Iran offers to help U.S. exit from Iraq

[E-Nice]

Iran offers to help U.S. exit from Iraq
By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 18 minutes ago



Iran's foreign minister delivered a blunt challenge to the United States on Saturday, saying Tehran is willing to help U.S. troops withdraw from neighboring Iraq but only if Washington makes some tough policy changes.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki claimed U.S. troops were responsible for at least half the violence tearing apart Iraq and that their departure would pay security dividends for the entire region.

"If the United States changes its attitude, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to help with the withdrawal from Iraq," Mottaki told the International Institute of Strategic Studies conference here. "Fifty percent of the problem of insecurity in Iraq is the presence of foreign troops."

Mottaki echoed calls made last week by Iran's top national security official, Ali Larijani, for Gulf Arab countries to eject American bases in their countries and establish a regional security pact with Iran. Mottaki went further and offered deeper cooperation with the six Gulf Arab states on energy, tourism, business and counter-narcotics.

Iran's offers do not seem to have tempted Gulf neighbors who are apparently more worried about the dangers of living near Iran's nuclear facilities, especially amid threats by Washington and Israel to use military force to destroy them.

Mottaki's forceful speech was a challenge to U.S. interests in the Gulf and a strong display of the country's rising assertiveness in the face of U.S failures in the region.

At one point, Mottaki addressed an international audience that included U.S. Vice Adm. David Nichols, the deputy chief of U.S. Central Command, and said the regional chaos sparked by the Bush administration's twin wars demonstrated that U.S. military force was no longer a realistic policy option in the Middle East.

"Today the time of threats is over. The period of unilateralism is over," Mottaki said. "Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. That gives us a very important lesson."

Iran's proposal for a Gulf security alliance shows no sign of gaining traction among the region's Arab leaders. Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa said security of the energy-rich region depends on the United States, the European Union and other major oil-importing countries.

Much of the discussion at this security conference centered on the U.S. Iraq Study Group report, and its recommendation that Washington seek Iran's help in steering Iraq away from civil war.

William Cohen, defense secretary under President Clinton, urged Iran to push for talks with Washington.

"If you forgo aspirations for nuclear weapons and cut off funding for radical elements and support the Mideast peace process, then yes, you'd be welcomed into the international community. We'd have billions of dollars going into your economy," Cohen told the Iranians among 250 delegates from 22 countries.

"If Iran is simply interested in pursuing a nuclear energy program and not weapons, that's something the U.S. wouldn't object to and would support."

[PETA]

Originally Posted by E-Nice

Iran offers to help U.S. exit from Iraq
By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 18 minutes ago



Iran's foreign minister delivered a blunt challenge to the United States on Saturday, saying Tehran is willing to help U.S. troops withdraw from neighboring Iraq but only if Washington makes some tough policy changes.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki claimed U.S. troops were responsible for at least half the violence tearing apart Iraq and that their departure would pay security dividends for the entire region.

"If the United States changes its attitude, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to help with the withdrawal from Iraq," Mottaki told the International Institute of Strategic Studies conference here. "Fifty percent of the problem of insecurity in Iraq is the presence of foreign troops."

So get out Americans so the real killing can begin!

Originally Posted by E-Nice

Mottaki echoed calls made last week by Iran's top national security official, Ali Larijani, for Gulf Arab countries to eject American bases in their countries and establish a regional security pact with Iran. Mottaki went further and offered deeper cooperation with the six Gulf Arab states on energy, tourism, business and counter-narcotics.

Iran's offers do not seem to have tempted Gulf neighbors who are apparently more worried about the dangers of living near Iran's nuclear facilities, especially amid threats by Washington and Israel to use military force to destroy them.

So what scares the Gulf States more? The US staying or the US leaving?

Originally Posted by E-Nice

Mottaki's forceful speech was a challenge to U.S. interests in the Gulf and a strong display of the country's rising assertiveness in the face of U.S failures in the region.

Iran is indeed increasingly "assertive." Those idiots on the ISG certainly gave Iran more reason to be less reasonable by suggesting we go to Tehran hat in hand. When Iran does build a nuke nearly every (I saw nearly on the outside chance that any reason would still exist) reason to negotiate with the West will be eliminated... provided the current absence of political will to stop Iran persists.

Originally Posted by E-Nice

At one point, Mottaki addressed an international audience that included U.S. Vice Adm. David Nichols, the deputy chief of U.S. Central Command, and said the regional chaos sparked by the Bush administration's twin wars demonstrated that U.S. military force was no longer a realistic policy option in the Middle East.

He's absolutely correct as long as the current resolve towards our military policy persists. I think it was McCain who noted that if we have too few troops to enforce a peace and we are unwilling to increase troops levels then all we are doing is providing targets. We need to either commit and fuck up the militias in a most serious and bloody fashion to demonstrate that we are not to be trifled with or we need to get the fuck out and quit sacrificing our soldiers to waffling politicians... should we choose the latter then there will be even less reason than above for Iran to negotiate with us.

Originally Posted by E-Nice

"Today the time of threats is over. The period of unilateralism is over," Mottaki said. "Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. That gives us a very important lesson."

