• 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, India discuss ‘new threat’ of ISIS in Afghanistan....

MMC

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Iran has talked to India and thinks they can get an alliance with Pakistan and India to go after Daesh in Afghanistan. What do you think, can Iran get India in on the fight with Daesh? What say ye?



Terming infiltration of ISIS in Afghanistan a "new threat" that was "very alarming", Iran today sought India's cooperation in tackling the menace which it said was used by some countries in the region for "tactical gains".

"We have a new threat in Afghanistan and that is infiltration of ISIS there. Everybody has to take note of it. It is a very alarming threat and we need to work together. There is need for all of us — Iran, India and Pakistan and all of us to work together and Iran can play good role in bringing these countries together. We did discuss it (during my meetings today)," Zarif told reporters when asked about the discussions on situation in Afghanistan.....snip~

Iran, India discuss 'new threat' of ISIS in Afghanistan
 
It sure would be nice to see those who live in the region dealing with the issues in their region instead of everyone else.
 
Iran must be upset with the competition from ISIS. ;)
 
American said:
Iran must be upset with the competition from ISIS. ;)
Click to expand...

Heya American :2wave: Yeah, considering the Pakistani Taliban pledged to ISIS. I was wondering why Iran would think Pakistan will work with them. After the Pakistani came out and told them If they attack Saudi Arabia. They will hear from them.
 
MMC said:
What do you think, can Iran get India in on the fight with Daesh? What say ye?
Click to expand...

Not surprised in the slightest, and no Iran will probably not be all that successful with getting India to operate inside of Afghanistan to any reasonable measure.

But... and again... the bigger issue here is yet more conformation that a predominantly Islamic nation without a strong dictatorship style government over a strong military ends up with pockets of extremism. ISIS is still an organization of opportunity, not strength. And they appeal to people already there.

If ISIS is really gaining a foothold in Afghanistan it goes well beyond any internal squabbling within Taliban controlled villages and areas. This is the same sort of thing that materialized in Syria and Iraq, in that the government could not contain opposition to the point that competition among various groups allowed ISIS to organize. Take advantage of indecision, take advantage of a culture and ideology very susceptible to extremism, and operate to formation without much difficulty from local or national governments. And once governments do, it is probably too late.

Iran's interests I still suspect are purely based on two core ideas. One, Iran central authority hates any and all competition. In that mentality they have solved the bigger problem of not allowing competition to really gain any foothold within their borders. Two, increase their reputation and influence in the region by talking to neighboring nations and regional nations about where pockets of competition are showing up. From Iran's perspective they now have ISIS showing up in Syria, Iraq and arguably Afghanistan and also with affiliates in Algeria, Egypt, Libya, etc. It makes sense, no matter how much Western governments do not like the idea, for Iran to consider ISIS a real threat to regional influence.

In every single case ISIS (or their affiliates) make a mark in under-governed areas or simply not attached to centralized governments still weakened for whatever reason. You could argue that in Iraq and Afghanistan we are simply talking about governments that are not that strong, not in control over all of their nations, and with military forces that are incapable or not managed well enough to ensure government authority. With Syria we are talking about a civil war that is inching closer to stalemate and closer to being split into 2-3 other de facto nations. All opportunity given motivation.

Notice that ISIS is not really getting in the door in Saudi Arabia, not really breaking that far into Turkey, and we have little evidence of them being in Iran. Now ask yourself why that is the case.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Not surprised in the slightest, and no Iran will probably not be all that successful with getting India to operate inside of Afghanistan to any reasonable measure.

But... and again... the bigger issue here is yet more conformation that a predominantly Islamic nation without a strong dictatorship style government over a strong military ends up with pockets of extremism. ISIS is still an organization of opportunity, not strength. And they appeal to people already there.

If ISIS is really gaining a foothold in Afghanistan it goes well beyond any internal squabbling within Taliban controlled villages and areas. This is the same sort of thing that materialized in Syria and Iraq, in that the government could not contain opposition to the point that competition among various groups allowed ISIS to organize. Take advantage of indecision, take advantage of a culture and ideology very susceptible to extremism, and operate to formation without much difficulty from local or national governments. And once governments do, it is probably too late.

