U.S. Foreign Policy

User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


This is for Doc


Tehran swaps
'death to America' billboards
for Picasso and Matisse


But, overnight, the Iranian capital has had a facelift. In a project which the city’s mayor hopes will encourage people to visit museums, the billboard ads have been replaced with artworks by renowned local and foreign artists. For 10 days, images by the likes of Pablo Picasso, René Magritte and Henri Matisse are turning the capital into a giant urban art gallery.

Suddenly, Tehran’s Mayor Becomes a Patron of the Arts



:lol: :lol: .. happy now, Doc ? ?


.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Dear Mr. President


.

150 House Democrats Bolster Obama’s Position on Iran Deal

..

The letter, an initiative of Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), and David Price (D-NC), expresses strong support for Obama’s efforts to conclude an agreement. It has been quietly circulating on Capitol Hill for several weeks and was made public only when 150 lawmakers signed it—several more than needed to sustain an Obama veto of legislation disapproving a deal with Iran.

.
.

May 7, 2015

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As negotiations over Iran's nuclear program continue, we urge you to stay on course, building on the recently announced political framework and continuing to work toward a strong and verifiable agreement between the P5+1 countries and Iran that will prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. We commend you and your negotiating team, as well as our coalition partners, for the significant progress made thus far.

This issue is above politics. The stakes are too great, and the alternatives are too dire. We must exhaust every avenue toward a verifiable, enforceable, diplomatic solution in order to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. If the United States were to abandon negotiations or cause their collapse, not only would we fail to peacefully prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, we would make that outcome more likely. The multilateral sanctions regime that brought Iran to the table would likely collapse, and the Iranian regime would likely decide to accelerate its nuclear program, unrestricted and unmonitored. Such developments could lead us to war.

War itself will not make us safe. A U.S. or Israeli military strike may set back Iranian nuclear development by two or three years at best - a significantly shorter timespan than that covered by a P5+1 negotiated agreement. We must pursue diplomatic means to their fullest and allow the negotiations to run their course – especially now that the parties have announced a strong framework – and continue working to craft a robust and verifiable Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action by June 30.

We must allow our negotiating team the space and time necessary to build on the progress made in the political framework and turn it into a long-term, verifiable agreement. If we do not succeed, Congress will remain at-the-ready to act and present you with additional options to ensure that Iran is prevented from acquiring a nuclear weapon

Thank you for your resolve in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. We look forward to continuing our shared work on this important matter.

Sincerely,


Jan Schakowsky Lloyd Doggett David E. Price
Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress



###

List of signers in alphabetical order



1

Adams, Alma

2

Aguilar

3

Ashford

4

Bass

5

Beatty

6

Becerra

7

Bera

8

Beyer

9

Bishop, S.

10

Blumenauer

11

Bonamici

12

Bordallo

13

Brady

14

Brown, Corrine

15

Brownley

16

Bustos

17

Butterfield

18

Capps

19

Capuano

20

Cardenas

21

Carney

22

Carson

23

Cartwright

24

Castor

25

Castro

26

Chu

27

Cicilline

28

Clark, Katherine

29

Clarke, Yvette

30

Clay

31

Cleaver

32

Clyburn

33

Cohen

34

Connolly

35

Conyers

36

Courtney

37

Cummings

38

Davis, D.

39

Davis, S.

40

DeFazio

41

DeGette

42

DeLauro

43

DelBene

44

DeSaulnier

45

Dingell

46

Doggett

47

Doyle

48

Duckworth

49

Edwards

50

Ellison

51

Eshoo

52

Esty

53

Farr

54

Fattah

55

Foster

56

Fudge

57

Gallego

58

Garamendi

59

Green, Al

60

Grijalva

61

Gutierrez

62

Hahn

63

Heck

64

Higgins

65

Hinojosa

66

Honda

67

Huffman

68

Jackson Lee

69

Jeffries

70

Johnson, E.B.

71

Johnson, H.

72

Kaptur

73

Keating

74

Kelly

75

Kennedy

76

Kildee

77

Kind, Ron

78

Kuster

79

Langevin

80

Larsen

81

Larson

82

Lawrence

83

Lee

84

Lewis

85

Lieu

86

Loebsack

87

Lofgren

88

Lowenthal

89

Lujan

90

Lujan Grisham

91

Lynch

92

Maloney, S

93

Matsui

94

McCollum

95

McDermott

96

McGovern

97

McNerney

98

Meeks

99

Moore

100

Moulton

101

Napolitano

102

Neal

103

Nolan

104

Norton

105

O'Rourke

106

Payne

107

Pelosi

108

Perlmutter

109

Pierluisi

110

Pingree

111

Plaskett

112

Pocan

113

Polis

114

Price

115

Rangel

116

Richmond

117

Roybal-Allard

118

Ruiz

119

Ruppersberger

120

Rush

121

Ryan, Tim

122

Sablan

123

Sanchez, Linda

124

Sanchez, Loretta

125

Schakowsky

126

Scott, Bobby

127

Scott, David

128

Serrano

129

Sewell

130

Slaughter

131

Smith, Adam

132

Speier

133

Swalwell

134

Takai

135

Takano

136

Thompson, B.

137

Thompson, M.

138

Tonko

139

Torres

140

Tsongas

141

Van Hollen

142

Veasey

143

Velazquez

144

Visclosky

145

Walz

146

Waters

147

Watson Coleman

148

Welch

149

Wilson

150

Yarmuth

.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12608
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:.


This is for Doc


Tehran swaps
'death to America' billboards
for Picasso and Matisse


But, overnight, the Iranian capital has had a facelift. In a project which the city’s mayor hopes will encourage people to visit museums, the billboard ads have been replaced with artworks by renowned local and foreign artists. For 10 days, images by the likes of Pablo Picasso, René Magritte and Henri Matisse are turning the capital into a giant urban art gallery.

Suddenly, Tehran’s Mayor Becomes a Patron of the Arts



:lol: :lol: .. happy now, Doc ? ?


.
The devil is in the details. Lots of details in Tehran.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Endovelico »

China and Russia Demonstrate Closer Relationship with Joint Military Exercises
Michael Krieger | Posted Friday May 8, 2015 at 3:50 pm
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/05/08 ... exercises/

BEIJING — When a Chinese honor guard joins a military parade in Russia’s capital this weekend, watched by China’s President Xi Jinping, it will mark more than just a symbolic recognition of the two countries’ contributions to the Allied victory in 1945.

Image

China’s participation also reflects an upgrade of its military ties with Russia, including joint naval exercises and a revival of arms purchases, that could complicate U.S.-led efforts to counter both nations’ expanding military activities, analysts and diplomats say.

They’ve basically come to a consensus that despite their differences over some national interests, they really face the same common enemy,” said Gilbert Rozman, an expert on China-Russia relations at Princeton University.

– From the Wall Street Journal article: China Parades Closer Ties in Moscow

One of the key themes here at Liberty Blitzkrieg has been the carelessness and ineptitude of those in charge of crafting U.S. foreign policy. I’m not naive, and I fully understand that the world is a dangerous place. Just as I believe individuals should have the right to defend themselves and their families with the right to bear arms, I also understand the importance of strong national defense.

The problem with current U.S. foreign policy is that it is not defensive in nature. Rather, all indications are that the U.S. government is acting offensively; primarily driven by ego and the will to dominate. Much of the world has come to see the U.S. not as a powerful partner, but as a narcissistic master. What American leadership fails to understand, is that by taking such a posture it is simply making others overseas feel paranoid and threatened, thus drawing them closer to each other and farther from the U.S.

The examples of U.S. foreign policy disaster since 9/11 are many, and I have listed several of them at the end of the post. However, the one I want to highlight today is the ongoing slow motion train wreck with regard to Russia.

As readers will be well aware, the U.S government has been attempting to apply severe pressure on the Russian economy in an attempt to weaken Vladimir Putin’s position at home, and ultimately topple his government. It is now clear that this strategy has completely failed. To make matters worse, the “strategy” has merely solidified the view amongst emerging powers of the need for a counter to U.S. aggression. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than with the increasingly close relationship between Russia and China.

To summarize, not only did the U.S. foreign policy clowns’ strategy fail, it has actually served to weaken the American position considerably by bringing potentially dangerous geopolitical rivals closer together.

We learn of the following from the Wall Street Journal:

BEIJING — When a Chinese honor guard joins a military parade in Russia’s capital this weekend, watched by China’s President Xi Jinping, it will mark more than just a symbolic recognition of the two countries’ contributions to the Allied victory in 1945.

China’s participation also reflects an upgrade of its military ties with Russia, including joint naval exercises and a revival of arms purchases, that could complicate U.S.-led efforts to counter both nations’ expanding military activities, analysts and diplomats say.

The 102 Chinese troops who will join the Victory Day parade in Moscow on Saturday were seen during a rehearsal this week marching through streets near Red Square singing the Russian wartime ballad “Katyusha”, according to video footage posted online.

The only other foreign countries with troops in the parade are India, Mongolia, Serbia and six former Soviet states.

Yeah, just Russia, China and India. No big deal. Without France, they’re nobody.

Three Chinese navy ships also made a rare foray into the Black Sea on their way to join commemorations in Russia’s southern port of Novorossiysk on Saturday.

The Chinese ships—two missile destroyers and a supply vessel — will then take part in joint exercises with the Russian navy in the Mediterranean Sea for the first time, according to Chinese and Russian authorities.

Both sides say the drills aren’t directed at other countries, but the timing, after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, and the location, on NATO’s southern flank, have compounded Western concerns about an emerging Moscow-Beijing axis.

Gotta love that, “compounded Western concerns about an emerging Moscow-Beijing axis.” An axis that is happening precisely due to the aggressive and inept U.S. foreign policy to begin with.

On Wednesday, Russia’s government unveiled a draft cybersecurity deal with China under which both countries agree not to conduct cyberattacks against each other and to counteract technology that might disrupt their internal politics.

Mr. Xi also appears to share a personal affinity with Russian President Vladimir Putin who is seen by many in China as a strong, patriotic leader.

Last year, Moscow and Beijing staged joint naval exercises for the first time in the East China Sea, where China is embroiled in a territorial dispute with Japan. In September, Mr. Putin and some of his troops will join a military parade in China to mark the anniversary of Japan’s defeat in 1945.

The Pentagon says China is also now pursuing a new joint design and production program with Russia for diesel-electric submarines, which could be used to try to prevent U.S. ships from intervening in a conflict in Asia.

“They’ve basically come to a consensus that despite their differences over some national interests, they really face the same common enemy,” said Gilbert Rozman, an expert on China-Russia relations at Princeton University.

“I think they’re both sending a message that their relationship is stronger than outsiders generally expect and if others put pressure on either in their own arenas, the two will stand together.”

You can thank the idiotic neocons in both the Republican and Democratic parties for this outcome
Russia is increasingly isolated thanks to the brilliant US foreign policy...

Image
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


The purpose of activating the agents – young and idealistic members of Jewish Zionist groups – was to use them to plant bombs in British and US cinema halls and cultural centers in Cairo and Alexandria.

.

The logic behind the operation was to try to smear the Egyptian regime of president Abdel Gamal Nasser and to portray it as unreliable and untrustworthy in the eyes of Washington and London.

.

Mossad did many such operations .. main objective was to turn the Arab street against Arab Jews who lived with Arabs for 1000s of yrs and did not want to move to Israel .. Mossad planted bombs killing Arabs and leaving clear traces pointing to local Arab Jews .. result was Arab Jews had to flee

Mossad still continuing such operation .. latest such case was Mossad planting Bomb in Argentinian Jewish centre, "blaming Iran", but the real objective of Mossad in such operations is making life for Jews, worldwide, "unsafe" so that European and Argentinian etc Jews move to Israel .. the real danger for Israel is that ELITE "net migration" is leaving Israel.

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


By :
HENRY KISSINGER
and
GEORGE P. SHULTZ


The Iran Deal and Its Consequences

..

For 20 years, three presidents of both major parties proclaimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon was contrary to American and global interests—and that they were prepared to use force to prevent it. Yet negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years.

Mixing shrewd diplomacy with open defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has gradually turned the negotiation on its head. Iran’s centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today.

The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran.

While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal.

In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon.


..

Negotiating the final agreement will be extremely challenging. For one thing, no official text has yet been published. The so-called framework represents a unilateral American interpretation. Some of its clauses have been dismissed by the principal Iranian negotiator as “spin.” A joint EU-Iran statement differs in important respects, especially with regard to the lifting of sanctions and permitted research and development.

Comparable ambiguities apply to the one-year window for a presumed Iranian breakout. Emerging at a relatively late stage in the negotiation, this concept replaced the previous baseline—that Iran might be permitted a technical capacity compatible with a plausible civilian nuclear program. The new approach complicates verification and makes it more political because of the vagueness of the criteria.

Under the new approach, Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints. It only places them under temporary restriction and safeguard—amounting in many cases to a seal at the door of a depot or periodic visits by inspectors to declared sites. The physical magnitude of the effort is daunting. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency technically, and in terms of human resources, up to so complex and vast an assignment?

..

Even when these issues are resolved, another set of problems emerges because the negotiating process has created its own realities. The interim agreement accepted Iranian enrichment; the new agreement makes it an integral part of the architecture. For the U.S., a decade-long restriction on Iran’s nuclear capacity is a possibly hopeful interlude. For Iran’s neighbors—who perceive their imperatives in terms of millennial rivalries—it is a dangerous prelude to an even more dangerous permanent fact of life. Some of the chief actors in the Middle East are likely to view the U.S. as willing to concede a nuclear military capability to the country they consider their principal threat. Several will insist on at least an equivalent capability. Saudi Arabia has signaled that it will enter the lists; others are likely to follow. In that sense, the implications of the negotiation are irreversible.

If the Middle East is “proliferated” and becomes host to a plethora of nuclear-threshold states, several in mortal rivalry with each other, on what concept of nuclear deterrence or strategic stability will international security be based? Traditional theories of deterrence assumed a series of bilateral equations. Do we now envision an interlocking series of rivalries, with each new nuclear program counterbalancing others in the region?

Previous thinking on nuclear strategy also assumed the existence of stable state actors. Among the original nuclear powers, geographic distances and the relatively large size of programs combined with moral revulsion to make surprise attack all but inconceivable. How will these doctrines translate into a region where sponsorship of nonstate proxies is common, the state structure is under assault, and death on behalf of jihad is a kind of fulfillment?

..

For some, the greatest value in an agreement lies in the prospect of an end, or at least a moderation, of Iran’s 3½ decades of militant hostility to the West and established international institutions, and an opportunity to draw Iran into an effort to stabilize the Middle East. Having both served in government during a period of American-Iranian strategic alignment and experienced its benefits for both countries as well as the Middle East, we would greatly welcome such an outcome. Iran is a significant national state with a historic culture, a fierce national identity, and a relatively youthful, educated population; its re-emergence as a partner would be a consequential event.

But partnership in what task? Cooperation is not an exercise in good feeling; it presupposes congruent definitions of stability. There exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives. Iran’s representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means.

The final stages of the nuclear talks have coincided with Iran’s intensified efforts to expand and entrench its power in neighboring states. Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries, operating beyond the control of national authorities. With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East’s strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally. Unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an agreement freeing Iran from sanctions risks empowering Iran’s hegemonic efforts.

Some have argued that these concerns are secondary, since the nuclear deal is a way station toward the eventual domestic transformation of Iran. But what gives us the confidence that we will prove more astute at predicting Iran’s domestic course than Vietnam’s, Afghanistan’s, Iraq’s, Syria’s, Egypt’s or Libya’s?

Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony. They will increasingly look to create their own nuclear balances and, if necessary, call in other powers to sustain their integrity. Does America still hope to arrest the region’s trends toward sectarian upheaval, state collapse and the disequilibrium of power tilting toward Tehran, or do we now accept this as an irremediable aspect of the regional balance?

Some advocates have suggested that the agreement can serve as a way to dissociate America from Middle East conflicts, culminating in the military retreat from the region initiated by the current administration. As Sunni states gear up to resist a new Shiite empire, the opposite is likely to be the case. The Middle East will not stabilize itself, nor will a balance of power naturally assert itself out of Iranian-Sunni competition. (Even if that were our aim, traditional balance of power theory suggests the need to bolster the weaker side, not the rising or expanding power.) Beyond stability, it is in America’s strategic interest to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war and its catastrophic consequences. Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement.

If the world is to be spared even worse turmoil, the U.S. must develop a strategic doctrine for the region. Stability requires an active American role. For Iran to be a valuable member of the international community, the prerequisite is that it accepts restraint on its ability to destabilize the Middle East and challenge the broader international order.

Until clarity on an American strategic political concept is reached, the projected nuclear agreement will reinforce, not resolve, the world’s challenges in the region. Rather than enabling American disengagement from the Middle East, the nuclear framework is more likely to necessitate deepening involvement there—on complex new terms. History will not do our work for us; it helps only those who seek to help themselves.

Wrong way to look at this

Kissinger and Schultz must come to terms world has changed .. this ain't 70's anymore

Look at Iran as next China and the above does not make sense anymore .. can you guys dictate to China ?

NO

This a "civilization" play .. Arabs killing each other since 1400 yrs, Turks basically Moguls, Israel in reality a "boutique" (WannaBe) nation with neither any strategic dept nor history (invented) nor any national coherence (believing in a religion does not make a nation).

Well, folks, that leaves us with our beloved Persia to take care of the business :lol:

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Their complaint that Shia Iran’s interference in Arab countries is a boost to Sunni jihadi extremists is also one-dimensional.
Little bolsters Sunni extremism more than the bigoted Wahhabi brand of Islam practised and exported by Saudi Arabia,
and the "Persian" Gulf’s intolerance of dissent and political pluralism hardly helps either.



.

Iran was the big winner from the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which toppled the Sunni minority tyranny of Saddam Hussein and installed Shia majority rule. The virulent return of Sunni jihadism to Iraq through the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant forced the US Air Force back into action, but on the ground the Baghdad government is dependent on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its powerful network of Iraqi Shia militia trained by Iran.

..

In this context, European and Arab officials emphasise, Gulf leaders are not worried about Tehran eventually getting a nuclear bomb so much as a post-sanctions Iran getting its hands on real money. They have seen how much Iran can do with hardly any money, and how little they themselves can do, with vast cash piles accumulated before last year’s oil price crash. Syria highlights how important money now is.

..

Money, and the many tens of billions that could flow to Iran as part of what the Lausanne deal still suggests would be a phased lifting of sanctions, does make a difference. But it is hardly the only factor. For Gulf leaders it is often their only diplomatic weapon. That is part of their problem.

The Saudis and their allies complain that Persian Iran has no place in the problems of Arab states. Yet their money weapon has had nugatory success in resolving these problems. Their complaint that Shia Iran’s interference in Arab countries is a boost to Sunni jihadi extremists is also one-dimensional. Little bolsters Sunni extremism more than the bigoted Wahhabi brand of Islam practised and exported by Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf’s intolerance of dissent and political pluralism hardly helps either.

.
.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


.

The Saudi overreach annoys U.S.
M.K. Bhadrakumar



Suffice it to say, as a veteran American diplomat, Ambassador Robert Hunter recently wrote, “When the GCC leaders are at the White House and Camp David, Obama needs to send a message, quietly but firmly and unmistakable: cut it out or we will cut you off.”

Most important, the U.S.’ regional policies in the Middle East will remain ineffectual unless the Cold War with Iran is ended. Iran is a far more developed country than any of its Arab neighbors and it is unrealistic to try to exclude it. Ironically, it is also one of the most Westernized countries in the Middle East with which the U.S. can do business.

In sum, unless the Arab oligarchies in the Persian Gulf undertake reforms and social and political modernization, they cannot hope to compete with Iran, and, to quote Hunter, “there is nothing the United States can do to help in this sphere, and just providing military-oriented palliatives will do little if anything to relieve what should be the genuine fears of the Gulf monarchies.”

.
.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Art replaces adverts in the Islamic Republic

I stared at the cluster of rocks from poet and painter Sohrab Sepehri at one highway junction and calligraphy from contemporary visual artist Reza Mafi at a street corner. There were copies of paintings from international painters, too, including René Magritte’s “The Son of Man” and Rembrandt’s “Landscape with a Stone Bridge”.

..

Although a fundamentalist, he has done well in managing an overcrowded city in need of beautification. Signs of development or progress are also part of the hardliners’ defiance of the west. Thanks to the open-air exhibition — but also the spring sun and less suffocating smog — Tehran has a brighter, lighter feel these days. Still, the grey, dusty capital cannot compete with the historic charm of cities such as Isfahan or Shiraz.
Since taking over in 2005, Mr Qalibaf has expanded roads and added a second level to the east-west Sadr highway. He’s also carved out more green spaces. But it’s the three-level pedestrian bridge linking two of the main parks that Tehran residents are most excited about. Designed by a young Iranian female architect and inaugurated last year, it has become a prime entertainment spot. “The bridge has become a new symbol of Tehran,” says an urban planning student I meet on the bridge. The view of northern Tehran and the Alborz mountains beyond is spectacular.
And, as a bonus this week, visitors can glimpse a few of the arts billboards on the highway below.
.
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Endovelico »

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East...

Image

:lol:
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Patrick J. Buchanan
If Assad falls,
a slaughter of Christians will follow
and the battle for control of Damascus
will be
between the Syrian branch of al-Qaida, the Nusra Front,
and the crazed terrorists of the Islamic State.


.

Victory for either would be a disaster for America.

Where is the evidence of an unholy alliance to bring this about?

Turkey, which turned a blind eye to ISIS volunteers slipping into Syria, has aided the Nusra Front in setting up its own capital in Idlib, near the Turkish border, to rival the ISIS capital of Raqqa.

In the fall of Idlib, said Bashar Assad, “the main factor was the huge support that came through Turkey; logistic support, and military support, and of course financial support that came through Saudi Arabia and Qatar.”

Why would Turks, Saudis and Qataris collude with Sunni jihadists?

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan detests Assad. The Saudis and Gulf Arabs are terrified of Shiite Iran and see any ally of Tehran, such as Assad, as their mortal enemy.

This also explains the seven weeks of savage Saudi bombing of the Houthi rebels, who dumped over a U.S.-Saudi puppet in the Yemeni capital Sanaa, then seized the second and third cities of Taiz and Aden.

But while the Houthis bear no love for us, they have been fighting al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. Thus, the Saudi bombing has given AQAP, the most dangerous terrorist foe we face, freedom to create sanctuaries and liberate hundreds of fellow terrorists from prison.

The Israelis seem to be in on the game as well. While they have taken in rebels wounded on the Golan Heights and returned them to their units, there are reports of Israel aiding the Nusra Front with intelligence and even air strikes.

This week, an Israeli official bluntly warned that Hezbollah has amassed 100,000 short-range rockets capable of striking northern Israel, thousands of which could hit Tel Aviv. The rockets are said to be hidden in Shiite villages in southern Lebanon.

Israel is preparing, writes The New York Times’ Isabel Kershner, “for what it sees as an almost inevitable next battle with Hezbollah.”

As Hezbollah has been the most effective fighting ally of Assad, an Israeli war on Hezbollah could help bring Assad down.

But, again, who rises if Assad falls? And who else, besides Christians and Alawites, starts digging their graves?

As one might expect, Sen. Lindsey Graham is all in. Late in April, he declared, “Assad has to go. … We’re going to have to send some of our soldiers back into the Middle East.”

Graham is willing to commit 10,000 U.S. ground troops.

“I would integrate our forces within a regional army. There is no other way to defend this nation than some of us being on the ground over there doing the fighting.”

Wednesday, The Washington Post laid out the game plan for war on Syria. While we cannot create a NATO with kings, emirs, sheiks, and sultans, says the Post,

“[T]here is a way that Mr. Obama could serve both the U.S. interests and those of the Gulf allies: by attacking the Middle East’s most toxic, and destabilizing force, the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. Syria’s dictatorship is Iran’s closest ally in the region, and its barbarity opened the way for the rise of the Islamic State. Recently, it has suffered battlefield reverses, in part because of increased Gulf aid to rebel forces.

”If Mr. Obama were to … create safe zones in northern and southern Syria for the rebels, the balance could be tipped against Damascus and Tehran — and U.S. allies would have tangible reason to recommit to U.S. leadership.”

Consider what is being recommended here.

The Post wants Obama to bomb a Syrian nation that has not attacked us, without congressional authorization — to aid rebels whose most effective fighters are al-Qaida and ISIS terrorists.

And we’re to fight this war — to nullify ultra-rich but unhappy Gulf Arabs?

Obama must also “do more about Iranian aggression,” says the Post.

But against whom is Iran committing aggression?

In Syria, Iran is backing a regime we recognized until a few years ago, that is under attack by terrorist rebels we detest.

In Iraq, Iran is backing the government we support, against ISIS rebels we detest.

Bottom line: A U.S. attack on Syria is being pushed by the War Party to propel us into a confrontation with Iran, and thereby torpedo any U.S. nuclear deal with Iran.

Cui bono ? For whose benefit ?

.

I like Pat, a real good American.

Doc, sorry, but, you have the mike : Cui bono ? For whose benefit ?


:lol: :lol:


.
Last edited by Heracleum Persicum on Sun May 17, 2015 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Persia will remain so long as its mountains stand
Fortress Iran is Virtually Impregnable


.

Iran is secure from conceivable invasion.

It enhances this security by using two tactics.

First, it creates uncertainty as to whether it has an offensive nuclear capability.

Second, it projects a carefully honed image of ideological extremism that makes it appear unpredictable. It makes itself appear threatening and unstable.

Paradoxically, this increases the caution used in dealing with it because the main option, an air attack, has historically been ineffective without a follow-on ground attack.

If just nuclear facilities are attacked and the attack fails, Iranian reaction is unpredictable and potentially disproportionate. Iranian posturing enhances the uncertainty.

The threat of an air attack is deterred by Iran's threat of an attack against sea-lanes. Such attacks would not be effective, but even a low-probability disruption of the world's oil supply is a risk not worth taking.

.

:)

.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12608
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Russia & China start joint drills at Mediterranean


Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi - Iran warships might kick off military exercises dubbed,
‘Sea Cooperation - 2017’ in the Mediterranean :lol:


and


Iran, India, China & Russia to counter NATO missile system

“I'd like to support the idea of developing multifaceted defense cooperation between China, Iran, India and Russia to counter NATO eastwards expansion and installing a missile shield in Europe,” Hossein Dehghan said on Thursday, at an international security conference in Moscow.

Hours later Dehghan was cited by RIA Novosti as saying that Russia, China and Iran may hold tri-party defense talks.

"We discussed certain aspects of regional security. It was proposed to hold a trilateral meeting of Russia, Iran and China," Dehghan said after meeting with Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu.

What's going on with India ? ?

Thought India was in American camp

apparently not

Holly cow .. If India joins China and Russia (and Iran), well, folks, you pretty much "rapped it up". :lol:

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Graham :
‘I blame Obama for Iraq, not Bush’




This belongs in "Levitas" .. but scared of Typhoon to post there :lol: :lol:


what a disaster .. Graham takin Joe for a ride.

“Bush made mistakes. He corrected his mistakes. Obama leaving Iraq, ignoring the advice of all of his military commanders –he was told what would happen if you leave Iraq with no troops left behind."

Graham, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Bush invaded Iraq with “faulty intelligence...but with intelligence the entire world believed. So when you look at the mistakes of Iraq, the one I blame the most is Barack Obama, not George W. Bush.”

.

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


US Special Ops raid killing five ISIS chiefs was coordinated with Syria and Russia

To carry out its mission, the Delta force must have had back-up from hundreds of fighting men in the first and second circles of response, as well as medical, logistics, electronic warfare, intelligence and communications personnel and also air cover.

UAVs overhead would have fed the unit intelligence in real time.

The only way the elite US unit could have operated without fear of being cut down by massive ground-to-ground missile fire from Syrian forces close to the scene was if prior directives were handed down to the Syrian and Russian air defense units to hold their fire. Those batteries are equipped to identify any object taking to the sky in the Middle East. Without their cooperation in turning a blind eye to the unusual US military activity during a “working window” of a few hours, the helicopters carrying the raiders to target would have entered a missile death trap and suffered great loss of life.

It is more than likely that this arrangement was secretly set up when US Secretary of State John Kerry visited Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi on May 12. It may be assumed that the Russian leader quietly approved the operation and acceded to Kerry’s request to give Damascus a heads-up.
.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12608
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

ON the road to Tehran the dominos start falling

What happened to all those Iranian Generals? Did they run away with all those Shite militia?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig ... adi-falls/

Ramadi falls

By Jennifer Rubin May 17 at 12:00 PM 


WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 19: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about Iraq in the Brady Briefing room of the White House on June 19, 2014 in Washington, DC. Obama spoke about the deteriorating situation as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants move toward Baghdad after taking control over northern Iraqi cities. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images) President Obama speaks about Iraq in the Brady Briefing room of the White House in 2014. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Saturday’s news of a successful commando mission in Syria to kill a senior leader of the Islamic State was welcomed news, but the fundamental problem with our strategy remains. The Post reported on Friday, “Islamic State fighters on Friday seized control of key parts of Ramadi, the capital of Iraq’s largest province, in what appeared to be a significant blow to a U.S.-backed military campaign to retake territory from the insurgents.” The media may have been fixated on Jeb Bush’s difficulties to explain whether he would have gone into Iraq in 2003, but the evident failure of the president’s current approach to fighting the Islamic State is the real and far more troubling development.

Max Boot remarks, “Ramadi was really where the Anbar Awakening began — the movement, started by Colonel Sean MacFarland in Ramadi in 2006, to mobilize Sunni tribes against AQI. After having lost hundreds of American soldiers in Ramadi and its environs since 2003, US efforts finally appeared to have paid off. AQI had been routed of the capital of its self-proclaimed caliphate, and would soon be routed out of the rest of the Sunni Triangle. Victory was in sight.” He adds, “It is all the more heartbreaking, therefore, to read now that the Islamic State — AQI’s successor organization — has seized the government center in Ramadi.”

As one might expect the White House spokesman on Friday tried to downplay the loss, accusing those concerned with the setback of wanting to “reoccupy” Iraq:


Q Well, one of the things that the President has been talking about with his strategy is to get the Iraqi government to enlist the Sunnis and to provide them what they need to defend themselves. This looks like an example where that failed. This is the capital of Anbar Province. Is there a failure here by the Iraqi government to take the steps they need to take? And does the White House need to step up either its assistance or its pressure on the Iraqis themselves?

MR. SCHULTZ: You asserted a lot of facts that I’m not sure are quite in evidence. I will tell you that in conjunction with Anbar tribal forces, the Iraqi security forces have indeed been confronting ISIL fighters in Ramadi and around Anbar Province for several months now. Today, ISIL is once again attempting an offensive in the city of Ramadi, but the coalition is supporting the Iraqi security forces and the brave citizens of Anbar Province to help protect the people of Anbar and support their efforts to force ISIL from Ramadi and other cities. Coalition forces continue to provide air support in ISIL-held and contested areas throughout Iraq.

But I am going to refer you to the Iraqi government on the latest status of their forces, and to the Department of Defense for more on the United States support there.

Q There’s no broader reexamining right now in the White House of the broader strategy of we’re going to let the Iraqis take the lead, we’re going to be mostly doing airstrikes?

MR. SCHULTZ: No, Steven. There may be others who are suggesting a reoccupation of the country of Iraq. That’s not something the President has said he’s been open to. But the President has been clear that this is going to be a long-term proposition, that there will be ebbs and flows to this fight, but he is committed to making sure we’re successful.

Nothing to see here. Carry on. The State Department’s spokesman was just as dismissive:


QUESTION: And do you consider what happened as a blow for the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi forces?

MR RATHKE: Well, look, we’ve said before that there will be good days and bad days in Iraq. ISIL’s trying to make today a bad day in Ramadi. We’ve said all along we see this as a long-term fight in conjunction with our Iraqi partners against ISIL. We are confident that Iraqi forces with support from the coalition will continue to push back ISIL where they’ve tried to gain advantages on the ground. So our policy and our engagement remains the same.

QUESTION: So is it the U.S.’s view that Ramadi is falling to ISIL, is under ISIL control, or would you say that it’s contested?

MR RATHKE: Well, I would – I’m not in a position to confirm reports that – I know there have been several reports out there – about the situation in the city center. I’d refer you, again, to the Iraqis for up-to-date information. We have said in the past that Ramadi is and the areas around it have been contested for months, and – but as to the situation in Ramadi right now, we’re working with the Government of Iraq to get a clearer picture of the situation.

Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) consider keeping Ramadi out of ISIS’s control a strategic priority, or is this going to be like Kobani where it’s not a strategic priority unless you win, and then it becomes a strategic priority?

MR RATHKE: Well, no. I think what we said about Kobani was that it was a strategic priority for ISIL. . . . Well, this is a fight that’s being led by the Iraqis, so it’s the Iraqi Government’s job to set priorities. So that would be their – it’s their country and they need to set those priorities and we support them. Clearly, Ramadi is important and it’s a large city. It’s been contested for some time. And Anbar province – we’ve talked a lot about other actions in Anbar province in recent weeks and months, so Anbar is important, Ramadi is important. I’m not going to place labels on them to try to suggest a prioritization.

Let’s put it bluntly: There is little evidence the president’s minimalist approach to fight the Islamic State is working. (Boot says bluntly: “The fall of Ramadi is a sign of the abysmal failure of the misnamed Operation Inherent Resolve launched by President Obama in August 2014 to ‘degrade’ and ultimately to ‘destroy’ ISIS. Operation Uncertain Resolve is more like it.”) Rather than recognize realities on the ground, acknowledge the Islamic State is gaining in strength and recruits and then reassess our strategy, the White House poses another false choice — do what we are doing or reoccupy the country. The alternative of course is what the military has consistently recommended — a more substantial U.S. ground force to provide training, intelligence, forward spotting, etc. Instead, Iraqi militias are cementing their relationship with Iran, which is becoming dominant in Iraq.

Boot argues, ” The real debate we should be having is not what we should have done in 2003 but what we should do now, today, to defeat ISIS and Iran — the twin forces, mirror images of one another — that are ripping the Middle East asunder. All of the candidates, including the silent Hillary Clinton, need to tell us what they would do.” But it’s so much easier to second guess a decision made 12 years ago than to set forth a workable plan to defeat the Islamic State and to stem Iran’s aggressive moves throughout the region.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:.

ON the road to Tehran the dominos start falling

What happened to all those Iranian Generals? Did they run away with all those Shite militia?

.

Seems, Iraqi "government forces", those US trained (and most sunny) retreated .. David Petraeus delusion :lol:

Now, seems again, Shia "volunteer" force, taking over the fight

HaaaaJ Ghassem, where are you :lol:

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


US officials :
'Saudis set to buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan'



Saudi Arabia has reached out to its ally Pakistan to acquire “off-the-shelf” atomic weapons,
US sources said.



http://rt.com/news/259565-saudi-pakista ... r-weapons/


West preparing to get rid of Al Saud leading to exit of Kings and Amirs and Sheikhs

Now, West will say KSA has already acquired NUKE and must be "sanctioned" .. Saudi can deny as much as they want, but "sanction" will follow .. and .. Yemen war will drag on

Well, another Iranian foe will be eliminated .. Thanks you guys

If this too wrapped up, who the next ?

How you doin, "Tayyip" :lol: :lol:

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.

.

Jordan’s King Abdullah has warned the Obama administration in an urgent message that US air strikes alone won’t stop the Islamic State’s advances in Iraq and Syria and, what is more, they leave his kingdom next door exposed to the Islamist peril.

ISIS would at present have no difficulty in invading southern Jordan, where the army is thin on the ground, and seizing local towns and villages whose inhabitants are already sympathetic to the extremist group.

The bulk of the Jordanian army is concentrated in the north on the Syrian border. Even a limited Islamist incursion in the south would also pose a threat to northern Saudi Arabia, the king pointed out.


Abdullah offered the view that the US Delta Special Forces operation in eastern Syria Saturday was designed less to be an effective assault on ISIS’s core strength and more as a pallliative to minimize the Islamist peril facing Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf emirates.

..

At a news conference in Seoul, Kerry dismissed the Islamists’ feat as a “target of opportunity” and expressed confidence that, in the coming days, the loss “can be reversed.”

The Secretary of State’s words were unlikely to scare the Islamists, who had caused more than 500 deaths in the battle for the town and witnessed panicky Iraqi soldiers fleeing Ramadi in Humvees and tanks.

Baghdad, only 110 km southeast of Ramadi, has more reason to be frightened, in the absence of any sizeable Iraqi military strength in the area for standing in the enemy’s path to the capital.

The Baghdad government tried announcing that substantial military reinforcements had been ordered to set out and halt the Islamists’ advance. This was just whistling in the dark. In the last two days, the remnants of the Iraqi army have gone to pieces – just like in the early days of the ISIS offensive, when the troops fled Mosul and Falujah. They are running away from any possible engagement with the Islamist enemy.

The Baghdad-sourced reports that Shiite paramilitaries were preparing to deploy to Iraq's western province of Anbar after Islamic State militants overran Ramadi were likewise no more than an attempt to boost morale. Sending armed Shiites into the Ramadi area of Anbar would make no sense, because its overwhelmingly Sunni population would line up behind fellow-Sunni Islamist State conquerors rather than help the Shiite militias to fight them.

Iran’s Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan, who arrived precipitately in Baghdad Monday, shortly after Ramadi’s fall, faces this difficulty. Our military sources expect him to focus on a desperate effort to deploy Shiite militias as an obstacle in ISIS’s path to Baghdad, now that the road is clear of defenders all the way from Ramadi.

In Amman, King Abdullah Sunday made a clean sweep of senior security officials, firing the Minister of Interior, the head of internal security (Muhabarat) and a number of high police officers. They were accused officially of using excessive violence to disperse demonstrations in the southern town of Maan.

The real reason for their dismissal, DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources disclose, is the decline of these officials’ authority in the Maan district, in the face of the rising influence of extremist groups identified with Al Qaeda and ISIS, in particular.

.

Jordan and KSA in danger of fallin .. could be western plan

.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:.

ON the road to Tehran the dominos start falling

What happened to all those Iranian Generals? Did they run away with all those Shite militia ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig ... adi-falls/

.


Iran-aligned Shiite militias gather to join fight ISIS
Baghdad orders Iran-backed militias to Anbar province



- US does not want US boots on the ground in Iraq

- Sunni Sheikhs and Amirs and Kings, they "patsy", just "hot air"

- Iraqi government troops, those General David Petraeus trained, worthless

Well, folks, that leaves us with our beloved Iran to help America

.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12608
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:.

ON the road to Tehran the dominos start falling

What happened to all those Iranian Generals? Did they run away with all those Shite militia ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig ... adi-falls/

.


Iran-aligned Shiite militias gather to join fight ISIS
Baghdad orders Iran-backed militias to Anbar province



- US does not want US boots on the ground in Iraq

- Sunni Sheikhs and Amirs and Kings, they "patsy", just "hot air"

- Iraqi government troops, those General David Petraeus trained, worthless

Well, folks, that leaves us with our beloved Iran to help America

.
Your beloved Iran does not want American troops on the ground and keeps repeatedly lying about how the US is supporting ISIS. You should be ashamed of much of the garbage you post here AZ.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:.

Your beloved Iran does not want American troops on the ground and keeps repeatedly lying about how the US is supporting ISIS. You should be ashamed of much of the garbage you post here AZ.

.


