• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran offered Iraq an 'open cheque' to help them battle Isis, says ambassador

:lol: surely you don't think a brutal totalitarian theocracy with hegemonic designs of reestablishing the Persian Empire in the context of End Times theology would dare to violate an international pinky promise. :D

I was reading the thread just waiting for a comment that would point that point out. Imagine, Shia extremist government looking out for the well being of a Sunni government. They would never want Iraq under their control. Oh yeah, they tried that before.
 
I'll answer you this way: Who had influence over England after WWII?

That should answer your question in a nutshell.

"To the victor goes the spoils."

Kind of like the Native Americans, Mexico and Israel?
 
Having observed the disastrous results of US regional hegemony in Iraq and the Mideast, why not let Iran have that regional hegemony. Noone could do a worse job than we have.

That some U.S. policy choices have had negative regional outcomes e.g., the 2003 Iraq War, does not mean that Iranian regional hegemony would be a less bad outcome. Given the strong regional rivalries, such an outcome would likely have dramatic and negative adverse consequences, especially as the Sunni states would not easily tolerate an outcome they believe poses a grave threat to their interests.
 
That some U.S. policy choices have had negative regional outcomes e.g., the 2003 Iraq War, does not mean that Iranian regional hegemony would be a less bad outcome. Given the strong regional rivalries, such an outcome would likely have dramatic and negative adverse consequences, especially as the Sunni states would not easily tolerate an outcome they believe poses a grave threat to their interests.

Well, are we taking sides in a centuries old dispute between two opposing sects of the same religious group? Why would we care what a stronger Iran means for Saudi Arabia, a country that we call ally, despite the fact that unlike Iran, their women can't vote, they behead people regularly for doing what is completely acceptable in most Western nations, is a state sponsor of terrorism, who's elite financed the 9/11 attacks and whom supplied the attackers, a country who put down an Arab Spring popular protest in Bahrain next door while supporting them in countries like Libya and Syria! Actually, it's total bull**** to hold Iran out as bad, and SA as good/ally.
 
Well, are we taking sides in a centuries old dispute between two opposing sects of the same religious group? Why would we care what a stronger Iran means for Saudi Arabia, a country that we call ally, despite the fact that unlike Iran, their women can't vote, they behead people regularly for doing what is completely acceptable in most Western nations, is a state sponsor of terrorism, who's elite financed the 9/11 attacks and whom supplied the attackers, a country who put down an Arab Spring popular protest in Bahrain next door while supporting them in countries like Libya and Syria! Actually, it's total bull**** to hold Iran out as bad, and SA as good/ally.

In the message to which you're responding, I'm not making value judgments concerning Saudi Arabia vs. Iran. My point is that Iran's pursuit of regional hegemony could be a very destabilizing event. Clearly, Saudi Arabia has a poor human rights record.

As far as U.S. interests are concerned, the reality is that Iran remains hostile to U.S. interests. Even following the nuclear agreement, Iran's President made that explicitly clear. In contrast, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are allies. Furthermore, open shipping through the Persian Gulf is a vital U.S. interest. Therefore, at least at this point in time, the U.S. cannot accept Iran's pursuit of regional hegemony.
 
That some U.S. policy choices have had negative regional outcomes e.g., the 2003 Iraq War, does not mean that Iranian regional hegemony would be a less bad outcome. Given the strong regional rivalries, such an outcome would likely have dramatic and negative adverse consequences, especially as the Sunni states would not easily tolerate an outcome they believe poses a grave threat to their interests.

Negative outcomes equals a million dead Iraqis. Hundred of thousands dead Syrians.
Thousands of dead Libyans. All because of the USA addiction to petroleum and Petrodollars.
We have initiated bad policy against Iranians since Mossadegh. Iraq is mostly Shiite, not Sunni.
US policy in Iraq and Iran and Libya and Syria is embarrassing to a citizenry that promotes Human Rights.
 
In the message to which you're responding, I'm not making value judgments concerning Saudi Arabia vs. Iran. My point is that Iran's pursuit of regional hegemony could be a very destabilizing event. Clearly, Saudi Arabia has a poor human rights record.

As far as U.S. interests are concerned, the reality is that Iran remains hostile to U.S. interests. Even following the nuclear agreement, Iran's President made that explicitly clear. In contrast, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are allies. Furthermore, open shipping through the Persian Gulf is a vital U.S. interest. Therefore, at least at this point in time, the U.S. cannot accept Iran's pursuit of regional hegemony.

There are reasons why Iran is hostile to US interests, does anybody ever acknowledge this? I just pointed out to you why in fact Saudi Arabia is not an ally!
 
Back
Top Bottom