Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
another thread with completely misdealing title. "Obama letting Iran have nukes"
makes anybody thing that that the U.S is giving the green light to Iranto build a nuclear weapons.
if it was so easy the negotiations would not have been going on for 18 months now.
The reality is unlike what the original poster has put in.
These are fact that the U.S intelligence has certified and it is public knowledge.
Iran is actually not building a nuclear weapon.Under the NPT (an international treaty) Iran is not allowed to build nuclear weapons.This deal for the next X (could be 10 year or 15 or 20) years Iran's capacity to enrich uranium (which can be used to produced electricity to power a ship, to produce medicine ... ) will be very limited.After that X Years Iran is not allowed to build weapons but rather they will not be monitored as closely and they can presumably expand their infrastructure if so they choose..Let's remember even 10 years is a long time. 10 years ago the U.S was fighting a bloody war in Iraq and Afghanistan. in 1953 Soviet Union and China were Allies. where in 1963 China and Soviet union were Mortal enemies.
in 1981 Saddam was winning a war against Iran thanks to some help form the west and Soviet Union.Ten years later in 1991 the U.S coalition was destroying Saddam's Army.
in politics if you can not solve a problem fully today. you delay it and in time many of these issues get resolved.
This is the best post you have made as you learned some new stances. There is still some other aspects to point out.
A) Due to the ambiguity of Obama's proposal, we are not certain what all the logistics are about. 10 years or 20 years with Islamic fanatics with big ambitions of becoming a global power is never a good thing. Giving legitimacy for it now will be much harder to deal with it down the road.
B) The IAEA is unsatisfied with Iran's conduct and its ambiguity of its program. Therefor, its in full violation of the NPT until its program is fully transparent.
C) They do not have nukes yet, but they have developed vectors that could launch them called Ballistic Missiles. Even though there are UNSC Chapter 7 resolutions forbidding BM's construction, these points are not brought up at the P5+1. Netanyahu says this is a weakness in Obama's deal, which could lead to ICBM's in a few years. These BM's can reach southern Europe.
D) Iran is either directly or indirectly involved with every conflict within the Middle East. It has hegemonic interests including power over its Sunni rivals. We would be fools to believe they will appease their position because the West is being nice with a deal.
This is the best post you have made as you learned some new stances. There is still some other aspects to point out.
A) Due to the ambiguity of Obama's proposal, we are not certain what all the logistics are about. 10 years or 20 years with Islamic fanatics with big ambitions of becoming a global power is never a good thing. Giving legitimacy for it now will be much harder to deal with it down the road.
Not "Obama's proposal," but rather a potential deal between Iran, the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, China, and Russia. Some people apparently don't understand that negotiations are sensitive. The public does not have a right to know at this stage.
Iran is not becoming a global power. They are a regional power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
B) The IAEA is unsatisfied with Iran's conduct and its ambiguity of its program. Therefor, its in full violation of the NPT until its program is fully transparent.
That's an overstatement. The IAEA is "resolving issues and questions" surrounding Iran's program--with Iran's cooperation. Therefore, Iran is not in full violation of the NPT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
C) They do not have nukes yet, but they have developed vectors that could launch them called Ballistic Missiles. Even though there are UNSC Chapter 7 resolutions forbidding BM's construction, these points are not brought up at the P5+1. Netanyahu says this is a weakness in Obama's deal, which could lead to ICBM's in a few years. These BM's can reach southern Europe.
Ballistic missiles are not prohibited. UNSC Chapter 7 deals with the Security Council's peacekeeping powers. Some countries have voluntarily agreed to undertake efforts to restrict the proliferation of ballistic missiles. Iran (and Israel, India, Mexico, China, and Pakistan) are not among those countries.
Netanyahu's government continues building ballistic missiles.
Ballistic missiles can deliver conventional weapons in addition to unconventional weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
D) Iran is either directly or indirectly involved with every conflict within the Middle East. It has hegemonic interests including power over its Sunni rivals. We would be fools to believe they will appease their position because the West is being nice with a deal.
