- Our number one priority with respect to Iran is making sure they don’t get nuclear weapon... The question now is: Are we going to be able to close this final gap so that they can reenter the international community, sanctions can be slowly reduced and we have verifiable, lock-tight assurances that they can’t develop a nuclear weapon... There's still a big gap... We may not be able to get there.
- Second thing that we have an interest is that Iran has influence over the Shia – both in Syria and in Iraq and we do have a shared enemy in ISIL.
- We are focused on our common enemy but there’s no coordination or common battle plan (with Iran) and there will not be…There’s some de-conflicting in the sense that… we let them know, don’t mess with us; we’re not here to mess with you.
- I’ve been very clear publicly and privately we are not connecting in any way the nuclear negotiations and the issue of ISIL.
- It’s an almost absolute certainty that [Assad] has lost legitimacy with such a large portion of the country by dropping barrel bombs and killing children… that he can’s regain the kind of legitimacy that would stitch Syria together again.
Photo credit: President Barack Obama talking to Bob Schieffer during an interview on Face the Nation; the Oval Office, 9 November 2014 (CBS)
It is a sad fact that these talks will collapse as Zionist pressure and mullah obfuscation both ruined any chances and now with Republican control of Senate and Presidential elections looming in 2016, a totally lame duck Obama will not risk it. Perhaps, a McCain focus on regime change in Tehran may be the next opportunity after the next Republican President in 2017, if the regional abyss does not move into Iran's borders.
ReplyDeleteThe talks are still well under way; stop being such a pessimist!
DeleteI highly doubt McCain will become president. That position will most likely go to Hillary. Moreover, Iran rarely bows down to pressure. McCain in office would be lie the Bush administration.
We express outrage over the use of "barrel bombs" but is it any worse than napalm? which we reserve a disclaimer for any future, additional use.Actually napalm is considered a more effective anti-presonnel weapon.
ReplyDeleteAs to Assad legitimacy, he did win recent presidential election, and his conventional military remains predominantly Sunni, while the NDF and militias are predominantly made up of the minorities. If we were to use Syrian Arab Republic and allied militia forces as our ground partners in the war against ISIL and al-Qaeda affiliates, while insisting the opposition sit down and negotiate with the Syrian Arab Republic establishment, the war would likely be won in roughly 90 days.
Assad, as his father did, presides over a dictatorship and a police state. your talk about legitimacy because of some recent sham election is pure unadulterated slurry ...and quite noisome.
DeleteWell according to US and Lebanese media reports US through "anonymous" channels has sent a message to Assad that they are not interested in regime change. As you correctly said the Assad did win the election and 80% of the Syrian Arab Army that is fighting with uncanny cohesion and determination is Sunni. The Takfiri brand of senseless savagery has been rejected by all sane people in the region. BTW, 5 Syrian nuclear engineers were gunned down today, you take a wild guess at who is behind that atrocity?
DeleteRight, the concept of war in itself is a nasty one to begin with. Militaries does not concern themselves with how much or how little humane a particular weapon or munition is to the enemy. You make use of as effective weapons as possible to vanquish the enemy on the battlefield. However it's always haram when weapons of any kind, no matter how light, is used against civilians on purpose. For tactical close-in air support, Napalm or certain types of cluster bombs have the most devestating effect on infantry and light armored vehicles. Iron bombs are more suitable for hard targets, like buildings. As far as i know, we never used Napalm in the 1980 Iran-Iraq War, we didn't have it. The Iranians on the other hand had Napalm which they used, especially early in the war. We had chemical munitions instead which we used for the first time in 1983.
DeleteObama words "...We may not be able to get there." say lot.
DeleteAnd I am asking myself whether these words can be unterpreted that we may not get to Iran, and change its system soon.
+A