Balancing Iran
U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks Imperiled by Middle East Chaos
show comments
  • Curious Mayhem

    By the looks of it, this development is no bad thing. A “final deal” with Iran would probably be catastrophic. We can do without it.

    • Andrew Allison

      Does anybody except our government really think that Iran isn’t working toward nuclear capability? That concessions will do anything but hasten the day that it achieves the objective? That once achieved, the capability will be used. At least Israel seems to get it, and has both the means and the will to do something about it.

  • Fat_Man

    I don’t know why you think that Iran needs leverage to get what they want from Obama. He is perfectly willing to give it to them without being asked.

  • it is certainly not a good ides got the US to cooperate with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps — an organization that has been responsible for attacks against U.S. targets stretching back more than 30 years. We have seen in Syria how Iranian-backed forces go about putting down a Sunni-led insurgency. More than 150,000 people have already been killed in the Syrian civil war and millions more uprooted from their homes. The Assad regime has become notorious for dropping “barrel bombs” on civilians and even using chemical weapons.

    Iranian-backed groups used equally brutal methods in Iraq during the height of the fighting after al-Qaeda’s bombing of the Samarra mosque in 2006. Shiite extremists became notorious for kidnapping and torturing Sunnis. Those same groups stand on the front lines today of Shiite resistance to ISIS.

    The United States would be making a historic error if it were to assist such an Iranian-orchestrated ethnic-cleansing campaign with air power or even with diplomatic support. Not only would this be morally reprehensible, it would be strategically stupid because it would convince the region’s Sunni Muslims that the United States is siding against them with Iran and its regional allies. This could lead Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates to support extremists such as ISIS, further feeding the growing sectarian conflict across the region.

    • Curious Mayhem

      Definitely. A major mistake was made in 2010, when the Obama administration backed Maliki after the Iraqi elections that year — this in spite of the fact that the less sectarian incumbent (Allawi) was the winner.

      While a Shi’ite, Allawi was trusted by the Sunni tribal chiefs and Kurdish leaders in a way that they can’t trust the Iranian-backed Maliki. What’s happening in 2014 is a result of that 2010 mistake and the 2011 mistake of not helping the non-jihadist native opposition in Syria. The whole conflict has now been overtaken by those free-floating “foreign fighter” jihadists — we saw that in Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s, when it was actively encouraged by Pakistan; then again in the 1990s and 2000s in Sudan, Somalia, and Chechnya; then again in Iraq in the 2000s.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Please, there was never going to be a deal as the Ayatollahs want nuclear weapons more than anything. Their talking is a strategy to buy time until they can finish development and fielding their nuclear weapons.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.