False. Iran is not a hegemony. It is a regional power. You exaggerate its reach. Iran is "directly or indirectly involved with every conflict within the Middle East" in the same sense that the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are involved with every conflict within the Middle East.
This is the best post you have made as you learned some new stances. There is still some other aspects to point out.
A) Due to the ambiguity of Obama's proposal, we are not certain what all the logistics are about. 10 years or 20 years with Islamic fanatics with big ambitions of becoming a global power is never a good thing. Giving legitimacy for it now will be much harder to deal with it down the road.
First of all the Current Iranian Regime is far more moderate than 35 years ago. because revolutions eventually lose their steams and they face reality. so the word Islamic Fanatic is completely out of place. if they were fanatics they would be Trying to confront the U.S ships that coast by the country all the time. but instead they are sitting and negotiating and by the way they have been negotiating in some form for 13 years now. If they were Fanatics they would have tried to send troops in Afghanistan to fight the Americans. If they were Fanatics they would not be supporting the Christian Armenia against Islamic (Shia) Republic of Azarbayajan. If They were Fanatics they would not be siding with overwhelmingly majority Hindus against overwhelming majority Muslim Pakistan. If They were fanatics in their internal propaganda pieces they would not repeatedly say We are trying to become the Japan of the region. If They were fanatics they would not be having close commercials interests with China while China bans even muslim prayer or fasting.
That being Said in my opinion (which really does not matter ) that regime is not the best that Iranian people deserve and in due course Iranians will either force their government to become more secular and democratic or there will be a change in government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
B) Therefor, its in full violation of the NPT until its program is fully transparent.
You really do not know what you are talking about. just copy and pasting some talking point. being in the IAEA does not mean you allow IAEA to show up and inspect any place they want. if this was the case no country and I mean country would allow such a thing. would Brazil Allow inspection of their military sites by the IAEA. The answer is no. such things are negotiated. There are two points remaining out of a mountain of to do list that the IAEA and Iran had to tackle.
IAEA is just and instrument of U.S and western power. They are trying to squeeze concessions out of Iran. in no legal way that means violation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
C) They do not have nukes yet, but they have developed vectors that could launch them called Ballistic Missiles. Even though there are UNSC Chapter 7 resolutions forbidding BM's construction, these points are not brought up at the P5+1. Netanyahu says this is a weakness in Obama's deal, which could lead to ICBM's in a few years. These BM's can reach southern Europe.
Iran has had ballistic Missiles since 1997. No European country is worried about them. They are not a nuclear matter and not on the table. and no if you study any defense magazine the current Iranian Ballistic Missiles designs are not capable of carrying nuclear payload. but even if they were it would not matter because they do not nuclear weapons and according to all our intelligence they are not on that path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
D) Iran is either directly or indirectly involved with every conflict within the Middle East. It has hegemonic interests including power over its Sunni rivals. We would be fools to believe they will appease their position because the West is being nice with a deal.
your first sentence is definitely not true. conflicts in the middle east have existed for a long time and they did before 1979 when Iran was an American Ally. conflicts mainly actually exists because there is no balance of power. external powers infuse one side vs another. just consider Kuwait a being an independent country while historically it was always ruled from baghdad. Consider Jordan being an independent country. consider Syria and Lebanon being divided in two different countries by the French and the birtish just because it was convenient for them. consider Bahrain not being a part of Iran where it was historically part of Iran.
secondly:
Is there a country that is not interested in being more powerful than it currently is. I would not blame Iran for building up its defenses after an Eight war that it went through where so many countries helped Saddam.
third:
by the way let's review. ISIS : Qatari, Turkish, Saudi financed and to a degree it's off shoots supported by the U.S
Al Qaida: Saudi Financed.
Pakistani Nuclear Bomb Program: Saudi Financed.
Mujaheed in Afghanistan: U.S financed to fights the Soviets.
