Lakhdar Brahimi, United Nations' joint special
representative for Syria, announced today in Geneva that the U.S. has refused
to let Iran participate at Geneva II, the Syria peace talks scheduled to be
held in January.
“(Washington) were not convinced that inviting Iran to
participate was the right thing to do,” Brahimi said. (BBC, 20 December)
Photo credit: Lakhdar Brahimi (C) waits with other delegates before a meeting at the United Nations European headquarters in Geneva. December 20, 2013. (Reuters/VOA)
Peace talks to nowhere,what a joke!,do they seriously think they`ll get anywhere without irans participation,of course now that assad is clearly winning why should he accept anything less than victory and the surrender of the rebels/jihadis
ReplyDeleteThey can kiss goodbye to Geneva 2.0 .. In fact, Geneva 2.0 isn't necessary anymore as the Syrian government is not in any rush. The rebels are losing ground day by day and there's doubt in Western capitals they can hold out till 2014.
ReplyDeleteGame over!!!
Man tou Dahan Eslam Mizanam
ReplyDeleteIman Khomenei (ha ha ha)...
it is actually a bone thrown at the Saudis... (not inviting Iran)
ReplyDeleteAnd,
actually not expecting any outcome..
Azari by fortune and Iranian by Grace of God
Dariush London.
Not directly related to the topic, but a documentary that shows USA's strong influence, power projection and geostrategical supremacy during WW2 which set the ground for the existing world order:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VolG7V3-4hw
Iran funds, arms and trains foreign groups in Syria, that is true, hence Washington's argument that it is not welcome in directly participating in talks, let's even assume they are being genuine in their concerns, which I highly doubt, and that is me being euphemistic.
ReplyDeleteWhat is also true, is that major GCC and US-allies such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia also train, fund and arm Al-Qaeda affiliated terror groups that harm both local populations in the area they control, fact widely acknowledged by humanitarian sources and the UN itself, AND other, more moderate rebel groups. The US knows this as well, and is willing to talk to them, as Mr. Kerry has repeatedly indicated in recent days.
Now, the question is : will the same kind of moral concerns from the Americans lead them to banish these two countries from the upcoming talks as well ? If their standards are one and the same towards Syrian and human suffering in general, all caring and idealistic as they are, is it going to make them apply the same kind of arbitrary and unilateral punishment to their allies helping foreign groups on the ground ? or is it just another case of them protecting "their sons of bitches", if I may put it that way, as Mr. Rumsfeld would quite literately say about his "friends of the moment" ?
And that is even assuming they have no links whatsoever directly, or indirectly with any GCC-supported Al-Qaeda knock-offs (and there it sounds like a joke, but let's even give them that). I am simply wondering whether they are going to display an ounce of objectivity and consistency in their political behavior this time around.
Frankly, I doubt any willing member of the GCC is going to have its seat empty when the talks finally happen. But let's wait & see, still with no great deal of surprise in sight.
What I find literally funny in turn is how they self-proclaimed their moral high ground once again towards every other country involved, playing some kind of global manager, or arbiter/judge deciding who should and should not come to the party, while themselves, like any other player on the ground, have done nothing but move forward their own plans and agendas, with the associated pawns (yes, pawns) that come into play in the process, and nothing else.
-A
AnonymousDecember 21, 2013 at 8:59 AM
DeleteYes,good old blood thirsty western hypocrisy and double standards,pretty much par for the course when it comes to the west and its relations with the middle east,frankly I find it very humorous that they think they can achieve anything without irans presence,of course now that the government is winning and the fsa has effectively ceased to exist and been replaced by various saudi backed jihadi groups one wonders what there actually is to talk about,assad has no reason to agree to any deals as he is going to win,for their part the saudis have made it clear they are going to keep supporting the terrorists regardless.The whole thing sounds like an exercise in futility
"Now, the question is : will the same kind of moral concerns from the Americans lead them to banish these two countries from the upcoming talks as well ? If their standards are one and the same towards Syrian and human suffering in general, all caring and idealistic as they are, is it going to make them apply the same kind of arbitrary and unilateral punishment to their allies helping foreign groups on the ground ?"