Leader's full speech clears up your confusion, Doc


.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Israeli Defence Minister Rhubarb Yaalon Threatens to Nuke Iran


zQtIyeOtZQs



http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/05/19 ... -NPT-Nukes



.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11678
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: U.S. Foreign Policy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:.

ON the road to Tehran the dominos start falling

What happened to all those Iranian Generals ? Did they run away with all those Shite militia ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig ... adi-falls/

.


Radio Free Europe

.

The capture of the Iraqi Sunni city of Ramadi by Islamic State (IS) militants has fundamentally changed how war is being waged against the extremists in Iraq's Sunni areas.

As long as government forces had controlled Ramadi, the pro-government Sunni tribal leaders of Anbar Province were opposed to the presence of Iranian-backed Shi'ite militia in the area.

But since May 17, when government forces withdrew from their positions in most of Ramadi, those same Sunni tribal leaders have sought help from Shi'ite fighters in an umbrella group known as Hashid al-Shaabi, or Popular Mobilization Units.

As a result, the Iranian-backed Shi'ite militia fighters have already been deploying into Sunni areas that form the Ramadi front.


Meanwhile, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan arrived in Baghdad for talks with senior Iraqi officials on how to expand defense and military cooperation against the IS militants.

It marks an unprecedented level of official military cooperation between Baghdad and Tehran.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi, Anbar's pro-government Sunni tribal leaders, and the United States had all been reluctant to deploy Shi'ite militia in Ramadi.

Instead they had advocated the development of locally recruited Sunni forces to combat the Sunni-led IS extremists.

But Anbar's pro-government Sunni leaders now say that the IS militants' capture of Ramadi has shown the government needs the support of the Iranian-backed fighters.

Anbar Provincial Council chief Sabah Karhut told RFE/RL's Radio Free Iraq on May 18 that the provincial council had voted on the issue and had unanimously accepted the need for support from the Shi'ite fighters.

Yusif al-Kilabi, the security spokesman for the Popular Mobilization Units, told RFE/RL on May 18 that thousands of Shi'ite fighters were being sent to the battle, "enough to liberate the city" from IS militants.

Kilabi said he personally attended a meeting with Abadi and Sunni tribal leaders from Anbar Province on May 17 when Abadi gave the order for the Shi'ite deployments.

He said all of the Sunni tribal leaders at that meeting had accepted the need for help from the Shi'ite militia.

Abadi's government says it controls the Shi'ite fighters within the Popular Mobilization Units.

However, with Ramadi under the Sunni extremists' control, the government must now decide whether to continue using Shi'ite militia to defend the roads leading to Baghdad.

Some Iraqis have expressed concerns about whether Shi'ite militia leaders would obey such orders if IS militants launch fresh attacks to the south toward the nearby Shi'ite holy cities of Karbala and Najaf.

Kilabi told RFE/RL that the Popular Mobilization Units were part of the Iraqi security forces and that Shi'ite militia fighters were "ready to go wherever the Iraqi leadership asks us to go."

..

Kilabi said he didn't expect complaints about Shi'ite fighters in Anbar Province because "it is clear that they need us and they are calling for our help."

Washington's reluctance to bring the Iranian-backed Shi'ite fighters into the battle for Ramadi stemmed from concerns about Tehran's growing military influence within Iraq.

No doubt that issue was raised by the head of the U.S. Central Command, General Lloyd Austin, when he met in Baghdad on May 17 with the Iraqi prime minister to discuss the impact of the fall of Ramadi to the militants.

Abadi and Austin's talks came just hours after Anbar Provincial Council member Athal Fahdawi described the situation in Anbar's provincial capital as "total collapse," prompting the Sunni leaders' call for help from the Shi'ite fighters.

Anbar Provincial Council chief Karhut said on May 18 that members of the Popular Mobilization Units began arriving overnight at a military base near Ramadi.

Hadi al-Ameri, leader of the Badr militia fighters within the Popular Mobilization Units, said on May 18 that Anbar's Sunni leaders should have taken up his offer of military support sooner.

Ameri said he "holds the political representatives of Anbar responsible for the fall of Ramadi because they objected to the participation of Hashid al-Shaabi in the defense of their own people."

But he said his forces were still prepared to join the battle against the IS militants at Ramadi in the days ahead.

A spokesman for Ketaeb Hizballah, another leading Shi'ite paramilitary group within the Popular Mobilization Units, said his organization had fighters ready to join the Ramadi front from three directions.

Spokesman Jaafar al-Husseini said on May 18 that the Kataeb Hizballah reinforcements could start advancing on Ramadi within 24 hours.

Other Shi'ite militia groups announced they also already had units in Anbar Province -- including around the cities of Fallujah and Habbaniyah – that were ready to close in on Ramadi.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said he was confident that the gains made by IS militants in Ramadi would be halted and soon reversed.

"[Islamic State militants'] communications have been reduced, their funding and financial mechanisms have been reduced, and their movements by and large -- in most certainly where there are air patrols and other capacities -- have been reduced but that's not everywhere," he said. "And so it is possible to have the kind of attack we've seen in Ramadi. But I'm absolutely confident in the days ahead, that will be reversed."

.

Doc, above article from US government Radio (Radio Free Europe) .. saying clearly that US did not allow Shia militia (backed by Iranians) to fight the ISIS

In that sense, you have the answer to your 2 posts :
.

What happened to all those Iranian Generals ? Did they run away with all those Shite militia ?

..

Your beloved Iran does not want American troops on the ground and keeps repeatedly lying about how the US is supporting ISIS. You should be ashamed of much of the garbage you post here AZ.

.


Now, US is asking for Iranian help :

Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehghan arrived in Baghdad on Monday


Iraqi Defence Minister Khalid al-Obeidi on Monday said Baghdad in dire need of Iranian defence aid


Doc, apologize, and stay tuned :lol:


.
Post Reply