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.

 

U.S.: Iranian support for militias in Iraq rising

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   

U.S.: Iranian support for militias in Iraq rising


news.yahoo.com

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iranian support for militias who are destabilizing Iraq has risen since the United States and Iran held a breakthrough round of talks in Baghdad in May, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq said on Tuesday.

"What we have been seeing on the ground over the last couple of months represents an escalation, not a de-escalation," Ryan Crocker told a news conference after holding a second round of talks with his Iranian counterpart on Iraq's worsening security.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
rssfeeds.usatoday.com
feeds.cbsnews.com
www.nytimes.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
U.S., Iran to discuss chaos in Iraq Again?
21 Days to Open the Gates of Hell

[edit on 24-7-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
On one hand the Bush administration has shown a trend of laying blame on Iran for the current "destabilized" condition in Iraq, yet on the other, they are having high level talks with the Iranians over these very issues, indeed asking in a way for Iranian assistance in finding solutions for stabilizing Iraq.

How can they do both, and solve anything?

Why bother talking with Iran, if they are supporting the violence, and militias in Iraq?

Desperate times, require desperate measures?

If the Iranians are both helping the U.S. work on plans for possible solutions aimed at easing the chaos in Iraq, and supporting these "militias" who by most accounts are causing a great deal of that chaos, what can they expect in the future?

More of the same?

Diplomacy, policies, and military strategies in Iraq, and the Middle East seem to make less sense as time goes by. Then again, little has made sense from the beginning of this Iraq war front in the war on Terror.

Maybe the Bush administration is looking for a way out, hell maybe they can simply hand over all of the crisis in Iraq to the Iranians, while the U.S. prepares and plans for an invasion of Iran?


news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
More related breaking news:

U.S. to Set Up Regional Security Subcommittee With Iran and Iraq


www.foxnews.com

BAGHDAD — The United States, Iran and Iraq have agreed to set up a security subcommittee to carry forward talks on restoring stability in Iraq, the U.S. envoy said Tuesday at the end of a second round of groundbreaking talks with his Iranian counterpart.

"We discussed ways forward, and one of the issues we discussed was the formation of a security subcommittee that would address at an expert or technical level some issues relating to security, be that support for violent militias, Al Qaeda or border security," Ambassador Ryan Crocker said after the meeting that included lunch and spanned nearly seven hours.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Interesting.

By the U.S. having these talks with Iran, could they be enraging the Sunni population of Iraq?

Do they have no voice in these "talks"?

Will this insanity ever end?



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Meanwhile, President Bush was just moments ago giving a televised speech which he claims that Al Qaeda is the number one enemy of the Iraqi people, and the number one enemy of the American people.

So, I suppose the Shi'ite government and leadership of Iran can be helpful in the cause of defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq?

So many enemies all in one place, we can't leave, the war must go on.

But isn't the majority of Al Qaeda and its top leaders in the northern tribal regions of Pakistan?

If Al Qaeda is number one enemy for Iraqis and Americans, why are we not pursuing them where we know they are?



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
The US presence there destabilizes Iraq.

The Sunni presence destabilizes.

The Shiite presence destabilizes.

Heck... a seagull could spark a civil war over there by crapping too close to someone.



All this is, is the US administration looking for someone to blame.

The whole war plays out like a comedy sketch:

Man walks into delicate china store.
Man knocks over expensive display.
Man grabs old lady, throws her through another display, and makes her confess for his mistake.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I was watching the news the other day and saw a report on how the US is altering its approach to the way it is dealing with sectarian violence.

The long and the short is the strategy is now moving towards direct negotiation with the militia leaders and using their (primarily Shiite according to the report) influence to try and stabilize Iraq.

No I disagree with Bush on almost every level and don't trust him as far as i could throw him, but is it POSSIBLE that this is an earnest attempt to try and make things better?

I am torn because on the one hand all of the insurgency are now being labeled "AL Qaeda", which are primarily the Sunni and Shia factions. The US "does not negotiate with terrorists" so how can anything positive come to pass. Also, if iam not mistaken, Iran supports (allegedly) the Shia factions in Iraq. So that doesn't make any sense.

On the OTHER hand, the optimist in me would like to think we are beginning to think outside of the box in Iraq by trying to influence the problem (the militias) to find some common ground and move forward with some REAL progress.

Who knows...



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
More News:

Bush says military needs time to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq


www.latimes.com

WASHINGTON -- President Bush today made an impassioned plea for giving military leaders time to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq.

At an Air Force base in Charleston, S.C., Bush sought to rebut arguments from Democratic congressional leaders that Al Qaeda in Iraq is not an extension of the broader war on terrorism.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Video of the speech available on the above source page.

Also another breaking news report:

Commanders plan for Iraq presence through 2009

Regardless who they are trying to blame, Iran, Al Qaeda, mysterious insurgency, etc. The Bush administration's inability to see that the U.S. forces in Iraq are perhaps the most destabilizing force there is not surprising at all.

It looks like the Bush administration plans on a continued United States military occupation of Iraq for a very long time.

How long can Bush stay in power? How far will he go to assure that the United States remains in force in the Middle East?



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
A more analytical news report takes a deeper look at the meeting, and particularly the alleged Iranian support of "militias"...

U.S. and Iranian envoys to Iraq trade barbs


www.latimes.com

BAGHDAD -- U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker expressed frustration after rare face-to-face talks with his Iranian counterpart today, saying Iranian meddling in Iraq had increased since their first encounter.

"The fact is, as we made very clear in today's talks, that over the roughly two months we have actually seen militia-related activities that can be attributed to Iranian support go up and not down," Crocker said at a news briefing.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Much more in the above full article.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   
With all these recent articles detailing Iran's involvement in Iraq,
and ominous headlines of al-Qaeda flourishing in Iraq while planning
attacks on American soil, are we just waiting for another catalyzing event?

What's going to happen when Congress is
on vacation for the whole month of August..?

Is there a silence before this storm?

Drumbeats maybe?



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
I do not see the committee's decision to create a sub-comittee to come up with ways to stabilize Iraq as a positive thing.
Wernt they charged with coming up with ways? why are they handing it off to secondary advisors, when the core committee couldnt find ways?

This meeting didnt go smoothly, and Iraq was not the issue primarily discussed, to which the public are being led to believe.

The Iranian and American counter-parts traded some fired up words with each other, and yes Iran probably ARE supporting the insurgency.

But for crying out loud, Both their neighbours have been invaded and occupied, and they are standing front and centre against the occupying nation who's staring them down..
Majority of world knows that the US government lied to enter Iraq, and are lying continuously to the public, so im sure Iran know that the people of the world do not back the US occupation of Iraq too..

Does the US honestly expect Iran to stop its actions in Iraq and allow America to create a very dominating foothold over the ME?
Seriously?

The officials at the meeting, and the President know, full well that no matter what they say, do or threaten.. that Iran will assist the insurgency.
So all this talking going on, is a stage show for us, the sheep.

So long as it APPEARS that the US is attempting to negotiate with Iran for peace in Iraq they have the moral high ground when Iran refuses to assist in the illegial-militaristic-occupation of their neighbour.....

The harder we look at Iran, and pressure them.. the more they are going to 'want' nuclear weapons, and desire to destabilize the American occupation of Iraq.. quite simply because they only have 2 choices.

1. Accept american power in the ME, dictating and directing ME issues

or

2. Stand up for your national pride, and defend your people against a foreign agressor.

Anyone who declares Iran an outlaw regime simply because they are 'helping' Iraqi's kill the foreign occupier are, sorry to say... cowards.

Wouldnt you help Canada, should they be invaded by a foreign army?
likewise,
How would you respond when that foreign army demands u stop helping the canadians, at risk of facing the consequences? Would you pucker up and simply allow this foreign army to do as it pleases???

[edit on 25-7-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz


Will this insanity ever end?


Not without an INSANE ending, in short ... MORE WAR! there seems to be no way of turning the tides away from military action, the "heated" talks today yielded no promise of understanding on ethier side. If these talks fail, it could be used as another reason for military action by the Bush administration. It seems that unseen forces are pulling very strong in that direction.




top topics



 
2

log in

join