DeleteOf course not. This is a perfect example of the reasons for the Syrian war. The American regime and its regional puppet states supporting one side in the conflict, because it suits their agenda. This is what American and other western foreign policy is based on: double standards. It's a case of "do as I say, NOT as I do".
@ A : there is no morality in the world; hypocrisy is the normality in the world of politics - you are yourself a hypocrite if you suppose you are different; Yes, USA makes a distinction between pro-american and anti-american forces - grow up and deal with it; China does the same, Russia does the same and I guess you do the same after all is said and done too; there is no consistency or objectivity in the world of politics; do not try to delude yourself or others; the world is Darwinian - like it or not; morality exists only in your imagination - not in the reality; you can judge USA only if it makes sense to you to have some common ground with it - that means if you are not anti-American; it makes no sense at all if you want to be anti-American and criticize USA at the same time - you see ? you can't have it both ways, either you share some common ground with USA or not - that is the real question you have to address ...
ReplyDeleteWell it is your choice if you decide that you are born without any ethical or moral attributes while living in a world of Darwinian equations. Being a Darwinian myself, I refuse to be categorized in the same league as your kind. You and I very different, if you see the world exclusively through the prism of the mighty ruling the world, no wonder you aren't surprised or shocked a bit by witnessing bullies subduing smaller entities. Darwin describes relationship between species, and not internal interactions between sentient entities belonging to one and the same race, where the "Intelligence factor" comes into play and an alternative is possible. In that regard, we do not share the same definition of Darwinism here obviously, but I would go off-topic by wandering any further in that direction, no matter how tempting your condescension makes it in going to the bottom of this.
DeleteAnd since I also refuse to get involved in politics precisely because of the observations you make of it, one country indeed not being better than the other (and being exactly my thesis to begin with, but it seems to have eluded you attention), your "guess" about my mindset is void a 2nd time. But thanks for trying to teach me that politics are stone cold calculations and agendas. But that's precisely the point I was trying to make, and the anger I expressed at the US of A in its latest blatant example of double standards, with their leaders performing looping, self-inflating speeches daily in front of world cameras on a tribune where they appropriate all the great virtues of Justice and Democracy while on the ground violate those very notions in the face of the whole world in all audacity just because they can, was a direct consequence of it. I could care less if they contented themselves at doing their dirty work behind the scenes like everyone else does (again, just like you say, funny isn't it) BUT AT LEAST sparing us the usual moralistic lecture, but the fact is, they don't, and keep annoying us with their outright ludicrous bullshit about spearheading the success of Good on Earth every time they act.
Well yes Sir, I do have a big problem with a superpower bully trying to meddle in every single instability niche in the world and try to re-root in its own favor, notwithstanding the kind of "Frankensteinian" demons that may arise through their dark alliances and totally ignoring the genuine interests of the people involved. And yes, same for Iran, same for China, and same for Russia. I do have a tendency to oppose specifically the US of A in their Manichean uniqueness at constantly portraying themselves as the proponents of Good on Earth while all they do on the ground is propping up mega-rich, highly oppressive and obscurantist religious monarchies and help them in supporting their own wicked off-shoots. And i feel equal pain every single time I watch infamous Khamenei teaching us about all the magnificence in having an Islamic Republic as the beacon of grace and virtue for mankind, and specially Iranians, yes. But some other leaders do NOT try to teach the world such lessons, no matter the dirtiness of their own actual actions within their sphere of influence, and all I see when I browse the news about the latest public interventions of both Chinese and specially Russian presidents, is that no one is entitled to force its views or way of life on any part of the globe. Putin said it verbatim several times, no matter how evil he is himself and prone at doing the opposite, we can at least give him credit for being more honest in the very regard you're underlining here. The blame you're trying to put on my honestly could be directly addressed to Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry when they open their mouths telling us how much they care about and love the Syrian people.
-A
PS : what kind of rationale are you trying to impose as established here exactly anyway ? that you need to have common ground with a given country to have legitimacy in criticizing its actions ? I am totally anti-IRI on the political field, I have absolutely nothing in common with their vision or enforcement of it, by your logic I should thus keep silent and never express my opposition to the regime's abuses, is that right ? would it satisfy your take on the world ? Would you decently accept to apply your rationale to a non-western country ? you obviously don't have much common ground with the Islamic Republic of Iran either politically, considering your low tolerance to voices critical of the US, despite your efforts in simply appearing as some sort neutral pragmatic viewing Human Nature in accordance to your personal application of Darwninism, do you ?
