Israel, Palestine and Iran

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Should we be concerned about http://www.juancole.com/2013/03/officially-spills-killed.html'>this?

[Ads]

Every club has racists. They should be banned, the same as any Millwall scum bag who would do the same.

[Awol]

Should we be concerned about this?

Yes, frankly. Iraq has been on the slow boil back to civil war since not long after the Americans left and the likelyhood of Syria and Iraq blending into one giant mess is not remote. Throw in the Turks who have a beef with Assad and their own problems with the Kurdish rulers of northern Iraq (and now also areas of Syria too) and it could all go spectacularly wrong. That's without mentioning the Iranian regime's moral and material support of Assad, Turkey's NATO membership and Russia's desire to do the worst possible thing whenever and wherever possible.

Anyone with reason to be who is not concerned about that potential cocktail needs their head examined.

[AVFC_Hitz]

Throw in the Turks who have a beef with Assad and their own problems with the Kurdish rulers of northern Iraq 

 

Whilst buying oil from them...

.http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/19/289721/turkey-defies-us-iraq-in-kurds-deal/

[Awol]

Throw in the Turks who have a beef with Assad and their own problems with the Kurdish rulers of northern Iraq 

 

Whilst buying oil from them...

.http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/19/289721/turkey-defies-us-iraq-in-kurds-deal/

True, but it is on the Northern Iraqi Kurds (and their Peshmerga) to permanently reign in the PKK in return. Call me cynical but that seems unlikely.

This is quite long but intertesting look at the whole regional dynamics taking shape:

Syria Spillover, al-Qaida Strain Iraq Security

Iraq's Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has long warned that Syria's increasingly sectarian war might spill over the border and reignite his own country's combustible Shi'ite-Sunni mix.

That nightmare may have edged closer after suspected Sunni insurgents killed 48 Syrian troops on Iraqi soil on Monday.

Suicide bombers have already stepped up attacks in recent weeks to a frequency Iraq has not suffered in years.

Invigorated by the conflict in neigboring Syria, insurgents are gaining ground and recruits in Iraq's Sunni heartland, regrouping in the vast desert where the Euphrates river winds through both countries, security officials say.

"We warn all sides in Syria against moving their armed struggle onto Iraqi lands or violating the sanctity of its borders," Iraq's defense ministry said after the attack on the Syrians, which it blamed on infiltrators from Syria. "The response will be harsh and decisive."

Syria's crisis has always been delicate for Iraq's Shi'ite leadership. Baghdad is close to Iran, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's ally, but insists it takes no sides as the conflict next door widens a regional Shi'ite-Sunni divide.

Iraq says the Syrian soldiers had fled into its territory and were being escorted back when they were ambushed. Yet their incursion will raise questions about Baghdad's neutrality.

Insurgents in Syria are predominantly Sunni and are backed by Sunni regional powers such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, while Assad's minority Alawite sect springs from Shi'ite Islam.

For Maliki, a defeat for Assad threatens to put Damascus under the thumb of hardline Sunni Islamists hostile to Baghdad.

Piggybacking on Syria Conflict

Iraq's recent surge in violence is still well below the peak of sectarian slaughter in 2006-2007, when rival Sunni and Shi'ite Islamist militias ruled parts of Baghdad, tens of thousands were killed and suicide bombers struck daily.

However, insurgents in suicide vests and explosive-packed cars have struck almost twice a week since January, killing more than 230 people in Shi'ite districts and mixed areas disputed by Iraqi Arabs and ethnic Kurds.

Security officials believe insurgents are tapping into Sunni discontent in Iraq's western provinces, where for weeks thousands have protested against Maliki, accusing him of marginalising their sect since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Reviling the Shi'ite-led government it sees as oppressing Sunnis, the al-Qaida-linked Islamic State of Iraq group is trying to gain legitimacy by linking its struggle to the Sunni insurgency against Assad, security experts say.

Protesters in the Sunni stronghold of Anbar have raised flags of the Syrian opposition.

"We say to the Sunnis in Baghdad and elsewhere: the situation you are living today is exactly what the mujahideen warned you of years ago. You are walking in a dark tunnel," said an al-Qaida statement posted on an Islamist website.

Iraqi security officials believe Islamic State of Iraq and other Sunni Islamist insurgents have already started to make good on a vow to reclaim ground al-Qaida lost in western Iraq.

"There is something even more immediate - the opportunity to merge Syria and Iraq into a single sectarian theatre of conflict," said Ramzy Mardini, an author on Iraq's insurgents who is now at the Iraq Institute for Strategic Studies. "Sunni extremists in Iraq see an opportunity to piggyback off the Syrian revolution."