---
some how in your world view a large country of the region does not have the right to have back and forth with other powers of that region over what all theirs roles are.
that sort of Totalitarian world view is one that leads to unnecessary wars.
The Senate is responsible for approving treaties with foreign powers. And while Obama has taken it upon himself to proclaim this long term, highly important, multi-national agreement "not a treaty," it is obvious that it is; and that any representations to foreign powers that he has the authority to negotiate this on his own, without the advice and consent of the Senate, is something that it makes sense that the parties to this potential agreement understand.
As far as the "Logan Act" B.S., let Obama pursue that, if there is anything more to this than the unchained wailings of the usual suspects at MSNBC, Mother Jones and other extremist far left media outlets. LOL. Until then, Obama can slurp my fatty.
Obama is not bothering to pursue the Logan Act--he can simply sit back and point out that the GOP bozos are now in league with the Iranian religious hardliners, which is rather amusing.
There are quite a few sources discussing the criminality of Mr. Cotton, et. al. Really, they could all be prosecuted.
They've now also give the Iranian leaders an opportunity to lecture them on their ignorance of the laws of the US. And to be able to mock them, to boot. The GOP has officially become the Keystone Congress.
Not "Obama's proposal," but rather a potential deal between Iran, the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, China, and Russia. Some people apparently don't understand that negotiations are sensitive. The public does not have a right to know at this stage.
Iran is not becoming a global power. They are a regional power.
Obama has the most influence in the group and is the chief drafter. Some of the countries you mentioned like France and Germany, are sitting on the fence about the deal, due to the terror threat that Europe would face. Iran is somewhat of a regional power but will become a dominate power once they acquire nuclear weapons and influence other countries.
Quote:
That's an overstatement. The IAEA is "resolving issues and questions" surrounding Iran's program--with Iran's cooperation. Therefore, Iran is not in full violation of the NPT.
Not sure why you claim this. IAEA asked Iran 11 questions to be clarified about their past nuclear research. All the questions asked have been trolled by Iran and are about the military dynamics of the program.
Quote:
Ballistic missiles are not prohibited. UNSC Chapter 7 deals with the Security Council's peacekeeping powers. Some countries have voluntarily agreed to undertake efforts to restrict the proliferation of ballistic missiles. Iran (and Israel, India, Mexico, China, and Pakistan) are not among those countries.
Netanyahu's government continues building ballistic missiles.
Ballistic missiles can deliver conventional weapons in addition to unconventional weapons.
UNSC Resolution 1929 forbids Iran to construct BM's, as well as a demand to expose its nuclear program in full transparency. Iran refuses to discuss BM's at the P5+1 and Netanyahu and Europe exposed this weakness.
False. Iran is not a hegemony. It is a regional power. You exaggerate its reach. Iran is "directly or indirectly involved with every conflict within the Middle East" in the same sense that the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are involved with every conflict within the Middle East.
There is no exaggeration. Once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, they will have a nuclear hegemony in the Middle East. They will also have ICBM's that can reach into Southern Europe and perhaps further if they be placed in Iraq or Syria. Once Iran has influence in Yemen, Saudi Arabia is going to sit tight and trust the U.S right? You can whitewash and apologize for Iranian terrorism, but I will not.
1) Iran has funded and armed Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to fight against Israel.
2) Iran has used Hezbollah in the past to fight Israel.
3) Iran uses Hezbollah and its proxy's for influence in Syria and Iraq.
4) Iran funds proxy's to terrorize the Egyptian Gov.
Conclusion: Iran is behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Arab-Israeli conflict, Syrian Civil War, Destabilization of Iraq and Yemen, Terrorism in the Sinai with U.S and Israel's strongest ally, Arab Springs and much more. This list does not exhaust the violation of UN Charter by expressing annihilation of another country and the direct responsibility of terrorism.
You are either for U.S interests or your not. Do not pretend that Iran is a little angle being bullied by the West.
First of all the Current Iranian Regime is far more moderate than 35 years ago. because revolutions eventually lose their steams and they face reality. so the word Islamic Fanatic is completely out of place. if they were fanatics they would be Trying to confront the U.S ships that coast by the country all the time. but instead they are sitting and negotiating and by the way they have been negotiating in some form for 13 years now. If they were Fanatics they would have tried to send troops in Afghanistan to fight the Americans. If they were Fanatics they would not be supporting the Christian Armenia against Islamic (Shia) Republic of Azarbayajan. If They were Fanatics they would not be siding with overwhelmingly majority Hindus against overwhelming majority Muslim Pakistan. If They were fanatics in their internal propaganda pieces they would not repeatedly say We are trying to become the Japan of the region. If They were fanatics they would not be having close commercials interests with China while China bans even muslim prayer or fasting.
That being Said in my opinion (which really does not matter ) that regime is not the best that Iranian people deserve and in due course Iranians will either force their government to become more secular and democratic or there will be a change in government.
Contradiction and back peddle much?
Very moderate government all right. While they were sitting and negotiating with the U.S about its illegal nuclear program, they decided to hold exercises in destroying mock U.S aircraft carriers. Nothing fanatical about that.
You really do not know what you are talking about. just copy and pasting some talking point. being in the IAEA does not mean you allow IAEA to show up and inspect any place they want. if this was the case no country and I mean country would allow such a thing. would Brazil Allow inspection of their military sites by the IAEA. The answer is no. such things are negotiated. There are two points remaining out of a mountain of to do list that the IAEA and Iran had to tackle. IAEA is just and instrument of U.S and western power. They are trying to squeeze concessions out of Iran. in no legal way that means violation.
Iran has had ballistic Missiles since 1997. No European country is worried about them. They are not a nuclear matter and not on the table. and no if you study any defense magazine the current Iranian Ballistic Missiles designs are not capable of carrying nuclear payload. but even if they were it would not matter because they do not nuclear weapons and according to all our intelligence they are not on that path.
With your logic, countries can receive material and knowhow to construct a nuclear facility through the NPT, but not follow the rules once they received the material. Where do you think they received the material? You think they just started this on their own soil? Go ahead, drop the NPT and see how fast other countries get their own nuclear weapons, while terrorist groups fight to topple existing regimes.
Your research on this matter is very poor. Read about Iran's new longrange cruise missile that can reach southern Europe and would be permitted to possess under Obama's deal. Your not concerned but Europe is.
your first sentence is definitely not true. conflicts in the middle east have existed for a long time and they did before 1979 when Iran was an American Ally. conflicts mainly actually exists because there is no balance of power. external powers infuse one side vs another. just consider Kuwait a being an independent country while historically it was always ruled from baghdad. Consider Jordan being an independent country. consider Syria and Lebanon being divided in two different countries by the French and the birtish just because it was convenient for them. consider Bahrain not being a part of Iran where it was historically part of Iran.
secondly:
Is there a country that is not interested in being more powerful than it currently is. I would not blame Iran for building up its defenses after an Eight war that it went through where so many countries helped Saddam.
third:
by the way let's review. ISIS : Qatari, Turkish, Saudi financed and to a degree it's off shoots supported by the U.S
Al Qaida: Saudi Financed.
Pakistani Nuclear Bomb Program: Saudi Financed.
Mujaheed in Afghanistan: U.S financed to fights the Soviets.
---
some how in your world view a large country of the region does not have the right to have back and forth with other powers of that region over what all theirs roles are.
that sort of Totalitarian world view is one that leads to unnecessary wars.
The continual whitewash and apologizing for a fanatical terror supporting, human rights violating, and genocidal regime is astounding. Please tell me more.
Obama has the most influence in the group and is the chief drafter. Some of the countries you mentioned like France and Germany, are sitting on the fence about the deal, due to the terror threat that Europe would face. Iran is somewhat of a regional power but will become a dominate power once they acquire nuclear weapons and influence other countries.
