be the safest course of action,

LOL well let's see it started in Syria and it is now in Iraq, so how did that staying in your country work out?

Saudi Arabia and Iran are next, I guess they should just stay in their country and wait for it to land on their doorstep? Rhetorical question I already know the unicorns will zip them away on giant rainbows.

[Chicog]

And who says we aren't dealing with Iran behind closed doors..... However it wouldn't be good to publicize doing business with Iran over Syria as we have put together a coalition of Sunni countries to do the fighting. They don't particularly like the Shia government of Iran which supports Assad.

Closed doors?

US Secretary of State John Kerry met his Iranian counterpart for more than an hour on Sunday and stressed the need to make progress in nuclear negotiations this week on the sidelines of UN meetings.

Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif also discussed the threat posed by Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq, a senior State Department official said, without elaborating.

And trust me, the Sunni governments of the GCC know they need Iran's help on this one, they've been meeting them too, even Saudi Arabia.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Chicog

[Krataiboy]

Iran and Iraq are natural allies because of the long running sport from Tehran to the Shiite religious groups that were against Saddam Hussein's regime.

I think you mean support, sport.

[NoBrainer]

Posted Today, 11:59

Ulysses G., on 29 Sept 2014 - 11:48, said:

NoBrainer, on 29 Sept 2014 - 11:41, said:

The more you attack and kill, the more you alienate the rest of the muslim population, (which is over 2.2 Billion people), and cause them to want to join the cause against the west.

This is a common left-wing talking point, but I don't buy it. Didn't someone named Neville Chamberlain say the same thing about a different brand of Nazi, not long ago?

Hit the nail right on the head.

Guess I must be a Left wing Nutter then, but my thought process uses logic, rather than emotion.

[ABCer]

I would be very cautious about any deal with Iran.

I would be very cautious about any deal with any Muslim country.

Especially when deal involves arming them.

And yes, dealing with them by 'proxy' might be better than 'by Obama'.

I am afraid we've come to the times when Saddam and Reza Pahlavi may be dearly missed.

Both regimes were more secular, less bloody and more West oriented.

Assad is next in line of future regrets.

Edited September 30, 2014 by ABCer

[NoBrainer]

The more you attack and kill, the more you alienate the rest of the muslim population, (which is over 2.2 Billion people), and cause them to want to join the cause against the west.

This is a common left-wing talking point, but I don't buy it. Didn't someone named Neville Chamberlain say the same thing about a different brand of Nazi, not long ago?

Hit the nail right on the head.

and staying in your own country would be the safest course of action,

LOL well let's see it started in Syria and it is now in Iraq, so how did that staying in your country work out?

Saudi Arabia and Iran are next, I guess they should just stay in their country and wait for it to land on their doorstep? Rhetorical question I already know the unicorns will zip them away on giant rainbows.

I don't think that ISIS went to Syria or Iraq. They were already there, and as for Saudi and Iran, they are there as well. This group is made up of the people that live in these countries that want to change the way they are governed.

They are not a foreign army invading from another country. They are just a group of like minded citizens from across the region that have had enough of their perspective governments, sucking up to the west and suppressing their religious beliefs. The west is now treating them like they are an invading force from another country, and feel like they are needing to assist the country which they perceive to be under attack. In reality the west is just trying to help the rulers in those countries, suppress a domestic political movement, in order to keep the status quo.

[ABCer]

And who says we aren't dealing with Iran behind closed doors..... However it wouldn't be good to publicize doing business with Iran over Syria as we have put together a coalition of Sunni countries to do the fighting. They don't particularly like the Shia government of Iran which supports Assad.

Closed doors?

US Secretary of State John Kerry met his Iranian counterpart for more than an hour on Sunday and stressed the need to make progress in nuclear negotiations this week on the sidelines of UN meetings.

Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif also discussed the threat posed by Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq, a senior State Department official said, without elaborating.

And trust me, the Sunni governments of the GCC know they need Iran's help on this one, they've been meeting them too, even Saudi Arabia.

Please, have another look at M.J. Zarif sly smirk as he is looking at that pompous self important face of Kerry.

A deal with Iran? Yeah! No wonder they say a picture tells 1000 words!

Edited October 1, 2014 by ABCer

[Chicog]

I've said it before:

Old Chinese proverb - The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Steely Dan]

Defeating ISIS but allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be to win the battle and lose the war, this is the danger we face due to a muddled approach to foreign policy by the Obama administration.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/netanyahu-its-not-militants-its-not-islam-its-militant-islam

[ABCer]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I've said it before:

Old Chinese proverb - The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

May be working for Chinese. In my world - you just have two enemies and must prioritize.

Defeating ISIS but allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be to win the battle and lose the war, this is the danger we face due to a muddled approach to foreign policy by the Obama administration.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/netanyahu-its-not-militants-its-not-islam-its-militant-islam

With Obama in charge there is no defeating ISIS.

With Obama in charge Iran does not need USA permission to develop nuclear programme.

Besides they have 'proved' their programme is strictly peaceful. They only care about climate change danger. God willing!

This stupid West will sit on their hands and wait for the 'proxy' to act so they can run riots against the 'politically incorrect terrorist state'. I'm sure we all know what I'm talking about.

Edited October 1, 2014 by ABCer