Why Syria & Iran Can Help And How

close all military bases.....man the boarders...build toweres and fences...whish the rest of the world luck.......

Unfortunately we cant do that. every time we try to isolate ourselves off from the rest of the world, a world war starts and we get drawn back into it. We are going to have to fight and win now or later. and unfortunately later might be too late.
 
Redemption from irrelevance by the major powers? If Canavar is typical, the Turks are in full nationalism mode, waiting to demonstrate the return of greatness.

If you want REAL relevance or power you take it !! If it is given to you it's worthless and can be taken away just as easily !
 
If you want REAL relevance or power you take it !! If it is given to you it's worthless and can be taken away just as easily !

There is no power to be gained by mediating between 2 factions.
It is only contributing to peace and influencing history.
The first contacts of Pakistanis and Israelis was made in Istanbul, too.
As i said before Turkey has good relations to Israel and Syria, not many countries and especially regional countries can say that of themselves.

But as i read your comment was about the water issue that i brought into discussion. This is the crux of the matter in Golan.
This will become to much OFF-Topic and is an issue of a whole separate thread, so i will write short.
Turkey will sell Israel a liter natural water for 0,001 US cents.
Therefore it is planned to build a water pipeline from Turkey to Israel, which in Turkey's plans will further layed to Westbank and Jordan to ease conflict-potential over water in that area.

These Pipelines are long in debate and will now become practical. The first suggestion in 90s was to build a water pipeline from Turkey to Golan heights via Syria. There would be built an triparty-canal reservoir for Jordan, Syria and Israel.
But the costs of around 8 billion Dollar and conflicts between the states made this impossible.
http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/programs/stia/students/vol.02/klumpv.htm

Now it will be built a direct link from Turkey to Israel via Mediterranean Sea, like Turkey is currently building from Turkey to Cyprus. http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=31619
Construction works did not start but it is decided to build this pipeline and currently it is in feasability study financed by European Investment bank.
Turkey insists that this build pipeline will be extended to Palestinian areas and Jordan, too.

Israel occupying all strategic water sources in the region has even only 325 cubic meters of water per citizen. For example in USA it is over 9.000 cubic meters. In Jordan and especially Palestinian areas situation is more complicated.
And even with all goodwill to solve friction in Mid-East water is the main obstacle for a lasting peace.
And by further drought in the region which is projected by all capable world institutions this issue will grow even more.
 
Why Syria & Iran Can Help And How?

That because Iran is controlling Iraq and in the process to control Syria as they did with HezbAllah in Lebanon. Iran always expands its influence in Iraq and Syria as Shi'ite Regimes withw the cooperation with the Lebanese HezbAllah...
Iran has become a supreme power in the Middle East with the help of the UAS, and they are ready to adjoin some of the Gulf countries!!.....
 
Thank you Canavar, you hit the nail on the head.

If anyone will get a deal with Syria, it will be Pappy Bush and James Baker, the men who got Syria's help in the Persian Gulf War. They can and will get it again.

Iran is the trickier and admittedly less likely co-op candidate.

If 41 was so great, why the mess to deal with now? Seems like Clinton had a lot of fallout as well, without the notice of the ascending threats from Egypt et al?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110009273

GLOBAL VIEW
Father Knows Best?
Four failures of Bush 41's foreign policy.

BY BRET STEPHENS
Sunday, November 19, 2006 12:01 a.m.

As president of Texas A&M University, Bob Gates abolished admissions preferences for the children and grandchildren of alumni, reportedly saying it was "unworthy of a great university." Funny, then, that he should be returning to Washington on the strength of his reputation as daddy's boy.

"Daddy," of course, is former President George H. W. Bush, for whom Mr. Gates served as deputy national security adviser and director of Central Intelligence. Today, the elder Mr. Bush is being celebrated as a foreign-policy sage whose adroit stewardship of the world stands in flattering contrast with current management. Mr. Gates, along with Bush 41 hands James Baker and Larry Eagleburger of the Iraq Study Group, are now supposed to play the part of the posse come to the rescue of the wayward son. Newsweek even commissioned a poll that found that "67% favor Bush Senior's internationalist approach to foreign policy over his son's more unilateral course."