The media likes to put Obama at the forefront, but this is absolutely a multi-party effort. Germany is, perhaps, the key member of the P5+1 because of its economic ties to Iran in addition to its diplomatic ties to the US and Russia.
The goal of negotiations is to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. They are not, and will not be, a dominant power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Not sure why you claim this. IAEA asked Iran 11 questions to be clarified about their past nuclear research. All the questions asked have been trolled by Iran and are about the military dynamics of the program.
Trolled? That's not what the IAEA reports say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
UNSC Resolution 1929 forbids Iran to construct BM's, as well as a demand to expose its nuclear program in full transparency. Iran refuses to discuss BM's at the P5+1 and Netanyahu and Europe exposed this weakness.
Not ballistic missiles generally. Only ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear weapon. There is no public evidence of an Iranian missile program capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
There is no exaggeration. Once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, they will have a nuclear hegemony in the Middle East. They will also have ICBM's that can reach into Southern Europe and perhaps further if they be placed in Iraq or Syria. Once Iran has influence in Yemen, Saudi Arabia is going to sit tight and trust the U.S right? You can whitewash and apologize for Iranian terrorism, but I will not.
As I mentioned above (and as should be obvious) the goal of negotiations is to prevent the construction of a nuclear weapon. Even if Iran did build a nuclear weapon, it would not have a "nuclear hegemony," as Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran does not have ICBMs. They have short and medium range missiles which are not capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
1) Iran has funded and armed Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to fight against Israel.
2) Iran has used Hezbollah in the past to fight Israel.
3) Iran uses Hezbollah and its proxy's for influence in Syria and Iraq.
4) Iran funds proxy's to terrorize the Egyptian Gov.
Iran has interests in the Middle East and uses covert means to advance them. That should not be a surprise, as other players do the same. An Egyptian official is reported to think that Iranian agents are trying to subvert Egypt's government (this was the Mubarak era). That is not the same as "funds prox[ies] to terrorize the Egyptian Gov[ernment]."
Hezbollah is dependent on Iran and it does fight Israel on occasion. Iran's influence in Iraq comes from the US invasion and allowance of Iraq's Shi'a to seize power in Baghdad. Iran has been a Syrian ally for decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Conclusion: Iran is behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Arab-Israeli conflict, Syrian Civil War, Destabilization of Iraq and Yemen, Terrorism in the Sinai with U.S and Israel's strongest ally, Arab Springs and much more. This list does not exhaust the violation of UN Charter by expressing annihilation of another country and the direct responsibility of terrorism.
That is a distorted view.
Israelis and Palestinians are behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran contributes funding to Islamic Jihad and Hamas (like Saudis and Egyptians). The Arab-Israeli conflict (are you referring to the wars?) were, obviously, between the involved Arab states and Israelis.
Syria's government and the opposition forces are behind the Syrian Civil War. Opposition forces were supported by: 1) US, 2) Saudi Arabia, 3) Turkey, 4) Kurds, 5) Qatar, 6) France, 7) Jordan, 8) UK. Iran is allied with Syria.
The destabilization of Iraq was caused by the 2003 invasion.
Yemen's destabilization started with the Arab Spring and the presidential inheritance proposal of Saleh (although you can trace its origins back more than a decade). Saleh and the various opposition groups are "behind" that destabilization. Iran provides support to one of the opposition groups--the Houthis.
As for the Sinai, there is no evidence of Iranian involvement in the Sinai insurgency.
The Arab Spring was not an Iranian ploy, but rather a manifestation of region-wide grievances with political leaders. Iran's government, too, faced major protests in the "Arab Spring."
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
You are either for U.S interests or your not. Do not pretend that Iran is a little angle being bullied by the West.
Your view of US interests is also distorted. US interests are capable of encompassing rapprochement with Iran. In fact, I think that would be the best of all outcomes for US interests. Stability in the Middle East is in the US's long-term interest. A balance of power between the region's key players, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Israel, would be the best way to increase stability. Instead of jumping on the scale for Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt, a lighter touch and better relations with Iran could allow the US to get more out of the region with fewer risks and less direct involvement.
