Should Obama Visit Tehran?

[S.J.]

Should Obama Visit Tehran?


If they were to take him hostage, would the State Department send in a rescue team?

.

Hopefully they would have Jimmy Carter put together a rescue for him.

 

[auditor0007]

Pres. Obama visiting Iran would be a master stroke of diplomacy and raise America's standing in the world. .....

It's actually a logical move. It's better to have relations with your enemies than to not. And when I use the term enemy with Iran, it is just a statement of our mistrust of them, not that we are outright enemies.

 

[S.J.]

Pres. Obama visiting Iran would be a master stroke of diplomacy and raise America's standing in the world. .....

It's actually a logical move. It's better to have relations with your enemies than to not. And when I use the term enemy with Iran, it is just a statement of our mistrust of them, not that we are outright enemies.

Wake up and smell the coffee. We're ENEMIES!!! Their choice!

 

[georgephillip]

Since you either can't or won't grasp the most basic dynamic in the middle east, which is Sunni versus Shiite, your opinion is irrelevant.

Why is it you seem incapable of admitting it is US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq that fans the flames of Sunni v Sh'ia?

Wow, you looked up some terms and used them in a complete gibberish sequence. Regarding Syria, you demonstrate again how clueless you are about it. To your quote "Whatever it is that you imagine Putin "won" in Syria had more to do with poking Obama in the eye than supporting Assad."

1) Putin has extensive oil contracts with Shiite Iran. Assad is Shiite. Syria is primarily Sunni. It's critical to Iran that Assad stay in power. They are nuts, Putin wants Assad stable and in power to keep Iran out of a conflict that could jeopardize their oil interests.

2) Assad is blocking a pipeline from the gulf to Europe. Now the only major pipeline goes through the north and carries massive amounts of Russian oil. Russia does not want a southern pipeline because of competition and the price pressure. A Sunni government would immediately allow it.

3) Russia's primary military presence is in Syria. If the Sunnis take over, they are probably going to kick Shiite allied Russia out.

Obama is backing the Sunnis, Putin backed Assad, the Shiite. Putin has everything now. The Iranians aren't in a destabilizing war, the Russians are proceeding with their Iranian oil contracts, the Sunni pipeline from the south is blocked and they have their military base intact. It's not about giving Obama a black eye, that's just a bonus.

But according to you, he'd give all that up and share power. No freaking way, Virginia. Putin is major leagues, Obama is rookie league. Obama's getting schooled and Putin's not going to just say, just kidding, let's split this pig. Please.

Are you simple minded enough to imagine there aren't Shites in Syria ready to send Assad to the Hague in order to serve Putin and Iran? If that stretches your knowledge base, how does the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline validate Obama's intention to fragment Syria and Lebanon in the same way Bush balkanized Iraq?

Ask Wesley for help (you need it)

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kaz]

Why is it you seem incapable of admitting it is US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq that fans the flames of Sunni v Sh'ia?

Wow, you looked up some terms and used them in a complete gibberish sequence. Regarding Syria, you demonstrate again how clueless you are about it. To your quote "Whatever it is that you imagine Putin "won" in Syria had more to do with poking Obama in the eye than supporting Assad."

1) Putin has extensive oil contracts with Shiite Iran. Assad is Shiite. Syria is primarily Sunni. It's critical to Iran that Assad stay in power. They are nuts, Putin wants Assad stable and in power to keep Iran out of a conflict that could jeopardize their oil interests.

2) Assad is blocking a pipeline from the gulf to Europe. Now the only major pipeline goes through the north and carries massive amounts of Russian oil. Russia does not want a southern pipeline because of competition and the price pressure. A Sunni government would immediately allow it.

3) Russia's primary military presence is in Syria. If the Sunnis take over, they are probably going to kick Shiite allied Russia out.

Obama is backing the Sunnis, Putin backed Assad, the Shiite. Putin has everything now. The Iranians aren't in a destabilizing war, the Russians are proceeding with their Iranian oil contracts, the Sunni pipeline from the south is blocked and they have their military base intact. It's not about giving Obama a black eye, that's just a bonus.

But according to you, he'd give all that up and share power. No freaking way, Virginia. Putin is major leagues, Obama is rookie league. Obama's getting schooled and Putin's not going to just say, just kidding, let's split this pig. Please.

Are you simple minded enough to imagine there aren't Shites in Syria ready to send Assad to the Hague in order to serve Putin and Iran? If that stretches your knowledge base, how does the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline validate Obama's intention to fragment Syria and Lebanon in the same way Bush balkanized Iraq?

Ask Wesley for help (you need it)

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, you're simple minded enough to think that has anything to do with Putin and why he's not going to undercut Assad.

 

[georgephillip]

Wow, you looked up some terms and used them in a complete gibberish sequence. Regarding Syria, you demonstrate again how clueless you are about it. To your quote "Whatever it is that you imagine Putin "won" in Syria had more to do with poking Obama in the eye than supporting Assad."

1) Putin has extensive oil contracts with Shiite Iran. Assad is Shiite. Syria is primarily Sunni. It's critical to Iran that Assad stay in power. They are nuts, Putin wants Assad stable and in power to keep Iran out of a conflict that could jeopardize their oil interests.

2) Assad is blocking a pipeline from the gulf to Europe. Now the only major pipeline goes through the north and carries massive amounts of Russian oil. Russia does not want a southern pipeline because of competition and the price pressure. A Sunni government would immediately allow it.

3) Russia's primary military presence is in Syria. If the Sunnis take over, they are probably going to kick Shiite allied Russia out.

Obama is backing the Sunnis, Putin backed Assad, the Shiite. Putin has everything now. The Iranians aren't in a destabilizing war, the Russians are proceeding with their Iranian oil contracts, the Sunni pipeline from the south is blocked and they have their military base intact. It's not about giving Obama a black eye, that's just a bonus.

But according to you, he'd give all that up and share power. No freaking way, Virginia. Putin is major leagues, Obama is rookie league. Obama's getting schooled and Putin's not going to just say, just kidding, let's split this pig. Please.

Are you simple minded enough to imagine there aren't Shites in Syria ready to send Assad to the Hague in order to serve Putin and Iran? If that stretches your knowledge base, how does the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline validate Obama's intention to fragment Syria and Lebanon in the same way Bush balkanized Iraq?

Ask Wesley for help (you need it)

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, you're simple minded enough to think that has anything to do with Putin and why he's not going to undercut Assad.

The Real Reason Putin Supports Assad | Foreign Affairs

"Neither these differences nor the scale of the humanitarian tragedy will convince Putin to change his mind on Syria.

"The Russian president will continue to hold out against intervention and insist that negotiations with Assad must be part of the way forward, until some strongman can be found to restore a semblance of order to Syria’s chaos.

"If, by some miracle, Syria does not turn into a full-scale regional disaster, Putin will pat himself on the back and say it was thanks to him because he prevented an intervention.

"If the more likely scenario plays out, Putin will blame Washington.

"He will hold the United States responsible for destroying Syria and empowering Sunni Islamist extremists by championing democracy and the Arab revolutions.

"Meanwhile, Putin’s obstinacy is already turning his worst nightmare -- the fracturing of a geopolitically important state -- into a reality."

 

[kaz]

Are you simple minded enough to imagine there aren't Shites in Syria ready to send Assad to the Hague in order to serve Putin and Iran? If that stretches your knowledge base, how does the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline validate Obama's intention to fragment Syria and Lebanon in the same way Bush balkanized Iraq?

Ask Wesley for help (you need it)

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,Sudan and finishing off Iran.'"

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, you're simple minded enough to think that has anything to do with Putin and why he's not going to undercut Assad.

The Real Reason Putin Supports Assad | Foreign Affairs

"Neither these differences nor the scale of the humanitarian tragedy will convince Putin to change his mind on Syria.

"The Russian president will continue to hold out against intervention and insist that negotiations with Assad must be part of the way forward, until some strongman can be found to restore a semblance of order to Syria’s chaos.

"If, by some miracle, Syria does not turn into a full-scale regional disaster, Putin will pat himself on the back and say it was thanks to him because he prevented an intervention.

"If the more likely scenario plays out, Putin will blame Washington.

"He will hold the United States responsible for destroying Syria and empowering Sunni Islamist extremists by championing democracy and the Arab revolutions.

"Meanwhile, Putin’s obstinacy is already turning his worst nightmare -- the fracturing of a geopolitically important state -- into a reality."

I don't see what those quotes add to the discussion. Are you just referring to the speculation that things could go south?

I would agree with that, but there is no risk free strategy there. I am not seeing any real contradiction of what I argued or support for what you argued. I read a bunch of the article, it didn't really add to that.

 

[georgephillip]

"Relations have been further strained by Syrian security forces' failure to protect Robert Stephen Ford, the U.S. ambassador to Syria, from being attacked by pro-Assad mobs on at least two occasions, as well as to prevent vandalism of the U.S. embassy and diplomatic property.[25]

"On October 24, 2011, the U.S. announced that it had recalled Ambassador Ford due to 'credible threats against his personal safety.' [26]

"Currently, US interests in Syria are represented by an Interest Section in the Embassy of the Czech Republic.

"After the revelation of the Houla massacre, the U.S. State Department stated that Syrian chargé d'affaires in Washington was given 72 hours to leave the country."

Syria?United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia