Support NeoGAF

[dripdripsplash]

Iran is ready to join international action against jihadists in Iraq provided the West lifts crippling sanctions, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Thursday.
His comments followed a call by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius on Wednesday for all countries in the region, including Iran, to join the fight against Islamic State (IS) fighters who have seized swathes of Iraq as well as neighbouring Syria.

"If we agree to do something in Iraq, the other side of the negotiations should do something in return," the official IRNA news agency quoted Zarif as saying.

"All the sanctions that are related to Iran's nuclear programme should be lifted," he said.

It is the first time that Iran has explicitly linked its readiness to work with the West in Iraq with a lifting of the crippling EU and US sanctions imposed over its nuclear programme.

Those sanctions are the subject of ongoing talks between Tehran and the major powers that are due to resume before the opening of the UN General Assembly next month.

In return for lifting the sanctions, the Western powers are demanding that Iran sharply rein in its nuclear programme to ally international concerns about its ambitions as part of a comprehensive deal they are seeking to strike by November.

The Iranian foreign ministry confirmed on Wednesday that discussions were under way with several European governments about the possibility of joint action against IS in Iraq.

Zarif said tough negotiations were still under way over what role Iran might play in Iraq and what the reward might be for its cooperation.

"It is still not clear what we have to do in Iraq and what they have to do in return," the Mehr news agency quoted the Iranian foreign minister as saying.

"And that's exactly the difficult part."

Iranian and US officials discussed the jihadists' lightning offensive in Iraq in June on the sidelines of nuclear talks with the major powers but both sides ruled out joint military action at the time.

Tehran and Washington have had no diplomatic relations since the aftermath of the Islamic Revolution of 1979, although they have had contacts over Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/iran...-lifts-nuclear-sanctions-2014-8#ixzz3B3xUUjcV

Interesting. What do you think ?

Edit :

Thank you Speculawyer

The whole op may be false as the statements from the Iranians was something else entirely and was mis translated.

Apparently this whole story may be a Three's Company episode . .


A defiant statement by the Iranian Foreign Minister linking cooperation against ISIS in Iraq to sanctions relief might actually be a giant, lost-in-translation misunderstanding, the State Department said today.

According to state-run media, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that Iran would help the West with the crisis in Iraq if the West lifts sanctions – a report that has made its way into English-speaking media.

"If we agree to do something in Iraq, the other side of the negotiations should do something in return,” Zarif is quoted as saying. “"All the sanctions that are related to Iran's nuclear program should be lifted,” he added.

But State Department translators believe Zarif was actually referring to “Arak,” the nuclear reactor in Iran that shares the same pronunciation as “Iraq,” the country.

“We’ve looked at the language a couple of times, actually, and think he was not linking, in that specific quote, fighting ISIS in Iraq to lifting of Western sanctions. He was talking about making progress on Arak, the nuclear facility, to lifting of Western sanctions. Our Farsi speakers have taken a bunch of looks at it and think that he was referring to that. I’ll let him speak for himself, and if he wants to clarify and disagree with me -- I am not a Farsi speaker,” a State Department spokeswoman said.

“It’s almost unbelievable,” she added.
http://news.yahoo.com/unbelievable-w...opstories.html

 

[kingkitty]

I guess the US isn't gonna get Iran's help.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Seems like tackling IS would be more in Iran's immediate interests than the US's.

I get what they are trying to do, but it seems silly to play this game right now. They are a much bigger threat to Iran than the US...

 

[Cloud Strife]

Okay Iran. You realize this situation will demand your attention regardless right? Silly.

 

[ICKE]

That would break any political relations with Saudi-Arabia, other neighboring countries, would likely lead to an an arms race and further destabilize the region (unlikely as it may seem looking at the situation now). You should have picked a better side decades ago, now it is just too late.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Seems like tackling IS would be more in Iran's immediate interests than the US's.

I get what they are trying to do, but it seems silly to play this game right now. They are a much bigger threat to Iran than the US...

IS are not a threat to Iran. IS would be completely unable to cope with a professional, well-trained military like Iran has. It's definitely in Iran's interests to make this offer.

 

[Aeriscloud]

Never gonna happen.

 

[shadyspace]

Is Iran the most modernized nation in the middle east?

 

[dripdripsplash]

That would break any political relations with Saudi-Arabia, other neighboring countries, would likely lead to an an arms race and further destabilize the region (unlikely as it may seem looking at the situation now). You should have picked a better side decades ago, now it is just too late.

Why would it break relations with Saudi Arabia ? Relations between SA and Iran is already crap as far as I know.

Is Iran the most modernized nation in the middle east?

In terms of what ? Army ? Infrastructure ? Technology level ? Education ?

 

[Brakke]

Week uhhh. Thanks and all but hmmm no thanks, guys.

 

[davepoobond]

Sounds like they want to get something for what they're already going to have to do

 

[ComputerMKII]

Is Iran the most modernized nation in the middle east?

Not while Dubai stays in the middle east

 

[Ourobolus]

They don't have a leg to stand on. Iran is going to have to deal with this sooner or later anyway.

 

[The Internet]

IS are not a threat to Iran. IS would be completely unable to cope with a professional, well-trained military like Iran has. It's definitely in Iran's interests to make this offer.

Eaxactly, Iran would fuck the IS up.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Is Iran the most modernized nation in the middle east?

Israel is.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

It should be the other way around if anything. Iran should be desperate for the US to get rid of ISIS before they come knocking at their door.

I understand Iran has a good military but still, why risk it.

 

[speculawyer]

US To Iran: We'll Help YOU Against ISIS If You stop enriching Uranium to near Nuclear weapons grade

 

[Cloud Strife]

US To Iran: We'll Help YOU Against ISIS If You stop enriching Uranium Nuclear weapons grade

Spot on.

 

[Jenov]

US To Iran: We'll Help YOU Against ISIS If You stop enriching Uranium to near Nuclear weapons grade

bingo

 

[lazygecko]

Yeah, they'll be doing something regardless sooner or later.

Iran already collaborated with the US over mutual interests in Afghanistan.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It should be the other way around if anything. Iran should be desperate for the US to get rid of ISIS before they come knocking at their door.

I understand Iran has a good military but still, why risk it.

Because IS are not threatening. They've only made progress in one country wrecked by civil war and another in which a third of the army deserted. They have only just reached 10,000 in size, have no air support, only very limited supplies of heavy weaponry, no formal training, no real way to establish a supply train to hold large hostile areas, and in general would get absolutely fucked up by Iran if Iran chose to do so.

Also, everyone who said bingo /spot on to speculawyer's post literally knows nothing about the current situation in the Middle East.

 

[Lonewolf_92]

Because IS are not threatening. They've only made progress in one country wrecked by civil war and another in which a third of the army deserted. They have only just reached 10,000 in size, have no air support, only very limited supplies of heavy weaponry, no formal training, no real way to establish a supply train to hold large hostile areas, and in general would get absolutely fucked up by Iran if Iran chose to do so.

Also, everyone who said bingo /spot on to speculawyer's post literally knows nothing about the current situation in the Middle East.

Yep, in a IS vs. Iran fight Iran wins 100% of the time. This is just bartering though, I highly doubt Iran expects to get all of that, it's just the initial offer.

 

[Frosty Droid]

American political scientist Kenneth Waltz believes the U.S. should lift sanctions completely and let Iran develop nuclear weapons. That will help balance out Israel's nuclear arsenal and create a stability-instability paradox, which would bring relative peace to the Middle East...in theory.

From Foreign Affairs:

One reason the danger of a nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated is that the debate surrounding it has been distorted by misplaced worries and fundamental misunderstandings of how states generally behave in the international system. The first prominent concern, which undergirds many others, is that the Iranian regime is innately irrational. Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, Iranian policy is made not by "mad mullahs" but by perfectly sane ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other leaders. Although Iran's leaders indulge in inflammatory and hateful rhetoric, they show no propensity for self-destruction. It would be a grave error for policymakers in the United States and Israel to assume otherwise.

Maybe the US can test the theory and receive assistance in combating ISIS at the same time. What could go wrong?

 

[DarkKyo]

Is Iran the most modernized nation in the middle east?

In a way it seems like one of the most progressive, even if that's not saying much.

 

[Paches]

I guess the sanctions worked then.

Thanks Obama.

 

[xbhaskarx]

US To Iran: We'll Help YOU Against ISIS If You stop enriching Uranium to near Nuclear weapons grade

Is Iran really pretending like they don't mind if ISIS commits mass murder against Shia civilians or establishes a caliphate right next to them?

 

[Gorger]

Wait a minute... IS fanatics are slaughtering innocent Muslims, Christians, secularists and Yezidi in Syria and Iraq while further turning the middle east into a deeper cesspool of violence, chaos and suffering, and still Iran must hold US at ransom with demands before they will come to the aid of these poor people? There is simply no time for this, we are witnessing a genocide now and the world can't idle passively with political bickering while all these people are dying at the hands of IS.

What if US did the same, and told Iran that they would only carry out airstrikes on IS if they promised to uphold the ban on enriching uranium. It just doesn't make any sense...

This was supposed to be the perfect opportunity for Iran and USA to temporarily put a hold on past grievances while working together against a common enemy that is threatening middle east to its core.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

American political scientist Kenneth Waltz believes the U.S. should lift sanctions completely and let Iran develop nuclear weapons. That will help balance out Israel's nuclear arsenal and create a stability-instability paradox, which would bring relative peace to the Middle East...in theory.

From Foreign Affairs:


Maybe the US can test the theory and receive assistance in combating ISIS at the same time. What could go wrong?

That's fucking insane.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Wait a minute... IS fanatics are slaughtering innocent Muslims, Christians, secularists and Yezidi in Syria and Iraq while further turning the middle east into a deeper cesspool of violence, chaos and suffering, and still Iran must hold US at ransom with demands before they will come to the aid of these poor people? There is simply no time for this, we are witnessing a genocide now and the world can't idle passively with political bickering while all these people are dying at the hands of IS.

What if US did the same, and told Iran that they would only carry out airstrikes on IS if they promised to uphold the ban on enriching uranium. It just doesn't make any sense...

This was supposed to be the perfect opportunity for Iran and USA to temporarily put a hold on past grievances while working together against a common enemy that is threatening middle east to its core.

Not any different how the US engages in conflict, there must be a tangible benefit to be seen before sending troops out to a foreign country and/or battlefield.

 

[Coriolanus]

This was supposed to be the perfect opportunity for Iran and USA to temporarily put a hold on past grievances while working together against a common enemy that is threatening middle east to its core.

Which would entail lifting the sanctions.

Can't quite see a negative to this. Oh no, Iran will get nukes quicker, the horror! Place is nowhere near half as cray as NK, and even those asshats know that if they ever actually drop a nuke on another nation, they'll be reduced to cinders in seconds. Heck, even Pakistan has nukes.

Do we have reason to believe that Iran is not a rational actor?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Sneaky Iran.
No dice, I'm guessing the US would sooner invade Iraq/Syria than give Iran nukes.

 

[Gorger]

In a way it seems like one of the most progressive, even if that's not saying much.

I just saw a youtube video done by ex-muslims of Britain who found out that Iran was the middle eastern/ north African muslim country with most google searches for "Richard Dawkins". It is no secret that there is a young generation growing in Iran like wildfire screaming for democracy, secularism and human rights I think we will see big changes in Iran in the decades to come. .

 

[Hackworth]

Israel's gonna be mad if anyone else gets nukes tho.