Further, I think that Iran is a more natural partner for the US than Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has one of the most repressive, undemocratic, and chauvinist regimes on the planet. While Iran is not on the level of Jordan, it is less repressive, more democratic, and less chauvinist than Saudi Arabia. It is also more educated and populous. It has a more diverse economy.
Last edited by TheCityTheBridge; 03-11-2015 at 12:43 PM..
Very moderate government all right. While they were sitting and negotiating with the U.S about its illegal nuclear program, they decided to hold exercises in destroying mock U.S aircraft carriers. Nothing fanatical about that.
only in a mind of person who sees the world in black and white my statements would be contradictions.
Have you heard of propaganda? what value is it suppose to bring for Iran to show a missile hit a big boat that is sitting defenseless in the waters.
I tell you what. It is called propaganda to appease the hardline base in Iran that we are standing tough.
where in fact U.S Navy military Personnel did not even take the time to think about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
With your logic, countries can receive material and knowhow to construct a nuclear facility through the NPT, but not follow the rules once they received the material. Where do you think they received the material? You think they just started this on their own soil? Go ahead, drop the NPT and see how fast other countries get their own nuclear weapons, while terrorist groups fight to topple existing regimes.
No Your problem is precisely that you seek to dictate to the world how they should live their lives. Yes that's what the NPT (Atmos for Peace) was exactly about. Countries can learn how to harness the power nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and strong countries like the U.S were actually supposed to help them. but since then we have put aside that latter interpenetration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Your research on this matter is very poor. Read about Iran's new longrange cruise missile that can reach southern Europe and would be permitted to possess under Obama's deal. Your not concerned but Europe is. PressTV-Iran unveils long-range cruise missile
so much about your research half of the links you post are from pressTV. which is just a propaganda piece as much as RT is or voiceofAmerica is. The Missile you posted about is currently a prototype. It has not been mass produced and it has not been used in any military defense drills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
The continual whitewash and apologizing for a fanatical terror supporting, human rights violating, and genocidal regime is astounding. Please tell me more.
You don't what any of the words you just spitted out means. so save us the grief.
if you had any concern for human rights you would not invoke Saudi Arabia as our ally that needs to propped up. You would not be bringing up the name of Netanyahu who has started more was than he has fingers.
Your Brain still works like Colonialist. You think other people are subhuman and it is our right to tell them what should be done. It does not matter if that's Vietnam, "the holy land", "Africa", "Latin America".
The media likes to put Obama at the forefront, but this is absolutely a multi-party effort. Germany is, perhaps, the key member of the P5+1 because of its economic ties to Iran in addition to its diplomatic ties to the US and Russia.
The goal of negotiations is to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. They are not, and will not be, a dominant power.
You are right, this is a multilateral agreement. At the present moment, Europe is sitting on the fence about the current deal with Iran, due to new developments of Iranian missiles.
I have nothing else to add if you cannot understand that the IAEA is not satisfied with the violations of Iran's nuclear program.
Quote:
Not ballistic missiles generally. Only ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear weapon. There is no public evidence of an Iranian missile program capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.
Evidence this evidence that... UNSC says all ballistic missiles, otherwise.
Iran has the vectors for BM's that can launch nuclear warheads. It is said that they are producing the Shahab-3 and the Sajil-2, which could also launch a nuclear warhead. My previous link shows the Iranian unveiling of a missile that can reach Southern Europe.
Quote:
As I mentioned above (and as should be obvious) the goal of negotiations is to prevent the construction of a nuclear weapon. Even if Iran did build a nuclear weapon, it would not have a "nuclear hegemony," as Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran does not have ICBMs. They have short and medium range missiles which are not capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.
A radical regime is not trying to be hegemonic? News to me. Pray tell then, why does Iran engage in proxy wars through out the Levant? Israel does not try to spread hegemony through out the region, unlike Iran who is trying to establish a Shia Caliphate.
