Iran Key To Middle East Peace

[Big Guy]

On Guard For Thee asked "what makes you think Iran is the key ..."

I believe that ISIS or ISIL thrives on the chaos of affiliations of good guys and bad guys in the region. The instability makes ISIS the only really organized group in the area. Iran has the forces to easily subdue and render ISIS peaceful. No country from the West can create any stability and locally, it is Israel against everybody. Every move that Israel makes against the Palestinians and gathers more land (against the wishes and direction of the West) makes our relationship with Israel a problem.

I believe it is inevitable that Iran will get (or steal, or be given) the "bomb" to put it on equal footing with Israel. The more the West can move away from Israel and closer to the Arabs the sooner we will see stability. Iran has in the past and can again in the future be an ally in the region.

If the USA is unwilling to open talks with Iran than Canada should do so unilaterally.

[On Guard for Thee]

On Guard For Thee asked "what makes you think Iran is the key ..."

I believe that ISIS or ISIL thrives on the chaos of affiliations of good guys and bad guys in the region. The instability makes ISIS the only really organized group in the area. Iran has the forces to easily subdue and render ISIS peaceful. No country from the West can create any stability and locally, it is Israel against everybody. Every move that Israel makes against the Palestinians and gathers more land (against the wishes and direction of the West) makes our relationship with Israel a problem.

I believe it is inevitable that Iran will get (or steal, or be given) the "bomb" to put it on equal footing with Israel. The more the West can move away from Israel and closer to the Arabs the sooner we will see stability. Iran has in the past and can again in the future be an ally in the region.

If the USA is unwilling to open talks with Iran than Canada should do so unilaterally.

I don't see why you'd think Iran has more powerful forces than the US as far as bringing ISIS under control. Iran being involved even in the small way they are is hopeful I suppose, but it's mostly that old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kinda thing. BTW, the US et al have been in talks with Iran for months now, specifically to make sure they DON'T get the bomb.

[Big Guy]

I do not think that the USA wants anything to do with that area any more. If they do put boots on the ground they will do so reluctantly. Iran on the other hand, has about 600,000 active forces and another 2 million in reserve. They have the capability of taking ISIS out in a couple of days and probably push them right into Assad forces in Syria.

Iran's ally, Russia, has all the technology needed for the bomb and Iran lacks only the enriched uranium - something they already have the capability to produce. If they do not have a workable nuclear device they will have one very soon. As North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel have learned, forgiveness is far easier to get than permission when dealing with nuclear weapons.

I think that the time will come soon when the USA's concerns about Iranian nuclear weapons will be subservient to Iran cleaning up ISIS and allowing the USA to get out of that quagmire. The relationship with Iran has always been coloured by the relationship with Israel. While Israel was the Wests baby to protect and later a teenager that was allowed some autonomy then the West put all its eggs into the Israeli basket. Over the last few years, the right wing Israeli government has been thumbing its nose at the West and the UN and beginning to go rogue. Netanyahu has just dissolved parliament in an attempt to push his Jewish State agenda which is opposed by the rest of the world.

I think the West can no longer trust Israel to do what it is told by the West nor to protect Western interests in its domestic agenda.

I think it is time for the West to look elsewhere - Iran - for the stabilizing entity which can maintain a truce between the existing Sunni, Shia combatants and allow the West to back out. Remember, the USA is now self sufficient in oil.

As to friends and enemies, at the moment we cannot identify allegiances and most certainly will have problems in the future.

[Rue]

Big Guy stated, " I think the West can no longer trust Israeli to do what it is told by the West nor protect Western interests in its domestic agenda."

The statement makes no sense.

First off if Israel indeed had interests that coincide with the West's necessarily those interests would not be domestic but what is called foreign or external interests.

Domestic policy deals with policies that deal only with internal issues not external ones, that is why they care called domestic.

Israel was never a puppet of the West.

When Israel was created Britain, France, Germany, were completely opposed to its creation. In fact so was the US.It came about in spite of the West. The British and French sent military officers along with ex Nazi German officers to puppet colonial Arab nations to try crush a Jewish state from coming about.

