Russia: Iran must join Syria peace conference
Source: Source: Agencies
Russia has said that it is imperative for Iran to join a proposed peace conference on Syria despite reservations from some Western nations.
"The issue of Iran is key for us," said Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, while on a visit to Paris on Tuesday. "Iran, without question, is one of the most important nations."
Russia has argued that both Iran, a key backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and rebel ally Saudi Arabia should take part in the negotiations as part of a new push for peace agreed by Moscow and Washington earlier this month.
France has already rejected the idea of Iran taking part, while the United States has responded to Moscow's proposal with scepticism.
Read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/201352902216747809.html
jessie04
(1,528 posts)Yes, when it come to peace, I always think of Iran.
If you don't know that's sarcasm, I'm sorry.
Gore1FL
(21,030 posts)there isn't going to be success if they aren't in on the plan. That doesn't mean they get to call the shots. It's important to recognize Iran's influence there.
jessie04
(1,528 posts)Lets show love to the worlds number one terrorist supplier.
I'm sure they will add to the peace process.
Gore1FL
(21,030 posts)I thought we had that one sewn up.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)They've spent $3 billion trying to create a revolution in Syria. They don't care how many Syrians die.
John2
(2,730 posts)They actually think the U.S. is the biggest suppliers of Terrorists in Israel. They also think Hezbullah are a resistance and freedom fighters. It depends on which side of the fence you sat on. They think the U.S. planted Israel in the region to cause trouble and control resources. Their whole gripe is Israel is a zionist plot by the West to divide the region and those helping Israel such as Saudi Arabia are fake who are the imperialist West's puppets. Their claims stems from the British and U.S. interference in Iranian affairs for Oil. And of course overthrowing an elected official for the Shah. They called the U.S. the Great Satan. Do you disagree with what they allege the U.S. did? Israel has violated a number of resolutions and never been sanctioned because of a U.S. veto. So that would make someone suspicious of the U.S.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)I mean after all, who gives a shit about world peace.
Iran is NOT the #1 terrorist state; we are. And yes, I'm sure they can add to the mix as well. We need to stabilize the entire region.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)it. Iran tortured its own citizens after the Mullahs took over, in ways that crippled some of them forever. I met one of the victims of Iran's torture. When the US tortures someone, it is wrong. Why? Because torture can completely destroy a man's or woman's ability to cope with life. The man I met who had been tortured by the Iranians was a Bahai Iranian. He was a good man before he was tortured, a brilliant man I was told. After the torture he was helpless.
So, Iran (and the US) need to apologize for torture (and punish those who did it if possible) and then maybe they can be invited to make peace with civilized countries.
Torture is wrong. Iran (and the US) should not just end the practice but also apologize for having used it or having had others use it for them.
Gore1FL
(21,030 posts)This is unrelated to Iran-specific negotiations. Like it or not, Iran has influence in the region. A stable Syria cannot exist without Iran.
We aren't best Buddies with China, either. Nonetheless they need to be involved with N. Korean issues. The same is true with Iran when it comes to Syria.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)What is France doing there?
jessie04
(1,528 posts)but I seem to have more confidence with France than I do with Iran when it come to peace and justice.
I'm funny about 15th century regimes that way.
John2
(2,730 posts)of the Biggest Imperialist Powers there was, until they lost it all during world War II to Germany. They have not regained their Territories ever since. In fact Syria use to be one and they placed the Alawites in charge to control the Sunni majority.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Have you heard of the War in Algeria?
Check your dates. Please check the facts.
Here are just a few.
When the Indochina War ended with defeat and withdrawal in 1954, France became almost immediately involved in a new, and even harsher conflict in Algeria, the oldest major colony. Ferhat Abbas and Messali Hadj's movements had marked the period between the two wars, but both sides radicalised after the Second World War. In 1945, the Sétif massacre was carried out by the French army.
The Algerian War started in 1954. Algeria was particularly problematic, due to the large number of European settlers (or pieds-noirs) who had settled there in the 125 years of French rule. Charles de Gaulle's accession to power in 1958 in the middle of the crisis ultimately led to the independence of Algeria with the 1962 Evian Accords. The Suez crisis in 1956 also displayed the limitations of French power, as its attempt to retake the canal along with the British was stymied when the United States did not back the plan.
The French Union was replaced in the new 1958 Constitution of 1958 by the French Community. Only Guinea refused by referendum to take part to the new colonial organisation. However, the French Community dissolved itself in the midst of the Algerian War; almost all of the other African colonies were granted independence in 1960, following local referendums. Some few colonies chose instead to remain part of France, under the status of overseas départements (territories). Critics of neocolonialism claimed that the Françafrique had replaced formal direct rule. They argued that while de Gaulle was granting independence on one hand, he was creating new ties with the help of Jacques Foccart, his counsellor for African matters. Foccart supported in particular the Nigerian Civil War during the late 1960s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire
Unless you do not consider Algeria to be part of the Middle East? There are different views on just what is Middle East. But I consider both Algeria and Morocco to be Middle Eastern. They are North African.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)The Russians wouldn't give a shit at all were it not for the fact that Syria's current government grants Russia a naval base on the Mediterranean Sea, which militarily protects (in theory) all of their warm-water commerce from being bottled up in the Black Sea by their historical enemies, the Turks, whenever they please (by being able to forcibly open the straights from both sides at the same time).
From the Russian point of view, a counterbalance to the NATO powers is crucial if they wish to maintain that all-important naval position.
The Russian base at Tartus is only ten miles up the coast from Lebanon's border. So between a satellite naval base and a satellite nation, the Russians and the Iranians are deeply concerned next-door neighbors in all of this.
If the two teamed up, they could seize this moment of weakness and have Lebanon forcibly annex the Syrian coastline up to Tartus, and take the problem away from the Syrians--and NATO--entirely, before any other decisions are reached. That's what Stalin would have done.
So let us hope that the Russians stick to negotiation, and perhaps we ought to recognize Iran's powerful political and military influence in the region as well. Because none of the nations involved so far give a shit about justice, so we sure as hell better include all the parties who can disrupt a peace.