Iran Rules out Co operation with USA in Iraq

news.yahoo.com...
Well this is an interesting twist to the ISIS game.....So we will have uncooperative allies? How will that work out?
Every day the quagmire gets a little muddier.....

a reply to: stirling

The last meeting of the allies excluded Iran deliberately didn't it? So I'm not surprised. That is a country we need to counterbalance saudi's power and so far saudi rules which is not ok.

Something I have learned is that the usa wants to keep russia and iran out and that's not for the benefit of the countries in europe or the me.

If this piece can be believed it makes for a few questions as well .

By Robert Parry

September 18, 2014 "ICH" - "Consortium News" - The Obama administration, working through the Russian government, has secured an agreement from the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad to permit U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State targets in parts of Syria, according to a source briefed on the secret arrangements.

The reported agreement would clear away one of the chief obstacles to President Barack Obama’s plan to authorize U.S. warplanes to cross into Syria to attack Islamic State forces – the concern that entering Syrian territory might prompt anti-aircraft fire from the Syrian government’s missile batteries.

www.informationclearinghouse.info... Mike Whitney makes a comment on this piece down in the comment section "What is the purpose of this article?

It is to convince the reader that the "Obama administration, working through the Russian government, has secured an agreement from the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad to permit U.S. airstrikes" in Syria , right?

But Putin has stated publicly that US air strikes would be a violation of International law? Assad has said the same thing. For such an act to be approved, the US. Would have to get the approval of the security council, which it has no intention of doing.

So, once again, what is the purpose of this article?

It is to deceive the reader into believing that there is some justification for US air strikes against a sovereign nation that poses no threat to the US.

I think readers should seriously examine the facts and decide for themselves whether they think Robert Parry can be trusted or not. a reply to: stirling

From day 1 America said it would have nothing to do with an Iranian cooperative in Syria and Iraq. There is way too much bad blood between them for the US to do absolutely anything with them. Besides that, Iran is an extension of Russia, and look how that relationship is these days...

But most importantly, whoever drives out IS and helps prop up new leaders in Syria as well as stabilize Iraq is obviously going to try and position the people they want in those positions, or support the most plastic leaders. The whole reason the US has interest in that region is to topple Russian control in Syria, so taking up arms with Russia to defeat them doesn't really make sense.

Well? Isn't the point of it all, to draw Iran into the war and than midways into the war, turn against the Iranian regim, and reopen the US embassy in Tehran ? In order to come out as winners in the Iran hostage trauma 1979-81

With Iranian ground forces in Iraq already, it seems rather nessessary for some kind of liason.....
What happens when we have blue on blue air strikes?
Its not all that impossible with clear communications.......

In case some need some catching up to this point this short vid is based on a documentary ..well worth the watch as well as the documentary ....

a reply to: stirling

It'll end up with American troops going into Iraq and Syria. No co-operation from the local allies at all. Even the moderate jihadist group fighting Assad have a peace agreement with ISIS.

ISIS will come out with a few more movies.

America should not be so wound up. ISIS is thousands of miles away. What is America scared of?

The two American guys apparently beheaded were CIA so enemy combatants. Spying is a dangerous job.

But if America does not make friends with Assad I can only see gloom on the horizon for this venture.

Better to support the Kurds and leave everyone else to it.

a reply to: stirling

I know there has been a lot of work and diplomacy put into the current arrangment.
But, I wonder what the reactions would be if Obama were to say, "Well, if know one is willing to take care of their own front yard, why should we be all that worried about it. We can always just "nuke the winner later if they become a treat to us."

I know this won't happen but even to offer such a statement as a bluff could show us who is really on our side against these guys.