 

[linsivvi]

Wait a minute... IS fanatics are slaughtering innocent Muslims, Christians, secularists and Yezidi in Syria and Iraq while further turning the middle east into a deeper cesspool of violence, chaos and suffering, and still Iran must hold US at ransom with demands before they will come to the aid of these poor people? There is simply no time for this, we are witnessing a genocide now and the world can't idle passively with political bickering while all these people are dying at the hands of IS.

What if US did the same, and told Iran that they would only carry out airstrikes on IS if they promised to uphold the ban on enriching uranium. It just doesn't make any sense...

This was supposed to be the perfect opportunity for Iran and USA to temporarily put a hold on past grievances while working together against a common enemy that is threatening middle east to its core.

How are they holding the US at ransom when they are the one being sanctioned? Military actions cost a ton of money, and sanctions directly affect the economy of a country.

 

[Ether_Snake]

As if the US will let Iran get involved anyway. They aren't working with Assad in Syria, why would they work with Terhan in Iraq?

 

[Jacob]

That's fucking insane.

Waltz puts a lot of emphasis on the supposed rationality of states (it's something of an article of faith in his school of international relations theory). I don't entirely agree with that viewpoint in general. However, we know Iran and can predict them a lot better than we can ISIS. They also have such a thing as moderates and an opposition, and while these groups are often marginalized and oppressed, they're not being executed en masse like is happening in ISIS-controlled territories. If I had to pick which entity I would rather deal with in the long term, it would definitely be Iran.

That's not to say I want to encourage a nuclear showdown between Iran and Israel, but we're going to need more active allies in the region than just the Kurds if we're serious about turning back ISIS.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Sneaky Iran.
No dice, I'm guessing the US would sooner invade Iraq/Syria than give Iran nukes.

I'm not actually convinced this is true from the point of the United States' administration. Iran wants nukes because Saudi Arabia doesn't have them and it gives them more leverage over minor Persian Gulf nations deciding whether Iran or Saudi Arabia is a better nation to have backing you - to a lesser extent it wants them because it is involved in a metaphorical penis size competition with Israel, but that's probably not as large a factor. It doesn't want them to use them - Iran is not run by madmen, and understands that if it launched nuclear weapons, the United States would respond. Giving Iran nuclear weapons doesn't really affect the United States' objectives in the Middle East, and possibly actually improves them insofar as it undermines Saudi wahhabism in the name of Iranian clericalism. I think the main reason the United States hasn't softened the sanctions already is domestic - nobody wants to be seen as being soft on Iran come election night.

 

[linsivvi]

I'm not actually convinced this is true from the point of the United States' administration. Iran wants nukes because Saudi Arabia doesn't have them and it gives them more leverage over minor Persian Gulf nations deciding whether Iran or Saudi Arabia is a better nation to have backing you - to a lesser extent it wants them because it is involved in a metaphorical penis size competition with Israel, but that's probably not as large a factor. It doesn't want them to use them - Iran is not run by madmen, and understands that if it launched nuclear weapons, the United States would respond. Giving Iran nuclear weapons doesn't really affect the United States' objectives in the Middle East, and possibly actually improves them insofar as it undermines Saudi wahhabism in the name of Iranian clericalism. I think the main reason the United States hasn't softened the sanctions already is domestic - nobody wants to be seen as being soft on Iran come election night.

The other thing is lifting the sanctions does not mean allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons. It just means lifting the current sanctions against them. The sanctions could always come back the moment Iran try to restart their nuclear program.

 

[Gorger]

How are they holding the US at ransom when they are the one being sanctioned? Military actions cost a ton of money, and sanctions directly affect the economy of a country.

Because it is Iraqi innocents who are suffering and dying, not Americas. This is like the worst time they could be bringing up these demands. They are just using the whole conflict while people are being slaughtered for their own benefit, asking for demands we know US will never budge on. This will only result in more innocents being killed while US lose a little face and Iran risks getting a Caliphate established next to their border. .

 

[linsivvi]

Because it is Iraqi innocents who are suffering and dying, not Americas. This is like the worst time they could be bringing up these demands. They are just using the whole conflict while people are being slaughtered for their own benefit, asking for demands we know US will never budge on. This will only result in more innocents being killed while US lose a little face and Iran risks getting a Caliphate established next to their border. .

It's funny how you put the blame on Iran's inaction when they have had no involvement in what created the ISIS menace.

Now you gonna blame Iran for not help clean up America's mess while they are being heavily sanctioned? That's some kind of bullshit right there.

 

[Rubenov]

American political scientist Kenneth Waltz believes the U.S. should lift sanctions completely and let Iran develop nuclear weapons. That will help balance out Israel's nuclear arsenal and create a stability-instability paradox, which would bring relative peace to the Middle East...in theory.

Not really. A nuclear-armed Iran will motivate Saudi Arabia to seek the same.

 

[C4Lukins]

No thanks Iran. Giving you the reigns to put troops in Iraq while allowing your nuke program to continue is not very appealing.

 

[Nikodemos]

Waltz puts a lot of emphasis on the supposed rationality of states (it's something of an article of faith in his school of international relations theory).

Well, he is a Neo-Realist. Rational state actors on a chaotic international politics scene yadda yadda...

Were we to go back to the US's original sin regarding the Middle East, an alliance with a large, reasonably prosperous, unified state which espoused a relatively non-crazy version of Islam (before the ayatollahs gained power) would have been better than the current patchwork of semi-formal to completely informal deals. Unfortunately, Ike just had to pick up the idiot ball and involve himself in the Mossadegh affair. He should've let the Brits hang dry, like they deserved to.

 

[Codeblue]

Iran is part of the reason Iraq is in such a sorry condition. Whether or not their sanctions get lifted, they need to stay the hell out of Iraq.

 

[Toxi]

Iran is part of the reason Iraq is in such a sorry condition. Whether or not their sanctions get lifted, they need to stay the hell out of Iraq.

It's not like the US is one to talk.

 

[Gorger]

It's funny how you put the blame on Iran's inaction when they have had no involvement in what created the ISIS menace.

Now you gonna blame Iran for not help clean up America's mess while they are being heavily sanctioned? That's some kind of bullshit right there.

Iran have obvious interests in wiping out this menace or they would never have called out to help in the first place. IS could also very will pose a threat to Iran in the future if they were left alone to grow with the whole world doing nothing. Iran is also a Shia country and I find it strange that they see no obligation to help out their Shia neighbors being slaughtered when the have the means and power to stop them rather easily at this stage. Actually I find the whole general middle eastern apathy towards this conflict saddening.

 

[Codeblue]

It's not like the US is one to talk.

I didn't say they were.

I've posted numerous times on this forum about how enraging it is that the US ruined the country based on fabrications.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Is this some sort of bluff? Iran has more to lose from Baghdad falling to ISIS than the west does.

 

[dabig2]

Well, he is a Neo-Realist. Rational state actors on a chaotic international politics scene yadda yadda...

Were we to go back to the US's original sin regarding the Middle East, an alliance with a large, reasonably prosperous, unified state which espoused a relatively non-crazy version of Islam (before the ayatollahs gained power) would have been better than the current patchwork of semi-formal to completely informal deals. Unfortunately, Ike just had to pick up the idiot ball and involve himself in the Mossadegh affair. He should've let the Brits hang dry, like they deserved to.

2 of our biggest sins (before the Iraq War stupidity of course and discounting Israel creation which wasn't really us anyways) was this and Vietnam - both the result of trying to pick up the pieces of failure from the British and French, respectively. Fucking european imperialism. If only hindsight were 20/20, maybe some senseless bloodshed and suffering could have been avoided the last half century.

 

[TheJLC]

I don't think the US gives a crap if Iran helps or not. It's one of the reasons they are helping the Kurds. US is bombing ISIS near and around Kurdish areas while leaving ISIS where Iranian Quds Force are rumored to be fighting, alone.