It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran says ready to talk with Washington on Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   
who better than Iran to stop all the violence in iraq? this is a offer that can't be refused. we could help out but all we'll hear from rice would be iran is the biggest threat or the central banker of terrorism....



TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran is willing to open a dialogue with the United States on Iraq, a senior official said on Thursday.

Iraqi Shi'ite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim had urged Shi'ite Iran to help resolve disputed issues in Iraq, apparently referring to U.S. accusations of meddling in the country, which is gripped by sectarian violence. Iran denies the charges.

"We will accept the proposal to help resolve the problems in Iraq and establish an independent government there as it was made by Mr. Hakim, a top Islamic leader in Iraq," said Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran Supreme National Security Council.


Reuters



[edit on 16/3/06 by JAK]

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Mehran]




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   
if bush accepts the deal which lets hope he "DOES" than this could be a good beginning for Iran-US relationship all over again. what do you guys think?

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Mehran]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I don't think it will go through. An unstable Iraq means more profits. Profits always trumps all other issues.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Yes, they want to talk to Washington in light of all the Iranian IED componants and Iranian nationals found in Iraq right now.

The US can only kill so many Iranian or Iranian backed terrorists in Iraq before the government of Iran wants to start getting involved openly.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Always spreading poopy on the parade skip.

This is good news man. Hooray for PEACE!

[edit on 16-3-2006 by DaFunk13]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
It would appear that there is no evidence that Iran is responsible for IEDs.

In fact if the tragedy of Northern Ireland is accurate it might even be that this all comes from a very surprising source.


Fulton worked as a painter by day, whitewashing the pocked walls of County Down, Northern Ireland. But secretly he made bombs, as part of a small team of demolitions experts who operated in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Some of their bombs blew up military targets. Others blew up civilians. Fulton could sometimes sabotage missions.
Often he could not.

By early 1993, Fulton and his team of bombers had found something less clumsy than wires to use in bomb and rocket detonation.
They rigged bombs with photo sensors, which they triggered by popping off camera flashes.
The results were lethal.
Trouble was, other lights—bright headlights, or a tourist’s disposable photo flash—could set off a bomb prematurely.

British intelligence services, in an effort to control IRA techniques through collaboration, secretly passed along a solution for the problem: a new technology—the infrared flash—that could be acquired only in America. Fulton’s handlers offered to facilitate an undercover IRA shopping mission to New York, and an MI5 officer flew across the Atlantic on the Concorde to make arrangements with American services in advance of Fulton’s arrival. “This was a terrorist organization operating in the United States,” Fulton told me, and it required cooperation. “It was a pretty big thing.”

Fulton traveled to New York with several thousand dollars, met secretly with his handlers, arranged the purchase, and returned to Northern Ireland, ready to create a deadly new weapon. The IRA embraced the innovation, and it worked so well that other terrorist groups soon took notice and adapted the infrared photo-sensor bomb to their own wars. Today, Iraqi insurgents wield it against British and American troops in Iraq.

by Matthew Teague
From Atlantic Unbound:

Interviews: "From Belfast With Love" (March 7, 2006)
Matthew Teague talks about "Double Blind," his extraordinary profile of a double agent who helped undermine the IRA.


www.theatlantic.com...

It should also be remembered that much of this so-called 'insurgence' is made up of members of the previous Iraqi military; they are hardly going to be strangers at this kind if thing.

There is also a quote from a US General -

By Bill Brubaker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 14, 2006; 4:30 PM

Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, said today he has no evidence the Iranian government has been sending military equipment and personnel into neighboring Iraq.

On Monday, President Bush suggested Iran was involved in making roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices, that are being used in Iraq. And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last week accused Iran of sending members of its Revolutionary Guard to conduct operations in Iraq.

Today, Pace, the top U.S. military official, was asked at a Pentagon news conference if he has proof that Iran's government is sponsoring these activities.

"I do not, sir," Pace said.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Anyhoo, rather than carp and criticise these moves I welcome the proposed dialogue, how can it be a bad thing?

As Churchill once famously said ' better jaw jaw than war war'.

Iran has been asking for it for some time - and I just hope the US responds positively.



[edit on 16-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]


JAK

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
A development:


US and Iran agree to Iraq talks

Iran and the US say they are prepared to hold bilateral talks on Iraq.

It would be the first public dialogue since the 1979 hostage crisis, after which the nations broke off ties, correspondents say.

Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Tehran would agree to talks to "resolve Iraqi issues" and help establish an independent government.


This has got to be good news.


