Iran, Syria to Form 'United Front'

[Fluffybunny]

I wonder if there are any two-for one special going for invasions?

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran and Syria, who both are facing pressure from the United States, said Wednesday they will form a "united front" to confront possible threats against them, state-run television reported.

"In view of the special conditions faced by Syria, Iran will transfer its experience, especially concerning sanctions, to Syria," Mohammad Reza Aref, Iran's first vice president, was quoted as saying after meeting Syrian Prime Minister Mohammad Naji Otari.

"At this sensitive point, the two countries require a united front due to numerous challenges."

Otari concurred, saying, "The challenges we face in Syria and Iran require us to be in one front to confront all the challenges imposed (on us) by others."

The report did not specifically mention the challenges, but both countries are under U.S. economic sanctions and the targets of intense American pressure.

Iran, which President Bush (news - web sites) had labeled an "axis of evil" with North Korea (news - web sites) and prewar Iraq (news - web sites), was named an "outpost of tyranny" last month by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites).

The United States has accused Iran of seeking to produce nuclear weapons, while relations with Syria have deteriorated, especially since Monday's assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Many Lebanese blamed Monday's car bombing in Beirut on Syria, but the Syrian government has denied responsibility. Washington is recalling its ambassador from Syria in apparent response to Hariri's killing.

Washington also accuses Syria of aiding anti-Israeli militants and supporting insurgents in Iraq.

Tehran and Damascus have been strategic allies for years. Syria was the only Arab country that continued its warm relations with Iran during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

Link

[Stellar]

If I was Bush and wanted/dreamed to take over both Iran and Syria, I'd be tempting them to invade Iraq. Once one of them invades Iraq, the coalition will really need to organise to protect Iraq and the UN would probably get in on it also in order to protect Iraq. Isreal ties up Syria because Syria is either the aggressor or the aggressors allie...

[Mad Manfred]

I don't think they're that stupid Steller Sure, they've done some pretty idiotic things in the past, but I really doubt they'd fall for an obvious setup like that

Anyway, I see this as good news. Why? Because now the US will be less likely to invade Iran.

Though if it did happen, the US will most likely launch its invasion from Iraq...unfortunately for them, Iraq is sandwiched between Syria and Iran. The US can't deal with a pro-Iranian Iraqi government insurgent attacks, plus attacks from Syria on one side and attacks from Iran on the other.

Who knows...this may inspire a new, more powerful Afghani insurgency.

btw, I don't doubt the invading Christian hordes will win...but not without suffering HEAVY casualties.

[Stellar]

I don't think they're that stupid Steller wink2.gif Sure, they've done some pretty idiotic things in the past, but I really doubt they'd fall for an obvious setup like that

You never know...

Though if it did happen, the US will most likely launch its invasion from Iraq...unfortunately for them, Iraq is sandwiched between Syria and Iran. The US can't deal with a pro-Iranian Iraqi government insurgent attacks, plus attacks from Syria on one side and attacks from Iran on the other.

But with Isreal as an ally, Syria can get tied up.

I dont see this as a sign that war wont happen... I see this as a sign that if it does happen, it'll just be more bloody.

[4dplane]

Since Iran and Syria are forming a 'United Front', I wonder who else might join - North Korea maybe. It would make sense according to Bush's elegant labeling of the worlds most evil countries.

[Mad Manfred]

Nah, NK will use it as an opportunity to gather more resourses and materials for their nukes.

I doubt they'd ally themselves with Middle Eastern countries.

[bathory]

I doubt they'd ally themselves with Middle Eastern countries.

they were helping out a middle eastern country(ies) in the 80s...i can't remember which one(s) but i'm thinking syria? Iraq was also in negotiations to buy new missile systems from North Korea (prior to the invasion).

