Iran

#1
After Kerry Moscow will be visited by Cameron. Subject of the discussions -- Syria. As Cameron put it: "to prevent the growth of violent extremism".

The frequency with which the leaders and senior officials of the West come to Moscow suggests two facts:

1. The situation in Syria is close to a turning point in government's favour. If sponsors of "opposition" will not intervene soon, the developments will become irreversible; the military defeat of the militant groups is real.

2. Iran did not accept any of the signs and hints from the U.S. and continues to refuse to meet US interests. Iran offered very serious concessions during last negotiations on the nuclear program, but apparently they were not the subject of interest of the United States. Presidential elections in Iran are just beginning, but it is already clear that the reformers of Rafsanjani have no chance. There will be no change in policies (Israel can also be thanked for that). So, the sponsors of "revolutions" and "Springs" have to move on fast - who knows when the next chance will present itself.

Probably, both Kerry and Cameron offered some kind of exchange options; there are no other reasons for their rapid journeys (to believe that cruelty and violence can bother the sponsors of aggression is beyond healthy imagination).

It may well be that under the cover of talks about Syria Western counterparts will play out the standard pattern of Anglo-Saxon diplomacy: building up the pressure on one direction, then reluctantly back off bargaining concessions on a completely different direction.

Syria is too important to Russia; and it is close to victory. Therefore, the West can threaten to bring the situation back to chaos or even intervention. But the goal of the US isIran. And it is more than likely that US and Britain will eventually agree to ease off Syria in return for Russia's neutrality in respect of Western activities in Iran.

The problem is that the Iranian crisis will be launched from Azerbaijan, where local nationalists already are talking of uniting Northern Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan), Southern Azerbaijan (part of Iran) and Western Azerbaijan (Armenia). And any such provocation in Transcaucasia will have devastating consequences for Northern (Russian) Caucasus...

Under these circumstances US needs to give assurances to Azerbaijani leadership that Russia will remain neutral thus untying the hands of nationalists and providing them with an opportunity to put pressure on President Aliyev.

In light of this Israeli attack on Damascus looks very interesting. Israel shows Russia that in the case of its intransigence in negotiations with Cameron and Kerry Israel will continue its air raids on Damascus even at the cost of threat of a regional conflict. Israel does not fear Syria - that's a fact; but it fears Iran.

United States, England and Israel are playing the same game. They will give Russia Syria in exchange for Iran. Exchange mythical - because Syria is wining the war. But the aggressors want to create an impression that they would not allow such victory. At any cost. They are bluffing. But their bluff is very convincing. The raid on Damascus looks very convincing. The law allowing to arm militants passed by US Congress is also very convincing.

So the visits of Kerry and Cameron are just an attempt to convince Putin that they will continue pressing Syria. And when he believes they will offer exchange "Syria for Iran". The time is running out - Iranian elections are on June the 14. The exchange must take place before that date.

The "reverse" exchange Iran for Syria" is unlikely ...

(from el-murid)
 
#6
After Kerry Moscow will be visited by Cameron. Subject of the discussions -- Syria. As Cameron put it: "to prevent the growth of violent extremism".
You said you weren't coming back.......fibber.
 

ehwhat

Old-Salt
Book Reviewer
#7
One should always expect a "house spirit" (Domovoy - домово́й) to return. They tend to be masculine, small, bearded, and sometimes covered in hair or at least that was what my mother told me. Are you the horned or non-horned variety?

As for the Syrian government winning the current civil war, that is open to interpretation. The diplomacy is more likely to be an attempt to gain consensus to forestall the advance of the factions that neither the US nor the British wish to see in positions of power or influence.
 
#8
... an attempt to gain consensus to forestall the advance of the factions that neither the US nor the British wish to see in positions of power or influence.
You mean, like those US/UK brought to power in Afghanistan all those years back, the ones US/UK were fighting against for a few years and are once again bringing to power there at the next elections -- Taliban? Or those US/UK brought to power very recently in Libya, like Abdelhakim Belhaj NATO gave Tripoli to? Or maybe yet another al-Qaeda wing -- al-Nusra, US sends arms to in Syria?