Indeed it does... sadly.

Originally Posted by E-Nice

Iran's proposal for a Gulf security alliance shows no sign of gaining traction among the region's Arab leaders. Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa said security of the energy-rich region depends on the United States, the European Union and other major oil-importing countries.

Much of the discussion at this security conference centered on the U.S. Iraq Study Group report, and its recommendation that Washington seek Iran's help in steering Iraq away from civil war.

William Cohen, defense secretary under President Clinton, urged Iran to push for talks with Washington.

"If you forgo aspirations for nuclear weapons and cut off funding for radical elements and support the Mideast peace process, then yes, you'd be welcomed into the international community. We'd have billions of dollars going into your economy," Cohen told the Iranians among 250 delegates from 22 countries.

"If Iran is simply interested in pursuing a nuclear energy program and not weapons, that's something the U.S. wouldn't object to and would support."

If we will not prevent Iran from getting the bomb the only course left would seem to be to cut a deal with them and quit the field - open a new place at the table and submit the middle east to Iranian hegemony and hope that we can impress upon them that our policy will be the swift retributive firing of nukes should Iran nuke Israel. And then - we have to mean it. If we don't then wtf are we doing over there discussing anything with anyone anyway?

hops off soap box and goes to get a cold fucking Leinies.

[joe mac]

Originally Posted by xian

If we will not prevent Iran from getting the bomb the only course left would seem to be to cut a deal with them and quit the field - open a new place at the table and submit the middle east to Iranian hegemony and hope that we can impress upon them that our policy will be the swift retributive firing of nukes should Iran nuke Israel. And then - we have to mean it. If we don't then wtf are we doing over there discussing anything with anyone anyway?

hops off soap box and goes to get a cold fucking Leinies.

i wouldn't call it iranian hegemony, but a multipolar world.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by joe mac

i wouldn't call it iranian hegemony, but a multipolar world.

so then the word means different things when applied to different states - wonderful sense of definitional relativism you've got going there

[joe mac]

Originally Posted by xian

so then the word means different things when applied to different states - wonderful sense of definitional relativism you've got going there

quite relevant, the U.S. wants to keep its power, hence it doesn't want a multipolar world.

[I AM EL-NINO]

Originally Posted by joe mac

quite relevant, the U.S. wants to keep its power, hence it doesn't want a multipolar world.

Your world aint brite enough for the rest of the world.

[joe mac]

Originally Posted by I AM EL-NINO

Your world aint brite enough for the rest of the world.

bigotry aint big enough for your world

[PETA]

Originally Posted by joe mac

quite relevant, the U.S. wants to keep its power, hence it doesn't want a multipolar world.

wow... let me try again with smaller words....

You use "hegemony" to mean different things when applied to different states. The term is relative (not relevant) to your opinion of the desireability of an outcome.

Current US (as well as pretty much the rest of the world excepting North Korea) policy seeks to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Do you find that policy unreasonable?

[joe mac]

Originally Posted by xian

wow... let me try again with smaller words....

You use "hegemony" to mean different things when applied to different states. The term is relative (not relevant) to your opinion of the desireability of an outcome.

Current US (as well as pretty much the rest of the world excepting North Korea) policy seeks to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Do you find that policy unreasonable?

so the U.S. can have nukes but other countries cannot?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by joe mac

so the U.S. can have nukes but other countries cannot?

Many other countries have nukes. Adding members to the club, especially those run by lunatics, is not a good thing.

Address my question or stfu - American policy (and most other states excepting North Korea) would seek to prevent Iran from joining the nuke club. Is this policy unreasonable?

[joe mac]

Originally Posted by xian

Many other countries have nukes. Adding members to the club, especially those run by lunatics, is not a good thing.

Address my question or stfu - American policy (and most other states excepting North Korea) would seek to prevent Iran from joining the nuke club. Is this policy unreasonable?

one could say that the U.S. is run by lunatics...

american foreign policy is behind the times.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by joe mac

one could say that the U.S. is run by lunatics...

american foreign policy is behind the times.

One could say that the US is run by martians as well - but that doesn't make it so...

now... chickenshit, Address my question or stfu - American policy (and most other states excepting North Korea) would seek to prevent Iran from joining the nuke club. Is this policy unreasonable?

[joe mac]

Originally Posted by xian

One could say that the US is run by martians as well - but that doesn't make it so...

now... chickenshit, Address my question or stfu - American policy (and most other states excepting North Korea) would seek to prevent Iran from joining the nuke club. Is this policy unreasonable?

iran is not seeking nuclear missles, they are seeking nuclear energy.

they already have nuclear energy, they want to build upon it.

[Hey Bubu]

I'd still go with Xian's old idea. Let them build their reactor, but the first out of line move and it's BIG BADABOOM!!! no questions asked.

Causality at its best.

[housefish]

Originally Posted by joe mac

iran is not seeking nuclear missles, they are seeking nuclear energy.
they already have nuclear energy, they want to build upon it.

For one that likes to read between lines you need to read between those....