Jak



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
if all talks go well than the tensions will decrease for sure. there might also be troops from iran sent to iraq to help out
.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Yeah, that is great news. I don't understand how this is going to lesson the situation over Iran though. Is this an intentional shift of focus?

Lol, "sure, give us another few months while we finalize this bomb, talking about how we're now going to help out Iraq. And psst...Let's just keep our little nuke issue on the back burner, k?"

Lawdy lawdy, I'd never make it as a politician.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
My question is this...
Does this mean that Bush has finally figured out that Suni islam is the main Insurgent force over there? (sunis are the minority)

I guess it would follow that he might figure out that Shia islam has been the "good guys" all along... of course, they are also the "big stick" majority... so that gives lots of reasons to be confident.

Iran is Shai islam..

Iraq would probably be better off under Shia Islam rule, due to tolerance of other forms of islam... much better than Saddams Iraq... But not freedom and democracy either...

Would we settle for that?

IMO I would much rather have forged freindships with Iran, and other Shia countries than the Terrorist Harboring State of Saudi Arabia...
but I guess the Saudis had more money at the time... too bad for the schmuck that made that choice...

But I still think that Iran is a moderate country with a extreme wacko leader... and would be much better off without him...


Sep

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
These talks came about as the result of the request of the leader of the biggest shia political party (Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim leader of Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq) requested that dialogue should commence between Iran and the US. I assume that although the two countries claim that this is only regarding the Iraq situation, the Iranian negotiators will use it to break into other issues, such the nuclear tensions. The offer would probably be, "leave our nuclear program alone and we will give you help in Iraq". If it isn't given to much publicity the negotiation would go much smoother.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
"sure, give us another few months while we finalize this bomb, talking about how we're now going to help out Iraq. And psst...Let's just keep our little nuke issue on the back burner, k?"


- Anyone can make any kind of allegation TA but even your own government's best estimates (informed by the failures in Iraq remember) reckon that even if Iran are trying to make a bomb they are between "several years" and "at least 10 years" away from it.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

news.bbc.co.uk...

This "few months"stuff is completely without any factual or informed basis at all it is mere prejudice, innuendo and unsubstantiated claim



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
This "few months"stuff is completely without any factual or informed basis at all it is mere prejudice, innuendo and unsubstantiated claim


Well, it was said in jest to illustrate a point. But since ya put it that way, aight...

Missiles sold to China and Iran

From www.globalsecurity.org...

Piskun told the paper that none of the 18 X-55 cruise missiles (also known as Kh-55 or AS-15) was exported with the nuclear warheads they were designed to carry.


Now with all your substantiated claims, I want you to prove to me that the ones sold did not contain nukes. And don't bother quoting from the rest of that article, as I already know what is says. But has the IAEA been allowed in to inspect these?

The point is, Iran may already have nukes, and this is just one example of how that could be. The bottom line is announcing it publicly is as good as starting a war with Israel, or even the US, and they know it. All the best estimates in the world are not going to tell us what resides in the covert, underground facilities they have built. And without thorough IAEA inspections and unfettered access, you can believe what you want to, and I'll believe what I want to, thank you very much.

My point still stands in the context in which it was meant.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Now with all your substantiated claims, I want you to prove to me that the ones sold did not contain nukes.


- You are just making that part up.

The very article you refer to specifically states the missiles were ancient (1991 vintage), incomplete, poorly maintained and were not in themselves weapons (ie no warheads)


But has the IAEA been allowed in to inspect these?


- Ever since the talking stopped that is unlikely.

.....but we do know where they did go and what they did look at (ie in the end to every single one of the big sites people claimed were off-limits for suspicious reasons)


The point is, Iran may already have nukes, and this is just one example of how that could be.


- Oh come on, this 'example' is stretching a point so thinly on the basis that until you see the actual things they just - somehow - might.

When you can find Ukrainians showing they sent them packed off with warheads etc then you can make such claims.

But the Ukraine is hardly liable to be the source of such things anyway seeing as how thanks to the tensions between them and Russia they are certain to be holding what they have/had and not just selling it off to a country that has them 'within missile range' too.

Anyone can play that game, you might as well simply claim Pakistan gave Iran the bomb months ago........in which case stop worrying, they have it already, eh?

We're all entitled to our opinions and take on this but I think (particularly after the counter-productive travesty that is/was Iraq) that we are entitled to ask a hell of a lot more questions on Iran.
Simply going along with fears and suspicions which have very little (or no) 'grounding' in fact at all just isn't good enough IMO, been there ain't doing that again.

To take such a momentous step as to attack another nation or go to war on the basis of half arsed implications really isn't on IMO.