[zephyr]

Anyone thinking that Iran might invade Iraq or that the US might invade Iran through Iraq is not familiar with the social and political climate and the cultural links between these two countries. It's going to be very hard for any foreign power to persuade the Kurds and the shia people of Iraq (both with strong cross-border links with their counterparts in Iran), who control the government now as well to allow such a misadventure through their soil even if the US had the means to do so (very doubtful since the US has shown that it has a hard time controlling even a few foreign terrorists operating in Iraq). Iran does not need to invade Iraq since the government of Iraq is controlled by people who feel extremely close to Iran and the Iranians (Ayatollah Sistani is Iranian and everyone is aware of his influence in Iraq today and the fact that it would be very hard for the occupying powers in Iraq to even stay there if the grand Ayatollah decided otherwise, let alone the use of Iraq as a launching pad against his own homeland and his followers in Iran). Therefore it can be concluded that the invasion of Iran through Iraq by the US (or anybody else for that matter), and the invasion of Iraq by Iran are closer to myth than reality. People are just going to have to learn to live with the realities of this region and the fact that Iran plays a very important and decisive role; a role that is cultural and political, and no military action can change that.

[warden]

Imagine those to in bed together,as people have said before ,what other blinded countrie will be next to join

[Babs]

zep...you said Iran was unconcerned about attacks from the US or from anyone else. Iran is so jumpy that they thought they were being shot at by an unidentified aircraft. I think that you protest too much about all this "we're unconcerned, very strong, can handle everything B.S." In other words, you are a little lop-sided when it comes to reporting on Iran. What you say and what's happening doesn't seem to mesh.

[Homer]

In other words, you are a little lop-sided when it comes to reporting on Iran. What you say and what's happening doesn't seem to mesh.

491163[/snapback]

Babs, why are you provoking an argument with zephyr? You act like zephyr was the one who reported the incident with the explosion, and with that saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", it only makes sense that Syria and Iran would see eye to eye on this issue and make a 'united front', even if the united front is just rhetoric.

Unlike N.Korea, Iran has not threatened it's neighbors with nukes and invasions and stuff. I think the U.S. and allies should concentrate more on N.Korea(as they are more of a threat, in my opinion) and Syria(since they are a weak nation).

Just my opinion

[warden]

In other words, you are a little lop-sided when it comes to reporting on Iran. What you say and what's happening doesn't seem to mesh.

491163[/snapback]

Babs, why are you provoking an argument with zephyr? You act like zephyr was the one who reported the incident with the explosion, and with that saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", it only makes sense that Syria and Iran would see eye to eye on this issue and make a 'united front', even if the united front is just rhetoric.

Unlike N.Korea, Iran has not threatened it's neighbors with nukes and invasions and stuff. I think the U.S. and allies should concentrate more on N.Korea(as they are more of a threat, in my opinion) and Syria(since they are a weak nation).

Just my opinion

491180[/snapback]

The way the media are holding on to these stories ,they are making out they are all a threat

[Babs]

I am not trying to start an argument. I see zep doing exactly what I said. If you have read his past posts he talks just like I said_and in contrast, the media says Iran is jumpy. Big discrepancy here!

I think we should concentrate on Syria too. I see that it is understandable that the two countries would unite, but that doesn't make it right. So what? The whole thing isn't right. Something is going on and it seems to be taking on momentum. I say put N. Korea on the back burner and deal with Syria.

I don't know about Iran, except now it is starting to get aggressive by shacking up with Syria.

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[zephyr]

I am not trying to start an argument. I see zep doing exactly what I said. If you have read his past posts he talks just like I said_and in contrast, the media says Iran is jumpy. Big discrepancy here!

I think we should concentrate on Syria too. I see that it is understandable that the two countries would unite, but that doesn't make it right. So what? The whole thing isn't right. Something is going on and it seems to be taking on momentum. I say put N. Korea on the back burner and deal with Syria.

I don't know about Iran, except now it is starting to get aggressive by shacking up with Syria.

491195[/snapback]