Whom are you trying to fool, yourselves? Because outside of English-speaking information space people see that wherever US and UK go, they turn secular/moderate states into militant Islamic playgrounds!
 
#9
"United States, England and Israel are playing the same game..."

The third one from the trio: in the next two weeks Netanyahu is going to visit Moscow.
 
#10
"United States, England and Israel are playing the same game..."

The third one from the trio: in the next two weeks Netanyahu is going to visit Moscow.


It really upsets you that Russia has become a regional irrelevance, doesn't it?
 
#11
Whom are you trying to fool, yourselves? Because outside of English-speaking information space people see that wherever US and UK go, they turn secular/moderate states into militant Islamic playgrounds!

Space people? Aliens? What you on about sir?
 
#13
It really upsets you that Russia has become a regional irrelevance, doesn't it?
Russia isn't an irrelevance, regional or otherwise. its too big and its foreign policy is run by exponents of real politik.
As an amusing aside I was asked if I could supply into Iran, the only drawback I was told being payment. I expected to be offered oil as payment, instead I was offered payment in roubles. Apparently its the only foreign currency they have.
 
#14
You mean, like those US/UK brought to power in Afghanistan all those years back, the ones US/UK were fighting against for a few years and are once again bringing to power there at the next elections -- Taliban? Or those US/UK brought to power very recently in Libya, like Abdelhakim Belhaj NATO gave Tripoli to? Or maybe yet another al-Qaeda wing -- al-Nusra, US sends arms to in Syria?

Whom are you trying to fool, yourselves? Because outside of English-speaking information space people see that wherever US and UK go, they turn secular/moderate states into militant Islamic playgrounds!
With your last paragraph you have something. Not everything but certainly something.
 
#15
Russia isn't an irrelevance, regional or otherwise. its too big and its foreign policy is run by exponents of real politik.
As an amusing aside I was asked if I could supply into Iran, the only drawback I was told being payment. I expected to be offered oil as payment, instead I was offered payment in roubles. Apparently its the only foreign currency they have.

Thats exactly my point, all Riussia has left is a rapidly failing fascist theoracy as its sole bagman in the region.
Hero to zerovitch.
 
#16
You mean, like those US/UK brought to power in Afghanistan all those years back, the ones US/UK were fighting against for a few years and are once again bringing to power there at the next elections -- Taliban? Or those US/UK brought to power very recently in Libya, like Abdelhakim Belhaj NATO gave Tripoli to? Or maybe yet another al-Qaeda wing -- al-Nusra, US sends arms to in Syria?

Whom are you trying to fool, yourselves? Because outside of English-speaking information space people see that wherever US and UK go, they turn secular/moderate states into militant Islamic playgrounds!


Did it ever occur to you we might want to keep the Islamic world disjointed and wracked by internal dissent?
As long as they are busy killing themselves, they're far too busy to be annoying us.
 
#18
Thats exactly my point, all Riussia has left is a rapidly failing fascist theoracy as its sole bagman in the region.
Hero to zerovitch.
Who did Russia have when the USSR? Iran under the Shah was tied to the US, now Russia has to deal with it. Tribal problems in the Stans and in the internal republics force Russia to deal with Iran. Egypt has become a shambles looking to neither the US or Russia. In Syria either side could come out on top or it could be a stalemate with various areas controlled by various factions.
Russia fears Islam as much as any in the west and with more reason. Containing Islam is a Russian guiding policy.
 
#20
Who did Russia have when the USSR? Iran under the Shah was tied to the US, now Russia has to deal with it. Tribal problems in the Stans and in the internal republics force Russia to deal with Iran. Egypt has become a shambles looking to neither the US or Russia. In Syria either side could come out on top or it could be a stalemate with various areas controlled by various factions.
Russia fears Islam as much as any in the west and with more reason. Containing Islam is a Russian guiding policy.
That's the first I hear that Russia has problems with Iran, unless by "deal with Iran" you mean something else...

Russia doesn't fear Islam. Islam was and is part of Russia's religious and cultural makeup. But IMPORTED from SA and Qatar and supported by US/UK Islamic factions that are NOT indigenous to Russia are a threat that Russia has to deal with. And the more destabilised are the states along Russia's perimeter, the more it affects situation within Russia.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top