Just work with those countries in that region?

We can't put our men and women in harms way again. It's not going to end. It's just not. Even if Iran steps in with Syria and everyone else in the region - it will end up just the same.

Yet another civil war.

I was against Iraq for just this reason. The only way we can see any end in sight - is if we end our interest there.

able to force Iran to stop making nukes. They will become a forced ally of convenience. Oh, the irony. I just wonder where all this money is going to come from? With the dollar fading as a world currency, we won't be able to print money at will much longer. And Ukraine? What is that?

And you make a good point about the financial cost.

My first thought is always human beings when it comes to armed conflict. Honestly - we've done enough damage in Iraq.

Last edited Fri Jun 13, 2014, 01:21 PM - Edit history (1)

many places to make us persona non grata for a long long time.

on different boards because of Iraq2.

Look at a map.

It is just as easy to make the argument that what Iran really wants is to be seen as a powerful player in the Middle East, which by size and natural resources, it would have been had it not been a pariah state.

The motivation for the nuclear talks according to many is that Iran wants to move from that pariah status. One motivation is to be able to trade freely with others.

You were beyond obvious in the Ukraine threads - parroting RT. That might be why you see the dollar fading as world currency when, in fact, no other one currency is as ubiquitous.

I am skeptical that Iran and the US could act together here, but if they could - it could unfreeze the relationship more than the phone calls of the Presidents did.

Look at a map.

It is just as easy to make the argument that what Iran really wants is to be seen as a powerful player in the Middle East, which by size and natural resources, it would have been had it not been a pariah state.
[font color=red]
Iran is already the most powerful country in the middle east. They will grow in power regardless of any cooperative effort with the United States.[/font]

The motivation for the nuclear talks according to many is that Iran wants to move from that pariah status. One motivation is to be able to trade freely with others.
[font color=red]Iran will continue developing nukes no matter how genuine their desire to have talks on reducing their nuclear program. It's a ruse.[/font]

You were beyond obvious in the Ukraine threads - parroting RT. That might be why you see the dollar fading as world currency when, in fact, no other one currency is as ubiquitous.
[font color=red] Mostly I believed what RT said instead of the what the US media said, the latter being totally controlled by the MIC. The US's currency ubiquity is fading fast. Just in the last few days Russia and China cemented a huge deal between them for trading of energy. Payments for this and all other commodities WILL NOT be done in dollars. This is another harbinger of what is to come. The implementation of HR 2847 on July 1 will be another big dent in the dollar. If I'm a big dog in another country and I have to report my dollar holdings to the IRS, I will slowly be ridding myself of dollars. [/font]

I am skeptical that Iran and the US could act together here, but if they could - it could unfreeze the relationship more than the phone calls of the Presidents did. [font color=red]They cannot work together except when forced to do so. Such temporary arrangements will not reduce the animosity between the two countries, more so Iran toward the US than the other way around. Should the temporary arrangement go forward, it will be interesting to watch the Iranians play diplomatic. Iran's new President is very strange. He is much more a puppet than the last one.[/font]

Iran is still paying for the cost of caretaking the thousands of pople gravely disabled from the gas attacks by Saddam Hussein.

The fact that neo-cons happily supported Itaq's attacks on Iran makes this even better in terms of peace in the region. Since they have justly felt victimzed by the west with the toppling of their democratically elected prez to benefit the oil oligarchs, I applaud their working with us.

Obama has not bought into th old hatreds, so he is hated. Reagan rousted Carter out of office with the help of the Iran arms deals and the backlash from the countries of OPEC. None of the theft of the wealth of the oil in the Middle East was in keeping with fair trade and respect for other nations.

I'm holding out hope that Iran being brought into this will also cause them to feel safe to go more secular as they were before Khomeini showed up to take over things. As weird as I'm sure it sounds, the fact that the French kept him for years and then let him go back, was always suspect to me.

Eliminate one form of control, and at that time in Iran it was th Shah and his goons, and then replace it with another just as oppressive. I've known Iranian immigrants in the past that came to the USA during the reign of the Shah, as well as some who spent lunch time picketing ARAMCO for its involvemen with the Shah.