I think you've misunderstood what I was saying Babs! You should not believe everything the media say since they have a long history of misleading the general public, especially in matters concerning Iran. Given the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the whole of the ME in general and the major role Iran plays in the region, it's very hard to believe anybody would be crazy enough to attack Iran. The outcome and the goals of such attacks are far from being clear and it would be more like a mass suicide, or at least something that might inflame the whole region, not to mention the historical blow that would be to the moderate, democratic forces within Iran itself, something which is totally contrary to the announced policies of Bush concerning democracy and the people of Iran. A military attack would only harden the attitudes and would encourage fanaticism and a hard line approach, something to be avoided at all costs. That's why people I talk to anyway don't believe seriously in any military action decided by any wise politician especially the American ones since they, more than anybody else would not want to see the situation get out of hand in the countries they're occupying with a certain degree of vulnerability. If you listen carefully to US officials, it's very easy to see that fortunately, they realize this quite well, however having said that, there is always the possibility of someone making a bad mistake somewhere. Dropping a bomb on a site in Iran isn't going to bring democracy or a change of the regim. Of course neither I nor the people I discuss with represent the Iranian government, but pretty much reflect the mood among many people. I don't really know whom you're talking about when you mention 'being jumpy', but I can assure you that I haven't met anybody yet who is losing any sleep out of the fear of an attack. So if you truly want to know the dynamics involved in such a complicated matter, I suggest you look beyond the daily news on the tv and study the history and the existing links between the different countries in the ME. And on a final note, Babs, I'm not interested in ultra-nationalistic arguments and am not trying to look tough or similar kind of childish attitude. I just hope that people making decisions and those voting for them realize the volatility of the situation and that a simple mistake could have unpredictable consequences for everybody, including for you and me Babs!

[Babs]

I am very well aware of the consequences for my country (and for me) ...and your talk doesn't change the situation at all. I am not buying what you say, completely, here, zep. I don't want to get involved at the moment with Iran (as it is too much to take on_ my opinion ) but Syria is the one we should get involved with. Now, your country, Iran, gets aggressive, talks all this tough talk against us (US) and joins Syria. What choice does that give us? I guess we should just forget the whole thing and trust that terrorism will die out?

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Babs]

zep writes:

I just hope that people making those decisions and those voting for them realize the volativity of the situation and that a simple mistake could have unpredictable consequences for everybody, including for you and me, Babs!

You have to even say something like this after 911? Many people have been hurt!... and pulverized!

We're going to rock and roll.

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[gollum]

zep...you said Iran was unconcerned about attacks from the US or from anyone else. Iran is so jumpy that they thought they were being shot at by an unidentified aircraft. I think that you protest too much about all this "we're unconcerned, very strong, can handle everything B.S." In other words, you are a little lop-sided when it comes to reporting on Iran. What you say and what's happening doesn't seem to mesh.

491163[/snapback]

If you had a World super power breathing down your neck threatening you with invasion, I think you would be rather jumpy too.

He's a little lop-sided? Is that what you said? My god woman, talk about pot calling the kettle black.

Does "We're tight" ring any bells?

He's not reporting on Iran. He just happens to live there and is giving his opinion on the current situation as he see's it. Just like you do with your opinion on the goings on in the US.It does'nt mean you have to believe him, just like 99% of the time I cant believe you.

[gollum]

zep writes:

I just hope that people making those decisions and those voting for them realize the volativity of the situation and that a simple mistake could have unpredictable consequences for everybody, including for you and me, Babs!

You have to even say something like this after 911? Many people have been hurt!... and pulverized!

We're going to rock and roll.

491321[/snapback]

And what does Iran and Syria have to do with 9/11?

Babs, the whole 9/11 thing, I think you really need counciling or something. Because to me it appears to have afected you a great deal. Maybe more so than most.

[Babs]

zep...I wanted to say, nothing personal, you seem like a nice guy.

[Homer]

and your talk doesn't change the situation at all. I am not buying what you say, completely, here, zep.

Babs do you realize whay you're saying? zephyr doesn't speak for Iran, so what is his talk suppose to change? You don't speak for the U.S., so who cares if you're not buying what zephyr is saying.

Now, your country, Iran, gets aggressive, talks all this tough talk against us (US) and joins Syria.    What choice does that give us?

The only news reports I hear regarding Iran's tough talk is that they will defend themselves against any U.S. agression, and this is in reply to the U.S. "not ruling out" military action against Iran. So now who is talking tough? Also, if the U.S. does attack Iran, it would be stupid for Iran to not seek a partnership of some type with Syria

You have to even say something like this after 911?

zephyr said nothing wrong, and what does 9/11 have to do with any of this? gollum maybe right. Perhaps you should seek some counciling on the whole 9/11 thing.

[Babs]

Homer...maybe you are just a little 'too' objective.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Babs

[Homer]

Homer...maybe you are just a little 'too' objective.

491560[/snapback]

I don't even know what that means, but maybe you are just a little too confrontational and paranoid.