Page 1 of 9 123456789 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 127

Thread: US - Iran: Peace talks possible

  1. #1
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Bandaid

    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,996

    US - Iran: Peace talks possible

    The good news for middle-east peace (and for us in India), is that US and Iran seems to be willing to bury the hatchet.

    While Iran and the US talk of peace, the real war keeps going - Comment - Voices - The Independent

    Cracks suddenly appear in the ice of the deep-frozen relations between the US and Iran. President Hassan Rouhani emulates Vladimir Putin by writing an opinion piece in the American press oozing goodwill and willingness to co-operate with the US. He gives an interview on American television, repeating: "We have time and again said that in no circumstances would we seek any weapon of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, nor will we ever.".....

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

  2. #2
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    This is the same Hassan Rouhani who previously had served as Iran's chief negotiator (October 2003 - August 2005) on nuclear issues. Clearly, he engaged in deceit.

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,022
    And the statesman or strategist who did not engaged in deceit is... ?

    Beside Iraq,the Iranians and Americans cooperated in 2001,in the taking of Herat.
    Good relations with Iran offer the West a lot more than the Arabs can offer.The oil of ME is largely in Shiastan.Iran has access to Central Asia's resources.Iran is Indo-European.Iranian population is closer to Western values and better educated than anything in the Arab world.In Iran radical islamism is on a descendent trend.Not so in the Arab world.
    Since the West decided not to change the regime in Tehran,it will be reformed from the inside.Those Iranian youth are the single greatest threat of the most radical Ayatollahs.
    So there are lots of reasons to end the cold war with the Iranians.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  4. #4
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    And the statesman or strategist who did not engaged in deceit is... ?


    Most people in the West (and probably on this board as well) are not at all familiar with Hassan Rouhani. I'll address that shortcoming. The new President of Iran should not be equated with some charismatic liberal western politician who just happened to win an election. For the past 3+ decades Rouhani has been intimately involved with the Iranian Revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini.

    Accolade of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and joined him in exile
    Helped purge the Iranian military of Shah loyalists and reformed the military (IRGC)
    Member of the Assembly of Experts
    Member of the Expediency Council
    Head of the Political, Defense, and Security Committee of the Expediency Council
    Member of the Supreme National Security Council
    Member of the High Council for Supporting War
    Deputy Commander during the Iran/Iraq War
    Deputy to Second-in-Command of Iran's Joint Chiefs of Staff (1988–1989)
    Commander of the Iran Air Defense Force (1986–1991)
    Head of the Center for Strategic Research
    Speaker of the Majlis
    Head of the Majlis Defense Committee
    Head of the Majlis Foreign Policy Committee
    Chief Iranian WMD Negotiator (2003-2005)
    Accolade of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei
    Member of the Assembly of Experts - Velayat-e Faqih
    Staunch supporter of Hezbollah and the Assad government in Syria

    Intelligent and articulate. Although Rouhani is perhaps more moderate than the hard-line Ahmadinejad, he has always been a vital cog in the Iranian clerical regime. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fell out of favor with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, Rouhani was given the nod the succeed him as president. Rouhani is deeply enmeshed in the Iranian nuclear programs. I would also say the Rouhani no doubt had a voice in the decision to inject sophisticated Iranian IEDs into Iraq which killed/maimed a significant number of US military personnel. Rouhani has copious amounts of blood on his little Persian hands, both internal and external.

  5. #5
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Minskaya View Post
    This is the same Hassan Rouhani who previously had served as Iran's chief negotiator (October 2003 - August 2005) on nuclear issues. Clearly, he engaged in deceit.
    And the other side did not engaged in deceit?

    I would also say the Rouhani no doubt had a voice in the decision to inject sophisticated Iranian IEDs into Iraq which killed/maimed a significant number of US military personnel. Rouhani has copious amounts of blood on his little Persian hands, both internal and external.
    So do US and Israelis leaders. Such is the way of geo-political leadership. Give us some credit, will ya?

  6. #6
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Minskaya View Post
    Most people in the West (and probably on this board as well) are not at all familiar with Hassan Rouhani. I'll address that shortcoming.
    Some are familiar with him(and others),but repetition is always good for learning.

    I'm quite sure he also had a say in not sending ATGM's or MANPADS to the Taliban or the Iraqi insurgents,which spared more lives than were lost due to their IED's.Including them in the Axis of Evil and repeatingly threatening an invasion might have led them to try to prevent said invasion.Nothing to do with morality,but everything with strategy.

    Hezbollah is not my problem.Right now is a problem for those we try to kill elsewhere.So until that situation changes,I don't care about them.They are a problem for Israel usually,but since I'm neutral in any Israeli war with its neighbours...
    The Iranian nuke is an itchy matter,but since there will be no war,we can as well start talking to them.NATO doesn't threatens them,they might not take the final steps to aquire it.

    So far you talked about the man,but not his points.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  7. #7
    In Memoriam Military Professional Minskaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Aug 12
    Location
    Belarus•Ukraine•Israel
    Posts
    3,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    They are a problem for Israel usually,but since I'm neutral in any Israeli war with its neighbours...
    Gee whiz, color me surprised

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    So far you talked about the man,but not his points.
    If his regime history is any indicator, same program, different face.

  8. #8
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Minskaya View Post


    If his regime history is any indicator, same program, different face.
    And nobody's going to lose anything by talking to them. Besides,the regime is adaptable,by all the indicators.If the situation changes,they change.They have much to offer,we have much to gain.If they don't play straight,they already know what they have to lose.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  9. #9
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    "We have time and again said that in no circumstances would we seek any weapon of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, nor will we ever."

    Bold face lie right off the bat.

  10. #10

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,764
    "Bold face lie right off the bat."

    Yup. Our sage cynical young Romanian friend should understand that. I rather suspect he does...and is privately fine with it. Good fodder, though, for the gullible. A decade's worth of out-and-out IAEA obstructionism capped by a nonsensical and incoherent performance in the G5+1 debacle is a more than adequate off-the-cuff rebuttal.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,022
    Sirs,if you recall,several years back I advocated NATO,or whoever cared about the issue, to go to war with Iran,dismantle the regime and do a Japan.It is the only way to be sure Iran doesn't gets the nuke,nor will it ever try.Everything else is either delay and/or containment.We are in this phase.
    We also know that having nukes is a guarantee that a regime will not be changed by foreign military force.But we also know from history that having a nuke does not prevent angry folks storming palaces.
    The premise of the negociations is an Iranian belief that circumstances have changed.They seem to believe regime change by force is no longer an option for the West.If this premise is false,nothing is changed.We're back where we were-delay/containment.If they truly believe the above,it means they have no reason to provoke the West by a gratuitous show of force:deploying a nuke.

    If regime change is what we want,but we also don't want to spend money and blood(and we don't),the surest way to make it happen is by letting Iranians make bussiness with the world and get rich .

    So I see no reason not to talk to them while keeping an eye on their nuclear program.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  12. #12
    Liberté, Unité, Egalité Senior Contributor Tronic's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Dec 04
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,960
    I am sure, merely some sweet talk by Rouhanni would not mean the nuclear issue comes to a rest. Rouhanni's overtures just means that the two sides can civilly start talking with each other again, and hopefully bear fruit this time around.

    Talking from an Indian perspective, Iran is a natural ally in the region against the Taliban and the Wahabbi/Salafist fundamentalism. I do agree Israel has it's own problems with Hezbollah, but the internal danger that Salafists pose to India and any other nation with a large Sunni Muslim minority is no less significant. Iran's pursuit of the bomb has largely been due to a power struggle against the Salafist states, namely Saudi Arabia, but it looses anyways, if it gets bombed by the West. As much as naysayers may try to paint Iran as a rabid dog foaming at the mouth (Ahmednijad didn't help), Iran is still a rational player and can do it's own cost-benefit analysis when it comes to the table. I just hope the West comes to a resolution with Iran soon, so we can go back to smashing the Taliban and the Salafists.
    The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands but seeing with new eyes.

  13. #13

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,764

    Mihais Reply

    "Sirs,if you recall,several years back I advocated NATO,or whoever cared about the issue, to go to war with Iran,dismantle the regime and do a Japan.It is the only way to be sure Iran doesn't gets the nuke..."

    I'm sure your heart is in the right place.

    "...The premise of the negociations is an Iranian belief that circumstances have changed.They seem to believe regime change by force is no longer an option for the West..."

    This is a house of cards. Unsupported suppositions. Some irrelevant. Regime change by armed intervention has never been a central consideraton for the U.S. government. The use of force relative to Iran's nuclear weapons programs remains a very real possibility.

    "...So I see no reason not to talk to them while keeping an eye on their nuclear program."

    Nothing offered here changes that. This deserves comment-

    "...I'm quite sure he also had a say in not sending ATGM's or MANPADS to the Taliban or the Iraqi insurgents,which spared more lives than were lost due to their IED's..."

    Lots of assumptions- that a decision to do so existed. Not an idle thought but a considered decision by the REAL Iranian government-its mullocracy.

    That he played a role in that purported decision.

    That ISAF retaliatory consequences weren't a consideration.

    That the consequences of introducing those weapons would cause more casualties than EFPs did on two battlefields. I note EFPs. You did not. IEDs are as named-improvised brutally-efficient battlefield expedients. Not so EFPs. Forging the warhead calls for machinery and skills provided by the Iranian regime. Even more deadly but a percentage of the overall devices initiated on the Iraq and Afghan fronts.

    You must have some very excellent sources to understand and validate each above assumption. Please explain if so? I'd be deeply interested in the back story on each. Particularly your analysis of actual EFP induced casualties against the speculative effect of ATGMs or MANPADS in Afghanistan.
    Last edited by S2; 22 Sep 13, at 20:40.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,022
    I agree it's very little at the moment.I don't get very enthusiastic over it.But,again,if there's nothing serious on their part,we gain nothing,we lose nothing.If they are serious,in time it may lead to two momentous changes.One is a reversal of fortunes of radical islam.The other is reducing the West's dependence on the Arabs and all their idiosyncracies.Those are far reaching perspectives and they may not happen,but it's better to aim high.
    Sir,I'm reasonably convinced their support for the Iraqi insurgents&Taliban has been carefully calibrated.Folks much higher in the food chain suggested it's the case and I took them at their word.There are two issues with my reply to Minskaya.One is mere rhetoric.She gave Rouhani a role in killing coalition troops.I gave him a role in limiting the escalation.She prefers to see a liar and a cheat.I already know he's one.But obviously he's just a part of the decision making mechanism,so whatever he says /does should not be interpreted as an individual speaking his mind,but a collective decision of the Iranian leadership.


    For all their lethality,the EFP's still need a group of merry fellows to go near a road and place them.We use intel,EW or old fashion walking in front of the vehicle to prevent/limit the effects.In time we got quite good at it.An ATGM vastly expands the battlespace and not in our favor.We need more ISTAR,but also more investment in armor and EW means etc... We can install a Trophy system on every MRAP,truck etc...,but the active protection itself is dangerous for our infantry.In a far ambush we have to dismount, return fire and we usually do so under vehicle cover.If we get hit by an IED and 60 seconds later by an ATGM(or more) we're in a lose/lose situation.
    As our Israeli friends may remember,in 2006 Hezb used ATGM as long range precision weapons against their (static) infantry,with reasonable effect.We have a plethora of static targets spread all over A-stan that the insurgent's current weaponry can't reach or can't hit effectively.

    ATGM's/Manpads could have been used to interdict our LOC and mobility.Unlike the Soviets,we rule the roads and the sky.Without that,we'd have more Wanats.

    The enemy's most effective AA weapon has been the RPG.While the Stingers in the 80's did not had the devastating effect they're credited,they did increased the toll for the Soviets.We can raid them using helicopters,but they can also ambush us.Op. Redwing or the more recent SEAL Team 6 incident were lucky shots for them.With lots of Manpads,they can make their luck.
    For all the above,I believe the war in A-stan would have been radically different if the Iranians(or the Pakistanis for that matter) had supplied the enemy with such weapons.
    The enemy did not managed in 12 years to destroy a single NATO sub-unit,be it a platoon or a squad.We avoided a Tet like moment(I know,different scale,but tell that to the folks at home).

    The Iranians had the prudence not to escalate the proxy wars.They sent a message they can hurt us.They did not hurt us enough to make us think to invade their country.They wanted to arm&train Hezb and they did.They could have risked with us and may have even won the gamble.That they did not shows a strategic vision I can only respect.I agree with you NATO reprisals could have been devastating to Iran.But any show with them is also not a walk in the park for us.
    They know us better than we know them.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  15. #15
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Here's the problem.

    This man is sitting in front of you telling you a lie. You know it. What's more, he knows that you know that he's lying and yet, he continues to lie. So, how the hell do you trust him?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Afghanistan's Karzai: US in peace talks with Taliban
    By notorious_eagle in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19 Jun 11,, 01:46
  2. Why peace talks in Uganda keep hitting a stone wall
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20 May 08,, 17:41
  3. Israel, Syria in secret peace talks
    By troung in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 30 Jan 07,, 03:53
  4. Colombia rebels reject peace talks
    By Ironduke in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 21 Oct 04,, 19:53
  5. S Ossetia peace talks falter
    By Ironduke in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02 Jul 04,, 03:09

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •