France Alarmed at Obama's Iranian Capitulation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
561

[quote]loppar wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Those are pics of the “government leaders” they are elected by the Ayatollahs if I am not mistaken.
[/quote]

Actually, it is more complex than that.

First of all, you have to dispel the typically Western notion that actual democracy means “pro-Western”. Ghaza strip elections and Egypt have shown that you end up with Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood respectively, not to mentioned the AKP in Turkey whose ascent to power was caused by increased democratization through the loosening of military control over the civilian government.

Secondly, Iran has outside trappings of democracy - presidential and parliament elections with allowed parties that are actually parts of the government/security apparatus fighting for power, with the final outcome far from certain, although subject to the final approval of the clerical council, which again is not so straightforward. Lot’s of wrangling and backroom deals with open and not-so-open political warfare through the media, judicial system and straight up brute force used by the religious police. Think USSR mixed with Putin’s Russia.

Confusing ye succinct overview:

For example, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s party, everyone’s favorite boogeyman from a couple of years ago, was defeated in partially-rigged elections - the big thing is that they we’re allowed to lose, unlike the elections before that which sparked the Green Revolution.

So to think that they are a monolithic group of crazies ruled by an insane despot, no.

[/quote]

A couple of thoughts I want to add. You are right about the Iranian political structure being extremely complicated with a lot of misconceptions. I remember when Dinnerjacket had a speech at Columbia U. and the school’s president referred to him as a dictator. When the president of one of the best universities in the country (and world for that matter) can’t even get the basics right then you know most people have no clue.

Dinnerjacket’s rigged election in 2009 was actually the result of the IRGC to the chagrin of the supreme leader. Khamenei was very pissed about this and hated Dinnerjacket by that point in time, but didn’t have much he could do about it without looking weak and pissing off the very powerful IRGC.

The point being that even the “supreme leader” does not actually have supreme authority within Iran. There are many factions and individuals within Iran that wield a lot of influence. At one point, Rasfanjani, another cleric, was arguably more powerful than Khamenei even though the latter was supreme leader. The IRGC, bazzaris, parliament, the president, myriad clerics, and the supreme leader all hold substantial sway in Iran and they are often not on the same page. Ruhollah Khomeini was in a different stratosphere compared to the current supreme leader, and even he had difficulties appeasing the various factions vying for influence.

562

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
I don’t think it was an accident personally,.[/quote]

LOL.

Clearly, you have an objective view of US - Iran relations.[/quote]

There is plenty of evidence suggesting it was an aggressive action. I never said it was a direct order from Reagan. Not sure why you would consider this laughable. It’s not a crazy conspiracy theory, it’s an opinion that many people have and there is evidence supporting it, including redacted sections of formal US investigations. I have ZERO desire trying to prove this with citations because it’s not worth the effort, and it was a minor side note in a post that stated that the US supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

It’s lame for multiple people to latch onto one side note and completely ignore the crux of the post. Also, can you imagine Russia shooting down an American airline and then just brushing it off as an accident? Add in Putin saying “I will never apologize. I don’t care what the facts are”. I highly doubt it. We would be flipping the fuck out.

Do you deny that there has been hostilities on both sides, and that there are several, rational reasons why each side is distrusting of the other? If you don’t, then your idea of an objective view is shit.

563

Ok, what about this. Sounds good on the surface. Should we demand they give up supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, or doesn’t Iran regard them as terrorists because they are fighting Israel? Is it a good idea to pick and choose what defines terrorists? Before it can be combated globally, it must be defined.

564

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
Also, can you imagine Russia shooting down an American airline and then just brushing it off as an accident? Add in Putin saying “I will never apologize. I don’t care what the facts are”. I highly doubt it. We would be flipping the fuck out.[/quote]

Imagine it? It happened…it was Russia & South Korea and it was shot down ON PURPOSE with a US official on board.

The other one was in Ukraine, and it was Malaysian, not American.

Ruskies shot down 2 commercial airliners in their history.

565

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
[
The point being that even the “supreme leader” does not actually have supreme authority within Iran. There are many factions and individuals within Iran that wield a lot of influence. At one point, Rasfanjani, another cleric, was arguably more powerful than Khamenei even though the latter was supreme leader. [/quote]

Exactly. Rafsanjani’s career perfectly encapsulates the murky world of Iranian politics. He’s literally been everything - flip-flopping from a staunch conservative to the last hope of Tehran liberal urbanites.

Also, I’ve been told by the locals that political leanings (conservative/reformist) of an individual involved in politics are often affected by the gender of his children.

566

"
Saudia Arabia’s announcement on Tuesday that it would end air strikes against the Iranian-allied Houthis drew positive responses from the White House and Tehran, as well as fresh calls for peace talks and humanitarian aid."

Iran and America: best of friends.

567

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
"
Saudia Arabia’s announcement on Tuesday that it would end air strikes against the Iranian-allied Houthis drew positive responses from the White House and Tehran, as well as fresh calls for peace talks and humanitarian aid."

Iran and America: best of friends.[/quote]

Yes, this and talking about stopping global terror…everything we want to hear, playing the administration like a fiddle.

I miss Jimmy Carter.

568

The best article I have read yet on the situation over there. Written by a guy with 32 years experience living the middle east, fighting in all of our middle east conflicts since 1983.

569

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The best article I have read yet on the situation over there. Written by a guy with 32 years experience living the middle east, fighting in all of our middle east conflicts since 1983.

Thanks for that. Very glad I read it.

Also, Kingpindaddyhoho: Yes.

570

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The best article I have read yet on the situation over there. Written by a guy with 32 years experience living the middle east, fighting in all of our middle east conflicts since 1983.

Thanks for that. Very glad I read it.

Also, Kingpindaddyhoho: Yes.[/quote]

+1 for the Kingpindaddyhoho reference.

571

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
So we are fighting on the same side, though not together in Iraq against ISIS. We are fighting against Iran in Yemen, and we are trying diplomacy to put together a good faith nuclear treaty with Iran. And we are supposed to trust a treaty with Iran?[/quote]

Oh, they are most assuredly wondering the same thing about us, for the same reasons.
[/quote]

Actually, I was questioning us, more so than them…[/quote]

There is a lot of confusion about Yemen in my opinion. The US isn’t that involved and it’s pretty obvious the US is providing its limited support to appease the Saudis. The Saudis have been whining for quite a long time now about the US never taking its side. This is to maintain that relationship and balance Saudi fears about a completed nuke deal with Iran.

Iran’s role in Yemen is way overstated, an idea propagated by Saudi propaganda. Show me a legitimate newspaper based in the US or Europe that says Iran is calling the shots for the Houthis. It’s really just a pretext to make the humanitarian clusterfuck Saudi Arabia has created look semi-legitimate. Also so they don’t look like complete twats that can’t defeat barefoot rebels with the best military hardware and training money can buy in an operation they dubbed “Decisive Storm”. Replace barefoot rebels with Iranians and I suppose it doesn’t look as embarrassing. To be fair, the Saudi’s also have to deal with Saleh loyalists, but he certainly has no ties to Iran. In any case, the Saudis are failing which shouldn’t be a surprise considering a spoiled 30 y/o prince with zero military experience is running the operation.

We should be glad we aren’t fighting “Iran” in Yemen at the behest of Saudi Arabia. Even Pakistan rejected Saudi pleas for troops. If Pakistan of all countries (which is beholden to Saudi) thinks its not worth sacrificing its troops for this war, then it sure as shit ain’t worth American lives and treasure. A very clear message was sent when “Decisive Storm” was replaced with “Restoring Hope” right after it was clear Pakistan wanted no part in this war.[/quote]

I didn’t read anywhere that Iran was calling the shots, just that they were providing weapons and aid and possibly soldiers to the Houthis.
I don’t think anybody misunderestimates the capabilities of barefoot soldiers anymore. After the Soviet Afghan War, most everybody seemed to understand that barefoot, poor and not well trained they may be, but they can still inflict a lot of painful damage. They are brutal people, if nothing else.
Yemen is so fucked up I don’t think anybody really knows whats going on and who is on which side.

572

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
"
Saudia Arabia’s announcement on Tuesday that it would end air strikes against the Iranian-allied Houthis drew positive responses from the White House and Tehran, as well as fresh calls for peace talks and humanitarian aid."

Iran and America: best of friends.[/quote]

Yea, how terrible that the situation is moving from a clusterfuck bombing campaign (which accomplished what exactly??) to stakeholders agreeing that the situation should evolve to peace talks and humanitarian aid. How is this bad for the USA? Please name me one civilized nation that thinks continuing the Saudi war is a good idea. I doubt you can even find a respectable article or OPED claiming the war is a good idea. Is the USA supposed urge the Saudis to continue?

One of the main consequences of Decisive Storm was AQAP gaining territory and fighters, bad for everyone. The main accomplishments were destroying Yemen’s already poor infrastructure and creating a bunch of pissed of Yemenis who don’t like Saudi Arabia. Over 30 percent of casualties were civilians on top of thousands more injured and displaced. I don’t see how US interests are being represented.

It’s just a coincidence that two antagonistic countries occasionally have similar interests. It’s bound to happen and it does not make them friendly or allies. Should the USA prop up ISIS because they are enemies of Iran?

573

[quote]pat wrote:

I didn’t read anywhere that Iran was calling the shots, just that they were providing weapons and aid and possibly soldiers to the Houthis.
I don’t think anybody misunderestimates the capabilities of barefoot soldiers anymore. After the Soviet Afghan War, most everybody seemed to understand that barefoot, poor and not well trained they may be, but they can still inflict a lot of painful damage. They are brutal people, if nothing else.
Yemen is so fucked up I don’t think anybody really knows whats going on and who is on which side. [/quote]

I was being cheeky about the barefoot rebels, although there is some truth to that re: Houthis. I really just wanted to drive home the point that the Saudis talked a gigantic game at the start of the offensive and weren’t able to do much. Making the Houthis synonymous with Iran makes it look like the enemy is more formidable than it really is, and more importantly is a way to justify their bombing campaign. It sounds better to be fighting Iran than invading a sovereign country to attack an indigenous group that doesn’t like your puppet in power.

The basics aren’t that complicated. The Houthis are an indigenous group allied with the former dictator Saleh. Saleh and the Houthis used to battle when Saleh was in power, but allied because of mutual hatred of Hadi. Hadi won a one-man election in 2012 and was impotent and ineffective as a ruler. No one backed him up and he surrendered Sana back in January without a fight because no one would fight for him.

Yemen used to be two countries until 1991 and there is still animosity between the North and South. There is a large separatist movement in the South. AQAP runs things in the western portion of the country and are allied with no one and enemies to all. The combined forces of the Houthis and Saleh easily overtook the northern portion of Yemen. They went south to Aden to get rid of Hadi, where he was hiding. Aden is also a strategic port city. Hadi fled and is now in a 5-star hotel in Riyadh declaring presidential orders via facebook. When Aden became a target, the Saudis got involved.

Saudi Arabia is solely concerned with bombing the Houthis and Saleh forces. Southern separatists who have no love for Houthis or Saleh are fighting the rebels but are not supporters of Hadi. They don’t like outsiders coming in and telling them who’s in charge. AQAP has been taking advantage of this mess and is gaining territory as no one is around to check them anymore.

If there isn’t any unity between the North and South, the country should just split up again. New politicians who are not affiliated with Saleh, Houthis, or Hadi should assume power. Saudi Arabia should be pressured into footing the bill for the damages they caused. USA can then resume drone strikes against AQAP.

576

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

I doubt you can even find a respectable article or OPED claiming the war is a good idea.

[/quote]

Huh?

One was just listed right above your posts.
[/quote]

Are you referring to the Phase Zero piece, “An Intelligence Vet Explains ISIS, Yemen…” In that piece, the man says that Saudi Arabia has been doing the complete opposite of what it should be doing.

He says, “The Saudis are fighting the wrong war right now with the Houthis in Yemen. They are allowing AQAP to take South Yemen and all of their weapons. So we now have a well-armed and funded al-Qaeda caliphate rising on the Arabian Peninsula, thanks to the Saudi Iranian obsession.”

He also says they need to use ground forces. Saudi Arabia has conducted airstrikes against Houthis. It has not used ground forces to attack AQAP. He completely agrees with me and he’s very clear what he supports. Saudi Arabia is fighting the wrong war the wrong way. He also mentions Saudi’s obsession with Iran clouding their judgement and leading to negative consequences.

I’m asking to see an article suggesting Saudi Arabia’s Decisive Storm was a good idea, or that it’s a good idea to continue the current course. So far I’ve seen nothing suggesting this. You’re referring me to an article that agrees with pretty much everything I support, including continuing negotiations with Iran.