Whether they have or have not on March 11th is not the concern. They continue to construct a nuclear weapons program and ICBM's, BM's, in violation of the UNSC and NPT, which will ultimately lead them to spread their influence further.
Their words not mine, Iran’s presidential advisor: ‘all of the Middle East is Iranian’ :
Iran has interests in the Middle East and uses covert means to advance them. That should not be a surprise, as other players do the same. An Egyptian official is reported to think that Iranian agents are trying to subvert Egypt's government (this was the Mubarak era). That is not the same as "funds prox[ies] to terrorize the Egyptian Gov[ernment]."
Hezbollah is dependent on Iran and it does fight Israel on occasion. Iran's influence in Iraq comes from the US invasion and allowance of Iraq's Shi'a to seize power in Baghdad. Iran has been a Syrian ally for decades.
Oh I see, so whitewashing Iranian responsibility of a technicality. Whether one pulls the trigger or gives money, arms and the green light to pull the trigger, is the same filth in my book.
Iran continues to collect allies to spread its Shia Crescent and weaken the Sunni bloc. There is nothing you can add to dismiss this.
Quote:
That is a distorted view.
Israelis and Palestinians are behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran contributes funding to Islamic Jihad and Hamas (like Saudis and Egyptians). The Arab-Israeli conflict (are you referring to the wars?) were, obviously, between the involved Arab states and Israelis.
Syria's government and the opposition forces are behind the Syrian Civil War. Opposition forces were supported by: 1) US, 2) Saudi Arabia, 3) Turkey, 4) Kurds, 5) Qatar, 6) France, 7) Jordan, 8) UK. Iran is allied with Syria.
The destabilization of Iraq was caused by the 2003 invasion.
The Gulf States and Turkey are just as responsible, but you continue and continue to whitewash Iranian sponsorship of terrorism. Iranian sponsored shia groups are responsible for many of the deaths of American soldiers.
Quote:
The Syria War would end in a short time if Iran and the Gulf States stop funding its proxies. Iran, Russia, and the Gulf States have the power to stop the conflict, not the FSA.
Yemen's destabilization started with the Arab Spring and the presidential inheritance proposal of Saleh (although you can trace its origins back more than a decade). Saleh and the various opposition groups are "behind" that destabilization. Iran provides support to one of the opposition groups--the Houthis.
As for the Sinai, there is no evidence of Iranian involvement in the Sinai insurgency.
The Arab Spring was not an Iranian ploy, but rather a manifestation of region-wide grievances with political leaders. Iran's government, too, faced major protests in the "Arab Spring."
Your view of US interests is also distorted. US interests are capable of encompassing rapprochement with Iran. In fact, I think that would be the best of all outcomes for US interests. Stability in the Middle East is in the US's long-term interest. A balance of power between the region's key players, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Israel, would be the best way to increase stability. Instead of jumping on the scale for Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt, a lighter touch and better relations with Iran could allow the US to get more out of the region with fewer risks and less direct involvement.
Further, I think that Iran is a more natural partner for the US than Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has one of the most repressive, undemocratic, and chauvinist regimes on the planet. While Iran is not on the level of Jordan, it is less repressive, more democratic, and less chauvinist than Saudi Arabia. It is also more educated and populous. It has a more diverse economy.
You continue to back peddle and produce fallacies to apologize for Iranians illegal activities.
Until you admit that:
A) Iran has openly on several occasions expressed nuclear genocide on the state of Israel.
B) Continue its sponsorship of terrorism through out the world
C) Repeated violations of UNSC and NPT as well as Human Rights Violations.
Escaping Iranian responsibility for their actions because the "Arabs does it too" is apologetic to the Iranian cause. Sure, the Iranian people do okay as long as they are not gay or "Zionist spy's". But for the Nth time, you continue to apologize for Iran's actions by finding good things about them.
Whether chaotic like ISIS or orderly like Iran, their theology is from the same poisonous tree. Your knowledge of the Sunni-Shia rift is poor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