New al-Qaida Camps

In Anbar province, which forms a third of Iraqi territory and was once almost wholly held by al-Qaida, tribal ties transcend the border. Sunni chiefs say Iraqi tribes send Syrian relatives food and supplies. Some tribal leaders say they send arms to Free Syrian Army rebels when border controls allow.

U.S. officials say the Nusra Front, an Islamist group seen as one of the most active fighting forces in Syria, is closely linked to al-Qaida's Iraqi affiliate.

Iraqi security officials say controlling armed groups in the region has been hampered by Sunni protesters who accuse security forces of unfairly targeting them with anti-terrorism laws. To avoid possible clashes, the army has pulled back in some areas.

Maliki has warned Sunnis against allowing extremists to hijack protests and has sought to appease them by promising to modify laws and by releasing detainees. But even moderate Sunni leaders and sheikhs worry they are losing influence.

Iraqi security officials and local tribal leaders say new al-Qaida camps are emerging in the remote al-Jaziya desert and valleys along the Syrian border in Anbar, but also that small cells are returning to towns such as Falluja and Rutba.

"In the last operation, we targeted a camp and managed to kill more than 10 members and to seize stocks of explosives and weapons. What stood out was the new weapons and what seems to be continuous support," said one army intelligence officer.

One local Sunni sheikh with close contacts to insurgents said al-Qaida cells were once again using militant rhetoric to attract young men for suicide attacks to exact revenge for wronged relatives and perceived abuses against their sect.

Security officials acknowledge they lack local intelligence in places such as Anbar, where state forces are seen by many as tools of the Shi'ite-led government. They also miss U.S. air surveillance over the desert bordering Syria.

Shi'ite Militias on Board

So far Shi'ite militias have stayed mostly out of the fray.

But in Sadr City, the Baghdad bastion of Shi'ite militants who once battled U.S. troops, former fighters talk of remobilizing in case Syria's turmoil upsets Iraq's sectarian balance.

After the last U.S. troops left Iraq in December 2011, some Iranian-backed, anti-U.S. Shi'ite militias disbanded, at least officially saying their struggle was over after nearly a decade.

With the rising influence of their political parties, there seemed little reason for the Shi'ite militants to keep fighting.

Early last year the leader of one militia, Asaib al-Haq, said it would disarm and join the political process. A rival Shi'ite group, Kataeb Hizballah, said weeks later it would not follow suit, citing Iraq's continuing instability.

The Mehdi Army of anti-U.S. Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr mostly disbanded after its defeat by Iraqi and U.S. forces in Baghdad and southern cities in 2008.

But Syria's crisis has revived Iraqi Shi'ite militant activity. Some have crossed the border to fight alongside Assad's troops, though Shi'ite militia commanders say they have given no official sanction for volunteers to fight in Syria.

Worried about Sunni unrest in Anbar and the crisis unfolding in Syria, some ex-Mehdi Army members say they too are regrouping and recruiting as a precautionary measure.

"I will just be defending my rights," said one former senior Mehdi fighter. "We won't start this. We will just be waiting for them in case."

[maqroll]

France Blocks Nuclear Agreement with Iran

 

 

France's role in Geneva talks that ended with no agreement over Tehran's nuclear programme has prompted bewilderment and anger inside Iran.

Iranians, who stayed awake all night to find out whether their negotiators have reached a breakthrough with the west, were disappointed that France was prepared to defy the Americans and block a stopgap deal, and that western sanction would not end any time soon.

The Irna state news agency reported that Iranian businessmen were considering reducing their trade ties with France, saying they no longer considered it as a good partner because of its "adventurist and immature behaviour" at Geneva.

"A group of Tehran-based industrialists held a meeting here on Sunday focusing on reduction of Tehran-Paris trade ties," reported Irna. "They believe that the imbalanced policies of Paris on Tehran have stripped Paris of its status as a good economic partner of Iran."

Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani, reacting to news from Geneva, said Tehran would not bow to "sanctions, threats, contempt and discrimination", the state-run Press TV reported. Rouhani was speaking to the members of Iran's parliament, Majlis, where he was defending his nominee for the sports ministry, Nasrollah Sajjadi.

"For us, red lines are not to be crossed. The rights of the Iranian nation and [our] national interests are our red lines," he said. Without directly referring to France, Rouhani added: "The Islamic Republic of Iran has not bowed and will not bow to threats by any power."

In reaction to the Geneva talks, the Twitter account believed to be run by the office of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei posted old remarks Iran's supreme leader made about France in a speech in March.

"French officials have been openly hostile towards the Iranian nation over the past few years; this is an imprudent and inept move," the tweet says. "A wise man, particularly a wise politician, should never have the motivation to turn a neutral entity into an enemy." That speech in the eastern city of Mashhad, east Iran, was the first time Khamenei referred to France as Iran's enemy along with the US and Britain.

As France's hardline stance in Geneva became public on Saturday, Iranian web users posted their disgust on the official Facebook page of the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius. "Shame of you," read one comment. Another one said: "Mr. Fabius ...Why?"

Some in Iran also joked that the recent developments will make France Iran's top enemy, perhaps replacing the US as le grand satan.

Iran's ultra-conservative newspaper Keyhan, whose director is appointed by Khamenei, published an article on Sunday describing Fabius as "the servant of the zionist regime".

It continued: "The disgraceful behaviour of the French foreign minister in the Geneva talks and his remarks on behalf of the zionist regime once again shows the national interests of French people are taken hostage [by Israel]."

"Exhausted but hopeful", read the headline of the reformist newspaper Shargh next to the image of the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, talking at a press conference alongside his EU counterpart, Catherine Ashton.

The Geneva talks dominated the front pages of almost all Iranian publications on Sunday, with many printing second or third editions. "Agreement in suspension", read the headline of the reformist Etemaad.

 

Edited November 11, 2013 by maqroll

[maqroll]

Apparently the rest of the G-8 and even China were all going to sign on the line which is dotted...I thought Hollande was a real lefty...

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I'm sure it has nothing to do with those massive nuclear energy companies based in France.

Edited November 11, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[Awol]

...I thought Hollande was a real lefty...

Looking at the current state of the French economy, you might think so. However I rather agree with the Iranian view that Hollande's strings are being pulled by other forces, but from the land of the two holy mosques and not Tel Aviv. Le Frogs have been getting very cosy with Saudi of late, backfilling the gap in influence created by Riyadh's anger at the US decision not to bomb Syria.

 

Blocking this deal was exceptionally dumb and definitely not in the script, hopefully they can still fix it up in the next few weeks.

[drat01]

Apparently the rest of the G-8 and even China were all going to sign on the line which is dotted...I thought Hollande was a real lefty...

what a strange statement, unless of course you are saying only left wing thinkers would suggest peace? And by that thinking right wing thinkers are basically only happy if there is war?

[drat01]

...I thought Hollande was a real lefty...

Looking at the current state of the French economy, you might think so. However I rather agree with the Iranian view that Hollande's strings are being pulled by other forces, but from the land of the two holy mosques and not Tel Aviv. Le Frogs have been getting very cosy with Saudi of late, backfilling the gap in influence created by Riyadh's anger at the US decision not to bomb Syria.

Blocking this deal was exceptionally dumb and definitely not in the script, hopefully they can still fix it up in the next few weeks.

le frogs?

[Awol]

 

Apparently the rest of the G-8 and even China were all going to sign on the line which is dotted...I thought Hollande was a real lefty...

what a strange statement, unless of course you are saying only left wing thinkers would suggest peace? And by that thinking right wing thinkers are basically only happy if there is war?

 

Perhaps Maqroll has forgotten that our equivalent of George W. thin out their numbers! Bush" was actually the British Labour Party? Easy mistake to make given their equality of idiocy.

 

 

...I thought Hollande was a real lefty...

Looking at the current state of the French economy, you might think so. However I rather agree with the Iranian view that Hollande's strings are being pulled by other forces, but from the land of the two holy mosques and not Tel Aviv. Le Frogs have been getting very cosy with Saudi of late, backfilling the gap in influence created by Riyadh's anger at the US decision not to bomb Syria.

Blocking this deal was exceptionally dumb and definitely not in the script, hopefully they can still fix it up in the next few weeks.

 

le frogs?

 

Oui.

[drat01]

You see awol none of that makes sense. Do you agree with the previous statement that you have to be left wing to want peace? I love how you bring labour into this, as with other politics threads there does seem to be an obsession at times

[Awol]

It does make sense Drat but I'll spell it out for you: clearly given the warmongering nature of the last Labour Government it would be a mistake to equate the left of politics with an aversion to conflict, or indeed an attachment to peace. Far from being an obsession it is a simple statement of fact.

In that sense Maqroll's statement is incorrect and further to that Hollande was very keen to pile into Mali at the first chance of giving his armed forces a good old run out in Africa.

You dig?

[drat01]

It does make sense Drat but I'll spell it out for you: clearly given the warmongering nature of the last Labour Government it would be a mistake to equate the left of politics with an aversion to conflict, or indeed an attachment to peace. Far from being an obsession it is a simple statement of fact.

In that sense Maqroll's statement is incorrect and further to that Hollande was very keen to pile into Mali at the first chance of giving his armed forces a good old run out in Africa.

You dig?

As said obsessed with Labour - you forget of course that in fact that if wasn't for the Tory opposition the Iraq war vote would never have been passed as there were so many Labour dissenting voices in parliament. But let's not let facts like that get in the way of any sort of obsession shall we?

 

As said you are making no sense in respect to the comment previously because that certainly implied that you had to be Left wing thinker to be anti-war. So I am still failing to see where your comments make any real sense in either arguing with or against that statement or more importantly in respect to the comments re the French actions.

 

I find comments like yours especially interesting in respect to foreign policy and intervention as it often seems as though you have differing standpoints in respect to what the UK should do and what other nations do.

 

As for Iran - Israel, maybe there was more to why the French did not agree with things. The French have a perfect right to veto the deal given their standing in the world. As a sole dissenting voice I suspect that they will be asked to explain further and rather than resort to some xenophobic stance maybe we can see what they have to say before making any decisions?

[drat01]

There is an interesting view on why the French took the actions that they did here in the FT comments

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32beeb90-4acc-11e3-8c4c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2kQ0uX63D

 

also the WS Journal

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304448204579185651742048532

 

also the FT now reports a different course of events

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/888ecb0a-4aac-11e3-8c4c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2kQ0uX63D

Edited November 12, 2013 by drat01

[maqroll]

 

Apparently the rest of the G-8 and even China were all going to sign on the line which is dotted...I thought Hollande was a real lefty...

what a strange statement, unless of course you are saying only left wing thinkers would suggest peace? And by that thinking right wing thinkers are basically only happy if there is war?

 

It's really not that deductive, but you've made it so, and seem keen on making an argument of it! 

 

But it's 4:34 AM where I am, and that means bedtime.

 

Bon soir, mon ami

[drat01]

 

 

Apparently the rest of the G-8 and even China were all going to sign on the line which is dotted...I thought Hollande was a real lefty...

what a strange statement, unless of course you are saying only left wing thinkers would suggest peace? And by that thinking right wing thinkers are basically only happy if there is war?

 

It's really not that deductive, but you've made it so, and seem keen on making an argument of it! 

 

But it's 4:34 AM where I am, and that means bedtime.

 

Bon soir, mon ami

 

Enjoy your cheese

[Awol]

 

It does make sense Drat but I'll spell it out for you: clearly given the warmongering nature of the last Labour Government it would be a mistake to equate the left of politics with an aversion to conflict, or indeed an attachment to peace. Far from being an obsession it is a simple statement of fact.

In that sense Maqroll's statement is incorrect and further to that Hollande was very keen to pile into Mali at the first chance of giving his armed forces a good old run out in Africa.

You dig?

As said obsessed with Labour - you forget of course that in fact that if wasn't for the Tory opposition the Iraq war vote would never have been passed as there were so many Labour dissenting voices in parliament. But let's not let facts like that get in the way of any sort of obsession shall we?

Funny old thing, you spend most of your time in OT posting frenzied rants against the current government, to the extent that I really do worry about your blood pressure. That is apparently classed as  'comment' in the condem gov thread.

 

I happen to mention the warmongering liar party (sorry, "Labour") in the context of a comment by Maqroll on supposed left wing pacifism and you call me obsessed - several times....

 

I'd say "you couldn't make it up*", but quite clearly that would be wrong.

 

As for a tongue in cheek reference to le frogs being a xenophobic comment.... seriously? Have a word with yourself, mate.

 

 

 

 

* Copyright T Blair, Dodgy Dossier, 2003.

 

There is an interesting view on why the French took the actions that they did here in the FT comments

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32beeb90-4acc-11e3-8c4c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2kQ0uX63D

 

also the WS Journal

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304448204579185651742048532

 

also the FT now reports a different course of events

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/888ecb0a-4aac-11e3-8c4c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2kQ0uX63D

 

Sorry you are posting links to articles behind a pay wall with the FT.  The WSJ says "well done France, thank god you stopped Iran getting nuclear power".. Well duh, we want them to have it.

[drat01]

The FT articles are not behind a pay wall at all - maybe it's restricted on the network you are on? or maybe free on the one I am on?

 

As said the articles are interesting reading for different and evolving perspectives - maybe the haste to criticise the French was somewhat premature

 

Re your previous comments, nice to see you resorting to the personal abuse. You are the one that brought Labour into this thread, so you can certainly expect people to comment re the obvious obsession that right wing VT'ers seem to have there. Also I notice that you fail to acknowledge the error in your statement especially in respect to the Tory party opposition of the time being very instrumental in getting through the Iraq war debate, but I know that often comes under the "head in the sand" and "it didn't happen" mentality.

 

Re this thread topic, the rhetoric re the Iranian's is now becoming very interesting. There seems to be a lot of "getting ready" from the west business leaders for when a deal is struck that removes the sanctions placed on Iran. Maybe the whole deal stalling was more about who could get the most money?

Edited November 12, 2013 by drat01