News

Ayab and Toofan what 3 problems?

Clinton, Ross and Emanuel? What are these 3 people are going to do? Lead a war with Iran like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney did? Is that what you mean with 3 problems?

Let me tell you something, war is not on their radar. Let's get back to Obama analytical skills.

First, in addition to the 3 people in his administration you mentioned, there are others who do not have a past like these 3 and some were mentioned in the other articles listed in this thread and they are leading now. Same was said about Obama himself where others wouldn't believe a black man with a Muslim name would get anywhere and he won by a landslide.

Second, Obama is not shy to throw his employees under a bus if they start acting up. Like when he publicly dished Biden in front of everyone when he tried to make a joke about administering the oath like Justice Roberts. Or when he ignored him in his first press conference when Biden had told reporters earlier than the stimulus plan would only work about 35%.

Clinton, Ross and Emanuel will face the same fate if they goof too. So far all 3 are playing along and the script looks pretty good so far.

Now let's get back to Iran. Let's assume they get the bomb, heck multiple bombs, what are they going to do with it?

1. Admit it and they'll be labled as world's biggest liars.

2. Deny it and they have few bombs idling on their hands.

3. Use it and they be "obliterated"

Obama's plan is to let them know they are going to be isolated and show them how it is going to affect them. Once his plan plays out and runs its course we can see the result. If it doesn't work the 3 musketeers can jump in if they want but they wouldn't have anything more to add.

3 problems Ayab

Clinton, Ross and Rahm Emanuel. Oh how clear the sky would have been if we had the likes of Chuck Hagel being Secretary of State.

And just to clear out earlier rumors about anti helicopter missiles. These are based on Chinese/Russian version manpads made specially to kill US/Nato choppers.

Its one of Irans many cards in negotiations as Iran produces them with home made modifications. They would not be so stupid to give the Taliban of all people, this ability. If they did this, consider the occupation of Afghanistan over as all transport mostly relies on helicopter travel.

Derakhshandeh

I agree, and I think problem is not Obama per se but Hillary Clinton.

She is the one who is getting her orders from places other than Obama so it seems.

-YT

Mischievous

You and your source are so wrong ke nago

Breaking news:

//www.spacewar.com/reports/Stinger_Missiles_I...

by Staff Writers

Kabul (AFP) Mar 21, 2006


US-made Stinger missiles will pose a threat to military and commercial
aircraft across the region if they fall into the hands of Taliban
rebels in Afghanistan, the US-led coalition said Monday. Washington
supplied a large number of shoulder-fired Stingers to Afghans fighting
the Soviet occupation in the 1980s and dozens are still thought to be
missing.

The CIA has offered 150,000 to 200,000 dollars for each remaining
missile in Afghanistan, an Afghan intelligence official has said.

Recent media reports recently said that US and NATO authorities were
concerned that some had been bought by the Taliban, who are waging a
bloody insurgency more than four years after their regime was ousted.

Iran did not give them to taliban, USA did ;-)

-YT

Iran gives Taliban helicopter missile

Iran gives Taliban helicopter missile
Sunday Times - By Michael Smith
Mar 1, 2009

IRAN is supplying the Taliban in Afghanistan with surface-to-air missiles capable of destroying a helicopter, according to American intelligence sources.

They believe the Taliban wants to use the SA-14 Gremlins missiles to launch a “spectacular” attack against coalition forces in Helmand, where insurgents claim to be gaining the upper hand.

Although British and American helicopters operating in southern Afghanistan are equipped with defensive systems to deflect an attempted strike, the SA-14 can evade such counter-measures.

It was a shoulder-held SA-14 supplied by Iran that was used by Iraqi insurgents to shoot down a Lynx helicopter over Basra in May 2006.

Five British service personnel died in that attack, including Wing Commander John Coxen and Flight Lieutenant Sarah-Jayne Mulvihill, the first British servicewoman killed in action since the second world war.

Although the Iranians are not natural supporters of the Taliban, they have been willing to assist them in the past in order to prevent Britain and the United States gaining influence in the region.

Special forces have previously intercepted arms shipments from Iran that would have helped the Taliban intensify a roadside bombing campaign that has killed 40 British troops over the past 18 months, including three last week.

However, coalition forces only became aware of the presence of SA14s two weeks ago when parts from two of them were discovered during an American operation in western Afghanistan.

“The weapons are out there and we thought it was only a matter of time before they got one or two into the south,” said a defence source. “A Taliban spectacular against British or American troops would reinforce an increasing view among ordinary Afghans that the Taliban are gaining the upper hand.”

In the past eight months, small arms and rocket-pro-pelled grenade attacks on British helicopters in Helmand have increased. Last night the Ministry of Defence said it was not aware of any threat from SA14 missiles.

Afghan officials say seized weapons made in Iran

Afghan officials say seized weapons made in Iran
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty - World News
Mar 2, 2009

PRAGUE -- Afghan officials say weapons seized in a depot in western Afghanistan today were manufactured in Iran.

Mohammad Younis Rasouli, the deputy governor of Farah Province, which borders Iran, told RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan that the seized weapons have markings proving their country of origin.

According to Rasouli, the seized weapons were smuggled into Afghanistan recently and were intended to be used in attacks against local officials.

Investigations are under way.

Ostaad

I just posted another comment. Read my comments, watch the news, read the news here in this website and see how much Obama has done and how much Khamenei/Ahmadinejad has done?

Has Iran done anything other than saying "Iran is ready to talk based on mutual respect"? Anything else?

I don't need an intelligence report when I can read the reports and public announcements by US and Iranian officials. Just put things in perspective and we don't need to agree and I am certianly not here to convince you or anybody else.

Oh and one more thing ...

Slowly but surely Obama is setting up what appears to be a good diplomatic initiative as it relates to Iran. All of which are new approaches and something Bush could never understand, thus the comment by Sec Gates about Obama being more "analytical" than Bush. That was a polite way of saying Bush was an idiot!

So all of these inititaives are being setup step by step while Iran is blowing his own horn upside down and saying they are ready for talks based on "mutual respect"! Mutual respect was said to keep Iran in salt water while preparing other countries like Russians, Chinese and Europeans.

So by the time Iran is ready to say "hello" the stage is already set and US has already gotten consessions from Russia (and China) and Europeans about a unified approach towards Iran. This time it won't be just sanctions and it is not to prepare for military action.

The strategy seems to be getting ready to embarass Iran in front of the whole world and having "an" offer Iran can't refuse. Not necessarily a good or bad offer.

So better get on the bandwagon while there is still room. Get it?

See one week is beginning to seem like eternity these days.

Derakhshandeh, you're putting the horse before the cart.

In case you missed it, the public "negotiations" have not started yet. Unless a copy of the Obama's intel reports are sent to you on daily basis, you should wait to see what comes in the open, just like Abarmard, myself and millions of people. I'm not sure why you're so adamant that Iran has not done what is necessary to resolve the disputes between the US and itself. Are you intimately aware of what is going on among the Iranian ruling circles?!

Your 14-year-old-girl-with-hormonal urges example is very lame and has no substance.

Of course the US is the bigger and stronger party here therefore Iran has to calibrate its responses, once it is assured the US is serious and the "negotiations" are not going to be a game in order to show all avenues have been exhausted before real military attacks,  which is the advice that Denis Ross is trying to give the US.

Perspective Abarmard

US has taken some steps and this article I read today opens it even more:

//iranian.com/main/news/2009/03/02/who-wi...

US has taken steps. But what can be said about Iran? The only positive is that Mahmoud saying "Iran is ready to talk based on mutual respect." Zero action such as appointments or even an acknowledgement from Khamenei.

Sure Iran can continue with pissing contest and not give an inch. What would be new? Sure others want to divert US-Iran talks for their own benefits.

The question is between Obama administration and Khamenei/Ahmadinejad which is the more mature head? Mature is the key word here. 14 year old doesn't cut both ways. Iran's behavior is nothing but a hormonal behavior. As sad as it is.

Derakhshandeh

14 year old could be on the either side of the table!

Iran should not (and will not)give an ounce unless receives their request in return. US will do exactly the same. If you like we can go in to the detail about this. What concerns me the most is the AIPAC influence on the US policy makers and Intelligence service that wrongly directs the negotiations to be against the peace, which is translated to forgoing partial benefits of both parties for the sake of the full benefit of the third!

It is more complicated than just wanting to sit and agree. US and Iran would agree much easier if it was not for some influential people who do not benefit from such bounding. Iran does not want to submit to demands, that's clear and expected. Iran should be treated equally in this negotiation rather than what AIPAC tries to accomplish.

No. 14 old girl, or boy is not the issue here, but what is the objective of the parties. What you mention is a simple "blame game" that can be played on both side of the table.I rather find the problem source. For now there is hope that the source has lost a bit of power presence as Israeli try to kill the chance for Iran and US bounding. The validity of this claim will be known later on in the game.

No Abarmard

There is no one most important word. However there are many buzz words, such as mutual respect, mutual benefit, meaningful dialogue, serious negotiations, etc.

Key is both parties doing their share in seeing beyond the smoke screen and go the extra mile. For example, very correctly early on Susan Rice said that when US talks about serious diplomatic dialogue with Iran it doesn't mean Iran is going to be a willing partner. Translation; it is easier to negotiate with an 14 year old girl!

Based on indications so far and probably in Obama's first 100 days, Iran is going to act like a spoiled 14 year old girl. It is up to US to be the adult here not for mutual benefit but to do what is right despite Iran's hormonal behavior!

The key

And the most important word for the negotiation with Iran is "mutual benefit"

Iran's openness is yet to be

Iran's openness is yet to be determined. In many respects a 14 year old girl acts better than Iran in the international arena.