Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Iraq & US, the view from Iran an article of interest
Herc the Merc    5/16/2007 3:41:21 PM
Iran Rising Seema Mustafa Tehran: The word is out: the United States is at the losing edge and is on its way out. In Iran there is not a single person who is not talking of the US defeat in Iraq, Lebanon and now Iran, with senior ministers in the government openly exulting about the failure of Washington’s policy in the region. The chaos in Israel over its military defeat at the hands of the Hezbollah is only adding to the glee, with even the common man now anticipating the curtains to open on the next stage of the US-West Asia drama. Here the Iranian government clearly sees a major role for itself, and it appears to be almost certain that it is more than willing to engage in peace talks with Washington with one difference: it has to now be on Tehran’s terms. And what are these terms? While many issues could be negotiable, what appears to be totally non-negotiable is Iran’s right to its nuclear programme. Senior Cabinet ministers made it very clear that the nuclear issue had come to symbolise Iranian national pride and there was no question of the government backing off from its right to civilian nuclear energy. The expectation is that with time the US will have to agree to this, as it would need Iran to bring peace to the region, in particular Iraq. The certainty is that Iran will not concede space on this issue, and that after 28 long years in the wilderness it has emerged as a self sufficient, confident nation that can more than withstand any storm the US might now unleash. Iran, however, is prepared to concede some ground on Iraq, but that, its ministers said here, was only because it had reached the independent conclusion that some of its goals were similar to those of the US. One, both wanted the chaos to end, although there are some differences over this in the government, with at least one minister insisting that the US wanted an unstable Iraq. And two, both wanted the government to be recognised as legitimate. Tehran apparently has had no hesitation in recognising the Maliki government as representative of the people of Iraq, because it has, after intense discussions spread over weeks if not months, come to the conclusion that the present Iraqi government was sympathetic to Iran. Iraqi President Nuri al Maliki has lived in Iran, and is fluent in Pharsi. As an official here pointed out, there is one VIP visit from Iraq to Iran now every single week, if not more often. Relations are on the mend and Iran is currently negotiating details with the US on this issue. At the same time, care has been taken to delink the nuclear issue from the ongoing talks on Iraq, with government ministers and officials pointing out that there could be no compromise on Iran’s nuclear rights. The day the nuclear dossier on Iran is sent back from the United Nations Security Council to the IAEA that day we will begin talks, is the official position of the government here. Iran’s nuclear rights have to be treated as an IAEA (NPT) issue and not a political sword to be raised against it by the UNSC. The Americans are not clear about conceding what the basis of their campaign against Iran is, and as the ministers here said, "they are unable to tell us what will be the position at the end of the tunnel; that remains a question mark and until that is answered we cannot have any kind of talks with them." The anti-US rhetoric remains strong and strident. A senior Cabinet minister went so far as to say that the US, in his view, was fostering terrorism in Sunni dominated central Iraq, as it did not want stability there. A deputy minister for foreign affairs was of the view that the region would see peace only if the Americans left, and he was optimistic that this would happen sooner than later. There is palpable anger against the Americans, but now that the threat of an attack is virtually over, Iran is emerging from the tension keen to establish itself as a regional power. This then is the second certainty in the emerging scenario: Iran will emerge, if it has not already, as the major player and power in West Asia. There is no doubt about that. It has acquired impressive manufacturing abilities and is now building its own automobiles, its nuclear plants, its roads, its infrastructure. It has ensured 100 per cent electrification with an excellent network of roads, bridges and dams across the length and breadth of the nation. It is opening rapidly to the private sector, even as President Ahmadinejad seeks to address the rural and workers’ constituency by offering "justice" shares in the public sector to offset any problems that might arise from rapid privatisation. The question is not whether Iran will emerge as a regional power, that it definitely will. The question is: who will Iran ally with in the process? Will it seek alliances with the neighbouring countries in the region, and forgetting its long held animosity towards the
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
AdvanceAustralia    Herc, two idiots do not make a right   5/16/2007 5:04:32 PM
There is something you must understand about the US.

It is a nation that has within itself a tremendous source of tolerance. Tolerance is one of the building blocks of US society. The small victories against the US that people with small minds like yourself celebrate do not necessarily matter as much to the people of the US. These losses are bearable. Remember, however, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbour and what the Yanks call 9/11. Do not delude yourself that minor Iranian victories will translate to a backward, totalitarian regime, that is hated by most of its oppressed people, challenging the US for the dominance of the world's trade lanes.

The Soviet Union did not invade Western Europe in 1975 after the fall of Saigon although the lefties (falsely) made this out to be a US loss. The Soviet Union did not invade Western Europe in 1979 after the Iranian revolution although the lefties exacerbated a temporary setback. Not did the PRC invade Taiwan. The temporary advantage of a tinpot dictator does not mean the US and friends cannot at will deliver "Shock & Awe" to the bad guys. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait mattered to the US (and it allies) and so the US put together the most powerful army in the history of mankind to deal with the problem.

The Yanks are the good guys. They will put up with a lot of cr@p from the baddies but at the end of the day, when all is said and done, if the bad guys p!ss them off too much they will make life for the bad guys very unpleasant.

Again, cheers.
 
Quote    Reply

Herc the Merc    Advance   5/16/2007 6:03:09 PM
Its a view from Iran...not from me. Ur dribbling hehe.
 
Quote    Reply

Bob       5/16/2007 6:55:16 PM
It's a view from a pro-Iran Communist masquerading as a journalist.
 
Quote    Reply

cybersalad       5/16/2007 9:02:13 PM
Seems like the whole concept of Democracy is on the wane.  With the rise of China and Iran, as well as the re-Stalinization of Russia--I think we're heading for a post democratic world in the next, say, 100 years.  Europe is slowly being consumed by Islamofascism.  The new quasi-dictatorships around the world with pockets full of cash from free trade with happening capitalist deomcracies are flexing their new bought reputations.  The only problem is, once these despots have devoured all the meat from the skeleton of the world's formerly great democracies--they will be forced to eat each other.

Oh well, hopefully I'll be dead before I witness most of this.

 
Quote    Reply

AdvanceAustralia    Herc   5/17/2007 3:39:39 AM
You posted it. If you don't agree with an article you post then say so otherwise it can only be reasonably assumed you support it as you are disseminating said article.
Its a view from Iran...not from me. Ur dribbling hehe.



 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics