Iran banished from Meeting to Aid Iraq: It's ‘Not Appropriate,’ Says Kerry

[99th_Monkey]

Iran’s Participation in Meeting to Aid Iraq Is ‘Not Appropriate,’ Says Kerry
By MICHAEL R. GORDONSEPT. 12, 2014

ANKARA, Turkey — Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday that “it would not be appropriate” for Iran to attend an international conference on the security crisis in Iraq that is to be held in Paris next week because of what he called the role that Iran’s paramilitary Quds Force is playing in the fighting in neighboring Syria.

France is the host of the Monday meeting, which is to coordinate aid to the new Iraqi government for its fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. French officials have left open the possibility that Iran might attend.

But during a visit here to consult with Turkish officials on the international effort against ISIS, Mr. Kerry said he opposed including Iran. “Under the circumstances, at this moment in time, it would not be right for any number of reasons,” said Mr. Kerry, who noted that the French had not consulted with him on the question. “Iran has been deeply involved with its forces on the ground in Syria,” Mr. Kerry said. He also called Iran a “state sponsor of terror in various places.”

In recent weeks, speculation has risen that the fight against ISIS might present an opportunity for the United States and Iran to make common cause against a mutual foe and so improve relations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/kerry-opposes-irans-inclusion-in-iraq-security-talks.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article

[roamer65]

1. Childish behavior from Kerry and the WH.

All ME countries need to be involved in these talks to achieve a good outcome.

[840high]

2. I don't agree with Kerry.

[roody]

3. The US had no problem with

Iraq-Iran War. Shame on Kerry, et al.

[YoungDemCA]

5. That was when one of those countries' governments was still allied with the US

(Although the Reagan administration did support the Iranians covertly...)

It was when Saddam Hussein "went rogue", so to speak, and did things that threatened American interests that we decided that he was an evil tyrant.

The calculated, power-driven "national interest" trumps ideals of human rights, or moral principles, or whatever you want to call it, in American foreign policy.

[Autumn]

4. It looks like the whole thing is a sham to me. Iran has a stake in this

and he says it would not be appropriate for them to be there. What complete utter BS.

[99th_Monkey]

9. Seems to me Obama/Kerry may be stuck in the past

geesh, this would be seen as a real opportunity for opening dialogue with Iran,
for any POTUS who genuinely wanted peaceful relations.

This rebuff speaks for itself IMHO.

[tech3149]

6. Just one more example how fucked up we are

Iran is no enemy or threat to the US as a nation, they are a threat to industries that would like to exploit their resources at a lower cost.

For me this is just one more indicator of the continual foreign policy driven by delusional paranoids and rape artists that persist from one administration to the next.

[99th_Monkey]

7. +10 n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

8. well stated.

[woo me with science]

13. +1

[Purveyor]

10. AIPAC talking here. Not a surprise so I'm not disappointed.

[KG]

11. time to end the charade of iran being an enemy or threat to the u.s.

[sub.theory]

12. Agreed

I'm not saying Iran's government doesn't deserve some serious criticism, but it's hardly the untouchable pariah state the US has sought to make it. It's time, even past time, to start engaging them. The situation with ISIS is one where we share clear common interest with Iran and is a solid opportunity to build relations and trust.

How long is this supposed to go on? It doesn't look like the mullahs are going to be out of power anytime soon. Why can't we accept that we may have to work with them? There really are moderate, reformist elements in the government. Surely we aid them better by showing Iranians we aren't an enemy.