The only time there was a temporary coincidental alignment of foreign interests between Britain, France and Israel as during the Suez Canal crisis and Eisenhower showed great leadership defusing it and protecting Israel's right to shipping with not a shot fired.Soon after that Britain and France disavowed themselves of Israel. At best it was a very brief alliance, exposed by Eisenhower to Israel as a sham to get Israel to do Britain's dirty work and it was precisely because Israel trusted Eisenhower they let him tear a strip off them and mediate on their behalf. Einsenhower protected Israel and avoided Egypt attacking them. To do that he gave Egypt, Britain, France Israel all a firm and equal blast of criticism and at the same time preventing the Soviets from coming in.

With the exception of Holland and Germany Israel has never had support from Europe.

Today Israel' two military allies are in fact China and Greece and there is a tacit understanding with Egypt and Jordan over Palestinian terror cells and groups.

The West, i.e, Europe if anything has had an anti Israel bias since 1949

Poland, the Czech Republic and Ukraine have reached out to Israel but also support a Palestinian state.

The EEC has always criticized Israel and called for boycotts against it at one point.

France in particular has been extremely anti Israeli. DeGaulles,Pompideau, Giscard D'Estaing were openly anti semitic and embraced and protected Arafat while Arafat used Marseilles to bring in heroin which was then shipped on to New York.La Deuxieme Bureau, France's intelligence service and the East German intelligence service provided haven and body guards to Arafat and his cronies and facilitated setting up bank accounts in France and Switzerland in return for Arafat procuring business for France and the Soviet Union.

The US has never been able to control nor has it imposed its will on Israel. When Israel and the US have had coinciding foreign policy interests they have worked together. As is the case now in the last 8 years with Obama they are strained.

The US always as a deliberate and open policy maintained the same strong alliances with Saudi Arabia,Kuwait, the UAE and most of the time Egypt as it did Israel.

This notion that Israel was simply a puppet of the West is ridiculous. The US had to intervene twice to stop Israel from going to nuclear war with the Soviets.

In the 1967 war when Jordan invaded Israel, it was with British intelligence assistance.

Britain has always had strained relations with Israel even when Britain and Israel were both allies with Iran.

The US if anyone has been other than Holland and Canada, Israel's trusted Western ally and the relationship with the US has been full of tensions and disagreements. The myth that the US controls Israel or vice versa is just that. When Israeli foreign interests and the military industrial complex interests of the US have coincided, then they have worked together, otherwise the friction is no different than say it is with Canada and the US over free trade or fishing rights or right now over oil pipelines.

Allies of course spy on one another and compete with one another.

The interest Israel probably shares with the West but shares just as much with China and Russia is a concern over Muslim extremism.

It begins and ends there.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Rue

[Big Guy]

Looks like the USA, Canada and the rest of this recent coalition is already in alliance with Iran;

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/12/iran-advisers-boost-anti-isil-battles-iraq-2014129121952190859.html

It is to the Wests future interests to encourage interaction with Iran and move to be arms length from Israel. At the moment, Israel is an isolated pariah of the Arab states in that region. It also appears to be comfortable in that position, assuming that the West will continue to blindly defend and finance its military for any future expeditions.

I do not think that it is in Canada's interest to keep supporting Israel, especially at the cost of alienating the Arab nations. Israel appears to be ready to ignore American and Canadian criticism of domestic policies (like new settlements) while still expecting American and Western protection. It has the right to its own foreign and domestic policy but should accept the responsibility to defend it. We should not be defending it. I believe that it is time to cut Israel loose and look towards new allies in the Arab states - especially Iran.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Big Guy

[jbg]

Looks like the USA, Canada and the rest of this recent coalition is already in alliance with Iran;

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/12/iran-advisers-boost-anti-isil-battles-iraq-2014129121952190859.html

It is to the Wests future interests to encourage interaction with Iran and move to be arms length from Israel. At the moment, Israel is an isolated pariah of the Arab states in that region. It also appears to be comfortable in that position, assuming that the West will continue to blindly defend and finance its military for any future expeditions.

