Political Crossfire Forums

[Kumar]

BBC wrote:
Iraq: What Iran and Syria want


Syria and Iran - two of the most vilified nations in the Bush administration's political atlas - could hold the key to saving American plans in their neighbour Iraq.

Washington may need the two regional allies to help stabilise Iraq in order to pull its own troops back from an increasingly unpopular commitment there.

But given its fraught relations with Tehran and Damascus, Washington is only likely to secure active Iranian and Syrian co-operation by paying a high price diplomatically from two countries known for their hard bargaining.

IRANIAN WISHES

Iran wants a wholesale transformation of is relationship with the United States, which is one of the most antagonistic in the world.

At the moment attention of the US and its allies is on Iran's nuclear programme which they say is intended to produce a non-conventional military capability.

Iran wants to be allowed to continue its programme - including uranium enrichment - which it says is completely peaceful as well as its right under the international non-proliferation regime.

That means an end to the threat of UN sanctions - which Tehran has been able to avoid so far - and an end to US and Israeli threats of military action to destroy its nuclear facilities.

In the past, Tehran has had its fingers burnt by trying to open a dialogue with this most hawkish of US administrations.

In May 2003, for example, it offered to open up its nuclear programme, rein in Hezbollah and co-operate against al-Qaeda, but was reportedly rebuffed as the insistence of former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Since then, a right-wing Iranian president has been elected, although overall executive power lies with the religious revolutionary leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei.

From its past experience, Iran is likely to reject any overtures from the US or its allies for talks on limited issues.

It wants to be absolved completely from Washington's designation of it as part of the "axis of evil" - a state to be shunned by Western allies.

It is not clear how much of a greater role it wants to be given in Iraq.

It already enjoys a close relationship with the government dominated by religious Shia Muslims, but a greater role may cause greater friction with the Sunni Muslim community.

SYRIAN WISHES

The regime in Damascus finds itself on much shakier ground than its Iranian ally at the moment.

It is under great pressure over the investigation into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

So far a UN-backed tribunal has implicated Syria in the bombing that killed Mr Hariri in February 2005, but Damascus denies involvement.

It may hope that its current diplomatic isolation over Lebanon may be relieved if if can play a more positive role in Iraq.

Damascus is condemned as a "state sponsor of terrorism" by Washington because it hosts Palestinian militant groups sworn to Israel's destruction.

It may see this as an opportunity to change that designation - perhaps in a wider effort to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict, including a chance to reopen its own negotiations with Israel on the return of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel since the 1967 war.

Finally, Damascus needs commercial co-operation and support with the West as its political isolation is made worse by a chronic weakness in the country's economy.
The Bush administration should wisen up and re-evaluate their belligerence (towards Iran in particular) when these two nations could play a vital role in helping to clean up his mess.

[Zoot]

Quote: Damascus is condemned as a "state sponsor of terrorism" by Washington because it hosts Palestinian militant groups sworn to Israel's destruction.

This stuff is particularly hilarious. The United States harbours and protects wanted terrorists, and points the finger at others doing the same. The degree of hypocrisy is incredible.

[The Comrade]

iran wants to control iraq and syria is like a second iran currently. i don't see how throwing iraw to the wolves is going to help anything, or clear up the mess.

[Centrist]

Kumar wrote: BBC wrote:
Iraq: What Iran and Syria want


Syria and Iran - two of the most vilified nations in the Bush administration's political atlas - could hold the key to saving American plans in their neighbour Iraq.

Washington may need the two regional allies to help stabilise Iraq in order to pull its own troops back from an increasingly unpopular commitment there.

But given its fraught relations with Tehran and Damascus, Washington is only likely to secure active Iranian and Syrian co-operation by paying a high price diplomatically from two countries known for their hard bargaining.

IRANIAN WISHES

Iran wants a wholesale transformation of is relationship with the United States, which is one of the most antagonistic in the world.

At the moment attention of the US and its allies is on Iran's nuclear programme which they say is intended to produce a non-conventional military capability.

Iran wants to be allowed to continue its programme - including uranium enrichment - which it says is completely peaceful as well as its right under the international non-proliferation regime.

That means an end to the threat of UN sanctions - which Tehran has been able to avoid so far - and an end to US and Israeli threats of military action to destroy its nuclear facilities.

In the past, Tehran has had its fingers burnt by trying to open a dialogue with this most hawkish of US administrations.

In May 2003, for example, it offered to open up its nuclear programme, rein in Hezbollah and co-operate against al-Qaeda, but was reportedly rebuffed as the insistence of former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Since then, a right-wing Iranian president has been elected, although overall executive power lies with the religious revolutionary leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei.