Curiously, a similar percentage of Americans voted for someone other than Mr. Bush during his 1992 re-election bid. So it's worth reprising just what his "internationalist approach" achieved, and where it failed. The senior Mr. Bush is justly remembered as the architect of the broad coalition that evicted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait--and of the Coalition of One that took down Manuel Noriega of Panama. Bush 41 also deserves great credit for engineering the North American Free Trade Agreement and supporting German reunification when it was opposed by the likes of Margaret Thatcher.

But consider four other shorthands for the Bush 41 record. One is "1-202-456-1414," the number for the White House switchboard. As secretary of state, Mr. Baker read it aloud in congressional testimony in 1990, ostensibly for the benefit of Israelis once they got "serious about peace." A year later, and for much the same reason, the Bush administration threatened to withhold $10 billion in commercial loan guarantees, which Israel needed to cope with the influx of some one million Russian Jews--fully a fifth of its population.

For its efforts, the Bush administration brought Arabs and Israelis together for the Madrid Peace Conference, which set the groundwork for the Oslo Accords. These were touted as historic achievements, but for Israel it meant more terrorism, culminating in the second intifada, and for the Palestinians it meant repression in the person of Yasser Arafat and mass radicalization in the movement of Hamas. Worse, Mr. Baker fostered the fatal perception that the failure of Arabs and Jews to make peace was the root of the region's problems, not a symptom of them, and that the obstacle to peace was intransigent Israel, not militant Islam. Bob Gates later gave voice to that perception when he wrote, in a 1998 New York Times op-ed, that the road to Mideast peace must "not kowtow to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's obstructionism."

Or take "Lawrence of Serbia," the moniker Mr. Eagleburger earned for his initial indulgence, as the State Department's point man on Yugoslav affairs during the early 1990s while the country was coming apart, of Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic. Mr. Eagleburger, who had longstanding business ties in Belgrade, spent the early period of the war largely ignoring Mr. Milosevic's depredations on his neighbors, including paramilitary slaughters in Vukovar and concentration camps in Omarska. "There was a kind of preference for stability and an attachment to the old Yugoslavia over our interests in human rights," Patrick Glynn of the American Enterprise Institute told Newsday in 1992, adding the administration had "been standing by, waiting while the final solution is played out."

Which brings us to "Chicken Kiev," Mr. Bush's spectacularly misconceived August 1991 speech in what was shortly to become the capital of independent Ukraine. Mr. Bush's reluctance to acknowledge--and better manage--the breakup of Yugoslavia was partly a function of his reluctance to acknowledge the impending breakup of the Soviet Union and the fall from grace of his friend Mikhail Gorbachev. The U.S. was the 39th country to re-establish diplomatic ties with Lithuania, after Iceland and Mongolia had already paved the way. Once Mr. Gorbachev was gone, Mr. Bush was equally reluctant to help the new Russia get on its feet, prompting Richard Nixon to complain about the administration's "pathetically inadequate response in light of the opportunities we face in the crisis in the former Soviet Union."

But surely no Bush 41 failure was as great--or as consequential--as his apparently flip suggestion, following "victory" in the Gulf War, that the "Iraqi people . . . take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step down." Tens of thousands of Shiites and Kurds took him seriously, and tens of thousands paid with their lives as Saddam quelled the revolt while the Bush administration stood by, lest it exceed its U.N. mandate.

None of this is to say that Mr. Gates is merely an avatar of Bush the Father, much as his nomination is being played that way in the media, or that he hasn't learned from past mistakes. But critics of the current administration and the "disaster" visited on Iraq by neoconservative ideologues might usefully reflect on the previous disasters visited by the non-ideologues on Iraqis, Croats and Bosnians, among others sacrificed in the name of prudence. A decade from now, they just might find themselves ruing the day Bush 43 abandoned his idealism--and the people that idealism has liberated or inspired--in the service of "realism," suffused by panic.
 
Come home, Kathianne, I got dinner on.

Let's not get all excited now! :laugh: Just that Iran not having influence over Syria is nuts. Just like Syria hasn't a thing to do with Hezbollah and trying to topple the Lebanon government.
 
Let's not get all excited now! :laugh: Just that Iran not having influence over Syria is nuts. Just like Syria hasn't a thing to do with Hezbollah and trying to topple the Lebanon government.

What can Iran honestly offer Syria long-term?

That is the point here. Assad knows this. His actions are motivated by greed, survival and Israel. Iran helps him with none of these for very long, save some free or discounted oil.
 
What can Iran honestly offer Syria long-term?

That is the point here. Assad knows this. His actions are motivated by greed, survival and Israel. Iran helps him with none of these for very long, save some free or discounted oil.


So what are you advocating exactly?
 
What can Iran honestly offer Syria long-term?

That is the point here. Assad knows this. His actions are motivated by greed, survival and Israel. Iran helps him with none of these for very long, save some free or discounted oil.

Seriously, it's all about Islam. I know Assad is secular, but his masses aren't. He wasts to retain power and thinks Iran is the way. Appeasing/allying with Israel over Islamic Iran? No way. Iran will throw him over, when the time comes.

Sorry, this is a no go. Syria is in way too deep.
 
Seriously, it's all about Islam. I know Assad is secular, but his masses aren't. He wasts to retain power and thinks Iran is the way. Appeasing/allying with Israel over Islamic Iran? No way. Iran will throw him over, when the time comes.

Sorry, this is a no go. Syria is in way too deep.

What makes you think Iran has any ability to throw Assad down. Iran is in no such position. It is the other way round, when Syria distances itself from Iran then Iranian influence in Lebanon for example will go away or be not that as today.
 
What makes you think Iran has any ability to throw Assad down. Iran is in no such position. It is the other way round, when Syria distances itself from Iran then Iranian influence in Lebanon for example will go away or be not that as today.

Let's see, who is supplying the weapons going to Lebanon and Gaza? Hmmm??? How are they entering Lebanon? Duh!
 
Why Syria & Iran Can Help And How?

That because Iran is controlling Iraq and in the process to control Syria as they did with HezbAllah in Lebanon. Iran always expands its influence in Iraq and Syria as Shi'ite Regimes withw the cooperation with the Lebanese HezbAllah...
Iran has become a supreme power in the Middle East with the help of the UAS, and they are ready to adjoin some of the Gulf countries!!.....

Might be interesting for you ;)
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2006/november/11_17_2.html

In gulf there are 2 regional states which can squeeze the smaller Emirates and Sultanates. One of them is Saudi-Arabia and the other Iran.
With Saudi Arabia being the more powerful, but despite Wahabitism and radicalism within Saudi-Arabia, Saudis make in compare to Iran a passive and expectant foreign policy.
Iran handles foreign diplomacy the other way round with aggressiveness and polemic.

All Gulf countries except Iran are organized in the Gulf cooperation council, which will introduce a common currency between member states by 2011. It is already agreed on.
Today via the Gulf cooperation council over-regional banks and other institutions arise.
All under the umbrella of Saudi-Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is the dominator of the Gulf.

Among the stated objectives are:

* Formulating similar regulations in various fields such as economy, finance, trade, customs, tourism, legislation, and administration
* Fostering scientific and technical progress in industry, mining, agriculture, water and animal resources
* Establishing scientific research centres
* Setting up joint ventures
* Encouraging cooperation of the private sector
* Strengthening ties between their peoples
* Establishing a common currency by 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation_Council_for_the_Arab_States_of_the_Gulf
 
Let's see, who is supplying the weapons going to Lebanon and Gaza? Hmmm??? How are they entering Lebanon? Duh!

Agree.
But this gives no answer to Iranian intelligence activity in Syria.
What between Syria and Iran is, is decided on table and negotiations where Iran is in no position to say and Syria must do.
Iran is not capable in interfering in Syrian business in greater scale.
 

Forum List

Back
Top