DeleteIs the very notion of "opposition" to an entity or person on a given issue not the direct fruit of NOT sharing common ground with it on that specific issue ? do you see how broken your rationale is when mirrored to the opposite side of the fence ? it goes counter to the very existence of the author's blog, do you realize ?
Now why don't you go get your facts right before asking people to grow up ? otherwise it will only be good at betraying your bias, or falsely induce it, assuming of course that you are, as I am, an opponent to the Iranian regime. I personally come from a family that fought the Islamic Regime before having to leave the country for good, while if only driven by calculus and self-interest as you say, they could stayed and prospered, and that at the same time has no love for American imperialism. Now don't tell me you're surprised someone can actually oppose both the US and Iran or any other country wherever they are to blame. that's called principles, morality, objectivity, you got them all right there, and I have learned to grow with it rather than your cold and mathematical vision of every single individual on the planet, me included apparently.
-A
@ A, I can not address every word, Darwinism does not actually mean that you can get away with reckless behaviour - that is what it does NOT mean; but it does mean that you have to care about your self-preservation (as a person or as a nation), that is what (Iranian) leftist and Islamists do not understand. I don't share any common ground with Islamic Republic - well except Iran.so you can not compare these two relations; as I said, if you criticize someone you are appealing to some common ground, so criticizing America does not make any sense if you are outright anti-American - you see? That is the basic hypocrisy of anti-American forces ...
DeleteMaybe we have trouble finding common ground on the definition of being "Anti-American". If by that you mean opposing anything that the USA makes , does or stand for on the sole basis that is it American and thus some sort of Big Satan or Infidel or whatever in the same league then I am no such thing, considering there are many things inside American Society that I tend to apreciate despite my opposition to their foreign policy. And by your definition the same applies to blatantly and uncondtionnally anti-Iran forces, far-right Israeli and American elements being notable examples of it nowadays, do you concur that they are as much hypocritical in their hostility towards Iran as their Anti-US counterparts ? Also, as you must have guessed by now, I belong to what you would call a "left leaning mindset" even though I don't speak on behalf of any specific political group to properly speak of. And in that sense I've always stood at the side of Iran's preservation of its National fabric , territorial Integrity and the sovereignty bound to it as a country, independantly from a given leadership governing it at a given time in history, today the IRI, tomorrow something else probably. That is why I support current efforts of its negociating team in finding a lasting solution to the nuclear issue. That is also why despite my grievances towards all the political, ethical, moral and economic catastrophy that their governance has brought for the Iranian people, I feel genuine satisfaction whenever I observe advancement in the fields of scientific and academic sector would it be defense related or not, because any suh advances towards a greater degree of self-sufficiency is a step forward to greater independance for tomorrow's Iran, for hopefully different and more beautiful Iran... And I say all of this despite my contempt for what the IRI is at so many levels. So as a "leftist" even though I don't line to be categorized or labeled in such way ,I concede surprise at your judgment towards our "kind" regarding our lack of attention towards self-preservation, even though I am not sure that was what you meant. Anyway... That has at the contrary always been the forefront of my moral interventionism both on the web and in real life whenever my voice could be heard, and this particularly ever since Bush Jr. initiated a new era of murderous semi-genocidal imperialism on the Middle East. I regarely make clear such duplicity in my twin opposition to both the IRI and some of its principal opponents on this blog and elsewhere and I'll be glad to make it clear again as many times as it is necessary in the eyes of anyone doubting the authenticity and sincerity of my long-thought positions.
Delete-A
So that information - decision may disclose, that the adminisration's intentions to veto additional sanctions are meaningless, and are part of a clever game to gain concessions from the Islamic Republic without any significant steps, as well as to provide arguments for the next election campaign that "we brougt them to their knees".......and all major sanctions are srill in place.
ReplyDeleteA-F
A-F
A-F,
DeleteWhat does Obama's veto threat related to congressional new sanctions have to do with Obama’s Syrian policy? The post here is about the so-called Geneva II, the international conference on Syrian conflict. The similarity in names probably has confused you: this post was not about Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program, but about Geneva II conference on Syria.