These were secular people in the main, educated and also blue collar workers who were in favor of unions and did not in any way object to women's rights as they saw them in America. They were very glad to be here.

OTOH, I also knew people who flet Lebanon and blamed Syria for what they called its drive to take over territory by terrorism. This is a world wide problem, at times at with a high level of violence and at other times no actions that would be termed terrorism but are still pressure to push people out of where they live to others.

As far as any Russian angles, it has blood ties with Iran and Syria and will go to war on its behalf, or so I'm told. This make a path for other needed agreements.

Complicated stuff all around.

I think what they are alluding to is that Iran COULD be helpful diplomatically here and in Syria. The comment is that they feel they should be a major player in the area.

They have a natural alliance with the current government in Iraq - which is Shite and which has given little or no power to the Kurds and Sunnis.

However, just as it is clear there is no military solution to end the fighting in Syria, the same may be true in Iraq - as Democrats said from 2003 onward. It is easy to say on a theoretical level that both countries need a political solution that gives some power to everyone - achieving that may be frustrating. The hard fought for Syrian peace conference went absolutely nowhere - in spite of the incredible effort by the UN's Brahimi.

As it is true that Iran both is a neighbor and has influence, it might be that they need to be a partner in helping these countries find the political will to find a way to end the fighting. However - it may be that the jihadist forces are not beholden to any political entity. That might make a brokered political solution impossible.

In the case of Iraq, it is very depressing that in all the years when the US was there, there was no way to get the Iraqis to see the need to share power.

Assholes.

'We are not going to send Americans 7000 miles away form home to do what Iraqi boys ought to be doing themselves'

=====
The USA could have stayed the Iraqis wanted us gone so we left and the home team has choosen not to play and give up
Instead.

Yes we broke it and did not fix it nor can we fix it they, the Iraqi people, will have to solve the problem themselves or with the help of their neighbors.

On the up side a whole new generation of Iraqis will hate America, rightly so, for what they did to their country.

This is also Dubya's uniting he talked about he united the Sunni and Shiites across nations now we will get multiple civil wars for at least the next 20 years all over the region. Funny it was Mission Accomplished for PNAC
Exactly what they wanted

Now they will blame it all on the black guy. Just watch

We live in interesting times.

"May you live in interesting times"

...our interests seem to intersect on this one. The last thing Iran wants is a Sunni fundy state on their border.

I've never thought of Iran as "the enemy," but as a country simply looking out for its own interests. The fact Tehran would actually say this about what they formerly called "the Great Satan" is a huge step toward improving diplomatic relations.

Who is helping the insurrection along in the first place - Iran. Who is al-Maliki and his cohorts already affiliated with - Iran. "Letting" Iran help in Iraq would be just like Britain helped No. Ireland back in the day.

Fire meeting oil would be the best description of what would happen to that already beleaguered country if Iran is given free hand to intefere even more overtly than they have been doing from the get to.

It is not going to let its allies fall to the crazies.

Iran is helping the Sunni insurrection? First time I have heard that. Have evidence?

No way do I think that Iran wants to help the Sunni's - just the opposite. Iran is helping the ruling party in Iraq, which is pro-Shiite. They are unofficially supporting the civil war against the Sunni's and want to do it officially now.

on terrorism related issues. After 9/11, Iranians were fully willing to cooperate with the Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan.

What did Bush do? He called them a member of the "axis of evil" and soon after that half-wit ass clown Ahmedenijad came to power. Due to this absolute paranoia over Iran building nukes, including sabre rattling and threats of military action, we squandered any opportunity to build a potentially fruitful partnership on anti-terrorism with Iran. But of course, we're beholden to the Saudis, so we won't get to the root of the problem - which is worldwide SUNNI terrorism.

Of course this partnership wouldn't have been perfect, since Iran sponsors terrorist groups like Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is a regional group, posing a threat to Israel, but not to us (and they certainly haven't killed 3,000+ Americans like Al Q). Of course, the nuclear program has also been a problem, but it has never been very clear if Iran was making any significant progress on that anyways.