I'm not a pacifist but I am very anti-war.


[edit on 16-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- You are just making that part up.

The very article you refer to specifically states the missiles were ancient (1991 vintage), incomplete, poorly maintanied and were not in themselves weapons (ie no warheads)


lol, yeah but how conveniently you leave this part out:

In 2000 Russian national Oleg Orlov and a Ukrainian partner identified as E.V. Shilenko exported 20 Kh55 cruise missiles through a fake contract and end-user certificate with Russia's state-run arms dealer and with a firm called Progress, a subsidiary company of Ukrspetseksport -- Ukraine's arms export agency. Orlov was detained 13 July 2004 in the Czech Republic, and as of early 2005 an extradition procedure was under way to return him to Ukraine for prosecution. Orlov and his partners were suspected of providing Iran with maintenance equipment and technicians to service the Kh-55 missiles.


The bottom line is here that you can't prove they aren't nukes no more than I can prove they are.


- Oh come on, this 'example' is stretching a point so thinly on the basis that until you see the actual things they just - somehow - might.


Might works both ways, and IMO, there's gotta be a reason for all the stalling, and all the in-outs from the NPT..


When you can find Ukrainians showing they sent them packed off with warheads etc then you can make such claims.


And when you gain unfettered access into their off limit sites, let us know. I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to know what they're hiding.


But the Ukraine is hardly liable to be the source of such things anyway seeing as how thanks to the tensions between them and Russia they are certain to be holding what they have/had and not just selling it off to a country that has them 'within missile range' too.


What they might be holding onto because of tensions with Russia now has no bearing on what may have already gone out the door covertly.


Anyone can play that game, you might as well simply claim Pakistan gave Iran the bomb months ago........in which case stop worrying, they have it already, eh?


You know, I'll bet North Korea had to think long and hard before they were finally pressured into divulging the "truth." And to this day, does anyone really know for sure?

The bottom line here is that as long as there is secrecy, suspicion will reign. There are good reasons to suspect Iran, and there are good reasons not to. If it was clearly one way or the other, I never would have made the comment that provoked your comment in the first place. But as it stands, I have every right to make the comment I did, as you did yours. Wanna keep at this? or move on?

[edit on 16-3-2006 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
if all talks go well than the tensions will decrease for sure. there might also be troops from iran sent to iraq to help out
.



that's just what Iraq needs. troops from Iran. that will go over like a fart in church or mosque



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Talking is better than fighting.. but i really doubt any construvtive will appear from theese talks.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Talks are not going to be about Iran's nuclear policy folks.

Rice Says Any Talks With Iran `Limited' to Issues About Iraq -Bloomberg
Iran says nuclear program not negotiable -Khaleej Times
Iran talks to be limited to Iraq war, Rice says -International Herald Tribune




posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
lol, yeah but how conveniently you leave this part out......

......The bottom line is here that you can't prove they aren't nukes no more than I can prove they are.


- You seem to cherry pick this report yourself.

The report at no point talks about any warheads going with the missiles in fact it makes plain the missiles are not a weapon in themselves.
It also explicitly states they may well be training rounds and not live rounds at all.

But if you want to imagine different and really think a few missile technicians could be mistaken for the nuclear technicians that your theory requires and must involve then fine, no-one would have noticed and they have had nuclear weapons for ages.

So what are you - or anyone else - so worried about then?

Whilst I can't disprove this theory I can say it lacks credibility, if not imagination.


Might works both ways, and IMO, there's gotta be a reason for all the stalling, and all the in-outs from the NPT.


- I agree.
How about they exist in a world where 'certain parties' have been hostile to them for decades (and yes, they back in return.....but before getting too carried away with the idea they were hostile back just check out the balance of power between them and the US/Israel), who have designs on their resources, who are just waiting the chance to pursue a strategy of taking control of those resources and that they don't actually have anything beyond what they've claimed?


And when you gain unfettered access into their off limit sites, let us know. I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to know what they're hiding.


- Well that is the point about what has just happened.
We did have 24/7 monitoring, we did have on the spot inspections and they had just agreed to the 'go anywhere at anytime' inspection regime some seemed to believe so important.
(all of which go way beyond the terms of the NPT.......and you certainly wouldn't find 'certain other parties' agreeing to anything like a similar regime).


What they might be holding onto because of tensions with Russia now has no bearing on what may have already gone out the door covertly.


- Yeah that might be so except you seem to want to believe nuclear expertise went with them (a claim no-one else is making, which if half as credible as you seem to think surely would be shouted from the rooftops?).

In any event, particularly since the 'orange revolution', the Ukrainians would simply say so).

In any event nuclear expertise is something hardly in abundant supply the whole world over nevermind in a place like the Ukraine.
Covert movement wouldn't be so easy (especially in a society still not fully emerged from it's former 'closed' state).

You'll note the report also mentions the Russians are supposed to have helped out, do you imagine Putin either doesn't know what happened or just blithely put his own country at this terrible risk (some people seem determined to imagine it would be)?

I'd also just leave this story with an observation that if this is meant to prove anything it fails abysmally.
Talk about 'thin'.


You know, I'll bet North Korea had to think long and hard before they were finally pressured into divulging the "truth." And to this day, does anyone really know for sure?


- Nobody knows if North Korea has nuclear weapons; the only so-called 'proof' is a claim they themselves made - which in turn was probably made for very obvious reasons.

IMO much of all of this is simply all about a 'need' for enemies.
'We' don't have a vast and hugely armed USSR anymore so inflating little countries like Iraq or Iran or Syria or North Korea to be the next world threat takes some doing.
WMDs are the preferred route and when the target country has had WMDs for manyt years and not actually attacked anyone with them then a claim about nuclear weapons seems just the thing.


The bottom line here is that as long as there is secrecy, suspicion will reign.


- That I will agree with, but then that is hardly a one-sided issue and to start talking like that is anathema to those 'certain parties', right?


There are good reasons to suspect Iran, and there are good reasons not to. If it was clearly one way or the other, I never would have made the comment that provoked your comment in the first place. But as it stands, I have every right to make the comment I did, as you did yours. Wanna keep at this? or move on?


- Again I do not (and have not, ever) questioned anyone's right to see this differently.

As you say this could go on and on (if either of us cared to do it......I suspect not though).

All I am trying to do is chew it over and put forward some of the contrary information that is out there because IMO the 'debate' on this topic here on ATS is almost always a hell of a one-sided one and the frequently seen casual attitude to war is simply horrible.

Are people here to debate and rake over the events or just make curt statements at each other?

I do think it proper to comment when people spin the information and leave pertinent facts out.
For instance the automatic equation of a nuclear program with nuclear weapons as if they were always one and the same or the expectation that 'enrichment' has one meaning (you'll find on the BBC link I gave that it talks about 'low enriched uranium' and that that is how the Iranian facilities are set up as well as thing like the number of centrifuges they have etc etc), especially when it comes in the context of what happened in Iraq and is quite clearly being used to get people used to the idea of a possible coming conflict with Iran.

(and even breaking previous taboos like this criminally insane idea to use nuclear weapons even when they know the other side will not use them or even simply can not because they have not got them)

We seem to be at the absurd point where people claim to be worried about a war so they need a war to make the world safe and sort it all out!

(which even if they had or have nuclear weaponry I don't see as justified anyway; I grew up with nuclear deterrence and I see no sane and earthly reason why it would not prevail in the ME between Israel and Iran were Iran to have nuclear weapons.

But then again, now that we know Israel has submarine launched nuclear weapons the idea some had that a nuclear armed Iran could 'knock out' Israel's nuclear retaliatory capacity in a sneak long range missile attack is redundant and false.

It may well be things start to calm down now.......which might be indicated by the first proper contacts - how ever Rice wants to distance herself from the idea and spin it - since 1979.
Here's hoping.)


[edit on 17-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- You seem to cherry pick this report yourself.


Well, you were so hell bent it seemed on having me provide a legitimate basis for arguing that particular point, and trying to make it seem like I had no basis at all, what was I supposed to do? Just shut up and let you run all over me? No, there is legitimate basis for my point, and pulling that report was just an example of how it could be that Iran has acquired what it needs. Read on.


The report at no point talks about any warheads going with the missiles in fact it makes plain the missiles are not a weapon in themselves.
It also explicitly states they may well be training rounds and not live rounds at all.

But if you want to imagine different and really think a few missile technicians could be mistaken for the nuclear technicians that your theory requires and must involve then fine, no-one would have noticed and they have had nuclear weapons for ages.

So what are you - or anyone else - so worried about then?


The mere fact that this was done in the way it was, covertly, illustrates a couple of things:
1) that both Iran and China had the will to acquire weapons covertly
2) that both Iran and China had at least one conduit to do so

Also, it seems strange to me that they would go to the trouble of getting maintenance techs in for training rounds. If as the article points out these may have been used for reverse engineering, why in the world would they need to be serviced?


Whilst I can't disprove this theory I can say it lacks credibility, if not imagination.


Well, my imagination is not what's important here, and your insult is taken with the sme grain of salt with which it was issued. You can't disprove the theory, and neither can the US or Israel, who stand concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions enough to threaten military strikes. I suppose you better call them and tell them that their suspicions are completely unfounded, and that their imaginations are running away with them as well.


How about they exist in a world where 'certain parties' have been hostile to them for decades (and yes, they back in return.....but before getting too carried away with the idea they were hostile back just check out the balance of power between them and the US/Israel), who have designs on their resources, who are just waiting the chance to pursue a strategy of taking control of those resources and that they don't actually have anything beyond what they've claimed?


If the US and Israel felt that Iran didn't have anything else beyond that which they claimed, we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we. And if we went solely upon that which is known, and that which is claimed, your statement above lacks the same credibility and imagination for which I stand accused.


In any event nuclear expertise is something hardly in abundant supply the whole world over nevermind in a place like the Ukraine.
Covert movement wouldn't be so easy (especially in a society still not fully emerged from it's former 'closed' state).


The abundance of nuclear expertise is not at issue, and you are really starting to reach for straws, I suspect because because you're running out of arguing points. And your statement about covert movement is really irrelevant considering the mere fact that this missile transaction took place, covertly, and is documentented. To what degree however, can be easily cooked.


You'll note the report also mentions the Russians are supposed to have helped out, do you imagine Putin either doesn't know what happened or just blithely put his own country at this terrible risk (some people seem determined to imagine it would be)?


This statement illustrates your ignorance of the fact that soviet corruption at the highest levels of government is no secret, and under those very conditions, given the propensity of the corrupt involved, it may be very likely that many other deals took place, without presidential knowledge and completely covertly. The extent of which is yet to be, and may never be completely known. Another case to illustrate this is the supposed mini suitcase nukes of which all have still not yet been recovered. Could some of those ended up in Iranian hands?


I'd also just leave this story with an observation that if this is meant to prove anything it fails abysmally.
Talk about 'thin'.


Again, if this fails so abymally, then what are the US and Israel so concerned about? I urge you to not disregard their concern so readily. I also urge you to discuss this without such needless, pointed remarks. Note that had your statements taken on a tone of cooperative discussion rather than pointed remarks like this from the beginning, this drama factor that you so wish to introduce would not be coming back to bite you in the ass.


Are people here to debate and rake over the events or just make curt statements at each other?


Please see the statement above that.


I do think it proper to comment when people spin the information and leave pertinent facts out.


Absolutely. But how you subsequently comment to the poster defines more than just your knowledge of a subject. The line between cooperative discussion and personal attack, however blurred, does not go unnoticed by the astute here at ATS. It's one reason I love the place, and tend to converse with those that understand the meaning of cooperative discussion.


For instance the automatic equation of a nuclear program with nuclear weapons as if they were always one and the same or the expectation that 'enrichment' has one meaning (you'll find on the BBC link I gave that it talks about 'low enriched uranium' and that that is how the Iranian facilities are set up as well as thing like the number of centrifuges they have etc etc), especially when it comes in the context of what happened in Iraq and is quite clearly being used to get people used to the idea of a possible coming conflict with Iran.


Well, I can only speak for myself on this and say that I realize the difference. There is a point at which enrichment crosses the line and paves he way to weaponry, and any country that crosses that line has to know that the world is watching, and will be concerned. With the sheer amount of lives at stake with such weapons, they HAVE to be.


...I grew up with nuclear deterrence and I see no sane and earthly reason why it would not prevail in the ME between Israel and Iran were Iran to have nuclear weapons.


That is my prevailing argument as well, in addition to others, and given the circumstances I believe that if peace is to prevail, Iran will eventually end up with them. Israel, however, views this differently, and I for one can comprehend their viewpoint given the history of Iran's ferocity towards them, Israel's size, geographic location, and other things. It's a no win situation as long as Iran, however covertly, seeks and acts to acquire nuclear weapons.


But then again, now that we know Israel has submarine launched nuclear weapons the idea some had that a nuclear armed Iran could 'knock out' Israel's nuclear retaliatory capacity in a sneak long range missile attack is redundant and false.


If chosen at the proper moment, with correct intelligence, it still might be possible, but generally I agree.


It may well be things start to calm down now.......which might be indicated by the first proper contacts - how ever Rice wants to distance herself from the idea and spin it - since 1979.
Here's hoping.)


My hopes are with yours. Maybe by some stroke of luck these will combine with others' hopes and actions, and we can live a little longer without starting WW3.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join