Iran's interests I still suspect are purely based on two core ideas. One, Iran central authority hates any and all competition. In that mentality they have solved the bigger problem of not allowing competition to really gain any foothold within their borders. Two, increase their reputation and influence in the region by talking to neighboring nations and regional nations about where pockets of competition are showing up. From Iran's perspective they now have ISIS showing up in Syria, Iraq and arguably Afghanistan and also with affiliates in Algeria, Egypt, Libya, etc. It makes sense, no matter how much Western governments do not like the idea, for Iran to consider ISIS a real threat to regional influence.

In every single case ISIS (or their affiliates) make a mark in under-governed areas or simply not attached to centralized governments still weakened for whatever reason. You could argue that in Iraq and Afghanistan we are simply talking about governments that are not that strong, not in control over all of their nations, and with military forces that are incapable or not managed well enough to ensure government authority. With Syria we are talking about a civil war that is inching closer to stalemate and closer to being split into 2-3 other de facto nations. All opportunity given motivation.

Notice that ISIS is not really getting in the door in Saudi Arabia, not really breaking that far into Turkey, and we have little evidence of them being in Iran. Now ask yourself why that is the case.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt they have gained a foothold in Afghanistan, they are also in Indonesia, and you are correct a power vacuum opened up when Daesh heard the Taliban leader was dying. They have moved quickly and gained supporters. Not counting the Pakistani Taliban. Our people that are there will need some new ROE's.


ISIS Takes It To The Taliban In Afghanistan.....

Islamic State fighters recently forced a group of blindfolded Taliban supporters to kneel unwittingly over buried devices set to blow them to bits, upping the ante in the battle between the two forces for Afghanistan.

Recent news confirming Taliban leader Mullah Omar’s death two years ago has emboldened ISIS in its bid to expand into the group’s territory there. Taliban leaders have rejected ISIS rule, and ISIS is challenging the Taliban’s territory inside the country.

A number of mid-level Taliban commanders defected to ISIS earlier this year, leading ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to claim part of Afghanistan for the caliphate’s “Khorasan Province.” And confirmation of Omar’s death has not only created a power vacuum, but exposed fissures inside Taliban leadership, all likely to prove advantageous to ISIS.....snip~

Read more: ISIS Takes It To The Taliban In Afghanistan | The Daily Caller
 
MMC said:
There is no doubt they have gained a foothold in Afghanistan, they are also in Indonesia, and you are correct a power vacuum opened up when Daesh heard the Taliban leader was dying. They have moved quickly and gained supporters. Not counting the Pakistani Taliban. Our people that are there will need some new ROE's.


ISIS Takes It To The Taliban In Afghanistan.....

Islamic State fighters recently forced a group of blindfolded Taliban supporters to kneel unwittingly over buried devices set to blow them to bits, upping the ante in the battle between the two forces for Afghanistan.

Recent news confirming Taliban leader Mullah Omar’s death two years ago has emboldened ISIS in its bid to expand into the group’s territory there. Taliban leaders have rejected ISIS rule, and ISIS is challenging the Taliban’s territory inside the country.

A number of mid-level Taliban commanders defected to ISIS earlier this year, leading ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to claim part of Afghanistan for the caliphate’s “Khorasan Province.” And confirmation of Omar’s death has not only created a power vacuum, but exposed fissures inside Taliban leadership, all likely to prove advantageous to ISIS.....snip~

Read more: ISIS Takes It To The Taliban In Afghanistan | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...

Then it is more of the same problem, the clear results of our failed foreign policy to date. If Afghanistan's government cannot control all of its nation, then they are the next Iraq and Syria. We had enough evidence that this could happen when Obama declared the war over, yet the Afghan Government still ended up having to fight pockets of the Taliban. There was plenty of fighting, plenty of terrorist attacks on outposts and government interests, and plenty of loss of life long before ISIS found out what they were missing out on in Afghanistan.

If what the report is saying is true about a splintered Taliban, then what I said above is even more true. This is not internal squabbling among Taliban remnants, this is outright challenge of authority from outside ISIS influence where there is no (or little) Afghan Government presence.

I have no choice but to consider this yet another in a long line of failures going back quite a few Presidents in handling any nation Islamic leaning. As I've said plenty of times now, without central strong control in these nations you get chaos. Looks like Afghanistan is the next one.

We now have Syria, Iraq, and Nigeria in on-going all out war for control of the nation. We have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Central African Republic, Cameroon, and Congo in some stage of major conflict with the governments of those nations fighting one or more different competitions for power. Egypt might be the lone exception, but pockets of extremism still exist and it would be foolish to suggest all is under control. As we are discussing here Afghanistan is about to go back to the on-going all out war category. Plenty of other nations in minor conflicts throughout the region. And of course Israel and all of their problems added in the mix we would be remiss to not mention even though we are inherently talking about a different flavor of conflict. Judaism vs. Islam.

Ja, I have all the evidence I need regarding US Policy input into at least the majority of the named nations in some degree of conflict today.

What made everyone think Afghanistan would end up well given the Taliban was still around anyway?
 
If our CIA was doing it's job Iran and India would be at war, not negotiating coalition building.

But this is the kind of nonsense you get when your intelligence agency puts on clown shoes, imagines reasons to invade non-threatening foreign nations without foreseeing the quagmire any attendant occupation will become, and then waterboarding shepherds and taxi drivers for vital "operational intelligence" into fighting the local nationals who are trying to kick us out of their country.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Then it is more of the same problem, the clear results of our failed foreign policy to date. If Afghanistan's government cannot control all of its nation, then they are the next Iraq and Syria. We had enough evidence that this could happen when Obama declared the war over, yet the Afghan Government still ended up having to fight pockets of the Taliban. There was plenty of fighting, plenty of terrorist attacks on outposts and government interests, and plenty of loss of life long before ISIS found out what they were missing out on in Afghanistan.

If what the report is saying is true about a splintered Taliban, then what I said above is even more true. This is not internal squabbling among Taliban remnants, this is outright challenge of authority from outside ISIS influence where there is no (or little) Afghan Government presence.

I have no choice but to consider this yet another in a long line of failures going back quite a few Presidents in handling any nation Islamic leaning. As I've said plenty of times now, without central strong control in these nations you get chaos. Looks like Afghanistan is the next one.

We now have Syria, Iraq, and Nigeria in on-going all out war for control of the nation. We have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Central African Republic, Cameroon, and Congo in some stage of major conflict with the governments of those nations fighting one or more different competitions for power. Egypt might be the lone exception, but pockets of extremism still exist and it would be foolish to suggest all is under control. As we are discussing here Afghanistan is about to go back to the on-going all out war category. Plenty of other nations in minor conflicts throughout the region. And of course Israel and all of their problems added in the mix we would be remiss to not mention even though we are inherently talking about a different flavor of conflict. Judaism vs. Islam.

Ja, I have all the evidence I need regarding US Policy input into at least the majority of the named nations in some degree of conflict today.

What made everyone think Afghanistan would end up well given the Taliban was still around anyway?
Click to expand...


This is from CounterPunch. Check it out. ;)


ISIS in Afghanistan: Proxy War Against Iran and China.....

The nature of the war in Afghanistan has shifted dramatically in recent months. While the US and NATO continue to be actively involved in the country – their strategic objectives having changed very little since the Bush administration launched the war nearly a decade and a half ago – the complexion of the battlefield, and the parties actively engaged in the war, has changed significantly.

The emergence of ISIS in Afghanistan, along with the impending withdrawal of US-NATO troops from the country, has driven the Taliban into a marriage of convenience, if not an outright alliance, with Iran. What seemed like an unfathomable scenario just a few years ago, Shia Iran’s support for the hardline Sunni Taliban has become a reality due to the changing circumstances of the war. Though it may be hard to believe, such an alliance is now a critical element of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. But its significance is far larger than just shifting the balance of power within the country.

Instead, Afghanistan is now in many ways a proxy conflict between the US and its western and Gulf allies on the one hand, and Iran and certain non-western countries, most notably China, on the other. If the contours of the conflict might not be immediately apparent, that is only because the western media, and all the alleged brainiacs of the corporate think tanks, have failed to present the conflict in its true context. The narrative of Afghanistan, to the extent that it’s discussed at all, continues to be about terrorism and stability, nation-building and “support.” But this is a fundamental misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the current war, and the agenda driving it.....snip~

ISIS in Afghanistan: Proxy War Against Iran and China
 
soot said:
If our CIA was doing it's job Iran and India would be at war, not negotiating coalition building.