I do not think that it is in Canada's interest to keep supporting Israel, especially at the cost of alienating the Arab nations. Israel appears to be ready to ignore American and Canadian criticism of domestic policies (like new settlements) while still expecting American and Western protection. It has the right to its own foreign and domestic policy but should accept the responsibility to defend it. We should not be defending it. I believe that it is time to cut Israel loose and look towards new allies in the Arab states - especially Iran.

What do a bunch of ignorant, despotic Arab states have in common with Canada? Do you really think Israel is their only problem with the West?

[Wilber]

Iran is not an Arab state.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Wilber

[jbg]

Iran is not an Arab state.

Splitting hairs.

Sorry for the late response. I had a death in the family 4:05 p.m. that day.

[Big Guy]

jbg asked, "What do a bunch of ignorant, despotic Arab states have in common with Canada?"

Well, the Muslim population of Canada is three times that of Jews. But I do agree, I would like to see Canada open up much greater communication with these "ignorant, despotic Arab States" to find issues of mutual concern and cooperation. Perhaps then some of us will not look at them as "ignorant and despotic". Perhaps some of us will never.

[Big Guy]

Some other Canadian voices are critical of the Harper approach to Iran;

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/iran-bashers-display-a-dangerous-lack-of-worldliness/article22275374/

Edited January 3, 2015 by Big Guy

[eyeball]

Harper's obviously in over his head but who isn't seems to be the real thrust of Simpson's article.

[Big Guy]

The Nuclear talks with Iran have been prolonged. It looks like the West is in a bit of a bind. The sanctions are still on Iran, Iran is negotiating their nuclear program and Iran is becoming a bigger and bigger player in the Middle East. The only ground troops that are able to contain ISIS in Iraq and Syria are Iranian militias supported by Tehran. ISIL is now is one of the biggest nations in the Middle East.

There remains the danger that if the talks fail, those other nations (besides the USA and Canada) will unilaterally lift sanctions accepting the growing strength of Iran.

Neither the Americans nor any of the negotiating partners can explain the repercussions if these talks fail. The general consensus is that if these talks then do fail that Iran will continue its nuclear ambitions, there will be military confrontations and the Middle East will be in a full fledged war. With the Russian backing Iran and ISIS controlling most of Iraq and Syria, Assad still in control of part of Syria and what is left of Iraq a failed state, the USA would have to decide on a full ground invasion. The American public is weary of losing wars in the Middle East and may stay out.

I hope that the negotiators ignore Israeli self-serving protestations and sign a deal with Iran. There is no alternative.

[jbg]

I hope that the negotiators ignore Israeli self-serving protestations and sign a deal with Iran. There is no alternative.

You and Neville Chamberlain would have gotten along well.

[Canada_First]

Iran is going to nuke Israel. If Iran gets the bomb or even close to making one Israel will attack Iran. They've done it before.

Iran us fighting against KSA already and soon they'll be at war with Israel. At which time I expect ISIS to also start attacking Israel.

[Big Guy]

Ok jbg - Apparently you feel that my view is naïve and ultimately mistaken - I assume that is what your post implies. My point of view reflects what I think is best for Canada. I put Israel in the same category as Iran, Iraq and any other Middle East nation. I really am not concerned what they do to each other.

Please explain what you feel is the alternative to a nuclear deal with Iran. If these talks fail, what do you think will happen?

Actually, I would probably not have gotten along well with Neville. I do not agree with his policies regarding Ireland - but I would certainly would have liked to have an opportunity to speak to him about his views on what was happening in the world in that era.

[jbg]

Ok jbg - Apparently you feel that my view is naïve and ultimately mistaken - I assume that is what your post implies. My point of view reflects what I think is best for Canada. I put Israel in the same category as Iran, Iraq and any other Middle East nation. I really am not concerned what they do to each other.

Please explain what you feel is the alternative to a nuclear deal with Iran. If these talks fail, what do you think will happen?

An old fashioned, no-holds-barred war. We in the West have a fascination with surgical wars. Iran is fully committed to war with the West. It cannot be stopped short of a much more aggressive posture. Perhaps we start by sending a few mullahs to Allah, and if that doesn't work flatten the place.

Actually, I would probably not have gotten along well with Neville. I do not agree with his policies regarding Ireland - but I would certainly would have liked to have an opportunity to speak to him about his views on what was happening in the world in that era.

I think you know I'm referring to his policy of appeasing Hitler. You may well have asked in October 1938, "what the the alternative to giving up Czechoslovakia"? Unfortunately the sad answer was a war then. And the answer with Iran may be a war now. They are not giving us a choice and I'd rather the war be with a non-nuclear Iran than a fully nuclearized one a decade from now.

[Big Guy]

If I read you correctly, the only alternative to a nuclear deal is war. You did mention a "more aggressive posture" and I do not know what that means - example?

If you feel that there is going to be a war anyway, then why not give a deal a chance? What has the West got to lose?

What happens if Saudi Arabia or Jordan or ... start to develop the bomb? Do we wipe them out too?

As to Iran having nuclear capability, if they do not have it yet then they will have it soon. Israel has nuclear capability then why should not the rest of the nations in the Middle East who want it, also have it?

It seems that the world takes nations seriously only if they have the bomb.

Who made America the judge of who gets the bomb and who does not?

[jbg]

If I read you correctly, the only alternative to a nuclear deal is war. You did mention a "more aggressive posture" and I do not know what that means - example?

If you feel that there is going to be a war anyway, then why not give a deal a chance? What has the West got to lose?

What happens if Saudi Arabia or Jordan or ... start to develop the bomb? Do we wipe them out too?

As to Iran having nuclear capability, if they do not have it yet then they will have it soon. Israel has nuclear capability then why should not the rest of the nations in the Middle East who want it, also have it?

It seems that the world takes nations seriously only if they have the bomb.

Who made America the judge of who gets the bomb and who does not?

Would you rather have America, or some mad mullah making that decision?

[dre]

You and Neville Chamberlain would have gotten along well.

God, what rediculous tripe.

[dre]

Would you rather have America, or some mad mullah making that decision?

Iran is not run by a mad mullah. By virtual all accounts the Iranian leader is a rational actor, who is very careful, and pre-occupied with preserving his rule. I know you and other chicken hawks in the west would like to THINK that Iran is this incredibly dangerous enemy on the verge of firing off nukes at its neighbors but reality is not kind to your retarded bullshit.

[Big Guy]

As I have mentioned before, I am a Canadian. I value an Israeli life no more or no less than a Palestinian, Jordanian, American or any other human being on this earth. I would like to see things go well in all parts of the world but am selfish to the point that I also would like our government to do what is best for Canada - even if it is at the cost of what is best for others.

If the end result is that the Middle East ends up as a smouldering pit and Canada has minimal disruption then I would not be too upset.

[Hudson Jones]

It cannot be stopped short of a much more aggressive posture. Perhaps we start by sending a few mullahs to Allah, and if that doesn't work flatten the place.

Warmongers were all the rage during the Bush era. Now they're not looked at with any respect.

Not many, especially the American public, have the appetite for more useless wars on behalf of the warmongering neo-cons and their Zionist bankrollers. Screw Sheldon Adelson and et al.

[GostHacked]

Iran is going to nuke Israel. If Iran gets the bomb or even close to making one Israel will attack Iran. They've done it before.

Iran us fighting against KSA already and soon they'll be at war with Israel. At which time I expect ISIS to also start attacking Israel.

Has Israel ever attacked Iran?

[GostHacked]

Would you rather have America, or some mad mullah making that decision?

America has made some terrible decisions in the last 20 years.

[Canada_First]

Has Israel ever attacked Iran?

Yes of course. The last time they got close to having a nuclear bomb.