Iran Tells Arabs To Oust U.S.

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
Washington Times
December 6, 2006
Pg. 16

Urges formation of regional security alliance
By Jim Krane, Associated Press
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- Iran's top national security official urged Arabs yesterday to expel the U.S. military from bases in the region and instead join Tehran in a regional security alliance.
The offer was a strong sign of Iran's rising assertiveness in its contest with the United States for influence in the region.
Persian Gulf countries, suspicious of Iran's intentions, are unlikely to respond to the call and push out the U.S. military or end U.S. security deals they view as offering them an umbrella of protection, many here said.
But smaller countries, such as Kuwait, do have to tread a fine line of not antagonizing either Washington or Tehran. Some Gulf countries refused to participate in recent U.S. Navy maneuvers in the Gulf so as not to offend Iran.
Iran's top national security official, Ali Larijani, apparently aimed to allay Arab concerns and raise suspicion about U.S. intentions in his speech yesterday. He told Arab business leaders and political analysts that Washington is indifferent to their interests and will cast them aside when they are no longer useful.
"The security and stability of the region needs to be attained and we should do it inside the region, not through bringing in foreign forces," Mr. Larijani said. "We should stand on our own feet."
Such words are a direct rejection by Iran of the "notion that it can be contained," said Vali Nasr, an Iran specialist with the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, who attended the conference.
Speakers at the Arab Strategy Forum said they think Iran's rising clout came as a direct result of the faltering U.S. policy in Iraq that has put Iran's Shi'ite allies in control of the government in Baghdad.
Mr. Larijani's proposal outlines what analysts here describe as an attempt to split the Arab world into two camps: a U.S.-Israeli-Arab coalition that seeks to contain Iran and an anti-American, anti-Israeli alliance led by Iran.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for wiping Israel off the map and expressed doubts about the Holocaust. Yesterday, Iran's foreign ministry said it will hold a two-day international conference next week on the Holocaust to examine the event without any "preconceived ideas."
Most Arab governments remain firm U.S. allies, but Persian Iran's tough stance against Israel and the West has broad grass-roots appeal.
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other Sunni-dominated countries have expressed misgivings about the growing influence of Iran's Shi'ite-dominated government, which in the 1980s sought to export its Islamic revolution and topple neighboring governments.
"Nobody is asking the Americans to pack up and leave," said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a Dubai-based political analyst. "There are vital American interests here, and the smaller Arab countries need protection."
Mr. Larijani expressed annoyance at Arab fears about Iranian intentions, saying Iran and its Sunni-dominated neighbors have more in common with each other than with the United States or Israel.
He assured Arab leaders that Iran seeks "peaceful coexistence" and could replace the security umbrella of U.S. bases in the region.
 
This is the country the "Iraq Study Group" wants us to ally ourselves with? Now that Hussein is out of the way (you're welcome) and they have their nuclear program on track, Iran is obviously only interested in furthering their power base by controlling the world's oil resources. It seems that cooperation with the West is not in their vocabulary.
 
DTOP

I agree with the Iraq Study Group.

Throughout the entire Cold War we talked to our enemies. Even when Nikita Krushuchev was publically declaring "we will bury you" the lines of communication were kept open. This is probably what kept WWIII from happening more than once.

Despite what Ahmedinajab might say in public, its always better to talk than not to talk.

Ahmedinejab is only trying to score political points. Remember he is a Shiite and the Shiites and Sunnis hate each other more than they hate the US or even Isreal. He is more afraid of having to deal with the Sunnis than with us or the Isrealis, because the Sunnis make up over 85% of all Muslims in the Arab world. The last thing he wants is to get the attention of Sunnis extremists such as al-Qaeda or Zarquiwi's group of merry thugs.
 
MMARSH, we were hardly on friendly talking terms with nasty Nikita back in the day as I remember it. Geez, I can't believe you even said that. Besides, Iran is not the USSR by any means.
You agree with the "committee" ? Now why am I not surprised? :D All anti-Bush rhetoric aside though, there is no denying that the powers that be at the moment in Iran are not interested in anything, including peace that doesn't strengthen their position as the great leaders of the Arab world. That being the case, we can't simply hope that they don't really mean what they say and they are secretly desirous of cooperating with us behind closed doors. I don't say that we should abandon all attempts at working with the surrounding countries but unless they change thier ways, the actions of Iran and Syria remain the source of much of the problems in Iraq, not the solution. I realize that I am not on their distribution lists but there doesn't seem to be any call for cooperation emanating from that side of the globe. Cooperation requires more than one party.
 
Last edited:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for wiping Israel off the map and expressed doubts about the Holocaust. Yesterday, Iran's foreign ministry said it will hold a two-day international conference next week on the Holocaust to examine the event without any "preconceived ideas."

Then along comes this . . .

Nobody is asking the Americans to pack up and leave," said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a Dubai-based political analyst. "There are vital American interests here, and the smaller Arab countries need protection."
Mr. Larijani expressed annoyance at Arab fears about Iranian intentions, saying Iran and its Sunni-dominated neighbors have more in common with each other than with the United States or Israel.
He assured Arab leaders that Iran seeks "peaceful coexistence" and could replace the security umbrella of U.S. bases in the region.


Seems to me the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is saying. If they are presenting two different views to the world which should we take as the truth?
 
DTOP

You missed the point.

I never said the words 'friendly'. The Krushchev talks were not friendly at all. But (Going back to old Nikita), the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved through negiociation with abit of gunboat diplomacy to prove that we were serious. Could you have imagined what would have happened if Kennedy had decided to listen to the warhawks in the Pentagon? The Eastern US would have had a wave of unseasonible warm weather of about 2000 degrees Fehrenheit, and Cuba would be at the bottom of the Ocean.

My point is that unfriendly talks are better than no talks at all. Talking is not the same thing as agreeing, we don't have to agree to anything. But there is no harm in talking, you never know what can be worked out. 30 years ago nobody could have imagined that Israel and Egypt could make peace as they were mortal enemies. But in 1979 at Camp David they did...

I am not on one of by daily anti-W Bush rants (this time, no promises about the future :D), but its impossible to discuss solutions to the current problem (Iraq) without mentioning mistakes we made in the past, and the need to correct these mistakes. Right now the Bush Administration has refused to even talk to the Iranians or the Syrians, which is a pretty stupid thing to do when you consider the proximity and large amount of influance Tehran and Damascus can exert over the Shiites in Iraq.

I have no love for Ahmadinejab, but Ahmadinejab is not crazy or stupid. Despite all the rhethoric and bluster he doesn't really want a war with the US, he knows that even in our weakened state we could hurt him 1000x more than he could hurt us. But even moreso, he really doesn't want another Shiite dictator like Saddam or a religous fruitcake like al-Qaeda to come to power in next door Iraq. As odd and unfathomable as it sounds, from their standpoint, negiociating with the USA is the lesser of two evils for Iran. And I betcha the Iranians know this to be true, they just don't want to admit it.

Syria is an even easier solution. We were once allies. In 1990 the US was able to add Syria as an ally for the first Gulf War. Do you know who managed that? It was none other than James Baker.

BTW the ISG wasnt so biasly pro democrat as you think. It was made up of 5 Republicans (from the Bush Sr and Reagan Administration) and 5 Democrats (3 from the Clinton Adminirations, 2 from earlier, Carter era I believe).

On top of it Assad Sr is now dead. Assad Junior is Western-minded. He lived many years in London. He is not your typical Arab OILagarch, since his father's death he has been trying to warm relations with the West. He even allows the CIA to torture our terrorists there :lol:.

Assad Sr was more of a authoritarian, but we were able to deal with him. The reason things got so bad was that Bush (Junior) decided to acquiese to the demands of the far right Israeli lobbies in Washington (people like Perle and Wolfowitz, of which Bush Sr. and Baker absolutely hated) to stop talking to the Syrians as well. That was another terrible piece of Foreign diplomacy this administration committed.

Its time to go back to the 1990s where we talked to people we didn't like, it worked so much better, than simply giving the bird to everybody who doesn't like us.
 
Last edited:
MMARSH, no the missile crisis was resolved with a show of unwavering force. Diplomacy and negotiations had failed and the Soviets were steaming their weapons laden ships toward Cuba for a direct and calculated confrontation with the United States. They thought the young Kennedy would listen to those who urged him to back down and negotiate. He surprised Nikita and company and the negotiations came after the Soviets were forced to back down. Yeah, it was a good thing we had a President who had the intestinal fortitude to confront the enemies of this country. Can you imagine what a position this country and the world would have been in if Kennedy had chosen not to act in the face of the threat posed by the U.S.S.R.?
Now, enough of ancient history. Iran and Syria cannot be trusted, they've proven that time and time again. If they want to negotiate, they haven't shown any signs of it.
I, for one, hope we never back to the Clintonesque era. Talk about an administration filled with grave errors as evidenced by all his "successes", like Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo (which we're still trying to get out of), the first attack on the WTC, cutbacks in the funding for the military, the FBI and the CIA. etc ad nauseum. Clinton's fine work is why the Republicans gained so much in the first place. As for anyone associated with the Carter administration claiming to know how to handle Iran, please give me a break. That commission is not star studded as far as I can see.
The time is now for Iran and Syria to step up and make some sort of an effort in their own neighborhood that is anything other than providing more terrorists and killing as many people as they can. I don't think I missed the point my friend.
 
The talk of Iran echoes that of Nassar. There is in the psyche of the Arab people a spot for heroes and they rally to them like flies to... you get the idea. It is based on the idea of the Mahdi, they are actively looking for the messiah and much like ancient judaism they believe him to be a warrior that will lead them to victory over all the kaffir. Iran is establishing themselves as that saviour. The businessmen and leaders might not cotton to it but the common arab and muslim clerics are buying it.
 
The talk of Iran echoes that of Nassar. There is in the psyche of the Arab people a spot for heroes and they rally to them like flies to... you get the idea. It is based on the idea of the Mahdi, they are actively looking for the messiah and much like ancient judaism they believe him to be a warrior that will lead them to victory over all the kaffir. Iran is establishing themselves as that saviour. The businessmen and leaders might not cotton to it but the common arab and muslim clerics are buying it.

Because of that I am beginning to think proves that they are in fact truly mentally ill people...I mean seriously....Now I am not talking about the whole population just the ones in charge of the brain washing operations, ze clerics if you will...

I mean just the way they treat their own, you wouldn't even treat an animal that way...In fact in many places you would go to jail if you treated an animal that way!

And btw MM negotiation with the show of force isnt peaceful at all...That's basically saying hey can we end this????? No, meh screw you, BOOM....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top