But this is the kind of nonsense you get when your intelligence agency puts on clown shoes, imagines reasons to invade non-threatening foreign nations without foreseeing the quagmire any attendant occupation will become, and then waterboarding shepherds and taxi drivers for vital "operational intelligence" into fighting the local nationals who are trying to kick us out of their country.
Click to expand...


Heya Soot. :2wave: It appears the Taliban against ISIS has some more backing to take on ISIS with AQ Prime pledging to them.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-on-terror/231637-al-qaida-pledges-taliban.html
 
Does Obama know ISIS is in Afghanistan or has he been skipping his intel briefings again? Busy golfing?
 
MMC said:
This is from CounterPunch. Check it out. ;)


ISIS in Afghanistan: Proxy War Against Iran and China.....

The nature of the war in Afghanistan has shifted dramatically in recent months. While the US and NATO continue to be actively involved in the country – their strategic objectives having changed very little since the Bush administration launched the war nearly a decade and a half ago – the complexion of the battlefield, and the parties actively engaged in the war, has changed significantly.

The emergence of ISIS in Afghanistan, along with the impending withdrawal of US-NATO troops from the country, has driven the Taliban into a marriage of convenience, if not an outright alliance, with Iran. What seemed like an unfathomable scenario just a few years ago, Shia Iran’s support for the hardline Sunni Taliban has become a reality due to the changing circumstances of the war. Though it may be hard to believe, such an alliance is now a critical element of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. But its significance is far larger than just shifting the balance of power within the country.

Instead, Afghanistan is now in many ways a proxy conflict between the US and its western and Gulf allies on the one hand, and Iran and certain non-western countries, most notably China, on the other. If the contours of the conflict might not be immediately apparent, that is only because the western media, and all the alleged brainiacs of the corporate think tanks, have failed to present the conflict in its true context. The narrative of Afghanistan, to the extent that it’s discussed at all, continues to be about terrorism and stability, nation-building and “support.” But this is a fundamental misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the current war, and the agenda driving it.....snip~

ISIS in Afghanistan: Proxy War Against Iran and China
Click to expand...

Assuming this is accurate about the Taliban is in play, there is a big problem. If you have factions of Taliban going towards ISIS and others going towards Iran there are inherent problems with how those alliances play out. A "proxy war" for Afghanistan means the Taliban is mostly Sunni just as the present Afghan government is. The flavor of that fight then boils down to the history of the present conflict on one being ousted for the other. There is more room for ISIS, also being a flavor of Sunni, to talk to Taliban village leaders upset with present Sunni government in bed with the West than any representation leaning to support from Iran (or China, which I find suspect.) Even if it does boil down to convenience between some Taliban areas and Iran, you still have the more active motivations of ISIS to contend with and odds are Iran's efforts will get drowned out. ISIS is still about opportunity, Iran is all about regional influence. The US is asleep at the wheel, we started yet another mess we intend to let devolve into a civil war.

Back to the same thing, all of this discussion confirms beyond doubt that Afghanistan will be the next Syria and Iraq.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Assuming this is accurate about the Taliban is in play, there is a big problem. If you have factions of Taliban going towards ISIS and others going towards Iran there are inherent problems with how those alliances play out. A "proxy war" for Afghanistan means the Taliban is mostly Sunni just as the present Afghan government is. The flavor of that fight then boils down to the history of the present conflict on one being ousted for the other. There is more room for ISIS, also being a flavor of Sunni, to talk to Taliban village leaders upset with present Sunni government in bed with the West than any representation leaning to support from Iran (or China, which I find suspect.) Even if it does boil down to convenience between some Taliban areas and Iran, you still have the more active motivations of ISIS to contend with and odds are Iran's efforts will get drowned out. ISIS is still about opportunity, Iran is all about regional influence. The US is asleep at the wheel, we started yet another mess we intend to let devolve into a civil war.

Back to the same thing, all of this discussion confirms beyond doubt that Afghanistan will be the next Syria and Iraq.
Click to expand...

Well we now know they are in play with Afghanistan. Like I mentioned before. The problem just got bigger for our people that are still there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom