Iran Blames Outside Influences For Rise Of Islamic State -- Reuters
(Reuters) - Iran President Hassan Rouhani blamed the rise of the Islamic State group and other militants on "certain intelligence agencies" but also said the solution to stopping them must come from the Middle East region itself.
"The extremists of the world have found each other and have put out the call, 'extremists of the world unite'. But are we united against the extremists?" Rouhani asked in a speech to the 193-member United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.
The comments are among the strongest yet by predominantly Shi'ite Iran on the meteoric rise of the Sunni militant group and suggest arch-foes Iran and the United States have a shared interest in confronting the threat after decades of enmity.
Read more ...
More News On Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's Address At The U.N.
Iran's Leader Blames Outside Meddling for Islamic State's Existence -- New York Times
Rouhani blames rise in extremism on West's 'blunders' -- BBC
Iran’s Rouhani blames ‘certain intelligence agencies’ for rise of global extremism -- RT
Hassan Rouhani UN Speech: Iranian President Blames West For Middle East Extremism During United Nations Assembly -- IBTimes
Iran’s Rouhani blames rise of Isis on western meddling in Middle East -- The Guardian
Iran's Rouhani Blames West for Spread of Extremisn in Middle East -- RIA Novosti
Rouhani Blames the West for Rise of Islamic State, Demands Apology -- NRO
Rouhani blames West for Middle East 'strategic blunders' -- Deutsche Welle
Iranian President Rouhani Criticizes U.S. Airstrikes Against ISIS -- Time
Iran’s president appeals for ‘united’ world against extremism in name of Islam -- Washington Post
Iran’s President Rouhani: Extremists want to destroy civilization -- Washington Times
Rouhani warns over Free Syria Army -- CNN
Iran Says the West Should Step Aside in the Fight Against ISIL -- Defense One/National Journal
Rouhani: We have 'historic opportunity' on nuclear negotiations -- CNN
Iran’s President Vows Honest Dialogue in Nuclear Talks -- VOA
Iran Says Ready for 'Good Faith' Nuclear Deal with West -- RIA Novsoti
Tehran determined to go ahead with nuclear program, including uranium enrichment — Rouhani -- ITAR-TASS
Iran President: Nuclear Deal Could Aid Extremism Fight. -- Wall Street Journal
3 comments:
This article and others nearby vividly display the strategic parallax in (a) how the West, and especially the U.S. Administration, view ISIS, and (b) how most of the players in the Middle East view ISIS.
1. To the U.S. Administration, ISIS is so bad that attacking it trumps other matters, including all of the wars and other disputes going on in the Middle East. To the Administration, everyone should set aside their other differences and cooperate to destroy ISIS.
2. To most of the Middle East powers, ISIS is secondary to their other goals. Take Iran: Rouhani is willing to cooperate against ISIS provided the West caves on Iran's nuclear ambitions. In other words, Iran wants nukes more than it opposes ISIS. I think that most of the nations in the Middle East have made the same calculation: ISIS is secondary to their other goals. I wonder whether the Administration sees this strategic confusion?
3. Several implications flow from this parallax view:
a. We can expect limited cooperation from our new coalition, at least the Middle Eastern powers who joined it. Our coalition partners will cooperate against ISIS only to the extent that cooperation advances their more important goals.
b. Our coalition partners will expect us to accede to their goals in exchange for their cooperation against ISIS. Quid pro quo.
c. The members of the coalition will change as their underlying goals evolve over time.
d. Our coalition partners will likely not stick together for long. As their respective interests diverge, they will follow their interests. That may not include fighting ISIS.
4. ISIS is clearly a threat to the West. Islamic extremism hates the West with special intensity and singleness of purpose. I wonder what (if any) facts exist on which the Iraqi Prime Minister based his warning that ISIS is plotting to attack US and French metros.
5. In light of #4, the West has an interest in attacking ISIS regardless of the effects of those attacks on Middle Eastern powers. Can we avoid getting sucked into the quagmire of the insoluble disputes of the Middle East by limiting our mission to attacking ISIS? Can we attack ISIS and stay aloof from the multiple problems endemic to the Middle East?
6. I would like to think that the West can turn the tables on our Middle Eastern partners. Quid pro quos can run both ways. Unfortunately, the West usually gets outmaneuvered in the Middle East bazaar. This US Administration is unusually unskilled at diplomacy, even by Western standards.
1.A case of an Administration believing and being captured by it's own propaganda about itself. "We speak, therefore it's the truth, all others believe."
2. He's (the US) here, he's big, he's got money and he's stupid. Let's use him for all it's worth for what we want. Usually this is me at a poker game.
3.
a.Yes
b.Again, yes. Iran now has enormous help in propping up a puppet regime in Iraq, saving their ally Assad, reestablishing land communications with Hezbollah, and keeping Turkey at a distance in the region.
c. Yes
d.Yes, and it might very well mean fighting among themselves.
4. Who knows, but that regime should be regarded as a mouthpiece for Iran.
5. No, not now. We are already in.
6. You are being kind with this paragraph.
Iran has gone from a terrible position, collapse of their pocket ally Iraq, severing of land communication to Assad and Hezbollah, and a virulently anti Shia military force almost directly on their border, to having the world's best air force, navy, and intelligence gathering operation working almost hand in hand with their strategic aims. They now have have no fear whats so ever of invasion of Iran proper and good prospects of their former position reestablished and enhanced.
Iran can also use the threat of ISIS has an excellent excuse for the acquisition of the bomb.
The one who'll have in my opinion the greatest chance to benefit from this is Putin. The initiative in almost all arenas now is his.
Almost forgot, ISIS attacked this Administration in the one place they can't let go by without response, optically. It was a brilliant move by ISIS in that sense, will it be their undoing, we'll see, but I doubt it.
Post a Comment