From its past experience, Iran is likely to reject any overtures from the US or its allies for talks on limited issues.

It wants to be absolved completely from Washington's designation of it as part of the "axis of evil" - a state to be shunned by Western allies.

It is not clear how much of a greater role it wants to be given in Iraq.

It already enjoys a close relationship with the government dominated by religious Shia Muslims, but a greater role may cause greater friction with the Sunni Muslim community.

SYRIAN WISHES

The regime in Damascus finds itself on much shakier ground than its Iranian ally at the moment.

It is under great pressure over the investigation into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

So far a UN-backed tribunal has implicated Syria in the bombing that killed Mr Hariri in February 2005, but Damascus denies involvement.

It may hope that its current diplomatic isolation over Lebanon may be relieved if if can play a more positive role in Iraq.

Damascus is condemned as a "state sponsor of terrorism" by Washington because it hosts Palestinian militant groups sworn to Israel's destruction.

It may see this as an opportunity to change that designation - perhaps in a wider effort to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict, including a chance to reopen its own negotiations with Israel on the return of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel since the 1967 war.

Finally, Damascus needs commercial co-operation and support with the West as its political isolation is made worse by a chronic weakness in the country's economy.
The Bush administration should wisen up and re-evaluate their belligerence (towards Iran in particular) when these two nations could play a vital role in helping to clean up his mess.

I've sided with you on a lot of things, Kumar, but I have to ask this:

The United States has taken a crapload of grief for our apparent double-standards where foreign relations are concerned. Are you suggesting that we should go for yet another double-standard in diplomatic relationships?

[Revenant]

The Rock? Ehhh......

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Kumar wrote: BBC wrote:
Iraq: What Iran and Syria want


Syria and Iran - two of the most vilified nations in the Bush administration's political atlas - could hold the key to saving American plans in their neighbour Iraq.

Washington may need the two regional allies to help stabilise Iraq in order to pull its own troops back from an increasingly unpopular commitment there.

But given its fraught relations with Tehran and Damascus, Washington is only likely to secure active Iranian and Syrian co-operation by paying a high price diplomatically from two countries known for their hard bargaining.

IRANIAN WISHES

Iran wants a wholesale transformation of is relationship with the United States, which is one of the most antagonistic in the world.

At the moment attention of the US and its allies is on Iran's nuclear programme which they say is intended to produce a non-conventional military capability.

Iran wants to be allowed to continue its programme - including uranium enrichment - which it says is completely peaceful as well as its right under the international non-proliferation regime.

That means an end to the threat of UN sanctions - which Tehran has been able to avoid so far - and an end to US and Israeli threats of military action to destroy its nuclear facilities.

In the past, Tehran has had its fingers burnt by trying to open a dialogue with this most hawkish of US administrations.

In May 2003, for example, it offered to open up its nuclear programme, rein in Hezbollah and co-operate against al-Qaeda, but was reportedly rebuffed as the insistence of former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Since then, a right-wing Iranian president has been elected, although overall executive power lies with the religious revolutionary leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei.

From its past experience, Iran is likely to reject any overtures from the US or its allies for talks on limited issues.

It wants to be absolved completely from Washington's designation of it as part of the "axis of evil" - a state to be shunned by Western allies.

It is not clear how much of a greater role it wants to be given in Iraq.

It already enjoys a close relationship with the government dominated by religious Shia Muslims, but a greater role may cause greater friction with the Sunni Muslim community.

SYRIAN WISHES

The regime in Damascus finds itself on much shakier ground than its Iranian ally at the moment.

It is under great pressure over the investigation into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

So far a UN-backed tribunal has implicated Syria in the bombing that killed Mr Hariri in February 2005, but Damascus denies involvement.

It may hope that its current diplomatic isolation over Lebanon may be relieved if if can play a more positive role in Iraq.

Damascus is condemned as a "state sponsor of terrorism" by Washington because it hosts Palestinian militant groups sworn to Israel's destruction.

It may see this as an opportunity to change that designation - perhaps in a wider effort to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict, including a chance to reopen its own negotiations with Israel on the return of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel since the 1967 war.

Finally, Damascus needs commercial co-operation and support with the West as its political isolation is made worse by a chronic weakness in the country's economy.
The Bush administration should wisen up and re-evaluate their belligerence (towards Iran in particular) when these two nations could play a vital role in helping to clean up his mess.

Here is a link to the thread I started on this topic.
two-pronged diplomacy or forked-tongue politics?

[Kumar]

Centrist wrote: Kumar wrote: BBC wrote:
Iraq: What Iran and Syria want


Syria and Iran - two of the most vilified nations in the Bush administration's political atlas - could hold the key to saving American plans in their neighbour Iraq.

Washington may need the two regional allies to help stabilise Iraq in order to pull its own troops back from an increasingly unpopular commitment there.

But given its fraught relations with Tehran and Damascus, Washington is only likely to secure active Iranian and Syrian co-operation by paying a high price diplomatically from two countries known for their hard bargaining.

IRANIAN WISHES

Iran wants a wholesale transformation of is relationship with the United States, which is one of the most antagonistic in the world.

At the moment attention of the US and its allies is on Iran's nuclear programme which they say is intended to produce a non-conventional military capability.

Iran wants to be allowed to continue its programme - including uranium enrichment - which it says is completely peaceful as well as its right under the international non-proliferation regime.

That means an end to the threat of UN sanctions - which Tehran has been able to avoid so far - and an end to US and Israeli threats of military action to destroy its nuclear facilities.

In the past, Tehran has had its fingers burnt by trying to open a dialogue with this most hawkish of US administrations.

In May 2003, for example, it offered to open up its nuclear programme, rein in Hezbollah and co-operate against al-Qaeda, but was reportedly rebuffed as the insistence of former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Since then, a right-wing Iranian president has been elected, although overall executive power lies with the religious revolutionary leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei.

From its past experience, Iran is likely to reject any overtures from the US or its allies for talks on limited issues.

It wants to be absolved completely from Washington's designation of it as part of the "axis of evil" - a state to be shunned by Western allies.

It is not clear how much of a greater role it wants to be given in Iraq.

It already enjoys a close relationship with the government dominated by religious Shia Muslims, but a greater role may cause greater friction with the Sunni Muslim community.

SYRIAN WISHES

The regime in Damascus finds itself on much shakier ground than its Iranian ally at the moment.

It is under great pressure over the investigation into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

So far a UN-backed tribunal has implicated Syria in the bombing that killed Mr Hariri in February 2005, but Damascus denies involvement.

It may hope that its current diplomatic isolation over Lebanon may be relieved if if can play a more positive role in Iraq.

Damascus is condemned as a "state sponsor of terrorism" by Washington because it hosts Palestinian militant groups sworn to Israel's destruction.

It may see this as an opportunity to change that designation - perhaps in a wider effort to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict, including a chance to reopen its own negotiations with Israel on the return of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel since the 1967 war.

Finally, Damascus needs commercial co-operation and support with the West as its political isolation is made worse by a chronic weakness in the country's economy.
The Bush administration should wisen up and re-evaluate their belligerence (towards Iran in particular) when these two nations could play a vital role in helping to clean up his mess.

I've sided with you on a lot of things, Kumar, but I have to ask this:

The United States has taken a crapload of grief for our apparent double-standards where foreign relations are concerned. Are you suggesting that we should go for yet another double-standard in diplomatic relationships?
I don't view it that way. When people criticize the double-standards, they are mostly speaking of actively supporting a particular regime while condemning another regime for employing the exact same practices used in the friendly regime. Talk of "freedom and democracy" is in reality a guise for other interests. This, on the other hand, would be a case of simply engaging these two nations diplomatically in an effort to end the bloodshed caused by an unnecessary invasion.

[Kumar]

Revenant wrote: The Rock? Ehhh......
Quiet, jabroni. 8:)

[Eduffy80911]

Kumar wrote: BBC wrote:
Iraq: What Iran and Syria want


Syria and Iran - two of the most vilified nations in the Bush administration's political atlas - could hold the key to saving American plans in their neighbour Iraq.

Washington may need the two regional allies to help stabilise Iraq in order to pull its own troops back from an increasingly unpopular commitment there.

But given its fraught relations with Tehran and Damascus, Washington is only likely to secure active Iranian and Syrian co-operation by paying a high price diplomatically from two countries known for their hard bargaining.

IRANIAN WISHES

Iran wants a wholesale transformation of is relationship with the United States, which is one of the most antagonistic in the world.

At the moment attention of the US and its allies is on Iran's nuclear programme which they say is intended to produce a non-conventional military capability.

Iran wants to be allowed to continue its programme - including uranium enrichment - which it says is completely peaceful as well as its right under the international non-proliferation regime.

That means an end to the threat of UN sanctions - which Tehran has been able to avoid so far - and an end to US and Israeli threats of military action to destroy its nuclear facilities.

In the past, Tehran has had its fingers burnt by trying to open a dialogue with this most hawkish of US administrations.

In May 2003, for example, it offered to open up its nuclear programme, rein in Hezbollah and co-operate against al-Qaeda, but was reportedly rebuffed as the insistence of former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Since then, a right-wing Iranian president has been elected, although overall executive power lies with the religious revolutionary leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei.

From its past experience, Iran is likely to reject any overtures from the US or its allies for talks on limited issues.

It wants to be absolved completely from Washington's designation of it as part of the "axis of evil" - a state to be shunned by Western allies.

It is not clear how much of a greater role it wants to be given in Iraq.

It already enjoys a close relationship with the government dominated by religious Shia Muslims, but a greater role may cause greater friction with the Sunni Muslim community.

SYRIAN WISHES

The regime in Damascus finds itself on much shakier ground than its Iranian ally at the moment.

It is under great pressure over the investigation into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

So far a UN-backed tribunal has implicated Syria in the bombing that killed Mr Hariri in February 2005, but Damascus denies involvement.

It may hope that its current diplomatic isolation over Lebanon may be relieved if if can play a more positive role in Iraq.

Damascus is condemned as a "state sponsor of terrorism" by Washington because it hosts Palestinian militant groups sworn to Israel's destruction.

It may see this as an opportunity to change that designation - perhaps in a wider effort to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict, including a chance to reopen its own negotiations with Israel on the return of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel since the 1967 war.

Finally, Damascus needs commercial co-operation and support with the West as its political isolation is made worse by a chronic weakness in the country's economy.
The Bush administration should wisen up and re-evaluate their belligerence (towards Iran in particular) when these two nations could play a vital role in helping to clean up his mess.

Why stop there? Let's get Castro, Chavez and Kim Jung Il involved too.
If by "clean up this mess" you mean simply establishing order, it might be more humane to just nuke the place.

[Centrist]

Kumar wrote: Centrist wrote: Kumar wrote: BBC wrote:
Iraq: What Iran and Syria want


Syria and Iran - two of the most vilified nations in the Bush administration's political atlas - could hold the key to saving American plans in their neighbour Iraq.

Washington may need the two regional allies to help stabilise Iraq in order to pull its own troops back from an increasingly unpopular commitment there.

But given its fraught relations with Tehran and Damascus, Washington is only likely to secure active Iranian and Syrian co-operation by paying a high price diplomatically from two countries known for their hard bargaining.

IRANIAN WISHES

Iran wants a wholesale transformation of is relationship with the United States, which is one of the most antagonistic in the world.

At the moment attention of the US and its allies is on Iran's nuclear programme which they say is intended to produce a non-conventional military capability.

Iran wants to be allowed to continue its programme - including uranium enrichment - which it says is completely peaceful as well as its right under the international non-proliferation regime.

That means an end to the threat of UN sanctions - which Tehran has been able to avoid so far - and an end to US and Israeli threats of military action to destroy its nuclear facilities.

In the past, Tehran has had its fingers burnt by trying to open a dialogue with this most hawkish of US administrations.

In May 2003, for example, it offered to open up its nuclear programme, rein in Hezbollah and co-operate against al-Qaeda, but was reportedly rebuffed as the insistence of former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Since then, a right-wing Iranian president has been elected, although overall executive power lies with the religious revolutionary leadership of Ayatollah Khamenei.

From its past experience, Iran is likely to reject any overtures from the US or its allies for talks on limited issues.

It wants to be absolved completely from Washington's designation of it as part of the "axis of evil" - a state to be shunned by Western allies.

It is not clear how much of a greater role it wants to be given in Iraq.

It already enjoys a close relationship with the government dominated by religious Shia Muslims, but a greater role may cause greater friction with the Sunni Muslim community.

SYRIAN WISHES

The regime in Damascus finds itself on much shakier ground than its Iranian ally at the moment.

It is under great pressure over the investigation into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

So far a UN-backed tribunal has implicated Syria in the bombing that killed Mr Hariri in February 2005, but Damascus denies involvement.

It may hope that its current diplomatic isolation over Lebanon may be relieved if if can play a more positive role in Iraq.

Damascus is condemned as a "state sponsor of terrorism" by Washington because it hosts Palestinian militant groups sworn to Israel's destruction.

It may see this as an opportunity to change that designation - perhaps in a wider effort to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict, including a chance to reopen its own negotiations with Israel on the return of the Golan Heights occupied by Israel since the 1967 war.

Finally, Damascus needs commercial co-operation and support with the West as its political isolation is made worse by a chronic weakness in the country's economy.
The Bush administration should wisen up and re-evaluate their belligerence (towards Iran in particular) when these two nations could play a vital role in helping to clean up his mess.

I've sided with you on a lot of things, Kumar, but I have to ask this:

The United States has taken a crapload of grief for our apparent double-standards where foreign relations are concerned. Are you suggesting that we should go for yet another double-standard in diplomatic relationships?
I don't view it that way. When people criticize the double-standards, they are mostly speaking of actively supporting a particular regime while condemning another regime for employing the exact same practices used in the friendly regime. Talk of "freedom and democracy" is in reality a guise for other interests. This, on the other hand, would be a case of simply engaging these two nations diplomatically in an effort to end the bloodshed caused by an unnecessary invasion.

Alright. Fair enough.... from YOUR end. However, I don't really see any way to engage with either of them, particularly Iran, without crossing that line into the very double-standard I mentioned purely because of Iran's demands and wants.

But maybe that's just my inner pessimist showing.

[Kumar]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote:
Here is a link to the thread I started on this topic.
two-pronged diplomacy or forked-tongue politics?
Ah, I missed that. Perhaps this can be merged into that one.

Bush seems intent on ignoring pragmatic advice. His team already missed a golden opportunity in 2003 when Iran offered to open its nuclear program and cease all support of Hezbollah, only to be ignored by administration officials.

[Ameriman]

Kumar wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote:
Here is a link to the thread I started on this topic.
two-pronged diplomacy or forked-tongue politics?
Ah, I missed that. Perhaps this can be merged into that one.

Bush seems intent on ignoring pragmatic advice. His team already missed a golden opportunity in 2003 when Iran offered to open its nuclear program and cease all support of Hezbollah, only to be ignored by administration officials.

If you believed Iran I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya...CHEAP!

[Kumar]

Ameriman wrote: Kumar wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote:
Here is a link to the thread I started on this topic.
two-pronged diplomacy or forked-tongue politics?
Ah, I missed that. Perhaps this can be merged into that one.

Bush seems intent on ignoring pragmatic advice. His team already missed a golden opportunity in 2003 when Iran offered to open its nuclear program and cease all support of Hezbollah, only to be ignored by administration officials.

If you believed Iran I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya...CHEAP!
The chief of staff to Colin Powell also believed them.
BBC wrote:
Larry Wilkerson, who was then chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, thinks that was a big mistake.

"In my mind it was one of those things you throw up in the air and say I can't believe we did this."

Their offer came shortly after the invasion of Iraq, with the US in a position of strength. As the occupation dragged on, Iran became more and more confident and less prone to taking American threats seriously. The election of a hardline nationalist cemented this.

To ignore such an offer outright without even considering it is incredibly stupid.

[Tono]

By "helping out" do you mean "get their operatives to quit killing Iraqis"?

[Kumar]

Eduffy80911 wrote:
Why stop there? Let's get Castro, Chavez and Kim Jung Il involved too.
Are Cuba and North Korea in a position to help?

President Chavez does not belong on that list.

Quote: If by "clean up this mess" you mean simply establishing order, it might be more humane to just nuke the place.
A crucial component of cleaning up the mess is establishing order, considering the chaos currently engulfing Iraq.

[Wizard From Oz]

I like your basic thinking - and of the two Syria is probably the one that would be easist to do business with. How Israel would react to such overtures would be hard to gauge, but I suspect negativity would play a big part

If the US ignored Iran, I would suggest that was on the advice of the Britiish. Britian still has some strong connections in Iran, and is not seen like the western devil of the US.

The other question for Iran...whats in it for her. Is there are chance the religious faction fighting might spill over the border.

The final thought - how risky is the play - What happens to US policy if a pro Iranina govenment is formed, especially if Iran is still persuing it's destruction of Israel policy. Efecftively you have moved to arch ememies a couple of thousand miles closer.

But back to Syria - If the US can pull something out of the bag in regards to Gazza, this gives Syria an excuse to smoke the peace pipe without loosing face. And - watching where the bottom of that rainbow is lol - The US can get Syria onside, you suddenly have a block of 4 nations in very close proximity that are at the least US neutral.

And for my next post - I will reveal the origins of the universe, who not to back for the superbowl, and God's private cell phone number :roll:

[Kumar]

Centrist wrote: Alright. Fair enough.... from YOUR end. However, I don't really see any way to engage with either of them, particularly Iran, without crossing that line into the very double-standard I mentioned purely because of Iran's demands and wants.

But maybe that's just my inner pessimist showing.
Simply approaching them in a non-belligerent manner would help greatly. There is of course no obligation to assent to their demands.